Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#LA Models

• {{pagelinks|Pasco eSchool}}
• {{userlinks|Floating Orb}}

I tagged Floating Orb's talk page with a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Floating_Orb&diff=prev&oldid=1291079093 paid editing] notice.

Floating Orb responded that they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Floating_Orb&diff=next&oldid=1291150088 are a student] at that school (they also created the article).

At Pasco eSchool, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pasco_eSchool&diff=prev&oldid=1291807524 removed promotional content] this editor added, with the edit summary, "none of these awards are notable, per WP:WPSCH/AG".

Floating Orb reverted the promotional edit twice: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pasco_eSchool&diff=prev&oldid=1291816427], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pasco_eSchool&diff=prev&oldid=1291828651].

Floating Orb [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magnolia677&diff=prev&oldid=1291827162 left a message on my talk page], comparing their school article to some other school article.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magnolia677&diff=prev&oldid=1291870192 I responded]: "I have already pointed to a consensus that discourages the promotional edits you are making to the school you attend, yet you keep edit warring to add this puffery. I have cautioned you about COI editing, but you're not getting it."

Floating Orb [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magnolia677&diff=next&oldid=1291870192 responded], again comparing his school article to some other school.

Their promotional edits have not been self-reverted.

This editor seems determined to add promotional content about their non-notable teachers and classmates, despite being cautioned about our COI policy and about a consensus at WP:WPSCH/AG to not add promotional content or content about non-notable awards.

Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think that the Angeline Academy page has a student major contributor too. It isn't any different. Floating Orb (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::The fact that this argument in a different context has the shortcut WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS should tell you all you need to know. Cabayi (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yeah. That makes sense. Thank you. Floating Orb (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:You should ask him. Floating Orb (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:Anyway I added the criticisms section to balance everything a little. Floating Orb (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:Never mind. Removed the section. Floating Orb (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yet you continue to add promotional content about the school at which you are a student! Magnolia677 (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I didn't. Floating Orb (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Maybe slightly. Floating Orb (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}This editor has now made over 90 percent of the edits to the school they attend, and has been asking other editors to remove the COI tag. If someone could have a look at this it would be appreciated. Thank youl. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{pagelinks|Kali}}
• {{pagelinks|Kali Puja}}
• {{pagelinks|Religious music}}
• {{pagelinks|Culture of West Bengal}}
• {{pagelinks|Arts of West Bengal}}
• {{userlinks|শুভদীপ বন্দ্যোপাধ্যায়}}

@শুভদীপ বন্দ্যোপাধ্যায় has made edits including [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kali&diff=prev&oldid=1293074235][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kali_Puja&diff=prev&oldid=1293073744][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religious_music&diff=prev&oldid=1293043369][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Culture_of_West_Bengal&diff=prev&oldid=1293042918][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arts_of_West_Bengal&diff=prev&oldid=1293042548]. More eyes welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

: I've added the required notice to the user's talk page. -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::So did I: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%E0%A6%B6%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%AD%E0%A6%A6%E0%A7%80%E0%A6%AA_%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%A6%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AF%E0%A7%8B%E0%A6%AA%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A7%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AF%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%AF%E0%A6%BC&diff=prev&oldid=1293077599] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{pagelinks|California State University, Northridge}}
• {{userlinks|Supertowel}}
• {{userlinks|Melchior2006}}

I have been given a COI for the mentioned article by Melchior2006 because I am an alumnus of the university and have made extensive edits to the page. These edits have followed UNIGUIDE, been extensively sourced, and maintain NPOV.

I find being an alumnus too tenuous a relationship to be considered a COI, especially when this noticeboard also clearly states a "conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics". Having attended a university seems to me to not be a close enough relationship to constitute a COI. Probably most pages on Wikipedia are edited by people who have such a tenuous relationship to the article they edit (from universities to local soccer clubs). I also could not find a clear consensus on this in the archives.

I would like to find a consensus on this.

