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

Travis Lupick

• Johann Hari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Louise Vincent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Travis Lupick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tlupick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This has grown to be a complicated situation.

Tlupick is (openly) the account of Travis Lupick, who is an author and journalist per his own website. It appears that most of Tlupick's activity on Wikipedia has been to edit biographies of people he had previously written about, and he often cites his own writing. Here's one example of him citing his own book for vague, unfalsifiable humanizing details on a first-name basis at Philip Owen. A more recent example at Gabor Maté improves the article while also adding bland peacockery (Lupick has also previously written about Maté).

Since November of last year, most of Tlupick's activity on Wikipedia has been to soften the image of Johann Hari. After a scandal which directly involved Wikipedia, Hari has returned to writing professionally. Tlupick has attempted promote this new phase, while downplaying any criticism of Hari's past activity. Bland promotional tid-bits are added while more substantial negative comments are axed. This has been going on for just over a year, and the article's talk page is now full of discussions of this.

As has come out on the article's talk page, Travis Lupick has cited and personally thanked Hari in both of his published books, and Hari has provided promotional blurbs for at least one of Hari's books.

Unfortunately, Tlupick has also written most of Louise Vincent in the last week, heavily citing his own book.

In 2022, Vincent herself wrote about Lupick's book:

The book sensationalizes my story as a woman who uses drugs, as all too many such narratives do. It is riddled with inaccuracies about my life and my organizing. Where the text is not factually wrong, it veers into some of the worst, most harrowing parts of my life, which I related to Lupick never thinking the book was centered so solely around me that these stories would be central to the narrative. The text, I feel, cannot be distinguished from tragedy porn and it erases my strengths as an organizer.[1]

The rest of Vincent's response isn't any better.

There are so many WP:BLP and WP:COI issues with Lupick having written this article, based on his own book, and it boggles my mind that he would think this was acceptable. Grayfell (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

See also Liz Evans (nurse), which was created by Tlupick and he cites his book. cagliost (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

At a minimum, Tlupick should be prevented from citing his own books and articles. I think a topic ban might also be required. cagliost (talk) 07:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

1) Citation ban

I have no objection to a ban on citing my own work.

@Grayfell wrote, “It appears that most of Tlupick's activity on Wikipedia has been to edit biographies of people he had previously written about, and he often cites his own writing.”

This is mostly accurate. On Wikipedia, I write about topics that I know about. I believe a substantial portion of Wikipedia editors follow their interests and do the same. I am not aware of any Wikipedia guideline that objects to editors writing about topics on which they have been published in the past. Scientists write for Wikipedia pages that concern scientific topics. I know a lot about harm reduction and health policy, and lately I have been editing the Wikipedia pages of people who have made contributions to those fields.

In some instances -- a small percentage of my total citations -- I have cited my own books because a) it is the only source for the information included, or b) it was easy and quick for me to do so, and I was being lazy. In peer-reviewed journals, general academia, and books written for the general public, authors are allowed to cite their own past work. If Wikipedia has different rules, I was unaware of them. I actually have no objection to a ban on citing my own books, if it is decided there is reason to implement one. I argue there is not, especially in instances where no other source is available. But I have no objection if it is decided there is cause and justification for a ban on citing my own past work.

2) Topic ban

I object to any topic ban.

Regarding Liz Evans, Philip Owen (deceased), Louise Vincent (deceased), Gabor Mate, and Johann Hari… I have contributed to these individual’s Wikipedia pages. I have no personal relationship with any of these people. I do not communicate with any of them in any way, shape, or form. I therefore declare no personal conflict of interest.

Regarding Grayfell’s concerns in reference to Philip Owen's Wikipedia page and my early edits of the Hari page, I acknowledge a learning curve on Wikipedia editing, and I thank Grayfell for his early guidance, which improved my understanding of the platform and its standards. Some of Grayfell’s examples of my alleged misconduct described above date to this early period of editing. I argue my practices have improved since then.

3) Louise Vincent

Regarding the Wikipedia page for Louise Vincent, Grayfell states I wrote the article about Vincent. I did not. I wrote one paragraph of the pre-existing Wikipedia article about Vincent. It is mostly a bland rundown of her professional associations. There is nothing noteworthy or even very interesting about anything I wrote for Vincent’s Wikipedia page. (Perhaps Grayfell has confused someone else’s contributions as mine?)

