Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

• Arthur Caplan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ethics Matters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• EthicsMatters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-43804-14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-45784-45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-55670-32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-57067-75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a resurrection of a COIN discussion originally conducted in August 2026 (see archived discussion here). On October 15, 2026, unregistered user ~2026-55670-32 (presumably either Caplan or his previously self-identified colleague) once again attempted to revert a properly sourced and relevant claim on the grounds that its inclusion had not been approved by Caplan, himself. At this point, I think administrator intervention is unavoidable and ask any administrators reading this to consider banning the above users from editing Wikipedia (or, at the very least, IP banning user ~2026-55670-32). It seems attempting to explain to the above user(s) that article subjects and their representatives do not get veto power over what appears in articles about them (or Wikipedia COI policy more generally) is futile and that they will continue to sporadically edit war over this point regardless of any warnings issued. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

It seems to me fairly obvious that User:Ethics Matters should be blocked from editing the Arthur Caplan page. It's not like they are interested in contributing on any other topic. Deb (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ethics Matters has not edited since 3 August 2026 - well before that earlier COIN discussion, which you opened on 9 August and which ran to 22 August.

The only account listed above to have edited after 22 August is ~2026-55670-32.

As I noted in that earlier discussion, there is no evidence that Ethics Matters is behind the TAs, and it seems likely that they are not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 11:32, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

45784-14 signed itself off as Lisa Kearns i.e. Ethics Matter. I think Caplan is behind the other two, given the edit summary of "unauthorized content added. not by me or my admin assistant" from one account and the other adding in unsourced info about how he met his wife... ToeSchmoker (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

If we accept as likely that the unregistered users ending in 45 and 32 are both Caplan (which multiple users have persuasively suggested above and in the prior discussion), Caplan was formally warned not to remove content without adequate explanation by editor @DonnieNova on August 20, 2026 and formally notified by me on August 22, 2026 of the opening of the previous COIN discussion. Despite the warning and the previous COIN discussion, Caplan reverted the same set of claims using the same invalid justification on October 15. Given this article falls under the contentious-topic umbrella (as well as the previously discussed decade-long history of coordinated conflicted editing), I don't think it's necessary to follow the standard approach of issuing a progressive string of warnings before an administrator considers implementing a ban or other sanction. Both Caplan and Kearns are clearly here for no other purpose than curating Caplan's Wikipedia presence (primarily his BLP article) and are unwilling to follow or incapable of following relevant WP. If no administrator chooses to take action at this time or the discussion otherwise goes stale, I'll add a CT alert and final UW to 32's page, so that the next time Caplan (or anyone editing on his behalf) attempts the same reversion, we won't be back at square one. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Just to update everyone who has commented above or otherwise might be monitoring this discussion, a new temporary account, @~2026-57067-75, once again reverted the edit in question on the grounds it was added by an "unknown editor" (me) and added more unreferenced claims about Caplan's personal life yesterday (October 24). This constant unapologetic edit warring and assertion of article ownership by the article subject is beyond ridiculous at this point. Please note that, just one day prior, I placed a contentious-topic alert and final UW for asserting article ownership on the talk page of @~2026-55670-32. I don't believe starting from scratch with level 1 UWs every time Caplan creates a new temporary account is a reasonable or productive path forward. I have requested temporary page protection for the article (we'll see if that's approved or not); however, even if it is approved, there's nothing to stop Caplan from returning once any temporary page protection expires and continuing his disruptive editing. I once again implore any administrators who might be monitoring this discussion to intervene. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Isabel Schellnack-Kelly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I draftified this page twice already. Please note the edit summary by User:Derek J Moore here: Simple outline. More to be added by Prof's UNISA students It looks as if the professor (subject of the article) and/or her students are now editing the article. Fram (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi there @Fram Sorry about that. Duplication is such a pain. Prof Isabel Schellnack-Kelly is new to Wikipedia and has been showing interest. She will be teaching a module about digital curation to UNISA students. My guess is that she is going to encourage her students to use vernacular Wikipedia. This is great, because we do need more vernacular Wikipedia. But she is experimenting at the moment. can you give her a moment? I think she might prove to be a great ally for local Wikipedia growth. Thanks Derek J Moore (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

What's vernacular Wikipedia? Also, if she and her students want to experiment, they should do it in draft-space. And this should obviously be a draft at this point, then submitted for review if it gets sufficiently improved. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

