Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. (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-wpwikipedia.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}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}. 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:

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 Talk:2020 United States Postal Service crisis Talk:Joanne Scott Talk:Academy of Achievement Talk:AGCO Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Anaxam Talk:Arizona State University Talk:Aspen Dental Talk:Atlantic Union Bank Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:Neil Barofsky Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Bell Bank Talk:Binance Talk:Bobbie (company) Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Camurus Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Pamela Chesters Talk:CivicPlus Talk:Claremont McKenna College Talk:Cloudinary Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cognita Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Commvault Talk:Country Music Hall of Fame and Museum Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Deirdre Curtin Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Democratic Socialists of America Talk:Discovery Land Company Talk:Glenn Dubin Talk:Esmée Fairbairn Foundation Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:Richard France (writer) Talk:Genuine Parts Company Talk:Getronics Talk:Dan Gilbert Talk:GoDaddy Talk:Matthias Goldmann Talk:John Goldwyn Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Group-IB Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Hilary Harkness Talk:Hearst Communications Talk:Hg (equity firm) Talk:HSBC Insurance (Asia Pacific) Talk:Illinois Tool Works Talk:International Institute for Strategic Studies Talk:Juvenile Diabetes Cure Alliance Talk:Mark Kendall (filmmaker) Talk:Elizabeth Koch (publisher) Talk:Koho (fintech) Talk:Scott Kurashige Talk:Andrew Lack (executive) Talk:David Lalloo Talk:LastPass Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Lee H. Letts Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:Jon Levy (behaviorist) Talk:List of PEN literary awards Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health Talk:Anne Sofie Madsen Talk:Mayfield (company) Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Michael Meldman Talk:Metro AG Talk:Mitre Corporation Talk:Modern Meadow Talk:MongoDB Inc. Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:NextEra Energy Partners Talk:Optum Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:Ornge Talk:Parexel Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:Nicolas Petit (academic) Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:Polkadot (blockchain platform) Talk:QuinStreet Talk:Prabhakar Raghavan Talk:Michael Savage (politician) Talk:Secureworks Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:SolidWorks Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko Talk:Sysco Talk:Tencent Talk:Tencent Cloud Talk:The Times Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:TKTS Talk:Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools Talk:Trendyol Talk:Trócaire Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:UC San Diego School of Medicine Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Hans Vestberg Talk:Dale Vince Talk:Vista Equity Partners Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Kathy Warden Talk:Stanley Weiser Talk:WikiHow Talk:Alex Wright (author) Talk:Jihan Wu Talk:Xero (company) Talk:Yahoo Finance Talk:Zerodur Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Devanga

Devanga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Vinothksoms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Phenomenological philosopher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The following edit request has not been addres sed, and I believe it requires review for potential conflict of interest (COI).

Edit Request: Remove the following line from the article:

"They are of Shudra status in the Hindu caste system.[7][8][9][10] However, they use the Devanga Purana, a text sacred to the Devangas, to claim Brahmin status, despite having a non-Brahmin profession.[11][12] They replaced their native local gotras with Sanskritic gotras.[13]"

Reason for removal: The statement lacks sufficient clarity and reliable citations, leading to potential misunderstandings or misrepresentation of the group's caste status. Additionally, the phrasing could be seen as problematic without clearer context or more authoritative sources.

Discussion points raised by users:

Vinothksoms argues that the claim about their assertion of Brahmin status and use of Sanskritic gotras may require further reliable sources to ensure neutrality and clarity. Phenomenological philosopher highlights that Hindu sacred texts, including the Bhagavad Gita and the Tirumurai, advocate for spiritual equality and reject caste-based discrimination. The inclusion of caste-based ranking contradicts Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and the principles of egalitarianism presented in modern Hindu reform movements. Given the sensitivity and complexity of the subject, I request COIN to review whether there is a potential COI affecting the neutrality of the edits or the content in question. Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Phenomenological philosopher (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

We wouldn't get involved in disputes like this, and I doubt we would consider caste membership to be a COI (if this is where you are going with this). Secretlondon (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Another Azerbaijan state employee

• State Committee on Affairs with Religious Associations of the Republic of Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Anar Məcidzadə Feyruz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On the Azerbaijan version of Wikipedia, the editor self-describes as working for the PR division of the State Committee on Affairs with Religious Associations. Thenightaway (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Warned the editor about undisclosed paid editing, edit warring and editing while logged out. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately disruption continues, most recently an hour or so ago. The contested material has now been removed 6 times in about 6 days. I've requested page protection at WP:RPPI but I wonder if blocking the user and their IP would be desirable? Copying in C.Fred who has also been active in reverting the (apparently politically motivated) removals.

Alternatively, is AfD (or similar) an option? Axad12 (talk) 09:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you need better sources than one paper to make such a strong claim of hostility to religion. Secretlondon (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Leena Nair - Improving accuracy and neutrality of article

The Leena Nair article has had displayed a Wikipedia neutrality violation since September 2023. I would like to improve the neutrality to remove the violation, however I have a COI to Chanel so, I am unable to make these changes myself.

I would greatly appreciate any assistance from neutral editors to review and implement the following article updates.

1. Unilever Leadership Achievements.

Current Text: “Under her leadership, Unilever has been named the number one FMCG graduate employer of choice in 54 countries.”
Proposed Change: “During her tenure, Unilever was recognised as a top FMCG graduate employer in multiple countries.”

Reason for Change: The suggested phrasing maintains accuracy while adhering to neutral language standards.

2. Advocate for Human-Centred Workplaces.

Current Text: “Advocate for human-centred workplaces and compassionate leadership.”
Proposed Change: “She has publicly spoken in support of human-centred workplaces and a compassionate leadership approach.”

Additional References to Support Change: Stanford View From The Top Interview, October 2024 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIJUgnykkOA Business of Fashion Voices, December 2023 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-nb84farY4&t=214s

Reason for Change: The revised text adds specificity and neutrality while maintaining the intent. Additional references substantiate the statement.

3. Chanel Initiatives. Remove the following paragraph which appears promotional and lacks specific relevance to the subject's biography.:

“Nair's initiatives have included several launches as Chanel invests more heavily in retail. A major new boutique in Tokyo showcases a focus on standalone stores selling watches and fine jewelry.”

