Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. You may use {{subst:COIN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes: This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice. The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}. Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request: 1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}} (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

Railsware (software company)

• Railsware (software company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Black Milk by MA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This SPA (Black Milk by MA) created a promotional page for Railsware, which I draftified and another reviewer subsequently rejected at AfC. They've now ignored my comment on their talk page asking them to disclose paid editing and recreated Railsware (software company). MightyRanger (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

A page for the company's product Draft:Coupler.io was created in mainspace tonight by a different SPA (User:Eggoquad) and a page with an identical "recognition" section was created in draftspace by a temporary account. MightyRanger (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

There's also an obvious sockpuppet, MaGyund, and one other account that was blocked as a sockpuppet of someone else. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 12:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

According to the deletedcontribs API, that individual is Gnatperch. @Mykola7, do you know who this is? Thanks! Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 12:22, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

This is Wikibusines, a sockpuppeteer banned by the WMF. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bodiadub. MER-C 16:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Assistive Technology Acts

• Assistive Technology Acts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• JarJarInks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a self-initiated investigation. I work for an organization that is partially funded by one of the Assistive Technology Acts, but I am nowhere near high enough in the org to have any control over fundraising. I know that I don't have to edit any articles I may have a COI with, but I feel like my knowledge could really help these articles. At the same time, I want to avoid breaking any rules.

1. Can I edit articles about assistive technology? I assume the answer is yes per WP:EXPERT, but I'm fairly new so uncertain if this applies.
2. Can I edit articles about the Assistive Technology Act(s)?
3. Can I edit articles about other organizations funded by the AT acts, provided that I will not edit any articles about my org (not really a concern as we're not notable enough for one anyway)
4. Can I edit articles about Assistive Technology companies?
   1. Does it matter if we received donations from those companies?
   2. Does it matter if those donations were solicited?

As an example, say I have previously purchased software from... wow, none of the companies I can think of have pages. Let's say, theoretically, AssistiveWare is deemed notable enough for an article, and I would like to work on that article. I have previously purchased products from AssistiveWare on behalf of clients. I have never directly contacted the company or worked with them outside of this purpose. Do I have a COI here? Is that COI significant enough to note on the talk page? Is that COI significant enough to prevent me from making that article? What about for organizations I have contacted beyond purchasing (like for tech support), but still on behalf of a client? I'm sorry if this is confusing or if these questions are easy to answer. I'm extremely confused on where WP:EXPERT ends and WP:COI begins. Just to clarify, I am not being paid by any org to write content for Wikipedia. I have never been asked to write content for Wikipedia. I'm fairly certain that nobody even knows that I'm an editor. JarJarInks_{٩(◕_◕)۶}^{Tones essay} 16:07, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

1. Yes, I think articles about basic technologies probably don't require a COI disclosure. Anything related to specific products would.
2. I think that's probably okay as long as you're writing about them at a broader level.
3. I think you have a COI with other organizations since you compete with them for funding.
4. There's a definite COI with those companies, particularly when they're donors. You should not directly edit articles about technologies that you purchase or use in the course of your work.

voorts (talk/contributions) 20:02, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this response. Given that this is a pretty niche industry, most of the companies and products that would be notable don't have articles yet. Would it be appropriate for me to use AFC with proper disclosure, or is that off limits? Also, to clarify, 90% of my job is to research products and create a mini database of information for others in my org to use. When I purchase products, it's only at the direction of my colleagues, who are the ones really making any decisions in that regard. JarJarInks_{٩(◕_◕)۶}^{Tones essay} 15:38, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Using AfC is fine. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:12, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Deeuu and Tziporah Malkah/Kate Fischer

• Deeuu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tziporah Malkah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user has engaged in persistent WP:OWN and edit warring behavior regarding the article on Tziporah Malkah (better known by her former name Kate Fischer) to remove details of her relationship with James Packer, widely covered by news reporting, and other unflattering aspects of her personal life. I suspect that this person has a close relationship with the subject. They took this photo of her which is located in Channel 9 Studios, which would unlikely to be able to accessed by a member of the general public. When asked about their potential COI, they have repeatedly deflected and refused to answer the question, alleging because they claim that they are not doing it on direct behalf of the subject, that they don't need to disclose anything [1], which is not how COI rules work. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I do not have any financial, professional, editorial, or representational relationship with the subject, and I am not editing on her behalf. My edits on the article have consisted solely of enforcing core Wikipedia policies, particularly WP:BLP, WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:V, and WP:UNDUE.

1. Nature of my edits

Every edit I have made to the article has been the removal of:

– unsourced material

– poorly sourced material

– deprecated sources (e.g., Daily Mail)

– gossip‑level claims

– contentious statements lacking verification

– undue or sensational phrasing

I have not added promotional content, flattering content, or any material that could reasonably be described as protective or whitewashing. My edits have been strictly policy‑driven.

2. The engagement claim

The engagement claim has never been supported by a reliable, contemporaneous source. It originated in speculative reporting and has been repeated without verification. Under WP:BLP and WP:BLPSOURCES, contentious claims about a living person must not be included unless supported by high‑quality sources.

A recent 2024 Sydney Morning Herald article includes a direct statement from the subject that she has never been engaged to any man. This reinforces the existing BLP requirement that unverified claims should not appear in the article.

3. The image

Regarding the image: the “own work” tag on Commons refers to the uploader’s licensing declaration, not authorship. The photo was taken from the subject’s public Instagram feed. I did not take the photo, and it does not indicate any personal or professional connection.

4. Behavioural allegations

I have not edit‑warred, attempted to WP:OWN the article, or refused to discuss content. I have opened and participated in talk‑page discussions and BLPN threads. My edits have been reverted with personal accusations rather than policy‑based arguments, and I have been asked to “drop the stick” while raising legitimate BLP concerns.

5. Summary

My editing behaviour is consistent with Wikipedia’s expectations for handling biographies of living persons. I am not editing with a conflict of interest, and the concerns raised appear to stem from disagreement over BLP enforcement rather than any evidence of COI. Deeuu (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I do not have any financial, professional, editorial, or representational relationship with the subject, and I am not editing on her behalf. does not confirm/deny whether you know the subject on a personal basis. I'm not asking you to reveal your real-life identity or any personal details about your relationship, just a simple yes/no question. Knowing the subject personally is a COI, regardless of whether you are editing on their behalf or not. Please see Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. For volunteer editors: Ethically, you need to disclose your conflict of interest. You have one if you are editing about yourself, or anyone you know personally. You have repeatedly refused to confirm/deny this when asked, which will make people suspect that you have a COI. Can you provide evidence that the photo was on the subject's Instagram feed? I did a reverse search and I could find no evidence that the photo has ever been uploaded anywhere else aside from Commons. If it was taken from her Instagram then it probably should be deleted as a copyright violation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I am not editing with a conflict of interest. Wikipedia does not require editors to disclose personal information or private relationships, and I will not be doing so. COI on Wikipedia is defined by editing on behalf of the subject, being paid, or having a professional, financial, editorial, or representational connection. I have none of these.

Regarding the image: the “own work” tag refers to the uploader’s licensing declaration, not authorship. The photo was taken from the subject’s public Instagram account, which is why it was tagged as such. If there is a copyright concern, that is a matter for Commons, not COIN. It has no bearing on COI.

My edits have been strictly policy‑based and focused on WP:BLP, WP:BLPSOURCES, and WP:V. The engagement claim has never been verified by a reliable, contemporaneous source and is contradicted by a 2024 Sydney Morning Herald report. Removing unverified contentious material from a BLP is required by policy and does not indicate a conflict of interest Deeuu (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Deeuu, you cannot license an image unless you own the copyright. The person who holds the copyright is almost always the creator of the work. If you took the photo from Malkah's Instagram, you do not own the copyright. The declaration you made, 'own work', does in fact mean you are saying you personally were the photographer. That's why the Commons page for the file reads I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license... I've tagged it for deletion since you say it is not your own work.

