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

Sebastian Brandt (preparator)

TB0815 spammed models by Sebastian Brandt into articles. TB0815 created draft article for Brandt which was moved to mainspace by HorstKMahler, who also uploaded a picture of Brandt tagged as "own work." Mahler dratified the page some time after that, while removing several cleanup templates added by Esculenta (including a COI template). However, he later moved the page back to mainspace after some work by TB0815. Melcous, already assuming COI, draftified the page, which Mahler resubmitted after little work. TB0815 also made a draft page about Siegfried Rein, a colleague of Brandt's that named a fossil invertebrate in his honor, which was accepted by Mahler.

COI concerns have been brought up on Mahler's talk page, which he responded to with promotional content about Brandt. Miracusaurs (talk) 12:04, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

This response from TB0815 isn't reassuring: "My goal is to get the article and related content properly integrated in line with Wikipedia standards, rather than becoming a long-term editor." BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
I am not Sebastian Brandt and have no connection. My intention is to contribute verifiable information to Wikipedia - which i understand is its purpose. Not everyone who contributes has to become a long term editor. The article is based on independent external sources and relies on those as citation. Regarding the images, my intention is to illustrate relevant articles. I understand that, as a new editor, I have made technical mistakes in how this was done. I will review my contributions again to ensure they comply with Wikipedia guidelines. TB0815 (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Certainly, nobody has to become a long-term editor, but when somebody becomes an editor apparently solely to increase Wikipedia's coverage of a particular individual, that naturally raises questions. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
I use one account on Wikipedia and my real name. I wrote the article of Sebastian Brandt on the German Wikipedia and I am very disappointed with the way the discussion is being conducted here. To use a official model of the Naturmuseum Senckenberg in the english wikipedia is regarded as spamming and to write the factual facts: Sebastian Brandt is a model maker, palaeontologist, preparator and fossil collector. He produces scientific models and habitat dioramas for museums and exhibitions worldwide, he co-described two new triassic decapod species and the triassic worker Siegfried Rein named a triassic fossil in his honour is regarded as promotion. I have differing opinions on some points compared to Sebastian Brand's views, especially regarding the lifestyle of ceratites. Because of that reason I do not have the Muschelkalk diorama Ceratites evolutus group crawling on the seafloor in my Museum Terra Triassica Euerdorf, but other museums use it. By the way, I use for example the model of the life habitat of sea lilies of the genera Holocrinus in the museum. However, I have learned to respect differing scientific perspectives. I'm not sure if all the participants in this discussion are adults who are genuinely interested in the topic. In my opinion, Wikipedia should present the state of science, including different viewpoints, and not develop its own Wikipedia truth through de facto censorship. I have no coi, but I am tired to discuss with nameless people and I'm tired of talking to a brick wall. With kind regards to all serious discussion participants. Horst Karlheinz Mahler--HorstKMahler (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Thank you Horst for your combative post. We appear to have the same aims (present the state of the science, Not develop "its own Wikipedia truth through de facto censorship" etc etc). Your uncooperative attitude means that editors here will hopefully ignore your approach.
TRY BEING POLITE AND APPROACHABLE, INSTEAD OF RUDE. MEH. - Walter Who mentioned Pearl Harbour? Ego 17:07, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Hello Walter. Sorry, I am angry because of the wording "spamming" and "promotion" in that case. Back to the roots. I will stay polite and approachable. HorstKMahler (talk) 08:37, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Cohere again

COI editing. See Talk:Cohere#Product detail and description. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

You titled this "Cohere again". Why "again"? I don't see anything about Cohere or User:LivingInaCloud in the COI archives.
I've notified User:LivingInaCloud about this discussion as you should have per the instructions at the top of this page.
-- Pemilligan (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
My apologies. I confused LivingInaCloud with another COI editor who had been notified and discussed at COINB. Sorry about that.
Note to self: Next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia... --Guy Macon (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
It doesn't help. - Walter Who mentioned Pearl Harbour? Ego 03:04, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
I have been working with the community to craft the article and curate the content, receiving substantive feedback and constructive suggestions. I look forward to continuing these collaborative interactions in the future.
Based on my understanding of WP:COIU, the revenue edit was one I could make because it is sourced and non-promotional. Welcome further direction or instruction. LivingInaCloud (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
The relevant section isn't WP:COIU, but WP:FINANCIALCOI, where it states
  • you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly
AND
  • you may propose changes on talk pages by using the Edit COI template, so that they can be peer-reviewed
Going forward, please follow this procedure, proposing all changes on the article talk page, and refraining from making any direct edits to the article itself.
BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
In addition, these rules, and the disclosure requirements, apply to the articles for people associated with Cohere, such as Joëlle Pineau or Aiden Gomez. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

