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

Eknath Easwaran

• Eknath Easwaran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Passage Meditation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Presearch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DuncanCraig1949 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

What to do when there’s definitely a conflict of interest with two editors ( Presearch and DuncanCraig1949 ) who are known to be strongly affiliated (their livelihoods depend on it) with a person and the institutions surrounding them? They both have edited profusely often deleting any other editor contributions that bring up subjects (for example, sexual misconduct allegations) they don't like. The two Wikipedia articles are:

• Eknath Easwaran
• Passage Meditation

Hagiography at its best as you’ll see when you read the Talk pages. Here are a few examples:

• Talk:Eknath_Easwaran#Podcast
• Talk:Eknath_Easwaran#A-Removed Criminal Hate Group’s Archives as Source to Characterize a Religious Community
• Talk:Eknath_Easwaran#Fulbright Program Verification

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincitomniasveritas (talk • contribs) 01:00, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I edited the section above to reflect what the intent appears to be and I notified the two users mentioned as required by the rules at the top of this page. -- Pemilligan (talk) 03:07, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

What to do is described at the top of this page including the highlighted text:

This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue...

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:42, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Both these editors were asked by two different sources on the ordinary talk page discussion if they were actively associated with Easwaran's orginizations. One did not answer and the other didn't tell the entire truth.

Open to any other advice you may have? Thanks again for responding here. Vincitomniasveritas (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DuncanCraig1949&oldid=1351561406#Eknath_Easwaran_sexual_misconduct_allegations

Scroll down to Satyagraha108 comment about conflict of interest:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eknath_Easwaran#A-Removed_Criminal_Hate_Group%E2%80%99s_Archives_as_Source_to_Characterize_a_Religious_Community Vincitomniasveritas (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I would like to request review of potential COI/SPA editing patterns involving articles related to Eknath Easwaran and associated topics (passage meditation, psychology of religion, and Nilgiri Press).

Two accounts of interest are:

• User:Presearch
• User:DuncanCraig1949

1. Scope of review

Both accounts appear to have made edits primarily within a narrow topic area related to Eknath Easwaran and associated institutions and teachings.

2. Observed editing patterns

Across contributions from both accounts, the following patterns appear:

A. Topical concentration

Editing activity is largely focused on:

• Eknath Easwaran
• passage meditation
• related psychological/spiritual frameworks
• associated institutional content (e.g., Nilgiri Press)

This suggests a relatively narrow topical focus consistent with WP:SPA-style editing.

B. Sourcing patterns

A recurring feature of edits in this topic area is reliance on a limited set of sources, including academic and quasi-academic material closely aligned with the subject matter.

This raises a question of whether sourcing fully reflects WP:RS independence requirements.

C. Content framing

Some edits appear to expand or reinforce descriptive or interpretive content about Easwaran’s teachings without clearly balancing independent critical or secondary perspectives.

3. Contextual note (Academia.edu source)

I came across the following paper discussing Easwaran’s meditation method:

https://www.academia.edu/129092487/Eknath_Easwaran_s_Mantram_and_Passage_Meditation_as_Applied_Indian_Psychology_Psycho_Spiritual_and_Health_Effects

The authors appear to have ongoing academic engagement with this subject area.

One author name overlaps with an individual associated with Nilgiri Press; however, I have not found a reliable source confirming identity equivalence. This is noted only as contextual background regarding the sourcing ecosystem.

4. Request for review

I am requesting uninvolved review of whether the observed editing patterns are consistent with:

• WP:NPOV (neutral point of view)
• WP:RS (reliability and independence of sources)
• WP:COI / WP:SPA (potential undisclosed conflict of interest or single-purpose editing)

This report is based solely on observable editing behavior and does not assert any identity connection between accounts or individuals. ~2026-26643-34 (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

The posting on my User Talk page felt to me like harassment and perhaps even attempted outing, and following WP guidance I did not respond to it. I have been a Wikipedia editor since 2007 and have always tried to maintain neutrality, balance and proportionality.

