Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
(Redirected from Wikipedia:COIN)
Latest comment: 6 hours ago by Joereddington in topic Tzoller
"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

    Tzoller

    [edit source]
    Latest comment: 6 hours ago10 comments3 people in discussion

    Hey, this is probably overkill but I'm new to COI. The user appears to be inserting (presumably) their own work into various articles. I have reverted, been reverted back, and reached out on talk page of articles, and on user talk page. Unsure what the actual steps are to take. The name of the relevant person appears in various articles including inserts like this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bluetooth&diff=prev&oldid=83203206 from way back in 2006. What is the sort of thing that happens here? Joe (talk) 08:42, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    @Joereddington I went and did a bit of cleanup: Reverted edit(s) to Antivirus software as OR (and COI by extension), along with edits to OBject EXchange, and left a reminder about OR on their TP. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 20:59, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    What happens is that you removed legitimate content with peer reviewed literature from a wiki ? Tzoller (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Ah! Hello there, I'm so pleased you are engaging with this. Can you comment on if you are the "Thierry Zoller" who keeps being mentioned in your insertions? Joe (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    I think the COI guideline says to first discuss this on the accounts TALK page, civilly[..] " If that fails to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period, then open a discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard (COIN)". I would have suggested to not simply remove peer reviewed material on the basis on your assumptions and follow the guideline.
    So may I ask why we end up here ? I had just the time to thank you for pointing me towards information on my talk page only to find out you opened this and removed my edits on what can only be described your personal believe. These additions included peer review literature, which from what I know is how Wikipedia expects sources to be included. Tzoller (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    If you really so please that I engaged, you should have reacted on my Talk page as required by the COI instead of taking it to here. Tzoller (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Wonderful. Can you comment on if you are the "Thierry Zoller" in the citations that you keep adding? Joe (talk) 05:46, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, I'm the Thierry Zoller cited — the username was never meant to hide that. My understanding is that WP:SELFCITE permits citing one's own peer-reviewed work when it's relevant and not excessive, and WP:COI doesn't prohibit editing, it asks for transparency and restraint. In that spirit: going forward I'll propose additions involving my own work on the relevant article talk pages via edit requests rather than editing directly, and I'd ask that the removed material be assessed on its merits by uninvolved editors — some of it is peer-reviewed and, I'd argue, due for inclusion regardless of who added it. If any of it fails WP:DUE or WP:OR on review, fair enough.
    For accuracy: I haven't made any additions since this thread opened. Tzoller (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Appreciate a reply to this, I suggested multiple paths forward as documented in existing procedures.
    Now I see that a page that I create disclosing the COI has been put up for deletion. Tzoller (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Mate, you aren’t a teenager with no knowledge. You know this isn’t how people do meaningful contributions with good intent. Transparent rules-lawyering isn’t helpful. Other Wikipedians can explain things like WP:UNDUE (and indeed, WP:AGF, which I’ll hold my hand up to). Joe (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

    Bryan Freedman / It Ends with Us case - undisclosed COI editing across multiple BLPs

    [edit source]
    Latest comment: 10 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion

    I looked into the editing history of the It Ends with Us lawsuit articles and found what looks like years of hidden COI editing across several BLPs.

    Background. Bryan Freedman article was created in 2021 by an editor banned two months later after SPI. Its main contributor in 2023 later banned too removed a sourced section about a lawsuit against the subject three times, while adding awards and client wins. In April 2024 the same section was removed by a wave of IP reverts, finished off by a 2015 account whose very first edit was that removal. On Steve Sarowitz, an account named after the subject twice cut mention of the dispute, and the whole controversy section was blanked twice more by an IP and a temporary account (all reverted).

    Stella8358 - is the main active problem editor. Since July 2025 almost all their edits (~120) are around this articles, always helping the same side. There is an open SPI (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stella8358) where CheckUser tied six temporary accounts to one that Stella8358 admitted was theirs; three of those edit only these articles. Examples of what they actually write:

    Henrik.petaisto - asleep since 2011, woke up in December 2024 only for these articles. Cut NYT's "...have not pointed to a single error" (Special:Diff/1271164910) and "We plan to vigorously defend" (Special:Diff/1271165479) from Justin Baldoni, while adding the lawsuit sections to Blake Lively's bio (Special:Diff/1266778911).

