Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

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

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

    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

    Antifaschistische Aktion

    [edit]

    I am raising a conflict-of-interest and neutrality concern regarding the editing conduct of User:Bobfrombrockley in topic areas related to the historical political entity Antifaschistische Aktion, contemporary Antifa movements, and anti-fascism. The user publicly identifies as a “Marxist” and has stated alignment with the Antifa movement. Off-wiki statements by Bob from other (public) social media demonstrate explicit political identification with the subject matter they are editing.[1][2][3][4] The Twitter (X) profile is linked on the user's Wikipedia profile. The pattern of edits appears to align with those stated views in ways that raise neutrality issues.

    Recent edits to Antifaschistische Aktion are illustrative. The historical organization is widely described in reliable academic literature as an entity closely controlled and affiliated with the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) in the late Weimar Republic, including its hostile stance toward Weimar liberal democracy. Edits by this user have reduced or reframed this characterization, emphasizing a broader "anti-fascism" framing while minimizing the organization's communist ideological orientation and party ties — and doing so against prior established consensus on the article. Despite being directed toward existing consensus and sourcing on this point,[5][6] the user continued to alter or undo these conclusions without seriously engaging with them.[7][8] The resulting edits rely on selective sourcing and undue weighting to obscure the historical nature of the organization. All of this raises concerns under WP:COI.

    There appears to be a broader pattern of similar engagement across Antifa-, Marxism-, and anti-fascism-related pages. I am requesting administrative review of the editing pattern and consideration of topic restrictions in Antifa/anti-fascism-related areas if warranted, as it harms the encyclopedic value of articles, in my opinion. Zerbrxsler (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    It is stated at the top of this page, This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. It appears you haven't done that. Try resolving this at User talk:Bobfrombrockley or Talk:Antifaschistische Aktion before bringing it here. -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no basis for constructive discussion if User:Bobfrombrockley does not acknowledge the previous consensus. I see this, combined with the agressive editing, as destructive, bad faith behaviour. Editors can not ignore previous consensus out of political leanings, so that there is no basis to work on, and I have reason to assume that the political engagement of the user plays into this.
    I interpret this behaviour as not having the scientific discourse or a proper encyclopaedic impression of this matter in mind, but mainly ideological tendencies. When constructive cooperation is outright denied, a user discourse according to Wiki rules is not possible. I am not informed how else to bring this up, and if this was the wrong way, then I have to apologize. Zerbrxsler (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that you appear not to have edited Talk:Antifaschistische Aktion since July last year, I fail to see why you think there is anything to 'bring up'. 'Constructive discussion' requires actual discussion... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do point to the consensus on the article talk page and I’ll of course respect it. All I saw was you arguing against other editors. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to say thanks Zerbrxsler for bringing to my attention that my user page had a link to what used to be called Twitter, where I've not really been active in the Musk era. I've changed it now to a Bluesky link but anyone interested can follow the links you helpfully provide. But my descriptions as "Antifa domestic extremist" alongside some of the other outlandish things people have called me was a lame attempt at humour. I can also confirm that I have never lived in Germany and am not a member of Antifaschistische Aktion, which, as one can learn in our article, wound up in 1933 (a little before I was born).
    If any other editors feel Zerbrxsler's complaint has legs, I'd be happy to give a more detailed account of myself. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Having a political opinion doesn't constitute a conflict of interest. If it did the vast majority of contributors would be in violation of it, and I'd have to suggest that the minority that don't should probably get out more... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's entirely unsurprising that editors who edit antifascism pages hold sentiments negative to fascism. So do most of the editors who edit the fascism pages. This is because fascism is a deeply unpopular political ideology. With that being said, I've edited alongside @Bobfrombrockley both on topics where we agree and on topics where we are diametrically opposed and, in all that time I've never known them to be anything other than a model wikipedian. This COI filing is spurious in the extreme. Simonm223 (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't COI editing and doesn't belong here unless you are suggesting Bobfrombrockley is affiliated with and editing on behalf of an organisation that hasn't existed for 90 odd years ToeSchmoker (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a WP:COI issue. Having political opinions or identifying as Marxist/Antifa-sympathetic does not constitute a conflict of interest under Wikipedia policy. WP:COI applies to direct personal, financial, or organizational connections (e.g., paid editing or membership in the subject organization), not ideological alignment.
    This appears to be a simple content dispute over due weight and WP:NPOV on how the KPD's role in Antifaschistische Aktion is presented. Such disagreements should be resolved on the article talk page with reliable sources, not through a COI filing. If there are concerns about POV-pushing, the correct venues are the article talk page, WP:RSN, or an RfC — not this noticeboard. @Bobfrombrockley is under no obligation to accept one editor's preferred framing as "consensus," especially without recent talk page discussion. Lexlex (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]


    References

    Regarding Problem on List of equipment of the Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces

    [edit]
    Resolved
     – This is not a COI issue, see WP:CONTENTDISPUTE if edit warring continues ToeSchmoker (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]


    User:~2026-27776-84 is failing to engage in consensus-building regarding List of equipment of the Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces.

    I attempted to update the article using Military Balance 2026 and removed unsourced content to align with the standard used at List of equipment of the Venezuelan Armed Forces. User:~2026-27776-84 reverted these changes entirely without justification. When I sought consensus on the talk page, they responded with strawman arguments and subsequently reverted my edits again. Mehmed Nâzım (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    What's the COI problem? This sounds more like a content dispute. ToeSchmoker (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Also as nobody on that page is using edit summaries it's very difficult to parse anybody's justification for inclusion or removal criteria. I don't see any evidence of COI, just evidence of a protracted edit-war. Simonm223 (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    SAMALA YADAGIRI PRTU

    [edit]

    This editor has been editing the draft under this and previous account Amanvarma1029. They've had multiple COI and promotional warning notices but haven't responded to any of them. [1][2][3][4] Both accounts are exclusively focused on this draft and have no interest in contributing towards Wikipedia elsewhere.
    They've also never engaged with any other editors on Talk pages - they're laser-focused on getting this draft published.
    There's almost certainly a conflict of interest present, but this editor will not declare it; they've had ample opportunity to do so over the past 23 days since this draft was first created and receiving their first warning notice.
    Also note that "PRTU" stands for the "Panchayat Raj Teachers Union", an organisation that Yadagiri apparently founded (according to the draft). Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 15:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Quick update that their draft has been declined for the fourth time, [5] but they haven't edited since I sent them the notice for this discussion. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 21:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Jared Porter

    [edit]

    User LegendNo12 has exclusively edited edited the page Jared Porter, or other pages to add material about Jared Porter. Said edits have been on several occasions deemed promotional, or of a poor nature - for instance, this edit, which was reverted by Muboshgu, claiming Porter had been fired "without cause", or this edit where the user added clearly promotional material to the lede of the article. The same user has been warned multiple times on their talk page (I'm horrible at linking things by using source editing, please use the link above to their talk page) by a legacy IP user and users CharterTheGoob and Inzessin to not post promotional material or to make COI edits, but has continued to do so. At this point, I think it's appropriate to limit their ability to make edits related to Jared Porter. Putting a notification on their talk page, but then willing to answer any questions. Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    If LegendNo12 does not communicate here (which is required), does anybody object to my blocking them from editing that page? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem here, but I'd wait an appropriate amount of time, just to be certain. 24 hours, at a minimum.
    Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. I may need a ping to remind me. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, well now I've been accused by him of vandalism via his latest edit. Do you think it'd be appropriate for you to give the page temporary protection (per WP:PREFER), while I take this to WP:Third opinion? Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be making a personal attack against this public figure, holding him to a standard that other public figures are not held to. What is your intent? The situation you have outlined is already explained in detail within the Career section? Is it better to just shrink the entire intro to the first sentence and then let the rest live in the Career section? LegendNo12 (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I'd remind you that assuming good faith is a cornerstone of Wikipedia - no, I'm not making a personal attack against the fellow. I followed the Wikipedia rabbit hole one day, got to his page, and thought the lead could be improved.
    Second, I'd say no, it's not an unrealistic standard, it's a standard that many men accused of impropriety of any kind share on Wikipedia articles. Brett Kavanaugh, Matt Lauer, Dr. Luke are all very public figures; for a more one-to-one comparison, in the world of sports, you have Ian McCaw, Vince McMahon, Mel Tucker, and Paul Riley; every single one of these men has their firing or fall from grace due to alleged impropriety listed in the lead of the article.
    Third, I'd say no, I truly think the lead is better the way that it is now than how it was previously. If you disagree (and I welcome disagreement) I'd say that you should use the article's talk page to try and build a consensus for your preferred version of the article lead.
    Lastly, I'd point out that besides the issue regarding my edits, you have been told multiple times that some of your edits to Jared Porter seem to rub up against Wikipedia's rules regarding conflict of interest editing, which is why we're here, as well as against the rules around promotional material and original research. Would you be willing to discuss why your edits are largely limited to Tucker's page, or pages that mention Tucker? Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    LegendNo12, was this edit you? I have semiprotected the page for three days due to edit warring. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    LegendNo12 did not answer my question but continued to edit war. I neglected the fact that their account is autoconfirmed and I had only semiprotected the article. At least that will prevent what is likely their TA to edit the page. I have indefinitely blocked the account from editing Porter's page. I would not be shocked if the account is run by the subject of the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    American Youth Academy — Pending COI Edit Request, Additional Sources Available

    [edit]

    I am a paid communications consultant retained by American Youth Academy (AYA), a private school in Tampa, Florida. I am disclosing this relationship in accordance with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines.

    I filed a COI edit request on May 8, 2026 on the Talk page for American Youth Academy, requesting corrections to the founding year, founder attribution, opening sentence, and addition of current accreditation and academic program information. The request is supported by primary government records from the Florida Division of Corporations confirming that American Youth Academy, Inc. (incorporated 2004, Document Number N04000002704) is a legally distinct entity from the Islamic Academy of Florida, Inc. (founded 1992). These are two separate corporations with different document numbers, EINs, incorporators, and boards of directors.

    The current article incorrectly attributes the 1992 founding date and Sami Al-Arian's founder status to American Youth Academy, when government records confirm these apply to the Islamic Academy of Florida, a separate corporation that dissolved in 2004. The article's own body text confirms this distinction but the infobox has not been updated to reflect it.

    I have since identified additional independent secondary sources confirming AYA's 2004 founding date: - Private School Review: https://www.privateschoolreview.com/american-youth-academy-profile - Niche.com: https://www.niche.com/k12/american-youth-academy-tampa-fl/

    I am requesting that a volunteer editor review the pending edit request on the article's talk page. The full request with all supporting documentation is available at Talk:American Youth Academy.

    Thank you for your time and assistance.

    Tampa2026 (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    This noticeboard is for reporting editors with a potential non-disclosed COI or disruptive behavior by accounts with a known COI. In your case you should first disclose your COI on your user page so that other editors can quickly see it. Second I would highly recommend trimming the content of your edit request down to a very specific change or set of changes you want made; this will increase the chances that an editor will pick it up and act on it and even then, you should expect to have to wait for a while. Amatmilen (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    User Ggck2, flavan-3-ol article, and funding by Mars, Inc.

    [edit]
    Resolved
     – Ggck2 indef blocked for COI and evading username disclosure. Zefr (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Ggck2 chose to reveal his real name and professional affiliation on the user page. He has been publishing literature on flavanols for more than two decades.