4. Awards and Recognition. The current list of awards is extensive and sounds too promotional. I propose reducing the list to the following five most notable and recent awards supported by reliable references:

Ranked 70th on Fortune's list of Most Powerful Women in 2023
Thinkers 50 List – Thinkers Who Will Shape the Future of Business (2019)
Recognized by Queen Elizabeth II as one of the accomplished Indian Business Leaders in the UK (2017)
Top 10 list of FT HERoes Champions of Women in Business by the Financial Times (2017–2019)
Global Indian of the Year – The Economic Times' Prime Women Leadership Awards (2020)

I trust this request is aligned with Wikipedia’s guidelines, and I am happy to provide further clarification or sources if needed. Thank you for your assistance in improving this article. Occasionalpedestrian (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

This should go on the talk page of the article as an edit request. Secretlondon (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Israel College of the Bible

• Israel College of the Bible (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• OFITECH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Whitewashing the article after COI warning. Username suggests links to the subject at hand ("One For Israel", OFI). 81.2.123.64 (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

No edits since the 29 January. Secretlondon (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Raghubar Das

• Raghubar Das (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Abhijitsahurdia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Suspected undisclosed COI. Multiple edits appearing to be made by a grandchild of Raghubar Das (per this edit listing "(Article edited by Abhijit Sahu, Grandson of Raghubar Das)").

See following diffs: 1, 2 3 Jiltedsquirrel (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

They've not edited since they were templated and sent here. Secretlondon (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Clovermoss

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.

---

This is probably the best place to get uninvolved, outside feedback. I created an article today about a Wikipedian (Tamzin Hadasa Kelly). I communicated with the article subject briefly to make sure they didn't oppose the article's creation, that I respected their wishes regarding pronouns and their birth name, ensured there was sufficient sources for GNG and for BLP1E to not apply, and then went ahead. I have autopatrolled but marked the article as unreviewed upon moving it to mainspace as a precautionary measure. It was then reviewed. I was not asked to write the article, I did this entirely on my own volition (I was working on List of Wikipedia people lately and thought they'd make a good addition to the list). Further input would be welcome at Talk:Tamzin Hadasa Kelly#COI and notability tags. If a relative consensus emerges that I should declare an official COI, I'll mention it on the list on my userpage. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm on day way too many of annoying headaches and an unrelated upper respiratory tract infection- my head's not in the best space to be writing this, but I have an answer. Apologies for run-on sentences and any non-sequiturs that have wormed their way in. However, the COI policies and COIN are really not equipped to handle this level of nuance. They're more designed to cope with the much more pressing financial COIs, or COIs that result in non-neutral editing.

Yeah, you do. You and Kelly both are active in the same social circles, you are both part of a very small social group within that circle (active Wikipedia admins), you're two of a handful of people who ran for adminship within two years of each other, you are a part of a discord server that Kelly moderates (creating a perceived imbalance of power between you), you are both competing against each other in an ongoing contest, you've taken their advice on article writing recently, and probably there's more interactions that I'm not thinking about/am not aware of. What is more, you have admitted to[1] having negative feelings towards Kelly as a direct result of interpersonal conflicts within your social circle. If an independent third party party was to hear that description of your relationship, they could easily conclude that you could directly socially benefit from either discrediting them or getting in their good graces. Would you manipulate the article in that way? No, obviously not- but having a COI does not, and has never meant that somebody can't edit neutrally. WP:COINOTBIAS is a good read here, I think.

To be clear, the COI itself doesn't appear to be a particularly severe one. In fact, you share parts of this COI with nearly every editor on Wikipedia. I also have a minor COI, because while I don't believe Tamzin would ever block me or use their position as administrator to advocate for sanctions against me as a result of editing that article, they could and, if they did it right, who could stop them? Again, in my personal opinion, this is still a relatively mild COI and a really good example as to why we don't prohibit COI editing entirely. Free and open disclosure of the pre-existing relationship is more than enough maintain the integrity of the article. You certainly don't need to use the edit request system, because, if nothing else, there are no COI-less editors available on this subject to action it. Similarly, parts of the COI should be so obvious to the reader that a separate disclosure would be pointless, boarding on insulting to the reader. (Just saying, if they think we outsource our articles on Wikipedians and Wikipedia-topics, that's on them).

That being said, people with a COI are still allowed to write articles, they are not always required to disclose their COIs, and @Barkeep49, as QoH pointed out to you on the talk page, the very prominent reader-facing COI tag is only meant to be used when you have identified a severe problem with the article as a direct result of COI editing, especially vis-à-vis neutrality, that you need to alert the reader to and which you believe other editors can fix through attentive editing. It is not an avenue to argue that a contributor has, or has the potential for, a COI. Can I assume your main issue with the article is that you do not believe the subject is notable? In that case, there is no need for the tag since there is a very easy solution to that problem - send the article to AfD.

TL;DR (and who would could blame you) Yes, but WP:COINOTBIAS. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Tags are also a way of drawing editor attention. Given my own conflict I felt it an appropriate way of drawing that attention and spurring discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

And I can certainly see why - but I think you're selling yourself a bit short here, Barkeep! You're an experienced and widely trusted editor; words from you, even minus tags, go a long way. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

It's been deleted. What would you like to happen here? Secretlondon (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2025 (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.

TaskForceMajella

• TaskForceMajella (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jpvandijk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Lookinag at User:Jpvandijk, which is basically a BLP article and doesn't belong in his userspace, he wrote "He was for six years Team Leader and Project Manager of the ENI research program on Fractured Prospects and Reservoirs, and the TaskForceMajella Project (TFM)" - their wikilink, not mine. A look at the article history shows they created the article and made over 150 edits to it, although none recently. In fact, I now see they haven't edited since August, which may make this report pointless although I feel something should be done about the article.. Doug Weller talk 12:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

TaskForceMajella is now at AfD — hike395 (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Grace Choy

• Grace Choy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• ChoyChoy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikieditorken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gpdwinmini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There's COI editing and likely socking happening around this article. See here and here for prior discussion between myself and User:Cunard on the talk page of Grace Choy. Wikieditorken knows Grace Choy enough to have this photo and learn that a editor was paid in March 2024 to create this article (see page history and user talk discussion with User:HouseBlaster. He previously tried to continually create the article for Grace Choy's restaurant ChoyChoy, but had the draft rejected here.

