Loading

  • 21 Aug, 2019

  • By, Wikipedia

Wikipedia:COIN
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}}, 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:260 Collins
Talk:2020 United States Postal Service crisis
Talk:Joanne Scott
Talk:Academy of Achievement
Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
Talk:Anaxam
Talk:Pamela Anderson
Talk:Aspen Dental
Talk:Atlantic Union Bank
Talk:AvePoint
Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist)
Talk:Neil Barofsky
Talk:BEE Japan
Talk:Bell Bank
Talk:Bobbie (company)
Talk:Edouard Bugnion
Talk:Captions (app)
Talk:Charles Martin Castleman
Talk:Pamela Chesters
Talk:Claremont McKenna College
Talk:Cloudinary
Talk:Cofra Holding
Talk:Cognita
Talk:Cohen Milstein
Talk:Covivio
Talk:The Culinary Institute of America
Talk:Deirdre Curtin
Talk:Dell Technologies
Talk:Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
Talk:Florida Power & Light
Talk:Foster and Partners
Talk:Richard France (writer)
Talk:Frisco, Texas
Talk:Genuine Parts Company
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:Daymond John
Talk:Juvenile Diabetes Cure Alliance
Talk:Elizabeth Koch (publisher)
Talk:Koho (fintech)
Talk:Scott Kurashige
Talk:Andrew Lack (executive)
Talk:David Lalloo
Talk:LastPass
Talk:Kewsong Lee
Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss
Talk:Jon Levy (behaviorist)
Talk:List of PEN literary awards
Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health
Talk:Anne Sofie Madsen
Talk:Laurence D. Marks
Talk:Alexa Meade
Talk:Metro AG
Talk:Modern Meadow
Talk:Alberto Musalem
Talk:NAPA Auto Parts
Talk:NextEra Energy
Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting
Talk:Ornge
Talk:Parexel
Talk:Matthew Parish
Talk:Nicolas Petit (academic)
Talk:PetSmart Charities
Talk:Philly Shipyard
Talk:Polkadot (blockchain platform)
Talk:QuinStreet
Talk:Prabhakar Raghavan
Talk:Erik Ramanathan
Talk:Michael Savage (politician)
Talk:Sharp HealthCare
Talk:SolidWorks
Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko
Talk:Sysco
Talk:Tencent
Talk:Tencent Cloud
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:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science
Talk:Vista Equity Partners
Talk:Dashun Wang
Talk:WikiHow
Talk:Alex Wright (author)
Talk:Xero (company)
Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation

Pages:

Users:

Suspected undisclosed COI editors. Single-purpose accounts used exclusively to edit on this person and his foundation. All of the edits are complimentary, and almost entirely unsourced.

I warned Channy Jung ([1]) and 203.239.154.130 ([2]) but both have continued editing Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation and have ignored the warning (Channy Jung edit, Channy Jung second edit IP edit). Chisu1020 has been inactive for a while though, but same pattern of behavior.

I recently rewrote Park Hyeon-joo entirely to get rid of the unsourced promotional-like writing [3]. State of article before the rewrite: [4].

Also worth noting the kowiki version of Park's article is similarly fluffy. I suspect Park/his foundation are watching these articles.

seefooddiet (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those accounts, as well as 203.239.154.131, all seem to be SPA/COI accounts which are not responding to multiple discussion attempts, and should be blocked for some period of time to get their attention. The "foundation" article seems like it would also fail GNG, and should probably be either deleted or merged into the Hyeon-joo article. TiggerJay (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I BOLDly redirected the foundation article to the main Park Hyeon-joo article. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Burning River Buckets

User:C.A. Buttons has identified himself as the owner of the Burning River Buckets basketball team on his talk page, on my talk page, and on the article's talk page. I've tried over a period of months (and on each of those talk pages) to share information on the COI policy and the need for reliable sources, to no apparent avail. Perhaps others could give it try. -- Pemilligan (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a personalized explanation on their talk page. For now I think it's worth letting their changes to the page more or less stand; their actual contributions in the latest round of edits consisted of deleting some unreferenced information and accidentally removing one reference. --Richard Yin (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Went back and restored the external links section as well. --Richard Yin (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Link to a WP:COIN thread from 2024 regarding an IP editor claiming to be the team's owner: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 207#Burning River Buckets/ABA --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earth System Governance Project

