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

Tzoller

• Zango (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Antivirus software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Threat actor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tzoller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hey, this is probably overkill but I'm new to COI. The user appears to be inserting (presumably) their own work into various articles. I have reverted, been reverted back, and reached out on talk page of articles, and on user talk page. Unsure what the actual steps are to take. The name of the relevant person appears in various articles including inserts like this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bluetooth&diff=prev&oldid=83203206 from way back in 2006. What is the sort of thing that happens here? Joe (talk) 08:42, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@Joereddington I went and did a bit of cleanup: Reverted edit(s) to Antivirus software as OR (and COI by extension), along with edits to OBject EXchange, and left a reminder about OR on their TP. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 20:59, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

What happens is that you removed legitimate content with peer reviewed literature from a wiki ? Tzoller (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah! Hello there, I'm so pleased you are engaging with this. Can you comment on if you are the "Thierry Zoller" who keeps being mentioned in your insertions? Joe (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I think the COI guideline says to first discuss this on the accounts TALK page, civilly[..] " If that fails to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period, then open a discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard (COIN)". I would have suggested to not simply remove peer reviewed material on the basis on your assumptions and follow the guideline.

So may I ask why we end up here ? I had just the time to thank you for pointing me towards information on my talk page only to find out you opened this and removed my edits on what can only be described your personal believe. These additions included peer review literature, which from what I know is how Wikipedia expects sources to be included. Tzoller (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

If you really so please that I engaged, you should have reacted on my Talk page as required by the COI instead of taking it to here. Tzoller (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Wonderful. Can you comment on if you are the "Thierry Zoller" in the citations that you keep adding? Joe (talk) 05:46, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'm the Thierry Zoller cited — the username was never meant to hide that. My understanding is that WP:SELFCITE permits citing one's own peer-reviewed work when it's relevant and not excessive, and WP:COI doesn't prohibit editing, it asks for transparency and restraint. In that spirit: going forward I'll propose additions involving my own work on the relevant article talk pages via edit requests rather than editing directly, and I'd ask that the removed material be assessed on its merits by uninvolved editors — some of it is peer-reviewed and, I'd argue, due for inclusion regardless of who added it. If any of it fails WP:DUE or WP:OR on review, fair enough.

For accuracy: I haven't made any additions since this thread opened. Tzoller (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate a reply to this, I suggested multiple paths forward as documented in existing procedures.

Now I see that a page that I create disclosing the COI has been put up for deletion. Tzoller (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Mate, you aren’t a teenager with no knowledge. You know this isn’t how people do meaningful contributions with good intent. Transparent rules-lawyering isn’t helpful. Other Wikipedians can explain things like WP:UNDUE (and indeed, WP:AGF, which I’ll hold my hand up to). Joe (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Late to this discussion, but this is pretty clearly not behavior allowed in WP:SELFCITE. From the guideline itself:

However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming.

The exception is there to prevent constructive editors broadly writing about a topic from having to self-censor useful information if their own cite happens to come up. You, on the other hand, are exclusively citing yourself, and exclusively writing about yourself and issues that involve yourself.

It's good that it's been a few weeks since you've done any of this, but if it continues, I'd expect to see restrictions and/or sanctions on your account. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Many, all involving sexual abuse in the catholic church

• Diocese of Youngstown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) {{pagelinks|Diocese of Wheeling–Charleston} } Archdiocese of Washington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Diocese of Victoria in Texas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) amongst others
• Melchior2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

has repeatedly removed information about sexual abuse in the catholic church on many articles. according to their page "I am a theologian, archivist and theater historian working for the Catholic Church"- showing a clear coi. there has been other editors contesting edits on their talk page but nothing has come of it some of the most recent examples are shown here, but there are MANY more https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diocese_of_Youngstown&diff=prev&oldid=1365136164 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diocese_of_Wheeling%E2%80%93Charleston&diff=prev&oldid=1364739839 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archdiocese_of_Washington&diff=prev&oldid=1364589146 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diocese_of_Victoria_in_Texas&diff=prev&oldid=1364572613

