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

    suspicions about non-disclosing paid editors

    [edit]

    In accordance with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#Reporting undisclosed paid editors and Tryptofish (talk · contribs)'s advice at Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure#suspicions discussion, I'm here for feedback on my suspicions about two editors. I want to be clear that I have no proof, nor the mop to collect such: this is entirely based on my intuition about precedent at an article and these accounts' editing patterns. I'm here to ask for assistance (for checking behind-the-scenes with a mop, or just to have somebody else look over my thoughts and give their input) because of that uncertainty. Also, if I am truly in the wrong place, please let me know!

    The article in question is Kristin Goodwin.

    • In October 2022 and April 2023, FarmGirlRR4 (talk · contribs) edited the article. In the discussion at Talk:Kristin Goodwin#update, they had personal unpublished knowledge about the subject, and said I have a copy of [Goodwin's] valid marriage license. They have only ever edited that article and its talk page. This editor appears to have a professional or personal relationship with Goodwin, and though they haven't edited since then, I added this account to a {{connected contributor}}.
    • Twenty days later, Pagecd (talk · contribs) edited the article. In the discussion at Talk:Kristin Goodwin#Changes to Wikipedia, they said, after discussing with [Goodwin] personally, she wants these changes as they are the truth and read better for the end user. […] I find it very disturbing that a person doesn't have the freedom to make corrections on their own Wikipedia page without harassment. Goodwin is not making changes in her own interests, but would like the truth to be told. Shall she just live with lies on Wikipedia? They have only ever edited that article and its talk page. This editor appears to have a professional or personal relationship with Goodwin, and though they haven't edited since then, I added this account to a {{connected contributor}}.

    To me, these plainly establish that Goodwin has in interest in the development and state of the Wikipedia article about her, and has employed (whether formally or informally) others to edit on her behalf.

    • On 4 and 6 March 2025, Soistafir (talk · contribs) made eleven edits to the article. I largely reverted their edits on 10 March, though tried to incorporate what I could of their contributions. As best I can tell, they have never before or since edited in this subject area. They also never edited the article again. It is a relatively new account, and the edit history has a pattern of short-term intense editing of disparate corporate topics, sometimes w/o ever returning to them.
    • On 31 July 2025, AnadoluYazarı (talk · contribs) made eleven edits to the article. I, today, largely reverted their edits, though again tried to incorporate what I could. As best I can tell, they have never before edited in this subject area. They, too, are a new account with a pattern of short-term intense editing of topics and then never returning to them again.

    I don't know anything untoward is happening here; I'm also not suggesting any other wrongdoing at all. This biographical article just has a history of disclosed interference by its subject. And since then, two other accounts have: been created relatively recently; intensely edited the article, as they are wont to do over varied topics/articles; never returned to the article; and never utilized a talk page. All of this together just… feel kinda suspicious to me, and I wanted to get others' feedback. Again, a thousands apologies if I've approached this inappropriately or in the wrong venue! Thank you, all! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Fourthords, I appreciate that many of your edits were constructive, but I don’t see a strong rationale for replacing the gender neutral term “aviator” with “airman.” Even if the US Army continues to use traditional terminology, that alone doesn’t make it the best choice here. In light of ongoing debates about inclusive language and the impact of the US Army and the TRUMPs administration’s policy restricting transgender military service on LGBT service members, this change can read as unnecessarily exclusionary, so keeping a gender neutral term seems more appropriate in this context.
    As for your question about why I don’t return to pages I’ve edited: I generally avoid re-editing the same pages for the reasons you mentioned COI concerns, maintaining neutrality, and avoiding edit warring, as Wikipedia requires. I actually prefer not to edit the same pages too often. But here something is clearly wrong: replacing gender-neutral terms with “airman” marginalizes women and LGBT people, undermines neutrality, and drags in discriminatory standards. I’m stepping in to revert the changes, restore reliable sources, and document the fix on the talk page. But in this case something is clearly wrong: replacing gender-neutral terms with “airman” marginalizes women and LGBT people, undermines neutrality, and introduces discriminatory standards. Soistafir (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fourthords, you should notify FarmGirlRR4 and Pagecd of this discussion as you did the other two. -- Pemilligan (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That had not occurred to me, as those accounts weren't the subjects of my inquiry, but I can certainly do so. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fourthords, regarding FarmGirlRR4, I don't think being a single purpose account is convincing evidence of a conflict of interest, and having access to Goodwin's marriage license number isn't so suspicious since I just looked it up myself on the El Paso County, Colorado website. I'm not sure what personal unpublished knowledge about the subject is being referred to. -- Pemilligan (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry! That account wasn't really the subject of my request so much as Soistafir and AnadoluYazarı, so my apologies if I didn't go into as much depth and detail as I could.
    Not only did they claim to have an actual copy of the valid marriage license, and that [s]he divorced in 2020—for which the only source that's been found/cited is a blog that was published well later, that account claimed to know that Gen Goodwin retired Dec 31 2021, which while possibly correct, neither they, nor anyone else, nor I have found a published reliable secondary source for. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Should I assume that these have been at least casually vetted, and both I and we need not worry? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    SPA account editing only Christina Corpus