Regarding the excerpt of an article Vincent wrote that Grayfell excerpted above, I will say that my relationship with Louise Vincent was complicated. She recently passed away, and I will therefore not contradict or debate her words. I will say that not one specific inaccuracy was ever suggested about my book Light Up the Night, and not one retraction, correction, or clarification was ever made. I continue to hold Louise Vincent in high regard in her capacity as a past source and journalism subject of mine. I hold no ill will toward her and never have. I declare no conflict of interest, whether personal or professional. (I also find it odd that Grayfell suggests a subject’s opinion of an editor should dictate whether that editor can write about them. Does a NYTimes reporter have a conflict of interest writing about Elon Musk if Musk says he does not like what they write?)

4) Johann Hari

Regarding the Wikipedia page for Johann Hari, as Grayfell wrote, this is a complicated situation. I have serious concerns about Grayfell’s and @Cagliost’s conduct around the Hari Wikipedia page, including multiple violations of the Wikipedia policy for biographies of living persons, and what I believe are glaring violations of Wikipedia guidelines for reverting. I will raise these concerns in the proper forum and refrain from distracting us further with them here. I only state this much to emphasis that there are two sides to every story.

Regarding accusations of a conflict of interest for the Hari page, I will restate and emphasize, I have no personal relationship with Hari. We are not friends, and I have no communication with him. I declare no personal conflict of interest.

I also declare no professional conflict of interest. As Grayfell noted, Hari wrote a blurb for one of my books in 2017, +8 years ago now. In addition, I have interviewed Hari for mainstream media publications in the past. I believe the most-recent such article was published in 2018. These events are ancient history. There is simply no impact that a 10-year-old blurb has on any aspect of my life today. I no longer work in journalism. I have not had a single byline published anywhere in more than five years. Hari and I do not work in the same profession. I declare no professional conflict of interest.

I edit Wikipedia under my real name and have never edited under anything less than full transparency. Concerning all of the subjects listed above, I declare no conflict of interest, personal or professional. Thank you for your time and consideration. Tlupick (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear: you declare no conflict of interest, personal or professional, with someone you have cited and personally thanked in both of your published books, and who has provided promotional blurb for at least one of your books? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, @Pigsonthewing. I declare no conflict of interest with Johann Hari. I do understand the reasons for your question. Let me therefore emphasize:

My books' publications and the events in question were six and 10 years ago now. And if you've worked in publishing, you'll know that even then, a blurb is a tenuous link. Book blurbs are tossed around for nothing among everyone who works in a given field. Multiple MSM publications commissioned me to review one of Hari's books after that blurb was published. They all knew about it, and not one of them cared.

Moreover, since then, I have changed professions. I no longer work in the same profession as Hari (journalism), nor do I work in any profession where Hari can have any impact whatsoever. These books I wrote are no longer even in print. I have absolutely nothing to gain or lose from anything Hari does or has ever done.

I would agree with the assessment that at one time, I had a minor professional link to Hari. But that time passed many years ago. In addition, I have no personal relationship with Hari or communication of any kind.

I argue that this simply does not meet the bar for a conflict of interest. Tlupick (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Again, it is not just a blurb. You personally and effusively thanked Hari in both of your books, using similar purple prose to what you have tried to add to that article. All this vagueness about your purported change in profession is indistinguishable from a deflection. Your own website still prominently lists you as a journalist and author, but it wouldn't matter if you updated it, because you still have a conflict of interest. For one thing, nothing is stopping you from going back to writing. For another, there is no built-in expiration date for this kind of thing. Through this conflict-of-interest, your professional reputation is linked to Hari's. Combined with your year-long effort to make the article more flattering, this is completely inappropriate.

As for past reviews, Wikipedia's standards are not the same as those unnamed "MSM", so whether or not those reviews were appropriate is irrelevant and this seems like another deflection.

Your comments also misrepresent the scope of your edits at the Louise Vincent article. This is a WP:BDP issue, and again, it doesn't matter what your "current profession" is.

