Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
    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-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, 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:Bashir Al-Hashimi
    Talk:Alameda Belt Line
    Talk:Australian Maritime College
    Talk:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Madeline Bell (hospital executive)
    Talk:Brentwood College School
    Talk:Breyers
    Talk:Julie Carpenter
    Talk:Cinq Music Group
    Talk:Citadel LLC
    Talk:Clover Health
    Talk:Cumming Corporation
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Sonalde Desai
    Talk:Nina L. Diaz
    Talk:Daniel Diermeier
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:The Donkey Sanctuary
    Talk:Earth Journalism Network
    Talk:Mary Baker Eddy
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Darnell Edge
    Talk:Elan (director)
    Talk:Empire (magazine)
    Talk:Energy Capital Partners
    Talk:Etraveli Group
    Talk:Far East Organization
    Talk:Global Citizen Awards
    Talk:Globe Life
    Talk:Golden State Foods
    Talk:Grail (company)
    Talk:Grammarly
    Talk:Grayscale Investments
    Talk:Greystar
    Talk:Grove Collaborative
    Talk:Hannover Re
    Talk:Harsco
    Talk:List of Harvard University people
    Talk:Jacob Helberg
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Huron Consulting Group
    Talk:Illa del Rei
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy
    Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones
    Talk:Christian Kälin
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:Kennedy Center Honors
    Talk:KieranTimberlake
    Talk:Kathleen Kingsbury
    Talk:A. Gary Klesch
    Talk:Labcorp
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Leviton
    Talk:Chris McCarthy (executive)
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:MongoDB Inc.
    Talk:Moody Nolan
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:One Energy
    Talk:Oneok
    Talk:Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Amy Padnani
    Talk:V Pappas
    Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician)
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Pod Point
    Talk:Poster House
    Talk:Joely Proudfit
    Talk:Shlomo Rakib
    Talk:Research Corporation
    Talk:Reworld
    Talk:Rivulis
    Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist)
    Talk:Rakefet Russak-Aminoach
    Talk:Science Inc.
    Talk:Simprints
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:Spotfire
    Talk:The Student Room
    Talk:A. G. Sulzberger
    Talk:Steve Tappin
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Topps
    Talk:UK Biobank
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Unity (game engine)
    Talk:List of University of Chicago alumni
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Martha G. Welch
    Talk:Wingtech
    Talk:Xsolla
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation
    Talk:Zyn

    User Kirkylad and Global Witness

    [edit]

    The user's userpage states "My purpose is to support my organisation Global Witness and reflect our research onto (Wikipedia)".

    The account certainly seems to have been used to fulfil that purpose, essentially by spamming all reference to the organisation's activities when covered by the media, e.g.[1], [2], [3], [4]. For example, the last of those diffs is simply noting that Global Witness called a CEO's salary 'sickening', plus a source.

    Similarly [5] Mr van Beurden's pay package was criticized by human rights and environmental charity Global Witness, which called for a people-first windfall tax in the UK government's 2023 Spring Budget that includes executive bonuses.

    And [6](The pay rise] was criticized by Greenpeace and Global Witness, which questioned the appropriateness of such an increase while energy bills are a struggle for some families to pay.

    And [7] Global Witness called such levels of pay “eyewatering … at a time when people are struggling to pay bills” and has hit out at levels of spending on renewable energy.

