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

suspicions about non-disclosing paid editor Iuliusnanus

• CaddxFPV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• FinVolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Iuliusnanus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Iuliusnanus is promoting paid edit services on Chinese social media (e.g. Xiaohongshu, profile). One of their work ([1], archive) is publishing a pharmacologist's Baidu Baike page to Chinese Wikipedia. Other edits here in English Wikipedia should be reviewed. cc User:Liz and User:CNMall41. --Tim (talk) 07:09, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I have disclosed this on my user page.

User:Iuliusnanus/paid contributions

https://w.wiki/FKv4

Iuliusnanus (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I only had a single instance of editing conduct for Iuliusnanus which I feel is undisclosed paid editing. That thread is here. The initial response was that they were not paid. The follow-up response is that they were approached to edit the draft, but they doubled down saying they were not paid. Ponazzi had a similar response to the COI question after editing the same draft. See that thread here.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I’m not acquainted with Ponazzi, and I didn’t receive payment because the creation was not successful. Iuliusnanus (talk) 10:01, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

If you are offered pay to do work, conditional on completing a task or on the work being published, you are still required to make a declaration as a paid editor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I note that you say you have performed notabiliy checks for people you have added. When I search for Jiang Siqi (or Jiang Shi Qi which seems to be an alternate romanisation) I get no news results. I get a grand total of five when searching with the Chinese rendering. Maybe this is due to my location but I'd be of the opinion an article isn't warranted under Wikipedia:SIGCOV. ToeSchmoker (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, according to the notability criteria for this entry, please refer to WP:NBEAUTY. Miss World China is the oldest pageant and one of the biggest in China.Iuliusnanus (talk) 10:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

That is an essay, it's not Wikipedia policy ToeSchmoker (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Anyway, I declined the vast majority of paid editing requests—partly to save my own time.Iuliusnanus (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

We are not interested in the requests you decline; but in ensuring that those you accept are done within policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Says the paid editor CNM etc. Don't make me spell it out. I know more of your clients than you think.2603:800C:35F0:35D0:24C4:2B94:DF0F:F4E1 (talk) 08:37, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

You hiding behind an IP to sling mud is weak. Other than recognizing a Chinese curse, I have no idea who “CNM” means. Iuliusnanus (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

The whole point of this thread it your failure to disclose what was an obvious conflict of interest (one of your own admission at this point). COI and PAID editing is not forbidden, but UPE is. Had you not deflected in the first place, I highly doubt this thread would have been opened.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I think CNM is a reference to User:CNMall41 -- Pemilligan (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Their first edit was calling out Iuliusnanus for advertising services but also referred to "paid editor," then here noted the "paid editor" as "OP" (referring to TimWu007), then changed it to "CNM etc" (possibly referring to everyone - who knows). That aside, the best route here is for Iuliusnanus to stop deflecting and make full disclosure of all their PAID work, regardless if they are paid up front or if the "creation" is "successful." --CNMall41 (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I’ve already made declarations on my user page. Some content has been moved to Draft, so I removed them. Some of topics I edited are about commercial companies, but that doesn’t mean I have COI with them. If you believe they don’t meet the Notability, you may nominate them for deletion. To make it easier to identify, I will make a declaration on the talk page in the future. Thanks. Iuliusnanus (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Some content has been moved to Draft, so I removed them. You are still required to make a declaration, even if the relevant content is in Draft: (or any other namespace). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:40, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

For the draft CaddxFPV, Linktel Technologies and FinVolution, I have re-disclosed on the talk page. Iuliusnanus (talk) 06:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Don't play games with me, pal. A paid editor dogging others about COI. I strongly suggest that you stop responding here and elsewhere.71.36.43.154 (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Not playing with you but good advice. Iuliusnanus (talk) 06:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

You keep assuming that I'm talking about you.71.212.62.197 (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Curiouskaon and UAE politicians

• Hawaa Al Mansoori (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Curiouskaon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editor Curiouskaon has created an over-the-top promotional article about Hawaa Al Mansoori and is preventing other editors from making the article less promotional. The user appears to have a COI with the subject of the article. They have this note on their userpage: "This user has publicly declared that they have a conflict of interest regarding these Wikipedia articles: Hawaa Al Mansoori, Noura Al Kaabi. I am not personally close to these individuals, but I have met them professionally and other notable UAE government officials as part of my work over multiple years."[2] In a separate comment, the user noted they had been approached in person to restore the promotional content on the pages: "I was notified of the mass changes by a concerned Emirat who knows the subject and noticed a large sudden deletion."[3] Thenightaway (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I've posted my two cents. Let's see what happens from here. Meepmeepyeet (talk) 05:40, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Where is the prior discussion with that editor, as required for using this page?