It is bizarre and frankly a bit disturbing that you mention not being forced to issue any corrections or retractions as if that were a justification. I will again quote Vincent herself on this:

...Despite coming back from death’s door early in 2021, I spent a lot of time speaking with Lupick after I first read excerpts of Light Up The Night that appalled me. I implored him to make vital changes to the book. With the publisher’s deadline approaching, he did make some changes based on my feedback, but not nearly enough. It got to the point where I was begging. Finally, I was reduced to doing what people do when they don’t know what to do: I shut down.[2]

Your edits to that article were completely inappropriate. Grayfell (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@Cagliost, regarding Johann Hari, there is, literally, nothing more than an old book blurb. And yes, in turn, I thanked him in the acknowledgments. Many years ago now. And that is it. Literally nothing else. Tlupick (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

The denial of COI in this response is, frankly, ludicrous. I agree with Cagliost about a citation ban, and topic bans from Louise Vincent and Johann Hari at a minimum. DoubleCross (‡) 17:36, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I would support a topic ban on Johann Hari and Louise Vincent. cagliost (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Given the persistent COI/BLP problems, I support a topic ban and recommend that other editors disengage rather than continuing circular discussion. Joe (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

We have reached consensus that a conflict of interest exists regarding Johann Hari and Louise Vincent. However, I am advised that topic bans can only be imposed following discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. I suggest that @Tlupick: cease editing those articles, and cease citing his own work, otherwise I'll open a discussion there. cagliost (talk) 10:37, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Minus33 employee attempting to get their article again at Draft: L.W. Packard

• Draft:L.W. Packard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Highland00835 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Minus33 is a minor clothing company which has for eleven years attempted to get an article about themselves on Wikipedia. This article was removed four times as non-notable:

G11 speedy delete (2014)

G11 speedy delete (2014)

A7 speedy delete (2015)

AfD (2025)

Most recently, an employee, @Highland00835, appears to be attempting to use an article about the parent company, which likely does meet notability requirements, to get an article about Minus33: link

I did as much digging into the history of the company as I could to rewrite the article since it appears L.W. Packard meets notability requirements, but the (disclosed) Minus33 employee writing the article really objects to some of the factual history being presented. It's pretty clear that this is year 11 of attempting to make Minus33 look like an old company rather than a non-notable subsidiary on Wikipedia. This isn't the first Minus33 employee to attempt to disclose a COI to advertise on Wikipedia; is it possible to get a wider TBAN for Minus33 employees from editing articles relating to Minus33? There's a long history of getting creative with facts from the company on Wikipedia and it's clear they want a specific sanitized history presented. ~2025-34825-61 (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

After being stable since 2017, it looks like someone contacted a newspaper cited in the article to get to get the newpaper article changed due to an "impression" it gave, which was followed by statements that the sourced claims were inaccurate on the talk page. Thankfully other sources came through for the same claims, but this looks... highly suspicious.

Notice that the last edit to this article, published in 2017, is seventeen hours ago, right before an employee reverted the Wikipedia page and called the cited statement inaccurate. Likewise the content has now been paywalled and the article rendered useless as a source, with no archived copy available. ~2025-34825-61 (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

If a newspaper article has been updated or corrected, it can no longer be used as source for a statement that it no longer makes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

It was removed and replaced with another source. My concern is the subject of the article, writing about their own company, appears to be contacting the sources used in the article in real-time to change what they say. ~2025-34825-61 (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

That may be your concern; it is not Wikipedia's.

We have help pages telling people that if sources we cite are wrong, they should take up the issue with the publishers of those sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

The issue doesn't appear to be that they got an incorrect source removed. Per the publication's statement:

Clarification: The original version of this story left the impression that L.W. Packard & Co. was no longer in business. The company is still active, doing business since 2022 as Minus 33, producing Merino wool socks and outdoor clothing.

Minus33 has a long history of trying to game their way onto Wikipedia, which here appears to extend to changing the relied upon sources. Neither the article nor the source claimed L.W. Packard was no longer in business (as best I remember it, it's now vanished with no archive). ~2025-34825-61 (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

If you're alleging that the source is publishing a falsehood, or is being manipulated by its subjects, it would be unreliable, so don't cite it at all Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Where is the required discussion with User:Highland00835? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:09, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

This has been going on for eleven years, with multiple employees of Minus33. I raised it on the talk page, but clearly this is more than just a one-time edit from a COI editor. ~2025-34825-61 (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

This is a user-conduct noticeboard. You haven't reported "multiple employees of Minus33"; you have reported one: User:Highland00835.