Jackjd0 (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not employed by any of the dioceses I have written about. I have had no personal contact to any of the people covered on the Wikipedia pages. I have no financial interest in making edits, nor have I received any kind of directive from anyone else to do so. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Let me also add that the majority of secondary sources quoted on Wikipedia / Catholicism articles was written by people who "work for the Catholic church" in some sense (including working at universities). Internationally, there are hundreds of thousands of church employees, some of them quite critical, by the way, and not all of them religious "believers." Wikipedia often cites official Catholic homepages for content written by people who "work for the Catholic church." -- Melchior2006 (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the specific point raise by Jackjd0: the removal of content relating to allegations of sexual abuse. Such removals may or may not be legitimate, but it seems reasonable enough to ask for an explanation. As for a conflict of interest, if you are employed by the Catholic Church, and editing articles about Catholic dioceses to remove negative content, a CoI could certainly arise, in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

The removals I made were always clearly indicated in my edit summaries (that seems to have been a problem with another editor, who did not do so). I removed allegations that did not lead to any legal results. When the charges were dropped, for whatever reason, the allegations lost their Wikipedia relevance (if they ever had any). What's more, many of these super-detailed accounts addressed only allegations, but they never delivered any references about results. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

i am very busy this weekend so will be unable to fully argue my point on why this is a major coi as much as id like to, but i do feel like it is pertinent to mention that since this has been opened, this person has opened two more talk page discussions attempting to remove details about sexual abuse (after a non talk page removal was revered by me as a coi concern, and me saying i would like future edits to at least be proposed on talk pages), as well as opening a case on the reliable sources noticeboard about an archive of documents and news stories relating to sexual abuse within the catholic church- stating it is "run by activists with their own agenda"- and at no point in this did they mention their coi. this seems like a very straightforward instance of again, a coi coming into play, and i find it genuinely very concerning, as this information is relevant to health and safety of potential future victims, people looking to join churches, etc.

like, if yall can agree working for the church is a potential coi, id have trouble imagining that repeated removal of information which paints the church in a negative light does not blatantly fall under what is considered problematic in the coi guidelines. i trust yall to make good judgement tho. Jackjd0 (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

There may be a potential CoI, but at the same time we have to be careful that we don't assume that the material removed actually belongs in the articles. WP:BLPCRIME cautions us against naming individuals suspected of offences, but unconvicted. This can be tricky, and really has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. As for hypothetical concerns over the 'health and safety of potential future victims', Wikipedia isn't here to right great wrongs, and adding content purely on such grounds is unacceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

A week has gone by and my suggestions for BLP-sensitive edits on several pages have gone unanswered. I propose I go ahead and make those changes. I would also politely request some sort of resolution to opening up this section about me on the noticeboard. Please recall that this noticeboard "should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue." But there was no attempt to resolve issues on my talk page. As for the BLP edits I propose, you can find them at: Talk:Diocese of Saint Cloud – Talk:Archdiocese of Oklahoma City – Talk:Archdiocese of Detroit – Talk:John Barres – Talk:Diocese of Buffalo – Talk:Diocese of Ogdensburg. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 08:31, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Chocolatewade

• Mariéme Jamme (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Moez Kassam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Chocolatewade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Back in 2024, Chocolatewade whitewashed the Mariéme Jamme article: . Moscow Connection (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Mariéme Jamme article used many unreliable sources and content. After some research I found that there were many conflicting articles that didn't match each other. Even the subject herself had contradicted what she had said in the media. I do not recall the exact details now, but if you are against any edits I have done, you are welcome to raise in the TALK page of the article so we can discuss it in detail. Chocolatewade (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

And his edits to "Moez Kassam" look very suspicious as well. Here's an example: . --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

This board is for when talk page discussions fail and is for current issues not things from 2024. There is no evidence you have raised the issue on Talk:Moez Kassam nor User Talk: Chocolatewade ~2026-33562-67 (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

They were warned back in 2024 and 2025, first by HaeB and then by Dmitry Bobriakov. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know why no one is reacting to this notice. I just wanted to notify the administrators. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Mariéme Jamme and/or Moez Kassam and I don't care about their articles in the least, definitely not enough to start reverting/edit-warring, but why would anyone do edits like these to the Moez Kassam article if they weren't Moez Kassam himself or his PR agent? I've seen people being blocked for less (for less obvious PR). --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Dmitry Bobriakov who warned the user back in 2025 was himself blocked for "socking and likely undeclared paid editing". --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Exactly! the guy that warned was banned, because he was just posting non-sense. Chocolatewade (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Okay. Since you don't really care about the article, I decided to partially revert your edit to "Mariéme Jamme". (The edit that HaeB already tried to revert, but was reverted by you. You shouldn't have reverted him. See WP:BRD. And, surely, all the information about Jamme's early life comes from her interviews anyway, so there's nothing extraordinary about using her interviews as sources.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• As far as I understand WP:NPOV and WP:SOURCEBIAS, it is not right to write a Wikipedia article based only on press releases and flattering articles. And some sources that you used (example) are definetely biased.
  WP:NPOV says to balance sources. In the version you didn't like, the article basically said: "one source says this, and another says that," which doesn't seem to be against any rules. WP:NPOV doesn't even prohibit making assumptions (WP:MNA). --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The last edit I made to Moeze Kassam article I admit was probably not directly relevant to him. I was just trying to improve it, but it got reverted. All the other edits have been live for long and no one has had issues with them. Again if you feel anything was not a good edit, please raise it in the talk page. Just so we are clear, I do not have any COI with any subjects that I have editted. Chocolatewade (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Bon Secours Mercy Health

• Bon Secours Mercy Health (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Bon Secours (Virginia & South Carolina) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• RileyD0g (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'd like to raise a COI concern about RileyD0g and the Bon Secours Mercy Health page, as well as multiple pages associated with the hospital system.

This issue first came to my attention when seeing the AfD for Mercy Health — Austintown Medical Center, as I am interested in Ohio AfD discussions. In that discussion, I noticed that RileyD0g had created the page and disclosed at the time that they disclosed being paid by Mercy Health Bon Secours for their contributions to other Mercy Health locations, but not this one specifically .

I later proposed merges of additional WP:BRANCH locations of small, regional emergency rooms and local hospitals run by the company (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mercy Health — Dayton Springfield Emergency Center and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mercy Health — Harrison Medical Center Emergency Department. RileyD0g has argued as well as stated in their edit logs that the purpose of these pages is to raise visibility of the hospitals (, User talk:RileyD0g#Emergency Department and other articles).

While I do not agree with this argument and feel that it violates WP:BRANCH, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and WP:NORG, I think the bigger issue here is the violations of WP:EDITCOI.

1. RileyD0g has extensively edited articles about Bon Secours Mercy health without using the proposed changes talk page procedure
   1. See the edit history on both the main pages Bon Secours Mercy Health, Bon Secours (Virginia & South Carolina) and branches such as Bon Secours Harbour View Medical Center or Mercy Health Fairfield Hospital
2. They have created over 20 pages for WP:BRANCH level hospital locations affiliated with the company without putting them through the AfC process (see articles created)

They have recently updated their disclosure on the talk page . This removed the standard paid editing disclosure, on further discussion they have clarified that they are employed by Bon Secours Mercy Health, and that they are not paid to edit Wikipedia . I asked if they were paid for PR (part of the definition of WP:PAID and have not heard back, but given the lack of WP:COMPETENT editing around the COI complaints above, I thought it was worth bringing this to the larger community sooner rather than later. Yojo98 (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for a chance to respond.

@Yojo98 mentions multiple processes that despite being a contributor for close to 20 years, I'm not familiar with. And yes, I have recently read multiple articles on contributing, editing and community protocols. And while I understand it is not their responsibility to assist, it would be in the community's best interest to support infrequent contributors rather than punish them. Yojo98 also states that I have not responded to them. In their post to my Talk page, they never requested a reply. Additionally, it has been less than 48 hours since their comment.