    The more I look at these pages, the more of this stuff I find. The list above is just the clearest examples. Bringing this here for visibility and extra eyes. Several of these articles still carry contested content from these accounts. Kqol • talk 21:53, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    There is no issue with editors being biased. Why do you think Stella has a COI? Also this talk page is for after discussions on the article and user talk have failed. I do not see any attempt from you to address COI issues at those venues. Czarking0 (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Fair questions.
    Why COI and not just bias:
    • ~120 edits since July 2025, almost all one topic, always the same side.
    • Six CheckUser-linked temporary accounts editing the same pages (see SPI above).
    • A copyvio warning for lifting a party's litigation language.
    • Material from a dismissed countersuit inserted into a third party's BLP.
    And it's not only my reading — several unconnected editors have already reverted or cut this material:
    The "Public image" section on Blake Lively is also tagged POV.
    Discussing this with Stella8358 directly would make sense on its own, but this isn't really about one editor. It's a pattern across several accounts and several articles, and with an open SPI on temporary accounts tied to Stella8358, pinging them first could do more harm than good. Happy to raise it on their talk page now if that's the preferred order.
    Either way, I'd genuinely encourage you to look through the edit histories of these pages yourself. You're more experienced with this kind of thing than I am, and I suspect you'd spot more than I have. Kqol • talk 21:24, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    I've been an editor for almost a decade. I have various topics of interest, this case and its fallout being one of the more recent. I'm not sure why I'm being singled out as there are many, many other editors who are editing articles about this and its related subjects. My history is public, as I'm sure you can see. I am not editing only articles related to this controversy, nor did I create any of the articles. Stella8358 (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    No one said you only edit this topic or that you created the articles. The concern is how concentrated your editing since July 2025, and which way it leans. It isn't only my reading. The diffs above show unconnected editors reverting the same material. Being here a decade doesn't rule out a COI, so if there isn't one, just say so. The temporary accounts a CheckUser flagged as possibly connected to the one you said was yours are a matter for the SPI. Kqol • talk 18:09, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    Adekunleowo: self-citation and whitewashing across Eswatini establishment articles

    [edit source]
    Latest comment: 14 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    User:Adekunleowo self-identifies in sandbox as Adekunle Owolabi, a Swazi24 journalist. Nearly all of their 36 edits add content cited Swazi24 bylines to articles about the Eswatini establishment. See WP:SELFCITE.

    At Mswati III in May 2026 (Special:Diff/1355188142) (Special:Diff/1355185891) they softened the sourced lead ("unrestricted political authority" became "executive authority", "pro-democracy protests violently dispersed" became "protests calling for political reform were dispersed"), removed the sourced sentence on the King's lavish lifestyle together with five references including The Guardian and The Times, and added jubilee praise cited to their own articles.

    At Pholile Shakantu (the Foreign Minister) (Special:Diff/1353446586) they removed the Criticism section without an edit summary inside a large promotional expansion about her media company. They created Michelo Shakantu (the minister's husband) sourced entirely to a newspaper owned by his own group, created his conglomerate Inyatsi Group Holdings and wrote Eswatini Revenue Service almost entirely on their own bylines. They have also drafted Draft:Swazi24 about their own outlet.

    No WP:COI or WP:PAID disclosures. Kqol • talk 22:33, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    尹希文

    [edit source]
    Latest comment: 13 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
    Wrong project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. ~2026-40616-52 (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2026 (UTC) Typing his own biographyReply

    @~2026-40616-52 This is English Wikipedia, and you need to deal with Chinese Wikipedia on Chinese Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Otto Krahn Group

    [edit source]
    Latest comment: 12 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

    UPE as per declaration on her userpage at dewiki. Contractor for Otto Krahn Group. NDG (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    Hello! I am new to Wikipedia and work as a paid freelance communications provider for the company Otto Krahn Group. I have edited the article about MOCOM, an Otto Krahn Group company, and have created a draft for enwiki that is yet to be reviewed.
    I have disclosed my affiliation with the company on my userpage as demanded by the Wikipedia guidelines (UPE). In case that is not enough, please let me know what I can do to resolve the situation. Thank you! Anthralin (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    You made a declaration on your user page on the German-language Wikipedia. This is a separate project; please make a on your user page here also. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:06, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Where is the required prior discussion? This noticeboard should only be used when other attempts to resolve issues have failed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:07, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    Many, all involving sexual abuse in the catholic church

    [edit source]
    Latest comment: 7 days ago7 comments3 people in discussion

    has repeatedly removed information about sexual abuse in the catholic church on many articles. according to their page "I am a theologian, archivist and theater historian working for the Catholic Church"- showing a clear coi. there has been other editors contesting edits on their talk page but nothing has come of it some of the most recent examples are shown here, but there are MANY more https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diocese_of_Youngstown&diff=prev&oldid=1365136164 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diocese_of_Wheeling%E2%80%93Charleston&diff=prev&oldid=1364739839 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archdiocese_of_Washington&diff=prev&oldid=1364589146 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diocese_of_Victoria_in_Texas&diff=prev&oldid=1364572613

    Jackjd0 (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    I am not employed by any of the dioceses I have written about. I have had no personal contact to any of the people covered on the Wikipedia pages. I have no financial interest in making edits, nor have I received any kind of directive from anyone else to do so. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Let me also add that the majority of secondary sources quoted on Wikipedia / Catholicism articles was written by people who "work for the Catholic church" in some sense (including working at universities). Internationally, there are hundreds of thousands of church employees, some of them quite critical, by the way, and not all of them religious "believers." Wikipedia often cites official Catholic homepages for content written by people who "work for the Catholic church." -- Melchior2006 (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    You haven't addressed the specific point raise by Jackjd0: the removal of content relating to allegations of sexual abuse. Such removals may or may not be legitimate, but it seems reasonable enough to ask for an explanation. As for a conflict of interest, if you are employed by the Catholic Church, and editing articles about Catholic dioceses to remove negative content, a CoI could certainly arise, in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    The removals I made were always clearly indicated in my edit summaries (that seems to have been a problem with another editor, who did not do so). I removed allegations that did not lead to any legal results. When the charges were dropped, for whatever reason, the allegations lost their Wikipedia relevance (if they ever had any). What's more, many of these super-detailed accounts addressed only allegations, but they never delivered any references about results. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    i am very busy this weekend so will be unable to fully argue my point on why this is a major coi as much as id like to, but i do feel like it is pertinent to mention that since this has been opened, this person has opened two more talk page discussions attempting to remove details about sexual abuse (after a non talk page removal was revered by me as a coi concern, and me saying i would like future edits to at least be proposed on talk pages), as well as opening a case on the reliable sources noticeboard about an archive of documents and news stories relating to sexual abuse within the catholic church- stating it is "run by activists with their own agenda"- and at no point in this did they mention their coi. this seems like a very straightforward instance of again, a coi coming into play, and i find it genuinely very concerning, as this information is relevant to health and safety of potential future victims, people looking to join churches, etc.
    like, if yall can agree working for the church is a potential coi, id have trouble imagining that repeated removal of information which paints the church in a negative light does not blatantly fall under what is considered problematic in the coi guidelines. i trust yall to make good judgement tho. Jackjd0 (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    There may be a potential CoI, but at the same time we have to be careful that we don't assume that the material removed actually belongs in the articles. WP:BLPCRIME cautions us against naming individuals suspected of offences, but unconvicted. This can be tricky, and really has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. As for hypothetical concerns over the 'health and safety of potential future victims', Wikipedia isn't here to right great wrongs, and adding content purely on such grounds is unacceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    Chocolatewade

    [edit source]
    Latest comment: 1 day ago10 comments3 people in discussion

    Back in 2024, Chocolatewade whitewashed the Mariéme Jamme article: [1]. Moscow Connection (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    Mariéme Jamme article used many unreliable sources and content. After some research I found that there were many conflicting articles that didn't match each other. Even the subject herself had contradicted what she had said in the media. I do not recall the exact details now, but if you are against any edits I have done, you are welcome to raise in the TALK page of the article so we can discuss it in detail. Chocolatewade (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    And his edits to "Moez Kassam" look very suspicious as well. Here's an example: [2]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    This board is for when talk page discussions fail and is for current issues not things from 2024. There is no evidence you have raised the issue on Talk:Moez Kassam nor User Talk: Chocolatewade ~2026-33562-67 (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    They were warned back in 2024 and 2025, first by HaeB and then by Dmitry Bobriakov. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    I don't know why no one is reacting to this notice. I just wanted to notify the administrators. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    I don't know anything about Mariéme Jamme and/or Moez Kassam and I don't care about their articles in the least, definitely not enough to start reverting/edit-warring, but why would anyone do edits like these to the Moez Kassam article if they weren't Moez Kassam himself or his PR agent? I've seen people being blocked for less (for less obvious PR). --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Dmitry Bobriakov who warned the user back in 2025 was himself blocked for "socking and likely undeclared paid editing". --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Exactly! the guy that warned was banned, because he was just posting non-sense. Chocolatewade (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    The last edit I made to Moeze Kassam article I admit was probably not directly relevant to him. I was just trying to improve it, but it got reverted. All the other edits have been live for long and no one has had issues with them. Again if you feel anything was not a good edit, please raise it in the talk page. Just so we are clear, I do not have any COI with any subjects that I have editted. Chocolatewade (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    Adriana Ferreyr - possible coordinated editing and undisclosed COI

    [edit source]
    Latest comment: 2 days ago6 comments5 people in discussion
    Closed, reporter blocked as sockpuppet SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Possible coordinated disruptive editing and undisclosed conflict of interest

    The public revision history shows the following sequence:

    1. Temporary account ~2026-41545-85 (talk · contribs) made a single substantial edit removing approximately 12,437 bytes, including material supported by cited sources, and restored a substantially shorter version of the biography.
    2. Augmented Seventh (talk · contribs) reversed that rollback approximately one minute later.
    3. Purring maggot (talk · contribs) later discussed the temporary account's rollback with Augmented Seventh.
    4. Purring maggot then restored the shortened revision selected by the temporary account and removed additional material.
    5. Shortly afterward, Purring maggot nominated the article for deletion.

    I request that uninvolved editors examine whether these actions were independent, whether any undisclosed external relationship or coordination existed, and whether the removed sources and content were evaluated individually before the deletion nomination.


    NOTE- For clarity, I am not alleging wrongdoing by User:Augmented Seventh. That editor initially reversed the temporary account's rollback and restored the expanded version. The conduct I request reviewed principally concerns temporary account User:~2026-41545-85 and User:Purring maggot.

    I am requesting an investigation and am not asserting that the identity, employer, or client behind any account has already been conclusively established.

    RELEVANT TIMING AND CONTEXT

    The Adriana Ferreyr article was created in 2010 and had existed for approximately sixteen years before this rollback and deletion sequence.

    In March 2026, litigation involving Adriana Ferreyr, George Soros, Columbia University, the Washington Free Beacon, and additional defendants became publicly reported:

    https://freebeacon.com/democrats/george-soross-ex-girlfriend-files-lawsuit-alleging-left-wing-billionaire-free-beacon-and-columbia-university-engaged-in-conspiracy-to-defame-her/

    The substantial temporary-account rollback occurred in July 2026, after the litigation became publicly known, and the deletion nomination followed shortly afterward.

    I understand that timing alone does not establish the identity, motive, employer, or client of any editor. Nevertheless, I request that uninvolved editors examine whether the actions were independent, whether any undisclosed external relationship or coordination existed, and whether the removed sources and content were evaluated individually before the deletion nomination.