User:Highland00835 said in the discussion to which you refer: "I have no knowledge of previous articles about either company. Other employees may have worked on pages that have since been deleted, but I was not involved." In the absence of solid evidence to the contrary, that statement should be taken at face value. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:21, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

That's on me, I've never had reason to end up here and you're right, I don't think there's actually a specific conduct issue from one user. I was interpreting 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. to extend more to the edits themselves than the user.

What is the appropriate avenue for this? Apologies for wasting editor time. ~2025-34825-61 (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

At the moment, I don't think there is anything actionable.

Monitor the draft, and, as stated at the top of this page, "For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

At the moment, I don't think there is anything actionable.

This I disagree with, but I don't know if this is the avenue I should be making this case. This is the fifth attempt to get a Minus33 article and a pretty clear coatrack. ~2025-34825-61 (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

You could ask for the article to be WP:SALTED. JoelleJay (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Pcpmalta publicising his own book

Pcpmalta (talk · contribs) back in October repeatedly pushed his own book about the hijacking of EgyptAir Flight 648. Today he came back and has publicised his book again in two articles, albeit this time supported by articles about the book in the local press. That is a clear conflict of interest. If the book is notable then he should add it to the article's talk page and propose that somebody else add it, not push his own work. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Peter Salamon

• Peter Salamon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mathysalamon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A template was added to my page suggesting undisclosed paid editing. I want to clarify that I am committed to following all COI and disclosure guidelines. Could an editor please review the tag and let me know what information is needed to resolve this? Mathysalamon (talk) 04:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• Question @Bilby:, you added an Undisclosed paid tag here on 2 September, could you explain why you added it? TSventon (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  A known paid editor was hired to rewrite the page via Upwork. I flagged it on those grounds. I would be very happy if any experienced editor was to check the article and remove it as they saw fit. - Bilby (talk) Bilby (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

  I have to say: that does sound like quite a solid reason for a big o' banner. Joe (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• I think the first thing to ask is: do you happen to have a close connection to the subject of the article? Given your username I'm suspecting that it's a more general COI rather than the paid template right? (I am aware that the account you are posting from is not the account that caused the banner to be put up, and my assumption is that you idly looked at your own article one day and were confused to find a big banner that is presumably a bit upsetting and has been there for months... All of this is conjecture, of course...)
  For other editors - Professor Salamon is clearly notable (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=NW6S4b4AAAAJ&hl=en is enough for me), but the page is definitely in need of work. I took a swing at the more obvious parts but... Joe (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  And the next thing to ask is have you, Mathysalamon, ever paid anyone to work on the article? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:05, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Request for Guidance Regarding Conflict of Interest (COI)

Hello,

I would like to request guidance regarding how Wikipedia’s Conflict of Interest (COI) policy applies to my situation as a contributor.

For full transparency, I would like to disclose my professional associations:

• I am a partner with Dr. Biswaroop Roy Chowdhury in Bishwaroop International Healing & Research.
• Additionally, I am associated with DRBRC – Bishwaroop Integrative Wellness and other related platforms that use Dr. Biswaroop Roy Chowdhury’s full name as part of their branding and identity.

Because of these associations, I would appreciate clarification on the following:

1. Am I permitted to directly edit pages relating to Dr. Biswaroop Roy Chowdhury, his work, or organizations connected to him, or does my role fall under COI restrictions?
2. If direct editing is discouraged or not permitted, may I instead submit proposed edits — such as factual corrections, neutral improvements, or reliable sources — through:
   • the article Talk Page, or
   • the Edit Request process for review by uninvolved editors?
3. Are there required or recommended steps, templates, or disclosures I should place on my user page or talk page to ensure full compliance with COI standards?
4. Are there any additional best practices I should follow to ensure transparency and adherence to Wikipedia’s neutrality and sourcing policies?