JEGS High Performance

Can someone with a brain that is functioning better than mine is today take a look at this article? It's fairly obviously being UPE-edited, for which Jaq78 has been told and ignored/didn't hear. Since that warning they've moved it to the more SEO-friendly capitalised version and removed the maintenance tags.

The main issue is that the article as it stood before was promotional rubbish. The new version is... also promotional rubbish, just different promotional rubbish. That precludes just reverting the UPE back to how it was, as the sum total improvement would be nil. It could use a root-and0branch rewrite, which any other day I might embark upon, but as I say, I'm not braining very goodly today. • a frantic turtle 🐢 14:34, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I work for JEGS and should have disclosed that earlier. I understand the conflict of interest concerns and will stop editing the article directly. Going forward, I’ll use the article’s Talk page to propose neutral, source-backed changes for independent editors to review. Jaq78 (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
It's been cleaned up a lot, but there's not a huge amount left once that's done. It might make sense for it to be folded into the Jed Coughlin Jr. article, but it's probably fine as it is. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look and for the feedback. I’ll work on improving sourcing and adding a bit more context. Jaq78 (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
To reiterate, since you work for JEGS, you should not be editing the article itself, outside of extreme circumstances (someone edits the article to say "JEGS is a neo-Nazi conspiracy and their management team are all cannibals"), but rather requesting edits on the talk page. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

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)

Unanswered COI edit request – Neil Anderson (writer)

Answered on article talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 12 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 am the subject of the article Neil Anderson (writer) and I am seeking assistance with an unanswered conflict-of-interest edit request.

The request was made on the article Talk page in January 2026, and relates to adding BBC News citations to existing statements in order to address a BLP sourcing banner.

The request has been properly templated and followed up, but has not yet received a response.

Link to request: Talk:Neil Anderson (writer)#Edit request: add reliable BBC citations

I would be very grateful if an editor could take a look when time allows.

Thank you. Detox22 (talk) 16:39, 10 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.

Arbama1130/Multiverse Computing

The user Arbama1130 repeatedly modifies the Multiverse Computing page to add promotional language. I have reverted their changes a number of times but it is getting to the point where if I revert further I fear it may be considered an edit war.

Examples: diff adding promotional content, diff removing content that does not paint the company in a good light, and another diff adding promotional content.

Based on their edit history, it seems this user edits Wikipedia exclusively to promote Multiverse Computing and people associated with it. ~2026-17259-35 (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

They last edited on 9 April. You only notified them of our CoI policy on 10 April, twenty minutes before posting here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Suspected paid editing / coordinated long-term attack

30thStreet (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DhimHvariG and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chuckfinley94 for context. Jack Frost (talk) 07:45, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
I answered on SPI tred and repeat here for you.
What the problem with my edits? Adding links through the newcomer suggestions tool? Working in my own draft space? Someone tell me what the actual problem is? 30thStreet says on their user page that they used to work for Sam Mangel, so why the new account now? Seems like a fair question. Might be worth an SPI check? Meanwhile, throwing baseless accusations at other editors is against policy, and nobody seems bothered by that part. Also worth asking whether these messages are being written with LLM help in ways that don't square with how things work here. And look, there's a pretty obvious elephant in the room: is 30thStreet connected to prior paid editing on the very person whose page I edited? Because if so, this starts looking retaliatory. Are they coming after me because they think I got in the way of something? My edits were constructive. If someone disagrees, let's talk about the actual edits on the talk page. Not vague accusations. I don't even get why this is being discussed here in the first place. DhimHvariG (talk) 20:46, 12 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pegnawl#COI/UPE-related_pattern Kqol • talk 16:26, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Perrill

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)

Review inquiry

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)

betonline

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)

Rooh Afza

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)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI