Edge Rewrite
everything Source code View original
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a21aa054fe5c0abb

Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
(Redirected from Wikipedia:COIN)
Latest comment: 15 hours ago by ~2026-33562-67 in topic Chocolatewade
"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

    Tzoller

    [edit]
    Latest comment: 3 days ago8 comments3 people in discussion

    Hey, this is probably overkill but I'm new to COI. The user appears to be inserting (presumably) their own work into various articles. I have reverted, been reverted back, and reached out on talk page of articles, and on user talk page. Unsure what the actual steps are to take. The name of the relevant person appears in various articles including inserts like this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bluetooth&diff=prev&oldid=83203206 from way back in 2006. What is the sort of thing that happens here? Joe (talk) 08:42, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    @Joereddington I went and did a bit of cleanup: Reverted edit(s) to Antivirus software as OR (and COI by extension), along with edits to OBject EXchange, and left a reminder about OR on their TP. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 20:59, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    What happens is that you removed legitimate content with peer reviewed literature from a wiki ? Tzoller (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Ah! Hello there, I'm so pleased you are engaging with this. Can you comment on if you are the "Thierry Zoller" who keeps being mentioned in your insertions? Joe (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    I think the COI guideline says to first discuss this on the accounts TALK page, civilly[..] " If that fails to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period, then open a discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard (COIN)". I would have suggested to not simply remove peer reviewed material on the basis on your assumptions and follow the guideline.
    So may I ask why we end up here ? I had just the time to thank you for pointing me towards information on my talk page only to find out you opened this and removed my edits on what can only be described your personal believe. These additions included peer review literature, which from what I know is how Wikipedia expects sources to be included. Tzoller (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    If you really so please that I engaged, you should have reacted on my Talk page as required by the COI instead of taking it to here. Tzoller (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Wonderful. Can you comment on if you are the "Thierry Zoller" in the citations that you keep adding? Joe (talk) 05:46, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, I'm the Thierry Zoller cited — the username was never meant to hide that. My understanding is that WP:SELFCITE permits citing one's own peer-reviewed work when it's relevant and not excessive, and WP:COI doesn't prohibit editing, it asks for transparency and restraint. In that spirit: going forward I'll propose additions involving my own work on the relevant article talk pages via edit requests rather than editing directly, and I'd ask that the removed material be assessed on its merits by uninvolved editors — some of it is peer-reviewed and, I'd argue, due for inclusion regardless of who added it. If any of it fails WP:DUE or WP:OR on review, fair enough.
    For accuracy: I haven't made any additions since this thread opened. Tzoller (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    Hans Ehrenberg

    [edit]
    Latest comment: 13 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    The user EnkelEhrenberg has been editing the article Hans Ehrenberg and content about Hans Ehrenberg in other articles . The user has admitted to being related to Hans Ehrenberg here and here, but insists there is no conflict of interest. I am asking for other opinions on whether the admitted relationship creates a sufficient conflict of interest to require restraint on the part of EnkelEhrenberg with regard to editing articles involving Hans Ehrenberg. Donald Albury 14:25, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    The Royal Herald