Supertowel (talk) 10:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Merely attending a school does not give a COI with regards to the school. If there is something else, like editing at the direction of the school, or at the direction of someone else(like an alumni association), then it might be a COI. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, being an alumnus is a conflict of interest. It's not a financial conflict but many alumni may feel compelled to paint an overly positive picture of their alma mater. But in the big picture, it's a relatively minor conflict. ElKevbo (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::I don't think it's enough to prevent editing, any more than a customer of Walmart would have a COI with regards to Walmart. An alumni is just a customer of an educational institution. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::The Walmart comparison is weak, because it ignores the prestige factor. Wiki higher ed articles often have problems with boosterism because alums want to make their alma mater look good. That is understandable, but it is a COI and there is broad consensus about that. Having said that, an alum can certainly contribute to an article about her alma mater, but with the necessary caution. I explained all of that to Supertowel on the user page. This is all standard practice. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Stating something is 'standard practice' and has 'broad consensus' without providing any proof to back this up is insufficient.

::::What I could find on consensus in the archives is [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Archive_33#c-ElKevbo-2020-12-25T05:28:00.000Z-Vincentvikram-2020-12-25T04:55:00.000Z]. The consensus here was (in my interpretation): leave it unless a user is making problematic edits.

::::Hence singling out a user who has made extensive good faith edits to an article and slapping the user with a COI because they disagree with your own edit does not seem to be 'standard practice' based on 'broad consensus'. Supertowel (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::That's my understanding as well. 331dot (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::It is standard practice to exercise caution if there is reason to believe that a COI is leading to all the classic behaviors associated with one (i.e., boosterism, puffery, poor sourcing, etc.). That's why we have COI templates for editor talk pages. Melchior2006 is right in approaching Supertowel about the value of exercising caution because Supertowel is a single purpose account that is dedicated to California State University, Northridge articles.  GuardianH  17:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:I've seen people on both sides of this dispute assert that established practice favors their position, so I'm going to tag in WP:Higher Education and WP:Schools for their input. My two cents: as a sanity check, let's take a look at school or university articles that have passed GA or FA. Right now there is only one university FA on Wikipedia. Neither the article talk page nor the primary editor have COI disclosures. Frankly, I don't know whether sdkb went to Pomona and I don't care. The more relevant questions are: 1) have these articles been meaningfully improved by alums, and if yes, 2) has their quality been recognized by the broader WP community? A "yes" on both counts suggests that a blanket COI-for-alums rule is unnecessary, since the quality of the work tends to speak for itself. I'm not disregarding all the shoddy alumni edits committed on this website over the years—but if you think an edit is boostery, why not just revert it and discuss it on the talk page, like any other Wikipedia article?

:With respect to Supertowel in particular, I am not sure I would have opened with a message as aggressive as {{tq|you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly}}: the claim is probably overbroad and implies a consensus that doesn't seem to exist. After Supertowel pushed back, Melchior2006 walked back their statement somewhat, but I think the first message would have been enough to scare off some good faith editors. Namelessposter (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you all for the input ElKevbo, 331dot, Namelessposter, GuardianH, Sdkb, SarekOfVulcan, Rublamb, and Robminchin. I think enough input has been provided to reach consensus. I would summarize the consensus as: regardless of if it is a COI (opinions do still differ on this), it is too minor to warrant a COI citation that would discourage users from editing and restrict editing rights to an article. Would you agree with this conclusion?

:If so, I would petition in my case for the COI given to me by Melchior2006 to be removed from the talk page of the article in question (and hence the removal of my editing restriction) as well as the removal of the close connection notice on the article by GuardianH. Supertowel (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::While I agree that so far, everyone (even Melchior) seems to be fine with you editing the article, it’s not going to resolve your content dispute. Even if you had no connection at all to CSUN, Melchior would have had the authority to revert you (and then you would have had the authority to revert back and discuss it on the talk page, etc.).

::I’m not sure how to handle the close-connection maintenance template. I’d caution that even if GuardianH were to take down the template, they could still replace it with a similar template, such as Template:Academic booster, which may come off as less of a personal criticism but may still be cold comfort given that everyone who reads the CSUN article will see it. (GuardianH does, in fact, do this.) Ultimately, I don't think there's an easy way around the content dispute, COI or no COI, and you'll have to find some common ground with Melchior and GuardianH. So I'd advise trimming, listening, negotiating, narrowing your dispute to a couple simple questions, and then bringing the sharpened, narrowed points of dispute to WikiProject Higher Ed for the community's verdict. Namelessposter (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