By contrast, the account raising the COI complaint was created on 27 April 2026 and follows numerous anonymous temporary accounts created in 2026 and one named account created in 2024 which are making seemingly concerted attempts to introduce claims that lack any reliable sourcing to support a particular point of view. Despite numerous contributions on the talk page explaining the inadmissibility of these changes they have persisted in posting questions and assertions promoting that point of view. DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:

A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Vincitomniasveritas (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

As a named subject of this investigation, it is easy to verify I am not a SPA (having started >150 articles on diverse topics), nor do I regard myself as having a COI to disclose, as had already been addressed on the talk page more than a year ago. Recent talk-page postings by temp accounts alerted me that a previously included article qualifying as a reliable source had been removed last year, so I re-inserted (thank you to talk page posters). Otherwise, at the risk of digressing, the preponderance of recent activity on the article and talk pages is by SPAs, mostly created this year or even this past week. This seems to deserve comment to provide potentially informative context, though I suspect most or all of these observations would be apparent to experienced Wikipedia editors who take the time to investigate. Much of the ongoing SPA activity seems to be POV advocacy for using unreliable sourcing, mostly the same unreliable sourcing as appropriately explained and rejected on the talk page more than a year ago. Such duplicative attempts at re-litigation, if persistent, may become “time-wasting” or “disruptive” (WP:IDHT), and hardly motivate engagement by otherwise-busy editors. Using the article as a forum to elevate non-reliably-sourced accusations is not an agenda that is compatible with Wikipedia, nor is attempting to sideline editors because they impede an unencyclopedic agenda when they uphold Wikipedia policies and procedures. But to reiterate, it can be said that the talk page contributions had been helpful in alerting to reinclude citation of a formerly included RS – though repetitive attempts to re-litigate the treatment of clearly unreliable sources is rather less helpful or constructive. -Presearch (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

• Presearch, DuncanCraig1949 Is it your position that you each do not have any possible conflict of interest with the subject of Eknath Easwaran(or things related to him)? 331dot (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, speaking for myself, I confirm no conflict of interest with the subject of Eknath Easwaran (or things related to him). I continue to affirm an earlier statement about CoI that I made on the Eknath Easwaran talk page in August 2024, that can still be read there. It states: I am familiar with his organization, but I do not think that is a conflict of interest with my role here as a Wikipedia editor, in the same way that a Quaker need not declare an interest when contributing to a bio page for George Fox. Also, I have never been and do not now have any position in that organization’s staff, nor have I ever had any role in its operations, and my livelihood is obtained through employment that has nothing to do with that organization or its staff. -Presearch (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay. Sometimes's its possible to be so familiar with something that it comes off as an association with it; I see this a lot with fans of sports teams who often appear that they work for the team itself because they are so invested in the topic as a fan. Would it be fair to say that might be the case here? 331dot (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's fair to say that that is the case here. Thanks for the helpful analogy. Presearch (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

A livelihood is often seen as a way of life, reflecting an individual’s values, skills, and contribution to their community, rather than just a job that pays the bills. Vincitomniasveritas (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I do not think I have a conflict of interest with the subject of Eknath Easwaran (or things related to him). For background: I live in the UK and was an IT executive but retired in 2000. I have had various unpaid volunteer roles including being a governor of one international and two UK schools, and providing business guidance and assistance to a number of nonprofits including the small independent press that publishes Eknath Easwaran's books. I have always been conscious of the need to maintain neutrality, balance and proportionality, and I believe my edits to Wikipedia have been consistent with its principles. DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I would say that your relationship with the press that publishes Easwaran's books is enough of a connection to disclose a COI. It's not a reflection of intent or a lack of neutrality, but appearance matters as much as any actual COI. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, 331dot. I shall disclose that relationship when I next post. DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest with topics related to Eknath Easwaran. ~2026-26643-34 (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Are there other potential areas regarding conflict of interest that might be worth noting for this discussion? For example if any of the editors, or close family members, are members of the board of directors or are considered to be officers for the organization, or might be volunteering in a capacity that is considered highly important to the operation of the organization. ~2026-26643-34 (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Additionally, I hope Presearch will declare any conflict of interest regarding future posts related to Eknath Easwaran. Vincitomniasveritas (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Huge COIREQ backlog

There is a very long list of 474 unanswered COI edit requests in Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests, some dating as far back as November 2025. I have not seen anything of this magnitude even at my usual hideout of WP:CFD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:05, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I answer some from time to time, but many of the requests are very long or formatted in such a way that they're difficult to read. It may be of benefit to start procedurally declining older requests on the basis of length, asking them to submit smaller requests... I do think this should be considered a big problem. If editors can't use COIREQ, they will just go the UPE route. We want to make it easy for them to follow the rules. MediaKyle (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at some and saw a couple where the requestor has, for whatever reason, failed to come back and respond to a follow-up query/provide more info to action their request so the discussion has just sort of petered out. I'm interpreting 4.2 of WP:ER to suggest that these cases should just be marked as answered so I'll see what I can do about dealing with these ones ToeSchmoker (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Looks like this served as an effective call to action. We're under 500 requests now... I think it was almost 600 when this message was posted if I recall. Let's keep it up folks, this is actually quite manageable if this is the rate we can process them. MediaKyle (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Pacific Mall, Tagore Garden — COI disclosure, requesting neutral review

Don't try to skip the queue. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:54, 6 May 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am an SEO Executive employed by Pacific Development Corporation Private Limited, part of the Pacific Group which owns Pacific Mall, Tagore Garden. COI disclosed on my user page and paid template added per WP:PAID and WP:COI.