Another likely linked account, Gpdwinmini, is created January 23, edits in unrelated areas/starts drafts, and January 30 begins editing the Grace Choy article, adding information Wikieditorken had previously tried to add, and pushes ChoyChoy into mainspace. I believe this account is linked to Wikieditorken due to similar language used and topics covered.

Please let me know if I did this correctly, not experienced with filing COI notices. Thanks Sarsenet (talk) 08:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Edited to strike mistake, ChoyChoy was moved to mainspace by Wikieditorken. My other points still stand. Sarsenet (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.

I am new here and I am trying to build article about Mini PC.

I don't I cannot edit on unrelated articles.

Thanks a lot for your advice. Gpdwinmini (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Your contributions clearly show you created the article ChoyChoy, and have been readding previously removed information on Grace Choy. Sarsenet (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Please advice I cannot edit other area other than Mini PC or I can only edit in one area (Technology only). If I cannot, I will not edit other than technology area. Thanks a lot. Gpdwinmini (talk) 08:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

You can edit anywhere you want to, I am just trying to determine if you have a relationship with either Grace Choy herself, or Wikieditorken, who has a likely conflict of interest. Please see WP:COI and Wikipedia:PLAINSIMPLECOI to understand. Sarsenet (talk) 08:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

As advised by my mentor, I need to declare all the things I create or edit here. Please advise if I do it correctly:

GPD: I have been using GPDs. But I am not related to the company.

Onemix: I have been using Onemix. But I am not related to the company.

Grace Choy: I do not know Grace Choy personally. I know her because I watched a doucumentary about her and her restaurant. I also saw Grace Choy on different media. I know she got ADHD. I got ADHD myeselt.

ChoyChoy: Some of my friends are followers of the Facebook Page which has over 1,000,000 followers. One of my friends has been customer in the restaurant. I am not follower of the facebook myself.

I don't remember I had another Wiki account as I wanted to try to be editor on Wikipedia some years ago. However, "Wikieditorken" is not the account I created. Gpdwinmini (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Do you know Wikieditorken? Do you know why he (not you as I had originally mistakenly stated) found the draft for ChoyChoy so quickly and moved it to mainspace? Sarsenet (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

"Wikieditorken" is my co-worker and some of my co-workers started study and to edit on Wiki recently based on our own interest recently. I did know that one of my co-workers was customer of ChoyChoy.

If it is conflict of interest, I will focus on my technology field.

Thanks a lot for your advice.

Peter Gpdwinmini (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Being a customer is not necessarily a conflict of interest. I believe there is a COI because you claim to be a coworker of Wikieditorken, who has a suspected/likely COI with Grace Choy due to his constant promotional editing of that article. Did he tell you to re-add previously removed information on her article? Sarsenet (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Sarsenet: thank you for creating this report. I hope editors experienced with dealing with COI editors who engage in WP:MEATPUPPETRY or WP:SOCKPUPPETRY to repeatedly insert promotional content into the article (evidence here) can either help or advise on what can be done. I've commented on the talk page that if this Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard thread does not get enough outside attention, then either Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is the next step if the disruption continues. Cunard (talk) 10:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Requesting further comment on this, I don't feel this has been fully resolved and I fear a return of disruptive editing on the mentioned articles after a few weeks, as has been a pattern in the past several months. Sarsenet (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Would like to know what promotional content has I added or did I do something wrong.

Please advise and therefore I could improve.

Actually, I focus on editing on technology article and I don't have much time to do the editing.

However, I would like to know what did I do wrong. As I am new here and any advice is appreciated. Gpdwinmini (talk) 07:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Kalifa Masthan Sahib Qadri

• Kalifa Masthan Sahib Qadri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nagore Dargah Kalifa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor is an SPA who is clearly editing about himself as demonstrated in this move summary. He has also created pages such as Nagore Dargah Kalifa that have since been deleted. I haven't nominated the article in question for AfD yet as I'm not sure if the sources (all of which are in Tamil) are reliable. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

It needs explaining as currently it seems to be something to do with sufism but it's hard to understand. Secretlondon (talk) 08:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Matthew Holmes (director)

• Matthew Holmes (director) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Legend of Ben Hall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Cost (2022 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Fear Below (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Twin Rivers (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Arthur Angel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Guns of Muschu (novel) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Guns of Muschu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jordan Fraser-Trumble (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mattholmes77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Doctorcolin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Benhall1865 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Incessant promotion of Matthew Holmes and his work.

Mattholmes77 ceased editing on 1 August 2017. Doctorcolin Account created on 2 August 2017.

Doctorcolin has tried whitewashing [2], removing negative reviews.

COI raised [3] but seemingly ignored. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

User: Hellshane Asylum

• Emerald Moon Records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Red Cord Records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hometown Anthem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hometown anthem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (with lower case "anthem)
• Hellshane Asylum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

While the user denied being a paid editor, editing patterns and the entries in their talk page screams connected contributor promotional editing. The articles in the list above have been repeatedly created following one or more AfDs. While I can't see the creation record of earlier pages, it seems like the same user is responsible for consecutive re-creation of some of them. Graywalls (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey, looks like I need to defend myself (please note that I already talked about this with Graywalls not long ago, you can easily check that on my talk page). Now I will admit that I don't have the greatest track record, I did a lot of questionable things in the past if you look at my talk page. For one, I made a lot of drafts, most of them were not great, either that they were poorly written, bore bones or not notable enough, which led to them getting deleted. And secondly, I created them at the same time which made things even weirder. Despite this, I still kept writing because I believe in some of my articles and think they're notable. Later, I found out that you can create an article directly, so tried that and see what happens. When I first directly created Hometown Anthem, I was in a rush and left the thing incomplete, I published it and it rightfully got speedy deleted. I tired again properly this time and was passable. Eventually, I got some other articles up (they were reviewed by different people) and tried to improve my writing, although none of my articles are perfect. All of this happened two or three years ago and I'm not proud with the drafts I made, I meant no harm as I was very inexperienced at the time. No way am I perfect now but hopefully better than I was earlier. I dislike caulking it that way, but that's what happened about the old drafts. Also, I told them I'm not affiliated with the people I wrote articles about. I always try to keep things objective and educate readers who find them (though I'm not perfect). Again, I already discussed all of this with Graywalls.

Now as much as I hate to paint the other person in a bad light, I think I have to, as we need to check each other as contributors. When I first published Red Cord Records, it almost instantly got marked with a speedy deletion by Graywalls, not only that, but they asked if I was getting paid for it. I thought the question was strange but reasonable, so I answered no. Later, I looked further into the Red Cord Records page, specifically about it's previous deletions. I've noticed that not long ago, that Graywalls have already previously deleted the page with the same reason given to me to a different person ("it was re-created by a long-term undisclosed paid editor with promotional PR activity involvement"). When I asked about it with them, they still yet to answer the question and instead ask me other things. After that, they started putting a speedy deletion to Emerald Moon Records and nominated Hometown Anthem for deletion. I wouldn't have a problem with this if they spoken to me, to explain why they wanted them deleted, anything to improve the articles or any help with the process. Especially since we're already talking with each other.

Later, someone (Sdrqaz) removed the speedy deletion on Red Cord Records from Graywalls ("Declination of G4 CSD nomination – not "substantially identical to the deleted version", sorry."). Graywalls later marked the page with a nomination for deletion not long after. Meanwhile, someone else (BusterD) removed the speedy deletion from Emerald Moon Records ("declining speedy; this article only resembles the deleted version in that the page names are the same; this is a much expanded and better sourced page; take it to AFD if it doesn't meet standards"). Graywalls once again added the page with a nomination for deletion afterwards. Not only that, but they're editing and changing the articles a lot, and some of the edits themselves to me are questionable. This would have been fine in a normal circumstance, but it honestly seems like they are changing them to their liking and they seem insisted on getting these articles removed. Again, this would have been fine, but after everything, to be completely honest, this is near borderline harassment. I asked them a few questions, so we can help each other and improve on things, but they act first, then ask questions later, even after I told them to talk to me. And then they made this conflict of interest without warning. Now remember, this is from my point of view, I'm not sure if they truly meant that, maybe they were trying to help, but it seems wrong to me. I don't want trouble for the both of us, but this is what I've found. Thank you reading and understanding. Hellshane Asylum (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

The people who removed the speedy deletion tags are admins. They can see the deleted pages and see how it is compared to the current one. I looked at the articles, and they lack notability. Even if they don't qualify for speedy deletion, that doesn't mean they don't merit a deletion consideration. AfD is a community review process for deletion consideration. However, your pattern of creating things that have been deleted with deletion discussion is concerning, and it is the pattern that raises a suspicion of conflict of interest. Behaviorally and style of your band articles very strongly indicate a pattern very typical of public relations editing. Graywalls (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Bri, seeing you authored Wikipedia:Identifying PR, I'm wondering if you could comment on if you see anything here. Graywalls (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

First, I'm glad that Hellshane Asylum is communicating with us. At the same time, they should remember that this noticeboard is about their editing, not about anyone else who nominated things for deletion, etc. I'll take a deeper look but a few things I noticed already:

• Recreating deleted articles isn't good
• Adding images without attribution [4] isn't good
• Single focus on one commercially attractive subject isn't good

Back later, possibly after some other on-wiki project work (The Signpost specifically). ☆ Bri (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Bri:, thanks for your response. The style of using numerous direct quotes as in this edit was one of the clues that smelled like PR. Graywalls (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Just a quick statement from me. Everything that was said previously was me wanting to tell the situation from my point of view and what led to this point. Any past edits I've made was me wanting to contribute in best of my abilities. Any errors or mishaps are accidental. I also want to I apologize for the three things listed above, there were my mistakes too. If I'm proposing an article, I'll be using drafts again instead of directly creating one. But I won't recreate or create pages that aren't worth it, just ones I think that are. Adding images is also something I want to stop doing, sticking to writing. If you have any questions, just ask. Anyways, hopefully we'll sort this out. Hellshane Asylum (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Arizona Republican Party

• Arizona Republican Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Looks like Arizona Republican Party needs more uninvolved eyeballs (but not mine, which are about to close for the next seven hours). At a glance, it looks like long-term edit-warring and some apparent POV pushing by someone with a disclosed COI. Editing with a COI is allowed, but the standard for care when it comes to things like WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:EDITWAR is higher. Looks like 3RR has been crossed already today. While this is a request for uninvolved attention, and not a report of a user, I'll still notify the user after I leave this. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The issue began when I attempted to remove unsourced and biased information which forced a non-partisan POV which was repeatedly re-added by another user. This information has now been removed by another user. It appears that multiple people have attempted to fix the NPOV issue on this article but the Jon user kept undoing the fixes. The user who kept re-adding the information had a disclosed COI that they were a DSA member and there was clear bias in their editing. I attempted to add more well-sourced context to prove the point and it appears the article in its present state is in a better condition than it was 48 hours ago as it is updated and contains no NPOV violations. Azpol (talk) 09:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Azpol I thought the COI editor was you, after reading your user page and looking at these edits. I just restored the content--one single sentence with three really solid sources. I see that on the talk page you said "it is inaccurate to call the Arizona Republican Party 'dominated by Christian Nationalists' or 'White Supremacists'"--but you counter that by saying, well they elected a Black person and a Jewish person. No: it's the sources that you need to take issue with, one way or another. This is not about what some editor's opinion is, it's about what the sources say. You can add all the sourced content you want about Black or Jewish legislators or mayors or whatever, but that doesn't counter the case made, apparently, in these three sources. Drmies (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Those sources do not back up the claim that the party is dominated by christian nationalists or white nationalists. Azpol (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

1. These are not my claims, they were added by a different user in 2023 2. My complaint was that you were removing sourced content 3. I support having both the factional domination and what Azpol added being in the article as they are not contradictory 4. I am happy that Azpol is honest about his COI, like me. Jon698 (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Conflict of interest and employees of Elon Musk

I really hate to open this discussion but I think it has to be done. I've discovered what I think is off-wiki evidence that a rather involved editor in US politics and Tesla articles is a Tesla employee. Is editing in one or both of these topics a prima facie conflict, and if not disclosed, also a violation of the WMF Terms of Service and the enwiki paid editing policy?

Obviously, I am not going to report their wiki identity here. But I am on the verge of sending a note to the functionaries listed at the top of this page, depending on feedback to this question. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Without being able to know what further details you've found, I imagine that notifying functionaries would be appropriate. I would expect at a minimum that editing Tesla-topics is a COI issue, and can't really guess as to whether AmPol more generally would be based on what you've shared here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

This seems like a case for the COI volunteer response team. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The interesting question is going to be, how conflicted is one under AmPol when your employer is also an influential private citizen who just happens to have a bed in the OMB OPM office building. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Just as a philosophical note, I'm cautiously inclined to agree with the vector of your thought that the U.S. Government is a de facto subsidiary or affiliate of Tesla (at least on a transient basis) and that this might be a COI, though who knows. Chetsford (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

At minimum, the latter definitely is a COI and the former would depend on what specific area of US politics is being edited. Anything related to Elon Musk and his political actions, I would say, is also a COI. Silverseren^C 00:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I think this is too broad. One can work for the state/public sector without having a COI on anything connected to it. The issue here, I suspect, is Elon fan boys. They don't need to work for Tesla to have a strong POV. Secretlondon (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Obvious Low COI

• Philip Low (inventor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• VeriasOmniaVincit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

About two hours ago I created Philip Low (inventor). Within minutes, a new WP:SPA was registered and began making a variety of vanity edits, for example: adding (without citation) superlatives about his company ("the world's most valuable") [5], edit warring to remove cited content regarding Low's dissertation [6], edit warring to insert "Dr." in front of the subject's name [7], and inserting uncited biographical details about the subject's childhood that aren't in any public source [8], among many, many other things. These edits are coming fast and furious and are overwhelming the ability of myself and discospinster to revert.
As of the timestamp of this post, the SPA (VeriasOmniaVincit) declines to answer if they have a WP:COI. This seems like an open-and-shut PAID case but I'm WP:INVOLVED so can't take any protective action. Chetsford (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Sunuraju

• Sunuraju (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is a sock in my opinion and involved in UPE, despite a CU not finding a connection through SPI. I noted early on in the SPI filings that there would unlikely be a technical connection and needed to be based on behavior evidence. Suggestion from others was to bring this to COIN. I have provided the SPI filings below along with additional evidence. The evidence below is just a brief summary, but I can provide more evidence that user is likely a sock, or at least meat, of blocked user StayCalmOnTress. I do understand there are fans who edit similar pages, but these are more than a coincidence. In addition to the edits provided below, here is some interaction analysis showing their connection to now blocked sock Opinioncarter (from StayCalmOnTress) and suspected sock Munch03 (who seems to be editing more since Sunuraju has started editing less. CNMall41 (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

SPI and ANI filings

• First SPI with Sunuraju was filed on November 2, 2024. User filing noted that it may be related to StayCalmOnTress (formerly known as Nauman335). While there was not technical evidence found, an admin noted "Something fishy is obviously going on though, with new accounts recreating identical versions of the same article. Some more digging required than I have time for immediately, but some investigation needs to happen here."
• Next SPI was filed by me on November 6, 2024, noting that digging found that Sunuraju was not likely using the same IP in order to avoid a CU. I believed at that time they were associated with another SOCK farm and had extensive experience getting caught in CUs so likely avoiding (maybe a proxy, maybe remote connection, etc.).
• Third was filed on November 18, 2024. All three of these SPIs show behavioral evidence (although no CU evidence found) of SOCK and at least MEAT.
• An SPI was filed for Sunuraju under StayCalmOnTress on November 1, 2024 and since that time there were several more under that SPI. I don't recall if there was evidence with other socks filed under the Sunuraju reports which may have caused admins to merge there, but after looking closer at the edit history of Sunuraju, it is likely they are a sock or likely meat of StayCalmOnTress.
• Now blocked StayCalmOnTrees SOCK filed an and ANI report against me where an admin stated " Sunuraju may need a closer look outside of the CU results. To my eye, the evidence shows a pretty close connection" regarding the SPI cases against Sunuraju.

