Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN), To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below: ...
Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Shortcuts
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page.
You may use {{subst:COIN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Additional notes:
  • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
  • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
  • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
  • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}} (with an explanation on the article's talk page), and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}, if not already done.
2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
  • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Close
Search the COI noticeboard archives
Help answer requested edits
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests

David Henry Hwang

Created yesterday, this user has amassed 27 edits to the above article (with 1 to the template), all marked minor, with no edit summary at all. The user's name makes me think that this is Hwang's team at work here. User received a talk page COI notice a couple of hours ago, but made 10 more edits about an hour later. Ahuman00 (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

See User talk:Hwangproject#April 2026.
Not to be confused with [ https://kpop.fandom.com/wiki/Hwang_Project ]... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
Screams COI, and I reverted the recent batch of edits on that basis, although the edits themselves don't look problematic based on a quick scan. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
In doing so you reverted the fix of a link which originally went to the wrong subject. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Pegnawl – request for review of a possible COI/UPE-related pattern

While reviewing the work of other AfC/NPP reviewers to improve my understanding, I noticed what appears to be a troubling pattern in Pegnawl AfC acceptances and subsequent editing.

For context, Pegnawl's AfC review history can be seen here: AfC history.

My concern is not simply that some of these drafts involved disclosed paid editing or apparent COI. Such drafts can be submitted through AfC, but they require especially careful scrutiny. In the accepted drafts I reviewed, those concerns often appear together, and several of the resulting articles seem weakly vetted and promotional in tone.

Examples:

  • Soberlink – created from an IP and accepted.
  • Kraken Technologies – accepted after submission by a paid editor who disclosed paid editing.
  • Wellhub – accepted even though the draft was submitted with the paid-editing option.
  • Bobby Sharma – accepted after submission by an account later blocked for SPI.
  • Heather Redman – accepted after prior concerns about possible AI/LLM-assisted drafting; Pegnawl later returned to remove the orphan tag.
  • Steven A. Johnsen – accepted from an account with an apparent close connection to the subject (previously named RBCT.Sekretariat).

I also have concerns about Pegnawl removals of sourced negative or otherwise relevant critical material from company and BLP-adjacent articles, including:

Taken together, these examples appear to show a recurring pattern that may be relevant to WP:COI and WP:PAID, and that also raises serious concerns about AfC review quality. Kqol • talk 20:48, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Where is the prior discussion, that this page requires? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:38, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
You are right, and my apologies. There had been no prior discussion before I filed this. I have now started one on the user's talk page here: User talk:Pegnawl#COI/UPE-related pattern. Kqol • talk 16:26, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Perrill

Correct procedure is being followed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:34, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Perrill is a marketing agency based in Minnesota, and Nate at Perrill has declared his employment there. Among Nate's projects are RedSail Technologies and Draft:Kodiak AI (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kodiak AI), the first of which was created by RaynorRaider directly in mainspace. Nate denies an association with RaynorRaider but notes on his talk page that "Unfortunately, we did briefly work with a third-party who we terminated for not following proper disclosures (among other things). RaynorRaider may have been affiliated with that third party." I think further investigation is warranted and bring this here for a few extra sets of eyes. It seems their operations have so far gone without scrutiny. MediaKyle (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate MediaKyle bringing this to my attention. I want to be 100% transparent with the community.
As I stated on my talk page, Perrill briefly engaged a third-party contractor to assist with research and drafting. We discovered they were not following Wikipedia’s disclosure policies (and were likely posting directly to mainspace without our knowledge), which is why we terminated that relationship immediately. I suspect RaynorRaider was that contractor, but we never met with anyone by that name, and the drafts published by RaynorRaider did not match the drafts we received for review.
I am now personally managing these entries to ensure they follow all COI and Paid Contribution guidelines. My goal is to work with the community, which is why I made the proactive disclosure for RedSail and moved other projects like Kodiak AI into the Draft space for proper review. I apologize for the confusion caused by our previous contractor's actions; I am here to fix the technical and tone issues they left behind. Nate at Perrill (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Review inquiry

Request is pending. No further action required here. Discuss any issues on article talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am the subject of the article Jon Shenk (username: Guzmantostada) and submitted a detailed COI edit request on the Talk page on March 25, which has received no response. The request includes sourced filmography corrections and new credits. Would an editor be willing to review? Thank you. Guzmantostada (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

You had(probably inadvertently) coding in place to prevent the function of the edit request template, this is why no one responded. I have fixed this and your request is now open and pending. 331dot (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

New Information for Jon Shenk

Thank you to whoever added In Waves and War — much appreciated. The remaining items in my original edit request above are still pending, including corrections to The White House Effect credits, adding Marlee Matlin: Not Alone Anymore, several award additions, and a review of the maintenance tags.

