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

    MalwareMustDie

    [edit]

    Most, if not the entirety, of MalwareMustDie appears to be written by User:Kljtech which is a company founded by the MalwareMustDie member/founder unixfreaxjp.

    I have multiple pieces of evidence however I think this blog post and their BRUCON description are the most evident and directly connect MalwareMustDie to Kljtech Jan200101 (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    The existence of a connection with the name of that account is stated quite plainly in the September 2013 source I just cited when adding the name of the founder to the article: [1]: Twelve months ago, the former chief executive of Kaspersky Labs Japan now owner of KLJTECH, Hendrik Adrian, formed a not-for-profit group of vigilante researchers bearing the fitting name MalwareMustDie. Largoplazo (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Unixfreaxjp appears to be the same user on a different account because User:Kljtech was blocked due to a username violation. Jan200101 (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The Unixfreaxjp user has been vanished. Jan200101 (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Griffith J. Griffith / MigLlanos

    [edit]

    I have never reported anyone for a conflict of interest before, and generally I have not had problems trying to get such issues solved in the Talk Page. I want to be clear that I am here for clarification, since despite tens of thousands of edits I cannot find a simple answer to what I am looking for. I believe the edits I am going to describe have been made in good faith, by User:MigLlanos, and that my description of their likely identity on a Talk page is acceptable because of the open nature of their username.

    In the past few months, this user has used a book called Enlightened Egomaniac by self-published author Miguel Llanos on the subject of Griffith J. Griffith as a source, on his page and that of Griffith Park. This has included big changes to the ledes of both. There is more information about this on Talk:Griffith J. Griffith, but I wanted to check in to see what this brushes against in terms of policies regarding COI. They clearly have no interest in Griffith himself, and therefore could simply be accused of advocacy in that arena, but they also have a book that is now arguably promoted by the page. I believe all of this is good faith, but I'm looking for answers and I apologize if I'm in the wrong place. Thank you so much! PickleG13 (talk) 11:33, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Clear COI, I reverted one change. @MigLlanos: Please follow WP:COIREQ for future edits related to books you have published. Czarking0 (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reverted all self-citations added by this user (including one that violated WP:LEAD) and left a note to propose self-citations on talk pages. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi folks, yup I am also the author of the new book and, sorry, I wasn't aware of the COI policies. I really value Wikipedia and the work of contributors, but the Griffith entry is incomplete and my book is the first to document the fuller story. Much of his wealth was really from stock price manipulation and, more importantly, his wife Christina's wealth provided the financial stability to donate the land.The latter has got the attention of the Griffith Park Advisory Board and I am working with them on finding ways to recognize Christina's role. As an aside, the park has plenty of signage thanking Griffith but nothing that notes he tried to kill his wife or that her wealth was instrumental!
    Since my wiki edits last year I have published an ebook that is freely available via the Los Angeles Public Library and pressbooks.pub so perhaps if we link to the specific page and documents that support my statements? For example, I was unable to find the deed (with Christina's name) online so I posted it from my ebook here:
    https://losangelespubliclibrary.pressbooks.pub/app/uploads/sites/215/2025/09/Griffith-Park-deed.pdf
    Moreover, it's possible to link to a specific page within the book like here:
    https://losangelespubliclibrary.pressbooks.pub/enlightenedegomaniac/chapter/the-prince-of-parks-1896-2/
    So I could link to pages that support the mining stock manipulation and Christina's financial wealth, that way readers can see the documentation without buying the book. How's that sound? MigLlanos (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia generally doesn't cite self-published books, because they have not gone through peer review and have no editorial oversight. Anybody can write a self-published book with zero expertise in a subject; this happens often. You may be a legitimate expert, but from our perspective, who exactly is Miguel Llanos and why would we trust anything he writes, when a self-published book is functionally equivalent to some random blog? You see the problem here?
    Get it published by a university press at least, which does have some semblance of peer review, and we would consider it more seriously.
    Your book must have citations to reliable sources to support the assertions it makes. We would prefer to verify those sources and cite them. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to link to my book pages that have those citations, eg stock manipulation and christina's fortune, and wiki readers would be able to read them without logging in since the LA Public Library online tool allows free access. But sounds like you're saying I should propose those changes on a talk page? Can do, but I'm confused as to which talk page and would I just present some suggested paragraphs/sentences and see what the group agrees on?
    Re publishing via university press, I decided not to go traditional route because it doesn't allow authors to update/correct a book as needed, whereas self-publishing lets me do that any time I want. So I won't be changing course on that.
    I get it that anyone can come up with a blog/book and it could be full of errors, but I'd ask that wiki editors in future take a minute to vet the author with a Google search. In my case that would show I was a reporter/editor at msnbc.com before retiring. the book's "about the author" page also can help guide editors. MigLlanos (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Every page on Wikipedia has a "talk" page. If you are accessing this from a desktop or laptop, there is a tab at the top labeled "talk". Your own user page has a talk page. This noticeboard has a talk page, for discussing issues with the noticeboard itself. Every article has a talk page for discussing improvements, and it's also a place where editors with a COI, as you have with your work, propose citations to your work. Your proposal will be evaluated by editors without a conflict of interest, for suitability to include in the article. An "about the author" page in your own self-published book is useless for determining reliability of a source, because you could say anything you want about yourself. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    ok, so i'll propose tweaks on the talk page for the wiki entry on Griffith Jenkins Griffith. will get to eventually, thanks to all. MigLlanos (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You can use WP:Edit Request Wizard to guide you through proposing a change on an article talk page. The advantage to doing this is that your request ends up being more visible due to being displayed on a category page that is monitored by some editors. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Cleanup requested for UPE sockpuppet network (Larifadel23)

    [edit]

    An undisclosed paid editing network was recently blocked as a result of a December 2025 sockpuppet investigation. Expand the "Problem pages and diffs" table in the submitted evidence to see the affected pages and how the identified accounts were involved. Please note that some of these articles and edits are obviously LLM-generated. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 10:26, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Humblejones has declared a conflict of interest with Dimes Square

    [edit]

    User:Humblejones has been persistently removing information at Dimes Square and alongside others adding unsourced information which has led the article to be locked. This user left an ad hominem on various editors pages: [2], [3]. In this message he threatens an editor and says they shouldn't edit the Dimes Square page as he is in the scene and has right over it: [4]

    They have admitted to having a conflict of interest with Justin LaPuff, a page they have been persistently been trying to create: [5]. They have also edited logged out to declare this [6]. They have also been edit warring at Dimes Square to add this individual: [7]Aradicus77 (talk) 09:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef block called for honestly with those attacks/trolling especially this one. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. AusLondonder (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe they are actually Justin LaPuff and that's why they have been trying to create that page and have been so inflammatory. Aradicus77 (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    They described LaPuff as "me" here. AusLondonder (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It is them [8] Aradicus77 (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this section should be moved to ANI in light of the ongoing personal attacks and edit-warring. AusLondonder (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    likely UPE

    [edit]

    Xabareawmav (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) According to @Feliciasdog, Xabareawmav had contacted them, and requested £300 to write an article. They had not provided a disclosure and did not use AFC. It appears that they may also be a sockpuppet, as a confirmed promo sockpuppet edited (diff) a page, around 2 hours after they made it. A similar pattern with a longer interim happened on Nikola Cihoric by another blocked sockpuppet (though with a different puppeteer) (diff).   MetalBreaksAndBends   (talk) (contribs) 20:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    These accounts seem unrelated (per CU). -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to draft. Mathglot (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Chapman University

    [edit]

    I cannot say exactly why I believe that this editor has a paid relationship with this subject but I trust that anyone else who spends a few minutes searching around will come to the same conclusion. They have edited the article to remove information that they perceive as being negative. They were warned about their conflict of interest by another editor but that was nearly six years ago (with a brief followup from another editor about three months ago). ElKevbo (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey there. I was completely unaware of the COI policy at depth. I’ve now read it completely and would love to get a better understanding of how I can help keep the page in question up to date with factual information. Tbrewst (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If I were you, I'd make your talk page at the very least display your COI, and maybe stay off that page until you get someone high up to negotiate with. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 18:18, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay super helpful! Thank you. I have a much better understanding about this. I've changed my user profile page to display my COI and will not directly edit the page going forward. Massive apology for not having a better grasp on this earlier. Thanks all for bringing this to my attention. Tbrewst (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries! I'm not any kind of administrator or some such so I'd take what I say like chickenscratch, honestly. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 19:20, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Appreciate it nonetheless. Tbrewst (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks so much for the quick and helpful responses and actions, Tbrewst. I appreciate it. We welcome your suggestions, requests, and recommendations in the article's Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. Thanks again. Tbrewst (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for uninvolved review: Lina Condes (COI disclosed)

    [edit]

    I am a representative of Lina Condes and have disclosed my conflict of interest on-wiki. I’m requesting help from an uninvolved editor to review and, if appropriate, implement neutral cleanup on the article Lina Condes and to review whether the “article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments” notice is still warranted.