    [edit]
    Latest comment: 11 days ago22 comments5 people in discussion

    Been noticing a pattern across dozens of pages by User:The Royal Herald inserting information on the 'Medrano family'. Being inserted under Charles Emmanuel I's article of a Tomás Fernández de Medrano who seems to be minimally sourced outside of an amateur genealogy blog. The user has created 60+ pages of supposedly famous 'Medrano' family members and continues to insert their importance across several related articles. Many of the claims have little historical basis that I can find record of, including being made a Knight of St. John, but allowed to marry. The whole 60+ articles strongly read like an interested party asserting their own family's importance. Strongly suspect most (all?) of the edits they've made are COI. ~2026-39706-39 (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    Some other examples of grandiose claims, all from within the last 2 years, most of them the last few months:
    República Mista (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Royal reform of the Colegio Mayor de San Ildefonso (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    La Silva Curiosa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    ~2026-39706-39 (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    República Mista is I think particularly revealing, having blown up from a stub article to a massive political pamplet about the "Doctrine of Medrano." They've also been making edits about the Medrano family on such pages as Marie Louise d'Orléans, Catherine of Lancaster, John II of Castile, and Francis of Assisi to continue to inflate the family. ~2026-39706-39 (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    A huge section on Francis of Assiss that isn't at all related to the man:
    One on Catherine of Lancaster where her children placed as wards under a Medrano:
    One on Marie Louise d'Orléans' page inserting a eulogy and intimate connection:
    Any time I look at their edits, its another insertion of this family, seemingly their entire 16,000+ edit history going back more than 2 years. ~2026-39706-39 (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Another recent insertion on the Dominican Order inserting paragraphs on one family member:
    ~2026-39706-39 (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    The concerns raised here are not aligned with my editing practices or the sources underlying these articles.
    I have spent time developing these articles using published primary sources, modern academic scholarship, archival material, and assistance from experienced Wikipedia editors, for which I am grateful. They have been reviewed, expanded, copyedited, and improved by numerous independent editors.
    The examples you have cited do not support the broader allegations.
    If these articles include a Medrano figure, it is because that individual has a direct, well-sourced connection to the subject. Tomás Fernández de Medrano appears on Charles Emmanuel I because he was the Secretary of State and War and preserved the Duke's address in República Mista. Juan Manuel de Bustamante y Medrano appears on Marie Louise d'Orléans because he preached the queen's published funeral oration. Diego López de Medrano appears on John II of Castile and Catherine of Lancaster because he served as the future king's guardian and mayordomo. Manuel Joseph de Medrano appears on Dominican Order because he was the official chronicler of the Spanish Dominican Province. García de Medrano appears on the Royal reform of the Colegio Mayor de San Ildefonso because he authored and implemented the reform itself. Julián Íñiguez de Medrano appears on La Silva Curiosa because he wrote the work. The Medrano family appears on Francis of Assisi because reliable sources document both the medieval tradition connecting the family with Saint Francis at Agoncillo and their later documented patronage of the Franciscan convent at Logroño, as documented by the Government of Spain.
    The same applies to the República Mista. The article expanded because a previously underdeveloped subject was researched and documented through published sources. Expansion alone is not evidence of advocacy. The article examines the treatise, its historical context, reception, transmission, and influence. Its discussion of the "Doctrine of Medrano" describes the documented corpus of authenticated Medrano works, which includes the República Mista, and traces its subsequent transmission through later authenticated Medrano authors as documented by reliable sources. Characterizing the article as a "political pamphlet" does not identify a specific content issue or explain how the article misrepresents its cited sources.
    You have also questioned Tomás Fernández de Medrano's status as a Knight of St. John because he was married. The published documentary record addresses this directly. A letter of 12 October 1593 from the Duke of Savoy to the Grand Master of the Order of St. John, preserved in Licenciado Salinas' Sumario (1601) and reproduced in Diego Téllez Alarcia's published study, states that Pope Clement VIII personally granted Tomás "the habit of St. John, without vows." Contemporary documents also repeatedly describe him as a caballero del hábito de San Juan.
    I have never sought to promote any particular family or "grandoise" claims; my focus remains on documenting historically relevant individuals whose activities directly intersect with the subjects of the respective articles. Their documented historical roles make them relevant to those articles.
    Ultimately, content should be evaluated on the basis of verifiability, reliable sourcing, neutrality, and due weight. The examples you have presented here do not demonstrate a failure to meet those standards. The Royal Herald (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    I'd note that the very study's [1] own abstract says this family was "totally unknown to Rioja historiography" before Téllez Alarcia's 2015 discovery of a single surviving will. There's dozens of articles that have been touched on with little to no Credible Claim of Significance Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance. The Dominican Order has more time devoted to a Medrano family member that was unknown until 2015 than it does Thomas Aquinas - arguably the most well known and significant Dominican in history. And its across every article. A minor noble family that was unknown at all until a decade ago has 60+ pages devoted to them based on them, while being inserted into articles on far more significant figures based on
    What reason is there for multiple paragraphs of peripheral information in Francis of Assisi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)'s page, that is longer than his own feast day? Coming from one source that notes it is describing a family legend, and notably, longer than the source work itself (https://books.google.com/books?id=jzYg5AN1x28C&q=Medrano#v=snippet&q=Medrano&f=false, citation 30).
    "Travels
    Determined to bring the Gospel to all peoples and let God convert them, Francis sought on several occasions to take his message out of Italy. In approximately 1211, a captain of the Medrano family held the lordship of the castle and town of Agoncillo, situated near the city of Logroño, in the region of La Rioja, Spain. Medrano's son was suffering from a mysterious and untreatable ailment. In 1211, Francis of Assisi roamed those very paths of Agoncillo. In a saintly manner, he visited Medrano's Agoncillo castle, placed his mystical hands upon the ailing boy and miraculously healed him, securing the Medrano lineage in Agoncillo.
    The Medrano family generously donated some land to Francis, including a house, a defensive tower, and an attached orchard, situated close to the Ebro River within the city of Logroño, where he established the first Spanish convent of his Order.
    ...
    The House of Medrano
    By the late 14th century, Diego López de Medrano, Lord of Agoncillo, royal steward and ambassador to John I of Castile, established a hereditary chaplaincy in the main chapel of the Monastery of San Francisco in Logroño. The Medrano family held perpetual ecclesiastical patronage over the site, which functioned both as a center of worship and as a dynastic burial ground. This act formalized the family's long-standing devotion to Saint Francis of Assisi. Although the convent met its demise in the 19th century, the remnants of its walls remain. As a result, the Medrano family, lords of Agoncillo, are distinguished by their devotion to Saint Francis of Assisi. Under the House of Medrano, the convent of San Francisco in Logroño enjoyed both royal favor and ecclesiastical prominence throughout its history. It was exempted from municipal taxes, held jurisdiction over its own lands and dependencies, and maintained close ties to the monarchy.
    On 29 March 1537, Maundy Thursday, the Cofradía de la Santa Vera Cruz was established within the Convent of San Francisco in Logroño, then under the patronage of the House of Medrano. According to records from the Diocesan Historical Archive, this confraternity, one of the oldest in the region, had its own chapel inside the convent. The guardian of the convent served as the chaplain of the cofradía, and the Franciscan community was considered part of the brotherhood."
    "Feast day
    Main article: Feast of Saints Francis and Catherine
    Francis' feast day is observed on 4 October. A secondary feast in honor of the stigmata received by Francis, celebrated on 17 September, was inserted in the General Roman Calendar in 1585 (later than the Tridentine calendar) and suppressed in 1604, but was restored in 1615. In the New Roman Missal of 1969, it was removed again from the General Calendar, as something of a duplication of the main feast on 4 October and left to the calendars of certain localities and of the Franciscan Order. Wherever the Tridentine Missal is used, however, the feast of the Stigmata remains in the General Calendar.
    Francis is honoured in the Catholic Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Churches, the Anglican Communion (with a Lesser Festival in the Church of England, the Anglican Church of Canada, and the Episcopal Church USA) and the Old Catholic Churches, among other churches and religious communities on 4 October.
    The Feast Day of Francis of Assisi marks the conclusion of the season of Creationtide in various Christian Churches that begins on the Feast of Creation (1 September). It is a popular practice on Francis' feast day for people to bring their pets and other animals to church for a blessing."
    Why are a peripheral noble house, entirely unknown until a decade ago, receiving more treatment on other people's articles than their own family?
    Especially when several of the sources (Tomás y Juan Fernández de Medrano: una saga camerana a fines del s. XVI y comienzos del s. XVII, for example), don't actually agree with what is stated in article. Working from translation, it states:
    "Reconstructing his cursus honorum is not simple. In the 16th and 17th centuries, personal files or service records were not compiled as frequently as from the 18th century onward. Having also lost his file of admission to the Order of San Juan, this resource sheds no light either. Fortunately, the Licenciado Salinas himself offered, 'at the end of this Summary, some papers that have come into my hands, particularly from the Duke of Savoy, in favor of your grace...'"
    Even the author's of the original papers aren't agreeing with what is stated within the articles.
    Much of this reads as like, or worse, Conflict of Interest. ~2026-39818-62 (talk) 06:17, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Tomás y Juan Fernández de Medrano: una saga camerana a fines del s. XVI y comienzos del s. XVII isn't a neutral source either. Its built on the Licenciado Salinas' Sumario commissioned by the Medrano family themselves. The entire underlying material is biased to begin with, and this source is used multiple times across these articles. ~2026-39818-62 (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Or yet another, why is more than half of Marie Louise d'Orléans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)'s page devoted to a euology by a member of this family? ~2026-39818-62 (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    More examples, from República Mista (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    "Royal decree by Philip III of Spain (1601)
    Medrano's son, Juan Fernández de Medrano y Sandoval, formally petitioned the king and the Royal Council for license to publish the first volume of his father's República Mista. Following this petition and its examination by the Council, Philip III of Spain issued a royal decree on 25 September 1601 in which he expressly identified and restated the three precepts of the treatise in his own words:"
    From Juan Fernández de Medrano y Sandoval (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), also authored by the user:
    "Juan Fernández de Medrano y Sandoval (1595, Madrid – 17th century, Clavijo)"
    A 6 year old(!) formally petitioned and convinced the King and Council to license a publication. I really don't know what more to say. ~2026-39818-62 (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Edits on everything from Military academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Great Siege of Malta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Francis of Assisi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). If there's a major event in western civilization in the last 1000 years, the Medrano family has been inserted into it. None of these edits existed before The Royal Herald, and it seems like the only edits they've ever made on the entire site have been dedicated to inserting the Medrano family. ~2026-39818-62 (talk) 08:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Yet again Army of Flanders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), edit once again by User:The Royal Herald, inserting a Medrano into the wikibox as a major commander, just as in the Siege of Malta.
    An insertion on Lyric poetry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), placing a family member among the most noted poets of Spain.
    To Margaret of Valois (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) being patron to another.
    Seemingly creating a military academy from thin air: Royal Military and Mathematics Academy of Brussels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    With cross edited patron insertions on other pages Luis Francisco de la Cerda, 9th Duke of Medinaceli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    As well as a "prominent" literary academy: Medrano Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    To yet another(!) funeral oration delivered by a family member, this time for Phillip II of Spain: Philip II of Spain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Multiple sections of Aristocracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) talking about this book as important.
    Every time I check an edit, the more and more manufactured it all is. ~2026-39818-62 (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    I agree, this editing seems extremely problematic. I have added some Original Research maintenances templates to some articles, and also edited out large chunks of excessive extraneous details from two articles in which they do not belong, but this whole mess could do with some additional eyes on it. Melcous (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    User is reverting notes of Original Research on their articles, found a few places already:
    Medrano, Spain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    República Mista (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ~2026-39818-62 (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    I would like to ask that concerns about these articles be discussed specifically rather than through broad maintenance templates or wholesale removals.
    Several of these articles have already undergone review, copyediting, expansion, and formal quality assessment by independent Wikipedia editors. They have not developed in isolation, and their grades and revision histories show considerable review and collaborative improvement. That does not make them immune from criticism, but broad claims that the entire body of work is fundamentally defective should be supported by concrete examples.
    Several articles have now been tagged as containing "original research" or "excessive detail," yet no specific passages have been identified as violating the original research policy. General concerns about scope, length, or organization are distinct from demonstrating violations of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.
    User:Melcous removed a short section from Marie Louise d'Orléans concerning her published funeral oration. That material was directly about the subject's commemoration and should be evaluated on its own sourcing, relevance, and due weight rather than treated simply as a Medrano insertion.
    In the case of República Mista, more than 232 kB of sourced material was removed by User:Melcous in a single edit on the ground that it was not sufficiently about the work. Much of the deleted material documented the doctrine's historical foundations, transmission, institutional applications, and treatment in later authenticated Medrano works. Whether all of that material should remain in the present article, be summarized more tightly, or be moved into appropriate daughter articles is a legitimate question of structure and due weight. It is not, by itself, evidence of original research, and it does not justify removing the article's entire documented historical context without section-specific discussion.
    Another experienced editor has already reversed at least one of these removals at Dominican Order, stating that the material was "actually fine and good sourcing." This shows that the removals are genuinely disputed and that no clear consensus has yet been established for treating the material as generally improper.
    I am already preparing a substantial restructuring of República Mista. The sections centered directly on Tomás Fernández de Medrano and the contents of the treatise will remain substantial, while later historical applications will be condensed into a smaller number of thematic sections dealing with theology and pastoral doctrine, colleges and academies, law and institutional reform, diplomacy and dynastic continuity, and military, scientific, and artistic transmission. This will directly address concerns about length, repetition, and organization while preserving reliably sourced historical content.
    If editors believe a statement violates WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, or another content policy, please identify the exact passage and explain the problem. I welcome discussion of those passages and am prepared to revise, condense, relocate, or, where necessary, remove them where policy and consensus require. That is the ordinary editorial process. Broad allegations, repeated article-wide templates, and very large deletions across numerous articles should not replace examination of the specific claims and sources in each article. The Royal Herald (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    "User:Melcous removed a short section from Marie Louise d'Orléans concerning her published funeral oration. That material was directly about the subject's commemoration and should be evaluated on its own sourcing, relevance, and due weight rather than treated simply as a Medrano insertion."
    But this isn't simply about one or two small things. Its across an enormous body of its, which can be seen across your edit history. You inserted an otherwise unknown poet into the Lyric Poetry as one of the most notable Spanish Poets. You added 2 paragraphs about a Medrano Military Academy that has little record existing until 2 years ago (and only then on this site). You added paragraphs of material about a family legend associated with Francis of Assissi that the source itself calls legend, and the section is longer than things about his life! The Marie Louise d'Orléans insertion was half of the article. There is no need for a eulogy delivered by someone else to be taking up more of her article than her own life. There's a continued pattern of adding a eulogy by yet another(!) Medrano to Phillip II.
    You made Wikibox insertions on the Army of Flanders and Great Siege of Malta where yet more family members are listed as great commanders, and have multiple sections in the Siege of Malta about this man being more important than Valette! There was more content about an obscure Dominican Chronicler that Thomas Aquinas on the Dominican Order page! Again, the sources you're pulling from say that this family was unknown until 2015.
    Edits to Aristocracy where an otherwise unknown book by the family is being asserted alongside works like the Prince and the Republic! To extraordinary unsourced claims, such as:
    Royal decree by Philip III of Spain (1601)
    Medrano's son, Juan Fernández de Medrano y Sandoval, formally petitioned the king and the Royal Council for license to publish the first volume of his father's República Mista. Following this petition and its examination by the Council, Philip III of Spain issued a royal decree on 25 September 1601 in which he expressly identified and restated the three precepts of the treatise in his own words:"
    From Juan Fernández de Medrano y Sandoval (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), also authored by the user:
    "Juan Fernández de Medrano y Sandoval (1595, Madrid – 17th century, Clavijo)"
    A 6 year old(!) formally petitioned and convinced the King and Council to license a publication.
    After fact checking some of the sources used, such as Tomás y Juan Fernández de Medrano: una saga camerana a fines del s. XVI y comienzos del s. XVII, they don't even agree with what is listed in the article.
    If it was just one thing in isolation, this wouldn't be getting flagged, but there's an enormous pattern, which is what is concerning. ~2026-39818-62 (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you for identifying specific examples. That is more useful than broad article-wide allegations because each concern can now be assessed on its own merits.
    The examples you raise involve several distinct editorial questions. Due weight, article scope, section length, relevance, original research, and synthesis are not interchangeable. I agree that some articles, especially República Mista, should be condensed and reorganized, and I am already doing that work. The need for structural revision is not, by itself, evidence of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.
    If there are factual errors involving dates, biographies, titles, or the interpretation of a source, please identify the exact statement together with the relevant source passage. I am willing to correct genuine errors and revise wording that extends beyond what a source supports.
    Several of the examples you mention appear to concern due weight and summary style rather than original research. Whether a funeral oration occupies too much space in a biography, whether the Brussels Military Academy should be summarized more briefly in the Army of Flanders article is a legitimate editorial question. It can be resolved through condensation, attribution, relocation, or targeted removal where appropriate. Those issues do not, by themselves, establish that the underlying material violates WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.
