Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Miss Grand Lithuania

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to purge this page
    (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-wp@wikipedia.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

    Annah Stretton (NZ fashion designer/businesswoman)

    [edit]

    Background: @Mesomay asked in the Teahouse for help with the draft article Annah Stretton 2 as they were struggling to get the article accepted.

    I cleaned up the article and submitted it for re-review. I was then pinged by @Nil NZ who advised me, to my surprise, that that there were tone and source issues that needed to be addressed before the article would comfortably pass AFC.

    This made me review the article's history. After I submitted the article for review, Mesomay continued to amend the article, and reintroduced most of the previous issues.

    Issue: Mesomay's account has all the appearances of a single purpose account. In addition, Mesomay has also uploaded a photo of the subject as their "own work" suggesting they know the subject.

    I have asked Mesomay if they have a undeclared COI but received no response.

    ps. It may be unconnected but there were also two Annah Stretton drafts, Annah Stretton #1 was created by @RKLET about a month before Annah Stretton 2.

    MmeMaigret (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I have partially blocked the account in question from editing the article for a week in order to draw their attention to policies i have highlighted for them. Let's see what happens when they return to editing. Mfield (Oi!) 04:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for bringing my attention to the COI policies. As I am new to editing wikipedia, are you able to explain how I declare a conflict of interest. Mesomay (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mesomay: See WP:COI and, if you have a financial interest, WP:PAID. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Article is now published, as Annah Stretton. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Since @Mesomay has not added declared their COI, can a connected contributor template please be added to the article talk page. MmeMaigret (talk) 02:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This person is notable and other editors have reviewed the page, is that template still necessary? LDW5432 (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Included Health

    [edit]

    Two WP:SPAs have recently become active strictly in relation to these pages. Not sure if there is also a potential sock situation at play here, but it would be good to get more experienced eyes on these. Amigao (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not an experienced editor, but i think that this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Drums4lyfe0609&oldid=1244073906 edit might be important as it shows that Drums4lyfe started their page with COI only to blank it 1 minute after.
    There's also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Delivery_drone&diff=prev&oldid=1281068455 this edit from Drums4lyfe that is remarkably similar to the one from Vikingsfan https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Delivery_drone&diff=prev&oldid=1239373427 173.206.50.207 (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Very odd indeed that Drums4lyfe0609 self-declared as a WP:PAID editor only to blank it shortly thereafter and then claim on their talk page to be receiving no compensation. Some explaining is probably needed. - Amigao (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the overlap in editing area and the fact Vikingsfan and Drums4lyfe both, out of 10,000 possible permutations, elected to end their usernames with "0609" ... I'm inclined to invoke WP:DUCK and say there's some form of puppetry, sock or otherwise at play. ToeSchmoker (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ToeSchmoker I'd suggest an SPI then. I'm not too aware of the process though. 173.206.50.207 (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've raised one. I think it's pretty obvious what's going on here particularly with the AfD participation so I imagine we'll see a resolution soon enough. ToeSchmoker (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've filed an ANI after learning that an SPI might be a waste of time for this per tamzin's essay on the matter 173.206.50.207 (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vikingsfan0609 resulted in User:Vikingsfan0609 and User:Drums4lyfe0609 both being indefinitely blocked. -- Pemilligan (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Emmanuel Goffi

    [edit]

    Emmanuel.goffi is persistently adding poorly sourced, autobiographical content to the article Emmanuel Goffi, ignoring warnings posed on their user talk page. Some more eyes on the article would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Victoria Poleva

    [edit]

    Username suggests that the user is the subject of the article. No reply to messages on their Talk page, and has continued to edit the article. Tacyarg (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    FableVision

    [edit]

    Article turned into an advert by a different account on 18 June. Turned back into an advert by Kermitthefrogmuppet this evening. Warned about advertising and replied that they would undo the edit in order to add back the advertising. Warned about COI. Restored the advertising anyway. • a frantic turtle 🐢 20:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Radioactive Pictures

    [edit]

    User is closely connected to the article's subject, as Radioactive Pictures is the studio behind the movie. No COI disclosure from the editor. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 08:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You're not new here -- please follow the rules at the top of this page, such as When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page and This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed. -- Pemilligan (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Silvina Moschini

    [edit]