Resolved
 – Discussion should remain at WP:ANI BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Pinging @EMsmile:. See the extensive discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Non-neutral_paid_editor. Would like a subject matter expert/COI expert to figure this out. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Bluethricecreamman, that ANI thread has become crazy long, should we (or someone) perhaps summarise what the COI question about me is exactly, for the benefit of the people watching this noticeboard? You might be in a better position to do that than me. - My question would be: is the COI management explanation that I give on my profile page at the top under "disclosure" sufficient/correct? The ANI got started by someone who claimed my edits at solar radiation modification were adding "PR" because I am a paid editor and have a COI. I have rejected this claim and believe I have followed procedures correctly. I have however said in the ANI thread that I would be happy to ban myself from editing the Earth System Governance Project article in future due to the various connections between that alliance of academics and my client, the "Earth System Governance Foundation". EMsmile (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note here that EMsmile also wrote 98% of Frank Biermann, the founder of the ESG Project. I'm not sure what question this COIN thread is supposed to be answering. What are we supposed to be figuring out here? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no clue. never posted anything to COI/N. Just trying to get folks who know how to handle it or similar situations' take. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, since you don't have a specific question for COIN, I suggest that people who are interested comment at AN/I instead of here. Having a discussion take place in two different pages is very stressful, especially for the person whose conduct is being discussed. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mockbul Ali

Resolved
 – Page has been deleted and salted BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article had been deleted after prior WP:COIN discussion, has now been created again. I've tagged for deletion. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page in question complies with all of Wikipedia’s criteria and is factual with no commentary. There are references also included. The page is also identical in form to dozens of other pages for British diplomats. The UK diplomatic service has only a handful of diplomats from ethnic minority backgrounds, therefore it is worthwhile having a page on one of the very few ethnic minority British Ambassadors (of which there have been less than a dozen in the last 100 years). The aim surely has to be to improve the page and not delete it. 2A02:C7C:F349:3A00:7507:2D93:8FC:5D8F (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Long history of puffery and sock puppetry. Probably does not meet our notability guidelines and we strongly suspect it's an autobiography. Secretlondon (talk) 08:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Jay8g: and @Axad12:. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page in question complies with all of Wikipedia’s criteria and is factual with no commentary. There are references also included. The page is also identical in form to dozens of other pages for British diplomats. The UK diplomatic service has only a handful of diplomats from ethnic minority backgrounds, therefore it is worthwhile having a page on one of the very few ethnic minority British Ambassadors (of which there have been less than a dozen in the last 100 years). The aim surely has to be to improve the page and not delete it. 2A02:C7C:F349:3A00:7507:2D93:8FC:5D8F (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EnterpriseDB

Repetitive edits with promotional and unsourced content. Article has a history of seemingly paid editors and/or closely affiliated editors. ~Darth Stabro 22:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User hasn't responded to any talk page messages or made any other attempt to communicate besides two very short edit summaries. A block might be needed to get their attention (and also per username policy). See also User talk:Bilal Ibrar at EDB. --Richard Yin (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They've been blocked for spam. Secretlondon (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I listed all the potential COI/undisclosed paid editors in the article's history on the article talk page. Not a single one ever disclosed a connection to the company, but a bit of searching found that the majority were rather obvious. As the blocked editor is the only one recently active, there's no point in notifying any of the others. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Long history of undisclosed COI editing by SerChevalerie

SerChevalerie has been involved with a number of undisclosed COI editing over the years. Starting off with this recent COI article on his grandfather Gerald Pereira, he contributed to it significantly for months even after he was warned by an admin [5]

He also edits on BLP articles like Frederick Noronha and Isidore Dantas with whom he has external relationships, some of his edits on Noronha are [6], [7], [8]. For Dantas' article see [9], [10], [11]

SerChevalerie has also an apparent undisclosed paid COI on articles Subodh Kerkar and Museum of Goa. I have the relevant private evidence to prove for the same. Another fact to add here is Kerkar's article that was created had some copyvio problems when it was created. SerChevalerie created the page again and reworked on it from start [12], which he himself has confirmed it via the article's talk page [13]. The article Museum of Goa is a business owned by Kerkar, SerChevalerie is also seen involved in editing during the same 2018-19 phase, see [14], [15]