    The material on the Great Siege of Malta should likewise be evaluated according to the cited histories and its proportion within the article. Gonzalo de Medrano appears there because he commanded a company at Fort St. Elmo, carried the defenders' message to the Grand Master, and was killed during the siege. If the section is considered too detailed, it can be shortened. That is a question of due weight, not proof that the material is fabricated or constitutes original research.
    The example concerning Juan Fernández de Medrano has already been clarified. The article has always stated that the work was authored by his father, Tomás Fernández de Medrano, while recent edits make it clear that Juan formally presented it for publication under his father's direction. The royal licence names Juan as the petitioner, but the article does not claim that a six-year-old independently composed the work or persuaded the Council without his father's involvement.
    Likewise, where you state that a cited study on Tomás does not support an article, please identify the precise statement and the corresponding passage in the source. That will allow editors to determine whether the problem is factual accuracy, attribution, interpretation, or wording.
    I remain prepared to revise, condense, relocate, or remove individual passages where policy and consensus require it. My concern is with treating a large body of sourced material as presumptively improper through broad maintenance templates and wholesale removals rather than examining the particular passages, sources, and policy questions involved. The latter approach is more consistent with Wikipedia's ordinary editorial process and is more likely to produce accurate, balanced, and readable articles. The Royal Herald (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    That still doesn't address the any of the pattern. WHY are you inserting an unknown poet into the most noted lyric poets of Spain? WHY is an unknown man getting paragraphs of exposition in the Siege of Malta? WHY is an unknown work being treated alongside the Prince and the Republic? WHY is a family legend being laundered into St. Francis? WHY is an unknown chronicler getting more weight than the most famous Dominican? WHY is half Marie Louis's page a eulogy by this family? WHY is a another eulogy being mentioned on Phillip II's page? WHY is it that every source when dug down to just tracing back mostly to "Tomás y Juan Fernández de Medrano: una saga camerana a fines del s. XVI y comienzos del s. XVII," which as it states in its own abstract, is talking about a family that was "totally unknown to Rioja historiography" before Téllez Alarcia's 2015 discovery of a single surviving will.
    You've created more than 60 pages and edited hundreds of pages inserting the family as major players in events throughout history, a family that was unknown until 11 years ago.
    You've reverted numerous tags about problematic natures of the articles, so claiming that they've gone through editorial review is itself suspect. I've already pointed out 2 instances of tag removal of original research, and everything in this so far seems to indicate you are in fact doing original research, which Wikipedia is not the place for. I strongly suspect if I keep looking through the edit history I'll find more. As it stands currently, every edit instance I've found has been creating Medrona family pages, or editing other pages to insert them. I'd kindly ask you to recuse yourself from the pages, because I think there's an extreme conflict of interest here. That way editors can have time to actually look through the sources as well, since as I've noted, the ones I've fact checked so far don't actually pertain to the articles. See for example, the St. John Habit noted in Tomás Fernández de Medrano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), supposedly given permission for by the Pope, only traceable to the family's own records, not anywhere in the Knights of St. John, and even in article, is admitted to being "stolen:"
    "This distinction was formally documented in papal bulls, issued in Rome with hanging lead seals, which King Philip II of Spain had ordered to be dispatched.
    In a letter dated 12 October 1593, the Duke of Savoy recounted that Medrano had been sent from Provence to the Spanish court to negotiate urgent matters. During the journey from Barcelona to Madrid, Medrano was ambushed by thieves who stole, among other valuables, the sealed papal bulls, documents conferring the habit of St. John without the obligation of vows, issued by papal grace in recognition of his family's ancestral rights."
    This a clear example of genealogical legend that is being lent legitimacy on Wikipedia. The ONLY source of this is the family's own letter, which is itself biased. Which again, the author of "Tomás y Juan Fernández de Medrano: una saga camerana a fines del s. XVI y comienzos del s. XVII," states as well.
    There's a massive conflict of interest here, genealogical inflation, and edits across dozens to hundreds of pages asserting this unknown family's importance, and everything traces back to a few sources that just don't say what is being claimed. ~2026-39818-62 (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    On Military academies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), now removed:
    "The Royal Military and Mathematics Academy of Brussels (La Academia Militar de Bruselas), also known as the Academia Militar del Ejército de los Países Bajos, was the first modern military academy in Europe, established in 1675 at the capital of the Habsburg Netherlands, Brussels, at the request of Carlos de Aragón de Gurrea, 9th Duke of Villahermosa, Governor and Captain General of the Spanish Netherlands, by its sole-director, Sebastián Fernández de Medrano, with the authority and royal order of Charles II of Spain.[1][2] The Academy was founded to codify and enact Medrano's military scientific doctrine, successfully addressing the critical shortage of artillerymen and military engineers in the Spanish Tercio.[3][4] It is recognized as the first formal project of general military training in Europe and served as the institutional forerunner to later Royal Military Academies in Barcelona, Ceuta, Oran, and the General Military Academy."
    For which I can find no reliable source of. Until 2 years ago when this was inserted and the article, there appears to be no record of this anywhere, ever. Much less as the first Military academy in Europe. Again, there's an extraordinary pattern of undue weight and insertion across hundreds of articles. ~2026-39818-62 (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    The AIN case itself is resolved, but believe worth flagging:
    Believe this may have been a Sock Puppet from a previously blocked user, User/Geronimo Virula Medrano El: Special:Contributions/Geronimo Virula Medrano El. Found while reviewing some edit history on the Medrano page [2]. Edits match the same pattern as the user as far as I can tell, and same subject matter. ~2026-39818-62 (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Which if the same user, believe establishes the COI. ~2026-39818-62 (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Sock Puppet Investigation also concluded likely the same user. Given that Special:Contributions/Geronimo Virula Medrano El has claimed to be a Medrano [3], think that settles the COI.
    There's already remediation going on for the AI use in AI, but given the past editing by the older user account and continued pattern, may warrant looking at the articles beyond just AI usage. Gwyain1 (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    Royalrumblebee. Likely undisclosed COI/UPE across 37 biographies

    [edit]
    Latest comment: 10 days ago7 comments4 people in discussion

    User:Royalrumblebee (registered October 2023) has created 37 biographies, almost all of academics, businesspeople, and political or religious figures from southeastern Nigeria.

    The core problem: at least 19 of these articles cite the subjects' own CVs and professional profiles, hosted on private Google Drive accounts, as sources. These are unpublished personal documents.

    This is directly verifiable. Each of the links below is cited openly in the article's reference section and is publicly accessible. Opening a link and clicking File > Details shows the owner account and the creation date in the Google interface. In each case the file was created the same day the article cites it as accessed:

    • Daniel Chukwudozie: "STANDARD PROFILE OF DOZZY.pdf" [4], created 25 December 2023, article created the same day.
    • Hope Eghagha: "CURRICULUM VITAE - HOPE EGHAGHA.pdf" [5], created 14 December 2023, article created the same day.
    • Obasi Igwe: "Professor Obasi Igwe. C.V. 2023..pdf" [6], created and cited 2 December 2023.
    • JohnBosco Onunkwo: "CURRICULUM VITAE OF JOHNBOSCO OBINNA ONUNKWO.docx" [7], created 20 March 2024, article created the same day.

    The same pattern runs through other biographies. Whoever is writing these articles is receiving documents directly, uploading them, and citing them the same day. I am not naming the owner accounts here per WP:OUTING, but they are visible to anyone who opens the files, and I ask reviewers to draw their own conclusions. It may also be relevant that several of the biographies use self-published books by one author as sources, that this editor has heavily edited that author's biography, Jeff Unaegbu history, and that a previous account of the same name was blocked in 2011 for sockpuppetry. I make no claims about anyone's identity.

    Six of the business and political biographies are currently at AfD (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). The editor has no WP:PAID disclosures and has responded to the nominations with threats of retaliatory nominations and "I hope you are ready" on their talk page 123.

    Requesting review for undisclosed COI/UPE. Kqol • talk 22:19, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    @Kqol, My real name is Nduka Obinna from Nigeria. I work as a book editor for the distinguished Nigerian author, Jeff Unaegbu, just in case you are trying to make people assume otherwise. I do not and have never received any money from him to write Wikipedia pages. He points me to distinguished Nigerians with notability status with the conviction that many notable Nigerians are not in Wikipedia. I write whenever I have the time and I also write other pages of my own. I do not think he receives money from anyone. I believe it is about passion for documenting history and biographies, as he has written many books of biographies. This is as much as I know.
    Now, I have reviewed the ten pages created by @Kqol and I saw attachment to fashion and photography in all her pages. I do not tag her as an Undisclosed Paid Editor but that is enough to do so. A little investigation may also reveal more. Editors are welcome to investigate Edmondo Behles. International Festival of Fashion Photography, Marguerite Mendell, Gabriele Strehle etc. Thanks. Royalrumblebee (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    @Royalrumblebee final warning, please stop calling for retaliatory "investigations". You are being disruptive and are very close to a block. Star Mississippi 03:16, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Please, I am very sorry if I am being disruptive. I hereby take your advice in good faith. Thanks for your response, Star. Royalrumblebee (talk) 03:37, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Actually I think RRB has a point here. Some counter investigation is warranted. @Kqol: has opened several AfD of RRB's articles which I do not believe give sufficient WP:BEFORE Czarking0 (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    @Czarking0: WP:BEFORE was done for every nomination, and each article was reviewed individually. I started going through this editor's articles (I have not finished yet) because the pattern raised suspicions, and as this thread shows, not without reason. Note also that several of their articles I only tagged or lightly edited rather than nominated, because the subjects are notable in my opinion. As for the notability arguments, other editors are already addressing them in the individual AfDs, which is where they should be. Kqol • talk 17:25, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    I know you did the BEFORE I am just saying it was not sufficient Czarking0 (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    Bryan Freedman / It Ends with Us case - undisclosed COI editing across multiple BLPs

    [edit]
    Latest comment: 4 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion

    I looked into the editing history of the It Ends with Us lawsuit articles and found what looks like years of hidden COI editing across several BLPs.

    Background. Bryan Freedman article was created in 2021 by an editor banned two months later after SPI. Its main contributor in 2023 later banned too removed a sourced section about a lawsuit against the subject three times, while adding awards and client wins. In April 2024 the same section was removed by a wave of IP reverts, finished off by a 2015 account whose very first edit was that removal. On Steve Sarowitz, an account named after the subject twice cut mention of the dispute, and the whole controversy section was blanked twice more by an IP and a temporary account (all reverted).

    Stella8358 - is the main active problem editor. Since July 2025 almost all their edits (~120) are around this articles, always helping the same side. There is an open SPI (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stella8358) where CheckUser tied six temporary accounts to one that Stella8358 admitted was theirs; three of those edit only these articles. Examples of what they actually write:

    Henrik.petaisto - asleep since 2011, woke up in December 2024 only for these articles. Cut NYT's "...have not pointed to a single error" (Special:Diff/1271164910) and "We plan to vigorously defend" (Special:Diff/1271165479) from Justin Baldoni, while adding the lawsuit sections to Blake Lively's bio (Special:Diff/1266778911).

    The more I look at these pages, the more of this stuff I find. The list above is just the clearest examples. Bringing this here for visibility and extra eyes. Several of these articles still carry contested content from these accounts. Kqol • talk 21:53, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    There is no issue with editors being biased. Why do you think Stella has a COI? Also this talk page is for after discussions on the article and user talk have failed. I do not see any attempt from you to address COI issues at those venues. Czarking0 (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Fair questions.
    Why COI and not just bias:
    • ~120 edits since July 2025, almost all one topic, always the same side.
    • Six CheckUser-linked temporary accounts editing the same pages (see SPI above).
    • A copyvio warning for lifting a party's litigation language.
    • Material from a dismissed countersuit inserted into a third party's BLP.
    And it's not only my reading — several unconnected editors have already reverted or cut this material:
    The "Public image" section on Blake Lively is also tagged POV.
    Discussing this with Stella8358 directly would make sense on its own, but this isn't really about one editor. It's a pattern across several accounts and several articles, and with an open SPI on temporary accounts tied to Stella8358, pinging them first could do more harm than good. Happy to raise it on their talk page now if that's the preferred order.
    Either way, I'd genuinely encourage you to look through the edit histories of these pages yourself. You're more experienced with this kind of thing than I am, and I suspect you'd spot more than I have. Kqol • talk 21:24, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    I've been an editor for almost a decade. I have various topics of interest, this case and its fallout being one of the more recent. I'm not sure why I'm being singled out as there are many, many other editors who are editing articles about this and its related subjects. My history is public, as I'm sure you can see. I am not editing only articles related to this controversy, nor did I create any of the articles. Stella8358 (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    No one said you only edit this topic or that you created the articles. The concern is how concentrated your editing since July 2025, and which way it leans. It isn't only my reading. The diffs above show unconnected editors reverting the same material. Being here a decade doesn't rule out a COI, so if there isn't one, just say so. The temporary accounts a CheckUser flagged as possibly connected to the one you said was yours are a matter for the SPI. Kqol • talk 18:09, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    Pentecostal Churches of Christ