    [edit]

    I left a COI notice on their talk page. They have continued editing the article. The editor has 80 edits and all of them are to the article in question. The article is a WP:BLP and falls under the AP CTOP. TurboSuperA+[talk] 08:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not generally helpful to say that a newbie is a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. They edited for two days. Working on the same article for two days is not an unusual or suspicious thing.
    I'm more concerned that the contributions are verbose. I've added some links and done some copyediting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Whilst I agree with WhatamIdoing generally this does seem suspicious. The account hasn't edited at all since they received the COI message and most of their editing appeared to be around controversies. Encoded  Talk 💬 17:59, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Kovai.co

    [edit]

    Perhaps I'm imagining things, but I have the impression that there is serious COI or more likely WP:PAID editing involved with articles surrounding the company kovai.co. We have

    I have the impression that I saw more spam under other titles, but I may misremember. Fram (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Something's strange with Draft:Kumar Saravana - it doesn't show up in the history as having been previously draftified, which is why I took that path instead of AfD, even though the logs show it was. I didn't do a full BEFORE but the sources in the draft do not support notability as is. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having a look on google shows Saravana Kumar as the founder of Document360... I'll have a quick review of the articles and leave messages on the relevant user pages. Might be worth passing this over to WP:SPI as the admins there can have a look into sockpuppetry more. Thanks, Encoded  Talk 💬 17:47, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Morbidthoughts

    [edit]

