| Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Sections older than 14 daysarchived byLowercase sigmabot III.
| ||||
When starting a discussion about an editor, youmust leave a notice on their talk page. | ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
| To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below: | ||||
| Searchthe COI noticeboard archives |
| Help answer requested edits |
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the{{edit COI}} template: |
Recently the marketing manager of the Deree private college in Greece removed a controversies section on the Wikipedia article about their college in Wikipedia. They left no explanation for doing so. Obviously this is a conflict of interest so ideally this account should no longer contribute to their article.176.58.196.53 (talk)23:50, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue. It looks like you haven't attempted that.
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussionwhich you don't seem to have done, either. --Pemilligan (talk)01:19, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Background: @Mesomay asked in theTeahouse for help with the draft articleAnnah Stretton 2 as they were struggling to get the article accepted.
I cleaned up the article and submitted it for re-review. I was thenpinged by @Nil NZ who advised me, to my surprise, that that there were tone and source issues that needed to be addressed before the article would comfortably pass AFC.
This made me review the article's history. After I submitted the article for review, Mesomay continued to amend the article, and reintroduced most of the previous issues.
Issue: Mesomay's account has all the appearances of a single purpose account. In addition, Mesomay has also uploaded aphoto of the subject as their "own work" suggesting they know the subject.
I have asked Mesomay if they have a undeclared COI but received no response.
ps. It may be unconnected but there were also two Annah Stretton drafts,Annah Stretton #1 was created by @RKLET about a month before Annah Stretton 2.
MmeMaigret (talk)04:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article is now published, asAnnah Stretton.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits11:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear as if from the editing history that at least one, if not both of these accounts are connected closely to the subject (Marshall Berman), in the interest of being careful to not doxx anyone, I would like for either admin or CheckUsers to investigate, separately someone else started an SPI previously on these two accounts which was closed as incomplete earlier and the closer suggested that a COI notice might be the better way to go. Ironically, the account that launched that SPI was themselves a sock.Iljhgtn (talk)01:42, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you should disclose your COI when involved with affected articles; you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly; you may propose changes on talk pages (by using the { {edit COI} } template), so that they can be peer-reviewed; you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly; you should not act as a reviewer of affected article(s) at AfC, new pages patrol or elsewhere; you should respect other editors by keeping discussions concise." Beyond COI though the image on one of the pages I found is an apparent copyright violation as it appears to be obviously from a book, magazine, or other printed work. I am reviewing the relevant printed materials published by Marshall Berman to determine which, if any, of those it might have come from. These uploads can be made, but just need to be made with either the proper disclosures, or after requesting others to upload for you. I upload images all the time by the way, so I would be happy to upload on your behalf or to help you with the proper licensing disclosures or non-free file upload if you need any help there.Iljhgtn (talk)15:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
JamesHolloman only posts to one page (Alpha Genesis) and has a consistent pattern of promoting the company and removing negative sourced material (including citations).
One of his edits suggests that he is deeply familiar with the company as an insider (he insults a former employee):https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Genesis&diff=prev&oldid=1315854111
Most of his edits involve removing material he doesn't like, along with their citations:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Genesis&diff=prev&oldid=1313314964https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Genesis&diff=prev&oldid=1274544461
Occasionally he will add positive editorializing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Genesis&diff=prev&oldid=1268887896https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Genesis&diff=prev&oldid=1277308998https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Genesis&diff=prev&oldid=1275524879
Indigogirl321 also has an apparent COI, though after I posted a notice to their talk page, they stopped posting and JamesHolloman restarted. Indigogirl321 is typically not quite as brazen.
Roughly half of their posts are related to Alpha Genesis and promoting its business.
Indigogirl321 mischaracterizes their edits; describing them falsely as reducing repetition:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Genesis&diff=prev&oldid=1265641211
Cut out PETA claim (note that the same user ADDED an unsourced PETA claim against a competitor)https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Genesis&diff=prev&oldid=1314139207
On Yemassee, South Carolina page (the town in which Alpha Genesis is located):removes sourced material that reflects badly on Alpha Genesishttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yemassee,_South_Carolina&diff=prev&oldid=1256620145
OnMorgan Island, SC page (also where Alpha Genesis is located):Removes a proper citation pointing to corruption in the regulation of the islandhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Morgan_Island,_South_Carolina&diff=prev&oldid=1143751327
Notably, Indigogirl321 also makes edits criticizing Alpha Genesis competitors:
Inotiv (sample):https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inotiv&diff=prev&oldid=1227260153
Bainbridge,_Georgia (sample):Promoting a PETA investigation of an Alpha Genesis competitor with no citationshttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bainbridge,_Georgia&diff=prev&oldid=1198018471
Monkeywire (talk)18:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The entryLittleBigPlanet fan remake of Final Fantasy VII, looks to be published by userThejamster1992 who seems to be linked to the project itself.
This username is also linked to their YouTube page which shares the same name as the editor.[1] Not only this, but all their edits on Wikipedia are to Final Fantasy VII pages tying the project the page.Special:Contributions/Thejamster1992
This suggests a conflict of interest and possible promotional editing. Requesting review and appropriate action underWP:COI andWP:SPAM policies.CopperAnnoyed (talk)16:30, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a SPE who only creates/edits content promoting the Mintaredja family. The username itself if an obvious COI. They have not responded to a COI warning on their talk page([2]) and continue to remove COI/notability templates.([3][4]) They have repeatedly added unreferenced BLP information even after it has been removed and they have been warned about such behavior.([5][6])Vegantics (talk)14:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yelir 314 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Started off by attempting to create an article on theWaterloo Aerial Robotics Group (WARG) without declaring a COI (the article has since been deleted, seethe AFD). As it had obviously written by someone involved with the team, I gave them auser talk warning to declare their COI, whichthey did on the now-deleted talk page of the WARG article (I can't view the deleted content from my memory it said something along the lines of "Involved in WARG operations").
However, once it became clear that the deletion discussion was going to delete, theycopied the entire article toUniversity of Waterloo Faculty of Engineering, with the edit summaryAdded a section for design teams, putting Waterloo Aerial Robotics Group there. Will talk with other design teams to see if they want their page there as well. Not affiliated with WARG, by the way.
Not only lying about their COI, but admitting plans to do further COI editing. I've never seen someone declare their COI in one place and then try to actively lie about it in another, so thought it would be best to bring it here, as I'm not sure what the appropriate course of action is.🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs)15:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User has confirmed they are the ex-wife of the subject, confirmed here[7]. She has been edit warring with the subject's wife, repeatedly adding her name to the article despite no consensus that she is notable enough to overcomeWP:BLPNAME. The more notable wife appears to have heeded warnings about CoI editing, but Roki1001 has not. She was warned for CoI editing here[8] and for edit warring here[9]. Despite this, she has again inserted herself into the article. CoI edits are[10][11][12][13][14][15], and[16] made after she had been warned.David Palmer//cloventt(talk)20:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Several edits byUser:AnonymousBobTCG removed sourced historical content about the original MetaZoo Games LLC and added promotional text about the relaunch under MetaTwo Enterprises.
Examples:
At the time of the edits,User:AnonymousBobTCG was affiliated with MetaTwo, which constitutes aconflict of interest. See the video here to learn aboutUser:AnonymousBobTCG and his role at MetaTwo Enterprises:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDxVbw4zmj4
The edits have continued after multiple warnings.Gaichuu (talk)22:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More eyes onNicholas Humphrey would be useful.Meldreth (talk ·contribs) has been editing the article. After I reverted his edits on the grounds of copyvio, heposted on my Talk page that he is Nicholas Humphrey. I asked him to request changes on the article's Talk page, but he instead replaced the article with a version with no footnotes - it does have external links and a list of numbered sources. I have reverted to the previous version, but would appreciate help talking to this user, as I am not getting through. He has also blanked the notices and discussion on his own Talk page. Thanks.Tacyarg (talk)12:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a pre-emptive flagging system?Linkedin: "RoverPass is a leading SaaS platform that connects RV parks and campgrounds across North America with travelers looking to book their next outdoor adventure... As our presence grows, we’re seeking to increase our digital visibility and credibility by publishing a high-quality Wikipedia article about our company." --Zanimum (talk)22:27, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate if some uninvolved editors could have a look atEpos Now and its history and bring it into compliance with NPOV. The current article "appears" fine, but is the result of some pretty transparent anti-Epos SPA activity, which has removed large chunks of the article - which were, admittedly, clearly added by editors with the opposing COI. The whole history is a slow-moving edit war mess. Accordingly, I suspect it is not actually as neutral as it seems. Thanks in advance. --asilvering (talk)02:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether aspecific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article".
I am posting this concern from an account with a declared Conflict of Interest for Revolut, which I have disclosed. I am raising this concern because of a pattern of editing from another user that suggests a strong, undisclosed negative COI.
The user in question isBelle Femme Emmo. The user’s actions show:
On 26 September 2025, the user did a large non-neutral edit on the Nikolay Storonsky article.
Diff:[18]
In this consecutive series of edits, the user systematically removed large sections of information while adding negative information. The removal of neutral information and addition of negative information might be a violation ofWP:NPOV.
The user also has a pattern of rapid user renames.On October 8, the user changed their name fromTrumpcoiner toHashmarket, and on October 23, the user then changed their name to Belle Femme Emmo
A renamer in their request log noted “This is your second rename in two weeks”. This is three names in October 2025.
In addition, the user has a history of non-neutral editing. Under their “Trumpcoiner” identify. The user was formally warned for non-neutral editing on October 8.
Link:[19]
On October 22, the user abruptly added a COI and undisclosed paid warning on Nikolay Storonsky’s page.
Given this clear evidence, I am concerned this user has a strong, undisclosed COI against the article’s subject and is editing disruptively. While I am restricted to the talk page due to my own COI, this user is directly harming the article in violation of Wikipedia policies.
Could uninvolved editors please review?
Thank you.RevNeut (talk)12:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based onthis edit -And if you're that bored, go to our page - everything is clearly posted there each month
. This user account was also created very shortly after an IPv6 edit warred the page in question -[20], with this edit summary:I work at the airport , whats wrong with you dude ?
. User has restored unsourced content to the article, and has only provided a single Facebook post which verifies two cells in the table they restored.Danners430tweaks made15:39, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