My conclusion with the last two articles is that he has a business or private relationship with Subodh Kerkar himself. I'm not sure how much COI or paid COI editing he has done so far. But the articles he created on and before the year 2020 need further scrutiny.Rejoy(talk) 11:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the rest of this post, this noticeboard isn't really equipped to handle private evidence of COI. Have you sent it to WP:COIVRT? --Richard Yin (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Yin No, I haven't send it there. But I did sent a report to WP:ARBCOM which included the COI issues but it was likely overlooked over other behaviour problems with this editor. Rejoy(talk) 04:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why I have been dragged here. This page itself clearly states,
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.
My IRL identity is not published on Wikipedia, so I don't see why I am being (possibly) WP:OUTED here. Further, @Rejoy2003 refuses to point out the actual problematic material in the Talk page discussions, which I am willing to resolve, if any. See Talk:Frederick_Noronha#COI_tag_(January_2025) and Talk:Gerald_Pereira#COI_tag_(January_2025). The user keeps using COI as an excuse to keep the tags on, which is not what the tags are meant for, per the long explanation at Template:COI.
WRT the articles related to Subodh Kerkar, I have not even edited them in a long time. I am sure there is some confusion here about the COI: in the Talk page, I admit that the initial edits might have been made by a different editor with possible COI. I then added some content that was copyvio, which is why the page was oversighted. This was then resolved by me.
In summary:
  1. User is trying to WP:DOX me.
  2. I have replied to the Talk page discussions. However, user keeps insisting that the tags must remain, without sufficiently explaining what problematic content I have added to the articles. I am then being dragged to this noticeboard even when I am actively interested in resolving the issues, if any, at the Talk page discussions.
SerChevalerie (talk) 07:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have just gone through this report properly, and I will admit that I am quite surprised and very, very disappointed. @Rejoy2003 and I have for a long time been a part of m:Wikipedians of Goa User Group. We both have worked with Frederick Noronha on the same. We have also both been present in a WhatsApp group to coordinate efforts for the same. I do not admit to having any professional or personal connection to the subject, but if being in the same WhatsApp group (to further the efforts of Wikipedia contributions) is a WP:COI, then @Rejoy2003 is equally in COI; he has edited the page multiple times over the years [16], [17].

Honestly, I can't say that I am not disappointed by this. Goa and WP:GOA are very small, and we already have very few people here, especially in the latter. Further, Goa is a close-knit community, and without WP:OUTING myself, all I will say is that coincidental overlaps, such as being in the same WhatsApp group, can happen with us all. We, as part of WP:GOA, also often take suggestions from public forums (such as WhatsApp) for new Wikipedia pages about Goa and Goans: @Rejoy2003 has also indulged in the same in the past. However, this COI report pretends as though I am an independent contractor and not an active member of a Wikipedia User Group, like @Rejoy2003 also is. I am highly disappointed by this. SerChevalerie (talk) 09:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yissum Research Development Company of the Hebrew University

Hubermantamir is the organization's Chief Information Officer, and Tvogelyissum is its Marketing and Communications Manager. Neither has made any effort to hide their identity, but they haven't declared their COI/paid editing. The article is now up for AfD, but regardless of the outcome, the two editors should likely be topic-banned from any page related to their employer. Owen× ☎ 15:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfD was closed and the article redirects to Hebrew University of Jerusalem#Yissum. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't see anywhere where either of them voluntarily discloses their affiliation, which concerns me that this report crosses the WP:OUTING line. Also, I don't see where either of them has been warned about undisclosed paid editing, so I have left both of them {{uw-paid1}} notices. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
their old user page looks like a self disclosure for User:Hubermantamir. TSventon (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no OUTING involved. As I mentioned above, neither of the two is editing anonymously. Both use their legal name as their WP username, one includes the name of her employer in her username, and the other mentioned his position in an old version of his Userpage. There's no attempt to harass them, just to enforce our paid editing policy. Owen× ☎ 12:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Another Azerbaijan state employee

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)[reply]

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

Accusing me falsely of COI

A relatively new user with two edits came onto my talk page to accuse me of having some COI, harassing, and threatening me with being blocked. It's so out of the blue, yet also consistent with scammers. I routinely have over the past almost 18 years disclosed every single even remote conflict of interest that I might have, to the point of disclosing my partisan political income for the past several years and not !voting on articles for deletion if I'm even friends of friends of the subject, most recently yesterday. I'm bringing this here because I want the community to (1) resolve this issue in my favor, (2) stop the harassment of me and to prevent others from being harassed, (3) investigate what specifically I've been accused of and why the user has accused me unfairly, and (4) find out whether the user has used sockpuppet accounts by doing a check-user. I'm going to alert the user. I will not be censored. Bearian (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like a throwawy account created to annoy, rather than a serious editor or a serious attempt to discuss anything. Giving them a PA warning for unsupported accusations. Acroterion (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I still want a full, check-user investigation, to forestall any future attempts to harass. Bearian (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm not a CU, you might best direct your request directly to a CU, together with any evidence you can assemble about who it might be. Acroterion (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My advice is that you simply not feed the troll if all they’re doing is being disruptive on your talk page. If you don’t respond theyll likely go away shortly. Even if you do an SPI and they block the user, if this person is intent on harassment, they’ll just create another account and you’ll be stuck in a game of whack a mole for as long as they want to keep it up. SPI is mostly a reactionary measure, after harm has been done, and cannot prevent a new account from being created. (Technically they can but as we can see, evasion is trivial). Of course, you can follow the directions at WP:SPI if you have evidence of sock puppetry. If it just blocking a single account for this sort of abuse, then WP:ANI is your next stop. TiggerJay (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Israel College of the Bible