    Repeatedly since 2021 (talk page history as user Ggux) with new edits and talk page discussion in May 2026, Ggck2 has been trying to emphasize the COSMOS study, shown here, a clinical trial on the possible health effects of consuming supranormal amounts of cocoa flavanols. The trial results showed there was no difference from placebo for primary endpoints by supplementing with flavanols (a different treatment than with a multivitamin shown in the publication).

    The COSMOS study received funding from the American cocoa/candy company, Mars Inc., over many years for university-based research on flavanols, as announced in a 2022 Mars corporate (Mars Edge) release here. Mars sells a cocoa flavanol supplement called CocoaVia.

    User Ggck2 (who also appears to be Ggux in the 2021-22 edits and talk page discussions) is a university-based scientist publishing flavanol studies, some of which were coauthored with a Mars, Inc. employee, and were funded by Mars. Two of Ggck2's publications are used as references in the flavan-3-ol article (current #s 14, 24).

    Despite considerable discussion on the same talk page issues raised 5 years ago, and on User talk:Ggux and User talk:Ggck2, about a conflict of interest (still not self-disclosed), Ggck2 is unproductively expanding the involvement of other editors by requesting a third opinion on whether to reference the null COSMOS study in the flavan-3-ol article.

    Mention of the COSMOS study in the flavan-3-ol article would give a sense of WP:PROMO for Mars and WP:ADVOCACY for flavanol products such as CocoaVia. It seems natural to wonder if Ggck2 is looking for the favor of further Mars funding by giving the Mars-sponsored COSMOS study publicity on Wikipedia.