We have proper protocols for people wanting to teach using Wikipedia. Getting students to write about the teacher is not part of them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 12:08, 19 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I cant see any mention of this article on User:Derek J Moore's talk page; nor a notification of this discussion (albeit they are now here). Where is the required prior discussion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 12:11, 19 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have moved back to draft. WP:BLP requires through referencing; this has one source that (the home page of the university) that does not even mention the subject. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 12:23, 19 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

FYI-ping to @Isabel Schellnack-Kelly, in case you wish to comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Respicefinem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Trex Company, Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) reference
• Métis Nation of Ontario (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Non-profit, no reference found at IC, but at mediaprofile.com, which is linked to the global network
• Conica AG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), fighting against afd referenced as client
• Jürgen Klimke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Co-Owner of Industrie-Contact AG and member of german parliament, reference, also on de-wp.
• Smurfit Westrock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), reference, also on de-wp. Here, not edited by mentioned user. I'd ask you to have a look for potentiel COI-accounts.

Above user was banned indefinitely for undisclosed paid editing on de-wp. Since this is a global issue, I'd like to open a case here. Bear with me, I hope I am doing nothing wrong.

The PR agency industrie-contact AG is working on an international level with a network. I only added articles where I have a found a definite link to the agency itself, but there are more that are not advertised on the website. If you need more proof or help with the german translation, let me know. On dawiki he created a draft for the global network agency see here (danish). This is a lot, there is more on frwiki, itwiki and eswiki, likely more accounts. Hope this is the right place.AsepTisch (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Mar Jennings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• JakeJay1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sheepdog45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PRAlman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - last edited July 2024
• Shaddowtoll29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - last edited June 2023
• Slendermanchecker00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Blocked, last edited in February 2022

It looks like there has been lots of WP:COI editing on Mar Jennings since that article's creation. Lots of users, such as @JakeJay1: @Sheepdog45: @PRAlman: @Shaddowtoll29: and @Slendermanchecker00: seem to show up every once and a while to add promotional content to the article. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:17, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for bringing this up. I want to state clearly that I am an independent editor with no personal, professional, or financial connection to Mar Jennings. My recent edits were made in good faith to improve the article. Regarding the photo upload: 'I took the photo myself'. I appreciate the vigilance around Wikipedia's standards, and I am happy to pause editing the page and discuss any disputed content here or on the article's Talk page. JakeJay1 (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@JakeJay1: the article has now been nominated for deletion. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:15, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@TheAwesomeHwyh: Please use {{articlelinks}} and {{userlinks}}, as I have done, above, when you make a report on this page.

You are required to notify each person you report hare, on their talk page; simply pinging them is inadequate.

Where is the prior discussion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 16:35, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Jeff Vernetti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jvern326 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The username appears to be in connection with the primary article the user has edited, with content being promotional in nature. The only other editing has been in connection with another Missouri House of Representatives official. Recent edits followed a COI message I left on their talk page. Lastchapter (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I'm just trying to have accurate info on my Wikepedia. I'm Jeff Vernetti - user name is jvern326

I only have added info that's true - and has attribution.

I had a store Vernetti's Italian Grocer, but we closed a while ago so I've tried to remove that. And one of my bill descriptions reverts to a filed version of the bill - I edited it to be correct and to the correct attribute - but it wasn't accepted I guess.

I guess I'm not sure what I need to do in order to have it be correct.

Please advise. Jvern326 is me, Rep Jeff Vernetti Jvern326 (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

"I had a store Vernetti's Italian Grocer, but we closed a while ago so I've tried to remove that."—that is small but important example of why you shouldn't be editing. The correct action is not to remove it, but to update it to say that the store has closed.

Guidance has already been left on your talk page. You are required to follow it if you wish to see changes to the article about you.

See also Wikipedia:About you and WP:COIEDITADVICE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 16:29, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

• ggck2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There has been an ongoing discussion about my conflicts of interest (User:Ggck2) and how I can edit articles. I edit under my own name - so my interests can be easily verified. I have been blocked for conflict of interest editing and misconduct (essentially: I did previously edit under a different username as part of a group), but this has been resolved and I have been unblocked (User talk:Ggck2), under the condition that I declare my interests and act accordingly. These interests are not just those where I have received research funding for in the last 10 years, but also my research interests and topics I teach (which means it is quite broad and includes e.g. human nutrition or the field of polyphenols). I'm not being paid to edit - I am just an academic researcher with the usual combination of research interests and funding.

