Gpedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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 Gpedia 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 Gpedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. 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 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}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
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 Gpedia: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:Gpedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{Request edit}} template:

Michael van Vuuren

User has confirmed he is the agent(s) of said player in question, and is removing sourced player stats because "we would prefer if certain teams weren't on the wikipedia". While the statistically sourcing may not be entirely accurate, no differing source has been provided. Editor may also be operating under IPs also per articles edit history. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have warned the editor about the conflict of interest guideline. That could have been done as a first step, with a report here only if the problem continued. JBW (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Editor TEDickey has made edits on this page, for example here: [[1]] and here: [[2]]. In the article the (or latterly a) developer is listed as Thomas E. Dickey. These names are similar enough that I suspect a COI exists. Springnuts (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per policy: While editing Gpedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. (the given examples don't demonstrate a conflict of interest) TEDickey (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The point is that those two edits are several years apart, indicating that you have a track record of editing the article, notwithstanding an undeclared conflict of interest.
“COI editing is strongly discouraged on Gpedia. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted. Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing. … Editors with a COI … are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content. … COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead.” 

Springnuts (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure: when it's a case where the focus of the topic might change - the potential conflict (rather than repair), I've tagged those for discussion. You might notice that one of the edits is by a user who is blocked, while the other repaired a broken link. More than once in the past, my edits have been discussed in this context, but no pattern of abuse such as you refer to has been observed in the previous instances. TEDickey (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have very carefully made no suggestion of abuse. It was only when responding to a third opinion request that I noticed that there was an undeclared conflict of interest by you, as one party to an editing dispute. I raised the matter on your talk page, and within the third opinion. I haven’t looked in detail at the edits you have made over the years. Simply, I cannot think of any reason why you did not declare your conflict of interest, and I do not understand why you are resistant to editing in accordance with the COI policy above. But that’s only my opinion. I don’t have a dog in the fight. If the Admins are happy with the situation I’m happy too. Springnuts (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So your statement (here: [[3]] made me interested, and I had look at your edit history on the article. I notice that in this edit here: [[4]] you changed the "developer" from "GNU Project" to "Thomas E. Dickey" who is ... er ... presumably yourself. No declaration of COI; no discussion on talk page; no request to another editor to make the change for you. I assume you were unaware of the COI guidelines, but now that you are, you will be able to recognise that this was not appropriate editing. There are another 6,577,411 articles on Gpedia: it might be better to put your efforts there. With all friendship and good wishes, Springnuts (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The original developer is missing from the info box, too, which is clearly bad. MrOllie (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yes... it's in the body of the topic. TEDickey (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You might take the time to read the release notes for ncurses 6.2, which (no COI here, simply a WP:RS). TEDickey (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
or, if you like, you could read the section of the FAQ (which prompted this discussion). That was updated with this information in 2017 (4 years before I got around to updating the topic). TEDickey (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
but sure -- I'm being reminded that I shouldn't be in such a hurry to have corrections made. TEDickey (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think most of these edits are fine. The infobox change is something a COI editor might want to request on the talk page rather than doing on their own. But I don't think anything needs to be done here? MarioGom (talk)

@TEDickey: you are not “being reminded that [you] shouldn't be in such a hurry to have corrections made”, you are being reminded that you should declare your COI and that you are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly. But the encyclopaedia is all the better for your input and your expertise: so you are encouraged to propose edits on the talk page. The point about this discipline is that you cannot know whether or not your conflict of interest is influencing your editing. With all good wishes, Springnuts (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Negar Mortazavi

User Nov2000 is on Gpedia since 2020 and the only article they edited is Negar Mortazavi (also on fawiki). They keep removing notable controversies about the person and do not respond to talk page messages. there seems to be a connection between the user and the subject as Mortazavi herself denies the controversies on media.