{{od}} This is indeed an interesting debate (thank you Namelessposter for inviting me!). My general understanding is that alumni may be motivated to promote their institution in a favorable light, but its unclear whether or not this constitutes a COI, at least enough to make a disclosure. We have had editors from an institution promote articles on their respective institutions into GA status or even FA status before, and that was generally accepted whether it was disclosed or not. For example, our article on the University of Edinburgh was promoted to GA status by an employee/alumnus — this was disclosed on the talk page. There have also been similar editors at the University of Notre Dame. Skdb also brought Pomona College to FA status, and (I think) they were a current student/alumnus at the time aswell. User:Supertowel's comment on the consensus above seems to be de facto standard[?].  GuardianH  17:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

{{collapse top}}

:I would date the beginning of the conflict with Supertowel's two reverts within a few hours (12:38, 31 May 2025 Supertowel). This approaches edit warring. Also, note that Supertowel was particularly interested in keeping alumni (ahem, alumni) listings on the Northridge page although they are covered extensively on a list page. Why do we need such extensive alumni listings on the Northridge page? -- Melchior2006 (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::Under the right circumstances, it's perfectly valid to ask a user whether they have a COI or attended a particular educational institution—particularly when the user is an SPA or their edits appear to be puffery. That being said, I would have assumed good faith and started with content discussions on the talk page, as I do not think edit summaries are a helpful way to debate 27,000-byte deletions and reverts. (I think Melchior2006's discussion on Talk:University of Chicago#Inclusion of public transit/shuttle program in transportation section is a good example of a positive discussion that builds consensus.)

::I should note that while I haven't reviewed the CSUN page closely enough to say whether Melchior2006 was right in trimming Supertowel's contributions, I firmly disagree with the points Supertowel made to defend their edits (the fact that another page contravenes a Wikipedia policy does not mean that you have the right to do the same, cf. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). However, Supertowel was wrong in a way that suggests they are new to Wikipedia and should be given a little grace. (See WP:HERRING.) We were all inexperienced editors once, and I still am. Namelessposter (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::And I am perfectly fine discussing the reverts because in my view the edits by Melchior2006 were too extensive to abide by UNIGUIDE. But instead of opening up a discussion on the talk page of the university or my own page, I immediately get slapped with a COI and my editing gets restricted. That, to me, is a major overreaction and skips quite a few steps to try and resolve the issue in a civil manner. Supertowel (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you. I think this is a good point to separate our two discussions (the content dispute over the reverts and the alumni-COI question). IMO, you were right to raise the COI issue here and early on. However, I don't want that issue to get sidetracked with content questions that haven't been properly ventilated at the CSUN talk page. (See WP:CONTENTDISPUTE.)

::::I note for the record that Melchior2006 technically [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACalifornia_State_University%2C_Northridge&diff=1293274627&oldid=1264918867 opened a discussion on the CSUN talk page] four minutes before [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASupertowel&diff=1293275117&oldid=1258288787 asking you for your university affiliation]. To be clear, I think Melchior jumped the gun there and should have provided more time. But that discussion is a good place to start debating the nitty-gritty. Namelessposter (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Because I was not tagged, I did not even notice it was raised as an issue on the talk page. I will take some time to take this part of the discussion there tomorrow! Supertowel (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

{{collapsed bottom}}

Generally, I would say categorically no, there's no COI, with caveats like 331dot raises. See the note at the bottom of the header of Talk:Knights of Columbus for a previous similar discussion I participated in. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• (Coming from the WP:HED invite; the attempted ping failed because of a misspelling of my username.) I concur with 331dot and others. Ultimately, colleges (even nonprofit ones) are businesses and students their customers. While I take Melchior2006's point that there is a greater level of association than with e.g. a Walmart customer, I ultimately view it as roughly akin to editing one's hometown: Some editors might feel a level of hometown pride (or animus, just as some alumni resent their alma mater), and they should be cognizant of the potential for that to introduce bias into their editing, but it's not a formal Conflict of Interest (capitalized, making it a reference to Wikipedia jargon rather than a generic description) that would require someone to make a COI declaration or use the COI edit request process. Sdkb ^talk 21:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:I respectfully disagree. Someone editing an article about their hometown does have a conflict of interest. And someone editing an article about their alma mater has a stronger conflict of interest. They're both pretty minor conflicts and they're almost certainly not ones that anyone would consider to be actionable in Wikipedia. But they are conflicts of interest (technically, those who study or work with these kinds of issues might more properly consider these to be conflicts of commitment).