    I posted detailed edit requests (including proposed replacement text to remove the résumé-style Career list) on the article talk page here: https://w.wiki/Hyui

    If an uninvolved editor is willing, could you please review/implement the requested changes and advise on the maintenance banner? Thank you. ~~~~ Anilan88 (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Please read about the edit request process; your request is not likely to be seen unless you mark it with the COI edit template, {{edit COI}}, at the top. For future edit requests, the edit request wizard can do this for you.
    If you are compensated for your representation, the Terms of Use require you to make the stricter paid editing disclosure. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    COI edit request: Alexander James Hamilton article (lead name variant and additional official website)

    [edit]

    Hello — I am the subject of the biography Alexander James Hamilton and am disclosing a conflict of interest in accordance with Wikipedia policy.

    I have submitted a formal COI edit request on the article Talk page, but no uninvolved editor has yet reviewed or implemented the requested changes. I am requesting review here from an uninvolved editor.

    Talk page section: Talk:Alexander James Hamilton#COI edit request: lead name variant and additional official website

    Requested change 1 (lead sentence):

    Independent reliable sources use the professional name “Alexander James”. I request that the first sentence be updated to include the name variant:

    “Alexander James Hamilton (also known as Alexander James) …”

    Supporting sources: • https://news.artnet.com/art-world/alexander-james-artist-interview-969785 • https://www.studiointernational.com/alexander-james-interview

    Requested change 2 (official website):

    The infobox currently lists distilennui.com as the official website, which is correct. I request that alexanderjameshamilton.com be added as an additional official website link for fine-art works, not as a replacement.

    These requests are intended solely to improve factual accuracy and alignment with reliable sourcing.

    Thank you for your time and assistance. Alexander James Hamilton (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    As noted on the talk page, you need to mark your request with the COI edit template({{edit COI}}) for it to be seen- please read about the edit request process. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    When linking to another Wikipedia page or article, the whole url is not needed, just the title in double brackets. I've fixed this for you. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. As 331dot noted, in the future, please use the COI edit template. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Only one URL should be listed in the infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Stick to the facts

    [edit]

     Courtesy link: Erland Pison

    Again stick to the facts: my publicly held offices. All the rest is a smear campaign. I don't think it's useful we start to use Wikipedia for political fights or settling scores with former employees.

    I don't think it's useful we start to use Wikipedia for political fights or settling scores with former employees. The specific information on employment and dismissal of Erland Pison is wrong was never objectively confirmed. It's mere 'hear say'. The same goes for the employment of his ex-father-in-law. There is no public record that proves him actual being an FSB employee. Moreover, where this does not have anything to do with his political and public career, it is also based on 'hear say' and again is part of his private life. Erland Pison is nog longer politically active in any shape or form (which the initial contribution also 'forgot' to mention too and therefore Wikipedia should be extra careful making claims about his private life.

    Wikipedia should limit itself to the verified publicly held offices by Erland Pison and refrain from political agitation. There is nothing encyclopedic about it.

    The only factual information is the following:

    "Pison studeerde in 1999 af als licentiaat in de rechten aan de Katholieke Universiteit Leuven en behaalde in 2011 nog een master in de internationale betrekkingen aan de School of Advanced International Studies van de Amerikaanse Johns Hopkins-universiteit. Sinds 1999 is hij advocaat aan de Balie van Brussel, waarbij hij zich specialiseerde in publiekrecht, grondwettelijk recht, omgevingsrecht en eigendomsrecht.[1] Ook was hij actief in het bedrijfsleven.