P.S. I don't know where to report their disruptive editing on that article on enwiki (put some light if you know), but the COI case needs to be reviewed here. Thanks. Jeeputer Talk 23:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the time being, I have upped the page protection to admin-only (since it was already on autoconfirmed protection). I don't know what's right and what's wrong here, and have protected it on the version that existed as of the time I was brought in without regard to what side of the dispute happened to have the upper hand as of that time, but I would stress that this is not necessarily an endorsement of their version — it's just that the editwarring needed to stop right away, so I would obviously request that the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the disputed material be discussed on the talk page by people with more knowledge of the subject than I have. I will, of course, happily reduce it back to autoconfirmed protection again if and when the dispute is resolved, but since there was already partial page protection on it I didn't mess with the existing time. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bearcat: Thank you. I am trying to discuss but the user Nov2000 does not answer my questions in the talk page. are you going to review the COI issue? Jeeputer Talk 15:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Determining COI with any certainty requires tools that I don't have access to, such as the ability to check what IP a logged-in user is editing from, so that will have to be left to the team who have that expertise. My only concern here was ensuring that the immediate edit war stops while the rest of the process plays out. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see no applicable evidence here. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are more applicable evidence which I will gather and send to the admin if needed. Jeeputer Talk 22:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This case was archived without being closed. relisting it to the bottom. Jeeputer Talk 06:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eurostar and me

Hi. I've dropped a {{connected contributor}} template on Eurostar because a family member is now working there, which allows me benefits such as travelling from St Pancras to Gare du Nord for next to nothing. I think this is the first time that a relative's employment has clashed with my own personal interests; the Eurostar article is one I would probably update anyway, perceived COI or not, and I have taken a couple of related articles, St Pancras and Ashford International railway station to GA. You could certainly get me in a pub and say, "the topic is 'Criticising Eurostar', go" and I'd ramble off a whole bunch of things (lack of service diversity, over-complicated pricing structure, uncompetitive rates for family holidays, etc etc etc). Am I just over-thinking this, or is putting a COI template up, however tenuous, the correct cause of action? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ritchie333: I can't speak for anyone else, but I appreciate anyone who is open about a potential COI, however unlikely it may be. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO you have a conflict only if you have used or plan to use those benefits. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very much agree -- if you're not going to use those benefits, no need. But why wouldn't you? Assuming you do, I think a brief note is appropriate in the interests of full disclosure, but I don't think it should really affect your editing at all unless/until there's some sort of protracted issue, at which point I would encourage you to seek other opinions (which I tend to think you would do anyway). As ever, just one semi-informed opinion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Travel SPA IP editor, possible promotion

The IP geolocates to "Travelsa Vers" or I suspect in Oyster Bay, NY. They have been making a lot of edits of a quasi promotional nature to travel-related pages and citing possibly their own newsletter like this. The newsletter's "about us" page says it's out of the same Oyster Bay, NY address as's "about us" page. The cites to the newsletter started appearing consistently from this IP around June 2022 [5]. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that Cruise Planners helpfully lists several company executives intersecting with newsletter executives (link above). This is probably all the same thing and the IP is acting on behalf of the same blocked socks, maybe even the same individual but at least qualifies as WP:MEAT. MER-C blocked Travelwcp in 2020 for undisclosed paid editing. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Newsletter links

Anticipating we will want to delete most of these, here's articles where the newsletter domain is linked. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dana Strum

Obvious COI case on Dana Strum, with single purpose account User:Switch827 adding tons of promotional material and other garbage like this section. Its obvious the user is editing on Strum's behalf or even is Strum himself. The editor has never edited another page than this one. User has already removed the tag once, saying: Removed COI service message per Maintenance template removal rules that can be found here: The tagging editor failed to initiate a discussion to support the placement of the tag, and there is no other support for the template --FMSky (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've done a surface cleanup on the article, removed puff, promo and non-specific of which Switch827 has put in a lot. The editor has expanded it from 5k to about 140k. Hard to tell if he's a fan or has a coi. The langugage is very breezy style, non encyclopedic of a professional rock or metal magazine writer. It is generally well referenced. I've removed that section. scope_creepTalk 10:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Andrew Ousley and Andrea Baccarelli

Both were created by a UPE. Need an independent review so they comply with BLP policy.