I also have new nominations to add:

In Waves and War (2024):

  • Nominee — 47th News & Documentary Emmy Award, Outstanding Graphic Design: Documentary
  • Nominee — 47th News & Documentary Emmy Award, Outstanding Promotional Announcement: Documentary

The White House Effect (2024):

  • Nominee — 47th News & Documentary Emmy Award, Outstanding Research: Documentary
  • Nominee — 47th News & Documentary Emmy Award, Outstanding Editing: Documentary
  • Nominee — Peabody Award, Documentary (86th Annual)

Sources:

Would an editor be able to address these? Thank you. — Guzmantostada Guzmantostada (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

There's an extensive backlog on edit requests, so it might be some time before an editor gets to this request. You'll just need to be patient, I'm afraid. I cleaned up the formatting on your request on the article talk page, which should make it easier for editors to review your requested edits. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

betonline

No actionable content. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Jackcampbellnz (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I assume this is about BetOnline. As per the notice at the top of this page... This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. -- Reconrabbit 16:11, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rooh Afza

Not a COI issue. Use the dispute resolution process and note WP:NOTVANDAL. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

When patrolling the recent changes log, I reverted this disruptive edit *https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rooh_Afza&diff=prev&oldid=1348409870, which then led to my following the page. I then saw edits which had removed relevant and sourced content (the section on the lawsuit), and I had to do a restore: *https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rooh_Afza&diff=prev&oldid=1348915422.

This is the content that has been removed:

Lawsuit & fines in Bangladesh On the complaint of false information, misleading advertisements and publication of false information on the web site, Safe Food Inspector Kamrul Hassan filed a case against Hamdard Laboratories Bangladesh on May 30, 2018. In the case, he mentions that the information published in the advertisement with 'Rooh Afza made with 35 fruit juice' is not correct. On June 12 of the same year, Pure food court judge AFM Maruf Chowdhury fined the company four lakhs taka for publishing misleading advertisements. If unable to pay the fine, then the Hamdard chairman and managing director would be punished for three months' imprisonment.

What immediately followed was a series of edits trying to change the content of the article to say that the company here does not own the product, right after a talk page discussion was opened, where an editor was making the argument that this section is not relevant to the article because the drink is not exclusively related to the parent company.

I made another edit restore since content not reflective of source had been added, and the section in question removed without consensus:

I raised the fact that content had been added which did not reflect the sources one the user's talk page, and my edit to their talk page was reverted.

From my point of view an effort is being made to remove the section in question without consensus or even lengthy discussion, and that content on the article is being hastily changed to support the arguments being made in that discussion in a way that is not at all reflective of the article's sources. It would make sense to me if one of these editors has an invested interest in this section being removed.

I am a fairly new editor, but after my addition to this users talk page where I asked about that edit was reverted, I felt that I should open this discussion because that seems odd. Chattenoir (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that User:Chattenoir has made a comment here, rather than attempting to gain consensus for his edits on the talk page. I have had this article on my watchlist for years and added references to the article yesterday. I was rudely reverted by this editor, who called my edits "vandalism". Anyways, I do not plan on engaging with this editor anymore, given his harassment. AnupamTalk 12:45, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Gain consensus? You are the one removing a section that has been on the article for months, it is up to you to gain consensus. I have also not been harassing you. I am volunteering my time to try to stop the kind of vandalism that you are engaged in. Chattenoir (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jimmy Monaghan, and a question on the transitive property

Blocks all round. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A kind Admin suggested that I check here to confirm my question on COI. Apologies if this is the wrong place.

A recent SPI and CheckUser investigation confirmed that two editors, who had been editing the same article, were likely the same person. The main account has received a one-week ban; the sock account is indefinitely banned.

The main account (Bugfingers) never disclosed a potential conflict of interest, despite being being prompted to do so, while the sock account (Stephenclarkson143) had explicitly declared a COI on a BLP request.

In mathematics and logic, the Transitive Property asserts if A satisfies X, and A = B, then B satisfies X. Does this apply here? In Wikipedia terms, if a sock declares a COI, and another user is found to be the main account, do we proceed with COI again, or is "Actual COI" at that stage? Does transitivity hold?

In any case, I believe the COI is also undeniable on behavioural grounds. Bugfingers is a very, very regular editor of the Jimmy Monaghan page, going back to creating the page way back in 2008. Edits include updates to age, location, personal life, background interests (chess, boxing, etc), and what Jimmy Monaghan is "currently" working on. I strongly suspect some sort of COI, even before this recent declared COI-sockpuppet problem. I can provide additional private evidence to a functionary via email, but I do not think that is necessary at this stage. I can hold that in reserve.

Can we go ahead and declare that Bugfingers has an undisclosed COI? Mister 2026-22045-80 (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User conflict of interest?

Yedaman54 You have not tried to discuss this issue with this editor. Please avoid dragging people to noticeboards until you have properly warned them. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:45, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello‚

I would like to request a community review of possible conflict-of-interest editing by the account "User:LeiaVOaktree"․

The user has publicly stated on their user page that they work for Oaktree Capital Management in addition to being affiliated through their work reviewing and editing Wikipedia articles about Oaktree and persons related to the firm.

While I understand it is permitted for paid editors to disclose their paid status‚ editing articles about one's employer and affiliated entities creates neutrality and conflict-of-interest concerns for Wikipedia per its policies․ Yedaman54 (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI