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:Dan Abrams Talk:Joanne Scott Talk:Bill Ackman Talk:Advans Talk:Aftershock PC Talk:AGCO Talk:American Enterprise Institute Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:An Altar Boy Named Speck Talk:Anaxam Talk:David A. Andelman Talk:Andersen Global Talk:Andersen Tax Talk:Arizona State University Talk:Armada Music Talk:Muhammad Ashafa Talk:Aspen Dental Talk:Avient Corporation Talk:Ronni Baer Talk:Greg Barker, Baron Barker of Battle Talk:Neil Barofsky Talk:Beretta Talk:Bobbie (company) Talk:Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health Talk:BowFlex, Inc. Talk:Kenneth Braithwaite Talk:Brookfield Business Partners Talk:Amanda Burden Talk:Burnet Institute Talk:C-SPAN Talk:C3 Presents Talk:Camurus Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Celebrity branding Talk:Chagee Talk:Charlesbank Capital Partners Talk:Brian Chesky Talk:Pamela Chesters Talk:Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Talk:CivicPlus Talk:Claremont McKenna College Talk:Cloudinary Talk:Cognita Talk:Enrico Colantoni Talk:Commvault Talk:Consolidated Contractors Company Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Deirdre Curtin Talk:Dell Talk:Nina L. Diaz Talk:Discovery Land Company Talk:Matt Dorsey Talk:Ducera Partners Talk:ECOWAS Bank for Investment and Development Talk:EF Education First Talk:Emily Carr University of Art and Design Talk:Esmée Fairbairn Foundation Talk:Fistula Foundation Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Adele Fornarino Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:Richard France (writer) Talk:Frances Valentine Talk:Francisco Partners Talk:Freudenberg Group Talk:Joan Gabel Talk:Gardenista Talk:Gebr. Heinemann Talk:Getronics Talk:Dan Gilbert Talk:GoDaddy Talk:Golden lion tamarin Talk:Matthias Goldmann Talk:John Goldwyn Talk:Martin Green (musician) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Gyrotonic Talk:Gene Hallman Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Hilary Harkness Talk:Stephen L. Hauser Talk:Hearst Communications Talk:Hg (equity firm) User talk:Hga digital Talk:HITRUST Talk:HOK (firm) Talk:HSBC Insurance (Asia Pacific) Talk:HSBC Saudi Arabia Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Informal learning Talk:International Institute for Strategic Studies Talk:International Justice Mission Talk:Internationella Engelska Skolan Talk:Italian American Museum of Los Angeles Talk:Jiffy Lube Talk:Johnson Health Tech Talk:Juvenile Diabetes Cure Alliance Talk:Kate Spade New York Talk:Jonathan Kellerman Talk:Mark Kendall (filmmaker) Talk:Khalili Foundation Talk:Kim Soo-hyun Talk:Michael David Kirchmann Talk:Klick (company) Talk:Elizabeth Koch (publisher) Talk:Sanjeev Kumar (politician, born 1979) Talk:Scott Kurashige Talk:Andrew Lack (executive) Talk:LastPass Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Lee H. Letts Talk:Kiat Lim Talk:Lone Star Funds Talk:Anne Sofie Madsen Talk:Magic Quadrant Talk:Tekedra Mawakana Talk:Mayfield (company) Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Michael Medline Talk:Medvivo Talk:Metro AG Talk:Matthew Miller (spokesperson) Talk:Howard Milstein Talk:Mitre Corporation Talk:Modern Meadow Talk:Farah Mohamed Talk:MongoDB Inc. Talk:Mongoose Publishing Talk:Moroccanoil User talk:Msh317 Talk:Matt Mullenweg Talk:National Democratic Alliance (Armenia) Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:NextEra Energy Partners Talk:David Nirenberg Talk:Ski Oakenfull Talk:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation Talk:Randy Olson Talk:Olympia Fields Country Club Talk:Optum Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:Ornge Talk:Ciprian Panait Talk:List of peace prizes Talk:Nicolas Petit (academic) Talk:John Phelan (businessman) Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Plagiarism Talk:Polkadot (blockchain platform) Talk:RA Capital Management Talk:Prabhakar Raghavan Talk:Erik Ramanathan Talk:Remodelista Talk:Kyle Roche Talk:Rocket Mortgage Talk:Michael Rubin (businessman) Talk:Michael Savage (politician) Talk:Secureworks Talk:Shay Segev Talk:Sidley Austin Talk:Social robot Talk:SolidWorks Talk:Sonesta International Hotels Talk:Sophia Genetics Talk:South Gloucestershire and Stroud College Talk:Southbank Centre Talk:St. Jude Children's Research Hospital Talk:Substack Talk:Jay Sures Talk:Hock Tan Talk:Tencent Talk:Tencent Cloud Talk:The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics Talk:The Times Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:TKTS Talk:Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools Talk:Traton Talk:Trendyol Talk:Trócaire Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:UC San Diego School of Medicine Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Universal Gym Equipment Talk:Hans Vestberg Talk:Dale Vince Talk:Mariano Vivanco Talk:Petar Volgin Talk:Arkady Volozh Talk:Walbrook Institute London Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Jon L. Wanzek Talk:Kathy Warden Talk:Tetsuro Watsuji Talk:Webull Talk:Stanley Weiser Talk:WikiHow Talk:Jihan Wu Talk:James Wuye Talk:Xero (company)

Andrew Kosove

• Andrew Kosove (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Broderick Johnson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Alconite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has directly stated that they work for Kosove's company and seems to think that they have ownership over the article.[1][2] They have not responded to multiple talk page inquiries. There was a previous COIN discussion about this user in December, 2024, but no action was taken at that time. For any admins reviewing this issue, there was also some sock puppet-like IP editing around the last time that this editor was active, so a temporary IP editing ban may be called for.[3][4] Vegantics (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Added Broderick Johnson. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Jewish Voice for Peace

• Jewish Voice for Peace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• CaminoResearcher1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jewish Voice for Peace has hired a public relations firm to edit their Wikipedia page. While I appreciate the disclosure, I'm concerned about the nature of the edits being implemented. The article could use more eyes. Marquardtika (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Only edit requests were made, on the talk page, and the COI was thoroughly disclosed in the requests. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I truly appreciate and understand the diligence in maintaining Wikipedia's neutrality and am happy to answer questions related to this.

To ensure transparency and compliance with Wikipedia's policies, I have in place a very clear COI disclosure 1) on my user profile, 2) on my own Talk Page, and 3) in each suggestion I've made on the article's Talk Page — including within the headline and in the introduction. This includes the name of the company I work for (user profile, user talk page), as well as who I am requesting edits on behalf of (article talk page). I'm receptive to additional recommendations on how I can further ensure transparency.

To clarify, I have not made and will not make any direct edits to JVP's Wikipedia article, nor was I hired to do so. What I've done is reviewed the content of the Wikipedia article and fact-checked it, then suggested neutral edits and publicly available sources to the article's Talk Page for Wikipedia editors to review/discuss and make decisions regarding implementation, with the intention of helping maintain an accurate, unbiased article. Suggestions have included updating membership data and funding data with more recent sources, removal of opinion-based language to align with Wikipedia's policies on neutrality, clarification on misattributions, and providing publicly available sources that clarify the organization's stated position on issues raised in the article. To reiterate, I am not making any edits to the article, I'm providing research on the Talk Page to help editors improve the article's accuracy and sourcing.

Please reach out if there are any further questions or recommendations. Thank you! CaminoResearcher1 (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Please also see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Financial self-reports by non-profit advocacy organization. I'm concerned with what's happening here. Marquardtika (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

The suggestions are being subjected to the usual editorial review, in fact a much wider review than most articles receive, so could you please describe some of the concerns you are having? MasterTriangle12 (talk) 06:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Marquardtika The problem is not COI. CaminoResearcher1 did everything correctly, making edit requests with full disclosure of COI. We do want people to self-disclose and then to make edit requests. The problem is that after such a request, we editors need to decide if the sources given are reliable. In this case, after much reading and thinking, I changed my mind and now agree with you that for instance an Annual report (without independent audit) is not a reliable source. Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@CaminoResearcher1 you write that you suggested neutral edits but how can they be truly neutral when you have a conflict of interest to serve the interests of your client? I agree 100% with @Marquardtika These requests definitely need more eyes, especially those of more experienced editors. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, @MaskedSinger. I understand the concern and want to clarify a few things.

Yes, I work for an organization that represents clients, and I’ve fully disclosed that in multiple places per Wikipedia’s guidelines. My suggestions were provided on the article’s Talk page — not implemented directly — to ensure transparency and invite community review. The goal was to correct factual inaccuracies and provide current, reliable sources, not to insert promotional content.

The notion that someone with a conflict of interest cannot suggest neutral edits for other editors to discuss and implement is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia’s policy — which I've very strictly adhered to. While I've strived to keep any recommended language neutral and fact-based, neutrality is achieved through editor discussion/collaboration and sourcing, not the identity of the person making the suggestion. That’s why every suggestion I’ve made is open to scrutiny by experienced editors, as it should be.

Per Wikipedia's COI policy: "COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead." This is exactly what I've done — propose changes on the article talk page.

I welcome more eyes on the suggestions and hope any decisions are based on the merits of the sources and the quality of the edits — not assumptions about motive. CaminoResearcher1 (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@MaskedSinger What any COI source says about the neutrality of their suggestions is basically irrelevant, it's our job to determine that ourselves. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@MasterTriangle12and it's interesting that you chime in because its your involvement here that makes me suspicious that something is amiss. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Are you alleging a COI conspiracy with me/editors? Concern trolling is not helpful, just spit it out already. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 06:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@MasterTriangle12 Hey, do you have a connection to Jewish Voice for Peace or CaminoResearcher1? It may be a good idea for you to disclose a COI if this is the case? MaskedSinger (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@MaskedSinger I would suggest that it would be wise to show a bit more WP:AGF in this CTOP. There is no actionable COI here. The account disclosed their connection to JVP and has restricted their participation to provision of suggestions at article talk. What we as editors who do not have a COI choose to do with that information is up to us. Frankly there's nothing to do here aside from normal editing. What actual concrete action do you even want? Simonm223 (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Simonm223 that is a terrific question, thank you for asking.

So in terms of WP:AGF I have no issue with the editor formerly known as CaminoResearcher1. But to be honest, I find it odd when an editor whose niche is physical sciences and technology and who exclusively makes edits in this space, comes out of this space for just two pages - PragerU and Jewish Voice for Peace. Of course they have every right to, anyone can edit any article they want but the optics aren't good. Infact, they're pretty bad. My number one priority is to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia and when I see something that raises red flags and doesn't sit right with me, I'm going to say something.

Taking personalities and what not out of the equation, I stand by what I originally said above These requests definitely need more eyes, especially those of more experienced editors and I applaud @Marquardtika for highlighting this in the first place. MaskedSinger (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I am just not quite as motivated as you in the political space, it involves a lot of discussion and arguing so I really don't want to take on any more of it. Maybe check up on how paid/fraudulent editors work as well, the ones that are not very easy to spot sometimes intersperse their edits with some formatting and sports trivia stuff that can be easily automated, not that this is a conclusion I could draw from your contributions (because I look closely and am not conspiratorially minded).

Also can you answer Simonm223's question, or do you need "more eyes" to answer it. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@MasterTriangle12 Looks like you missed this so I will ask again.

Do you have a connection to Jewish Voice for Peace or the editor previously known as CaminoResearcher1? MaskedSinger (talk) 06:22, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think "the optics aren't good" approach is helpful in the PIA topic area where it is usually trivial to find anecdotal evidence to support the negative pattern-matching stories our vivid imaginations make up about other editors. For example, consider the optics of this post about the partisan blog Israellycool, followed by requesting the undeletion of a draft of the article created earlier by an editor with no surviving live edits. Given this information, should an editor be 'suspicious that something is amiss' because you 'chimed in' here and question whether 'the integrity of Wikipedia' is actually the number one priority or whether you have other priorities? There's no utility in that way of thinking as far as I'm concerned. Simon is right, 'there's nothing to do here aside from normal editing.' Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

@MaskedSinger if you have reason to believe there's a connection between MasterTriangle12 ad CaminoResearcher1 WP:SPI is where you want to go. If you don't have evidence of socking I'd suggest you stop now as what you're doing is very approximate to casting aspersions. Simonm223 (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

So one can't ask a question? MaskedSinger (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Not when the question is repeatedly asking an editor "are you socking". If you have evidence of socking then present it at the appropriate venue. Otherwise stop. Simonm223 (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland I don't understand your point. My point is that I saw something that I believe ran contrary to the guidelines of Wikipedia so I brought it up. Despite WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS you are allowed to do that. Otherwise no one would ever be blocked - would they? Before raising this publicly, I DM'd a senior admin who shared my concerns. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

No, of course not MaskedSinger. And to be even more clear, every communication I have ever had that is even remotely related to editing Wikipedia is recorded on Wikipedia. Would it be reasonable for me to ask if you know this fella? Just asking questions does not have good "optics". MasterTriangle12 (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying @MasterTriangle12

If you were suspicious about my editing than 100% you should ask. So it's definitely reasonable to articulate something that is bothering you. In this instance, the answer is no. I don't know who that person is. MaskedSinger (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, I would have to differ because I think the answer is actually no, it is not reasonable for me to ask you that, I have no reason to have that suspicion (there are plenty of those people to go around without foul play). You've got a pretty strong editor POV but that's fine, just please try to cut down on the WP:CPUSH. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Mandana Dayani

• Mandana Dayani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article has had frequent rewrites with questionable changes in wording and trivial information that reads like a resume. A rewrite today includes a lot of primary sources from organizations connected to the subject. There are a handful of blocked editors in the article's history as well. I'm posting this because I've already tried to rewrite the article in the past and have reverted some edits from now blocked editors. Bridget (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Karin Taylor

• Karin Taylor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• EditNGlow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JupiterPR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 68.169.170.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Multiple accounts and an IP user have recently edited the Karin Taylor article to add promotional language and reduce the prominence of certain aspects of her previous modeling career.

On 4 April, EditNGlow (talk · contribs) removed all mentions of Playboy magazine in Special:Diff/1283990693, which is the account's sole edit. The removal was reverted in Special:Diff/1283990934.

In Special:Diff/1284292415 (6 April), JupiterPR (talk · contribs) added puffery such as "Taylor is one of Florida's top philanthropists making a difference..." and "Known for her three passions in life: children, animals and philanthropy", as well as removing "As other Playmates have done, she went on to appear in various Playboy videos from 1996 until 2001." JupiterPR also requested protection of the Karin Taylor article in Special:Diff/1284294626, which was declined and resulted in JupiterPR being blocked for advertising or promotion on 7 April.

I reverted JupiterPR's promotional edits in Special:Diff/1284378016 shortly after the block, but the IP user 68.169.170.225 (talk · contribs) subsequently restored the edits in Special:Diff/1284466018.

The Palm Beach Post page cited in the article describes Taylor as the "owner of Mandalay Farms, a 20-acre private animal sanctuary in Jupiter Farms", which suggests that JupiterPR is a public relations account for Jupiter Farms. Based on the evidence shown above, the promotional edits to the Karin Taylor article appear to be coordinated in some way and may be a case of undisclosed paid editing. — Newslinger talk 03:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Maybe some helpful context from someone who lives in the area -- Jupiter Farms, Florida is not an entity or organization. It's the name of a rural residential community in Jupiter. It's a non-HOA community, so while there may be some smaller informal residential organizations, there is no official entity that represents the area. It's more likely the JupiterPR account is contracted by Karin Taylor personally. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Akashmdp

• Thapaswini Poonacha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Sarika Rao (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Akashmdp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user uses AI to ask why she is notable but the main issue is that he keeps insisting on her to get a Google infobox. Check his comments at the deletion discussion of the actress.

@BusterD: supports me as per their comments at the actress (Thapaswini Poonacha)'s deletion discussion and their talk page: User talk:BusterD#I don't think their COI disclosures are specific.

DareshMohan (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• I came across Thapaswini Poonacha as a speedy deletion tag. After looking at the previous version, I declined the G4, thinking the sourcing deserved its own discussion. In the current AfD, which seems to be passing, pagecreator and paid contributor User:Akashmdp has repeatedly used LLMs to bombard the procedure with undue bolding and bullet styling. They keep asking when the page will be indexed by Google. Looking at their disclosure, I'd like other opinions than my own. User:DareshMohan reminded me of the LLMs, which I had previously ignored (as if right on the bridge of my nose). Also provided a link to similar indexed remarks from an IP contributor. So I ran GPTZero on Akashmdp's more recent draft article Draft:Sarika Rao, and just pasted in & scanned, Zero suspects this is 77% AI. After removing the subheadings and rescanning, Zero suspects 100% this is created by a machine. BusterD (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

  As I was adding the draft to this report, I noticed that Sarika Rao redirects to Thapaswini Poonacha. BusterD (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Brought the redirect to RfD. Regardless of the result of the AFD, that redirect makes no sense to me. Hamtechperson 23:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@DareshMohan I left Akashmdp the requisite COI/N notice on their talk page. Please try and remember to do so in future. Hamtechperson 23:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Thesazh

