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.
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. 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}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}. 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 Talk:A&P Talk:Advanced Research and Invention Agency Talk:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:American Water Works Talk:Timothy Archambault Talk:Bank of Greene County Talk:Bell Bank Talk:Bibby Line Talk:William Bolcom Talk:Doug Bremner Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Capital One Talk:Martin Casado Talk:Cboe Global Markets Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Character.ai Talk:Cheyne Capital Management Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange Talk:Chime (company) Talk:City of Whittlesea Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Comcast Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment Talk:Edmund de Waal Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Discovery Land Company Talk:Michael Douglas Talk:Edelman (firm) Talk:End-user license agreement Talk:Engine No. 1 Talk:ESAB Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Bradley Fried Talk:Steven Furtick Talk:GetYourGuide Talk:GLX Digital Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Graph database Talk:Green Line (TRAX) Talk:Evan G. Greenberg Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Richard Harland Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina Talk:HOK (firm) Talk:Hong Kong Free Press Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Industrious Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:International Churches of Christ Talk:Barry Irwin Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Talk:Amitabh Kant Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:KieranTimberlake Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Alison Lawton Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Lemelson Foundation Talk:Martin Lewis (financial journalist) Talk:Liberty Towers Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Marbella Apartments Talk:Anthony Marinelli Talk:Mascot Books Talk:Masdar Talk:Monero Talk:MP Materials Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Obama Foundation Talk:Omaha Steaks Talk:Operating system Talk:Orphan Train Talk:Orphanage Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Lubos Pastor Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Plinabulin Talk:Programming language Talk:PureTalk Talk:Qiagen Talk:QIAGEN Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership User talk:Rob 0017/Wurdian Talk:Marc Rowan Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist) Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Rainer K. Sachs Talk:Security AppScan Talk:Simprints Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Software license Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SoundExchange Talk:Subway (restaurant) Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Titmouse, Inc. Talk:Tricentis Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Bradley Tusk Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:Veris Residential Talk:Versapay Talk:Dan Wagner Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator Talk:Maya Wiley Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Zearn Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Alice Zorn

Thomas Schirrmacher

• Thomas Schirrmacher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jhnns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has made over 150 edits, almost exclusively on articles about or directly relating to a certain evangelical figure: Thomas Schirrmacher. At the very least, these edits make him out to be a lot more influential than he actually is.
I am especially concerned now because that user recently began linking primarily religious/theological documents from Schirrmacher's personal website in at least one further reading section.[1]
While I do not believe these edits to be a decisive violation, we might want to, at least, ask for a COI declaration on the part of Jhnns if my assumption of some personal or professional[2] relationship with the main article's subject does, in fact, exist.
One especially damning piece of evidence might be his involvement in the article of Thomas Schirrmacher's wife: Christine Schirrmacher.[3]
The worst case scenario here would be, of course, paid editing by e.g. the World Evangelical Alliance. Thoughts? Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Marc Gafni

• Marc Gafni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Netanya9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It seems pretty clear to me from this editor's behavior and the infomation on their user page that they are somehow affiliated with the subject or the subject's organization. They seem to be a single purpose editor who edited a few other articles for a brief period after creating their account, but now only edit the one article. Skyerise (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Also note that the above editor is adding self-published (CreateSpace) books to the subject's publications. Skyerise (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The user is indef banned as a sock. X (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Justin Stebbing

• Justin Stebbing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Justinstebbing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NATHANNAGEL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NATHAN-O-NAGEL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DRALYSONSMITH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• STEVEJONES1979 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 79OLIVER19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi folks, I'd welcome input/help from editors more experienced with handling COIs here, I don't really have time for this (I just stumbled upon the problematic page when cleaning up a category of scientists!). In one sense, the COI is pretty open, given the user name matches the name of the subject, but still, even after a warning there's no attempt to follow COI policies.

As outlined on the article talk page, the issues with this page might be broader than just this one user's COI, but certainly a lot of edits over the past couple of years create the appearance of self-promotion and public relations / whitewashing – a long pattern of edits emphasising (sometimes hyping) the subject's scientific impact and de-emphasizing scandal. (The other users listed on the article talk page were active 2 years ago, and not since, so I've not brought them into this discussion.)