There has been no notification of our CoI policy on Curiouskaon's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

(Said COI notice has been delivered, my bad I should have delivered that when initially getting involved) Meepmeepyeet (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Just noting that this comment from Curiouskaon looks to be AI generated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed that it looks to be AI generated. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I would agree, but I ran it through the AI detectors and came up with squat. Not sure what to make of that other than the detectors can be very hit and miss still. Meepmeepyeet (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

It's worth reading Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing, the structuring is a dead givaway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and collapsed the comment with the appropriate template. Meepmeepyeet (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Is this person even notable? I keep looking at the sources and all I'm seeing is passing coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

IMO notability is not in question, the Federal National Council is the UAE's equivalent of a parliament. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was just confused by its advisory-only status. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

To be fair that is confusing and we have historically had questions about how to treat parliamentary and judiciary bodies in traditional, hybrid, authoritarian, etc states but I believe that consensus has consistently been to treat top tier parliamentarians equally regardless of what role they play in actually exercising legal authority or power. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

She may meet WP:NPOL as she was appointed to the UAE's Federal National Council. Meepmeepyeet (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not AI generated. @Thenightaway - The COI was declared before the creation of that page; specifically, I've met the individual and used to work for a government-owned company in a place where nearly all companies are government controlled or affiliated in some way. So, it was a very conservative interpretation of COI. The goal of my contributions has been to try to improve coverage using English-language content combined with Arabic content (prevalent locally) for UAE topics and figures, specifically women in politics. You are right to point out that the tone seems promotional; part of the reason for this is that overtly negative press pointing to an individual is culturally unacceptable (in most circumstances), and it is monitored centrally by a government media council. I also agree with the general point you make that the content could be improved.

The Emirati who called me was from the National Archives—several years back I was getting more Arabic and English source material (nothing related to this article). They expressed a concern about vandalism.

While I appreciate that is hopefully not the intent, I saw bulk deletion of specific content spanning >25 sources, spanning all major UAE news sources and other non-UAE ones. That removes ~55% of the article content in a single sweep with the edit summary “remove egregious puffery and poorly sourced content.” To blanket dismiss all UAE news sources (both arabic and English) as "government propaganda" and "poorly sourced" seems prejudicial and against policy - as per the talk page comment. An overly promotional tone is not a good reason to blanket remove content on notable events and topics where it's been sourced as well as possible - UK and US media do not cover UAE policy events or UAE international affairs as standalone matters.

To the concern about possible vandalism,. e.g. something like undisclosed paid COI - the deletions aren't source specific. The content removed covers political events and treaty signings, but you repeatedly dismiss them as "LinkedIn" and "CV" material. Ironically, the changes you made remove specific areas, which reduce the content page from actual sourced content based on events to more CV-like material on qualifications and roles. Again - this raises a perception of targeted changes for some reason - instead of rewriting or retaining some of this content.

Raising a COI noticeboard comment here rather than actually addressing the point in my comment does not help. I stand by my comment. Curiouskaon (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I've had enough. This is now at ANI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_warring,_AI_use_and_baseless_personal_attacks_by_Curiouskaon. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

The Happy Fits

• The Happy Fits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I feel like there's a disproportionately high number of no-userpage SPAs editing about the Happy Fits, some of the earliest of whom are not trying to hide it very much. (I also remember the band celebrating the article on their Instagram, but everything got wiped when the lineup changed.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:33, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that this is anything that out of the ordinary for a act of their size. Edits like this[4] attached to a school block imply some fanbase activity, which is at most annoying rather than malicious. IPs geolocate everywhere and range a lot in behaviour and existing edit history. I'll drop the two accounts that have edited somewhat recently a {{welcome COI}} + a pre-emptive apology for if they're just fans. If the band has talked about the Wikipedia article, then that's probably why there's so many newbies. You can always leave a note on the talkpage so other editors know what's going on there.... GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 04:18, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Have you notified the editors to whom you refer, that you are discussing them here?