I have always been transparent about any relationships to content I've created and I've never received compensation for contributions. If I'm doing it the wrong way, then lets do it the right way. I removed the "the standard paid editing disclosure" because it was inaccurate and did not represent my relationship with the content. I replaced it with my own, more accurate statement. If there is another statement I should be using, please let me know.

I also don't believe any bias has ever entered the articles I have contributed to, except in the form of the choices of articles I've created or edited -- which is unavoidable. I encourage anyone participating in this discussion to review the articles. RileyD0g (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi RileyD0g, I won't respond to every part of this in an effort not to WP:BLUDGEON, but I want to clarify that I'm in no way saying that your response time was inadequate, but that I think the level of contributions outside of the guidelines and discouragement found in WP:EDITCOI rose to the point where it makes sense to bring this to the noticeboard and solicit input from other editors.

I would also hope that you could positively clarify that your role at Mercy Health Bon Secours is not at all related to publicity, as noted in Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#Additional notes on who must disclose. Yojo98 (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Hindu American Foundation

• Hindu American Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Navibeer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He was told before as well to disclose his COI with Hindu American Foundation, however he is still not doing that. He is still making highly favorable edits for the organization. He is also using LLM to post at talkpage. Zalaraz (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The allegation that I have a conflict of interest is unsupported.

I have no relationship financial, professional, organizational, or personal with the Hindu American Foundation or anyone acting on its behalf. No evidence to the contrary has been presented because none exists.

My edits were based on publicly available sources and focused on attribution, article structure, and distinguishing organizational description from scholarly interpretation. They retained substantial critical material about HAF rather than removing it.

If the concern is that my edits changed the balance or wording of the article, that is a normal content dispute to be resolved through sourcing and consensus on the article talk page. It is not evidence of a conflict of interest.

If anyone believes I have an undisclosed connection to HAF, I ask that they present evidence rather than speculation. Navibeer (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

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

He has been also warned to declare his COI but he is being evasive and imposing highly favorable edits for the organization. Zalaraz (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thorrun Govind

• Thorrun Govind (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Paperwhale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pop90pop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article reads like a promotional resume rather than an objective biography, and the editing history suggests a conflict of interest. The page has been overwhelmingly written and shaped by users 'Paperwhale' and 'Pop90pop'. Both accounts have since become completely inactive, with the page receiving only minor formatting edits from genuine community members. This gives the strong appearance of self-published promotional material, which violates community guidelines regarding neutrality and conflict of interest. ~2026-42851-51 (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

One of the above talk page links is red. Where is the prior discussion, and the notification to the involved users of this report? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Seeking Guidance on Conflict of Interest Before Starting an Article

Hello everyone, I would appreciate some guidance regarding Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest (COI) policy before I begin any work. I am employed by a company that was founded by the family of the person I am considering writing about. I have already disclosed this relationship in accordance with Wikipedia's COI guidance. The proposed subject is a historical figure, and I have not started drafting an article or making any edits yet. Before doing anything further, I want to make sure I fully understand what is and is not appropriate under Wikipedia's COI guidelines. I have a few questions: Does my employment alone mean that I should not draft an article about the subject, even if the article is based entirely on independent, reliable secondary sources? If drafting is permissible, would it be more appropriate to submit the article through Articles for Creation (AfC) rather than creating it directly? Given that I have already disclosed my conflict of interest, would that disclosure be sufficient, or would it still be preferable for me not to draft the article and instead provide the sources to an uninvolved editor? If I do prepare a draft, are there any additional precautions or best practices that experienced editors would recommend to ensure the process remains transparent, neutral, and consistent with Wikipedia's policies? More generally, how does the community distinguish between a good-faith editor with a disclosed conflict of interest who is relying entirely on independent, reliable secondary sources, and promotional editing that Wikipedia seeks to discourage? My intention is to follow Wikipedia's policies from the outset. I am seeking guidance before taking any action so that, if I proceed, I do so in the most appropriate, transparent, and policy-compliant manner. Thank you for your time and advice. Hassnain Raza786 (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello Hassnain Raza786 and thank you for your question. To answer your main question, I would encourage you to create a draft and submit it through Articles for Creation rather than making it directly. From WP:Conflict of interest: You should generally refrain from creating articles about yourself, or anyone you know, living or dead, unless through the Articles for Creation process. Your disclosure is sufficient for your Conflict of Interest.

