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. }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

Boston History

• HistoryBoston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Boston History (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Everything this user adds is related to the Boston Irish Tourism Association and things it organizes (Irish Heritage Trail, the magazine Travel & Culture, ...). Editor has been warned about this (and about shared accounts) but doesn't agree with or understand the problem. Fram (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I added a comment to their latest user talk seconding what you've been telling them, and attesting that you are actually a person and not an AI. What times we live in. MrOllie (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this explanation. We will refrain from adding external links to our contributions, and rely on neutral editors to make those choices instead. Boston History (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I've updated the templates being used for this section which were trying to connect to a non-existent article named User:HistoryBoston and a non-existent user named User:User:Boston History. Fixing that brings up another issue: are the accounts User:HistoryBoston and User:Boston History duplicate accounts for the same user? -- Pemilligan (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Parov Stelar

• Parov Stelar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• LiHa24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Per File:Parov Stelar Live.jpg LiHa24 claims to be Mark Unterberger which is the manager of Parov Stelar. There is no declaration of COI or PE. NDG (talk) 06:48, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

LiHa24 last edited here in April 2025; seventeen months ago. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 13:35, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Given LiHa24 was previously warned about this two years ago and still didn't make a paid editing disclosure you would be as well raising this at ANI or emailing the COI volunteer response team. Still a policy violation even if the edits are from last year. ToeSchmoker (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

PublishEyes LLC offering UPE

• Jonathan H. Jiang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Julie S. Taylor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• James Pfaus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lawrence Mykytiuk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• David L. Streiner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Douglas N. Harris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mark Wahlqvist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Reihsar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• OutofProportion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cheezops (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The subjects of the first 3 BLPs - Jiang, Taylor, and Pfaus - are listed with glowing customer testimonials on the website of "PublishEyes LLC", who charge up to $3,500 for WP:UPE. Link to website here:

The almost-SPAs that created those three pages also created or significantly expanded the others listed above. They're only active in the BLP space, only edit academics with questionable WP:N, and make their edits in a few minutes, likely with an LLM (e.g. on James Pfaus it's 10,000 bytes in 5 edits and 2 minutes).

I think the edit rhythm together with the website make it a fairly clear-cut case of WP:UPE. All edits are from last year, and they've since likely moved on to other BLPs which I haven't found. Is there something that can be done, e.g. an IP check for those users to see if they're now active on other accounts? — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 12:28, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Whoo-hoo. G11s and G5s or TNT fun time. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 12:30, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I left Mark Wahlqvist alone since that individual's citation section looks legitimately notable; we might want to do some TNT there though. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 12:36, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

The WMF only retains IP info for accounts for 90 days, so unfortunately all these accounts are stale and unable to be checked by a check user. nil ^nz 12:36, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

We do know something about those accounts based on the behaviour pattern alone, e.g., throwaway accounts that are SPAs. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 12:38, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Ah that's unfortunate, but thanks. I'll see if I can tie some more accounts to this via editing patterns, although I'm not that hopeful. Thanks @IrisChronomia for the CSD nominations. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 12:52, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

It would be amusing if one of these supposedly "satisfied customers" sued them for false advertising. On their website, they state ...Our team ensures compliance with Wikipedia's strict guidelines..., but...one of those guidelines is that paid editing must be disclosed, and they obviously didn't comply with that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:04, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

"listed with glowing customer testimonials on the website of 'PublishEyes LLC'"—Itsl common for scammers to claim to have written articles (or to be the named authors of specific articles) without a grain of truth. Do you have any evidence beyond their claim that PublishEyes authored those pages, or that the account holders which authored them did so for PublishEyes? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 14:40, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I considered that. My argument is above: it's the specific combination of those testimonials and the particular way those same persons' pages were created/edited: in 1-5 edits by accounts only active in August-October 2025, only editing for a few days each, only editing in the BLP space, working on likely less-than-notable academics, likely with an LLM, and who never returned to those articles. That editing pattern to me smacks of UPE, which convinced me that they were stupid enough to list real customer names (rather than the usual fake "Luke Evanses" on most other websites of that ilk).

Had the articles of the initial three looked unproblematic, I would have agreed with you and not bothered posting them here. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 21:27, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it smacks of UPE. My question was about the evidence for a link (if any) between that and PublishEyes LLC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 21:38, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Not sure what would count as incontrovertible evidence; I have no invoices or on-wiki discussions. Which is partly why I posted it here so more experienced editors can weigh in. But I see two possible explanations for the pattern:

a) PublishEyes created the pages as UPE, and posted the customer names on their website.

b) PublishEyes found three random, unrelated academics, all of whose pages were created by someone else as UPE, and then passed them off as their own work, rather than finding unproblematic BLPs which weren't created as UPE and using those.

I prefer the more parsimonious explanation. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 09:24, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Potential Undisclosed Paid Editing: Labs Companies

Socks, blocked, also at ANI

• Article name (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. Betterlines (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

This article was flagged by community Editor User:Pasados citing several issues. User:Pasados also publicly asked User:MtkCwoinyuu if they were compensated for Labs Companies. I made the corrections by properly citing it with approved Wikipedia third party sources, and condense any unnecessary repetitiveness. Today User:MtkCwoinyuu abruptly. Betterlines (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am bringing a potential undisclosed paid editing (UPE) situation to the attention of the community. The user account User:MtkCwoinyuu recently moved the article Labs Companies from the mainspace back into the draft space.

There are strong indications of an undisclosed financial conflict of interest connected to this article. Public discussion on the talk page points to an off-wiki identity on LinkedIn under the name Abbas Harun, who appears to have a direct commercial interest or payment relationship tied to the creation and curation of this corporate profile. Despite this commercial relationship, the user has failed to provide the mandatory declaration required under the Wikipedia Paid-contribution Disclosure policy.

Furthermore, independent editors have verified that the draft completely lacks independent, reliable secondary sources necessary to meet standard corporate notability guidelines. I am requesting administrative review regarding potential promotional editing patterns and the lack of a required paid relationship disclosure.

Betterlines (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

This is related to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#UPE, LOUTSOCK, and bears! -- Pemilligan (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Herzing University

• Herzing University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• MuellerWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite declaring their identity as a paid editor and being firmly asked to stop editing an article about one of their clients, MuellerWiki has continued to make promotional edits to the article. ElKevbo (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

User should certainly be proposing changes on talk page, and _definitely_ not edit-warring with non-COI editors to include material. I've watchlisted, and that may suffice (at least up until another client wants wiki edits). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

This is surprising, because in June they made a successful COI edit request on the article's talk page. I wonder if the account is being shared?

Given the statement that they have been "paid by Mueller Communications", the account name is also unacceptable.

Admin intervention is called for. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 20:58, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

As they've editing since being warned on their talk page, I've block from the namespace to encourage their response here, and made reference on their talk page to the account name concerns. You can see my instructions to the account here. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2026 (UTC)