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

Pages:

• Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Park Hyeon-joo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users:

• Channy Jung (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 203.239.154.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Chisu1020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Suspected undisclosed COI editors. Single-purpose accounts used exclusively to edit on this person and his foundation. All of the edits are complimentary, and almost entirely unsourced.

I warned Channy Jung ([1]) and 203.239.154.130 ([2]) but both have continued editing Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation and have ignored the warning (Channy Jung edit, Channy Jung second edit IP edit). Chisu1020 has been inactive for a while though, but same pattern of behavior.

I recently rewrote Park Hyeon-joo entirely to get rid of the unsourced promotional-like writing [3]. State of article before the rewrite: [4].

Also worth noting the kowiki version of Park's article is similarly fluffy. I suspect Park/his foundation are watching these articles.

seefooddiet (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those accounts, as well as 203.239.154.131, all seem to be SPA/COI accounts which are not responding to multiple discussion attempts, and should be blocked for some period of time to get their attention. The "foundation" article seems like it would also fail GNG, and should probably be either deleted or merged into the Hyeon-joo article. TiggerJay (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I BOLDly redirected the foundation article to the main Park Hyeon-joo article. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Gilles Epié (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Epie2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Epie2020 has acknowledged a personal connection to Gilles Epié on their talk page but does not seem to consider this a conflict of interest. They were most recently warned about this behavior on 20 December 2023 but continue to make edits to the Gilles Epié article. Vegantics (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been nearly a year since this user's last contribution, unless there are edits to deleted pages. I don't think there's any action to be taken here given that a COI notice has been on the page since 2023. Maybe some work could be done on the article itself? --Richard Yin (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't think the article has a version in page history that doesn't suffer from WP:PROMO issues. I've gone ahead and trimmed it down a bit. --Richard Yin (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a reasonable approach to me. They've been off and on editing the same article for years now, so I wouldn't be surprised if they come back at some point. Hopefully this notice will dissuade them from directly editing the article. Thank you for your work on this. Vegantics (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Burning River Buckets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• C.A. Buttons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:C.A. Buttons has identified himself as the owner of the Burning River Buckets basketball team on his talk page, on my talk page, and on the article's talk page. I've tried over a period of months (and on each of those talk pages) to share information on the COI policy and the need for reliable sources, to no apparent avail. Perhaps others could give it try. -- Pemilligan (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a personalized explanation on their talk page. For now I think it's worth letting their changes to the page more or less stand; their actual contributions in the latest round of edits consisted of deleting some unreferenced information and accidentally removing one reference. --Richard Yin (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Went back and restored the external links section as well. --Richard Yin (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Link to a WP:COIN thread from 2024 regarding an IP editor claiming to be the team's owner: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 207#Burning River Buckets/ABA --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User appears to be/is part of a (self-published) substack publication called Shatter the Standards (their about page makes this fact very obvious) and all of his edits since joining on January 13 2025 have been adding the publication's reviews to album articles (WP:PROMO). For example/recently, on Mac Miller's Balloonerism (today). // Chchcheckit (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chchcheckit The top of this noticeboard clearly says This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue. Why wasn't this done first? I have now left a COI notice on the user's talk page. Melcous (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

my bad. i rushed / wasn't thinking Facepalm // Chchcheckit (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No wirres Chchcheckit, thanks for responding. Hopefully they will respond either here or there. Melcous (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

shatterthestandards.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com SmartSE (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Alexander H. Joffe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 69.121.25.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Claims to be Joffe in a 2007 edit [5]
• 71.249.231.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Edited the article only a day after the above IP to remove a notability tag[6], has only edited the Joffe article, Joffe's area of expertise of Levantine archaeology and The David Project, Joffe's former employer per here.[7]
• 74.88.198.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Claims to be Joffe in this talk page edit [8]
• 24.191.44.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Claims to be Joffe in the same talk page as above [9]
• 31.154.131.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Single edit on the page promoting Joffe's podcast[10], IP is from Israel where Joffe has done work in the past.[11] I find it rather unlikely some random Israeli wants to add a link to a minor academic's podcast.
• 67.82.155.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Made 2 edits to Joffe article, has New Rochelle, NY IP, only a few miles from SUNY Purchase where Joffe formerly taught.

There are other IPs which have only one edit to Joffe's article that could well be him as well but I don't think that's enough evidence to go by, nor would it be worthwile given how much Joffe's IP seems to change. Gazingo (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not really actionable directly as all of these account edits are from several years ago. IP addresses span multiple networks and we wouldn’t block them broadly without good reason. Only thing at the moment is to keep an eye out on this article. If new IP edits become persistently disruptive you could request page protection, but one or two anonymous edits once a year wouldn’t even qualify for that unless there were serious BLP concerns. Use revert instead. TiggerJay (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Discussion should remain at WP:ANI BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Earth System Governance Project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• EMsmile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Pinging @EMsmile:. See the extensive discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Non-neutral_paid_editor. Would like a subject matter expert/COI expert to figure this out. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Bluethricecreamman, that ANI thread has become crazy long, should we (or someone) perhaps summarise what the COI question about me is exactly, for the benefit of the people watching this noticeboard? You might be in a better position to do that than me. - My question would be: is the COI management explanation that I give on my profile page at the top under "disclosure" sufficient/correct? The ANI got started by someone who claimed my edits at solar radiation modification were adding "PR" because I am a paid editor and have a COI. I have rejected this claim and believe I have followed procedures correctly. I have however said in the ANI thread that I would be happy to ban myself from editing the Earth System Governance Project article in future due to the various connections between that alliance of academics and my client, the "Earth System Governance Foundation". EMsmile (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note here that EMsmile also wrote 98% of Frank Biermann, the founder of the ESG Project. I'm not sure what question this COIN thread is supposed to be answering. What are we supposed to be figuring out here? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no clue. never posted anything to COI/N. Just trying to get folks who know how to handle it or similar situations' take. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, since you don't have a specific question for COIN, I suggest that people who are interested comment at AN/I instead of here. Having a discussion take place in two different pages is very stressful, especially for the person whose conduct is being discussed. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Page has been deleted and salted BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Mockbul Ali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article had been deleted after prior WP:COIN discussion, has now been created again. I've tagged for deletion. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page in question complies with all of Wikipedia’s criteria and is factual with no commentary. There are references also included. The page is also identical in form to dozens of other pages for British diplomats. The UK diplomatic service has only a handful of diplomats from ethnic minority backgrounds, therefore it is worthwhile having a page on one of the very few ethnic minority British Ambassadors (of which there have been less than a dozen in the last 100 years). The aim surely has to be to improve the page and not delete it. 2A02:C7C:F349:3A00:7507:2D93:8FC:5D8F (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Long history of puffery and sock puppetry. Probably does not meet our notability guidelines and we strongly suspect it's an autobiography. Secretlondon (talk) 08:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Jay8g: and @Axad12:. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page in question complies with all of Wikipedia’s criteria and is factual with no commentary. There are references also included. The page is also identical in form to dozens of other pages for British diplomats. The UK diplomatic service has only a handful of diplomats from ethnic minority backgrounds, therefore it is worthwhile having a page on one of the very few ethnic minority British Ambassadors (of which there have been less than a dozen in the last 100 years). The aim surely has to be to improve the page and not delete it. 2A02:C7C:F349:3A00:7507:2D93:8FC:5D8F (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• EnterpriseDB (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• EDBWiki25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repetitive edits with promotional and unsourced content. Article has a history of seemingly paid editors and/or closely affiliated editors. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 22:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User hasn't responded to any talk page messages or made any other attempt to communicate besides two very short edit summaries. A block might be needed to get their attention (and also per username policy). See also User talk:Bilal Ibrar at EDB. --Richard Yin (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They've been blocked for spam. Secretlondon (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I listed all the potential COI/undisclosed paid editors in the article's history on the article talk page. Not a single one ever disclosed a connection to the company, but a bit of searching found that the majority were rather obvious. As the blocked editor is the only one recently active, there's no point in notifying any of the others. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Gerald Pereira (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Frederick Noronha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Subodh Kerkar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Museum of Goa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Isidore Dantas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• SerChevalerie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

SerChevalerie has been involved with a number of undisclosed COI editing over the years. Starting off with this recent COI article on his grandfather Gerald Pereira, he contributed to it significantly for months even after he was warned by an admin [12]

He also edits on BLP articles like Frederick Noronha and Isidore Dantas with whom he has external relationships, some of his edits on Noronha are [13], [14], [15]. For Dantas' article see [16], [17], [18]

SerChevalerie has also an apparent undisclosed paid COI on articles Subodh Kerkar and Museum of Goa. I have the relevant private evidence to prove for the same. Another fact to add here is Kerkar's article that was created had some copyvio problems when it was created. SerChevalerie created the page again and reworked on it from start [19], which he himself has confirmed it via the article's talk page [20]. The article Museum of Goa is a business owned by Kerkar, SerChevalerie is also seen involved in editing during the same 2018-19 phase, see [21], [22]