    Hij werd politiek actief voor het radicaal-rechtse Vlaams Blok, de voorloper van het Vlaams Belang, en zetelde voor deze partij van 2004 tot 2009 in het Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Parlement, waar hij deel uitmaakte van de commissie Huisvesting en Stadsvernieuwing en Ruimtelijke Ordening, Stedenbouw en Grondbeleid. Vanaf 2008 was hij tevens lid van de commissie Economische Zaken, Werkgelegenheidsbeleid en Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek. In november 2004 was Pison zonder succes kandidaat om partijvoorzitter van het Vlaams Belang te worden, als uitdager van zetelend voorzitter Frank Vanhecke.[2]

    Op lokaal politiek niveau was Pison van 2006 tot 2010 gemeenteraadslid van Koekelberg. Hij verhuisde nadien naar Zoersel om privé- en professionele redenen[3] en kwam uiteindelijk in Edegem terecht, waar hij van 2020 tot 2022 voorzitter werd van de lokale Vlaams Belang-afdeling.[4]

    Van 2019 tot 2022 werkte Pison opnieuw voor Vlaams Belang als parlementair assistent voor Europees Parlementslid Tom Vandendriessche."

    -- ~2026-12279-96 (talk) 09:23, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Your issue seems to be on the Dutch Wikipedia, we cannot help you with issues on another language Wikipedia, as each version is a separate project. You will need to handle this on the Dutch Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There is an English article at Erland Pison, whose recent editing history seems relevant.
    However, this is not obviously a COI matter and it's not clear what the actual issue is. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:07, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI: is-wikipedia.com

    [edit]

    Interesting fake Wikipedia website. Their article about Involute Metal Powders was created less than a day before the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involute Metal Powders. That article is known to be connected to the Thesolicitors sockfarm. The website also hosts other "articles" that had now-deleted counterparts on enwiki. (E.g. this vs. that.)

    The website runs a real MediaWiki instance. Apparently all pages there were either imported, or created by an account named "Mathexplore". (@MathXplore: I think this may interest you.) For imported edits, see e.g. [9][10].

    —Janhrach (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Reported per foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Foundation Trademark Policy#trademark-violation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Suspected COI edits in John Giesy

    [edit]

    It seems to me that ~2026-12672-29 performs COI edits in John Giesy (see diff). Examples:

    • Addition of Accusations made by the State Attorney General of Minnesota, Lori Swanson, about Giesy are not true. Their narrative of proposed collusion with 3M company to hide data potentially adverse to the company was based on partial statements taken out of context from emails.
    • Removal of However, emails show that Giesy filtered studies for the benefit of 3M. He pushed the studies that he could to 3M in an effort to delay or prevent publication, adding that he would bill differently to prevent a paper trail to 3M.[1][2]

    What shall we do? A full revert? Leyo 20:45, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    First, attempt to start a talk page discussion with User:~2026-12672-29. It looks like you didn't have any contact with User:~2026-12672-29 until after posting here. At the top of this page, highlighted in yellow, it states, 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. -- Pemilligan (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I know. However, it's not a registered user, which makes it quite uncertain this they will actually see the text. I notified them on their talk page.
    I posted it here to get another pair of eyes. --Leyo 21:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You could have posted on the user's talk page or the article talk page. It is always uncertain if a user will actually see the text, except when you make it certain by not engaging with them at all. -- Pemilligan (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have posted on the article talk page if there were more than 3 watchers (including myself). I chose to post it here thoughtfully. --Leyo 22:06, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    BTW: The IP belongs to the Baylor University. See John Giesy#Baylor University. --Leyo 22:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Lerner, Sharon (February 23, 2018). "LAWSUIT REVEALS HOW PAID EXPERT HELPED 3M "COMMAND THE SCIENCE" ON DANGEROUS CHEMICALS". The Intercept. Retrieved September 13, 2022.
    2. ^ Giesy, John (March 26, 2008). "re: Entrix Consulting". Retrieved September 19, 2022.

    Katarzyna Nowak

    [edit]

    All of editor's contributions are to this single article. Continued addition of less-than-neutral material which suggests a potential conflict of interest, including addition of information without sourcing: [11], [12], [13], [14]

    Addition of material after removal due to neutrality and lack of sourcing: [15], [16]

    No response on user's talk page when asked twice about potential conflict of interest. I added COI template to user talk page on 1:13 27Feb2026, editor made 5 more edits to the Nowak page between 14:51-15:13 later that day. I asked another question about COI on user talk page 22:03 27Feb2026, and then editor made 4 more edits to the Nowak page between 7:17-7:23 01Mar2026. Not sure where to go from here, as the editor seems unwilling to engage in talk page conversation. Jiltedsquirrel 🌰 (talk || contribs) 18:42, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1341338254"