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

    Antifaschistische Aktion

    [edit]

    I am raising a conflict-of-interest and neutrality concern regarding the editing conduct of User:Bobfrombrockley in topic areas related to the historical political entity Antifaschistische Aktion, contemporary Antifa movements, and anti-fascism. The user publicly identifies as a “Marxist” and has stated alignment with the Antifa movement. Off-wiki statements by Bob from other (public) social media demonstrate explicit political identification with the subject matter they are editing.[1][2][3][4] The Twitter (X) profile is linked on the user's Wikipedia profile. The pattern of edits appears to align with those stated views in ways that raise neutrality issues.

    Recent edits to Antifaschistische Aktion are illustrative. The historical organization is widely described in reliable academic literature as an entity closely controlled and affiliated with the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) in the late Weimar Republic, including its hostile stance toward Weimar liberal democracy. Edits by this user have reduced or reframed this characterization, emphasizing a broader "anti-fascism" framing while minimizing the organization's communist ideological orientation and party ties — and doing so against prior established consensus on the article. Despite being directed toward existing consensus and sourcing on this point,[5][6] the user continued to alter or undo these conclusions without seriously engaging with them.[7][8] The resulting edits rely on selective sourcing and undue weighting to obscure the historical nature of the organization. All of this raises concerns under WP:COI.

    There appears to be a broader pattern of similar engagement across Antifa-, Marxism-, and anti-fascism-related pages. I am requesting administrative review of the editing pattern and consideration of topic restrictions in Antifa/anti-fascism-related areas if warranted, as it harms the encyclopedic value of articles, in my opinion. Zerbrxsler (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    It is stated at the top of this page, 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. It appears you haven't done that. Try resolving this at User talk:Bobfrombrockley or Talk:Antifaschistische Aktion before bringing it here. -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no basis for constructive discussion if User:Bobfrombrockley does not acknowledge the previous consensus. I see this, combined with the agressive editing, as destructive, bad faith behaviour. Editors can not ignore previous consensus out of political leanings, so that there is no basis to work on, and I have reason to assume that the political engagement of the user plays into this.
    I interpret this behaviour as not having the scientific discourse or a proper encyclopaedic impression of this matter in mind, but mainly ideological tendencies. When constructive cooperation is outright denied, a user discourse according to Wiki rules is not possible. I am not informed how else to bring this up, and if this was the wrong way, then I have to apologize. Zerbrxsler (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that you appear not to have edited Talk:Antifaschistische Aktion since July last year, I fail to see why you think there is anything to 'bring up'. 'Constructive discussion' requires actual discussion... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do point to the consensus on the article talk page and I’ll of course respect it. All I saw was you arguing against other editors. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to say thanks Zerbrxsler for bringing to my attention that my user page had a link to what used to be called Twitter, where I've not really been active in the Musk era. I've changed it now to a Bluesky link but anyone interested can follow the links you helpfully provide. But my descriptions as "Antifa domestic extremist" alongside some of the other outlandish things people have called me was a lame attempt at humour. I can also confirm that I have never lived in Germany and am not a member of Antifaschistische Aktion, which, as one can learn in our article, wound up in 1933 (a little before I was born).
    If any other editors feel Zerbrxsler's complaint has legs, I'd be happy to give a more detailed account of myself. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Having a political opinion doesn't constitute a conflict of interest. If it did the vast majority of contributors would be in violation of it, and I'd have to suggest that the minority that don't should probably get out more... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's entirely unsurprising that editors who edit antifascism pages hold sentiments negative to fascism. So do most of the editors who edit the fascism pages. This is because fascism is a deeply unpopular political ideology. With that being said, I've edited alongside @Bobfrombrockley both on topics where we agree and on topics where we are diametrically opposed and, in all that time I've never known them to be anything other than a model wikipedian. This COI filing is spurious in the extreme. Simonm223 (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't COI editing and doesn't belong here unless you are suggesting Bobfrombrockley is affiliated with and editing on behalf of an organisation that hasn't existed for 90 odd years ToeSchmoker (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a WP:COI issue. Having political opinions or identifying as Marxist/Antifa-sympathetic does not constitute a conflict of interest under Wikipedia policy. WP:COI applies to direct personal, financial, or organizational connections (e.g., paid editing or membership in the subject organization), not ideological alignment.
    This appears to be a simple content dispute over due weight and WP:NPOV on how the KPD's role in Antifaschistische Aktion is presented. Such disagreements should be resolved on the article talk page with reliable sources, not through a COI filing. If there are concerns about POV-pushing, the correct venues are the article talk page, WP:RSN, or an RfC — not this noticeboard. @Bobfrombrockley is under no obligation to accept one editor's preferred framing as "consensus," especially without recent talk page discussion. Lexlex (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]