You may find this decision tree helpful for any future uploads: [2] Meadowlark (talk) 05:51, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I have now had to remove this unverified engagement claim twice, including once after opening this BLPN thread. This is a contentious statement about a living person that has never been verified by any reliable, contemporaneous source, and it is contradicted by a 2024 Sydney Morning Herald report in which the subject states she has never been engaged to any man. Under WP:BLP and WP:BLPSOURCES, this material cannot remain.

Since the initial removal, there has also been a noticeable increase in unsourced or poorly sourced negative additions to the article. This suggests the page may need closer BLP oversight to ensure stability and compliance with policy. I would appreciate BLPN guidance on maintaining a BLP‑compliant version going forward. Deeuu (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Every single comment I’ve seen so far from @Deeuu has been obvious LLM output. Can we just block them for CIR/LLMCOMM and be done with it? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:26, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with this characterization and think you need to AGF more in regards to LLM usage. I'll give the 20:34, 17 January 2026 (UTC) comment in particular as an example of a comment that does not appear to be LLM output. Czarking0 (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

COI edit request for Ross Video (article cleanup)

I have a conflict of interest as the CEO of Ross Video and have posted a detailed, scoped request on the article’s Talk page seeking independent review of factual updates (lead, history cleanup, and acquisitions update). The request is intended as a Phase-1 cleanup to address outdated information and promotional tone.

Talk page request: Talk:Ross Video

Thank you for any assistance. DavidRoss65 (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@DavidRoss65, I've added this to the top of your request: {{edit COI}}. This produces the box you'll now see on the talk page, and also flags the request to editors who have an interest in assessing COI requests - this will attract the attention of significantly more people than commenting here. Since it sounds like you're hoping to make further requests, adding that little piece of code each time will keep flagging each new request so people will come and look.

It sounds like you may have used an AI/LLM to generate your request, which is generally not a good idea as editors really dislike talking to machines. I suggest rewriting the request in your own words, as a human communicating with other humans. Have a look at WP:COIREQ and WP:COIER, which both have tips for how to increase the chances of your request being implemented. If you can set up your request such that an editor can check your sources and then simply copy the revised content you propose to the article, you are very likely to get a good response. The 'proposed replacement text' and the place you want that text to go - plus the reliable sources that back up your statements - are really all you need to supply for each change. We don't need bullet points of issues and revisions, we just want to assess whether what you want to change complies with Wikipedia's policies. Best wishes, Meadowlark (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Global Immigration Partners

• Alex jovy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has created multiple US-immigration related drafts and articles that all talk about or use Global Immigration Partners as a source, sometimes the only source. I have draftified the articles that were created in mainspace, for example:

• Draft:High-unemployment area (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Form I-526 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Lawful permanent residency (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Exmamples of pages created in draftspace:

• Draft:EB-5 Investment Requirements (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Franchise Investment Strategies for E-2 Visa Applicants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Franchise Investment for E-2 Visa Applicants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

For the most part, these pages are full af WP:AISIGNS and are clearly machine-generated, but only one of them could be CSD nominated under G15:

• Draft:EB-5 Investment Requirements (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Some of these pages have been rewritten inhumanely fast, and they have all been churned out in an inhumanely fast succession. I've left the usual {{uw-coi}} template on their talk page: User talk:Alex jovy § Managing a conflict of interest.

Responding to one of my warnings on their talk page, they asked me if I was for hire to write content that I can share with you and edit it so it is apropriate for Wikipedia?. To be fair, when I asked if they were being paid for this, their response was that they are not paid to do this. I've asked if have any connection to this law firm, but they haven't responded to that so far.