After I used Uw-coi on the user's talk page yesterday, the user made further edits implying an unwillingness to engage with this:

1. [4] further whitewashing, with a dishonest edit summary disguising it as a minor edit
2. [5] deleting the issues that I had outlined on the talk page

Joe D (t) 10:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Justinstebbing now blocked for WP:REALNAME. If in fact he is the subject, he will need to provide proof of identity. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I've also added all the other WP:SPA accounts identified on the talk page. I will notify them of this discussion, although it may be moot as most of them appear to be stale. However, if this kind of suspicious activity occurs again, it could form the basis of a WP:SPI report. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Update: Justinstebbing provided proof of identity and is now unblocked. However, he resumed editing the article substantially without any attempt to discuss on the article talk page. As a result, the article is under extended protection. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Tim121212

• National Party (Ireland, 2016) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tim121212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Having identified themselves as an editor with a COI as a member of the party, this user has continually engaged in WP:IDHT behaviour on the talk page; firstly repeatedly making attempts to change "far-right" (the sourced description) to "right-wing" (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and even after being told on the talk page 6 before dropping in a flippant comment on the talk page), creating a draft for their youth wing (complete with a copyvio upload) before adding a great deal of cruft and when reverted, restoring it with ZERO edit summary once, twice, thrice, partially four times and now five times. In the interim, the user has accused me of attempting to make the party "look good". I usually wouldn't care so much about people editing the articles of parties they're involved with so long as it's actually done unbiasedly and without any WP:IDHT concerns but this is absolutely not the case, and enough time has been wasted on this user. Between COI concerns, repeatedly no-summary reverts and failure to WP:GETTHEPOINT, enough is enough. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Note that the party this editor is a member of is currently involved in local and European elections in Ireland, so this is particularly timely. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the editor also thinks that the website of the party is a reliable, truthful source. The Banner talk 23:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I dont understand how its not, im sorry but this is really confusing to me but how is the party website not a reliable source when talking about the parties views? Tim121212 (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia policy to favor independent third-party sources. -- Pemilligan (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't mean to repeatedly bang the drum, but could someone please look into this? We've a self-professed member of a party making repeated disruptive edits and reverting without summary, over an elongated period, including during our ongoing election campaigns here in Ireland. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 13:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

If someone is making making repeated disruptive edits, the instructions for Dealing with disruptive editors seems like the place to pursue this. -- Pemilligan (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Grand, I'll wait and see if an admin wants to take a look at the COI aspect (hence why I brought it here) and then if not I'll take it elsewhere. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Renewed likely UPE by Juanma281984

• Thinkfree Office (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Juanma281984 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

@Juanma281984 was previously blocked for UPE, which they admitted to (last diff [6], interested parties can read the entire discussion for context). They successfully appealed the block and have returned to editing, having now promised for at least the second time to declare all paid editing.

Thinkfree Office, created after the unblock, is not neutral. As I mentioned on the talk page, the article has no criticism or negative coverage. This is depsite one of the sources cited containing a healthy dose of criticism, which seems to me like deliberate omission.

This diff [7] removes sourced content (the quote at "tattooed" and the sentence from "Brown's last day at CNN") and adds unsourced content (e.g. "Reuters Institute"). That one diff is too expansive for me to get an overview of, but seems to be biased toward Brown. Also, this user's creation of Redkey USB Ltd includes a token "Controversy" section (albeit unsourced), but still largely seems like UPE for that company.

I don't see a COI/UPE declaration for any of these three cases. A user unblocked after an indef for UPE is on thin ice – either they need to give a very good explanation and clean up after themselves, or I would support an admin getting involved. Toadspike [Talk] 20:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra Since you accepted this user's unblock request, you might want to take a look at this. Toadspike [Talk] 16:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra has suggested that an uninvolved admin review this case. To be clear, I support reinstating the original indef block by @Bilby, who may choose to do so himself. Toadspike [Talk] 08:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

It appears, in general, most of their editing might have some sort of COI. I feel they should not be able to directly move articles to main space if they continue on like this. Rather submit drafts via AFC. X (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this. Yes, Juanma281984 is clearly continuing to engage in UPE. Redkey is a clear example, because they had voted keep in the Redkey AFD which ended up deleting it, then recreated it under slightly different name so the two versions of the same article would not be connected. I'll take care of block. Sad, because I did hope they would stick to what they promised, but so be it. - Bilby (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

EcoCute (Japan)

• EcoCute (Japan) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• EcoCute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EcoCute (Japan) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EcoCute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Namazu-tron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This longtime user has recently appeared at AfD procedures where their battleground behaviors ([8], [9], [10], [11]) have drawn the attention of several editors ([12], [13]). The AfD on EcoCute was closed as merge to Air source heat pump; today it points at EcoCute (Japan) ([14], [15] by Namazu-tron), a glance at the page histories will show tendentious and "I don't hear you" behaviors from this editor during the deletion discussions. The pages texts themselves are aggressively complimentary and the photograph of the product on the page is linked to the user above (from 2008). BusterD (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this here, BusterD. The editing history and the AfD conduct of Namazu-tron strongly suggest that if they're not outright paid by the Japanese company, they are at the very least acting at their behest. The blatant POV alone should qualify for an indef topic ban, which should turn into a site ban if they try to circumvent it. Owen× ☎ 15:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not an expert on heat pumps and I don’t have any special knowledge of @Namazu-tron.