Edits

• Draft:Khaie1, created February 2nd by Sunuraju. Deleted five times under Khaie, G5, for being created by socks of StayCalmOnTress sock farm, most recent on January 15th (two weeks before the most recent draft creation). Note the draft under a name variation due to the many deletions of Khaie, but also the many deleted redirects such as Khaie (TV series) and Khaie (2024).
• Duniyapur (TV series), originally created by now blocked Sock Faymas who was filed in an SPI investigation with Sunuraju. Sunuraju editing the page up to January 1, 2024, the same day it was edited by user Opnicarter who is a now blocked sock of StayCalmOnTress.
• Noor Jahan (2024 TV series), created November 2024 by Sunuraju. Two days later was edited by IP 182.182.52.21 which coincidentally made a comment in the SPI investigation here which sounds awfully similar to the ANI accusation made by Opnicarter.
• Kabhi Main Kabhi Tum, created November 1, 2024 by Sunuraju. When creating the draft, a user commented that it was already deleted per G5 at Draft:Kabhi Mein Kabhi Tum (Pakistani Drama) (believe it or not, by a sock of StayCalmOnTress). Here is the move log showing that FOUR other socks of StayCalmOnTress (known as Nauman335 at the time) attempted to create or move the page in 2024.
• Draft:Gentleman (Pakistani TV series), created November 2024 by Sunuraju. Note that the original Gentleman (Pakistani TV series) was deleted in April 2024, G5d based on creation by StayCalmOnTress sock (known as Nauman335 at the time).
• Draft:Meem Se Mohabbat 1, created on January 21, 2025 by Sunuraju. Meem Se Mohabbat is currently a redirect but protected based on editing of two other socks from the StayCalmOnTress sock farm.
• Faraar (TV series), originally created as Draft:Faraar (TV series) by Sunuraju on November 18, 2024. There was a lot of what is likely logged out editing prior to the mainspace in December by Swimear (now blocked sock of StayCalmOnTress), then editing the next day by user:NiaziBOP (now blocked sock of StayCalmOnTress). I moved this back to draftspace in December.
• Tumharey Husn Kay Naam, created by none other than StayCalmOnTress in June 2024, but moved to Draft:Tumhare Husn Ke Naam by an editor a few days later. Draft later edited in January 2025 by now blocked StayCalmOnTress sock Opnicarter, but they have since been blocked so Sunuraju submitted the draft to AfC on January 25th.
• Dananeer Mobeen is now protected from creation for previous sock creations going back to 2021. Sock of StayCalmOnTress asked for a refund on this in 2023 which is documented in the SPI here. As it is protected, user Munch03 (also suspect is a SOCK) creates disambiguation Draft:Dananeer Mobeen (actress) on January 15, 2025. It was moved to draft space by another editor but edited and submitted to AfC by Sunuraju five days later.
• Draft:Faraar (TV series) created by Sunuraju on November 18, 2024, heavy logged out editing the next few days, then edited by two StayCalmOnTress socks (Swimear and NiaziBOP) in December. Note that Swimear moved to mainspace prior to me moving back to draft. Also note that NiaziBOP only had 24 edits prior to their block, 33% of them were to pages shared with Sunuraju.
• Chikkar (film), originally deleted G5 for being created by StayCalmOnTress sock farm, it was recreated by an IP last year and then edited by Sunuraju in January this year.
• Voting in this deletion discussion to save page Muhabbat Gumshuda Meri which was created by user:Asad Siddiqui23, who was found to be a sock in the SPI file against Sunuraju. THIS is also evidence that user may be sharing account. Note their vote which is coherent and a clear !keep, yet they voted "stay by" in this and this discussion.
• Draft:Let's Try Mohabbat draft is protected for constant block evasion from what looks like logged out socking. Protected on September 23, 2024 and the next edit was in January from Sunuraju.
• Khalid Butt (actor), Sunuraju italicized the name of the films Khaie and Jeevan Nagar. Note that Jeevan Nagar was deleted multiple times but there is Draft:Jeevan Nagar that was edited by the StayCalmOnTress sock farm. Also, note Khaie and the drafts noted at the beginning of this filing.
• Mein Hari Piya, User Sunuraju updates name of Hamza Sohail on November 16, 2024, on the same day, StayCalmOnTress blocked sock WikiiUsee is updating the page of Hamza Sohail. On December 29, 2024, now blocked sock of StayCalmOnTress user:Shiza Sultan removes the link to Mein Hari Piyal from the Sumbul Iqbal page. Strange they wanted to unlink it but also note that Sunuraju failed to link the Hamza Sohail page from Mein Hari Piya so seems like they had some reasoning as to not draw attention to those interlinks.
• SPI for StayCalmOnTress filed on February 8, 2025 which includes IP 39.34.175.100 who was just blocked. The IP performed about 50 edits total to the same pages recently (or just) edited by Sunuraju (also a lot of crossover with Munch03) including Khalid Butt (actor), Osman Khalid Butt, User:PB987 (also blocked as a SCOT sock), and Raqs-e-Bismil.

• Comment: The WP:DUCK is quacking here. There is an obvious farm of puppets, sock or meat, at work here to promote a particular kind of articles. I would lean towards blocking on sight. BD2412 T 05:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Looks like they are using Munch03 more and more (pinging that user so they are aware), and now being disruptive by removing lots of information from pages without explanation. Also adding unsourced DOB to BLP on Anmol Baloch which also has several of the SOCKS listed in the report above. Would suggest a block for both at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Both users still editing without any type of response here, despite being notified. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

User:ArthurTheGardener

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 returning to make a better summary of this concern following advice.

I am an editor with an interest in literary biography and have been active here since 2024. I was previously active 2004-2012 but no longer have access to that account. In 2025 I made a number of edits to The Royal Society of Literature page and from there moved on to the Society of Authors. On the 7th of Feb, a number of my edits were suddenly removed by User:Belbury. I went to his talk page to make an enquiry and was startled to see that the edits had been instigated by a third party, User:ArthurTheGardener. This editor described my edits as incorrect and stated that they were asking for help as Belbury had helped their late father when he had been distressed by a particular editor on a related topic. I was very perturbed by this and went looking through the related pages for the source of the statement. Through the logs and Talk pages of the Joanne Harris pages (Harris is a contentious and promenient chair of the Society of Authors) I found an editor who seemed to match the description given.User:FirstInaFieldofOne was a SPA for Joanne Harris who had inadvertently run himself into trouble in 2023 and been helped by Belbury. I asked ArthurTheGardner if this person was their father, and as gently and politely as I could, asked them to refrain from editing any more on Joanne Harris and Society of Authors pages as this clearly constitutes a conflict of interest. However they continued to edit and did not acknowlege me, therefore I have brought this complaint.

I am not the editor refered to and do not think that such personal matters should have been brought to Wikipedia.

References: User:ArthurTheGardener has shown a strong interest in the Joanne Harris page, making 35 major edits there.

https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/wiki.riteme.site/ArthurTheGardener/0/Joanne_Harris

In addition, they have created 3 full articles about books by Joanne Harris

https://sigma.toolforge.org/summary.py?name=ArthurTheGardener&search=joanne+harris&server=enwiki&max=500&ns=&enddate=&startdate=

The message to User:Belbury is here

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Belbury&action=edit&section=24 

 https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ArthurTheGardener&action=edit 
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoalsCollective (talk • contribs) 22:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC) 

Noting here that I've posted the following in relation to this dispute: [9] [10] [11] --Richard Yin (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand what evidence there is of COI here.