    It would be preferable for Ggck2 to move on, avoid editing the flavan-3-ol article entirely due to the COI with Mars, and contribute his expertise neutrally to other topics in the encyclopedia. Zefr (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    The Conflict of Interest policy states that subject matter experts are welcome to contribute. Having conducted research into polyphenols for more than two decades, I do believe I fall within this category.
    My research funding is disclosed on my talk page, but as is common at UK universities, the funding goes to my employer, not myself.
    The edit @Zefr refers to a neutral comment and a link to an existing Wikipedia entry. As there are precedents fit and against mentioning a study, I took a third, neutral opinion of useful.
    The accusation of being paid for an edit, or editing to incur favours, are wrong.
    I believe a discussion of the merit of including the study or not, and its scientific quality, is beyond the scope of this discussion.
    Finally, I would like to point out that this user has referred me to a sock puppet investigation first and only raised this issue here after this investigation was closed.
    Ggck2 (talk) Ggck2 (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This publication on flavan-3-ol intake and its "Competing interests" notes show the specific COI concern: the article's first author is a Mars scientist, the study was financed by Mars, Ggck2's real name is among the authors, and Ggck2 is named as a grant recipient: "G.G.C.K. has received an unrestricted research grant from Mars Inc."
    The purpose of this study - to identify biomarkers of dietary flavan-3-ols - is used in commercial promotion of the Mars flavanol supplement, CocoaVia, here. Zefr (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You are referring to a paper that was published in 2018 and focused on the development of nutritional biomarkers. I do not understand in what way this is relevant for this discussion. You are accusing me of being paid to edit wikipedia - this is not evidence for such a behaviour.
    Ggck2 (talk) Ggck2 (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No one has accused you of being paid to edit Wikipedia. Your research on flavanols was funded by Mars Inc. and involved Mars coinvestigators over many years. Mars has exploited the results of your research to promote its flavanol supplement, CocoaVia, over many years.
    It would be wise for you to not mention the COSMOS study – which was financed in part by Mars, Inc. and is being used to promote sales of CocoaVia – in your editing of any Wikipedia article that might benefit Mars marketing.
    The COI concern about your editing is a) that your past and/or current research is associated with marketing via Mars funding and coworkers, and b) by your 5-year persistence for this issue on the flavan-3-ol article and talk page, that you appear to be advocating flavanols as potential health products, indirectly in support of Mars and CocoaVia. Zefr (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you - but I would generally appreciate for you to avoid conflating different issues.
    1. a single edit referring to an already existing Wikipedia page (Women's Health Initiative#COcoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study (COSMOS)).
    2. That I have made this edit with an ulterior motive, to obtain "further Mars funding by giving the Mars-sponsored COSMOS study publicity on Wikipedia" and could thus be considered to be paid to edit.
    3. That this is part of a long term campaign and linked to edits 5-years and more ago.
    I will try to respond to each of these:
    1. Whether or not Women's Health Initiative#COcoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study (COSMOS) should be mentioned on the page is - in my opinion - an editorial decision that is not part of a conflict of interest discussion. There are arguments for and against, and there are precedents on Wikipedia for and against. But I think it is important to note that an entry for COSMOS does already exist and all I have done is to provide a link.
    2. By editing with my full name - and a link to all my research and research funding - I am as transparent as possible. I have been conducting flavanol research for more than 20 years, and I have published papers that use data from Women's Health Initiative#COcoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study (COSMOS). This makes me a subject matter expert on the topic. I do not cite my own papers (although I can see some of them cited on Wikipedia), and the edit I have made [6] is a neutral statement of fact. It is difficult to see how this edit could be used to obtain further funding.
    3. The entry on this noticeboard has been preceded by a Sockpuppet investigation was closed by an administrator who found no rules had been broken (no rules were broken and it is impossible to infer any information from old IP data).
    I appreciate that there can be disagreements, and that sometimes these disagreements can be quite intense. However, attempting to resolve an editorial question (which, in my opinion, this is) by arguing ad hominem and initiating several investigations (the Sock Puppet Investigation within a couple of hours after my edit - and I was not even informed of it) does not appear to be in the spirit of Wikipedia. Ggck2 (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Several points to close this notice:
    1. When you were user Ggux (2015-2022), you were informed of an IP sockpuppet investigation on 7 Sep 2022 by administrator Bbb23 with Special:Diff/1109088173. You didn't respond to that query. Because Bbb23 has been inactive for several weeks, I requested the background SPI (conducted by an admin) for the suspicious IP address.
    2. On the Ggux user page with Special:Diff/1107491460 dated 30 Aug 2022, you disclosed your COI and said: "Terribly biased - and aware of it."
    3. On 7 Sep 2022 two hours before the Bbb23 message, you (as user Ggux) left a COI template on your user page with Special:Diff/1109074997, claiming COI on the Wikipedia articles for Flavan-3-ol, Catechin, Polyphenol, Health effects of phenols, Biomarker, and Bioactive compound. Then you retired the Ggux username, and 3 days later became user Ggck2.
    4. Ggux disclosed COI for the underlined topics above, and so should you, Ggck2, disclose COI (and "terrible bias") for the same articles, and avoid editing these articles (you can raise issues on the respective talk pages). There are dozens of articles related to flavan-3-ol and other polyphenols where your expertise would be of value to the Wikipedia project.
    5. The point of this COI notice is that you should not edit these articles that risk your admitted bias (which is conspicuous in your 5-year insistence in promoting the COSMOS study, even today, on the flavan-3-ol talk page with Special:Diff/1357034347). For flavan-3-ol especially - your main focus of research for 20 years - there is risk of promoting this compound as a health agent, for which there is no good evidence. I notified you of your COI on 27 May 2026 with Special:Diff/1356451426.
    6. Because your research has been funded by Mars, Inc. and coinvestigated by Mars employees in part over many years (Mars continues to exploit your work to market CocoaVia), your COI falls under WP:FCOI, which states: "an editor has a financial conflict of interest whenever they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship."
    To close this COI notice, please a) place the same COI box used by Ggux on your user page, and b) follow the points listed under WP:COIEDIT. Zefr (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate that you seem to have issues with Ggux - but this is not really my problem and you should take this up with them.
    Since you are clearly biased against me - and your behaviour comes close to harassment - I do not think it is appropriate for you to make any demands or decisions without the involvement of other editors or indeed administrators.
    I will no longe entertain a conversation based solely on accusations.
    Ggck2 (talk) Ggck2 (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Bricks & Minifigs