My conclusion with the last two articles is that he has a business or private relationship with Subodh Kerkar himself. I'm not sure how much COI or paid COI editing he has done so far. But the articles he created on and before the year 2020 need further scrutiny.Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 11:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the rest of this post, this noticeboard isn't really equipped to handle private evidence of COI. Have you sent it to WP:COIVRT? --Richard Yin (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Yin No, I haven't send it there. But I did sent a report to WP:ARBCOM which included the COI issues but it was likely overlooked over other behaviour problems with this editor. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 04:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yissum Research Development Company of the Hebrew University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hubermantamir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tvogelyissum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hubermantamir is the organization's Chief Information Officer, and Tvogelyissum is its Marketing and Communications Manager. Neither has made any effort to hide their identity, but they haven't declared their COI/paid editing. The article is now up for AfD, but regardless of the outcome, the two editors should likely be topic-banned from any page related to their employer. Owen× ☎ 15:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfD was closed and the article redirects to Hebrew University of Jerusalem#Yissum. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see anywhere where either of them voluntarily discloses their affiliation, which concerns me that this report crosses the WP:OUTING line. Also, I don't see where either of them has been warned about undisclosed paid editing, so I have left both of them {{uw-paid1}} notices. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

their old user page looks like a self disclosure for User:Hubermantamir. TSventon (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no OUTING involved. As I mentioned above, neither of the two is editing anonymously. Both use their legal name as their WP username, one includes the name of her employer in her username, and the other mentioned his position in an old version of his Userpage. There's no attempt to harass them, just to enforce our paid editing policy. Owen× ☎ 12:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Devanga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Vinothksoms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Phenomenological philosopher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The following edit request has not been addres sed, and I believe it requires review for potential conflict of interest (COI).

Edit Request: Remove the following line from the article:

"They are of Shudra status in the Hindu caste system.[7][8][9][10] However, they use the Devanga Purana, a text sacred to the Devangas, to claim Brahmin status, despite having a non-Brahmin profession.[11][12] They replaced their native local gotras with Sanskritic gotras.[13]"

Reason for removal: The statement lacks sufficient clarity and reliable citations, leading to potential misunderstandings or misrepresentation of the group's caste status. Additionally, the phrasing could be seen as problematic without clearer context or more authoritative sources.

Discussion points raised by users:

Vinothksoms argues that the claim about their assertion of Brahmin status and use of Sanskritic gotras may require further reliable sources to ensure neutrality and clarity. Phenomenological philosopher highlights that Hindu sacred texts, including the Bhagavad Gita and the Tirumurai, advocate for spiritual equality and reject caste-based discrimination. The inclusion of caste-based ranking contradicts Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and the principles of egalitarianism presented in modern Hindu reform movements. Given the sensitivity and complexity of the subject, I request COIN to review whether there is a potential COI affecting the neutrality of the edits or the content in question. Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Phenomenological philosopher (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• State Committee on Affairs with Religious Associations of the Republic of Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Anar Məcidzadə Feyruz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On the Azerbaijan version of Wikipedia, the editor self-describes as working for the PR division of the State Committee on Affairs with Religious Associations. Thenightaway (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Warned the editor about undisclosed paid editing, edit warring and editing while logged out. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately disruption continues, most recently an hour or so ago. The contested material has now been removed 6 times in about 6 days. I've requested page protection at WP:RPPI but I wonder if blocking the user and their IP would be desirable? Copying in C.Fred who has also been active in reverting the (apparently politically motivated) removals.

Alternatively, is AfD (or similar) an option? Axad12 (talk) 09:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A relatively new user with two edits came onto my talk page to accuse me of having some COI, harassing, and threatening me with being blocked. It's so out of the blue, yet also consistent with scammers. I routinely have over the past almost 18 years disclosed every single even remote conflict of interest that I might have, to the point of disclosing my partisan political income for the past several years and not !voting on articles for deletion if I'm even friends of friends of the subject, most recently yesterday. I'm bringing this here because I want the community to (1) resolve this issue in my favor, (2) stop the harassment of me and to prevent others from being harassed, (3) investigate what specifically I've been accused of and why the user has accused me unfairly, and (4) find out whether the user has used sockpuppet accounts by doing a check-user. I'm going to alert the user. I will not be censored. Bearian (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like a throwawy account created to annoy, rather than a serious editor or a serious attempt to discuss anything. Giving them a PA warning for unsupported accusations. Acroterion (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I still want a full, check-user investigation, to forestall any future attempts to harass. Bearian (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm not a CU, you might best direct your request directly to a CU, together with any evidence you can assemble about who it might be. Acroterion (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is that you simply not feed the troll if all they’re doing is being disruptive on your talk page. If you don’t respond theyll likely go away shortly. Even if you do an SPI and they block the user, if this person is intent on harassment, they’ll just create another account and you’ll be stuck in a game of whack a mole for as long as they want to keep it up. SPI is mostly a reactionary measure, after harm has been done, and cannot prevent a new account from being created. (Technically they can but as we can see, evasion is trivial). Of course, you can follow the directions at WP:SPI if you have evidence of sock puppetry. If it just blocking a single account for this sort of abuse, then WP:ANI is your next stop. TiggerJay (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]