On Feb. 9th I received this message from the OP on my Talk page, regarding the Society of Authors article: [[12]] "...it might be best to avoid editing the page as it will be difficult to be objective."

At this point I hadn't made any edits to the Society of Authors article. I had simply asked advice from another editor, who shared my concerns. The OP had already asked for contributions via the Talk page. Several editors contributed ideas and edits. There was a polite consensus that the article had become over-long and difficult to understand, with too much reliance on primary sources. Other editors amended it accordingly.

On Feb 10th I made these edits to the Society of Authors article. None of these minor edits referred to Joanne Harris, who is not the subject of the article.

[[13]] [[14]] [[15]]

Nevertheless I received this message from CoalsCollective.

Feb 10th: "As I have written to you on your user page, I suggest you refrain from commenting any further on issues to do with Joanne Harris or the Society of Authors as you seem to have a conflict of interest." [[16]]

Later that day I also received this message (among many) on my Talk page: "I have now looked back at the Joanne Harris logs and see that I have interacted there in the past with Belbury in 2024..."

This is certainly true: in March 2024 CoalsCollective reverted a good faith edit to the Joanne Harris article by a London IP without giving a valid reason, except that they felt a COI might be involved. This action was reverted by Belbury. [[17]]

Once again, I fail to see why this is relevant to any activity on the Society of Authors page, but in the light of the language used by CoalsCollective about Harris ("contentious", etc.) it does suggest that CoalsCollective may themself have difficulty being objective about Harris, and a tendency to be territorial on the subject. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I've just been notified of this thread by Richard Yin, but I don't really follow what's being said, or what "false claims" are being alleged. ArthurTheGardener asked me to look at the "controversy" sections on a couple of articles, with concerns about sourcing and neutrality, and I did. Is CoalsCollective concerned that I've made inappropriate edits at the instruction of a COI/sock account? Belbury (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I think so. I'm really sorry to have involved you in this, @Belbury. It's exactly what I was hoping to avoid. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

My attempt at a summary

There's been a lot of poor communication here, so let me try to summarize the situation as I understand it:

• The underlying dispute (in its most recent iteration) began with this message posted by @ArthurTheGardener to User talk:Belbury, objecting (apparently) to edits made by @CoalsCollective mostly to Society of Authors. @CoalsCollective took offense upon reading this message, later describing it as a "false claim" and as "upsetting...accusations".
• @CoalsCollective did some digging and concluded that @ArthurTheGardener's late father, mentioned on his user page, edited as @Keyserzozie, later renamed to @FirstInAFieldOfOne. This user had an apparent conflict of interest with regard to Joanne Harris, who is a leading member of the Society of Authors; see extended discussion at User talk:FirstInAFieldOfOne#Possible conflict of interest. See also...well, pretty much the entire content of Talk:Joanne Harris as well as most of what's been posted on Talk:Society of Authors since the new year.
• @CoalsCollective is arguing that @ArthurTheGardener has inherited the same conflict of interest that his alleged late father had.

@CoalsCollective: is this an accurate summary of the complaint you're presenting? If so, I think it's best to ask the folks at WP:COIVRT to handle this instead of doing it here. If you want, CoalsCollective, I can be the one to write the email on your behalf, using the summary above as a baseline. (I'll cc you on the final email so you can object if you feel I've been unfair.)

In any case, I would strongly recommend that this discussion be closed as soon as possible, for reasons I will not disclose here although any uninvolved admin is welcome to ask me via email. I will say I've received private correspondence which leads me to believe this is the best option for everyone involved. --Richard Yin (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, that seems a fair summary of the situation, though I would add that User:Belbury did not respond with advice to ArthurTheGardener's initial message but with immediate action. Within ten minutes of receiving the message Belbury removed several of my edits from the Stabbing of Salman Rushdie page including 17 citations. Belbury's reason was that I had synthesised these references incorrectly. However the reference comprised more that 20,000 words which is too much to read in 10 minutes. Therefore I do not believe that the judgement can have been made in a balanced way and may have been affected by Belbury's sympathy for ArthurTheGardner's breavement. This is also a conflict of interest. Belbury left a message on my talk page which drew my initial attention to the situation.

I think it would be much better for you to handle the email and I don't need to be copied in. I am also happy to close this discussion and all others on the topic as soon as possible. You will note that I have made no attempt to revert any of the many further edits made by Belbury on ArthurTheGardener's suggestions on the Society of Authors page or entered further discussion in any other way. This is because I feel that constructive editing cannot happen in these circumstances and that silence is best. I also, personally, feel bewildered and intimidated. My inclination is to withdraw from Wikipedia entirely now but I will check in on the outcomes.

Thank you for your time, and I apologise again for the poor quality of my original COI posting. I was simply very upset at the time. CoalsCollective (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@CoalsCollective: If you have a complaint about @Belbury's conduct, I'd recommend first raising it on User talk:Belbury and then on the appropriate noticeboard if his response is unsatisfactory. That being said, by my reading of WP:COI, "sympathy for ArthurTheGardner's breavement" doesn't count as a breach of the relevant policies. I'm going to close this discussion now; I'll try to send the WP:COIVRT email within 24 hours though really it'll happen when I have time to do it. Thank you for your patience; I'll let you know when it's done. --Richard Yin (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2025 (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.