    Looks to me like a straightforward case of spamming and advocacy. Axad12 (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I would not call editing 5 articles in 6 months particularly "spamming". --Altenmann >talk 20:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough but the real issue is about directly editing info about the pressure group into articles, which is clearly against policies and guidelines. I'd suggest that the number of occasions may represent all or most of the occasions when the groups activities could be reliably sourced, but whether 'spamming' is the correct description is neither here nor there. Axad12 (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also worth noting, off-wiki evidence indicates that the user isn't simply a member of the organisation, they are an employee. Axad12 (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all editors are aware of our COI policy, especcially the nonfrequent ones. I noticed that you notified the user about WP:COI after you started this discussion. Here is a mild trout slapping suggestion to you: it should have been in exactly opposite way. Step 1: Notify the editor; Step 2. See if they comply. And only if they did not then Step 3: bother a full crowd of editors in this here board. --Altenmann >talk 00:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Altenmann, while I don’t disagree that you are technically correct I’d simply comment as follows…
    I’ve been watching (and sometimes contributing to) this noticeboard for perhaps the last year. Over that period there have been many threads started when COI had not previously been raised on the subject’s talkpage (or when it had been raised only immediately prior to a thread being started). There have even been instances where such threads have been started by admins.
    In that time I don’t believe I’ve seen a single example where the original poster was taken to task on the procedural point you’ve raised, which is essentially the reason that I opened this thread yesterday.
    Consequently I'm not really sure that reference to trout was required when I was only conforming with the observed (and uncorrected) actions of many other users more experienced than myself, which surely cannot be remotely described as a "silly mistake" on my part (as per the WP:TROUT text).
    However, to return to the original point of the thread...
    Examples of COI users operating accounts to forward an advocacy agenda seem to be relatively rare. My intention in opening this thread was primarily to see if other users agreed/disagreed with my assessment, rather than (for example) to seek any form of sanctions against a user who only has very few edits to their name.
    So, while I thank you for your thoughts above, I was hoping for input on the COI/advocacy side of the issue. Axad12 (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand where you are coming from. I also understand when an editor is on a massive editing spree or in a conflict, then an early intervention is desirable. Otherwise I would not need to seek other editor's opinions to post a warning in the user talk page and proceed from there. --Altenmann >talk 16:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "In that time I don’t believe I’ve seen a single example where the original poster was taken to task on the procedural point", I have done so, on this page, several times in the last year. You will also notice that the "additional notes" at the top of this page include "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 12:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, what I said was I don’t believe I’ve seen. The existence of several examples to the contrary over a 12 month period doesn't change the situation very much.
    Re: the note that you point to at the top of this page, I'm aware of that and that was why I said to Altenmann that I don’t disagree that you are technically correct.
    Consequently I don't disagree that you are technically correct as well. I simply observe (as I did above) that for threads to be opened in the circumstances that you and Altenmann point to is a not uncommon event on this noticeboard and was clearly not troutworthy in this case.
    For example, 2 hours before I made the comment above, an admin started the thread directly below, where the editor involved hadn't been warned about COI for over 16 years - which can't reasonably be held to constitute ordinary talk page discussion [having] been attempted and failed to resolve the issue prior to a thread being opened.
    The common link between that thread and this one (and a good number of others over the last 12 months) was a user asking others for their opinions on a COI issue. I don't see a major problem with that as this noticeboard seems as reasonable place as any to ask those questions. If such threads cause you a problem can I suggest that you ignore them and concentrate instead on your various paid side hustles on this site? Axad12 (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ciarán O'Toole

    [edit]

    The user User:Radioscot has edited only the article about Ciarán O'Toole and other articles that relate to Ciarán O'Toole's business interests in Scottish media and technology. Additionally, the photo of O'Toole on the article is marked "own work" by User:Radioscot. The user has made no other contributions to Wikipedia, and this alongside their corporate-sounding username makes me suspect COI. Flip Format (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, seems problematic.
    It looks like the O'Toole article is heading for deletion at AfD (here [8]) which ought to solve the main issue.
    How much of a problem are the user's edits to other articles? I had a quick look, they seemed to be adding fairly trivial detail, possibly unsourced. I may have missed something though. Axad12 (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Was the user informed of this discussion? -- Pemilligan (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The user has now been informed. Please remember to do this yourself in the future. -- Pemilligan (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User ElKevbo COI