David Rosenboom

New editor who has admitted to WP:COI insists on reinstating unsourced content. More eyes requested, with appropriate sanctions if this accelerates. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User has been blocked indef. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abraham Keita

The subject editor is being paid by the subject of the BLP. The editor moved the article from user space into article space. It was then moved to draft space by User:Onel5969. The subject editor then edited it, stating in an edit summary that they are being paid, and then moved it back to article space with the edit summary: "The WP:UPE or WP:COI conflict has been resolved.", which, of course it had not. Maybe they think that declaring a COI is sufficient. It was then moved back to draft space by User:Bonadea. A warning is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a proper {{paid}} disclosure on their userpage, so at least that is not an issue. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe they think that that is all that is required. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Catherine Opie and user:Csopie

User Csopie contributed a significant amount of content to the Catherine Opie wikipage, from 2007-2008, much of which has survived successive edits over the years. In their edit summaries they notified that they are in fact the artist Catherine Opie, I'm assuming they weren't aware of the Conflict of Interest rules. This seems like a candidate for the COI notice on the article. 19h00s (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

St. Andrews University (North Carolina)‎

This single-purpose editor only edits this one article. Their usename implies that they have a close relationship with the university as the institution's mascot are the Knights. Their former username, Detamblelibrary, is presumably linked to the university's library, the DeTamble Library. They have ignored the standard warning for editors who may have a paid editing relationship with a subject and continue to make substantive edits to the article. ElKevbo (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Electric Reliability Council of Texas

An IP belonging to EDF Energy's Houston office editing criticism of the Texas power grid is a clear conflict of interest.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some of their edits seemed constructive like updating the leadership of ERCOT. I will review the edits and see what can be reinstated. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Arabid Slavery


is guilty of multiple disruptions of the page

Multiple disruptive edits: RECENT OLDER- disruptive edit (this older edit was removed, and then the editor returns to disrupt the page and falsely tries to submit the article for review after re-adding again (now for the 2nd time), clearly with the intentions of trying to flag the article , or interrupt or impede with its publication)

The page was not ready for submission, and yet FOR THE SECOND TIME this user added a false hoax to and tried to submit it when the article wasn't even finished or ready yet

The sources are valid and true consistent across all wikipedia pages, yet the user Elias Ziade has , without any evidence or substance behind the claims is trying to falsely claim that the sources are unsound when they are GOOD rather what is witnessed is a clear Conflict of Interest from Elias ZIade who does not want to see the article published

This was first done in disruptive edit here

The user Elias Ziade then admits they are Arabid which is also clear on their page in :

when Elias says As an Arabid myself, I happily extend my welcoming hand to you and offer you this tasty dish of sweets. Thank you for contributing to the forgotten history of the Arabids, who are descendants of reptilians. Don't get your fingers sticky, it's very syrupy.

a White Slavery wikipedia page already exists, so it is entirely consistent with wikipedia that an Arabid page exists as well for the topic of Arabid slavery, and yet Elias with Gpedia:Conflict_of_interest is hoping that the article is not published and trying to get it flagged or something by editors at wikipedia as if (FALSELY) there is something wrong with the draft when there isn't IAskWhatIsTrue (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Comment: (edit conflict) I have no comment about the content of the draft. I would, however, draw the attention of folk here to the reporting editor's talk page, where they have become exercised about this matter. Whatever is going on needs to be resolved collegially, not in a spirit of the battleground. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would also wish to draw people's attention to Draft talk:Arabid slavery where there is a one sided brouhaha. Whatever is awry here it appears to be something other than COI 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Those Talk page edits on the page you seek to draw attention were added due to el.ziade had decided to make that first disruptive edit that was not based in truth, rather false accusations that the sources were off , ect.
    those talk page edits were added by me to ensure that future editors who stumbled upon the page like yourself would be aware of the Conflict of Interest IAskWhatIsTrue (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm really afraid that it will become a Gpedia:BOOMERANG soonly. Have nothing to say except for bro, calm down. Lemonaka (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This appears to be a fundamentally bad-faith complaint. @IAskWhatIsTrue, you do not own the article or draft, and editors are entitled to comment upon sourcing and content in drafts. That's one reason we have draft space. You have submitted no evidence of a true conflict of interest - self identification with a particular cultural group is not a COI. If you continue like this it will not go well for you. Acroterion (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "bad faith" was to submit the article for review before it was even ready IAskWhatIsTrue (talk) 13:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    and then claim falsey that the article submission was done because they appreciated the article and wanted to lend a hand IAskWhatIsTrue (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've blocked IAskWhatIsTrue for personal attacks. A return to this conduct after that block expires will likely result in an indefinite block. Acroterion (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anna Weyant