Draft submitted at Draft:Pacific Mall, Tagore Garden

Requesting a neutral editor to review and publish if it meets Wikipedia's notability and sourcing guidelines.

Thank you. Vanshkapoor17 (talk) 06:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Vanshkapoor17 the note upon submission clearly says that there are over 4500 pending submissions waiting for review and it may take up to 3 months. Posting here one minute after you have submitted your draft is not helpful (and not what this noticeboard is for, as the information at the top clearly says}. You will need to be patient, volunteer editors are not here to work at the timetable of those being paid. Melcous (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Matt Johnson (actor) — COI disclosure, requesting neutral review

 Courtesy link: Matt Johnson (actor)

x Majoduckswiki (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

What are you requesting a review of? You made an attempt at an edit request on Talk:Matt Johnson (actor) but did not propose any changes. Please see the edit request wizard. What is the general nature of your conflict of interest? 331dot (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the follow-up. To clarify: I am the subject of the article (Matt Johnson, the actor), which is the nature of my conflict of interest. The proposed changes are detailed in full on the article's Talk page under the section [[Talk:Matt Johnson (actor)#COI Disclosure and Proposed Updates — Subject of Article]], which was posted the same day. The {{request edit}} tag was intended to flag those existing proposals for neutral editor review. The Talk page section includes five specific proposed changes with supporting independent third-party sources. I apologize if the COIN posting was unclear — I am not requesting a review of a blank edit request, but of the substantive proposals already documented on the Talk page. Majoduckswiki (talk) 21:39, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Majoduckswiki, Talk:Matt Johnson (actor)#COI Disclosure and Proposed Updates — Subject of Article is blank as well. TSventon (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, and I'm so sorry about that — the section was accidentally submitted blank due to a technical error on my end. I've just gone back and added the full disclosure text, including all five proposed changes and 15 supporting independent sources. The Talk page should now have everything needed for a neutral editor to review. I genuinely appreciate you pointing that out, TSventon. Majoduckswiki (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Your request was removed from the talk page, because another editor deemed it as created with an LLM, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. If you want to create an edit request, it needs to come from you, not an LLM. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

One hour and twenty-four minutes is how long is took for this article to be proposed for deletion after this post was made. What a shame. The moral of the story is don't post here looking for help. Sorry, Matt Johnson. MediaKyle (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, MediaKyle — I really appreciate the heads-up, and I'm sorry for the confusion this posting caused. I've now fixed the blank Talk page section, which had the full COI disclosure and proposed changes accidentally omitted due to a technical error on submission. Regarding the proposed deletion — I understand the concern about significant coverage, though I'd note that the article understates the roles: I was a series regular on The Life & Times of Tim (30 episodes, 5 recurring characters) and appeared in 18 episodes of Ten Year Old Tom, which I hope carries more weight than "a few non-principal mentions." I'll address the deletion concern on the article's Talk page. Again, I'm genuinely sorry this process caused more disruption than help — I was truly just trying to do things properly. Majoduckswiki (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort to be open about your COI, and to request edits on the talk page. That said, as someone with a COI, you shouldn't be editing the article itself, and that definitely includes removing a proposed deletion template, so I've restored it. If a non-conflicted editor wants to contest the PROD, that's entirely fine, but a conflicted editor shouldn't do so. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

MediaKyle If you would like to see a formal rule that asking for help on a discussion forum should at least temporarily prevent a good faith deletion discussion, please propose that. This case was a PROD(which you can remove if desired). That would be difficult to enforce and be easily gamed. Sometimes it's just the way things get seen(a reverse Streisand effect, maybe) 331dot (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Willow Wealth

• Willow Wealth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Stiffler49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editor Stiffler49 created an account in 2025 with the sole purpose of editing the page for Willow Wealth. His edits violate WP:NPOV and give the negative aspect an undue weight. I suggest a re-write of the Controversies section as one, clear and concise paragraph without deleting factual information. WP:COI does not prohibit me from editing directly, however, I would ask for you to review my suggested edits first (after this discussion is initiated). JckRayder03 (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

"This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue"—Where was this done? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:04, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I started the thread on 08 May on the indicated talk page. I will come back with editing suggestions. Thanks for the tip. JckRayder03 (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

