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

Ndombrowski and Speed square

• Ndombrowski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Speed square (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ndombrowski, a WP:SPA seems to have a clear undisclosed conflict of interest with respect to Swanson Tool Company and their trademark regarding the term "Speed Square", consistently trying to downplay the widespread use of "speed square" as a generic name for rafter squares, rather than just those solely produced by the Swanson Tool Company. Editing Wikipedia in an attempt to enforce trademark claims is a clear violation of WP:AGENDA and WP:NOTHERE. I gave them a COI warning months ago , which they have ignored . Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

While being careful of WP:OUTING, there are also easily-discoverable connections between this username and company. DoubleCross (‡) 20:18, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Timothy Paul Baymon

• Timothy Paul Baymon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Paulhcoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HolyCommunion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Apparently either the person the article is named after, or people very closely associated and making promotional material and removing well-cited information. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 01:39, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

HolyCommunion last edited on 10 September and was only warned about CoI on the 13th. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 14:49, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Mattraub, Langestic, Frcompa

• Mattraub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Langestic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Frcompa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hivemind (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Think there's a network of COI users visible by shared clients.

All three of these editors have overlapped on Hivemind (company). Of the three, only Mattraub has appropriately disclosed their COI and tried to go through AFC; that's fine . Mattraub is also responsive on talk page, that's good.

But what's weird is Frcompa showing up to circumvent AFC and move the page to mainspace . Then Langestic showed up to edit the same page .

Frcompa has worked on a draft about Prem Poddar, which has been deleted before; that other version of the article is sitting in draftspace. No COI disclosed, even after I asked them on their talk page.

Langestic has never disclosed COI, recreated an article that has had cross-wiki UCOI issues in the past (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Seungmin Kim), and circumvented AFC. I've asked them now 3 times if they have a COI on their talk page, they have ignored all three posts. After I draftified that article, Langestic moved it back to mainspace.

Langestic has also worked on an article for Daniel Smith (philosopher). I suspect that person is notable, but has hired Langestic to write the article.

I've pinged all three of these users in deletion discussions, but they're either inactive now or have ignored the pings. grapesurgeon (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Langestic has just replied with a denial grapesurgeon (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

KabataanMedia, no response to questions about paid editing

• Charlie Garcia Vitug (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• KabataanMedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

KabataanMedia is an almost-SPA focused on the BLP Charlie Garcia Vitug and on adding CG Vitug's name to other articles, , . I am involved, having edited the article and nominated it for deletion back in January; the outcome was "Draftify", but KabataanMedia edited and moved it back to mainspace again .

I notified and warned them about apparent paid editing in January and February (, , ). They haven't edited again until earlier today when they returned to the CG Viltug article , but they have not responded to any of the paid editing notice/caution/warnings.

Two things: a) they have only 25 edits and they might not have seen their user talk page, and b) I don't think their user name is the name of an organisation (I have searched for it). Still, the lack of reaction to the UPE questions and the continued edits to the article they must surely have at least a COI with are concerning. --bonadea contributions talk 16:06, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Username possibly related to the "Sine Kabataan Short Film Festival"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 12:16, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Breet and Cardtonic

• Breet (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Breet (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Cardtonic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lespire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Itz.mas10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Teewrites (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The three users have the tell-tale vibe of UPE with their user pages: bolded names, simple descriptions of their interests, mostly making a redlink turn blue. Teewrites wrote the draft for Breet which was subsequently declined for LLM and notability concerns. Lespire bypassed the draft system and made a very similar, also likely LLM aided article in the main space. After being tagged for deletion, Itz.mas10 came along and made some changes to it and removed the CSD tag. It's a little odd that they showed up to this article an hour after it was tagged for deletion and a half hour after Lespire was editing it.

Cardtonic was created by Teewrites as a draft and was eventually moved into the main space by SafariScribes who was blocked down the road for UPE and approving drafts that shouldn't have been. Cardtonic will need a more critical eye based on that approval and the potential UPE status of Teewrites, its author.