:A conflict of interest is not a scarlet badge or something to be ashamed of - we all have many conflicts of interest. Most are minor and few rise to the level of being actionable or of any concern in Wikipedia. But we need to discourage the misconception that having a conflict requires a direct and obvious financial relationship. And we need to discourage the misconception that having a conflict is a binary state where we either have a conflict that prevents us from editing an article or we don't have a conflict at all. So a better question might be: Is being an alumnus of an institution a strong enough conflict of interest that they should be discouraged from editing the article? Although I believe that there is a conflict of interest I think the answer to this question is typically "no." ElKevbo (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::Sorry to ask a potentially obvious question, but to clarify, would you require editors to preemptively disclose that they are alums when editing the school article (while still presumptively allowing them to edit)? Namelessposter (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't think there is a consensus among editors that this is a conflict so there certainly isn't a consensus that this relationship must be explicitly disclosed prior to making edits to an article. And asking editors to preemptively disclose all of their minor relationships with subjects is neither practical nor compatible with our dedication to allow editors confidentiality. ElKevbo (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with @ElKevbo. A university's alumni might have a conflict of interest (negative or positive) but not at the level that should prohibit them from editing an article. This certainly does not rise to the level of COI for edits made by someone working in the university's PR office. (Note that this is allowed, although self-disclosure is encouraged). Conversely, someone doesn't need to be an alumnus of university to have a COI--consider someone updating an article about their alma mater's rival. I know we become programmed to look for trolls and assume the worst, but most editors join Wikipedia to update a specific article and, hopefully, expanded their interests. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with only having worked on one article. As with all edits, it should really come down to content, tone, and sources. Rublamb (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::I would say that, for Wikipedia editing purposes, being an alum is not a conflict of interest, i.e. something that should lead to a person being discouraged from editing articles on that institution. While ElKevbo is correct that there is some level of COI, as there is for editing an article about someone's hometown, this doesn't reach the level implied by "Editors should not edit where they have a conflict of interest", so for Wikipedia purposes - which is the real question being asked here - this is not a COI.

::One thing that might be considered is whether recent association is a COI. For NSF grant reviews, having worked at or received an award from an institution within the last 12 months is considered an institutional COI with respect to that institution.[https://www.nsf.gov/policies/conflict-of-interest] Robminchin (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::In going back through the COI policy, it is clear to me that there is a difference between a true COI and a potential for bias. The COI policy provides direction regarding articles yourself, your immediate family, your business, or a financial connection to the subject of the article such as working for subject or receiving payment to work on the article. Attending a college may result in bias but does not reach COI as defined in the policy. Rublamb (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{pagelinks|Gondwana Records}}
• {{userlinks|GeorgiaGondwanaRecords}}

Username implies official connection to record label. No disclosure of paid editing has been made by the editor. Edits consist almost entirely of edits to the record label or to artists signed to the label (including deleted articles). Chubbles (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:I am a fan of the label. GeorgiaGondwanaRecords (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::We still don't allow usernames implying official/shared use regardless of whether or not it is. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Off-wiki evidence also points to "is". DoubleCross (‡) 16:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Assuming it is a personal name at the beginning of the username, then this falls into the "Sara Smith at XYZ Company" category of an acceptable username.

::::Certainly a well-founded concern about COI and undisclosed paid editing. {{u|GeorgiaGondwanaRecords}}, if you are employed by this company, then you are a paid editor. Attempting to conceal a paid relationship won't bode well for you on Wikipedia. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{pagelinks|Tom Chavez}}
• {{userlinks|CJ for superset}}
• {{userlinks|Lauren at L Strategies}}

Article: Tom Chavez – currently at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Chavez.

Declared paid editors

• User:CJ for superset – created the userspace draft of the article as a paid editor for the subject (diff ➜ [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Chavez&diff=prev&oldid=1053210408 link]).
• User:Lauren at L Strategies – PR consultant at Laurel Strategies; removed the {{tl|PROD}} tag when the article was proposed for deletion (diff ➜ [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Chavez&diff=prev&oldid=1294125499 link]). She has not yet !voted in AfD, but the PROD removal shows direct main-space intervention.

Cross-article pattern

• The same PR account edits multiple Laurel Strategies client biographies, adding or adjusting favourable content:
• Chris Kemp – COI addition on 28 Dec 2021 (diff ➜ [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Kemp&diff=prev&oldid=1062445426 link]).
• Guillaume Pousaz – COI direct edit on 26 Sep 2023 (diff ➜ [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guillaume_Pousaz&diff=prev&oldid=1177193749 link]).