Have you or anyone else prevsiously attempted to discuss this with them?

Both are requirements for using this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:36, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Alireza Mashayekhi

• Alireza Mashayekhi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• SamiraVaseghnia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I posted about this apparent CoI in September last year. Looking up this username in a search engine indicates a connexion between this editor and Alireza Mashayekhi. The editor did not respond in the discussion last year. They have continued to edit the article. I have asked again about CoI on their Talk page and had no response. The current version of the article is 78% written by this editor. Can we consider a block for the editor from this article? Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

American College of Greece marketing manager removed article's controversies section

• American College of Greece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Marinosk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Recently the marketing manager of the Deree private college in Greece removed a controversies section on the Wikipedia article about their college in Wikipedia. They left no explanation for doing so. Obviously this is a conflict of interest so ideally this account should no longer contribute to their article. 176.58.196.53 (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Deleting criticism by affiliated author without any arguments really looks very bad. But did you try contacting them first and asking them about the reasons for this? Solaire the knight (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

As it says above, This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue. It looks like you haven't attempted that.

Also, You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion which you don't seem to have done, either. -- Pemilligan (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Good day. The section you mention was indeed removed by me. There was no corruption scandal, it is not mentioned anywhere and the sources sited do not mention anywhere neither Deree nor The American College of Greece. The mention that "the college's organization was able to acquire a private higher education license by the Greek government, in spite having failed to fulfill legal obligations in terms of presenting a valid curriculum program." is not true, because no application has been made by ACG. The section was again removed. Marinosk (talk) 06:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Triggerhippie4 cool down from israeli topics?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Triggerhippie4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

the introduction to israel does not fit any more onto a large screen, so i tried to shorten it. the location of israel occurs 2 times in the intro, so my try was to move one of the occurrences in a more appropriate location of the article. this caused triggerhippie to revert it, and instead of focussing on the subject matter, and maybe open a thread on israel talk page, make slightly insulting suggestions, to use sandbox, familiarize with rules etc.. i do not aggree with triggerhippie4 approach to let a tiny content disagreement slip immediate into an insulting statement on my talk page. she even removed explicitely the part to contact her if i would not agree. beeing suprised by such unexpected text, i am wondering if there is more conflict free, more factual way to achieve results. would you think that suggesting to triggerhippie4 to abstain from editing israel and related topics for a year or so would make it easier? ThurnerRupert (talk) 07:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Noted at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#ThurnerRupert disruptive editing at Israel and attacks. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

You could both abstain for a year considering you've both been edit warring in a ARBECR CTOP area with neither of you opening a talk page discussion until today. Nil Einne (talk) 11:24, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Olga Shishkina (musician)

• Olga Shishkina (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Monimutkaisuus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Although the editor claims to not be receiving compensation for their edits, they continually add promotional content and remove maintenance templates without properly addressing the reason those templates exist. Attempts to make the article neutral have been reverted as "disfiguring".   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Notably, Monimutkaisuus made the same or similar edits to the article as User:Olga85shishkina, using similar edit summaries ("added data"). Jähmefyysikko (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Editor is still removing templates without properly addressing the reason those templates exist.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Daniele Compatangelo

• Daniele Compatangelo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Titikaka3456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor Titikaka3456 apparently has a vested interest in maintaining the resume-like version of this article.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

They tried to deny this but forgot which account they were logged in to, so they couldn't create a user page for TikitakaDA (talk · contribs). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Dear user,

It appears that you are repeatedly removing well-sourced and verifiable information from the article related, possibly due to political bias or personal views. The content you removed has been part of the page since 2017 and is supported by credible references.

Accusing editors of being related to the subject of the article, without evidence, is a serious assumption and a violation of Wikipedia’s policy on assuming good faith. Repeatedly deleting sourced material to discredit a subject also goes against Wikipedia's content and neutrality guidelines.

Please refrain from targeting this reporter or other users based on speculation. Instead, engage in constructive discussion and ensure you verify sources before making removals. Let’s focus on improving the article based on reliable sources and Wikipedia's established policies.Thank you for your attention Titikaka3456 (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

The content you refer to was added by Daniele Compatangelo (talk · contribs) so is not the evidence you believe it is.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello dear user,

We both have no evidence of what you are referring to. I follow this Italian reporter online, and I believe that information that has been there since 2017 shouldn't be deleted. I think we should move on to editing other subjects.