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)[reply]

Raphael E. Cuomo

There have been a number of promo-ish edits surrounding Raphael E. Cuomo - both on the linked biographical article, and a number of places where citations to Cuomo and mentions of him by name are added to various other articles, (that is, apparent WP:CITESPAM). I tagged the article with the autobio template, and in short order a few IP editors and some accounts with low edit counts tried to remove it. I discussed this a little with SciCommMD, who stated they weren't associated with Cuomo.

I then got pinged to this comment, where Rapha1023~enwikibooks identified themself as the article subject and stated they had no influence on the putting up of the webpage.

Then the Rapha1023~enwikibooks account replied to SciCommMD's comment, writing as though they were SciCommMD, and saying there they were Not connected at all with them. (that is, not connected with Cuomo) Whoops!

Would appreciate more eyes on the situation. - MrOllie (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like SciCommMD is trying to tag their talk page for speedy deletion to remove the comment in question. MrOllie (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This is Raphael. I did indeed find the SciCommMD comment and replied. I'm so sorry. I was trying to give the impression that this user would no longer edit the page. The user then appears to have found out and requested deletion of the page. I completely understand how this is looks so much as COI. If there is a way to rectify, please let me know. Rapha1023~enwikibooks (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I opened an account to make a few contributions and now I've got wikipedia editors telling me I can't post about certain topics, and now researchers commenting on my account. This whole thing has been weird for me and I would just like my account deleted please. SciCommMD (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously goofed up and mixed up your sockpuppet accounts. Don't insult our intelligence. MrOllie (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie: It sounds like SPI would be the best place to take this.
@SciCommMD: that changing your username to @CommuniqueScientifique in the middle of an COI/N discussion is discouraged and only further brings concern to your editing behavior. TiggerJay (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have some information that may be useful - I'm a fully disclosed paid editor that only takes jobs that are complaint with policies, and get solicitations for jobs on Upwork. Today, I got had an inquiry from this individual. He offered money to have an "experienced editor to say that they reviewed changes, approve that the issue is resolved, and take away the tag". I declined the request, as that's a pretty clear request for undisclosed COI editing. The subject did not say whether or not they were responsible for creating the page or its contents, but they're very clearly trying to sweep this under the rug in a manner not compliant with policies on COI editing. I'd be happy to send over screenshots/proof if needed. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I don't want to break any of wikipedia's rules and I am not familiar with all of them. I was not involved in the creation of any pages on wikipedia. I just wanted to prevent any issues for me that might be caused by this COI issue, and I wanted an editor to legitimately review, make changes, and resolve issues with any prior editing. If I broke any rules, I sincerely apologise. I have deactivated my account and will refrain from further editing. Rapha1023~enwikibooks (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There shouldn't be any issues for you, personally, in having the tag on your page; all that means is uninvolved, unconnected editors need to take a look at the page. It's fairly normal for pages, especially new ones, to have tags on them.
Even if I had accepted your proposal, as a connected editor, I would not have been able to resolve the situation, as WP:COI editors are generally strongly discouraged from directly editing pages, and are required to disclose who is paying them. Moreover, the stuff with the other accounts is highly concerning. It is probably a good idea to refrain from any further involvement in this page. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raghubar Das

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)[reply]

User:Clovermoss

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)[reply]

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[18] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

TaskForceMajella

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)[reply]

American Descendants of Slavery

Long history of COI edits and NPOV edit; this newest editor seems determined to "reclaim" the article to reflect to point of view of the organization and websites of that name. Orange Mike | Talk 14:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Choy

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)[reply]
Edited to strike mistake, ChoyChoy was moved to mainspace by Wikieditorken. My other points still stand. Sarsenet (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]

Romanian Sovereigntist Bloc

User has been repeatedly removing vast parts of the article (see page history), even with multiple users warning the user about their actions (see their talk page). User has stated they are the president of the Romanian Sovereigntist Bloc on my talk page [19] and theirs [20]. Weirdguyz (talk) 09:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: the editor has a problematic pattern of action, using threats against other editors. At this moment his attitude, his involvement in a conflict of interest and the page he created are being discussed on the Romanian Wikipedia. Accipiter Gentilis Q. (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're not interested in ro wiki - only their behaviour on en. Secretlondon (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He's been blocked for spam anyway. Secretlondon (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1273504092"