The account seems to have been created to edit their own Wikipedia article, Alexander Jovy, back in 2011. The account made no other contributions to Wikipedia since then, until it started churning out the Global Immigration Partners articles a few days ago. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Dear Gurkubondin, as previously stated I was merely trying to add new topics that had not been included on Wikipedia before. I am new to creating content on Wikipedia and apreciate your advise. The refrences where given to one particular law firm and to others. No bias is intended. The sources qouted are from highly respected news publications. Following your advise no further topis have been created/added. Alex jovy (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

What is your connection to the Global Immigration Partners law firm? --Gurkubondinn (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

What is your connection to the Global Immigration Partners, Alex jovy? --Gurkubondinn (talk) 09:29, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Alex jovy, since you have resumed (some) editing of your draft Draft:Franchise Investment Strategies for E-2 Visa Applicants, can you please explain what connection you have to this law firm? --Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

The user has seemingly confirmed an undisclosed COI in a reply to me on their talk page now: Diff/1335311393. Though this edit was made with a TA while logged out, I think that it is reasonable to assume that this is Alex jovy. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Sadly, we aren't permitted to link external websites on this noticeboard when discussing conflicts of interest - even blatantly obvious ones. So I will instead suggest that Jovy stops wasting everyone's time here, unambiguously declares their obvious CoI, and saves me the effort of submitting an email with the relevant details to ArbCom. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Saved you the effort, I've emailed ArbCom already. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Or to be specific, I emailed paid-en-wpwikipedia.org with non-public evidence of the COI. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:23, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

New-ish article on UPE by Portland Communications

This sock ring has been discussed here previously, but I just read this article published about a week ago and I’m wondering if there’s any more cleanup that needs to be done based on the edits it discusses. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:28, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Just saw the signpost piece about this. The reporting does not specify who or where to look for COI. However, I suspect that a somewhat through investigation of Qatar and Qatar sports and 2022 FIFA World Cup related articles would find something of note. Czarking0 (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

The Qatar page itself is suspicious. Top editor is a blocked sock. The pages created by second highest editor have exactly the sort of Qatar/sports intersection that raises concern. @Ohnoitsjamie: had some concern with the third highest editor though they seem somewhat normal to my initial check.

Who wrote that? investigation lead me mostly to users that seem fine. I did see this sock User:Banana Republic. I also see this user which raises concern for me. Their user page highlights a barnstar from the second user I pointed out above which I was already slightly concerned with. They also have the same pattern of of Qatar/sports that is suspicious. Finally they were recently blocked and then unblocked for nonconstructive editing at Al Jazeera Media Network.

Additional concern.

Already blocked for cv

Seems sus Czarking0 (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Qatar National Vision 2030 could use a similar investigation but I am taking a break Czarking0 (talk) 08:30, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Pmitmit

• Bot prevention (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Pmitmit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has repeatedly engaged in apparent COI editing related to the company Friendly Captcha. A different user (User_talk:Bushdavao) was recently banned for promotional editing on Friendly Captcha (which was then moved to draft space). I warned Pmitmit against COI editing on January 7 but received no reply. On January 22 they added a reference related to the company, claiming that it was a secondary source, but the author was actually the cofounder of the company. Given the recent pattern of abuse from this company I believe it deserves more severe action. StereoFolic (talk) 07:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

This is an inter-wiki problem see: spamcheck. @MER-C: do you know how we can alert fr. it. and de. ? SmartSE (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

m:Wikiproject:Antispam. SRG will want to see blocks in cases like this. You could also have the link added to the spam blacklist if not used frequently. MER-C 17:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

GSHD2023 and publications by Gerhard Schmidt

• Chicxulub crater (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• GSHD2023 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over several years, the activity of GSHD2023 has primarily revolved around inserting references to scientific publications by Gerhard Schmidt into Wikipedia articles, particularly the Chicxulub crater article, often reinsterting them despite having been reverted. Often these come in the form of conference abstracts, which lack peer review and appear to contradict peer reviewed literature on the topic. I note that Gerhard Schmidt's initials match the first part of the name of the account, which makes me suspect that there is a conflict of interest. A COI notification to their talkpage several years ago was met with no response. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Disclosure and request for guidance – SoapStandle

In an earlier attempt to create this article, I did not adequately adhere to Wikipedia’s standards regarding neutral tone and avoidance of promotional language. That draft was appropriately declined. I understand those concerns and have since taken care to revise the content to align with Wikipedia’s policies on neutral point of view, verifiability, conflict of interest, and no original research.