However I suspect they are NOT being paid for their editing because if they were they would have learnt more of the technical terms in English. For example underfloor heating is only one method of “space heating”. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Section ”Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion” on my talk page to you is the answer.

Will watch further development. Almost final stage for me. Thank you every one.--Namazu-tron (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

These comments by Namazu-tron are non-responsive to my initial concerns. I have not accused Namazu-tron of plagiarism or paid editing; neither have I accused them of any specific connected editing. It was my intention to apply a neutral but sufficiently well-sourced report to this board which documents the apparent conflict. It's reasonable to expect engagement which allows us all to understand a long-time contributor's actions. My original concerns (tendentious and IDHY behaviors) go unanswered. BusterD (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Namazu-tron's response at their talk page is not an adequate explanation/defense. Per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EcoCute (Japan), Namazu-tron appears to have intentionally ignored negative coverage of EcoCute in RS in their article-writing on Wikipedia, even when it could play a decisive role in establishing notability for the topic. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Axel Downard-Wilke

• Axel Downard-Wilke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axel Downard-Wilke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axel Downard-Wilke (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Schwede66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Marshelec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wainuiomartian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Axel Downard-Wilke is Schwede66 (userpage disclosure), a prominent New Zealander Wikipedian, administrator and member of Wikimedia Aotorea New Zealand's executive committee. Marshelec also sits on this committee (userpage disclosure). I couldn't find explicit onwiki disclosure of which member he is, so to be on the safe side I will not make a claim either way for now. Marshelec has a conflict of interest regarding Downard-Wilke/Schwede66 because of this relationship.

Marshelec made major contributions to Downard-Wilke's article without explicitly disclosing this conflict of interest. This included nominating the article for a prominent spot on the Main Page as DYK's image hook. My view is this is bright-line misconduct.

Wainuiomartian, the other major contributor, has had some interactions with Schwede66 [16] [17] and it would probably be best for them to clarify their relationship.

To be clear, Downard-Wilke/Schwede66 himself has not had anything to do with the article and does not seem to have done anything wrong here. I have only notified him for completeness' sake. – Teratix ₵ 08:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Blatant COIN violation as I see it, especially given the fact that Downard-Wilke has dubious (at best) notability. wound theology◈ 08:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

When I approved the hook, there were no COI concerns raised. I remember noticing a COI disclosure on the talk page, but now I realize it was from the subject themselves (Mr. Wilke), who had nothing to do with either the DYK or the article. The DYK has now been pulled from the Mainpage thanks to the prompt action taken by an admin. IMO, relatively experienced editors such as the OP (Wainuiomartian) and major contributor Marshelec should have known better and be transparent and followed what the policies dictate (assuming they have COI). I'm someone who doesn't get too serious about breaching of a bunch of Wiki policies, but still, simple COI declarations and probable AFC submission could have provided smoother sailing. Anyway we're past that and the way I see it is if they have COI they must declare or clear their positions, and uninvolved editors may scrutinize the writing to omit possible promo materials.

Re notability, if in doubt it can be taken back to AFD. X (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I accept that I have a Conflict of Interest with regards to Axel Downard-Wilke, and that I should not have edited the article or nominated it for DKY. I regret this lapse of judgement, and I accept the criticism that I "should have known better". I have now belately added a COI declaration to my user page, and a connected contributor template to the talk page of the article. I regret and apologise for the disruption and extra work that this has caused for multiple editors.Marshelec (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification on my talk page, Teratix.

Allow me to state that Wainuiomartian does not have a COI. My administrative work happens at WP:ERRORS, WP:DYK, and WP:ITN. Beyond that, I almost exclusively edit New Zealand content, where I create content, curate new content, help out other editors, and keep an eye on a watchlist that is just shy of 10,000 items. With some 235,000 edits, it’s virtually impossible that I won’t have interacted with any New Zealand editor who is active in one of my topic areas of interest. This is one of those normal interactions that is part of my Wiki work and it is a very far off from getting Wainuiomartian and myself into a situation that resembles a COI.