This feels like a Nigerian-related UPE ring in some capacity. CountryANDWestern (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

tl;dr - LLM post, poster now blocked

I honestly think there is a serious misunderstanding here and I want to clear it up

I am Lespire and I created the Breet article myself I do not understand how my editing of Breet is being used to create a connection between me and the other editors mentioned here or how this has suddenly become a possible Nigerian UPE ring

There is no basis that I am aware of for saying that these accounts are connected The fact that different editors have worked on articles about Nigerian companies does not mean that they are working together The timing of an edit or the way someone has written their user page is also not evidence of a connection

I also want to be very clear that I am not saying the Breet article cannot be questioned If there are problems with the sources notability neutrality or the wording then those issues can and should be discussed I am perfectly willing to make changes where they are actually needed

What I have a problem with is making serious assumptions about editors without showing actual evidence

And yes I am being blunt here because I find this whole situation quite frustrating Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative project where articles are judged on their sources and content It should not become a situation where someone sees a few accounts editing related subjects and immediately starts building a theory around them

Having 10,000 or 20,000 edits does not mean that someone owns Wikipedia or that their interpretation of an article is automatically correct Edit count is not evidence that another editor is part of a UPE group and it should not be treated as one

If there is actual evidence connecting these accounts then please provide it I am happy to look at it and respond to it But if the conclusion is based only on edit timing user pages and the fact that the articles concern Nigerian companies then I do not think that is enough to make an allegation of this kind

As for the Breet article itself I am happy to deal with the article on its own merits I can review the references remove anything that is not properly supported and rewrite anything that does not meet Wikipedia's standards

I also understand the concern about the article being flagged for promotional wording and possible LLM generated material If there are specific passages or references that are problematic please point them out and I will address them

But those article issues are separate from the allegation that several editors are part of some UPE ring

So please keep the discussion focused on evidence and the actual articles If there is a genuine policy issue with Breet or Cardtonic then let's discuss that directly If there is evidence of coordination between editors then please provide that evidence But I don't think speculation should be presented as an established connection. I also want to address the LLM concern directly. The article was not generated by an LLM. I wrote and worked on the article myself using the published sources cited in the article. I have reviewed the wording and references and I am happy to make any changes that are necessary to bring the article fully in line with Wikipedia's standards.

If there is a particular passage that someone believes was generated by an LLM or a particular reference that is considered non-existent or unreliable, please point it out specifically. I am happy to address it. But simply assuming that an article was generated by an LLM because of its writing style is not the same as establishing that it was. Lespire (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Responding about LLM concerns with likely LLM generated writing is quite ironic. CountryANDWestern (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I dont really see the irony here because my point was simply that assuming something is LLM generated based on how it reads is not the same as actually it is. Lespire (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I am Teewrites, and i would like to clarify that; I do not know Lespire or Itz.mas10 plus I have never communicated or coordinated with either account.

My only Breet submission is (Draft:Breet (company)), which was declined through Afc. After the decline, I continued using the review process and asked Reading Beans which sources fell short of the company notability guideline. I followed up again when I did not receive a response. My messages can be seen here: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Teewrites#c-Teewrites-20260906192200-Teewrites-20260831153300)

The current (Breet (company)) article is not a version of my draft. The page history shows that Lespire created it by transferring the Simple English Wikipedia article into English Wikipedia and I had no involvement.

Moreover, I have previously responded to the paid-editing concern on my talk page, link here; (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Teewrites#c-Teewrites-20260819130500-ScalarFactor-20260818221900). I am not employed by, contracted by or receiving any form of compensation from either Breet or Cardtonic. I understand that the overlap between the subjects and the editing activity may justify asking questions, but that overlap does not establish coordination between the accounts.

Cardtonic was accepted by a reviewer through Afc. I didnt select that reviewer and had no control over their later actions or block. Their later history should not, by itself, be treated as evidence that I was part of an undisclosed paid-editing group.

I am not asking anyone to overlook genuine problems with either article. Concerns about things like sources, neutrality or notability should definitly be examined no doubt but I am only asking that my conduct should be assessed using my actual edits and communications, rather than an assumed connection with editors I do not even know.

If there is any specific evidence connecting my account to the editors mentioned, please provide it so I can respond directly. Otherwise, I would appreciate it if the discussion distinguished my declined draft and documented follow-up from the separate mainspace article created by other editors.

