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

    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]
      I have disclosed my connection on my user page and can no longer make direct edits to any articles in the New Thought or Neville Goddard namespace due to Wikipedia policy. The biographical data of Modeste Guillaume is in public primary records available on Newspapers.com and Ancestry.com. Neutral editors with access to the Wikipedia Library can locate all those primary source clippings on Newspapers.com and Ancestry.com and format the references directly to those public archives. If any modifications or changes need to be made to the current content, only neutral editors can help you and implement them.Koheli (talk) 11:07, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, I ask the committee to check the Neville Goddard article's revision history regarding the account ~2026-29694-94 (talk · contribs). This account made edits on May 17, May 18, and June 8 that specifically insert my website’s domain name directly into the text, changing "Historical research identifies..." to "Research performed by Coolwisdombooks.com alleges...". A neutral editor Sigma440 (talk · contribs) reverted this on May 18, but the change was put back by that same account on June 8 and remains live. Inserting a domain name directly into the article does not contribute to the article and artificially creates an appearance of a policy violation. This is very concerning and feels like targeted harassment. Thank you. Koheli (talk) 12:25, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      I’m checking back to correct some factual errors since the response ignored the actual evidence.
      If you don't mind my asking, what policy prevents you from simply deleting the promotional mess you weren't allowed to make? It is straightforward to undo one’s own rule-breaking; no one is asking for new edits, only a removal. Archival records place a G.M. Abdoullah at the mansion, but never a Modeste (whose photos look nothing like the news clipping of G.M. Abdoullah). Stitching two vastly different Black men together to create a marketable fair-skinned persona is revisionism, not research. Neville explicitly described Abdullah’s complexion as "Black as the Ace of Spades", yet you've substituted a fair-skinned man to suit a commercial funnel.
      Furthermore, whilst the real Abdullah taught unity, your marketing leans into racial tropes of "dark" magic and "manipulation" to sell on your digital storefront. Using these caricatures is an insult to actual Black history.
      Your "novice" persona is also refuted by the logs. You created pages years ago for (Redacted) so you have used Wiki for family PR/politics for 15 years, even after one of the pages was flagged for promotion.
      You refuse to delete these edits because you would lose the revenue funnel.The $44 research packages and $55 "diagnostic" readings on your site confirm this identity was manufactured as a lead-generation tool. Erasing Black history for a private funnel is a grotesque misuse of this project. I’m quite swamped now, so I shall leave the final rollback to the committee. ElaineCrowe Archives (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      There is no "committee"(perhaps you meant "community"). The fact that there has not been a significant community response here should be a message in and of itself, to drop the stick and move on. 331dot (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      This appears to be a clearly unethical commercial capture of the article in question, done in attempt to benefit the editor's paywalled business. I join the original commenter in requesting a rollback. ~2026-36273-94 (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      How do we know you are not the original commenter? Very odd place for a new user to find at random. 331dot (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      this topic was brought to my attention via a Reddit discussion. ~2026-36303-05 (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, now you and others in the Reddit discussion are on notice of meat puppetry. 331dot (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Several of us agreed that this was unethical and asked the original commenter how we could help... I'll hang my meat puppet up now, but this all smells funky. ~2026-36273-94 (talk) 01:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aside from the above admission, I am in possession of evidence of off wiki canvassing regarding this matter. 331dot (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Since Wikipedia policy recommends remaining silent when being subjected to harassment or bullying. I am only writing this here now in case ElaineCrowe Archives attempts to file a third case again next week, the community will have this permanent reference on file.
      1. Cool Wisdom Books is a non-commercial site. There are no paywalls, no coaching fees, and no required commercial transactions; no "tiered fee" is a fabrication. $11–$44 packages and reading ElaineCrowe Archives is mentioning were part of a temporary, limited donation drive initiated in late 2025 to cover a specific $100 server bandwidth overage cost. That donation drive ended the moment the server costs were met. If anyone visits the site, there is nothing there for sale.
      2. The domains mentioned are monetized commercial sites charging fees for courses and digital products. I checked my edits; I had made one edit in October 2023 to put an encyclopedia ref, which replaced one of the freeneville.com links and was also removed by other later editors in October 2023. Realneville.com I see no edits to on my side.
      3. As for disclosure as "deceptive," after ECA's first COIN action last month, I did what Wikipedia policy said to do with admin guidance and placed a conflict of interest disclaimer on my user page and stopped all direct article edits. I literally could not edit after that point.
      4. The claim that I am being deceptive about a "Novice" persona ECA does not realize that badge is automatically generated by a Wikipedia template based on the volume of edits, not by the number of years an editor has been here.
      5. The accusation regarding the distortion of history and primary sources is false. I added to the Talk Page the two photos in question that show the exact same historical photograph printed with varying levels of ink density in the original archival clippings. Both those photos are displayed in the research. There is no distortion of history here, and neutral editors now have full access to the resources.
      6. It appears that today a single-purpose account has aggressively blanked out every single link to the website on the Neville Goddard page. Because the links are entirely gone, I assume this issue is now functionally over. Koheli (talk) 20:49, 23 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 (Redacted). 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 (Redacted). 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. (Redacted) CSP3945 (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    @CSP3945: Please don't attempt to link editors on Wikipedia to off-wiki information that they have not themselves shared. That is prohibited by our policy on outing. Conflict of interest editing is also tightly restricted on Wikipedia, and if you have off-wiki evidence of it, that needs to be communicated to the VRT channel intended for it. In this case I will as a CU investigate myself. Best, Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:28, 13 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: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]


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

    FWIW the user did add a COI disclosure on their user page after the above information was posted. -- Pemilligan (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the work you do. I appreciate you spelling out the issues surrounding my recent edits. However, I dispute the charge that I continued to make edits after being notified. I was notified by email on 6/10. I was asked to disclose my affiliation. I complied with this request. I did not ignore your notice as stated here. I did not make additional edits after I received notice. You can verify this on the history page of the article. Druryjeff (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Consistent sloppy paid editing by WhiteHatWiki

    [edit]

    There appears to be an issue with editors from the paid consultancy firm WhiteHatWiki @Brucemyboy1212:, @W12SW77: and @BC1278:. They are properly disclosing, but the rate with which their edits are declined is very high, and they seem to have some bad habits when it comes to sourcing and POV language on articles.

    • Draft talk:L.W. Packard I have carefully verified every source and I have full-text of all of them; these are independent newspapers.

    One of those was an article that had been blanked after the article subject stepped in and intervened with the newspaper, and two sources were added which searches only turned up the L.W. Packard article. He misrepresented my previous AfC concerns as an accusation of being out to "punish" editors. I'm the IP accused of socking, though I've publicly stated when my IP/ID changes. Bruce has declined to engage on the article talk page or his own.

    Misrepresenting the last RfC made me take a look through other edits from this company. There seems to be an issue with source quality, availability, and the claims used WhiteHatWiki.

    • Talk:QOR360 by both Brucemyboy and W12SW77, extensively. @Aquillion: called for a total rewrite after heavy editing by WhiteHatWiki

    Concern about WhiteHatWiki editor BC1278 and the company itself have come up before (1, 2). This appears to be an issue from all their disclosed editors. The pattern of PR-speak, unverifiable sources, and editorial concerns that repeat has been going on for years with Brucemyboy1212, W12SW77 and BC1278.

    This is sloppy editing, consistently, for a company that’s getting hired by organizations like De Beers and the Anti-Defamation League. Those are huge, controversial clients for an editing style that partially appears to be “throw PR at the wall and see what sticks once editors review it”.

    ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 11:20, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I went down the posted list of listed articles sequentially before stopping, a few were fine but I wasn't trying to cherry-pick. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    A few hours after this was posted W12SW77 requested a name change and deleted their user page containing the list of articles the account had edited with a disclosed COI as well as the paid editor disclosure at their previous userpage. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The user page has been restored at WP:REFUND per WP:VANISHNOT. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The complaint appears to focus on a selective subset of pages I have worked on. For completeness, I reviewed the pages I’ve worked on that were not mentioned in the complaint. Across those pages, I submitted 156 disclosed edit requests, 149 of which were implemented by independent editors. And W12SW77, who renamed their account, hasn’t worked for the firm for over a year and may not have wanted to be involved in the discussion. WhiteHatWiki had nothing to do with the renaming of the account.
    Regarding the editor’s points:
    • Regarding Talk:ONE Championship#Paid Edit requests for September 2024: Had the IP editor reviewed the Talk page history, they would have seen that a subsequent RfC was opened to address the reliability of a specific source in a defined context. The resulting consensus was “against using Bloody Elbow as a reliable source in these specific sections.” See Talk:ONE Championship#RfC reliability of pre-March 2024 Bloody Elbow on ONE Championship. The earlier blanket decline of the edit request should also be viewed in context. The reviewing editor had previously been the subject of concerns about edit-request handling, including at [8] and was warned by User:PK650 about “reckless editing” and “absurd declines.” The September 2024 is not an unresolved paid-edit sourcing dispute; the relevant sourcing issue was later narrowed and resolved through RfC, with the consensus agreeing with me that Bloody Elbow was not reliable in this context.
    • Draft: Employment Hero: The IP editor appears to be mischaracterizing the AfC review by Meadowlark. Meadowlark’s stated concern was the scope of the coverage—“only routine business activities are described”—rather than the reliability of the sources themselves. The decline notice simply asks that all three relevant criteria be addressed: (SIGCOV, RS, ORGIND). The draft currently cites 11 sources, each of which is an editorially independent secondary source. I’m awaiting more press coverage before resubmitting.
    • On Talk:QOR360, the discussion centered on whether the article’s tone was promotional and whether the advertising maintenance template should remain. W12SW77 and I participated as a disclosed paid editors through Talk page discussion and edit requests. The claim that WhiteHatWiki engaged in “heavy editing” is categorically false. I never directly edit pages unless an editor who has reviewed an edit request and requests I do the implementation (which was not the case here). Additionally, I proposed several edits to improve NPOV that were accepted. Some editors still objected to removing the template because of concerns over the article’s founder-focused history, product-feature descriptions, and lack of critical coverage. After further feedback in the RfC, I agreed that criticism/balance could improve the article, withdrew the RfC, and said I would make further edit-requests. Every edit suggested on the Talk page has been based in policy and reliably sourced (Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, NPR).
    • For Talk:Steven Grinspoon#Edits for November 2024, I’m not sure I even understand the nature of the complaint: “More issues with inaccessible sources.” For one item, the reviewing editor responded: “The text looks reasonable, but I'm trying to confirm the sources, and the first one is dead. I notified Endocrine News about the error.” The link was live when cited and later returned an error, which can happen with publisher websites. The material was ultimately verified and the request was implemented. More broadly, this was not a case of persistently unsupported edit requests. Of the 12 requests, 10 were implemented, including the request that led to removal of the article’s multi-issue maintenance template [9]. In response to that request, Axad wrote: “I agree that the material here is a significant improvement from various standpoints. However, before being implemented I believe it needs input from a volunteer better versed than myself on the operation of WP:MEDRS.” After the request was reviewed here: [10], the template was removed by STEMinfo [11].
    • Regarding the “unverifiable legal document” raised at Talk:Elizabeth Koch (publisher)#Proposed updates for January 2025: this was a proposed update submitted for independent editors to evaluate. The point of the request was to ask whether a fundamental biographical detail (divorce) about a living person could be corrected or omitted if editors determined that the available sourcing was insufficient. Note that the source cited (UniCourt) is from a third-party source independent of the courts, and is a summary of the case, not a reprint of the case. The summary is not a primary source and other Wikipedia pages cite to UniCourt to verify divorces. See e.g. Tom Bernthal. I still think if it went to an RfC or was decided at WP:RSP, consensus would likely be that summaries of court documents by UniCourt of divorce proceedings are allowable. But that’s untested.
    • On Talk:Dan Wagner#Requests Edits for flag removal and source update, W12SW77 made a disclosed COI edit request and was hired by the subject. One item asked to restore a short factual sentence that had previously been removed for lack of sourcing. The request supplied a Financial Times citation to verify the information.The request was initially implemented by an independent editor, then reverted by Scope creep, who objected that similar wording had previously been introduced and rejected as promotional or non-encyclopedic. Scope creep also questioned the reliability of the Financial Times coverage, describing it as “nicely visible with an image of Dan Wagner, straight from the pr agency.” The article concerns a controversial figure, and the Talk page reflects many disputes about how to handle biographical and business-history material that started many years before the edit requests by an editor working for WhiteHatWiki. At no point did anyone working for WhiteHatWiki directly edit the article. The relevant action was a disclosed COI edit request proposing sourced wording for independent editor review, using a newly supplied tier-one WP:RS (The Financial Times) to support WP:VERIFY.
    • At Talk: De Beers, the complaint that I was “relying on WP:TRADES” is not relevant for an existing page. WP TRADES cautions against using trade publications to establish a company’s notability, particularly where independence is unclear. That’s not what occurred here. De Beers is an existing article about an unquestionably notable company; the edit requests concerned updates to specific article content, not an attempt to establish notability. Across the 10 edit requests I submitted, the proposed updates were supported by a mix of mainstream and industry-specific sources. Ten of the sources were mainstream news publications, including CNBC, The Atlantic, and The New York Times. Seven were trade publications focused on the mining or diamond industries. There is no Wikipedia policy that prohibits using editorially credible trade publications to verify factual information about a company, provided the source is reliable for the specific claim being made. This distinction matters. Trade publications may be insufficient when used as the primary basis for corporate notability, but they can be appropriate sources for technical, industry-specific, or operational information that mainstream outlets may not cover in detail. Mining-industry publications, for example, may be better positioned than general-interest media to cover technical matters or industry-specific business updates.
    • And regarding Draft: L.W. Packard, the IP editor’s concerns have been raised by them and addressed in multiple forums: [12] [13] [14]. The recurring issue appears to be that the IP editor questions sources that are not free online. That is not the standard for verifiability. Sources do not need to be available online, or available without cost, to be usable on Wikipedia; they need to be published, reliable, and capable of verification. The sources cited in the draft exist, and excerpts have been available on the draft’s Talk page for review at Draft talk:L.W. Packard#Sources, as are links for all (included in the citations) but one to the website where the sources are available for paid access. The publications and headlines can be verified even without paid access. And experienced editors with access to Wikipedia’s free library of paid databases can find full text for many of the sources.