    [edit]
    Nothing actionable here. Bon courage (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User @ElKevbo has stated on his user page that he works for a university. He has also cited on his user page a link to a personal website which reconfirms this. I am stating this as proof that I am not outing this user. From a COI perspective, it is quite problematic that this user works for a university, edits primarily other college/university articles, sometimes editing even critically on these articles, while also often reverting other editors on these college/uni articles for (supposedly) promotional POV edits. That is basically like an Apple employee writing (critically) on Samsung‘s or Microsoft‘s Wikipedia articles while preventing edits of other editors who may put these articles in a positive light. Or like a McDonald‘s employee who edits (critically) Burger King‘s or KFC‘s wiki articles but reverts editors who may add favorable info. I think you get the gist. (added users to discussion: @ElKevbo, @Axad12) 67.213.210.16 (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that ElKevbo openly states that they work at a university, and if as you say they edit primarily on university-related articles, then any potential COI has been addressed. To use your example, if I worked for Apple and primarily edited tech articles, mentioning that I work at Apple on my user page would address any possible COI. At that point, things would need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. You will need to show where ElKevbo is violating COI guidelines. We can't prohibit someone from editing university-related articles merely because they work at a university. We would need specific examples of possible editing bias. freshacconci (✉) 13:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I must say that I disagree very strongly with the original poster.
    Education is unfortunately an area where many employers seem to think that Wikipedia is an extension of their social media and where they seek to turn their WP articles into brochures or adverts. Reverting those sort of edits is basic to WP polices and guidelines, and cannot meaningfully constitute a conflict of interest. If a user was simultaneously using WP to promote their own employer then it might be different, but I don’t believe there is any evidence of that in ElKevbo’s case. His longstanding work in the education subject area is rightly highly regarded, and long may it continue. Axad12 (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think in order to get the gist we need to see some diffs, its hard to make any comment without them... Yes it could be problematic (especially if there are a number of negative edits to institutions viewed as rivals/competitors), but it also might not be. At least looking at University of Delaware I see edits, but none which appear to be problematic besides a pattern of emphasizing the private nature of the school and that is really very minor. That being said I would caution ElKevbo from continuing to make edits which emphasize the private vs the public nature of the school, that could be fairly characterized as promotion (its a well known fact that in the US private universities and colleges are more prestigious, therefore emphasizing the private part of a school which is in between is promotional). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the IP was blocked within a few minutes of starting this thread, so I'm not sure if we should expect further details to emerge. To be honest, it looks to me like someone with a grudge following a previous interaction with ElKevbo. Axad12 (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I've tried digging pretty deep here and IMO either the OP is confused or you're right and they have a grudge or some other sort of non-obvious motivation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Brahma Chellaney

    [edit]

    Known for whitewashing the said article[9][10] this editor was asked to reveal his COI before too but has made no response.[11]

    His first edit was to create Robert Bosch Academy (non-notable subject) where Brahma Chellaney works.[12] Ratnahastin (talk) 07:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no COI or potential COI involved in my editing of any page. I created and edited the Robert Bosch Academy page long before Chellaney became associated with it. Unfortunately, if there is any COI, it is on the part of Ratnahastin whose record illustrates his ideologically driven and disruptive editing of many pages, as if he were aggressively pursuing a partisan political agenda. -- Germanicguard Germanicguard (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are being deceptive. You created the article about Robert Bosch academy on June 2015 and Brahma Chellaney is associated with this organisation since before that year.[13] Making baseless attacks against me will not hide concerns about your own editing. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You got that wrong. The issue, though, is bigger: Your ideologically driven editing of Wikipedia pages, including twisting facts by citing dubious sources. Your edits show you for what you are -- a partisan hack. The last thing Wikipedia needs is a hired gun. Germanicguard (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, making baseless comments about me won't hide concerns about your own editing. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Ratnahastin, I agree that something seems rather odd here. A few observations:
    If the Robert Bosch Academy article is non-notable, as you say, then the best solution would surely be AfD?
    The Chellaney article seems to me to be (in general) somewhat promotional. Increasing this impression is a potentially non-independently sourced claim that an unmentioned book by Chellaney is "an international best-seller".
    The Germanicguard account seems to be a virtual WP:SPA over many years on the topics of Chellaney, Chellaney's phrase Debt-trap diplomacy (the article for which is exceptionally long), and Chellaney's workplace, the Robert Bosch Academy (the article for which has been tagged as reading like an advert). The likelihood of there being some undisclosed COI in relation to this activity seems to be rather high.
    I note that a user with very similar editing interests is user:Alpinespace. I wonder, does that user appear to share an agenda with Germanicguard?
    Also, Germanicguard, you cannot make serious allegations such as that Ratnahastin is involved in ideologically driven and disruptive editing of many pages without providing diffs to substantiate what are otherwise a series of baseless personal attacks (for which see WP:PA). Axad12 (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert Bosch Academy is non-notable thus it was uncontroversially converted into a redirect in 2016.[14] That's why it does not need an AfD. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    European Commision IP range

    [edit]
    Closed per OP's request. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    It looks like several IPs of the European Commission, 158.169.40.*, as well as a user who got blocked, EuroComIreland, have been doing a mix of blatant bureaucratese/attempted SEO, but also quite a few small edits that look quite legitimate. The effect on European Commission Representation in Ireland (prior to the cleanup that I did a few minutes ago) is not really going to bother anyone, apart from just looking silly, but the talk page comments on eIDAS are a lot more serious, since this sort of comment gives the impression that it's objective and could influence the discussion on a topic of high sociopolitical importance.