    [edit]
    Latest comment: 8 days ago14 comments4 people in discussion

    The user PentecostalHistorianandScholar appears to have apparent COI with the article Pentecostal Churches of Christ due to username and edit history. All of their edit history consists of edits to the article in question, and seem to contain a lot of self-promotional (as in information that the organization would want readers to know) material as well as lots of unnecessary material. diffs. Bungle491 (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    also most of their information is uncited Bungle491 (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you for the feedback.
    I can certainly provide citations for the material in question. Much of the information I have added is documented in published denominational histories, official records, and other print sources. My initial focus was on correcting factual inaccuracies and updating historical information, and I recognize that every substantive addition should be supported by reliable citations.
    I'm relatively new to editing Wikipedia and am still learning its formatting and sourcing conventions. My goal is simply to improve the historical accuracy of the article, not to promote the denomination. I'll work through the article and add citations to the material I've contributed as I have time over the coming days.
    If there are particular statements that you believe require immediate verification, please let me know and I'll prioritize sourcing those first. PentecostalHistorianandScholar (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Are you aware of Wikipedia's policy regarding LLM's (WP:NOLLM)? Your replies here as well as on your talk page seem to be generated by a large language model. Furthermore, looking more thoroughly at your edits on the article in question, they appear to have qualities of being AI-generated as well. Bungle491 (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    That is incorrect. I do use grammarly to assist in copyediting. Which is known to be flagged as false positives. PentecostalHistorianandScholar (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    It's not a false positive since modern Grammarly uses LLMs. It's specifically mention on a footnote of WP:NOLLM. I suggest you stop using it or you're likely to be blocked over it. Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you for raising your concerns.
    I would respectfully disagree with the characterization of my edits. While my username reflects an academic interest in Pentecostal history, that alone does not establish a conflict of interest under Wikipedia's guidelines.
    My edits have been directed toward improving the article's factual accuracy, correcting historical and doctrinal information, updating organizational developments, and adding material supported by reliable, independent sources where available. The fact that my editing activity has been concentrated on a single article does not, by itself, demonstrate a conflict of interest.
    Regarding the inclusion of additional historical and doctrinal information, my intent has not been promotional but encyclopedic. Religious denomination articles commonly include sections on history, polity, doctrine, sacramental theology, leadership, ecumenical relationships, and significant historical developments when these are supported by reliable sources.
    If there are specific additions that you believe violate Wikipedia's policies on neutrality, undue weight, or verifiability, I would welcome discussion of those individual edits on the article's talk page. I am happy to revise or remove any material that does not satisfy Wikipedia's content policies. However, broad assertions that the edits are "self-promotional" or "unnecessary" are difficult to evaluate without identifying the specific content at issue.
    I would prefer that the discussion remain focused on the reliability of the sources, the accuracy of the information, and compliance with Wikipedia's core content policies rather than assumptions about editor motivation. PentecostalHistorianandScholar (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Additionally, some of the theological information previously presented in the article is no longer accurate and reflects outdated descriptions of the denomination’s doctrine. My edits are intended to bring the article into alignment with the denomination’s current, documented theology. PentecostalHistorianandScholar (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    I can see no reason why this discussion needs to take place here. As is made amply clear at the top of this noticeboard, a thread should be only started here after attempts to resolve the issue elsewhere have failed. Nobody seems to have made any effort whatsoever to communicate with PentecostalHistorianandScholar beforehand. I suggest you take it to the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    You are correct. It seems the bungle491 has a personal vendetta. I am merely a historian trying to offer corrections to the wiki page. PentecostalHistorianandScholar (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    I'd keep comments about 'vendettas' to yourself. They do nothing to facilitate constructive discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:27, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Noted. Would you recommend a different way to get the wiki page to reflect accurate information because the previous information that was noted there had several inaccuracies that I aim to fix and it seems this is causing a lot of trouble. I’m just trying to contribute accurate information to the community about this particular denomination that is all. PentecostalHistorianandScholar (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    You should start by reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Article content needs to be verifiable, and as such based on, and cited to, published sources. Personal assurances about being a subject-matter-expert do not override this. And, with a few exception for simple uncontested factual statements, content should be based on what independent secondary sources have to say on a subject. Our content consists of articles about a subject - it is not a medium whereby the subject describe themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Ok, thank you. I will make sure to read it and to cite all of the information that I’ve put on the wiki page to both primary and secondary sources. PentecostalHistorianandScholar (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    Adekunleowo: self-citation and whitewashing across Eswatini establishment articles

    [edit]
    Latest comment: 8 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    User:Adekunleowo self-identifies in sandbox as Adekunle Owolabi, a Swazi24 journalist. Nearly all of their 36 edits add content cited Swazi24 bylines to articles about the Eswatini establishment. See WP:SELFCITE.

    At Mswati III in May 2026 (Special:Diff/1355188142) (Special:Diff/1355185891) they softened the sourced lead ("unrestricted political authority" became "executive authority", "pro-democracy protests violently dispersed" became "protests calling for political reform were dispersed"), removed the sourced sentence on the King's lavish lifestyle together with five references including The Guardian and The Times, and added jubilee praise cited to their own articles.