The other week, Wainuiomartian started making additions to many of the YYYY New Zealand census articles, which are all on my watchlist. I made some stylistic changes to her edits and when a question arose, they came to my talk page and asked some questions, presumably because they had seen that I had also edited the census articles. That was on 11 May 2024, long after she last edited my bio. Hence no COI here either; merely from a timing perspective. You may note that as part of my reply, I issued a thank you for “very good work on a certain biography”. Wainuiomartian and I have never met or spoken with one another apart from these two interactions.

One article that is not on my watchlist is my bio. My thinking here is that I should not watch something when I cannot and should not take any actions; if there are issues, I trust that the Wiki community will sort it out. Hence, it took quite a while before I noticed that Marshelec is editing my bio when clearly he shouldn’t. I stated to him that this concerned me and this was a month after the article had been nominated at DYK. I shall state that he hasn’t edited the article since.

The side issue of notability was raised. There are a couple of sources that would count towards establishing notability that are missing from the bio:

• Malcolm Douglass (October 2007). A Wheel on Each Corner: The history of the IPENZ Transportation Group 1956–2006. Transportation Group. ISBN 978-0-473-12799-2. Wikidata Q124650108. {{Cite Q|Q124650108}} I’m in this book on four pages; happy to provide transcripts of the relevant passages.

• I was on the national management committee of the IPENZ (now Engineering NZ) Transportation Group from 2003 to 2006, holding the role of treasurer.{{sfn|Douglass|2007|pp=89, 138}}
• The 3M Award is the most prestigious award that the Transportation Group - a technical interest group of Engineering New Zealand - has handed out since 1997. I was one of the contenders in 2006 but did not win.{{sfn|Douglass|2007|pp=63, 105}}

• {{cite news | url = https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300762732/secret-agents-snarky-battles-and-robots-inside-wikipedias-great-macron-war | first1=Adam |last1=Dudding |first2=Eugene |last2=Bingham |title=Secret agents, snarky battles and robots: Inside Wikipedia's great macron war |date=18 December 2022 |access-date=25 May 2024 |work=[[Stuff (website)|Stuff]]}} This is a very cool piece of work, mostly about the macron war. The article is great but the podcast, linked from within the article, is even better.

If anyone is keen to work those in, let me know and I’ll type up the relevant book passages. And there's heaps more; I have another good 50 sources that can be cited. Also, I’d appreciate if someone could cast their eye over the content that Marshelec has added to check that’s it complies with NPOV. If that includes any offline sources or stuff that comes from ProQuest, I can make that available. I hope this helps. Schwede66 20:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I was asked to write the article and agreed because the subject seemed notable with regards to his invention for cyclists at wide intersections and for instigating the consistent use of macrons on Wikipedia pages. I do not believe I have a conflict of interest. I have never met Axel and was not even sure of his username when I created the article. I have since contacted him directly once with a question of style about New Zealand censuses which I am working my way through. Wainuiomartian (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

You were asked to write the article? wound theology◈ 03:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The Douglass book clearly would not contribute toward notability as it is not independent -- it's literally the IPENZ Transportation Group writing a book about the IPENZ Transportation Group. JoelleJay (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

JoelleJay, yes, I had the same opinion. By the way, outside this source, in general I feel the subject meets borderline GNG. But we should sort out COI here. Notability can be discussed on the talk page of the article or at AFD if someone takes it back there. A side note: I remember the DYK having a really unusual and frivolous source in its first hook. It was a PowerPoint presentation authored by Mr. Wilke and uploaded on an online repository by themselves on April 6. Then the article was put on DYK in less than a day by Marshelec. All this is to say that there were abundant of hints/evidence of COI, but none seemed to have picked it up (including me as the DYK approver but noticed a COI disclosure on talk page so didn't pay much heed). X (talk) 06:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Wainuiomartian, Wait, you were asked to write the article? And you agreed? That phrase makes it sound like you created the page on the behest of someone or someone's proposal? Please clarify this. X (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66: do you happen to know anything about this? wound theology◈ 08:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Who asked you? Secretlondon (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Why the concern about someone suggesting an article be written, and why is their identity important? If someone thinks an article would be worthwhile Wikipedia having, but has a conflict of interest, then isn't it the right thing to do to suggest to someone else without a conflict of interest to write it? I see no evidence that Wainuiomartian has a conflict of interest and we should assume them capable of deciding independently whether a Wikipedia article is justified, so I consider it irrelevant that their original inspiration was a suggestion or request from someone else, regardless of who that was. JMCHutchinson (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