    If someone has the time to investigate further and clean up, that would be useful. I only did a very superficial quick check. Boud (talk) 11:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The only directly related archived discussion I could find is

    Boud (talk) 12:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I seem to remember some templates for putting on IP ranges of bodies like the EC or national parliaments, though for an IP range, there's no point adding that on all the individual IP pages - this would need some technically more efficient solution, which I vaguely seem to remember having seen, along the lines of This IP address belongs to ... and may be in conflict of interest when editing pages related to ... . Boud (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Where is the prior discussion on their talk pages?
    EuroComIreland last edited in 2008. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this case doesn't literally follow the criteria as listed - i.e. it's not a case of failed to resolve the issue. But since it's primarily a range of related IPs (EuroComIreland's user page was deleted as advertising), I thought it would be useful to point out in case someone is interested in investigating (and discussing with the user(s)) more systematically. I don't see a COI-IP-range Noticeboard. If there's a more relevant place to discuss I'd be happy to shift the discussion there.
    I found the needed template: {{Shared IP gov|[[European Commission]]}} , so if someone wants to consider this case as not needing any action from COIN, feel free to close it. Boud (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User VanjaOkay20

    [edit]
    User blocked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    VanjaOkay20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) didn't declared, that she is working for annabelle.ch (see de:user:VanjaOkay20) - this is agains terms of use ("Paid Contributions Without Disclosure"). She got blocked in dewiki for spamming annabelle.ch into articles and she does it here in enwiki too. --Mary Joanna (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mary Joanna: There is no notice of our CoI policy, nor our paid editing policy, on VanjaOkay20's talk page. Please read and follow the guidance at the head of this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now added the relevant notices to the user's talk page and reverted the spam edits. It would seem that the user was blocked 2 days ago on German Wikipedia as a spam only account. Personally I think it would also be desirable if they were also to be blocked from English Wikipedia, as spamming links to articles on their employer's website seems to be their sole activity on either German or English Wikipedia. Axad12 (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To give some further background, the user had been warned several times on German Wikipedia that continually adding links to articles on their employer's website was problematic, which eventually led to a site block after the warnings were repeatedly ignored. The user's position is probably best summed up by the following comment (translated from the German by Google Translate) which they posted 2 days ago on the German version of this noticeboard:
    “unfortunately I don’t understand the problem. My account is verified and I link - transparently identified as an employee of the magazine - with factual additions to neutral journalistic articles from the Swiss magazine Annabelle. To supplement articles with useful, interesting and previously unknown facts. I don't understand what's bad about that - you'd think that's what Wikipedia is for, right?”
    Well, they say they don't understand, but they had been repeatedly warned... Axad12 (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked here as well. I'd recommend keeping an eye out for other additions in the event the site they're linking needs to be blacklisted. Star Mississippi 13:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    COI of family biographer?

    [edit]

    GustenGast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been creating articles about individual members of the Lidströmer family. When I inquired regarding a potential conflict of interest, GustenGast stated: I am writing a biography about the family. But I am not paid by them since it is an academic project. I confirm there is no conflict of interest, otherwise I could not be allowed to write this work. Additionally, the editor has access to an unpublished photograph of a living member of the family and has knowledge of when that family member will be publishing and what photograph will be used with that publication. It seems to me that this is a conflict of interest because there is likely communication with members of the family and per the spirit of WP:SELFCITE. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Voorts, is any communication with the family a COI? Of course I had CONTACT with them as well as experts in the field, but what I mean is that they have not paid me, and neither I or my supervisor are related to them or has received payment. I have to check of course so that I have not have the "biographers bias". This is always a risk. However, the project is finished right now and as promised I shall contact the family directly and the publisher and include my supervisor for transparency and come back with the full record of the history of this photo. Again, of course I have heard about the history and background about the photo from them directly, but I it does not mean that I automatically have a COI. If the facts about the photo are different that I thought/heard, then I will update the facts and if there is an unclear copyright situation I will vote for deletion too. GustenGast (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't about your upload of the photograph, which was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, but about your writing of articles on English Wikipedia about the family. Wikipedia has conflict of interest rules that differ from those in an academic setting. I'm not sure if your situation is or is not a conflict of interest, which is why I brought the discussion here for other editors to weigh in. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    GustenGast WP:PAID editing is one specific category of WP:COI editing, but is not the only concern. Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. Someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith. You have an external relationship here that has the potential to influence your editing. This means (a) you should always declare your conlifct when editing, and (b) you should be putting your articles through the WP:AFC process for review rather than simply moving them into main space yourself. Melcous (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood! I will not edit more here. The Swedish page was edited by people without any such possible COI. When I saw the result and the feedback from you I think I followed the advice and added more sources and amended it. I think it became better. I clearly see what you mean. I welcome further review ad hoc. I will from now only submit "for review" if I find any useful source or so, but will from now not edit any further. Will now focus on other sites! Regarding the photo I shall ask if the somehow the photegrapher themselves can upload it, would simplify. Many thanks your unbiased input. GustenGast (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond the COI angle I worry that you are perhaps delving into WP:OR, there is more than one problem with an editor being in contact with a subject. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, absolutely, I agree. I leave this for your or others' review. GustenGast (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The original picture was first published here on 25th April 2024:
    https://news.ki.se/cloud-based-personal-health-record-with-ai-is-it-safe
    I have contacted them and I will ask the photographer to upload their name, rights and the photo themselves directly to Wiki, if they have an account. GustenGast (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The name and the organisation is at least published already on that site too. GustenGast (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Clare Dimyon