E Allan Lind page

• Draft:E. Allan Lind (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to get word out about a couple of Wikipedia Page Creation companies that took a substantial amount of money saying that they would get me a Wikipedia page in "3-4 months". I am an academic and did not understand that commercial input to Wikipedia is not how the service works. In any event, I am now more than nine months past the time-frame and I do not have a page. The companies put up a draft page on me, but it is now gone. I thought you should know about this. I will try my credit card company and any available internet fraud agencies to try to get my money back. The companies (which describe themselves as "sister companies" are Premier Wiki Publisher and Elite Wiki Publishers. The individual I worked with is Jareb Patrick. I have informed him that I would report this to Wikipedia. ~2026-27899-77 (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry to see this, but per Wikipedia:Scam warning there is little we can do about such fraud, beyond warning people never to hand over money in return for 'article creation services' and the like. Many do nothing beyond take your money, a few make a token effort. None have the power to prevent articles being deleted, and very few seem to even understand what a Wikipedia biography should look like. It might be useful to provide details to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org, though realistically, given the frequency with which they pop up under new names, the most effective thing you can probably do to help is get word out to your fellow academics about the scammers - they seem to be targeting academics quite frequently. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

The editor who created the draft about this person is already blocked as a sock. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

It's doubtful that "Jareb Patrick" is the person's real name. Something else you can do is spread the word to your academic colleagues to never hand over money to anyone regarding editing Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Autobiography tag on Peter J. Rentfrow — requesting review

I am the subject of the article Peter J. Rentfrow and I am posting here in the interest of full transparency. I created the article some years ago without being aware that Wikipedia's guidelines discourage subjects from writing their own entries. When the issue was flagged, I acknowledged it and immediately stopped editing the page. This was approximately four or more years ago, and I have made no edits since.

The article currently carries an {{autobiography}} tag. I am not requesting that anyone edit the article on my behalf, only that an uninvolved editor review the article to assess whether the tag is still warranted given the time that has passed and the current state of the content. The article appears to be factually accurate and neutrally written throughout.

I recognise that as the subject I have a conflict of interest and I defer entirely to the community's judgement. I am happy to provide any additional context if helpful.

Thank you for your time. Pjrentfrow (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

The article does not currently demonstrate that you are notable and it relies entirely on primary sources of which you are an author or co-author. For a subject to be notable, there needs to be secondary, indepednent coverage of that person. Or, you can show how you meet the notability guideline for academics. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:02, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

This article was accepted at AfC, and his Google Scholar profile looks impressive. I won't pretend to understand NACADEMIC but we shouldn't act like the subject needs to pass GNG ... Sorry, Pjrentfrow, but you shouldn't have posted here. You can have some comfort in knowing that these banner tags do not appear on mobile, which accounts for the majority of our readership. The article may now end up nominated for deletion, but if you meet our criteria for inclusion it will likely be kept. MediaKyle (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I said that he can show GNG or NACADEMIC. I'm not planning on nominating the article for deletion. I'm also not sure why you're apologizing for maintenance tags. Pjrentfrow asked for a neutral reviewer, and I gave the article a neutral review. It's currently written as if it's a CV or personal bio rather than a neutral appraisal of what secondary sources say about his work. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:32, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

This is very tame, honestly. At least a human wrote it. MediaKyle (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I didn't suggest it was LLM-generated or written in an outrageously unencyclopedic tone. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:35, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

M. Tamilkudimagan

• M. Tamilkudimagan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tamil Kudimagan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• St Pari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user says the politician M. Tamilkudimagan is his or her father. He or she has been asked several times not to edit the article directly, and not to add unsourced information to it. After receiving these warnings, they hi-jacked the film article Tamil Kudimagan to include information about the politician. Tacyarg (talk) 07:23, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I understand the concern. I am related to M. Tamilkudimagan and only wanted to improve factual information and upload a proper photograph. I mistakenly edited the film page “Tamil Kudimagan” while trying to work on the politician’s article, and I apologise for that confusion. Going forward, I will avoid direct editing and will use the talk page to request changes with reliable sources. Thank you. St Pari (talk) 07:35, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Antifaschistische Aktion

• Antifaschistische Aktion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Bobfrombrockley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am raising a conflict-of-interest and neutrality concern regarding the editing conduct of User:Bobfrombrockley in topic areas related to the historical political entity Antifaschistische Aktion, contemporary Antifa movements, and anti-fascism. The user publicly identifies as a “Marxist” and has stated alignment with the Antifa movement. Off-wiki statements by Bob from other (public) social media demonstrate explicit political identification with the subject matter they are editing. The Twitter (X) profile is linked on the user's Wikipedia profile. The pattern of edits appears to align with those stated views in ways that raise neutrality issues.