Since then, there has been a disagreement between another editor Zefr and me on how to implement this, i.e. whether I am required to use the COI-edit template for all articles where I have a potential conflict or not. My interpretation has been to use the template where I have a direct interest (e.g. a lot of my research funding has been on flavanols, and I appreciate that this requires using an edit), but not the wider field (e.g. polyphenols or nutrition) - the other editor assumed that all edits in this field require the template. This has resulted in a request for a TBAN on ANI, but after a very extensive discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1238#TBAN proposal for Ggck2, this was archived without conclusion.

I would like to make sure that I contribute in line with expectations - I don't have a problem with using the COI-edit template, but I also don't want to create additional, non-necessary work by increasing the backlog. So I would like to ask for advice here.

Thank you. Ggck2 (talk) 08:18, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

See WP:EXPERT, and the "Help:" pages it links to. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 16:19, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you - I have tried to do this, but I have been told I must use the template on all edits Special:Diff/1372176621, and they have so far largely enforced this.

Please don't interpret this as a complaint about individual editors - I just would like to understand what I am permitted (or not permitted) to do.

Ggck2 (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

• SSJS Archives (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sisters of St. Joseph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Flip of a coin (no pun intended) as to whether to come here or UAA. Obvious COI via username, but their edits are not particularly promotional, once I filleted out all the mid-article external links (which have not been added back). But despite a uw-coi-username and noting the COI on the article page, they're editing on regardless.

This might benefit from someone with a little bit more time than I have at the moment looking at it, with apologies for dumping it upon that person. • a frantic turtle 🐢 16:34, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

The user name is not acceptable, for sure.

If the edits are neutral, consider WP:CURATOR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 17:55, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I'm here partially because of CURATOR, which doesn't suggest a further venue. In the meantime they have continued to edit the article (again, not bad edits, but unsourced... although the article before they came along wasn't great for sourcing either). And their talk page suggests they are unhappy about discussing this issue. I seem to have developed a habit of walking into these grey areas of WP policy, so I might as well ask straight out:

What do we do when an obvious COI editor (we'll put the UPE issues to one side for now, please) makes good edits to an article?

Experience, albeit from when I was an IP editor, suggests that reverting is wrong. Coming here usually results in being pointed at obscure essays as a reason to go away. Cleaning up would require me to spend a couple of hours trying to make sure that what they're saying, on a subject I know nothing about and honestly DGAF about either, is accurate.

Popping up on this noticeboard would seem the path of least resistance, but that's not right either. I've been editing WP, on and off, since December 2004, and I'm honestly no further on. • a frantic turtle 🐢 20:33, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

What do we do when an obvious COI editor (we'll put the UPE issues to one side for now, please) makes good edits to an article?: in the abstract -- maybe nothing?

• Perhaps it might be appropriate to inform them of the COI policies and encourage them to use the "right" procedures in proposing edits on Talk for another editor to implement, but we aren't a bureaucracy: if a COI editor is coming along and making edits, and non-COI editors see that they're good changes which wouldn't be reverted if made by anyone else, they shouldn't be reverted purely for procedural reasons.
• WP:COI says that COI editing is strongly discouraged and that COI editors must disclose their interests: it does not say that COI editing is prohibited or that community sanctions are appropriate to stop it, as long as the editing is not breaking other norms or policies. Indeed, the reason that we don't generally like COI editing is because it usually does end up breaking (in particular) WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:NPOV. It's important that we don't confuse means with ends here.
• Neither is adding unsourced material necessarily a huge problem: it's not ideal, but as long as the additions seem to be constructive and don't break e.g. WP:BLP or WP:NPOV, there's plenty of time for other Wikipedians to come along and add sources, or to prune them if necessary. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:01, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