    [edit]

    Oma-Clare is quite obviously the subject of the article (check her X account) and is continuously making edits to it despite being warned not to. She obviously has good intentions, but overall, just is making the article a mess. Unfortunately, I'm involved, and I'm not even sure how I initially stumbled across this article as I have absolutely no interest in this person. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The opening line, which has now been changed by Oma-Clare as being inaccurate. My intial reaction was to restore it since it was sourced. However, the source doesn't make this claim, either. So, what do we change it to? I have no idea what she's known for. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jauerback: You informed Oma-Clare of our CoI policy after rasing the matter hare. That is the wrong way to do it. Please read the guidance at the top of this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I didn't. I just accidentally placed that message before it. Check the timestamps. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I've fixed the ordering. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment at WP:HELPDESK confirms that Oma-Clare is Clare Dimyon. There's really nothing to discuss here. She confirmed the COI herself. She isn't trying to hide it. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the issue is that the COI user needs to be suggesting edits on the article talk page rather than editing the article directly, as per recent responses at the helpdesk. To be honest, the helpdesk comment linked above seemed to me to contain a rather vitriolic personal attack in relation to a user who was apparently just making policy based reversions, or am I missing something? Axad12 (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then put a warning about assuming good faith on her talk page. I've just warned her about disruptive COI editing leading to a block.
    She's the subject of an article and she clearly feels attacked when her badly-sourced versions are reverted, so understandably she lashed out. I've seen this happen often when a subject gets involved in editing an article, and it often ends badly. The COI editor ends up being blocked, then responds angrily on their talk page while refusing to listen to advice or read any links given, then the talk page access is revoked. We'll see how it plays out in this case. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have done so, as the post in question was clearly well beyond the bounds of civil discourse. Unfortunately it seems to be fairly standard these days for activists to seek to demonise those who disagree with them, but that is the opposite of how things are supposed to operate here.
    The user would be best advised to work within the relevant policies and guidelines and to collaborate with others.
    Unfortunately the user is instead doubling down on their accusations, here [15], so I have advised them to take their concerns (on content) to the article talk page. Axad12 (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And, she's also complaining on her X account. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps the most relevant issue to all of this is the one recently raised by Melcous (by adding to tag to the article), i.e. is the subject actually notable? Axad12 (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article creator might be relying on the MBE to meet WP:ANYBIO ("well-known and significant award or honor"), although a search on Wikipedia talk:Notability indicates that MBE isn't inherently notable. Schazjmd (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    She has an MBE, and is the subject of press coverage separate to that, so seems to be notable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the subject of COI, also worth noting that the user has made a number of edits (2024, 2021 and 2020) to the article for Godfrey Meynell (which the following edit [16] indicates was the user's grandfather). The added material is all entirely unsourced (as in fairness is most of the article).
    There is also an amount of inserting the user's name into other articles (e.g. here [17] and here [18]) and a general lack of sourcing. Axad12 (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ek Main Aur Ek Two

    [edit]

    Editor is solely interested in writing about Paritosh Painter and his works, but doesn't take heed of the multiple COI notices, speedy deletions, ... on their user talk page. This has been going on for months, and disruption continued today Fram (talk) 12:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You can add Ek Main Aur Ek Two - Hindi comedy play to the above list. Fram (talk) 08:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ramdattabuvaji has been registered since 2018 and has only edited pages related to Paritosh Painter, which strongly suggests a COI. I would recommend that they be blocked if they continue their COI editing, as this appears to be a SPA and not WP:HTBAE. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Howard Maibach

    [edit]