    This user has adjusted the Moschini page to reflect an advertorial tone, all of the sudden, having never been an active editor previously. They were asked on their talk page if they had a conflict of interest. They did not respond, but did remove a content warning about the page being written as an advertisement instead without changes to the page. Changes include a list of speeches and awards, and sentences claiming her Internet show was “the most emblematic business show of all times (sic)”. 2605:8D80:7220:A588:8D3E:C56A:3BA3:F5C5 (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for this. I only saw the notification now coming from a Single Purpose IP account. My only interest was to update the page since it has outdated info. I spent time to work on it on my sandbox for days before updating. I made the update look neutral and factual in line with WP:NPOV. There are lots of new WP:RS about the new updates. I only picked the best. Wikipedia encourages regular updates where necessary. That's exactly what I have done. There's no need for the "Promo" tag since the content is neutral and factual. The previous content on the page were all outdated. Check "Silivia Moshchini" in Googlenews, there are lots of newer content and info about here. I also responded to the note on my talk page. Favorisésunti (talk) 05:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Miss Grand Lithuania

    [edit]

    There are hundreds upon hundreds of articles related to Miss Grand International and it appears to be a massive WP:PROMO and Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation. Some other pageantries, like Miss Earth, Miss Supranatonal and Miss Atlántico Internacional show a similar pattern and may be related to Miss Grand. The problem pattern, described below, applies to most of the articles related to Miss Grand International.

    Many claims are unreferenced and cannot be corroborated by google searches. Unreferenced claims do not belong on Wikipedia, but problems go beyond that. The unreferenced claims indicate that people associated with the event (the ones who know the event from inside) are actually creating the articles. Covert promotion. Furthermore, many references DO NOT support the statements they purport to support. Oftentimes, the claim on Wikipedia is not featured in the reference in any form. There are many single-purpose accounts and that single purpose is to create promo articles related to Miss Grand International. Some, like User:InternationalPageant, User:Mrdhimas and User:Iamdenisa, are already banned. Permanently banned. Others aren’t and continue their Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation.

    These articles chip at the quality and reliability of Wikipedia itself. WP:TNT is long overdue.

    University of The Purple Unicorn (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bri: I looked at the archives and believe that you have experience of dealing with pageant socking. A search for "prefix:Miss Grand" finds 442 articles. TSventon (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to clarify that I am not connected to the accounts mentioned above. I also have no conflict of interest regarding the pageant-related or other articles I created — I am simply a fan of the pageant. My account is also not a single-purpose account, as I have contributed to several Thai history–related articles as well (List of pages created by me). In addition, my Wikipedia user page includes a link to my Facebook profile, which indicates my place of work. If verification of my workplace is required, I can provide a government-issued document; however, the document is in Thai. Alternatively, my workplace information (district and province) can be verified through the The Pharmacy Council of Thailand website by entering my pharmacist license number, 36215, in the search field. Thomson Walt (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Talal Yassine

    [edit]

    There appears to be suspect conflict-of-interest editing on Talal Yassine.

    Multiple anonymous IP editors, with limited edit histories, have repeatedly removed reliably sourced content and altered historically accurate information. Both IPv6 addresses share the same /64 prefix ( 2001:8003:270B:9200 ), indicating that the edits likely originated from the same network or individual using rotating privacy addresses. Editors have been tagged as 'references removed', 'section blanking', and often replace sourced material with inoffensive and arguably promotional text.

    Content removed includes:

    • BuzzFeed News (2017) coverage of the Co-Op Bookshop dispute.
    • PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) 2020 Administrators’ Report (official public filing).
    • Crescent Wealth → Salaam Super transition details (supported by APRA releases).

    Edits were made between 23 October and 2 November 2025, following earlier attempts to reinstate sourced, neutral material. This behaviour appears consistent with COI or reputation management editing.

    Relevant diffs:

    Requesting:

    • Administrator review for COI / whitewashing behaviour
    • Possible semi-protection of the article to prevent anonymous reverts
    • Guidance on escalation (WP:ANI or WP:RFPP)

    The article currently reads like a résumé rather than a neutral biography (per WP:NPOV). I’ve restored sourced content per WP:BLP and WP:RS, but the issue persists despite Talk-page requests to discuss changes first.

    El-Baba (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    "This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article... 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."
    All three user-talk pages listed above are red links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Pigsonthewing. Thank you for your contribution. I left talk page notices on their respective talk pages, but I highly suspect that it's the same individual, or group of people known to one another. I anticipate possible edits drawing from other addresses in the future, limiting the effectiveness of talk page notices. Additionally, I referenced the need to discuss contested contributions on the article's talk page, to no avail. Hopefully this brings an end to the matter. El-Baba (talk) 07:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    PissedConsumer

    [edit]

    The article reads like promotional material for the company. It focuses heavily on growth milestones, awards, and self-described initiatives with minimal independent coverage or critical analysis. Many references are self-published or loosely connected to the topic.