I am the creator of the SoapStandle product and therefore have a conflict of interest under Wikipedia’s guidelines.

I have prepared a revised, neutral draft supported by independent third-party coverage and am seeking guidance on whether submitting it through Articles for Creation, or requesting review by an uninvolved editor, would be the appropriate next step. Jgnmemphis (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Create a draft and submit it through AfC. That is the process for obtaining review by an uninvolved editor. Also, please note that your writing about your product amounts to paid editing, and you need to adhere to the terms of use on paid editing, not just the COI guidelines. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I will note, however, from conducting a search for your product, it does not appear to meet the notability guideline for products and it is highly likely that your draft will be declined. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:12, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

You can create a draft here. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:14, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Elois Jenssen conflict of intrest issue

• Elois Jenssen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Regi.Andre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've identified a user with a blatant Conflict of Interest. In one of their edit summaries, they describe their relationship with the subject of the article. Many of their edits are promotional. They've removed an COI tag I've added to their page and have seemingly ignored my messages on their talk page.

Would it be appropriate for me to revert their changes? I dont want to be in violation of the 3RR and I've already added the COI tag twice. Any feedback would be greatly appreciate!. Mustbeotherwise (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I've indefinitely partially blocked them from the article. I think you can revert back to before their changes. You're nowhere near 3RR. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:09, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I just figured better safe than sorry, you know how it is. Mustbeotherwise (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@Voorts oops, I just realized I didn't notify the person in question. I'll be more careful in the future. Mustbeotherwise (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Should I go ahead and notify them now? Mustbeotherwise (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:26, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Done. Sorry abt that! Mustbeotherwise (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

This is so strange. I started on Wikipedia in 2004 and not much since.

The Elois Jenssen page is awfully outdated and cannibalized with solid facts and accomplishments missing.

She was my stepgrandmother, had no direct family or descendants and despite her accomplishments was getting no solid narrative.

A letter from President Ronald Reagan to Elois Jenssen Andre with condolences.

What is true is that I need tech practice posting and alertness to guidelines.

Best regards, Regi.Andre ~2026-58138-4 (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello @~2026-58138-4. If you are User:Regi.Andre, you might want to log in so we can verify that it's you. I appreciate your self reflection regarding your posting. If you are User:Regi.Andre and want to request an edit to the page, I would recommend using the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard/COI. I hope this was helpful! - Otherwise (Talk?) 19:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

LilaMorillo/MaganMan UPE sockfarm

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LilaMorillo. At first this appeared to be simple sockpuppetry, but it's looking like paid meatpuppetry. At least the newest account has disclosed their paid editing, but this comes after previous accounts denied it. Pinging @Padgriffin who is currently helping to clean this up, and @331dot who made the initial MaganMan block. Jay8g [V•T•E] 06:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I am not connected to LilaMorillo or any other account named in this SPI.

I am a paid Wikipedia editor who was contacted by a client via LinkedIn.

The client provided draft content, which I reviewed and submitted through Articles for Creation with paid-editing disclosure.

I do not control, coordinate with, or act as a sockpuppet for any other account. Kilaopi (talk) 08:01, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

How do you explain the fact that you edited three articles associated with previous sockpuppets? Jay8g [V•T•E] 08:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I have trouble buying that explanation when the overlap with subjects who had recently deleted articles is so severe- at minimum this would imply meatpuppetry, and whoever contacted you is part of the LilaMorello sock ring. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 08:41, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@Kilaopi: Could you please respond to this? You've just recreated Draft:Laila Odom, continuing your 100% overlap rate with subjects tied to the LilaMoillo sockfarm. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 12:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Also pinging @X-WikiRae:, who has also just popped up and tried to AFC a MaganMan-created article without any attempt to fix any of the concerns, while declaring Paid Editing- could you please address these COI issues and how you are linked to MaganMan? Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 10:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Davies–Bouldin index, silhouette, many more

• Larry.europe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Has been adding self-citations literally everywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-60541-8 (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree that there is some problematic apparent WP:SELFCITE going on here, but it is not quite as clear cut as in many cases, because some of the publications do have an awful lot of citations e.g. this comes up 5935 cites on google scholar. Citing brand new papers with few citations e.g. is far more problematic. SmartSE (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Edits like this one where they spam a brand new paper as the first reference in an article are classic WP:REFSPAM though. There's a lot of work to do to clean this up. SmartSE (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

User:Axpert Media Official

• Axpert Media Official (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note: Sorry if I'm escalating this too quickly — I've never made a COI report before.
The above user presents themself as an official of Axpert Media per their username which appears to be against username policy. I have considered to post {{Uw-coi-username}} or {{Uw-paid1}} on their talk page but am not sure which would be the more appropriate one (and whether I would know how to follow up on it if they were to reply to the warning as the template suggests), so I came here because the username policy page suggests this noticeboard if someone with a problematic username also engages in problematic editing, like promotional editing, which appears to be the case here. Another user confronted them about the potentially promotional nature of their post but they denied it[3]. On a positive note, they did use the article talk page instead of just adding the source they are seemingly associated with, but as far as I understand policy, they need to change their username and/or make a clear COI declaration. Nakonana (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I would go with {{Uw-coi-username}} -- Pemilligan (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Editor has chosen to use AI to respond on their user talk.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

St. Viator High School

• St. Viator High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• TonyJohnson406 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor appears to have an undeclared connection to the subject, given their repeated attempts to add non-neutral content and non-notable names.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Eastern University (United States)

• Eastern University (United States) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kellygoddard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I will not directly disclose how this editor is connected to this college but I am confident that any editor who spends a few seconds looking into this will conclude that they are almost certainly an undisclosed paid editor despite being warned about this 7 years ago. A block is certainly in order until they comply with our disclosure requirement or otherwise convince us that they're not connected to the university. ElKevbo (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

What edits show this conflict of interest? I can't see that this user has ever edited Lorain County Community College. -- Pemilligan (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

You're right - I pasted the wrong article. It should have been Eastern University (United States) and I've corrected the heading and other text. Thanks for catching this error! ElKevbo (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Gülen movement

• Gülen movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Unforgvn20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Unforgvn20 (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account with a clear conflict of interest regarding topics involving the Gülen movement, and its related pages, including its members, and the controversies surrounding this organization. Editing pattern is a text book definition of WP:PROMO, and its highly possible that they are either closely related to this organization, or are being paid by this organization delete the controversies regarding it from Wikipedia. Ecrusized (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I went through the history of AK Party–Gülen movement conflict another page this account has edited. This diff seems somewhat suspicious no the edits to the causalities box and units box. Similar somewhat questionable diff. Czarking0 (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Ecrusized

I am not being paid by any person or organization to edit Wikipedia, and I have no conflict of interest regarding the Gülen movement. Your accusations without evidence is a violation of WP:ASPERSIONS

My removals and challenges have been based on concerns regarding sourcing quality, attribution, and compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.

If there are specific edits believes are problematic, I invite discussion of the sources and wording on those kromium (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Related article talk page discussion between these editors. Unforgvn20 (signs kromium) has responded with reliable sources to explain their changes.Czarking0 (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

They using ChatGPT Shadow4dark (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)