    This editor is a single-purpose account who has twice added a lengthy list of books to the article on the dermatologist Howard Maibach. I have asked him on his Talk page whether he is, or is connected to Maibach. Sungodtemple has asked him twice whether he is Maibach. He hasn't answered either of us. Would be grateful if anyone else can have a look, and perhaps be more successful than I have been at communicating with this editor. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed the material and instructed the user to comment on whether or not they have a COI, either here or on their talk page. Axad12 (talk) 11:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just some further background on the timeline here:
    user:Dermatotoxicologist first added the list of books on the 28/Aug.
    Tacyarg asked the user about COI on 31/Aug (and received no response).
    Derma(etc) was then asked for clarification on possible COI on 11/Sept by user:Sungodtemple who then removed the list of books.
    Dema(etc) responded to Sungodtemple without making any comment on the COI issue.
    Sungodtemple then pointed out the removal, gave the reason for removal, and asked once again about COI (again receiving no response).
    Then four weeks later Derma(etc) returned to the article to add the list again – presumably working on the assumption that no one was watching.
    The only reasonable conclusion, I would suggest, is that the user does have an undeclared conflict of interest. Axad12 (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Dermatotoxicologist is not responding and continue to edit the said BLP, it seems clear they are not WP:HTBAE but are instead engaging in COI editing, which is discouraged. Their username also suggests they may be the subject themselves or closely connected to them. @Dermatotoxicologist: Please understand that you may face a block if you don’t respond soon. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Torrevieja

    [edit]
    Moved elsewhere. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I just wanted to check whether we can use Valencian exonyms (see Corpus Toponímic Valencià) in the Spanish-speaking regions of the Valencian Community. I think we could since Valencian is official in the whole Valencian territory, and the same happens with Spanish in the Valencian-speaking regions of the Valencian Community (i.e. we use both forms despite official local denominations, see Benissa in Valencian and Benisa in Spanish). What's the recommendation by admins and Wikipedia? — Jɑuмe (dis-me) 00:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This looks like a query for WP:HELPDESK rather than the conflict of interest noticeboard. Axad12 (talk) 07:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK no problem, I'll move the conversation there then, thank you — Jɑuмe (dis-me) 08:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Darko Šarović is an autobiographical article

    [edit]
    Stale. Further discussion should take pace on the article talk page (where, to date, the issue has not been raised). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Darko Šarović appears to have been written by the subject himself. Article contains extremely nitty gritty details about own profile, like things he did when he was 4 years old, without citations. So many inflated claims such as he is the fifth fastest Serb etc, again without citations. Not a notable person for Wikipedia.88.207.11.225 (talk) 07:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Much of the content was either written by Perfect Introvert (talk · contribs), who has been inactive for several years, and from various IP addresses. Generally, we don't block IP addresses which are no longer engaging in WP:DE, and blocking or even warning Perfect Introvert doesn’t seem warranted either especially since the account is stale. One can address the issues of WP:OR and If one believe the BLP fails to meet WP:N, it may be appropriate to take it to AFD - but to me, the athlete appears to be WP:N. I don’t think any admin action is necessary at this time. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    RaviEditor and Umar Saif

    [edit]

    This account RaviEditor was registered in April this year and is a SPA that only edits the Umar Saif's BLP, primarily adding PROMO content and removing well-sourced information they dislike. This clearly indicates a COI in their editing. I warned them multiple times, but there has been no response. Instead, they are engaging in edit warring. I suggest they should be blocked to encourage a response at the very least. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Longterm Academic boosterm user:Richardatlarge

    [edit]

    This appears to be covert self advert account that has been going for over a decade whose apparent purpose is to increase the academic prominence of one Richard Degrandpre. This self promoting activity became quite obvious after their declined draft in July 2024. Someone warned them about COI back in July, however given the long term pattern, its likely they might come back. Also, that didn't address the rather covert self-promo. It only addressed the suspeted autobiography writing. Graywalls (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is very concerning, although I would note that at the very beginning this account was not covert... [19], for their first month on wiki in 2007 they were open about their identity. Based on a good faith reading of that I would characterize these promotional efforts as more overt than covert, that does not however excuse them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say it was covert, because they continued promotional editing after they've made their user page less conspicuous and making others have to go through the user page edit history. Graywalls (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say that while its interesting to try and get in their head it really doesn't matter... This is a bright line violation either way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And before this, something like this about the same author was being done by a publisher agent: Special:Diff/104146851 Graywalls (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1250821771"