user:Jeffkov has contributed a significant amount to the Anna Weyant article. Weyant is a contemporary New York-based figurative painter. Weyant's relationship with her art dealer Larry Gagosian, and her subsequent auction sales figures, have been the subject of significant media attention, criticism, and critical discourse. The above user has over time attempted to remove references to the artist's controversies/relationship (Special:Diff/1124800500), directly copied and pasted copyrighted text about the artist's work from Harper's Bazaar/Fad Magazine/Artnet News/Barron's without direct attribution (several instances, including Special:Diff/1089215508), and generally used a promotional tone in edits on the page (Special:Diff/1088926400. I broadly restructured the page to be in line with the Visual Arts Manual of Style and asked the user on their talk page if they have a connection to the subject. The user reported having known the artist personally since her childhood. They claim this is not a conflict of interest, but I don't necessarily agree. Would appreciate insight from others as to whether this is indeed a COI issue.

I've made edits to the Anna Weyant article, but, as an aside, anyone with more editing experience should take a look at the page to make sure descriptions of her relationship/controversies have been written as encyclopedically as possible. 19h00s (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Looking at the linked diffs as well as your communication on the talk page, there are definite NPOV issues that lead me to believe he has a COI. I think he means well, but needs some additional coaching on the policy. eπ💬 22:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hiya, it is my first time sending things like this here, so I hope I am not wasting anyone's time or outing anyone.

I am afraid that SilverKnight1 might be breaking the COI rules over at Draft:R/WallStreetSilver. I noticed that over at Reddit we have [6], where a commentator (or redditor) at the WallStreetSilver subreddit (sub) - the same sub featured in the draft article - stated that "[t]he Wall Street Silver Gpedia page was created on Nov. 22 by me [i.e. the redditor] but was quickly deleted", referring to an A7 by Happy-melon (deletion log here). The redditor also asked people to "[help] by adding relevant information" to the page lest it gets deleted again. another Reddit post asks others to "help with editing". And then we also have a third Reddit post. Here, a mod of the subreddit called for "quality notes" to be added to the draft page (Draft:R/WallStreetSilver).

A fourth Reddit post merits specific mention. Here, the redditor - also the original poster of the first Reddit post - asked fellow redditors to briefly summarize "the subreddit/purpose of the sub/goals", which would then be posted to the draft WP page. A reply (which starts with "Brief summary: WSS started as an offshoot of WSB") is found almost verbatim on the draft page, the pertinent section being:

WSS started as an offshoot of WSB, when the mods at the latter vigorously suppressed any mention of silver as an alternative to meme stocks and other mania-type speculation the sub promoted for unsophisticated retail investors. As a result, Ivan B created WSS to expose the manipulation and rigging of the silver market by bullion banks, under the noses of captured or negligent regulators, and the opportunities this created for contrarian investors who refused to follow the herd. (Reddit comment)
WSS started as an offshoot of r/WallStreetBets, or WSB, when the mods at the latter vigorously suppressed any mention of silver as an alternative to meme stocks and other mania-type speculation the sub promoted for unsophisticated retail investors. As a result, Ivan Bayoukhi created WSS to expose the manipulation and rigging of the silver market by bullion banks, under the noses of captured or negligent regulators, and the opportunities this created for contrarian investors who refused to follow the herd. (draft page)

The "Growth and Development" and "Common Beliefs/Interests" was also copied from the same Reddit comment, potentially with some slight modifications.

I understand that this breach of COI might be unintentional, but there is nonetheless convincing evidence that there is off-site coordination regarding the draft page's content. Sincerely, John Milum 10:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, Special:Contributions/SilverKnight1 indicates that the user was almost certainly a WSS single-purpose account, save for some newcomer tasks. The account has also not edited since 25 November. John Milum 10:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Performance art

This user keeps reverting my edits without explanation. I added some references and removed some unreferenced statements about artist Abel Azcona, which they keep undoing. This user has been accused in the talk page of promoting him before. Also created the main article about the artist. Has apparently done this too on spanish wiki. Ye11owwa11paper (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article is a derivative under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. A link to the original article can be found here and attribution parties here. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use. Gpedia Ⓡ is a registered trademark of the Cyberajah Pty Ltd.