Terren Peizer

• Terren Peizer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jameschurch001000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has repeatedly added unsourced and promotional content to the article on Terren Peizer. I have warned them about copyvio, sourcing, edit warring and conflict of interest. Their latest version of the article has malformed refs and manual of style issues. I had suggested that they use the request edit wizard, and they had agreed to but have gone ahead and made the edits anyway. I don't have direct evidence that they have a CoI, but it is hard to AGF when an editor is so determined to work on one article. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Cllr Donagh Killilea

• Mark Killilea Jnr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Cllr Donagh Killilea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Fairly cut and dried case. The user, whose userpage (currently nominated for speedy under U5) identifies him as a son of the subject (as does his sandbox), has repeatedly removed sourced information about his father on the page. Other editors have informed him through summaries of COI but this has continued. Given the history of both the page above and Mark Killilea Snr, the removal of this sourced content is an ongoing issue. Whatever the COIN equivalent of a WP:DUCK this is, between using userspace to write about themselves and removing sourced information about relatives, it's that. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I've left a {{welcome-COI}}. --Richard Yin (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Francis Acea

• Francis Acea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Francisacea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fdkid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above article violates WP:SELFPROMOTE and WP:BLPCOI in that fully 65% of its edits appear to have been made by its subject. I suspect Fdkid is also Francis Acea in large part because he has uploaded files which are works by Francis Acea but lists himself as the author (see here and here) and his only contributions have been to the Francis Acea article (except for one time when edited his own talk page to remove a copyright warning). I'd nominate the whole article for deletion but I'm not sure that it meets the criteria. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

• Francisacea answered this notice on his talk page instead of on this noticeboard. I've pasted his response below: --Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello Dennis C. Abrams and Wikipedia editors,

I want to clarify that my full name is Abel Santiago Francis Acea, and yes, I am also the user Fdkid. I originally created the “Francis Acea” Wikipedia page in 2008 using my first email, fdkidatyahoodotcom, which I had been using since my time living in Havana.

This page has served as a factual record of my career and artistic contributions. I assure you that all the information presented is accurate and verifiable, and at no point has it been flagged for containing false or misleading content. My intent has never been to misrepresent or violate Wikipedia’s policies on self-promotion or conflict of interest. Rather, this article is a chronological inventory of my professional achievements, not a promotional tool.

The reason I have taken responsibility for maintaining this page myself is simple: I believe in protecting my legacy and ensuring that my life’s work is represented accurately. In today’s world, misinformation spreads easily, and I do not wish for my story to be shaped by bad actors or individuals who may distort the facts. My reputation and artistic contributions are deeply personal, and I prefer to maintain control over how they are presented to the public.

I recognize Wikipedia’s guidelines and the importance of neutrality. If there are specific concerns about content, I am open to discussing ways to ensure the article remains in compliance with Wikipedia’s editorial standards. I welcome constructive feedback and collaboration to maintain accuracy and transparency.

Thank you,

Abel Santiago Francis Acea (Fdkid)

I've posted a (hopefully) helpful message on their user talk and added a multiple-issues tag to the page. --Richard Yin (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Meteomatics

Here's the filled template:

Meteomatics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Lukasjmueller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article for Meteomatics was created and primarily edited by a user that seems to work at the company in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.160.87 (talk • contribs) 13 February 2025 (UTC)

XVALA

• XVALA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• EdiOnjales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm actually reporting myself. I recently made a huge update and expansion to XVALA (here), thinking that once it was up, people could check it and edit/remove things as they felt necessary. The issue is that I know the subject of the article a little bit (not well; he's a friend of a friend), which I recognize is a conflict of interest. My understanding at the time was that my responsibility in such a case was to be transparent about it, which I was, and then to stand back and let it be changed in any way that others see fit, which I'm very happy to do.

However, it's since been brought to my attention that it's more complicated than that, and now I need to know how to fix the problem. To be clear, I have zero concern with how the subject is portrayed (as long as, obviously, it agrees with normal Wikipedia guidelines) and I don't care much what happens to my edit. I only added the information in an attempt to be helpful, and if it's the opposite of that, then by all means it should be dealt with. If my edit needs to be fully reverted or deleted or whatever, so be it. I'm only here to ask for advice now that I know that it's needed. There's a bit more information here. I appreciate any help you can provide. -- edi(talk) 19:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Indianapolis Museum of Art

• Indianapolis Museum of Art (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Virginia B. Fairbanks Art & Nature Park: 100 Acres (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• DWFulks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User was warned about COI editing. Continued editing anyway. Was reverted other people and eventually responded I work for Newfields and am updating the page to reflect accuracy in the brand in a message that asks others to make the advertising-language changes they were making. No acknowledgement of the COI issues or that they're a WP:UPE editor. Further eyes on the target articles would be useful. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Problematic COI editor

User:BethNASEM is, as the username indicates, an employee of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. She's been editing sporadically since 2020. Her employment is at least disclosed on her userpage (though not the way the COI policy dictates), but her editing has been quite poor. Beth was warned on the 11th about copyright violations at Long-distance Amtrak routes (since revdel'd). I happened to notice her edits to Rail transport, checked her user page, saw the copyright warning, and therefore examined her edit to rail transport. Lo and behold, it was a blatant copy and paste from trains.com. I left a message about this, and examined her recent edits. Sure enough, her edit to Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act on the same day also contained close paraphrasing, though it was much less blatant and I had to dig a bit to find it. I followed up with a sterner message. She has not responded on her talk page.

I took a cursory look at her earlier edits, and found a paragraph on Gail Mandel was also copied and pasted from online. This edit was from 2020.

Beth returned today to make this edit to Leslie Richards. I checked the cited source, and Leslie Richards is not mentioned on the linked page or on the TRB staff directory. It turns out the edit wasn't wrong per se ([18]) but it is alarming that instead of citing this she just cited the about page which has no mention of Leslie Richards.

At this point we have a COI editor who has at least somewhat disclosed their COI, but is also violating copyright, misrepresenting sources, not using edit requests, and most critically not responding to talk page messages. I'm seeking at least an indef from mainspace to force communication, as right now I'm not confident Beth even knows what a talk page is. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The Wonderful Company family of brands and their executives

• The Wonderful Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lynda Resnick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Stewart Resnick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• POM Wonderful (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Fiji Water (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Numerous SPAs, sockfarm and WP:LOUTSOCK suspected. Browse through edit history, particular in late 2010s. Many of highly WP:ADVERT "aboutus" like contents remain in articles. Need help in identifying likely PR editors, and prune promotional edits from those articles, as well as other The Wonderful Company associated companies/brands/products. Also see https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Lynda_resnick_2020.jpg which I successfully had deleted for false attribution. Graywalls (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)