isn't it the right thing to do to suggest to someone else without a conflict of interest to write it? In this case, the writer should be transparent and disclose they have not written the article fully of their own volition but have been prompted by someone with a conflict of interest. – Teratix ₵ 16:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jmchutchinson Why the concern about someone suggesting an article be written Because their wording "asked” “agreed” makes it sound like (as I previously mentioned) they created the page on the behest of someone or someone's proposal. I think a clarification is due here. X (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I tried to find some guidance about this. Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Attribution in edit summaries does say that in case of an edit request from someone with a COI, the edit summary should acknowledge the edit request. So, according to that text, you are both justified to ask if the requestor had a COI. But I am not sure that it is reasonable to expect everyone to know that rule: I didn't! It seems not such a fundamental transgression if the editor themself has written the text and has no COI. JMCHutchinson (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Please note that the New Zealand Wiki community has its monthly online meeting tomorrow. Anyone can join in and we usually have a few Australians turn up. I'll be talking about COI editing so that we as a community learn something from it, achieving broader understanding of how to manage this. Anyone watching this page is most welcome to join in: Wikipedia:Meetup/Aotearoa New Zealand Online/49#Conflict of interest editing. I'll ask the organiser to be on the programme in second slot so that there's an approximate time available for those who are only interested in this topic; tune in from 12:15 h NZT, which is UTC+12:00. Time zone conversion link for your convenience. Schwede66 03:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you should be leading this as you are involved as the subject. Secretlondon (talk) 12:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

That would seem to be a matter for the meetup organisers, not COIN. – Teratix ₵ 15:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

It's a massive ethical issue, even if not strictly COI. Secretlondon (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

With due respect, I disagree. I am one of the most experienced editors in New Zealand. I don’t have a conflict of interest myself, but I’m involved in a CoI case. Hence, I fail to see why I would not pass on some of my knowledge. I’ve presented Wiki topics on several occasions before. This is topical, with a number of editors interested. I’ve issued a public invitation here for editors who have this noticeboard on their watchlist as they are presumably interested in the topic. You yourself are most welcome to attend, Secretlondon, and I would welcome any feedback afterwards, from you or anyone else. As always, I will make the slide deck available afterwards for others to use and modify as they see fit. Schwede66 19:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Following up:

• @Marshelec: I appreciate it can be stressful to have your work on Wikipedia come under scrutiny and I'm glad you've promptly acknowledged the situation is problematic and apologised. However, according to Schwede66 it seems he expressed (offwiki?) concerns to you about COI some time before I posted here, so I don't understand why you didn't acknowledge your COI until after this discussion started, rather than after Schwede66 raised concerns.
• Wainuiomartian, thank you for the speedy response and as with Marshelec I appreciate this is not the most relaxing thing in the world to answer questions about. I have the same question as the other three editors.
• @Schwede66: thank you for a prompt and thorough response, I just have a couple of follow-ups:
  • I agree the two interactions you had with Wainuiomartian that I linked don't create a COI, especially since you are such a prolific editor on New Zealand topics. Sorry, I should have made that clearer before. I was more interested in whether you had any offwiki interactions (but you both answered that question anyway).
  • I made some stylistic changes to her edits How do you know Wainuiomartian's gender? I don't see anywhere it's been mentioned onwiki.
  • You don't watchlist your bio – fair enough – how did you come to notice Marshelec was editing it?
  • this was a month after the article had been nominated at DYK could you narrow that timeframe down a bit further? Does "a month after the article had been nominated at DYK" literally mean "7 May" or is it broader?
• Noting as well, for the record, Wound theology has opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axel Downard-Wilke (2nd nomination). – Teratix ₵ 15:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

To answer your queries:

• I was told that "a librarian called X is working on your bio". It was a female name.
• By looking at the article history.
• 8 May

Schwede66 18:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• That makes sense, thanks.
• I was more asking about what prompted you to look at the article history in the first place, given you were actively refraining from watching the article.
• In that case, although Marshelec has not edited the article since 8 May, he did edit the DYK nomination on 14 May without disclosing his COI, even after you had raised concerns. He replaced the hook image and encouraged reviewers to promote the nomination.