I intend to follow Wikipedia’s editorial guidelines responsibly and ensure neutrality, verifiability, and transparency in any involvement.

Thank you in advance for your time and guidance. NeutralEcho (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

This page, Biswaroop Roy Chowdhury? You should not edit directly, but should ask for edits on the Talk page of any article associated with Chowdhury. . - Walter Ego 13:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Pretty much the only times you should edit the page directly is if there is outright vandalism (but see WP:NOTVANDAL or an egregious breach of our BLP policy (such as if someone added a false allegation that the subject has been jailed). If the issue is borderline, ask at WP:BLPN, declaring your connection when you do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Mir Mohammad Ali Khan

• Mir Mohammad Ali Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Doxiados (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

this newbie is most likely a paid editor - removing anything they think looks "negative" and adding promo stuff to a BLP that was already flagged as a “BLP of interest,” because the person the article is about was offering money to paid editors to clean up his wikipedia profile earlier.. Stablecoin (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

first this newbie accused our veteran editor User:Saqib of wrongdoing, and now they're accusing me. they're acting in bad faith, and instead of discussing the actual topic or content, they're more focused on attacking editors.

i’ve also found some off-wiki evidence showing that Mir Mohammad Ali Khan is offering people money to work on his wikipedia page. --Stablecoin (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Please email the off-wiki evidence to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org. I have not really looked into potential COI problems myself but the sourcing for this content which is continually being added/removed is complete junk. @Doxiados, please have a look at WP:BLPSELFPUB. ToeSchmoker (talk) 08:59, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

yeah, i’ve emailed the evidence. please check it out. and aside from the COI issue, @Doxiados keeps attacking editors instead of discussing the content. if a CU is run, it’ll show an IP belongs to him too, the same one that did the copyvio on 27 Nov. (oh nvm, he did copyvio too. thanks for removing it @ToeSchmoker. the ip did the same kind of copyvio as well.) --Stablecoin (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

N+%112-~-~~ ~2025-37724-47 (talk) 00:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Mir’s obsessed with his Wikipedia profile

we can see here how Mir (the subject) is super obsessed with his wikipedia profile - he mentions it like 10 times on his own website. i kinda feel bad that he can’t buy every editor. imo, this should be enough to block editors like @Doxiados who, despite several warnings, refused to disclose their paid editing, kept attacking editors, and even did copyvio, repeatedly. --Stablecoin (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

this paid editor @Doxiados is just wasting our time by nonstop edit warring and reverting every edit… can any admin check this out and block the editor? also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Doxiados. Stablecoin (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

How to proceed?

I need advice, please, as a conflicted editor, about how to proceed when an edit request is refused on what I believe to be unreasonable grounds.

I made an edit request at Talk:Debra Searle#Edit request. The request comprises five discreet and (apart from a heading change) independent changes:

I am undertaking some paid consultancy for Debra Searle, as part of which she has asked me to suggest some changes to his article, on her behalf. This supersedes the request she made, above.

1. Change "Sport" sub-heading to "Career"

2. Above "Atlantic rowing", insert:

Searle has successfully completed a range of endurance expeditions and adventurous challenges on rivers, across oceans and in the Arctic.

3. After the existing Atlantic Row Race paragraph, add:

Following invitations to speak that resulted from her solo row across the Atlantic, Searle developed a career as a keynote speaker. Her work spans international conferences, corporate events, and a TEDx Talk. She was included in Global Guru's top 30 motivational speakers of 2025.

4. Below that add a subsection:

Entrepreneur
Searle has founded and co-founded several companies. These include The Well Hung Art Company, an internet-based gallery and corporate art consultancy; Shoal Projects, adventure-based projects, including TV, book writing and motivational speaking; Mix Diversity, a Diversity and Inclusion Consultancy; and The Debra Searle Academy, providing online courses, and training in resilience, leadership, and personal development.

5. Below that add a subsection:

Television
Searle began work in television broadcasting after her solo Atlantic row. She became a presenter for the BBC, with early credits including Grandstand. She was also the subject of an episode of the BBC documentary series Extreme Lives, which highlighted extraordinary achievements in endurance and adventure. The documentary followed Searle taking part in a 460-mile non-stop wilderness canoe race down the Yukon River in Canada.