All my best, Titikaka3456 (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

"No evidence"? Seriously?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

By the way, "since 2017" is also wrong.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

In addition to most likely being a sock of Daniele Compatangelo, Andrewikilover, Robrob7578, Luca68745 Antonio68246, TikitakaDA Titikaka3456 has recently publicly stated on an AFD that they will not abide by the decision made at the AFD by stating "I intend to restore the page". I believe this user should be prohibited from editing any article, talk page, or discussions concerning Italian journalism--VViking_TalkEdits 14:26, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

JoshGracin25

• Josh Gracin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• JoshGracin25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

JoshGracin25 insisting on editing his own page, whitewashing, sufficient notifications. Augmented Seventh (talk) 06:15, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

The current version of the article contains material that is misleading, unsourced, or framed in a way that does not accurately reflect events, and reverting corrections without considering the sourcing amounts to allowing false information about a living person to remain published. Reliable coverage already exists that clarifies the timeline, and omission or distortion of those facts violates the neutral point of view policy. I also want to note that accusations about my personal identity or how the account is being used are unfounded and irrelevant. Wikipedia editors are expected to focus on the quality of edits and sources, not speculate about contributors. I have already opened a BLPN notice so this can be reviewed under the correct policy, and I ask that further discussion remain on content and verifiability rather than personal assumptions. JoshGracin25 (talk) 06:23, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

This is seriously concerning - a single purpose account where the subject repeatedly polices his own page. MmeMaigret (talk) 05:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

David B. Pakman

• David B. Pakman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Dpakman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

@Dpakman appears to have made numerous edits to the article David B. Pakman and other articles including Venrock and EMusic that would seem to indicate a clear Wikipedia:Conflict of interestviolation. Volcom95 (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Volcom95 Btw: Does the article even meet GNG? MmeMaigret (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I see that he does a lot of public speaking and there are a few articles that use him as a subject matter expert of sorts, but nothing that really says "obviously notable". -- Reconrabbit 17:52, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing at all on the user's talk page. Where is the prior discussion? Why have you not notified them of this report? Please see notice at the top of this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Blancco

Hi all, I have a conflict of interest with Blancco so am avoiding any direct edits. I’ve proposed merging Blancco Ltd. into Blancco Technology Group and prepared a draft update here: User:Fairweather12/sandbox.

The proposal has had little response on the article talk pages, but I've received two pieces of feedback: 1. that it should potentially be merged the other way, so that "Blancco" is the main page, 2. To add more 3rd-party sources (which I've done in the draft). Could an uninvolved editor please review and assist with implementing the merge? Apologies if this is not the right space for this. I've tried to follow WP:PROMERGE but have found it a bit baffling. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairweather12 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Austin College

• Austin College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Waltersvc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor Waltersvc likely has an undisclosed connection with the college. Except for the addition of in-line external links, their last edit before the partial block for edit warring is virtually identical to one made by an IP registered to the college.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Richard Dowling (Australian politician)

• Richard Dowling (Australian politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 45.248.49.240 (talk)

45.248.49.240 has made only two edits, both substantial promotional changes to this article.

Section blanking: removed content including reference to Dowling's lobbying role at Meta. Promotion: added content sourced mainly from his first speech with resume-style language like "taught him how to explain economic issues in plain terms"

Single-purpose, unregistered account appears to be self-editing or editing by a staffer, violating WP:COI, WP:PROMOTION, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP. AFR has also reported on these suspicious edits.

Unable to contact editor directly as IP has no monitored talk page. Jurassicparkpork (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

You couldn't start the talk page? -- Pemilligan (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you're right - I've added the required notice. Jurassicparkpork (talk) 08:13, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Financial Review analyzed these recent edits. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:39, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

American Association of Petroleum Geologists

• American Association of Petroleum Geologists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• NbraleyAAPG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kvanderschoot1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Both editors appear to be AAPG employees and are likely coordinating with each other to keep the global warming section out of the article. Most recently by Nbraley as "irrelevant".   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I just reverted COI edits, then discovered this notification. That's all! - Walter Ego 20:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

see also AAPG Wiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ([5]) 74.126.63.142 (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2025 (UTC)