    [edit]

    Editor has removed content from the aforementioned article and attempted to delete an image used there on Commons repeatedly. The latter is not relevant to any outcome here, but it provides context regarding this editor's actions. The editor may have a connection of sorts to the B&M company, which is known to try and cover evidence of their wrongdoing up and I think extra caution should be taken with regards to the developing situation. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 23:06, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    UAE government promotion

    [edit]

    The editor's sole contributions are to add extraordinarily promotional content about the UAE, nearly always sourced to outlandishly promotional non-rs sources. At best, the account is WP:NOTHERE. At worst, the account is working to promote the UAE government. A few random additions: "The UAE is home to around 11 unicorns- mostly in Dubai- with a combined valuation approaching $17.2 billion, solidifying its position as the leading innovation hub in the Gulf."[7], "As of 2025, the UAE ranked as the third-largest global contributor of humanitarian aid - only behind the United States and the European Union-"[8], "Music education in the UAE has seen remarkable growth in recent years"[9], government propaganda on religious tolerance in the UAE[10], claiming a Moldovan-born athlete who won a gold for the UAE at the 2016 Olympics was a "long-standing UAE citizen" after living in Moldova for less than three years[11]. Thenightaway (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Highlighted text at the top of this page reads, This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue. It looks like you didn't do that. You should really do that before coming here. -- Pemilligan (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The user was told by two other editors, "you may have a possible Conflict of Interest" on May 11, and your edit is "promotional and reads like an advertisement" on May 17, neither of which the editor responded to. Thenightaway (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Relationship wrong.

    [edit]

    I am not the daughter of Booker T Newberry III. I am married to his son Booker T. Newberry IV I am his daughter in law Nwillina (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Nwillina. I do not see you mentioned at Booker Newberry III. Which Wikipedia article are you talking about? Cullen328 (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Koheli — Deceptive COI Disclosure and Systematic Promotional Editing on Neville Goddard

    [edit]

    I am returning to this board following guidance from the VRT/Private Investigation team (331dot). The editor User:Koheli has now added a Conflict of Interest disclosure on her user page admitting her affiliation with "Cool Wisdom Books," but the disclosure contains a provable falsehood used to protect promotional content.