    The IP editor is also objecting that a source was used after the company had sought and received a correction from a newspaper - the editor made this same objection in the draft page and was informed by a more experienced editor that Wikipedia encourages article subjects to seek corrections with the media, rather than use Wikipedia for this purpose. The fact that the company requested and received a correction from media sources does not mean that that source is now illegitimate because they were influenced by the company. The complaining IP editor has done extensive forum shopping trying to discredit or remove the L.W. Packard draft (which I won’t detail here unless requested to do so) and this complaint should be viewed in this context.

    In short, WhiteHatWiki and its staff are extremely rigorous in their creation of edit requests, typically spending days conducting research. For editors who are as active as those from WhiteHatWiki, and who often are asked to insert themselves into existing disputes on contested matters, the record of acceptance of edit requests is exceptional. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The clarification that the editor who blanked their user page no longer works for WhiteHatWiki is important, thanks for that. I don't really know where that leaves the userpage which discloses the list of articles, but I'll ping the admin responsible to make sure they can review (@KylieTastic: your call on what to do, here).
    Also, Brucemyboy1212 is right with his "heavily edited" comment; the requests have been appropriately going through the talk page, but those discussions are worth reading.
    The recurring issue appears to be that the IP editor questions sources that are not free online. That is not the standard for verifiability. Sources do not need to be available online, or available without cost, to be usable on Wikipedia
    My objection is that the sources you provided were only available offline and you claimed to have manually reviewed a source that had been blanked. Blanking an article with no archived copy due to the perception it gave on Wikipedia rather than a factual issue isn't "seeking a correction".
    Ten of the sources were mainstream news publications, including CNBC, The Atlantic, and The New York Times.
    Let's look at The Atlantic, here. You're relying on an high profile piece on the diamond industry, arguably the single highest profile piece of investigative journalism on commercial diamonds, as a neutral summary of the history of De Beers' advertising campaigns. You requested this change:
    According to a 1982 article in The Atlantic, amid declining diamond sales in the late 1930s, De Beers worked with advertising agency N. W. Ayer to launch marketing campaigns that positioned diamonds as essential symbols of love and commitment in order to sustain demand.
    Citing this article. That is not at all a neutral overview of their history. It's a damning piece of investigative journalism that looks at the history of misrepresenting the value of diamonds to consumers. High profile critical pieces being cited in a way that levels out their content is the kind of issue I'm raising as concerning from a paid editor working for a crisis management company. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It really doesn't take too much digging through the edits from this account to find consistent concerns about inappropriate editing. Just jumping into a random articles pulls up concerns:
    Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TATAA_Biocenter