Marshelec, I am still at a loss as to why you were fully willing to disclose your COI when it came up for public scrutiny, but stayed silent and indeed continued to COI-edit when private concerns had been raised. – Teratix ₵ 02:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Shame and anxiety got in the way and affected my judgement (my mental health is fragile at times). However, I accept without reservation that I should have declared the Conflict of Interest immediately. If had done so, then the disruption and additional work for other editors would have been kept to a minimum. Plus, this would have reduced the severe mental stress that I am now experiencing. I deeply regret my actions and again offer my apologies to all those who have been affected.Marshelec (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Marshelec, You shouldn't feel ashamed, fellow editor. Just a bunch of policies created by the community. Yes, one should follow the rules wherever they practice actions/participate (and most Wikipedia rules are “just” and firm, required for the functioning). You've already regretted your action, which is sufficed, and I believe going forward you would be cautious. But don't let some missteps take even the slightest toll over your mental health, just some website and its rules on the internet isn't worth it. Wishing you good health. X (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Look, I don't think it's as simple as "there's literally nothing to feel compunction about at all", but at the same time if it's causing you severe mental stress then yeah, some things are just bigger than Wikipedia. – Teratix ₵ 12:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

That it’s not on my watchlist does not mean that once in a while, I get curious and see what’s changed. Schwede66 05:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. – Teratix ₵ 10:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• On further investigation, Marshelec was the one who asked Wainuiomartian to write the article. He explicitly notes I am too close to him to write the article myself, indicating he was aware of COI issues as far back as 13 February, well before he started making contributions to the article and DYK nomination. Honestly, finding this has shifted my view on the matter from "unfortunate incident but seems like an honest misjudgement" to "there was definitely awareness, even at the time, that what was going on went against our guidelines". – Teratix ₵ 10:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
• Teratix, It's not a confrontation towards you, but I'd like to state this in general:
  They have made mistakes and have apologized. Hypothetically assuming that they were even paid or created on someone's behest, what are the implications we may have taken? The way I see it is, when a COI is declared/found, uninvolved editors go and scrutinize the article and omit promo bits and the editors having COI then are required to not edit the article directly and place edit requests on the talk page. Yes, we need transparency here. But at the same time, we shouldn't drag things too far and treat mistakes (or self-aware violations) as some kind of criminal offense. Let's assume they were aware and didn't follow the rules, but what of it now? We can only take preventive measures and warn them about refraining from further violations, if not, place editing restrictions. X (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  This. The worst that has happened here is that an editor on Wikipedia has had a link to a blp article about them on the frontpage. A Wikipedia page about a Wikipedian. There are no ongoing "COI issues", no individual or corporation has financially gained from it. No harm, no foul. Let's all move on. JMWt (talk) 11:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think COI editing is somehow less harmful if it relates to a Wikipedian's article. – Teratix ₵ 11:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  Right. Well, I guess that's where we differ. I consider this a storm in a thimble JMWt (talk) 13:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree, there's an important difference between someone making an honest mistake because they aren't familiar with COI guidelines and someone who is fully aware what they're doing is problematic and does it anyway. I agree the first type of editor should be treated leniently because their intentions are fundamentally honest. However, if you're editing against guidelines in full knowledge you're not doing the right thing, to me that calls the assumption of good faith into question. – Teratix ₵ 11:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's what I said. Let's even assume that their good faith editing is not intact, so what of it now? Let's assume they violated policies, being aware of them or not, and? They have vehemently apologized multiple times, and what are the implications we are to impose now? I've discussed those in my previous response. What matters is what to do next. And as per policies, we can only take preventive measures and warn them about further violations. If they do not comply, restrict their editing access. That's pretty much it. X (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I am happy to accept good faith, but I think the remaining issue is that the article is possibly non-notable and possibly not NPOV as it has used non independent sources. The AfD should resolve the first issue, but if it is kept any remaining NPOV issues could be discussed here. TSventon (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Something practical at last. Been a rarity in this discussion. but if it is kept any remaining NPOV issues could be discussed here I've talked exactly about this in my earlier responses. Uninvolved editors would scrutinize the article and omit promo/unfit bits. That's all there is to do now. X (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - (previously somewhat involved in this, as I pulled the DYK hook from the main page due to the conflict-of-interest issues raised here and at WP:ERRORS) - Firstly, I can accept that Marshelec was acting in what they considered good faith regarding this issue. Yes, they knew they had a conflict of interest back in February, but I don't think there was a deliberate intention to deceive the community here and even though what happened was clearly a big breach of COI policy, I think their apology and retrospective labelling of the COI is OK.
  However, I also disagree with the comments above along the lines of "There are no ongoing "COI issues", no individual or corporation has financially gained from it. No harm, no foul. Let's all move on." I think we do need to take some sort of action to stop this happening again, and I'd recommend some sort of warning to Marshelec stating that if there's any sort of repeat of what's happened here then that would lead to formal sanctions e.g. a topic ban from DYK. We have historically been quite strict about editors who attempt use DYK as a venue for undeclared promotion of themselves or their friends or relatives, and there's no reason to create a carve-out here, just because the subjects are well-respected Wikipedians.
  Finally, on the subject of Schwede66's status as chair of the Wikimedia Aotearoa online meetup, that's really an issue for that organisation to decide upon, it's not related to Wikipedia as a whole. It would be wrong for Schwede to act in an adminship capacity on this COIN discussion, but the Chapter's meeting and decisions are for them and aren't binding here.
  This whole saga is quite unfortunate as I think when the dust settles we're going to remain with a very nice article about Schwede/Axel, and as someone who's known you online for sometime it's certainly interesting to learn of some of the great work you've also done IRL... it's a shame it couldn't remain featured on the Main Page really, but there we go. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for your kind thoughts, Amakuru. I've talked to Marshelec a few times since this investigation started and he is shell-shocked. I appreciate that a formal warning is appropriate but I can guarantee you that even without that, this won’t happen again as it’s taken a big toll on him.