    References

    Review request: Draft:LNET

    [edit]

    Hello. I am declaring a conflict of interest as a professional collaborator of LNET. I have submitted a draft article at Draft:LNET through AfC. I would appreciate if an independent editor could review it for neutrality, verifiability, and encyclopedic notability. Thank you. Daniel.zarate.ortiz (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    @Daniel.zarate.ortiz, first you need to write it in English. Schazjmd (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Mohammed Tayem

    [edit]

    This article is a highly promotional vanity page that appears to be an undisclosed paid edit or self-promotion. The text relies heavily on corporate press releases (e.g., Zawya, Campaign Middle East) to puff up a marketing executive, while inserting unsubstantiated or misleading claims regarding political status to bypass basic notability filters. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Could an administrator please review for promotional cleanup or deletion? ~2026-29935-38 (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, thank you for following. I only translated the content; feel free to change anything you want in the article to comply with Wikipedia's policies. Elite words2 (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked the history on the page; I don't think I made any edits to it. Elite words2 (talk) 06:38, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Apologies, upon closer look at the page history, the original creation appears linked to a regional contest rather than this specific editor, though the article tone and source mapping still remain highly promotional and conflictual. Leaving to admin discretion. ~2026-29935-38 (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    COI edit request at Talk:Accesso — no response after 4 weeks

    [edit]

    Val Morgan

    [edit]

    == Val Morgan (edit | talk | history | watch | logs) ==

    Reporting sustained conflict of interest editing by User:Jakecopp of the Val Morgan article.

    Evidence of COI

    [edit]

    On 13 May 2026, Jakecopp created a 'Facial Recognition' section on this page (+2,178 bytes) and added DART-related content. On the same day, he posted a LinkedIn comment explicitly citing his own Wikipedia edit as "the publicly verifiable VMO capability I'm aware of" — linking directly to the section he had just created. This demonstrates the edits were made to support an external campaign, not as encyclopaedic contribution. Screenshots are available upon request.

    Additionally, a journalist cited in the article's references (Jeremy Nadel, ref 28) was an active participant in the same LinkedIn campaign, representing a compounding sourcing COI.

    Key inaccurate claims introduced

    [edit]
    • DART "tracks over 2 million Australians" — DART is anonymous and aggregated. Source: [[1]]
    • VMO "combines facial analytics with...transaction data to create prediction models" — DART does not identify individuals
    • Section headed "Facial Recognition" with See Also link to Bunnings matter — DART is not facial recognition
    • SmartScreen cameras described as "semi-camouflaged" — unverified third party claim

    Further concern

    [edit]

    On 18 May 2026, User:Cullen328 reverted edits by Val Morgan Communications as COI, restoring Jakecopp's campaign-motivated edits while removing factual corrections — the inverse of what WP:COI intends.

    Requests

    [edit]
    1. Page protection pending review
    2. Review of Jakecopp under WP:COI
    3. Correction of Facial Recognition section
    4. Reconsideration of 18 May revert

    Evidence available upon request. == Val Morgan (edit | talk | history | watch | logs) ==

    Reporting sustained conflict of interest editing by User:Jakecopp of the Val Morgan article.

    Evidence of COI

    [edit]

    On 13 May 2026, Jakecopp created a 'Facial Recognition' section on this page (+2,178 bytes) and added DART-related content. On the same day, he posted a LinkedIn comment explicitly citing his own Wikipedia edit as "the publicly verifiable VMO capability I'm aware of" — linking directly to the section he had just created. This demonstrates the edits were made to support an external campaign, not as encyclopaedic contribution. Screenshots are available upon request.

    Additionally, a journalist cited in the article's references (Jeremy Nadel, ref 28) was an active participant in the same LinkedIn campaign, representing a compounding sourcing COI.

    Key inaccurate claims introduced

    [edit]
    • DART "tracks over 2 million Australians" — DART is anonymous and aggregated. Source: [[2]]
    • VMO "combines facial analytics with...transaction data to create prediction models" — DART does not identify individuals
    • Section headed "Facial Recognition" with See Also link to Bunnings matter — DART is not facial recognition
    • SmartScreen cameras described as "semi-camouflaged" — unverified third party claim

    Further concern

    [edit]

    On 18 May 2026, User:Cullen328 reverted edits by Val Morgan Communications as COI, restoring Jakecopp's campaign-motivated edits while removing factual corrections — the inverse of what WP:COI intends.

    Requests

    [edit]
    1. Page protection pending review
    2. Review of Jakecopp under WP:COI
    3. Correction of Facial Recognition section
    4. Reconsideration of 18 May revert

    Evidence available upon request. Isthisthereallifeor (talk) 07:13, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    As an administrator. I reverted edits by an account with an obvious and glaring conflict of interest and a username violation, and blocked the account. Isthisthereallifeor, please declare your connection to Val Morgan. I am not advocating any specific content. I am simply trying to stop COI editing and username violations. 08:27, 22 May 2026 (UTC) Cullen328 (talk) 08:27, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    hey Jim, fair enough, we thought being very clear who we were was the best way to update our company page. to confirm, I also work at Val Morgan. Thank you. Isthisthereallifeor (talk) 08:48, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Isthisthereallifeor and @Cullen328,
    Thanks for raising this. I initially didn't think this was a conflict of interest as I did not make any reference to a physical installation I was concerned about. However, on re-reading WP:COI, and given my edits focused on gambling advertising and privacy topics - which I raised as a concern regarding the specific installation - I recognise this complaint has merit.
    Given this concern and my review of WP:COI, I will pre-emptively revert my edits and refrain from editing in such a situation (and I will make no further edits to the Val Morgan page). Rather than defend the 'Key inaccurate claims introduced', I'll leave that for future editors with no potential COI to determine (or what modifications might be needed). Thanks for alerting me of the issue.
    I did not cite https://thefifthestate.com.au/columns/spinifex/leave-the-parks-alone-fury-over-gambling-cube-at-family-friendly-central-park-mall/ - however I appreciate that not citing a critique of this installation (that I criticised) may not be sufficient to mitigate a potential conflict of interest regarding my social media post.
    Some of the previously reverted edit included updates for out of date information which would be good to incorporate. I made edits to fix infobox errors, add more wiklinks, improve citations and incorporated some changes from the reverted edit (diff: [3]) - though I will revert all my changes out of abundance of caution. For the benefit of a future editors, the reverted edit (diff [4]) appears to include LLM generated content with non-existent citations (eg. to https://www.valmorgan.com.au/locations) so this text will need manual verification before incorporation. Jakecopp (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Isthisthereallifeor, you must fully comply with the Paid contributions disclosure. This is mandatory and non-negotiable. Your use of the word "we" is also a problem, as shared Wikipedia accounts are not permitted. An account is for one person only. Please clarify. Do multiple people have access to this account? Cullen328 (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Now understood on the disclosures, thank you. 'We' refers to myself (isthisthereallifeor) and a colleague (Val Morgan Communications) who was blocked updating the page due to breaking the Paid Contributions Disclosures. Only one person has access to each account. Thank you for your assistance here. Isthisthereallifeor (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    St Leonard's Catholic School, Durham

    [edit]

    This user is a WP:SPA who adds unsourced or poorly-sourced (school's website) information to this article. I have asked them three times on their Talk page if they are connected to the school, but they have not replied. Tacyarg (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul du Quenoy

    [edit]

    This IP editor has mostly made edits related to Paul du Quenoy, some of which have been unsourced, and one of which removed a tag without resolving the issue (need for third-party citations). They have referred to themselves as "we" several times. I have asked them whether they are a single person using the account, and asked them twice about a conflict of interest, but they have not answered and have continued to edit the article. Tacyarg (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, I have replied to user Tacyarg to address these concerns and we are working toward a productive solution on the article's Talk page. ~2026-24733-89 (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for responding here, IP editor, though we are not discussing this on the article's Talk page. You perhaps mean your own Talk page. I will follow up there. Tacyarg (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding Problem on List of equipment of the Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces

    [edit]
    Resolved
     – This is not a COI issue, see WP:CONTENTDISPUTE if edit warring continues ToeSchmoker (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]


    User:~2026-27776-84 is failing to engage in consensus-building regarding List of equipment of the Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces.

    I attempted to update the article using Military Balance 2026 and removed unsourced content to align with the standard used at List of equipment of the Venezuelan Armed Forces. User:~2026-27776-84 reverted these changes entirely without justification. When I sought consensus on the talk page, they responded with strawman arguments and subsequently reverted my edits again. Mehmed Nâzım (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    What's the COI problem? This sounds more like a content dispute. ToeSchmoker (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Also as nobody on that page is using edit summaries it's very difficult to parse anybody's justification for inclusion or removal criteria. I don't see any evidence of COI, just evidence of a protracted edit-war. Simonm223 (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for review of unfairly deleted Wikipedia Article of Ex Miss El Salvador Public Personality

    [edit]

    Hello, we are a team of PR representatives that have now took the responsibility of righting this unfair and unjust situation.

    We are requesting an admin/ editor review that can help right this wrong regarding the deletion of the Wikipedia article related to Julia Mora, former Miss El Salvador and Miss Universe contestant.

    There is concern that the article may have been targeted through misleading edits and inaccurate information added by another editor prior to deletion.

    We would respectfully ask that administrators review the editing history and evaluate the page based on reliable independent sources documenting her public career and pageant participation.

    We are prepared to provide supporting references including media coverage, contestant records, interviews, and archived publications verifying notability and factual accuracy.

    Thank you for your time and consideration. Team Julia Mora (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Team accounts are not permitted. Accounts are strictly single person use only and may not be shared. 331dot (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't use an AI to talk to us.
    The article was converted to a redirect in 2017 as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Mora. If you can address the reasons for this, you may use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft. 331dot (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    SAMALA YADAGIRI PRTU

    [edit]

    This editor has been editing the draft under this and previous account Amanvarma1029. They've had multiple COI and promotional warning notices but haven't responded to any of them. [5][6][7][8] Both accounts are exclusively focused on this draft and have no interest in contributing towards Wikipedia elsewhere.
    They've also never engaged with any other editors on Talk pages - they're laser-focused on getting this draft published.
    There's almost certainly a conflict of interest present, but this editor will not declare it; they've had ample opportunity to do so over the past 23 days since this draft was first created and receiving their first warning notice.
    Also note that "PRTU" stands for the "Panchayat Raj Teachers Union", an organisation that Yadagiri apparently founded (according to the draft). Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 15:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Quick update that their draft has been declined for the fourth time, [9] but they haven't edited since I sent them the notice for this discussion. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 21:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Jared Porter

    [edit]

    User LegendNo12 has exclusively edited edited the page Jared Porter, or other pages to add material about Jared Porter. Said edits have been on several occasions deemed promotional, or of a poor nature - for instance, this edit, which was reverted by Muboshgu, claiming Porter had been fired "without cause", or this edit where the user added clearly promotional material to the lede of the article. The same user has been warned multiple times on their talk page (I'm horrible at linking things by using source editing, please use the link above to their talk page) by a legacy IP user and users CharterTheGoob and Inzessin to not post promotional material or to make COI edits, but has continued to do so. At this point, I think it's appropriate to limit their ability to make edits related to Jared Porter. Putting a notification on their talk page, but then willing to answer any questions. Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    If LegendNo12 does not communicate here (which is required), does anybody object to my blocking them from editing that page? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem here, but I'd wait an appropriate amount of time, just to be certain. 24 hours, at a minimum.
    Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. I may need a ping to remind me. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, well now I've been accused by him of vandalism via his latest edit. Do you think it'd be appropriate for you to give the page temporary protection (per WP:PREFER), while I take this to WP:Third opinion? Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be making a personal attack against this public figure, holding him to a standard that other public figures are not held to. What is your intent? The situation you have outlined is already explained in detail within the Career section? Is it better to just shrink the entire intro to the first sentence and then let the rest live in the Career section? LegendNo12 (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I'd remind you that assuming good faith is a cornerstone of Wikipedia - no, I'm not making a personal attack against the fellow. I followed the Wikipedia rabbit hole one day, got to his page, and thought the lead could be improved.
    Second, I'd say no, it's not an unrealistic standard, it's a standard that many men accused of impropriety of any kind share on Wikipedia articles. Brett Kavanaugh, Matt Lauer, Dr. Luke are all very public figures; for a more one-to-one comparison, in the world of sports, you have Ian McCaw, Vince McMahon, Mel Tucker, and Paul Riley; every single one of these men has their firing or fall from grace due to alleged impropriety listed in the lead of the article.
    Third, I'd say no, I truly think the lead is better the way that it is now than how it was previously. If you disagree (and I welcome disagreement) I'd say that you should use the article's talk page to try and build a consensus for your preferred version of the article lead.
    Lastly, I'd point out that besides the issue regarding my edits, you have been told multiple times that some of your edits to Jared Porter seem to rub up against Wikipedia's rules regarding conflict of interest editing, which is why we're here, as well as against the rules around promotional material and original research. Would you be willing to discuss why your edits are largely limited to Tucker's page, or pages that mention Tucker? Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    LegendNo12, was this edit you? I have semiprotected the page for three days due to edit warring. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    LegendNo12 did not answer my question but continued to edit war. I neglected the fact that their account is autoconfirmed and I had only semiprotected the article. At least that will prevent what is likely their TA to edit the page. I have indefinitely blocked the account from editing Porter's page. I would not be shocked if the account is run by the subject of the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    American Youth Academy — Pending COI Edit Request, Additional Sources Available