Concern

• Paid editors are editing mainspace directly instead of using the Talk-page request process advised in WP:COI.
• The same editor appears across several client pages, suggesting coordinated PR activity.
• With the AfD underway, early COIN scrutiny will help ensure the discussion is not influenced by undisclosed canvassing or further promotional edits.

Requesting COIN review for compliance with WP:COI and any remedial steps (e.g. advising paid editors to use edit requests, tagging pages with {{tl|COI}}, or warning if necessary).

— Cumulus-wizard-1850 (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:Lauren at L Strategies' only edit to Tom Chavez seems to have been the removal of your PROD, after her interest was declared.

:Their 2021 edit to Chris Kemp was, as their edit summary stated, {{Tq|1="COI edit following Talk page discussion and feedback"}}.

:Their edits to Guillaume Pousaz were made after talk page discussion where another editor said "I would recommend you to go forward with your edits as long as you comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and try not to vandalize and cite unreliable or false sources."

:There is no discussion of any CoI issue on their talk page since 2001 2021, when they were asked to change their user name.

:CJ for superset doesn't have any mainspace edits at all (They created Tom Chavez in draft and it was published after review by an apparently uninvolved editor). There is no discussion of COI on their talk page before you posted this report.

:Both have declared their paid CoI in accordance with our policy.

:Can you point to where you discussed this with them before coming here? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks, Andy. I’ve now posted COI notices on both editors’ talk pages. The article text was written entirely by paid editors (with only cosmetic edits by neutral editors) and has not been expanded by independent contributors, so I flagged it here early for transparency. I’m happy to let the AfD proceed on sourcing merits, I appreciate your guidance. — Cumulus-wizard-1850 (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Neither user's talk page has been edited since you left them notification of this discussion on 6 June.

:::The question was "Can you point to where you discussed this with them before coming here?". If you (or someone else) have not done so, then you have not complied with the requirements stated at the top of this page: {{Tq|1="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."}} Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Cumulus-wizard-1850}}, what is your connection to the topic Tom Chavez? Were you previously hired, consulted, or in any way involved in discussion to edit that page?--CNMall41 (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:Confirming that I have no personal connection to the topic and have never been hired, consulted, or otherwise involved in any discussion to edit the Tom Chavez article. — Cumulus-wizard-1850 (talk) 15:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I was served an ad on Facebook for the company Ministry of Supply (clothing). [https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=1745957042971383 You can see the ad here], but in case it disappears, the ad depicts an email the company supposedly received from a fan of theirs that raves about a shirt, then the last line of the email says: "I'm also the guy who created your Wikipedia page. Please let me know if you have any updates for the article." The from information is blurred out. The text they wrote on the ad says: "We finally met the person who made our Wikipedia page, and it did not disappoint."

I have no way of knowing if this is even a real email or just something an ad agency made up, but it is obviously not great that they're literally advertising that a Wikipedian would email them to offer to make any edits to their company's page. Any thoughts on how to address this? Liannadavis (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:Liannadavis, you should have informed the editor, so I have left a note on their talk page. I would tend to assume good faith here. Whoisjohngalt has edited for twenty years and it appears that he was writing about a local business. TSventon (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:Not only should you have informed the editor that you were discussing them here; you should have talked to them directly before doing so; at the top of this page is the notice {{Tq|1="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."}}

:I have often written to people or organisations to tell them that I have written and published a Wikipedia article abut them; both as a courtesy and to see if they have any concerns. Also sometimes to request photographs. There is nothing untoward about doing so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Liannadavis and TSventon,

Thank you for raising this concern and allowing me to clarify my involvement with the Ministry of Supply Wikipedia article.

I am a long-time customer of Ministry of Supply, having purchased shirts from them in 2014, which I've used regularly since. I lived near their Boston store and out of personal interest in their innovative clothing, I created and edited their Wikipedia page in good faith, using publicly available, reliable sources to ensure neutrality and compliance with Wikipedia’s policies (WP:NPOV, WP:V). I have no financial or personal relationship with the company beyond being a customer, and I have not been compensated for my edits.

Regarding the advertisement you mentioned, I haven't seen it myself, but I did contact Ministry of Supply some time ago to praise the durability of their shirts and inquire about any new clothing lines, as I follow their products with interest. If the ad implies I solicited updates for the Wikipedia article, that's a misunderstanding, as my edits are based solely on published sources, not direct input from the company.