    I believe that the editor Morbidthoughts, who has been actively participating in the discussion of Zak Smith page, may have a conflict of interest. The activity of Morbidthoughts regarding the page includes accusations of sockpuppeting, though it was discussed and rejected by other editors, and generally seems to fit the definition of WP:Bludgeoning. When several editors, including myself, pointed it out at their Talk page, Morbidthoughts claimed that they have no conflict of interest. However, there is evidence that Morbidthoughts may have a personal connection with witnesses in Zak Smith's recent lawsuits, and there was communication between them regarding Smith (following WP:Outing recommendations, I e-mailed the evidence to Wikipedia Foundation, on August 29th, without response). White Spider Shadow (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    So what is your relationship to Zak and these witnesses that you know any of this? I don't even know who they are/were identity-wise to confirm if I do know them personally. The other issue is if I do know the witnesses, am I editing based on my knowledge of or relationship with them? Right now, I haven't. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm an admin who's been watching this subject and talk page since long before I picked up the mop, and the page remains a cesspool of sockpuppetry and connected editing. The page's fourth edit is by the subject themself in 2005 and even nineteen twenty years later they seem to have had no difficulty pulling fourteen low edit-count AI-using usernames out of a hat to populate an RFC in their favor. BusterD (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    White Spider Shadow is being subtly deceptive regarding the sockpuppetry question. The WP:SPI case opened regarding them remains open [1]. A checkuser demonstrated that either the accounts were unrelated or using very advanced proxy software however the SPI is seeking a behavioural assessment notwithstanding the CU. This is in part because White Spider Shadow is a participant in a group of editors whos comportment is so uniform as to be functionally indistinguishable from socking even if they are, in fact, distinct people. This COI filing is tiptoeing right up to the line of WP:OUTING and is remarkably ill-advised. Simonm223 (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, the consensus of everyone on the talk page was that while they may not be sockpuppets, they are definitely meatpuppets based on very low edit counts, very, very few edits on anything other than Smith and very similar posting style and content. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No relationship. I won't publish any details, identity-wise, to avoid WP:Outing. White Spider Shadow (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    MorbidThoughts' last edit to Zak Smith was in 2022, almost three years ago. In regard to the recent bludgeoning claims, I see that MorbidThoughts has commented 23 times on talk this year, and not since 2020 otherwise. White Spider Shadow has commented 62 times, almost three times as often over the same period. In going over the comments made by MorbidThoughts I am not seeing any real evidence of bludgeoning.
    Otherwise, if it has been mailed to the Foundation and the evidence is sufficient, it will be handled there. - Bilby (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Is there a practice of writing back, or is it more of a "write-and-forget" approach? White Spider Shadow (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You should send your email to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org, not the Foundation. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:15, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. White Spider Shadow (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @White Spider Shadow Actually, I don't think you'll get much of a response from the WMF; they'll probably tell you to go to volunteers instead. I would instead email the conflict of interest queue and cease mentioning this onwiki until you get a reply from there. Personally speaking, it seems highly unlikely Morbidthoughts has a conflict of interest; for years they have focused on editing and cleaning up these sorts of controversies regarding BLPs. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:18, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as there is any response, I'll be satisfied. White Spider Shadow (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If your "evidence" is the same on-wiki "evidence" presented at the SPI by one of your pals I suspect it will garner no response being honest. Because it was not actually evidence of a COI at all and, in fact, was evidence that, five years ago, Mr. Smith was already employing meat puppets. Simonm223 (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have replied to you before that I will not publish any information that could lead to WP:Outing an editor. I don't see any point in further discussion thereof, since my position is not likely to change. White Spider Shadow (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not, nor would I ever, encourage you to post anything that would constitute WP:OUTING. There was information presented about @Morbidthoughts by one of the subjects of this SPI inquiry that was based around a non-deleted on-wiki statement from five years ago. However, despite being characterized by that person as evidence of a CoI it was actually the opposite. I am not actually asking you anything. I am telling you that, if this is your "evidence" of a CoI then you will be very unlikely to get any response from anybody. Because it is not, in any way, evidence of a CoI. Simonm223 (talk) 11:46, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Steve Linde

    [edit]

    Editing and adding WP:OR to own BLP and pages of their employers, without any COI disclosures. User has previosuly been warned on their talk page and continued COI editing. Longhornsg (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Longhornsg: Please notify Stevelinde of this discussion, as required in the notice at the top of this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:48, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Longhornsg (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    La Guarimba International Film Festival

    [edit]