• Siddharth Gollapudi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Thesazh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In 2023, user was called out for not disclosing their conflict of interest. In response, editor stated "To ensure compliance, I'll refrain from editing pages where I have a conflict of interest and strictly adhere to the guidelines moving forward." Despite that assurance, editor continues to create articles in the mainspace. One of the most recent is Siddharth Gollapudi (now at Draft:Siddharth Gollapudi) which they failed to disclose until after they were yet again called out for it. User then says they were going to move it back to mainspace after disclosure which tells me they just don't get it. CNMall41 (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

They have mentioned that they work in the Telugu film industry as an English subtitle provider. At this point, it would not be surprising if this is just UPE and it would be a blatant lie if they deny any COI. Anyone familiar with the media industry knows that it mainly works on networking. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

The Wilderness Society (United States)

• The Wilderness Society (United States) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jonathanmeyers1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editor has stated a conflict of interest [5], yet continues to edit the article in question. Some of the edits are uncontroversial. Other edits remove RS content about the organization. Thenightaway (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• @Jonathanmeyers1: even if there wasn't a COI there would be some questionable edits here. Please restrict your activities to that article's talk page in the future if you continue to edit the topic. I'm sure Thenightaway will be amenable to discussing their concerns about your additions and the two of you can likely arrive at a solution that makes everyone more or less happy but you shouldn't be engaging in promotional edits or getting into edit wars. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• It appears that there is off-wiki evidence that the editor @Jonathanmeyers1 may be a paid editor. However I don't see a disclosure statement on his user page (which is non-existent) nor his talk page. Netherzone (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• I've given the user a {{uw-coi}} notification, which should have been done - with time for them to respond - before opening a discussion here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Jjyupdate

• Jung Jin-young (singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jjyupdate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A single purpose account whose username indicates that they are only invested in the article's subject. They have not responded to a 2021 COI warning and have twice been warned for nonconstructive edits. Vegantics (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Dr. Russell Surasky

Mentions of this guy keep being unduly spammed into articles with inappropriate sources, most lately by

• 108.29.107.64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Not vanalism exactly, but not good for the Project and possibly COI/promo. Bon courage (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note this has continued at Addiction medicine[6] and Naltrexone.[7]Bon courage (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Maddy Dychtwald

• Maddy Dychtwald (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Amphitwrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am bringing to the noticeboard that User:Amphitwrite—a declared paid editor with a COI for Ken Dychtwald—has been making direct edits to the article Maddy Dychtwald without disclosing a COI for that article.

Their userpage does not mention Maddy Dychtwald, but they edited the article in a way that appears promotional and did not use the article’s talk page.

Warning issued here: User talk:Amphitwrite#Paid editing and COI policy violation: Maddy Dychtwald

I would appreciate admin review and guidance on whether this violates WP:COI or WP:PAID and what next steps are appropriate.Zdrada (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Amphitwrite has not edited since 7 March; this seems stale. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Amber Atherton

Hello! I am having a discussion with @Discussthis on the talk page about which version of this article is preferable: Special:Permalink/1281531495 (possibly with some edits), which I accepted based on a draft by @Gadgetgyal, who is the subject of the article and has declared her COI on the talk page, or the current version Special:Permalink/1285544028, to which Discussthis revert the article due to it being a "PR update". I'm bring this here because (1) the discussion is about a COI edit request and (2) Discussthis believes that I have an undeclared COI here. I do not, but I am happy to leave this decision to any uninvolved editors that want to take a look. Rusalkii (talk) 07:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Would probably be helpful to have someone else weigh in here. My opinion is that @Rusalkii is taking this very personally, hence my COI suspicion. If we just look at the facts: anyone who has the money to can hire a publicist, who will then target ameneable journalists to publish whatever their client wants. We know this. Some claims in this article update are unsourced, some are sourced and yet when you check sources they are just the article subjects reported statements - these are not investigative journalist pieces but fluff PR. As an example, there is a claim about how much a company sold for yet no proof of this, no financial records, there's no evidence of anything. This is a matter of integrity and the ways in which Wikipedia is utilised for personal gain at the expsense of truth. If you personally knew the article subject or had a vested interest in them then it might feel unfair, otherwise it's an objcetive call. Discussthis (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)