    A similar issue seems to be happening here—there appears to be an effort, possibly coordinated behind the scenes, to suppress certain information by removing pages from Wikipedia.

    Talk:Dov Seidman

    I've read the passage in question and the sources behind it. The current text is a fair summary of what was reported in secondary sources

    (in declining your request to remove content)
    None of these instances alone seem noticeboard-level serious, but the gestalt points to a pattern of sloppy editing from a WP:PAID account that should be working to a higher bar, which creates a higher workload for editors who need to figure out if you're accurately reflecting the sourcing or Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Or even above, where Bruce declined that WP:TRADES applied to establish the notability of De Beers, when it was actually being relied on to establish the notability of the "Luanda Accords", which had been challenged. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This IP editor account was only created on June 6, 2026. If you are really that new of an editor, that would explain why you do not know that the notability standard applies for qualifying a page; it does not apply for verifying statements in an article. You also might not know that experienced Wikipedia editors have access to the Wikipedia Library, where they can access materials behind paywalls. A page is not “blanked” because it is only available in a periodical database or if it only appeared in print.
    You also do not yet seem to know many Wikipedia policy essentials. Wikipedia must adopt a neutral tone under NPOV, even if the author of a cited piece of journalism holds a strong opinion. The point of the edit request Talk:De Beers#Request Edits for February 2026 was to question whether the word “manipulate” should be used in Wikipedia’s voice. User:tedder reviewed the request and agreed it was inappropriate and biased. Then you weighed in to say that the neutral rephrasing from Brucemyboy (without the word “manipulate”) was “sanitized” because it did not accurately capture the criticism of the author or summarize the entire, lengthy magazine article. Magazine journalists may adopt opinions or a biase in their writing; but under NPOV policy, Wikipedia is not supposed to adopt that criticism in its own voice. Either the language must be neutral; or opinions can be attributed and viewpoints balanced. And when correcting a correction on one statement on Wikipedia, it would actually be counterproductive to the discussion to add a lengthy summary of an entire lengthy magazine article that covers so much. Perhaps as a new editor, NPOV policy is new to you. I’d suggest you refrain from filing complaints until you are better versed in the essentials of Wikipedia.


    Brucemyboy has gone through all your cherry picked complaints above, so no need to repeat. I’ll just say that hurling accusations without even bothering to check the final outcome is irresponsible, even if you are a new editor. RfCs can follow edit requests. The consensus determined by the RfC is what matters. You are misleading everyone here if you cherry pick a colorful comment from one editor, even though their decline was completely reversed on RfC. That’s exactly what happened on Talk: One Championship. Wikipedia processes can take many months. If you are a new editor, you might not know that a multi-editor discussion can pick up in a new post after an edit request is declined. Now you know. You also might not know that a Wikipedia agency sometimes becomes involved in situations where another user with an agenda has directly edited a page. So it’s not surprising that there can be a dispute when the work of that user is challenged by someone like me. A disagreement over content is not a sign that an editor has done anything improper. Brucemyboy in particular has had such an overwhelming rate of approved edit requests because they spend days of meticulous research finding reliable sources, even when it means pouring through periodical databases or hard copies. Their approval rate is greater than 90%, including ultimate approvals following RfCs. Finally, following around an editor from page to page in a hostile manner with spurious claims can be considered disruptive editing. I suggest you stop this behavior. BC1278 (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a good example of why I raised the issue of sloppy editing and WP:COIN. Opening with the age of my temp ID is inappropriate and a paid editor should know better. A majority of your response was a mix of personal attacks and condescending explainers.
    Then you weighed in to say that the neutral rephrasing from Brucemyboy (without the word “manipulate”) was “sanitized”
    This is the second time an editor from WhiteHatWiki has strawmanned this at WP:COIN. WP:NPOV doesn't ask us to take highly critical pieces and strip them of any criticism. I didn't call for that criticism in Wikivoice and I never mentioned the word "manipulate", let alone in a way that implied I disagreed with the outcome at that talk page. There was concern that critical pieces were being relied on for history only, and artfully ignoring the entire context of the article cited.
    That’s exactly what happened on Talk: One Championship.
    And the response to your company's edit requests, from @HeinzMaster:, after that RfC was
    I can't believe ONE employees are still trying this nonsense. Delete everything for all I care. Don't post paid puff pieces as sources as well. There you go, all info about the promotion is gone, I don't ever want to see you discuss this forsaken promotion ever again.
    The problem isn't a 90% success rate of edits, it's that the 10% decline rate is being very consistently accused of motivated editing and trying to sanitize pages. It's misrepresenting the arguments you respond to. It's how clearly trying to manage brand image the edit requests are. It's the fact that in response to concern you dive into condescending screeds assuming an editor must be new because they're challenging the edits of your company. You basically called to remove the entire controversy section of the article despite it relying on different sources than those named at the RfC.
    A page is not “blanked” because it is only available in a periodical database or if it only appeared in print.
    We can't rely on the old copies when the newspaper has retracted the entire article. The source deleted the article at the request of the company it's about with a note about corrections, so WhiteHatWiki's claims to have verified the sources weren't credible. The page in question was blanked, not quote 'blanked', and that has been provided here and at the article talk page. This is something a paid editor should know is unacceptable to use, let alone double down on using a pre-correction copy available offline. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Likely COI

    [edit]

    @MigracijeHrvata might have a conflict of interest.

    • Their very first edit was to add a source by one Tado Jurić.
    • The user created Draft:Tado Jurić on 6 March 2026, containing a lot of unsourced information, suggesting a familiarity with the subject.
    • Since creating the draft, they have made 10 edits to Wikipedia: 8 to the aforementioned draft, 2 related to the AfC process for the same draft.
    • Their username means "Migrations of Croatians", which appears to be the main academic focus of Tado Jurić.

    I believe that this user may be Tado Jurić.

    Previous discussions:

    I didn't think another talk page thread would get the message across. They have tried to submit the draft a couple of times this month (it was not approved). They have asked for help with the draft, referring to the subject of the article in the 3rd person.

    @MigracijeHrvata, please read Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy. If you are Tado Jurić, you can still contribute to Wikipedia, with caveats as outlined in WP:AUTOBIO. You just have to disclose your conflict of interest. TurboSuperA+[talk] 11:05, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    :This is WP:OUTING, I suggest editing the post and contacting an admin to revdel the previous version. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 11:33, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    How is it outing when the editor created the Draft:Tado Jurić and filled it with a bunch of personal information? They outed themselves, if anything. I didn't post anything that isn't already found on Wikipedia and was put there by the editor. TurboSuperA+[talk] 11:35, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it outing when the editor created the [...] and filled it with a bunch of personal information?