Recent edits to Antifaschistische Aktion are illustrative. The historical organization is widely described in reliable academic literature as an entity closely controlled and affiliated with the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) in the late Weimar Republic, including its hostile stance toward Weimar liberal democracy. Edits by this user have reduced or reframed this characterization, emphasizing a broader "anti-fascism" framing while minimizing the organization's communist ideological orientation and party ties — and doing so against prior established consensus on the article. Despite being directed toward existing consensus and sourcing on this point, the user continued to alter or undo these conclusions without seriously engaging with them. The resulting edits rely on selective sourcing and undue weighting to obscure the historical nature of the organization. All of this raises concerns under WP:COI.

There appears to be a broader pattern of similar engagement across Antifa-, Marxism-, and anti-fascism-related pages. I am requesting administrative review of the editing pattern and consideration of topic restrictions in Antifa/anti-fascism-related areas if warranted, as it harms the encyclopedic value of articles, in my opinion. Zerbrxsler (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

It is stated at the top of this page, 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. It appears you haven't done that. Try resolving this at User talk:Bobfrombrockley or Talk:Antifaschistische Aktion before bringing it here. -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I see no basis for constructive discussion if User:Bobfrombrockley does not acknowledge the previous consensus. I see this, combined with the agressive editing, as destructive, bad faith behaviour. Editors can not ignore previous consensus out of political leanings, so that there is no basis to work on, and I have reason to assume that the political engagement of the user plays into this.

I interpret this behaviour as not having the scientific discourse or a proper encyclopaedic impression of this matter in mind, but mainly ideological tendencies. When constructive cooperation is outright denied, a user discourse according to Wiki rules is not possible. I am not informed how else to bring this up, and if this was the wrong way, then I have to apologize. Zerbrxsler (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Given that you appear not to have edited Talk:Antifaschistische Aktion since July last year, I fail to see why you think there is anything to 'bring up'. 'Constructive discussion' requires actual discussion... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Please do point to the consensus on the article talk page and I’ll of course respect it. All I saw was you arguing against other editors. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Just to say thanks Zerbrxsler for bringing to my attention that my user page had a link to what used to be called Twitter, where I've not really been active in the Musk era. I've changed it now to a Bluesky link but anyone interested can follow the links you helpfully provide. But my descriptions as "Antifa domestic extremist" alongside some of the other outlandish things people have called me was a lame attempt at humour. I can also confirm that I have never lived in Germany and am not a member of Antifaschistische Aktion, which, as one can learn in our article, wound up in 1933 (a little before I was born).

If any other editors feel Zerbrxsler's complaint has legs, I'd be happy to give a more detailed account of myself. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Having a political opinion doesn't constitute a conflict of interest. If it did the vast majority of contributors would be in violation of it, and I'd have to suggest that the minority that don't should probably get out more... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

It's entirely unsurprising that editors who edit antifascism pages hold sentiments negative to fascism. So do most of the editors who edit the fascism pages. This is because fascism is a deeply unpopular political ideology. With that being said, I've edited alongside @Bobfrombrockley both on topics where we agree and on topics where we are diametrically opposed and, in all that time I've never known them to be anything other than a model wikipedian. This COI filing is spurious in the extreme. Simonm223 (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

References

Draft:Giorgio Jerzy Rayzacher

• Draft:Giorgio Jerzy Rayzacher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Belliricchiperfidi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Per the French Wikipedia, user has stated that they are indeed Giorgio Jerzy Rayzacher, and they have already been blocked indefinitely on the French and Italian Wikipedias for breaches of the COI policy. Account appears to only be used for self-promotion. Mellamelina (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

E. J. Anosike

• E. J. Anosike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Adeoluwabori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Adeoluwabori said in an an edit description "This is full revamp of EJ Anosike's Wikipedia profile done by his media team with the player's full permission". On their talk page they've then said that they aren't being paid, but they have been having direct contact with the subject and their team: I would like to clarify that I have not received, nor do I expect to receive, any form of payment, compensation, or financial benefit for my edits on the E. J. Anosike article or any related topic. The information I added was obtained directly from the player and team strictly for accuracy and verification purposes, and not as part of any paid arrangement or promotional activity. They then implied that they actually aren't part of the subject's media team, and they only said it because they thought it would give more credibility; I wouldn't include that if I was trying to be dubious.

They've continued to reinstate their edits even after this was brought up on their talk page. BugGhost 🦗👻 15:08, 17 May 2026 (UTC)