    Suggest review under WP:ADVERT, WP:COI, and WP:CORP — the subject may not meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria for companies and could be considered not newsworthy. Drbrew (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This page is about user conduct. Have you concerns about any particular user? Have you discussed it with them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    R21992

    [edit]

    Concern: Potential undisclosed conflict of interest and advocacy editing.

    Summary: It appears that User:R21992 has made favorable edits to their own biographical article (Rangsiman Rome) while also adding negative or contentious material to the pages of a rival, Sarath Ratanavadi, and to his company, Gulf Development.

    Relevant context: The username “R21992” seems to reference Rangsiman Rome’s name and date of birth (RR for his initials and 1992 for his birth date), which further suggests the account could be personally connected to the subject of the biography.

    Examples:

    • On Rangsiman Rome, the user has added positive or self-promotional material and removed less flattering content.
    • On Sarath Ratanavadi, the same user added a “Controversies” section emphasizing allegations or criticism.
    • On Gulf Development, the user added similar negative framing related to Sarath Ratanavadi.

    Possible conflict: If this account is connected to Rangsiman Rome, it would represent direct editing of one’s own biography and advocacy editing regarding a rival figure. Both raise serious issues under WP:COI, WP:BLP, and WP:NPOV.

    According to Prachatai English, Rangsiman Rome was sued for defamation by Gulf Energy Development and its CEO, Sarath Ratanavadi. This public dispute may be relevant to the apparent pattern of favorable edits on Rangsiman Rome and negative edits on Sarath Ratanavadi / Gulf Development.

    Request: I request review of these edits for compliance with conflict-of-interest and biography policies. If a connection exists, the editor should be advised to disclose any relationship and avoid editing these pages directly.

    Diffs:

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donutsharkington (talk • contribs) 16:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It says at the top of the page, When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. It also says at the top of the page, This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue. -- Pemilligan (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Titleist

    [edit]

    Anonymous users (IP/temp) keep adding promotional content, almost exclusively sourced to the company's own website, to the article and have been edit warring to keep their own version. They haven't responded to any talk page messages (they probably aren't even seeing them since they don't have a stable IP/temp account). Jay8g [V•T•E] 04:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You could request page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. -- Pemilligan (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Green (writer)

    [edit]

    User is editing Michael Green (writer) with edit summaries indicating being paid by someone related to the subject. These include "His manager wanted to update the last paragraph to reflect his recent changes." and "Manager asked for an updated Bio." IsCat (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Brian Platt

    [edit]

    There appears to be a potential conflict of interest and whitewashing on the Brian Platt article.

    Over the past week, user User:Unknown22543 has made multiple large edits replacing neutral, well-sourced information about Platt’s termination, city audit findings, and a whistleblower lawsuit with promotional content highlighting his achievements and awards. These changes removed or minimized coverage from reputable news outlets while adding subjective language and selective sourcing.

    The edits strongly suggest a possible COI — potentially someone personally connected to Platt or his former assistant city manager, given the insider tone and focus on reputation rehabilitation. While I don’t have proof of identity, the edit history and phrasing indicate promotional intent inconsistent with WP:NPOV and WP:V.

    Problematic diff (biased rewrite): 22:26, 3 November 2025 – by Unknown22543 Last neutral version to restore: 22:29, 3 November 2025 – by ProClasher97

    Requesting: 1. Review for potential conflict of interest / paid editing. 2. Possible administrative action for persistent whitewashing. 3. Temporary page protection to prevent further edit warring.

    JonnyFyve (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @JonnyFyve was this LLM-generated? ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Only for copy editing and grammar correction, for transparency. The content and details are entirely based on my own observations and critique of the edits. JonnyFyve (talk) 02:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Gia M. Hamilton

    [edit]

    Repeated removal/changing of content after multiple COI warnings. Obvious COI per username and edits. Has been warned multiple times about COI policy, still keeps editing article. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 00:23, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Magazine running covert advertising for page creation service(s)

    [edit]

    https://www.harlemworldmagazine.com/sponsored-love-how-digital-entrepreneurs-can-use-wikipedia-to-establish-industry-authority/ looks like covert advertising to my eye. Contains embedded links to https://www.elitewikipublishers.org/ in both the "sources" the article leads the reader to. There's no authorship credit, as far as I can tell. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    How does this constitute a conflict of interest? Are you suggesting that someone connected to Harlem World is editing the Wikipedia article? Because if that isn't the issue, covert advertising (for Wikipedia-editing services or anything else) on the website itself isn't relevant to our policy, since we don't (or shouldn't) aspire to police other people's websites. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:31, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]