To maintain transparency:

• I'm happy to have my edits to the Ministry of Supply article reviewed by other editors to ensure they meet Wikipedia's standards.
• I can add a note to my user page or the article's talk page stating that I have no COI beyond being a customer.

whoisjohngalt (talk) Whoisjohngalt (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:There's a fair bit of marketese and puffery in the article, but at least so far as I can find, that's not really Whoisjohngalt's doing. Rather, it seems there have been a pattern of (probably actually COI/paid) editors putting that kind of junk in there. So, it could definitely do with some cleanup and removal of marketese/fluff. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::To be clear, my concern was not that there was any COI editing on the page by anyone, my concern was a company was spending money advertising to the general public that someone had offered them a chance to edit whatever they wanted on their Wikipedia article. As I noted, I thought there was a good chance it was fake, made up by an ad agency. My concern was with the ad itself, not with any edits, which is why I didn't tag anyone, and instead linked to the ad.

::

::I still do honestly think that a company spending a lot of money to advertise to the general public that companies just need to find a sympathetic Wikipedian and then they can have input on their articles seems like a pretty clear reputational hit to Wikipedia's neutrality. But it sounds from this discussion like this is actually something that's done regularly -- not on talk pages, but in personal communication between the editor and the company, and maybe not disclosed on talk pages even -- and is seen as fine? That's honestly really shocking to me. But I recognize this is the expertise of the watchers of this noticeboard and not mine, so I will defer to your deeper experience. Liannadavis (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I resent and reject the implication that the discussion above means that companies have undue or improper input into their articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• Being a fan does not constitute a COI. Otherwise, what somebody puts in a Facebook ad is none of our concern. GMG^talk 14:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

The user Insportz, who has been editing since 2007, might have an undisclosed connection to, Tom Taylor, as all or at least the vast majority of the user’s edits seem to be promoting Taylor.

I am simultaneously contacting the user on their talk page but have elected to also post this discussion, which I have alerted them to, as they have been editing for a clearly extended period of time. Year2006 (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:At the top of this page: {{Tq|1="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."}}

:You seem to have only broached the subject with them at the same time as notifying them of this discussion. There is no earlier mention of conflict of interest on their talk page or in its history (and none on the article's talk page). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{pagelinks|sj Miller}}
• {{userlinks|Lachoza}}

I am making this report as an uninvolved editor, on behalf of Funcrunch, who requested help assessing COI concerns on the Talk page of a related Wikiproject.

User Lachoza is a single-purpose account that has only ever contributed to sj Miller. Funcrunch raised concerns about [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sj_Miller&diff=prev&oldid=1293972319 this edit] which added substantial content but was marked by Lachoza as "minor". Funcrunch raised the issue [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALachoza&diff=1293984604&oldid=1019493945 on the Lachoza's talk page] and at Talk:sj Miller#Possible COI editing.

Lachoza [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sj_Miller&diff=prev&oldid=1295078279 discloses] a (prior?) personal/professional relationship with the subject of the article and then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sj_Miller&diff=prev&oldid=1294922392 removed the COI and maintenance] tags in the midst of the discussion. The tags have been restored by other editors. Lachoza uses "we" in edit summaries and on the talk page when discussing the subject of the article.

I believe the questions for this notice board are whether the relationship disclosed presents a COI and whether the COI tag remains appropriate. I welcome any additional feedback.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:Lachoza was previously warned about misuse of the "minor edit" tag in 2021. Per the timeline this was after their first ever edit. Lachoza then made several more edits inappropriately marked "minor" and were warned again by a second editor. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::I’m just letting everybody know that this was due to an error and not reading about the COI issues. I would appreciate this resolved and we can move on. I can’t keep up with these comments as it is very interrupted right now. I’m dealing with a very very sick mother and would appreciate having this concluded What is it You need me to do? It’s very unclear to me. As I said, I removed some things only because I probably didn’t know any better. There is nothing malicious here. Lachoza (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::The use of “we” was simply an error. And that was an error on my part. It feels like you’re turning me into a criminal and this doesn’t feel good. I don’t quite understand why this is be labored. I’ve already stated that I had Dr. Miller when I was in graduate school eight years ago. There’s nothing more to say. Lachoza (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)