    :::Because you're presuming the real-life identity of an account and publicly stating it. That's not the account disclosing. There's a warning at the top of this page when you make a submission to be careful about that. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Please read the first sentence of WP:OUTING: Posting another editor's personal information is unacceptable, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. TurboSuperA+[talk] 11:41, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    unless that person has voluntarily
    You are presuming the editor's identity makes him "that person", though. Either way, your call on how to handle it. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I can presume, based on on-wiki evidence, that an editor editing a BLP is the subject of the BLP. That's not "revealing personal information". TurboSuperA+[talk] 11:48, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Just curious, what do you think the Admins should revdel in this case? Editor's username? Diffs? Link to a publicly-visible draft? Anyone can request a revdel. If you feel so strongly about it, you can request it. TurboSuperA+[talk] 11:55, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The linking of a username to a real individual. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm reminded of WP:WMFOUT here. As the WMF puts it, "We trust that editors, administrators, and functionaries can tell the difference between harassment and appropriate flagging of public personal information in the vast majority of cases". I think the present situation represents a case of the latter. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:47, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, thank you for the clarification. I understand the conflict of interest concern and I confirm that I have a connection to the subject of Draft:Tado Jurić.
    My intention was to improve accuracy, add reliable independent sources requested by reviewers, and address the issues raised during the Articles for Creation process.
    I understand Wikipedia’s COI guidelines. I welcome review and corrections from independent editors. Thank you. MigracijeHrvata (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck, it wasn't intended as an accusation of intentional improper behaviour but a "heads up" due to linking the username meaning to a specific named individual like this, if I was out of line then my apology. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Landplane123, second thread

    [edit]

    As previously raised at here at COIN (granted less-than-gracefully by Joshuacanin3 [15]), and also by many experienced contributors on the user's talk page (including by me [16], by Drmies [17], by Smallbones [18], by Praxidicae [19], by Cwmhiraeth [20], by Zackmann08 [21] and by others), I suspect that Landplane123 is engaged in paid editing. While the editor (formerly editing as User:Pennyframstad) continues to deny these suggestions, a denial (in itself) doesn't diffuse the concern. Similar to the other editors mentioned above, my PAID/COI concerns stem from editing patterns that are common for PAID accounts. Namely:

    As previously raised by other editors (including by A. B. [22], by Praxidicae [23], and by others), I also wonder whether the editor is inappropriately using multiple accounts as part of this practice. Similar to the other editors mentioned above, who have drawn parallels to contributors associated with a named music promotion agency, my concerns are based on the contributor's:

    While I appreciate that none of the above is cut-and-dried, and that "accusation alone" (by a half-dozen experienced editors who have the experience to sense these things from a mile off) is not sufficient, I've decided that - in good conscience - I should at the very least open a thread to highlight these concerns. Perhaps the other half-dozen editors, who seemingly share/shared my concerns, might have something more concrete to add.... Guliolopez (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't immediately recognize why I had left a notice on the user's talkpage. All I can say is that I was working on this Signpost article at the time. I followed that up less than a year later with a related Signpost article. If these topics were indeed what I was thinking about when I left the talkpage message, it is likely a pretty serious matter, involving fake admins, lying paid editing companies, and perhaps even extortion. In all cases like that, I strongly suggest that everybody understand that the apparent perpetrator is also sometimes the victim. If that's the case here it's a very difficult case to handle. I might suggest if this is a perpetrator/victim case that a six month block might work best for the p/v and Wikipedia: the p/v gets to come back later to their hobby after showing that they don't sock to get around the block, and Wikipedia protects its credibility in an extraordinarily difficult situation. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your feedback. Creating Wikipedia articles is solely a hobby of mine and I sincerely hope that I am not blocked because of baseless claims. Landplane123 (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already told you that I am volunteer Wikipedia editor. I don't know how to prove that to you but it's the truth. I love the challenge of creating articles that are of interest to me. What can I provide to you that will satisfy your claims? Landplane123 (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Order of Saint James in Holland

    [edit]

    The editor denies[25] any COI, or any link to the other editor given above. The linked article is about a chivalry order for "Sint Jacob" (Saint James in English). This matches the other username completely, and this one partially. Both accounts are almost exclusively editing about or inserting sources by Juchter van Bergen Quast, the current coadjutor of the order[26], and author of sources published on Wordpress and Academia.edu, e.g. this one, added by Rabbijacob to our article on the Knights Templar[27] and reverted by User:Doug Weller. Sintjacob added similar surces by the same author to e.g. our article on the Earl of Dunbar[28] or to Maltese heraldry[29]. Fram (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you think an SPI is appropriate here? Doug Weller talk 09:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Would probably be rejected as no overlap or stale, and (despite the denial) the two accounts being used bu the same user is obvious anyway. Fram (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    I left a message on their talk page already, but want some additional eyes on it. User:ThiagoMizer has made 28 contributions to geography related pages since June 10 2026. Some examples that stand out:

    I haven't gone through all of their edits, but I believe most if not all are related to adding citations. I noticed that these citations had the same name appearing multiple times, including a thesis. Per WP:SELFCITE and WP:THESIS, the edits didn't seem right to me, and I notified them on their talk page. I'm not sure if this rises to the level of needing to be cleaned up or not, and hope we can get this editor to do more on those pages then citing a specific author, as they pages are in need of expert help. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: The user has replied on their talk page using a temp account confirming they are the author cited, and stated they are now aware of the policies regarding selfcite. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:22, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Alberto Maria Genovese and several editors

    [edit]


    Evidence collected for a SPI here, copied below. The SPI didn't found evidence of socking, but the whole pattern is concerning.

    This is the pattern that I would expect from a reputation management firm, creating a bunch of "sleeper" accounts, making them do innocent edits sporadically to create a veneer of legitimacy, before using them in concert. (comment originally by cyclopiaspeak! 19:13, 15 June 2026 (UTC) )[reply]

    Possible username match in unsourced COI editing

    [edit]

    Initially caught this user adding unsourced information on multiple articles across Odisha cinema, however, I now suspect to believe this user has a familial connection to two of the individuals whose articles they have edited, with the page linked above referencing a birth name that closely matches the username here (the other article is Aparajita Mohanty). The user has tried to discuss changes they made at Charidham - A Journey Within, however, I believe discussion has gone nowhere after a recent response to it only revealed a website without actually linking the proper source. COI is still suspected due to the username connection. Jalen Barks (Woof) 16:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm looking at my report here again, and I realize I haven't actually finished my full thought here, so I'm making this reply to clarify what I'm asking for here. The most important thing I need to ask is whether this is actually COI with or without possible username policy violation or just a misguided user with a coincidental username. But the other thing I need to ask is for assistance handling the wider issue of the persistent addition of unsourced content (or rather, the user has been able to source some of their edits but only in edit summaries where possible), thus enforcing WP:BURDEN on the user to actually cite in the article. I mostly try to stay away from CTOPS like South Asia for personal reasons, especially the wider Indian film industry in this case. Jalen Barks (Woof) 15:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Donatekart: COI edit request not getting response

    [edit]

    Hello, I am an employee at Donatekart and I have posted an edit request on the Talk page of Donatekart but haven't received any response. The request is to add Forbes India 30 Under 30 2022 to the accolades table and to update some outdated information in the initiatives section. Could a editor please review? The talk page request is here: Talk:Donatekart. Pretti2026 (talk) 06:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Pretti2026 I've fixed your link, the whole url is not needed, just [[Talk:Donatekart]].
    Your requests are open and visible. Asking for it to be fulfilled will not speed this all volunteer process. The only thing you can do is be patient. 331dot (talk) 07:56, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Aurelius Group

    [edit]

    MarkAurel2005 was blocked in July 2025 for promotional COI editing. They were unblocked in August 2025, having promised to not make any further edits to their COI article.

    They were page-blocked from the article in February 2026 for resuming COI editing of the article.

    They made a new account — MarkAurel2026 — a few days later, and today have resumed editing the COI article. They have also promised to start editing the article on the CEO of the organisation in question.

    This would all appear to be suboptimal. • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 13:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    The new account was explained to the community as a succession from one AURELIUS employee who has left the firm, to another. The changes made today are small updates and are all explained. I do not know how I can be more transparent. MarkAurel2026 (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah I know what happened. I meant to suggest the changes, but I actually made them directly. Apologies. This is because I previously changed the German-language Wikipedia page, which operates differently. I got confused. MarkAurel2026 (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1360824071"