References

Note that some of the cited sources refer to Searle using her former surname, Veal. I can suggest additional or alternative sources for many of the statements, if required.

After a short discussion, it was refused in full. The grounds for refusal, paraphrased, seem to be:

• some of the sources are over 20 years old
  • they support events that occurred over 20 years ago; source 3 is from 2014; source 7 from 2025.
• some of the sources are not independent
  • policy allows this for some non-controversial statements, such as companies listing their staff or founders
• Source 1 only verifies that a mission was attempted
  • the source is the TV episode, which shows a successful attempt, not the TV guide listing
• the wording is promotional
  • I asked what needed changing, but this was ignored

I was also concerned to be told that any future request must be "entirely based off independent, reliable sources", when, as noted above, policy does not require this. Nonetheless, the sources cited in my request include BBC, The Telegraph, The Guardian and the Sunday Times.

I asked that the request be reopened so that neutral third party could review it (and consider the individual requests independently of each other); this too was ignored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

DentistRecommended and unaddressed COI concerns

• Sam Kiki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• QCP (internet personality) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Emily McDonald (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Connor McCrory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Albert CanCook (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• DentistRecommended (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I reached out with the standard COI notice [3] when I started AfDs for Eli Lippman and Farshad Dehbozorgi last month, and saw many other article creations on online influencers (with a similar promotional flair). DentistRecommended responded to my message but didn't explicitly address if there is COI or not. I've since PROD'd the article on Sam Kiki, which was removed. Although I appreciate the time and effort that DentistRecommended has invested into creating these articles and responding to the deletion debates, the concerns still remain. Best, Bridget (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Miyamoto International

• Miyamoto International (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kit Miyamoto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mdejesuscolon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Miyintl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MiyamotoInt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Noemare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TheRelec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SCabanC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A small number of single-purpose accounts have added unsourced and promotional text to these two linked articles. I hope I have taken the Miyamoto International article back to a non-promotional version, and removed some unsourced material from the Kit Miyamoto article. The two accounts which look as if they represent the firm's name are no longer editing; Miyintl only edited twice, over a month ago, and has been warned by another editor about their username, and MiyamotoInt only edited once, in 2021.

Mdejesuscolon added text with the wording Our conflict and disaster reconstruction experts mobilized to the region, aiding in school safety and repairs through our non-profit organization Miyamoto Relief. That user has not edited for over a year.

Noemare may not have a CoI, but I'm not sure where they found the unsourced details they added here. I asked them on 14 November 2025 whether they worked for or represented the company, but they haven't replied.

TheRelec is an old account which edited Kit Miyamoto and added promotional material - here, such as working tirelessly. Has not edited since 2023.

SCabanC described Kit Miyamoto as a renowned structural engineer ... Dr. Miyamoto faced a setback in his early aspiration to become a professional American football player but redirected his life towards structural engineering. Another editor asked SCabanC whether they have a CoI, but he didn't reply. Has not edited for nearly two years.

I am not suggesting that sanctions are needed here. Most of these editors are no longer active, and I have edited the two articles back to less promotional and better-sourced versions. As there may be a history of CoI edits to these two articles, however, more eyes on them would be useful. I have added the COIN notification to each editor, in case some of the inactive return and have missed this discussion. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Noemare is continuing to edit both articles, and has added a lot of unsourced material to Miyamoto International here. I have asked them to answer the question about whether they have a CoI, and not to edit those two articles further until they have done so. Tacyarg (talk)

Nick Bouras

• Nick Bouras (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• BourasWikidedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NBWikipedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Would be grateful for more eyes on this BLP about an academic. BourasWikidedia added unsourced text with a promotional tone: widely recognized for his contributions to psychiatry and mental health reforms ... regarded as one of the leaders of psychiatric reforms in the UK. I reverted this and, given the username, notified the editor about the CoI policy. That username has not edited again, but NBWikipedia has added similar unsourced text widely recognized for his contributions to psychiatry and mental health reforms ... regarded as one of the leaders of psychiatric reforms in the UK, shaping modern approaches to mental health. Not sure if this is two people or one, but both usernames suggest they have a CoI. I have left the most recent edit in place pending this discussion and other editors' input. Tacyarg (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)