    DavidDawsontreeoflife (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    Did you use an AI or LLMs to generate or assist with this text in any way? You will not get in trouble for responding truthfully, whether the answer is yes or no. Morwen (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Hello. I don't know whether this post is implying that I'm a COI editor? The Adriana Ferreyr article was brought to my attention at the AI noticeboard a few days ago due to a series of recent edits by User:Robot100 (such as [3], [4], [5], check the history for more) that were riddled with AISIGNS. While I can't say for certain that the edits were AI, they are filled with highly promotional language, unsourced in some places, or sourced to sites like IMDB and YouTube that aren't reliable or didn't verify the text, which I also explained in my talk post. I would have just reverted the edits, but since it was already reverted by someone else and then restored, I was trying to avoid an edit war. But no, I didn't individually evaluate every single source - we can do that if you want.
    What confuses me about being named here is that the page demonstrably has a history of COI edits - by Robot100. Just check the user's contribs, which are nearly all about promoting Adriana Ferreyr and the TV show she was in, or their talk page which has COI warnings/complaints going back to 2013. The page was also possibly created by a COI editor, Hap791, who originally created the page and campaigned heavily against its deletion, and who also only has edits relating to Adriana Ferreyr. I nominated the article for deletion again because when I tried to find proper sources for the article, I realized this woman was virtually unknown as an actress and all SIGCOV was solely related to the 2011 lawsuit. Anyway, it shouldn't have to be said, but I have no conflict of interest with regards to Adriana Ferreyr (or George Soros?) Plus I'm pretty sure if you think I have a COI, you are supposed to discuss with me first, or on the article talk page, prior to coming to this noticeboard. purringmaggot (talk) 00:41, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    OK, now I find it a little unsettling that so shortly after I contested the COI/LLM edits at Adriana Ferreyr, not only has a new editor materialized to accuse me of COI with their very first edit, but another one has made their inaugural edit to contest the deletion (with obvious LLM comment). Maybe this does belong on this noticeboard?
    edit: I was wrong about the AfD commenter, User:Fresafaraz, they have a grand total of 2 edits on the Portuguese Wikipedia, to add exactly the same content to Adriana Ferreyr that Robot100 added to the English article. purringmaggot (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Comment. Please use original human-written arguments. We don't need more LLM slop flooding Wikipedia. The main issue with Adriana Ferreyr's BLP that it's messed up by large amounts of LLM-generated text. I didn't expect this to blow up into a COI discussion. Now some of us are accused of being Soros operatives, while others are being accused of being Ferreyr operatives. This is totally undue and uncalled for and is getting out of hand.
    Ferreyr was nominated for deletion because of the massive AI slop problem. My opinion is that this can be fixed, and we don't have to delete the article. That does not mean the article nominator is working for Soros, and neither does it mean that people arguing otherwise are necessarily working for Ferreyr.
    Purring maggot is doing a perfect good job, even though I don't agree with him 100%. We should have actual collegial discussions with other users, rather than LLM slop.
    The issue was originally about LLM cleanup. Now it's going totally off the rails. Noxthebigfox (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Helloindiaclick kolkata: apparent undisclosed paid editing

    [edit source]
    Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    The username appears to be a business name (a Kolkata digital marketing outfit). Since 2024 the account has worked exclusively on promotional biographies of unrelated Indian professionals: Draft:Jorson Fernandes (declined three times, deleted G13), Draft:Pradeep Kr Shenoy (declined three times at AfC, then created directly in mainspace as Pradeep Kumar Shenoy, deleted A7 on 19 July 2026), Draft:Mita Banerjee (declined twice), and Soumya Guha (draft deleted G15 on 23 July 2026 as AI generated, then recreated directly in mainspace on 30 July). The account also added a portrait photo to Indranil Khan this morning. The recurring pattern of bypassing AfC into mainspace after declines, the professional portrait uploads, and the company style username are consistent with undisclosed paid editing. No WP:PAID disclosure has been made despite two years of warnings and declines. Balabush (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    Obvious UPE. Indeffed. Bishonen | tålk 13:34, 30 July 2026 (UTC).Reply

    Bon Secours Mercy Health

    [edit source]
    Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

    I'd like to raise a COI concern about RileyD0g and the Bon Secours Mercy Health page, as well as multiple pages associated with the hospital system.

    This issue first came to my attention when seeing the AfD for Mercy Health — Austintown Medical Center, as I am interested in Ohio AfD discussions. In that discussion, I noticed that RileyD0g had created the page and disclosed at the time that they disclosed being paid by Mercy Health Bon Secours for their contributions to other Mercy Health locations, but not this one specifically [6].

    I later proposed merges of additional WP:BRANCH locations of small, regional emergency rooms and local hospitals run by the company (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mercy Health — Dayton Springfield Emergency Center and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mercy Health — Harrison Medical Center Emergency Department. RileyD0g has argued as well as stated in their edit logs that the purpose of these pages is to raise visibility of the hospitals ([7], [8] User talk:RileyD0g#Emergency Department and other articles).

    While I do not agree with this argument and feel that it violates WP:BRANCH, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and WP:NORG, I think the bigger issue here is the violations of WP:EDITCOI.

    1. RileyD0g has extensively edited articles about Bon Secours Mercy health without using the proposed changes talk page procedure
      1. See the edit history on both the main pages Bon Secours Mercy Health, Bon Secours (Virginia & South Carolina) and branches such as Bon Secours Harbour View Medical Center or Mercy Health Fairfield Hospital
    2. They have created over 20 pages for WP:BRANCH level hospital locations affiliated with the company without putting them through the AfC process (see articles created)

    They have recently updated their disclosure on the talk page [9]. This removed the standard paid editing disclosure, on further discussion they have clarified that they are employed by Bon Secours Mercy Health, and that they are not paid to edit Wikipedia [10]. I asked if they were paid for PR (part of the definition of WP:PAID and have not heard back, but given the lack of WP:COMPETENT editing around the COI complaints above, I thought it was worth bringing this to the larger community sooner rather than later. Yojo98 (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    Thank you for a chance to respond.
    @Yojo98 mentions multiple processes that despite being a contributor for close to 20 years, I'm not familiar with. And yes, I have recently read multiple articles on contributing, editing and community protocols. And while I understand it is not their responsibility to assist, it would be in the community's best interest to support infrequent contributors rather than punish them. Yojo98 also states that I have not responded to them. In their post to my Talk page, they never requested a reply. Additionally, it has been less than 48 hours since their comment.
    I have always been transparent about any relationships to content I've created and I've never received compensation for contributions. If I'm doing it the wrong way, then lets do it the right way. I removed the "the standard paid editing disclosure" because it was inaccurate and did not represent my relationship with the content. I replaced it with my own, more accurate statement. If there is another statement I should be using, please let me know.
    I also don't believe any bias has ever entered the articles I have contributed to, except in the form of the choices of articles I've created or edited -- which is unavoidable. I encourage anyone participating in this discussion to review the articles. RileyD0g (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Hi RileyD0g, I won't respond to every part of this in an effort not to WP:BLUDGEON, but I want to clarify that I'm in no way saying that your response time was inadequate, but that I think the level of contributions outside of the guidelines and discouragement found in WP:EDITCOI rose to the point where it makes sense to bring this to the noticeboard and solicit input from other editors.
    I would also hope that you could positively clarify that your role at Mercy Health Bon Secours is not at all related to publicity, as noted in Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#Additional notes on who must disclose. Yojo98 (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    Hindu American Foundation

    [edit source]
    Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments1 person in discussion

    He was told before as well to disclose his COI with Hindu American Foundation,[11] however he is still not doing that. He is still making highly favorable edits for the organization.[12][13] He is also using LLM to post at talkpage.[14] Zalaraz (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    He has been also warned to declare his COI[15] but he is being evasive[16] and imposing highly favorable edits for the organization.[17] Zalaraz (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    Jenny Bhatt

    [edit source]

    Hello. I am the subject of the article titled “Jenny Bhatt”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_Bhatt

    A “close connection” maintenance tag was placed on the article back in October 2021 because my husband previously made edits. While he acted with integrity and provided reliable sources, we have since understood Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, and he immediately stopped editing the page.

    I posted a request for review on the article's talk page a month ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jenny_Bhatt), but it has received no responses. The article is written neutrally and is fully supported by reliable secondary sources. Could an independent volunteer please review the article, check its neutrality, and remove the COI maintenance tag if it is now appropriate to do so? Thank you for your time.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1367257215"