    Giulio Vita, one of the named founders of the film festival. An account called "Giuliovita" makes up for over 43% of edits, including the initial page. Ignoring trivial edits, this account can be credited with almost the entire article. See [2] Assuming Occam's razor, WP:AGF shouldn't apply here - an account named "Giuliovita" is probably Giulio Vita himself. Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This would also count for WP:AUTO Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, part of it was written by me but not all of it. Especially the parts that needed correction or celebratory tone to change. The list of Awards, which is what I enrich recently, is public knowledge and is just the list of the films awarded. Is more a celebration on those films. I added almost 50 articles by serious media to back up every added. Giuliovita (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Large parts of the article are still uncited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per XTools, the next three primary contributors after the aforementioned COI user are all single purpose accounts. I haven't fully checked but looking at the revision history I can see at least two more new accounts having edited recently. I'm presuming User:Tereeditsno5 is one of Giuliovita's other accounts given the edit summaries about celebratory tone line up with what has been said above. I'm not sure really what's going on but if all editing was above board (which I don't think it is, I see a lot of unsourced material and other things which from a quick check fail verification) then why are so many SPAs involved in this article? ToeSchmoker (talk) 08:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm looking into it further, User:Liam LeN's only 2 English wikipedia were on La Guarimba International Film Festival, and their edits are pretty sizable - 2,500 characters isn't small change. Their other 2 edits were on the French wikipedia page, which also seems to be subject to COI. See [3]
    Same thing with User:Simonkoliz, to an lesser extent. See [4] Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed a number of claims about living people's participation, that were uncited; but where is the prior discussion that this noticeboard requires? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you been so rude? I am not creating other accounts. This is the only one. We are a big community of artists who wants to help reach out more people. That's it. All the living people that are quoted, have been really here and there are plenty articles supporting that fact. Maybe there is not an article for every single line but that does not mean that it didn't happened. I am part of an organisation that has been talked to in the Italian Parliament (official acts), The New York Times, Repubblica. What else do you need? And with my account I have been helping, when I have time, to amplify the voices that are not linked to me in anyway. Giuliovita (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What did I say that was rude?
    Where did I say you are creating other accounts?
    Nobody doubts your sincerity—but claims were made about people with no sources, which our policy requires. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:59, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad - as far as I've seen the last time User:Giuliovita's edited wikipedia was last year, so I assumed they were inactive - this is a misunderstanding on my part Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I propose we Delete per WP:EVENT. This festival lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability. Despite operating for 12 years, online search yields only approximately 11 pages of results, predominantly from regional Italian media rather than significant coverage in major film industry publications. The existing sources appear largely based on press releases rather than substantial independent analysis. No evidence of lasting significance or impact on the film festival landscape beyond local/regional interest. Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This board is to discuss conflicts of interest. If you want to recommend that it be deleted, please see WP:AFDHOWTO.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems likely to be notable.
    Did you search using the title, which is what the Italian press would use? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes - Searching for the festival using the exact name([5]) results in only 11 pages of results, and it seems safe to assume that this Wikipedia page is benefitting their appeared legitimacy, and uses Wikipedia for WP:PROMO. Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I had a missing word; I meant "Italian title"; "international film festival" is not Italian. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per their own website they use the same name in both English and Italian. Film and festival are (in this context) the same in both languages so I don't think the Italian press are going out of their way to translate the name differently - for what it's worth I have a grand total of four results for "La Guarimba Festival Internazionale" and even then they're all for La Guarimba, festival Internazionale blablabla. Much the same for "Festival Internazionale La Guarimba" ToeSchmoker (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    After more further looking, it seems that Sara Fratini is also subject to COI editing, by WP:SPAs. See [6], fr/User:Roosagon's only edits are to La Guarimba's page and Sara's page. Large portions of the english page also are translated by User:Giuliovita, only 6 days after the initial French edits. Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been tagged since 2023. Would recommend removing all unsourced content at this point. It can be added back once there is someone willing to reliably source it.--CNMall41 (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Jan Davis; Mark C. Lee

    [edit]

    Despite having been warned twice (the first time over a decade ago), Njandavis continues to edit articles about herself and her ex-husband. No effort has been made to propose changes on the articles' talk pages; no disclosure of conflict of interest has been made. MarconiCheese (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reverted the most recent CoI edits to both articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:28, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Added List of women astronauts, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Environics

    [edit]

    This new editor has only ever edited a single page, the Environics page, to add "Environics Analytics". Concerns: Environics Analytics is owned by Bell Media, and is already described on the List of Assets Owned by Bell Media page. The editor’s narrow focus raises the possibility of promotional editing. Neutral point of view: The added content was not written neutrally and included promotional phrasing (see WP:NPOV, WP:PROMO).

    Verifiability: The material was unsourced or sourced only to primary company materials (WP:VERIFY, WP:NOTADVERTISING).

    Redundancy: The company is already described in other appropriate places, which suggests duplication rather than encyclopedic value.

    I reverted the edit per policy. However, the user added back their promotional editing. Guidance on whether further action (such as page protection or discussion with the user) is warranted would be appreciated.


    OswaldClara (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted this IP editor's reinstatement of the content (which was inappropriate due to its tone and sourcing), and also removed a lot of other promotional text and external links that were present for 2 years prior. I will watch and see if this gets reverted again. -- Reconrabbit 14:28, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At the top of this page (highlighting in original) is:

    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.