For all those that are concerned with this discussion (I came across this user doing RC Patrol), they appear to have been undoing edits quite rapidly, and it appears that some external links were readded scrolling through the diffs. External link readded 1, 2, 3 (probably a few more but it's just the diffs I could find quickly), removal of COI template (Special:Diff/1382382917), and removing images (Special:Diff/1382382917). All edits that this editor did in the last little bit (stopping at 1218 UTC) were undos. signed, A Random Hylian (Read!) (What'd I do?) (contribs) 12:31, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Together TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 188.39.91.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - last edited June 2018
• 213.86.218.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - last edited May 2019
• ~2026-38913-63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There are already comments on the Together talk page about this, but it seems like Together TV staff have been continuously editing the channel's Wikipedia page so much, and for so long, that I genuinely believe it may be a delegated task in the company. The page was originally created in 2005 by an account named 'Communitychannel' (the channel's original name) and in the years since several accounts have popped up, as recently as July 2026, making detailed and sometimes laudatory edits concerning the channel. 188.39.91.66, 213.86.218.170 and ~2026-38913-63 are three of them and I think there are more. Talk page suggests that 213.86.218.170 was the IP address of Together TV's headquarters at the time.

It would not shock me if the vast majority of the article was written by Together TV themselves. Hivedrops (talk) 03:03, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Where is the prior discussion?

You must notify editors you report here, of this discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 11:57, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Elton Ilirjani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Seoul80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Seoul80 (registered Dec 2025, 32 edits) has made 27 of its edits to Elton Ilirjani, a biography of a living person, since at least February 2026. Most carry the summary "added citation", and one on 12 Sep 2026 expanded the Career section by about 2,100 bytes (Special:Diff/1374446311). The account added many of the article's current references, including the two sponsored placements that support the "supermodel" label: Daily Front Row (marked "Presented by APG") and SWAGGER Magazine.

On 20 Oct 2026 I changed "supermodel" to "model" in the lead and infobox (Special:Diff/1381228493), citing WP:SPONSORED, WP:BLP and MOS:LABEL. The reasoning is at Talk:Elton Ilirjani#"Supermodel" label: sourcing. On 28 Oct 2026 Seoul80 reverted that change with no edit summary and no Talk reply (Special:Diff/1382339661).

I am involved in this content dispute. I am not asserting who the editor is. The editing pattern is consistent with a connection to the subject, so I am asking for uninvolved review of the account's editing and of the article's sourcing, in particular the sponsored and promotional references. Eri26 (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Addendum: On 21 Dec 2025 Seoul80 added unsourced text to Alis (singer) (Special:Diff/1328671335) that described the subject's win as controversial and named Elton Ilirjani as an "Albanian-American Supermodel" who had raised concerns, with a link to his article. It was reverted by ClueBot NG the same day. I make no claim about the editor's identity. Eri26 (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Nury Turkel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• OrbisLex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It would be helpful for additional editors to evaluate a potential COI issue discussed here on the Nury Turkel talk page. My first encounter with the potential COI editor User:OrbisLex was about a month ago, after that editor made an edit-summary-less reversion of sourced material (not an encouraging start). The indicia of potential COI are: that the potential COI account's only edits related to niche American political figure Nury Turkel (principally on the Nury Turkel page, also to add Turkel to a list of university alumni, and also to edit the article for one of Turkel's books). The Nury Turkel page already has a COI warning on it, related to an eponymous Nuryturkel wikipedia account. The potential COI account denies any COI. Our discussion on the talk page trailed off without any involvement or perspectives from other users. More recently, the potential COI account has again been active in removing sourced material added by other users, an IP and User:MarkH21. I no longer care about the underlying content dispute, but the persistent SPE nature of the edits continues to lead me to think there is a COI. I think the situation would benefit from examination by additional editors. JArthur1984 (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate the opportunity for uninvolved editors to review this matter.

I want to begin by clarifying that this question was already raised and answered on October 5. When JArthur1984 asked me to disclose my connection to the subject of this biography, I stated explicitly that I had no conflict of interest or relationship requiring disclosure under WP:COI. When he subsequently questioned the credibility of that answer, I reiterated that I am not Mr. Turkel and have no relationship with him requiring disclosure. Those statements remain accurate.

JArthur1984 subsequently referred the matter to this noticeboard on October 30, citing my editing history and the continuation of the dispute. I recognize that a concentrated editing history can reasonably prompt questions. But it does not, by itself, establish that an editor is misrepresenting his identity or concealing a relationship.

I have answered the question directly and consistently. If there is specific evidence contradicting those statements, I ask that it be presented for independent evaluation. Otherwise, I respectfully request that speculation about my identity not displace the substantive sourcing and BLP concerns I have raised.