  Regarding our monthly online meeting, these are being chaired by Siobhan Leachman; she was happy for me to give that presentation. It was well received by attendees and there’s been quite a bit of follow up via our Facebook user group, with even those who did not attend looking through the slides and taking action regarding their own COI management. Someone just called COI the "flavour of the week" topic. I have made further comments on the presentation on the talk page of this noticeboard. Schwede66 15:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Éric Benhamou

• Éric Benhamou (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Eric Albert Benhamou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Extra eyes on this article would be useful, please. 46.69.215.187 (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Vishal Bawa

• Draft:Vishal Bawa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• ItsVishalBawa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Writing about themselves on Wikipedia without disclosing COI. Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

My Real Name As Per Government Identity vishal Dwivedi im hail from Kanpur Uttar Pradesh if you requred any more info contact me thank you. ItsVishalBawa (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello my rael name is vishal dwivedi im a independent artist so i create this Wikipedia page This is my personal Page Comment.thank you. ItsVishalBawa (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I think there's a bit of a language barrier issue, I don't quite understand what the user is saying (here, and on their talk page User_talk:ItsVishalBawa#May_2024), whether they are or are not the Vishal Bawa described in the above draft. If they are, then this is obvs an autobio. If they're not, then the username is misleading and must be changed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Itsvishalbawa is mh Wikipedia log in user name thats the reason im facing on create account time and My Artist name is vishal Bawa try to understand this situation. ItsVishalBawa (talk) 09:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

ItsVishalBawa Unless you are Vishal Bawa, you cannot use his name as your username. If you are not him, please tell us a new username you want to use, I can change it for you.

If English is not your main language that you use to communicate, you should edit the Wikipedia that is written in your primary language. 331dot (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

COI for something NOT published?

• Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, I would like to self-report an incident that happened in 2016. I am not sure if it qualifies as a COI on Wikipedia or not. Back in 2016 I was still trying to figure out what kind of work was appropriate for me. Our HR person suggested that I work on a page for a donor to the library where I work as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, and I said I would try, but couldn't guarantee any specific kind of content (right, I should never have agreed to do that). I spent several weeks researching and creating a page in my sandbox for a man who made his fortune off of real estate (he's dead now). There were definitely enough sources on him for him to pass notability guidelines. One of my main sources was actually a biography commissioned by his trust. After I was happy with what I wrote in my sandbox, I sent it to the HR person, who sent it on to someone at the trust. The trust people hated it because I mentioned that the houses he built were not available to black people to purchase, as was the case with a lot of homes built then (a detail in the biography THEY commissioned, which I guess they also didn't like). Our HR person told me not to publish it. Was NOT publishing it a COI as outlined in our COI guidelines? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this retrospective declaration. You have a long list of COI declarations on your user page. From my perspective, I'd add the above story to the list and that should be all that's needed. Schwede66 03:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, I added it to my list. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Maria-Ana Tupan

Maria-Ana Tupan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
ForTupan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (and various IPs, see page history)

COI issues; Romanian IPs (likely ForTupan logged out, see talk) making somewhat promotional edits to the page. ForTupan claims that the article is not about themself, and that their username was chosen out of respect for the author, because it was required to register a name when proposing the article for validation. (This is my first time posting here, so please let me know if I did something wrong)'''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Similarity of name is not a criterion that establishes the location of a user and his relations with the person in the article. ForTupan is from Oradea and has no connection with Maria-Ana Tupan from Bucharest. Check the IP first! Yes, I chosed my username because I have A LOT of respect for the author, because it was required to register a name when proposing the article for validation. Have a nice day!ForTupan (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