    Where did that discussion take place? The only entry on the IP's talk page is a notification about this report.; they do not seem to have been advised on our CoI & paid editing policies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for pointing that out. You’re right, I should have left a note on the editor’s talk page before raising this here. Appreciate the reminder. I'll make sure to do that in the future.
    OswaldClara (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Sonia Anand

    [edit]

    Same paragraph of unsourced text added to this BLP by these editors. Dr.Sonia.Anand has replied on their Talk page as far as I know there is no conflict of interest. I am just trying to update my personal life and career sections. Tacyarg (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've replied to her talk page and am reviewing the edits to the page now. Encoded  Talk 💬 11:38, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Encoded. Tacyarg (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, page has been protected for 2 weeks too since it appears to be an ongoing issue. Thanks, Encoded  Talk 💬 17:34, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Dr.Sonia.Anand has also been blocked for WP:IMPERSONATE. If she is indeed Sonia Anand herself, she will have to provide proof of identity to be unblocked. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 02:52, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    suspicions about non-disclosing paid editor Iuliusnanus

    [edit]

    User:Iuliusnanus is promoting paid edit services on Chinese social media (e.g. Xiaohongshu, profile). One of their work ([7], archive) is publishing a pharmacologist's Baidu Baike page to Chinese Wikipedia. Other edits here in English Wikipedia should be reviewed. cc User:Liz and User:CNMall41. --Tim (talk) 07:09, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I have disclosed this on my user page.
    User:Iuliusnanus/paid contributions
    https://w.wiki/FKv4
    Iuliusnanus (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I only had a single instance of editing conduct for Iuliusnanus which I feel is undisclosed paid editing. That thread is here. The initial response was that they were not paid. The follow-up response is that they were approached to edit the draft, but they doubled down saying they were not paid. Ponazzi had a similar response to the COI question after editing the same draft. See that thread here.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I’m not acquainted with Ponazzi, and I didn’t receive payment because the creation was not successful. Iuliusnanus (talk) 10:01, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that you say you have performed notabiliy checks for people you have added. When I search for Jiang Siqi (or Jiang Shi Qi which seems to be an alternate romanisation) I get no news results. I get a grand total of five when searching with the Chinese rendering. Maybe this is due to my location but I'd be of the opinion an article isn't warranted under Wikipedia:SIGCOV. ToeSchmoker (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, according to the notability criteria for this entry, please refer to WP:NBEAUTY. Miss World China is the oldest pageant and one of the biggest in China.Iuliusnanus (talk) 10:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is an essay, it's not Wikipedia policy ToeSchmoker (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, I declined the vast majority of paid editing requests—partly to save my own time.Iuliusnanus (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Curiouskaon and UAE politicians

    [edit]

    The editor Curiouskaon has created an over-the-top promotional article about Hawaa Al Mansoori and is preventing other editors from making the article less promotional. The user appears to have a COI with the subject of the article. They have this note on their userpage: "This user has publicly declared that they have a conflict of interest regarding these Wikipedia articles: Hawaa Al Mansoori, Noura Al Kaabi. I am not personally close to these individuals, but I have met them professionally and other notable UAE government officials as part of my work over multiple years."[8] In a separate comment, the user noted they had been approached in person to restore the promotional content on the pages: "I was notified of the mass changes by a concerned Emirat who knows the subject and noticed a large sudden deletion."[9] Thenightaway (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've posted my two cents. Let's see what happens from here. Meepmeepyeet (talk) 05:40, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Concerns about sourcing and neutrality on MasTec article

    [edit]

    Hello, I’d like to raise some concerns regarding the current MasTec article:

    Broken Sources: At least five of the references currently listed return 404 errors when clicked, meaning they no longer provide verifiable information. This affects verifiability, which is a core Wikipedia policy (WP:V). Outdated or inaccessible sources reduce the reliability of the article.

    Promotional Tone: Several sections of the article appear to read more like a corporate press release than a neutral encyclopedia entry. For example, passages describing projects and acquisitions focus heavily on the company’s growth and achievements without balancing independent analysis or critique. This may conflict with WP:NPOV and WP:PROMO.

    Over-reliance on Primary Sources: A significant number of citations are press releases or company-generated materials. According to Wikipedia’s sourcing guidelines (WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY), primary sources should be used sparingly and always balanced by reliable, independent coverage.

    Suggested Improvements:

    Replace or remove broken references with archived versions (via Wayback Machine) or updated reliable sources.

    Reframe promotional content into neutral, encyclopedic language.

    Supplement the article with more independent, secondary sources (such as reputable news outlets, industry publications, or academic references).

    Thank you for your time and consideration.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1312154950"