    • 1. The Deception: In her May 21, 2026 disclosure, the user explicitly states: "I will not directly edit articles" on this topic. However, the revision logs prove she has made extensive direct edits throughout 2025 and as recently as February 2026 to insert her own speculative theories and commercial links. This is a deceptive disclosure intended to prevent the rollback of her previous rule-breaking.
    • 2. The Sales Funnel: The editor utilizes the Neville Goddard article as a "teaser" for her digital bookstore. The citations lead to her site where she sells "curated research packages" in tiered ZIP files for $11, $22, $33, and $44. This is a blatant violation of policies against using Wikipedia for commercial trade and Undisclosed Paid Advocacy (UPE).
    • 3. Community Harm: The editor has systematically removed long-standing legacy archives (such as freeneville.com and realneville.com) to ensure her commercial silo is the sole authority. A Talk Page discussion regarding these concerns was initiated on May 8th; the editor has remained silent for 28 days while remaining active elsewhere.
    • Requested Action: I request a neutral administrator review these logs and execute a **Mass Rollback** to the neutral version of the article before this narrative capture and link-hijacking began. ElaineCrowe Archives (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      You must formally notify Koheli of the existence of this discussion(see the top of this page for instructions). A ping is insufficient. 331dot (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Disclosure does not prevent any removal of an edit- but it also isn't a reason in and of itself to necessarily invalidate every edit they ever made. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for the clarification, 331dot. I completely understand that disclosure is only the beginning of the process.
      My request for a rollback is based on the nature of the content itself, which violates multiple core policies:
      1. WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR: The editor has 'stitched' the identity of a North African singer onto the Master based on original research from her personal blog, directly contradicting the primary source physical descriptions (90 years old / charcoal complexion).
      2. WP:PROMO: The citations serve as a commercial funnel for her digital bookstore, where this specific 'research' is sold in tiered ZIP files for 11–44.
      3. WP:OWN: The editor has systematically removed legacy archives (freeneville.com / realneville.com) to ensure her commercial silo is the sole authority.
      I have also formally notified the user on her Talk Page as requested. I will provide a summarized list of these non-compliant edits on the article Talk Page to assist in the cleanup. ElaineCrowe Archives (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      You have contributed about nothing other than the topic at issue here. What is the source of your interest in this topic? You also seem to have prior Wikipedia experience(referring to "forensic review of the revision history"). Is this your first account? 331dot (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, this is my first and only account. Regarding the source of my interest: I am an archival researcher currently focused on the 1920s–1940s history of the 30 West 72nd Street residence and the Spiritualist movement in New York.
      Regarding my Wikipedia experience: I am a professional auditor by trade. Analyzing data logs and revision histories to verify the integrity of a record is a core part of my professional background. When I noticed that long-standing archival links (which I utilize for my research) were being systematically replaced by a single commercial domain, I applied those same auditing skills to the Wikipedia logs to understand the pattern.
      I am not a competitor; I am simply a researcher who values a neutral and accurate historical record. I followed the help desk’s guidance to bring these technical and policy concerns here. ElaineCrowe Archives (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    Hi COIN, it has come to my attention that user John J. Spring (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is committing a severe conflict of conflict of interest through his editing of the 5th district section of the 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in Washington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) page. I first noticed he was making unsourced edits that appeared to have some sort of knowledge about events that hadn't been publicly documented. I thought maybe those events would have been on social media, so I pursued many of the candidate's social media profiles. I found a user named "John Spring" commenting on candidate Nate Powell's social media, appearing to either be a campaign staffer or very committed volunteer. I immediately notified him that this was a conflict of interest, and while he did stop on that account, I never got a reply from him. Just a couple days later, I noticed a brand new Wikipedia account by the name of "Elizabeth Miano" making the same unsourced edits about Nate Powell. I quickly did a search and found out this is John Spring's mother. I'm not sure if this is actually her or if he's using a sockpuppet, but this has clearly demonstrated he's not going to stop and will even sneak around the rules when caught. I request a neutral administrator review these edits and inspect Spring and Miano's profiles to see if the IP addresses match.


    https://www.facebook.com/reel/1734556914368992/
    https://www.facebook.com/elizabeth.spring2
    https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100087220606960
    https://www.facebook.com/reel/1734556914368992/ (comments)
    https://www.facebook.com/votenatepowell/posts/pfbid02DnSded3UvLjzzW7YDEMooG6Mc3GWZCkS47QEEh9MZxDQEzRwi4K4Mis8TZYvWi1ol (comments)
    https://www.facebook.com/votenatepowell/ (comments on Powell's posts) CSP3945 (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Jacques Pépin

    [edit]

    A seemingly 'single purpose account' has been editing the Jacques Pépin page since May 31st with a non-neutral, promotional tone adding uncited/unattributed passages as well as posting several external links including to article subject-affiliated organization's website and leadership. The User account may be associated with personnel within that organization based on information available on their website presenting Conflict of Interest editing. A COI user warning was placed on the User's talk page as well as the Article's talk page June 8th. User continued to edit the article without responding to the concern on their talk page. Another user warning was posted to verify user was or was not making undisclosed paid edits. A new section was added to the article Talk page for discussion on how to adapt the edits in question to NPOV and EXTPROMO guidelines. These were also ignored and User continued to make edits on the subject article.

    Not all of the contributed edits by the user are controversial and could be used to the improve the accuracy of the article, provided they were to follow COI guidelines.

    Diffs: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]


    WKatastrof (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1358667163"