T for Thanks. Teewrites (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I've blocked Lespire and Itz.mas10 for UPE. Based on their editing histories I find it highly implausible that they are not editing for pay. See also a prior discussion of link spam by Itz.mas10 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2026 Archive Mar#Possible Chemical Manufacturer Spam and the Spamcheck query for their link additions. I can't say I really believe Teewrites's denial of a connection to Breet or Cardtonic either. @CountryANDWestern, do you mind making a report about this group at SPI? It's possible that this is all just UPE meatpuppetry, but there are some other connections worth chasing down and I'd be inclined to ask a CU to take a look to check for connections and/or sleepers. MCE89 (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Can do in a bit when I’m back on my desktop. Thanks for the follow up. CountryANDWestern (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Itz.mas10. CountryANDWestern (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Cliodynamics, Peter Turchin, Seshat and probably some more

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.

---

Pages

• Peter Turchin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Cliodynamics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Seshat (project) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users

• Pturchin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hoyerdan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jlevine232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Danorooney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I recently stumbled upon cliodynamics. It was jargon-laden and poorly-sourced so had a look at the edit history and unsurprisingly there are lot of SPAs involved. The first three users mentioned above can all quite obviously be linked to Peter Turchin, Seshat and/or a cliodynamics journal. Peter Turchin allegedly coined the term "cliodynamics" and is involved with Seshat, which is turn some sort of database that is cosy with the cliodynamics world. I don't know if there are maybe more articles and users involved in this editing network. Danorooney is the only user where I can't immediately find an obvious connection but given it's editing largely in the same niche as the other accounts I would be surprised if there isn't a similar link.

Pturchin hasn't edited in ten years (other accounts have been inactive similarly long), I have done the perfunctory "please disclose your COI" but I am not expecting a reply. I am bringing this here to perhaps see if anyone is interested in assisting with cleaning up/further digging. I imagine some of the pages (at least Turchin?) could be notable under WP:SNG. ToeSchmoker (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2026 (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.

Ai-Da

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.

---

• Ai-Da (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Viytc471 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:SPA promotion of the Ai-Da robot. The user's only edits since joining in June have been In June 2023, Ai-Da made history... type edits to the subject article, and to add a paragraph/sentence about Ai-Da with a correspondingly redundant "See also" link to many other art articles, some (eg. interactive art at ) not obviously related. User has also uploaded several iPhone photos of the robot to Commons that they describe as having taken personally.

I informed the user of Wikipedia's COI policy yesterday and asked them to clarify their position earlier today, but they haven't responded and are continuing to edit. --Belbury (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

This is already on more than a dozen articles and is feeling like a spam campaign. Is there any objection to a blanket revert of all this stuff? MrOllie (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Not from me. They've gone past your uw-advert4 warning since, with a since-reverted non-sequitur in Artificial intelligence and copyright. Belbury (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

On the COI editing angle, the user has also removed two sentences from the Ai-Da article about how the sculptures and paintings were (at least initially) completed by human artists. Belbury (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Go ahead. A block seems inevitable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 14:48, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Admin help requested. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 14:49, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

No objection. Yes, please revert of all this stuff. I saw a few of these edits on my watchlist, they seemed incredibly spammy, and if this is in more than a dozen articles than this is far beyond excessive. Thank you. Asparagusstar (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2026 (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.

Dopamine sites: possible undisclosed COI (Tostf31724 / ChillSpace)

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.

---

• Tostf31724 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dopamine sites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Tostf31724 created Dopamine sites on 11 August 2026 and added all content about ChillSpace. Every ChillSpace citation points to ChillSpace's own websites (chillspace.ai, chill-space.pages.dev); I can find no independent coverage in any reliable source. On 23 September 2026 (rev 1376300235), ChillSpace mentions went from 7 to 20. The same account added paragraphs about a competing site built on WHOIS lookups and Wayback Machine dates (WP:OR).

When ChillSpace was removed as self-sourced, the account restored it, opened a COI thread about the editor who removed it, and has not answered whether it has a connection to ChillSpace. I'd appreciate uninvolved editors reviewing whether ChillSpace meets WP:V, whether Tostf31724 has an undisclosed connection to it, and whether editing restrictions on this article are appropriate.

Independent coverage exists for the other sites discussed: The New York Times (11 Sep 2026), CBC (22 Aug 2026), The Paper (28 Aug 2026), My Modern Met (7 Jul 2026). Levine424 (talk) 12:56, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I do not have a connection with ChillSpace, but it was the website where I found out about dopamine sites, and I have since developed an interest in them. I restored the mentions of ChillSpace (and the WHOIS/Wayback Machine references about food delivery dopamine sites) as I believe they were appropriate encyclopedic mentions. Also, independent coverage of the site is found here and here (although the latter is a blog, there's no evidence ChillSpace wrote the blog.) Tostf31724 (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I do agree that having the only reference about chillspace in the article be chillspace itself is wrong and breaks the norms of Wikipedia. Even if it was done in good faith without COI(I wont argue that it is or isnt COI). If you have found better sources then link them on the page MacTheOp (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Your statement about having no connection is noted; uninvolved editors can weigh that. Whatever the connection, the content problems below stand on their own.

• ChillSpace: the Gwangju Ilbo piece mentions it in a single passing sentence. One passing mention in one regional paper is not significant coverage, and naming ChillSpace first in the lead, giving it its own section and an external link gives it far more weight than sources do (WP:DUE, WP:UNDUE, WP:PROMO). The li.solutions page is a self-published blog and not a reliable source (WP:SPS, WP:BLOGS).
• Not a directory: per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:ELNO, the article shouldn't list every dopamine site that has been mentioned somewhere. Examples should be a few representative sites with substantial independent coverage.
• FoodNeverComes is covered in depth by The New York Times (11 Sep 2026), CBC (22 Aug 2026), The Paper (28 Aug 2026) and My Modern Met (7 Jul 2026), which describes it as the most popular dopamine site. Yet the article gives it less prominence than ChillSpace, and most of its section is WHOIS lookups and Wayback Machine dates questioning its authenticity. No reliable source makes that argument; it is editor analysis (WP:OR, WP:SYNTH), and it should be removed regardless of anyone's motive.

Proposal: (1) remove the WHOIS/Wayback paragraphs; (2) rewrite the FoodNeverComes section from the NYT, CBC and The Paper; (3) keep the Korean original and FoodNeverComes as the main examples; (4) remove ChillSpace, or at most reduce it to one sentence citing Gwangju Ilbo, with no section and no external link; (5) remove the self-published blog.

I'd welcome uninvolved editors' views and won't edit the article myself while this is discussed. Levine424 (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2026 (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.

Boston History

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward N. Martin

The above-linked AfD involves serial COI editing. Input from our COI experts would be helpful. Cbl62 (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

There are three editors at issue here:

1. User:CdbgLaurie - edits were overwhelmingly related to the H.J. Martin and Son and its executive. She at one point admitted that she created the company article "as a favor to a friend." See here.
2. User:HJMARTINANDSON - made edits about the company without disclosure, indefinitely blocked on 8/31/26 by User:Extraordinary Writ
3. User:Wally at H.J. Martin and Son - admits on user page that he is paid by the company for his editing ("I'm Wally, an employee of H.J. Martin and Son ... I edit as part of my job..."). The account began editing one day after block of user #2. Has admitted that they and the blocked user are one and the same. See diff (referring to "my edits made yesterday under the previous username"). This appears to be block evasion.

Cbl62 (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I am involved, as the one who brought the AfD and the username complaints. I agree with @Cbl62 factually. This clearly reflects an effort by the company to get articles about itself on Wikipedia. However:

• there is a seven year time gap between @CdbgLaurie writing (and then apparently retiring) and the other two accounts; and
• with respect to the block evasion, I believe this was a good faith attempt to get back in good standing after the block of the clearly improper company name account. Yes, it would have been better to rename the HKMARTINANDSON account but the new account has been open about the company affiliation and it's not like they are running two accounts in parallel.

Oblivy (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I acknowledge that the new account has appropriately disclosed its conflict, but it still seems to be a clear case of WP:BLOCKEVASION. If the user wanted to renew its editing privileges under a new name, it should have sought relief from the block. I do not believe it is OK to evade a block by simply creating a new account one day after the block. Cbl62 (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Since User #2 was blocked for a naming issue, rather than COI editing, you may be correct, User:Oblivy. I get worked up by these kinds of efforts by private business/super-rich folks to use Wikipedia as a vehicle of self-promotion. Cbl62 (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree this was supposed to be done by renaming but it's not like the "evasion" has gained them anything. In fact, the two accounts have been pretty reasonable about all of this (see comment at the Edward Martin AfD acknowledging the poor sourcing) and Wally readily acknowledged the COI. Oblivy (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2026 (UTC)