    [edit]

    I am a paid communications consultant retained by American Youth Academy (AYA), a private school in Tampa, Florida. I am disclosing this relationship in accordance with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines.

    I filed a COI edit request on May 8, 2026 on the Talk page for American Youth Academy, requesting corrections to the founding year, founder attribution, opening sentence, and addition of current accreditation and academic program information. The request is supported by primary government records from the Florida Division of Corporations confirming that American Youth Academy, Inc. (incorporated 2004, Document Number N04000002704) is a legally distinct entity from the Islamic Academy of Florida, Inc. (founded 1992). These are two separate corporations with different document numbers, EINs, incorporators, and boards of directors.

    The current article incorrectly attributes the 1992 founding date and Sami Al-Arian's founder status to American Youth Academy, when government records confirm these apply to the Islamic Academy of Florida, a separate corporation that dissolved in 2004. The article's own body text confirms this distinction but the infobox has not been updated to reflect it.

    I have since identified additional independent secondary sources confirming AYA's 2004 founding date: - Private School Review: https://www.privateschoolreview.com/american-youth-academy-profile - Niche.com: https://www.niche.com/k12/american-youth-academy-tampa-fl/

    I am requesting that a volunteer editor review the pending edit request on the article's talk page. The full request with all supporting documentation is available at Talk:American Youth Academy.

    Thank you for your time and assistance.

    Tampa2026 (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    User Ggck2, flavan-3-ol article, and funding by Mars, Inc.

    [edit]

    Ggck2 chose to reveal his real name and professional affiliation on the user page. He has been publishing literature on flavanols for more than two decades.

    Repeatedly since 2021 (talk page history as user Ggux) with new edits and talk page discussion in May 2026, Ggck2 has been trying to emphasize the COSMOS study, shown here, a clinical trial on the possible health effects of consuming supranormal amounts of cocoa flavanols. The trial results showed there was no difference from placebo for primary endpoints by supplementing with flavanols (a different treatment than with a multivitamin shown in the publication).

    The COSMOS study received funding from the American cocoa/candy company, Mars Inc., over many years for university-based research on flavanols, as announced in a 2022 Mars corporate (Mars Edge) release here. Mars sells a cocoa flavanol supplement called CocoaVia.

    User Ggck2 (who also appears to be Ggux in the 2021-22 edits and talk page discussions) is a university-based scientist publishing flavanol studies, some of which were coauthored with a Mars, Inc. employee, and were funded by Mars. Two of Ggck2's publications are used as references in the flavan-3-ol article (current #s 14, 24).

    Despite considerable discussion on the same talk page issues raised 5 years ago, and on User talk:Ggux and User talk:Ggck2, about a conflict of interest (still not self-disclosed), Ggck2 is unproductively expanding the involvement of other editors by requesting a third opinion on whether to reference the null COSMOS study in the flavan-3-ol article.

    Mention of the COSMOS study in the flavan-3-ol article would give a sense of WP:PROMO for Mars and WP:ADVOCACY for flavanol products such as CocoaVia. It seems natural to wonder if Ggck2 is looking for the favor of further Mars funding by giving the Mars-sponsored COSMOS study publicity on Wikipedia.

    It would be preferable for Ggck2 to move on, avoid editing the flavan-3-ol article entirely due to the COI with Mars, and contribute his expertise neutrally to other topics in the encyclopedia. Zefr (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    The Conflict of Interest policy states that subject matter experts are welcome to contribute. Having conducted research into polyphenols for more than two decades, I do believe I fall within this category.
    My research funding is disclosed on my talk page, but as is common at UK universities, the funding goes to my employer, not myself.
    The edit @Zefr refers to a neutral comment and a link to an existing Wikipedia entry. As there are precedents fit and against mentioning a study, I took a third, neutral opinion of useful.
    The accusation of being paid for an edit, or editing to incur favours, are wrong.
    I believe a discussion of the merit of including the study or not, and its scientific quality, is beyond the scope of this discussion.
    Finally, I would like to point out that this user has referred me to a sock puppet investigation first and only raised this issue here after this investigation was closed.
    Ggck2 (talk) Ggck2 (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This publication on flavan-3-ol intake and its "Competing interests" notes show the specific COI concern: the article's first author is a Mars scientist, the study was financed by Mars, Ggck2's real name is among the authors, and Ggck2 is named as a grant recipient: "G.G.C.K. has received an unrestricted research grant from Mars Inc."
    The purpose of this study - to identify biomarkers of dietary flavan-3-ols - is used in commercial promotion of the Mars flavanol supplement, CocoaVia, here. Zefr (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You are referring to a paper that was published in 2018 and focused on the development of nutritional biomarkers. I do not understand in what way this is relevant for this discussion. You are accusing me of being paid to edit wikipedia - this is not evidence for such a behaviour.
    Ggck2 (talk) Ggck2 (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No one has accused you of being paid to edit Wikipedia. Your research on flavanols was funded by Mars Inc. and involved Mars coinvestigators over many years. Mars has exploited the results of your research to promote its flavanol supplement, CocoaVia, over many years.
    It would be wise for you to not mention the COSMOS study – which was financed in part by Mars, Inc. and is being used to promote sales of CocoaVia – in your editing of any Wikipedia article that might benefit Mars marketing.
    The COI concern about your editing is a) that your past and/or current research is associated with marketing via Mars funding and coworkers, and b) by your 5-year persistence for this issue on the flavan-3-ol article and talk page, that you appear to be advocating flavanols as potential health products, indirectly in support of Mars and CocoaVia. Zefr (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you - but I would generally appreciate for you to avoid conflating different issues.
    1. a single edit referring to an already existing Wikipedia page (Women's Health Initiative#COcoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study (COSMOS)).
    2. That I have made this edit with an ulterior motive, to obtain "further Mars funding by giving the Mars-sponsored COSMOS study publicity on Wikipedia" and could thus be considered to be paid to edit.
    3. That this is part of a long term campaign and linked to edits 5-years and more ago.
    I will try to respond to each of these:
    1. Whether or not Women's Health Initiative#COcoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study (COSMOS) should be mentioned on the page is - in my opinion - an editorial decision that is not part of a conflict of interest discussion. There are arguments for and against, and there are precedents on Wikipedia for and against. But I think it is important to note that an entry for COSMOS does already exist and all I have done is to provide a link.
    2. By editing with my full name - and a link to all my research and research funding - I am as transparent as possible. I have been conducting flavanol research for more than 20 years, and I have published papers that use data from Women's Health Initiative#COcoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study (COSMOS). This makes me a subject matter expert on the topic. I do not cite my own papers (although I can see some of them cited on Wikipedia), and the edit I have made [10] is a neutral statement of fact. It is difficult to see how this edit could be used to obtain further funding.
    3. The entry on this noticeboard has been preceded by a Sockpuppet investigation was closed by an administrator who found no rules had been broken (no rules were broken and it is impossible to infer any information from old IP data).
    I appreciate that there can be disagreements, and that sometimes these disagreements can be quite intense. However, attempting to resolve an editorial question (which, in my opinion, this is) by arguing ad hominem and initiating several investigations (the Sock Puppet Investigation within a couple of hours after my edit - and I was not even informed of it) does not appear to be in the spirit of Wikipedia. Ggck2 (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Several points to close this notice:
    1. When you were user Ggux (2015-2022), you were informed of an IP sockpuppet investigation on 7 Sep 2022 by administrator Bbb23 with Special:Diff/1109088173. You didn't respond to that query. Because Bbb23 has been inactive for several weeks, I requested the background SPI (conducted by an admin) for the suspicious IP address.
    2. On the Ggux user page with Special:Diff/1107491460 dated 30 Aug 2022, you disclosed your COI and said: "Terribly biased - and aware of it."
    3. On 7 Sep 2022 two hours before the Bbb23 message, you (as user Ggux) left a COI template on your user page with Special:Diff/1109074997, claiming COI on the Wikipedia articles for Flavan-3-ol, Catechin, Polyphenol, Health effects of phenols, Biomarker, and Bioactive compound. Then you retired the Ggux username, and 3 days later became user Ggck2.
    4. Ggux disclosed COI for the underlined topics above, and so should you, Ggck2, disclose COI (and "terrible bias") for the same articles, and avoid editing these articles (you can raise issues on the respective talk pages). There are dozens of articles related to flavan-3-ol and other polyphenols where your expertise would be of value to the Wikipedia project.
    5. The point of this COI notice is that you should not edit these articles that risk your admitted bias (which is conspicuous in your 5-year insistence in promoting the COSMOS study, even today, on the flavan-3-ol talk page with Special:Diff/1357034347). For flavan-3-ol especially - your main focus of research for 20 years - there is risk of promoting this compound as a health agent, for which there is no good evidence. I notified you of your COI on 27 May 2026 with Special:Diff/1356451426.
    6. Because your research has been funded by Mars, Inc. and coinvestigated by Mars employees in part over many years (Mars continues to exploit your work to market CocoaVia), your COI falls under WP:FCOI, which states: "an editor has a financial conflict of interest whenever they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship."
    To close this COI notice, please a) place the same COI box used by Ggux on your user page, and b) follow the points listed under WP:COIEDIT. Zefr (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate that you seem to have issues with Ggux - but this is not really my problem and you should take this up with them.
    Since you are clearly biased against me - and your behaviour comes close to harassment - I do not think it is appropriate for you to make any demands or decisions without the involvement of other editors or indeed administrators.
    I will no longe entertain a conversation based solely on accusations.
    Ggck2 (talk) Ggck2 (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Bricks & Minifigs

    [edit]

    Editor has removed content from the aforementioned article and attempted to delete an image used there on Commons repeatedly. The latter is not relevant to any outcome here, but it provides context regarding this editor's actions. The editor may have a connection of sorts to the B&M company, which is known to try and cover evidence of their wrongdoing up and I think extra caution should be taken with regards to the developing situation. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 23:06, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    UAE government promotion

    [edit]

    The editor's sole contributions are to add extraordinarily promotional content about the UAE, nearly always sourced to outlandishly promotional non-rs sources. At best, the account is WP:NOTHERE. At worst, the account is working to promote the UAE government. A few random additions: "The UAE is home to around 11 unicorns- mostly in Dubai- with a combined valuation approaching $17.2 billion, solidifying its position as the leading innovation hub in the Gulf."[11], "As of 2025, the UAE ranked as the third-largest global contributor of humanitarian aid - only behind the United States and the European Union-"[12], "Music education in the UAE has seen remarkable growth in recent years"[13], government propaganda on religious tolerance in the UAE[14], claiming a Moldovan-born athlete who won a gold for the UAE at the 2016 Olympics was a "long-standing UAE citizen" after living in Moldova for less than three years[15]. Thenightaway (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Highlighted text at the top of this page reads, This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue. It looks like you didn't do that. You should really do that before coming here. -- Pemilligan (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The user was told by two other editors, "you may have a possible Conflict of Interest" on May 11, and your edit is "promotional and reads like an advertisement" on May 17, neither of which the editor responded to. Thenightaway (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Relationship wrong.

    [edit]

    I am not the daughter of Booker T Newberry III. I am married to his son Booker T. Newberry IV I am his daughter in law Nwillina (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Nwillina. I do not see you mentioned at Booker Newberry III. Which Wikipedia article are you talking about? Cullen328 (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1357477033"