There is many things that a editor should keep in mind when creating their first article and it would be impossible to give you a comprehensive guide that would ensure your article is accepted. However, for your case in particular where you have a relationship with the subject, you may find Wikipedia:Notability (People) usefult to ensure that your subject is indeed notable enough to have a article dedicated to them. Also, Wikipedia:Puffery lists some promotional words to avoid.

I want to note that even when following these guidelines, your article may still be denied. This is a expected part of creating your first article. For many editors, their first article did not get approved until multiple revisions and submissions. Wikipedia has alot of rules. In short, don't get discouraged if your article is denied the first time.

The community as a whole assumes good faith when it comes to a editor's intentions. Unless an editor's content only serves to promote them or their associates, it's been my experience that the community will welcome editors. The primary purpose of the paid editing policy is to discourage PR firms and others who are not here to build a wikipedia from directly editing wikipedia articles for their financial benefit.

I understand that wikipedia's guidelines and rules can be overwhelming so feel free to message me on my talk page if you have any questions. Good luck! - Otherwise (Antibacklog Aktion!) (talk?) 18:42, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Kim Driscoll

• Kim Driscoll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• ~2026-42839-06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor appears to be attempting to use Wikipedia to campaign for Ms. Driscoll.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Besides reverting all of their edits and adding a warning it does not look like you have made an effort to explain the problem or communicate with this editor via the talk page. This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Tool for detecting COI editing

Hey All. We are looking at trying to build something similar to Wikipedia:CopyPatrol for paid editing detection, User:Booksmurf/PaidPatrol. Looking for folks interested in helping guide the process.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

RareSoul

• Draft:Janam Raj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Music of Assam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Northeast India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• RareSoul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

RareSoul (talk · contribs) came to Wikipedia since 21st of July, since then, all their edits excluding two adding links are all promotion about someone called Janam Raj. It seemed their only edit interest is "Janam Raj" which made me consider they have a COI with Janam Raj. -Lemonaka 10:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Where is the prior discussion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Numerator (company)

• Numerator (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• NUWP2025 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Spotted this user whilst doing AVP. They seem to be related to the article as beyond newcomer tasks most of their edits and all their drafts appear to be related to the Numerator article. They also failed to respond to both a paid editing and a COI username talk page message from last year. Netstars22 (talk to me!) 01:08, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

You've barely given the editor in question any time to respond to your concerns before creating this thread. As above: 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. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Jamie Farnes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Jamie Farnes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. ~2026-43270-79 (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

You should use the talk page of the article to raise your concerns first before bringing them here. It doesn't look like there's been any effort to discuss the article's problems with its editors at all. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question about paid editing

Quick question. I know that the paid editing policy applies to people who own or have a significant financial stake in a company and are editing articles related to said company, but would the same ownership relationship apply generally to property? For example, would the owner of a historic building be bound by WP:PAID's disclosure requirements? My understanding is that anybody editing an article with which they have a significant financial interest must follow the WP:PAID policy, even if they're not being "paid". I know for a fact interns fall under the policy so I'm assuming that it also applies to more abstract relationships such as ownership of property. I'd appreciate any feedback. Thanks! - Otherwise (Antibacklog Aktion!) (talk?) 13:45, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

No (unless it's their source of income). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:07, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I am assuming that this particular edit would fall under the paid policy? The article is about a property that the editor stated they are the owner of and is currently being operated as an wedding venue. I just want to be crystal clear i'm not misapplying wp:PAID. - Otherwise (Antibacklog Aktion!) (talk?) 14:14, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

That would be "source of income". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:17, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

okay, thank you. - Otherwise (Antibacklog Aktion!) (talk?) 14:34, 7 August 2026 (UTC)