    At Pholile Shakantu (the Foreign Minister) (Special:Diff/1353446586) they removed the Criticism section without an edit summary inside a large promotional expansion about her media company. They created Michelo Shakantu (the minister's husband) sourced entirely to a newspaper owned by his own group, created his conglomerate Inyatsi Group Holdings and wrote Eswatini Revenue Service almost entirely on their own bylines. They have also drafted Draft:Swazi24 about their own outlet.

    No WP:COI or WP:PAID disclosures. Kqol • talk 22:33, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    [edit]
    Latest comment: 8 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    He was told before as well to disclose his COI with Hindu American Foundation,[8] however he is still not doing that. He is still making highly favorable edits for the organization.[9][10] He is also using LLM to post at talkpage.[11] Zalaraz (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    尹希文

    [edit]
    Latest comment: 7 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
    Wrong project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    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.

    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. ~2026-40616-52 (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2026 (UTC) Typing his own biographyReply

    @~2026-40616-52 This is English Wikipedia, and you need to deal with Chinese Wikipedia on Chinese Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    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.

    Otto Krahn Group

    [edit]
    Latest comment: 6 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

    UPE as per declaration on her userpage at dewiki. Contractor for Otto Krahn Group. NDG (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    Hello! I am new to Wikipedia and work as a paid freelance communications provider for the company Otto Krahn Group. I have edited the article about MOCOM, an Otto Krahn Group company, and have created a draft for enwiki that is yet to be reviewed.
    I have disclosed my affiliation with the company on my userpage as demanded by the Wikipedia guidelines (UPE). In case that is not enough, please let me know what I can do to resolve the situation. Thank you! Anthralin (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    You made a declaration on your user page on the German-language Wikipedia. This is a separate project; please make a on your user page here also. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:06, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Where is the required prior discussion? This noticeboard should only be used when other attempts to resolve issues have failed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:07, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    Many, all involving sexual abuse in the catholic church

    [edit]
    Latest comment: 1 day ago7 comments3 people in discussion

    has repeatedly removed information about sexual abuse in the catholic church on many articles. according to their page "I am a theologian, archivist and theater historian working for the Catholic Church"- showing a clear coi. there has been other editors contesting edits on their talk page but nothing has come of it some of the most recent examples are shown here, but there are MANY more https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diocese_of_Youngstown&diff=prev&oldid=1365136164 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diocese_of_Wheeling%E2%80%93Charleston&diff=prev&oldid=1364739839 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archdiocese_of_Washington&diff=prev&oldid=1364589146 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diocese_of_Victoria_in_Texas&diff=prev&oldid=1364572613

    Jackjd0 (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    I am not employed by any of the dioceses I have written about. I have had no personal contact to any of the people covered on the Wikipedia pages. I have no financial interest in making edits, nor have I received any kind of directive from anyone else to do so. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Let me also add that the majority of secondary sources quoted on Wikipedia / Catholicism articles was written by people who "work for the Catholic church" in some sense (including working at universities). Internationally, there are hundreds of thousands of church employees, some of them quite critical, by the way, and not all of them religious "believers." Wikipedia often cites official Catholic homepages for content written by people who "work for the Catholic church." -- Melchior2006 (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    You haven't addressed the specific point raise by Jackjd0: the removal of content relating to allegations of sexual abuse. Such removals may or may not be legitimate, but it seems reasonable enough to ask for an explanation. As for a conflict of interest, if you are employed by the Catholic Church, and editing articles about Catholic dioceses to remove negative content, a CoI could certainly arise, in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    The removals I made were always clearly indicated in my edit summaries (that seems to have been a problem with another editor, who did not do so). I removed allegations that did not lead to any legal results. When the charges were dropped, for whatever reason, the allegations lost their Wikipedia relevance (if they ever had any). What's more, many of these super-detailed accounts addressed only allegations, but they never delivered any references about results. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    i am very busy this weekend so will be unable to fully argue my point on why this is a major coi as much as id like to, but i do feel like it is pertinent to mention that since this has been opened, this person has opened two more talk page discussions attempting to remove details about sexual abuse (after a non talk page removal was revered by me as a coi concern, and me saying i would like future edits to at least be proposed on talk pages), as well as opening a case on the reliable sources noticeboard about an archive of documents and news stories relating to sexual abuse within the catholic church- stating it is "run by activists with their own agenda"- and at no point in this did they mention their coi. this seems like a very straightforward instance of again, a coi coming into play, and i find it genuinely very concerning, as this information is relevant to health and safety of potential future victims, people looking to join churches, etc.
    like, if yall can agree working for the church is a potential coi, id have trouble imagining that repeated removal of information which paints the church in a negative light does not blatantly fall under what is considered problematic in the coi guidelines. i trust yall to make good judgement tho. Jackjd0 (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    There may be a potential CoI, but at the same time we have to be careful that we don't assume that the material removed actually belongs in the articles. WP:BLPCRIME cautions us against naming individuals suspected of offences, but unconvicted. This can be tricky, and really has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. As for hypothetical concerns over the 'health and safety of potential future victims', Wikipedia isn't here to right great wrongs, and adding content purely on such grounds is unacceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    Chocolatewade

    [edit]
    Latest comment: 15 hours ago3 comments2 people in discussion

    Back in 2024, Chocolatewade whitewashed the Mariéme Jamme article: [12]. Moscow Connection (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    And his edits to "Moez Kassam" look very suspicious as well. Here's an example: [13]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    This board is for when talk page discussions fail and is for current issues not things from 2024. There is no evidence you have raised the issue on Talk:Moez Kassam nor User Talk: Chocolatewade ~2026-33562-67 (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1366166490"