You are also making a large number of edits whilst logged out, please don't do this. Theroadislong (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree! I am glad that the aspects related to my location and my neutrality have been clarified. I am very cooperative if I find good understanding and good intentions. Moreover, I am very grateful for the help received! ForTupan (talk) 05:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@ForTupan so if the IPs are you, how are they located in Bucharest? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I think you are confusing. I have no connection with the IPs from Bucharest. Perhaps, at a superficial glance, the IPs have an appearance that can induce confusion, but I log in from Oradea, both from my home address and from the office address. I can log in and log out 100 times if you want, I can post 100 times logged in and logged out if you want, and each time you will notice that I am from Oradea. If you want to find out who are the people from Bucharest who make destructive changes in the article, you will have to communicate with them. I, as a major contributor, am from Oradea. ForTupan (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

And something else. As you can see, the IP provided by you is a static one, not a dynamic one. This means that the one who operates from Bucharest lives there. Who he is and what his intentions are, I don't care. Whoever wants to check my IP, from home or from the office, can do it. I have nothing to hide. ForTupan (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Look at my IP too, it's also a static one. From Oradea.

https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/2a02:2f08:eb08:8b00:e59a:f0e:d9ba:a532

Have a nice day! ForTupan (talk) 05:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Regardles of whether your IP is a static one, or a dynamic one, you should NOT be editing whilst logged out. Theroadislong (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, ok! I learn fast! ForTupan (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

RCS & RDS S.A. is the main Internet provider in Romania, which operates in most important cities in Romania. The appearance of the IPs is similar for this reason and can be misleading at first glance. Do you understand now, my friend? ForTupan (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Indian Army regiments—articles being edited by orders from army brass

• Multiple articles involving regiments of the Indian Army are likely affected. So far, I've identified these articles:
• 20 SATA Regiment (India) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 125 SATA Regiment (India) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• ArtyGunner12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PRISH123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This started with some edits, including large-scale deletion, addition of unsourced text, and egregious violations of MOS, in the 125 SATA article. In the course of discussion with PRISH123, they stated, These directions have been received pan Indian Army to Update/Create a page of the respective units… If you will be kind enough to scroll through other pages, all the units are updating their data in the said format. (diff) On review of other articles, I saw editing at 20 SATA by two editors—one now blocked, and the other, ArtyGunner12345—which follow the same pattern and indicate the same COI. Accordingly, I bring the matter here, since the scope is too large for a single administrator too monitor. —C.Fred (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems like it's still ongoing: 313 Field Regiment was created recently and there's also a draft of the 278 Medium Regiment out there as well. Not sure if related but timing seems too coincidental. Procyon117 (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@Procyon117 The text is so consistent that either it's an actual order with detailed formatting, or it's coordinated sockpuppetry. —C.Fred (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't realise this thread existed, and so posted to AN/I. That said, this is something that almost certainly needs more eyes, particularly admin eyes, on it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Just adding a small something from SPI:

• Draft:108Field regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:108 Field regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (same user)
• Draft:832 Light Regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• SPI link

The SPI is broadly consistent with this being multiple dispersed people, thus CU is not going to be too helpful here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Jitin Prasada

• Jitin Prasada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WikiTyrany (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Addition of promotional content (including an image gallery which I have reverted). When I asked about COI on the user's talk page, their response was to delete my post without comment. My suspicion was aroused by a new account making multiple null edits, on this and other wikis, before starting on the article in question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User blocked as a sock. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Totectors

• Totectors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• NicoleIBG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JoNo Creatives (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I suspect that the 'IBG' in the username stands for 'International Brands Group', who own the IP of Totectors. Turned that article into a weird and unfocussed advert, was reverted and told about managing a COI, responded by adding the odd advert back again. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Adding User:JoNo Creatives, who has just reinstated the troublesome edits almost verbatim. I have just advised JoNo Creatives of our paid editing policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Both users blocked for undisclosed paid editing. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Aleksandr Celiadin

• Aleksandr Celiadin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• GetJet Airlines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mehheh52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AviationLogger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dyburyte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Asmedis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Silvijajakiene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A number of users who edited the article are already blocked:

• Alma_Saltenyte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Njsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Njsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (a sock of SurferSquall)
• Air7777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JCC199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Found this while removing citations to Simple Flying. Something sketchy going on here: Aleksandr Celiadin is the founder of GetJet Airlines, his article seems to be edited exclusively by accounts with limited other edits. The company seems to have previously set up an account and I think the other accounts seem to be likely related to each other. There is also frequently IP edits on this article adding material from the company (most recently [18] [19]) and one of the accounts listed above deleted some (admittedly not well sourced) negative info about the company. Avgeekamfot (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)