My involvement stems from concerns about the treatment of contentious allegations in this biography and the repeated disputes surrounding them over the past several years. Having examined the available reporting, investigation findings, and subsequent corrective information, I believe there are serious questions about whether the article meets Wikipedia’s standards for biographies of living people.

My October 5 comments identified specific sourcing problems, not merely a disagreement over editorial preferences. Barry Sautman’s book cites a Radio Free Asia article that was subsequently withdrawn after the underlying UHRP statement was retracted, as well as UHRP material whose original links are no longer active. Those citations also do not account for UHRP’s subsequent public corrective statement, distributed through its mailing list in December 2024, or its commendation letter acknowledging Turkel’s years of service. UHRP expressly clarified that its earlier announcement had been removed because it may have caused misunderstandings about the reasons for his departure.

The concern is whether material relying on withdrawn or subsequently corrected reporting can fairly support contentious allegations about a living person without acknowledging the corrections. The fact that those references appear in a published book does not, by itself, resolve the underlying sourcing concerns. I recognize that separately published reporting must be evaluated on its own merits; my objection here concerns the particular sources and claims identified in my October 5 comments.

These objections also raise broader questions about the presentation of allegations that UHRP’s investigation did not substantiate and the omission of subsequent corrective information.

I have not questioned JArthur1984’s motives or suggested that his continued support for retaining the disputed material establishes a conflict of interest on his part. I have addressed the content and its supporting evidence, not speculated about another editor’s identity or intentions. I believe the same standard should apply here.

A COI inquiry and a BLP dispute are separate questions. Both editors’ positions should be assessed under the same requirements of reliable sourcing, neutrality, due weight, and WP:BLP. Even a substantiated COI would not resolve whether the disputed material complies with Wikipedia’s policies. Conversely, challenging contentious material does not, by itself, establish a COI.

I support an uninvolved review of both questions and ask that the substantive evidence not be displaced by speculation about an editor’s identity or motivations.

Finally, I believe that editing biographies of living people carries responsibilities beyond the mechanics of sourcing and editorial disagreements. Fairness, accuracy, and reasonable care are especially important when serious allegations about a living person are involved. The consequences of misleading or incomplete information can be lasting, particularly when an investigation did not substantiate the allegations and subsequent corrective information is available.

Whether misleading impressions arise intentionally or inadvertently, editors should make reasonable efforts to correct them. This is not about shielding anyone from legitimate criticism. It is about ensuring that criticism is presented accurately, proportionately, and with appropriate context.

Wikipedia’s words have consequences beyond Wikipedia. Getting the facts right should matter more than winning an editing dispute. OrbisLex (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

FYI: "Salil Mahmood, who asked that I change his name, is another self-described ex-scammer from Karachi. He reached out to me after hearing from Danny de Hek about the article I was writing. Compared with some of the more outrageous deals his seniors offered their clients, his job, as an entry-level recruit, was low-key. He cold-emailed published authors with a proposal to create their official pages on Wikipedia and have those approved. However, many of the pages he created – largely based on information provided by the authors – failed verification because the citations he supplied were fabricated. “The pages would remain active for a while and then disappear.” The authors never got their money back. While he only worked there for a few months, he said the setup was highly aspirational for those who wanted to make serious money. “The bosses would show us pictures of their lifestyles: mansions, fast cars, parties and lots of alcohol. If you met your targets, they would have a rented car drive you around.” But in keeping with the nature of such enterprises, failure was not an option. “If an employee did not meet the target, they and their families were threatened with violence,” he said." Fences&Windows 14:07, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Harry Zolnierczyk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hzolnier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The account @Hzolnier: has existing since 2011, and has only ever edited the Harry Zolnierczyk page, in 2019, 2020, 2023, 2024, and 2026, each time to remove information related to the November 2006 incident in which Zolnierczyk later pled guilty to electronic voyeurism. I re-added the information to the article, with my reasoning given on the talk page: "I've re-added this information to the article. It was well-covered in significant, reliable sources, and not including it at all would amount to censorship. I don't think it falls under undue weight due to the seriousness of the incident and the coverage received." I believe Hzolnier repeatedly removing this information is censorship and shows a clear COI. Joeykai (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply