Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard - Wikipedia


3 people in discussion

Article Images

    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

    Gandalf5 has been documenting every minor detail of Dan Meyer's life and previously created Dan Meyer (performer), which was deleted for G11 (promotion). The standing ovations (usually unsourced, sometimes cited to YouTube), the reference bomb in the lead, and the singular focus on this one entertainer make this seem very suspicious to me. However, I figured it'd be worth hearing what other people think. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I agree. Can't the article be deleted once again on the basis of G11? Either that or it need to be dramatically reduced in size (e.g. complete removal of the 'early life', 'Got Talent auditions', and 'Awards and Honors' sections and the reference bomb in the lead, plus removal of some of the unsourced claims in the lead - which would be an overly long list even if it were all sourced).
    Incidentally, I see that the user has continued to add Meyer-related info to the encyclopaedia since this thread was opened. Could you not just block the user as an obvious promo-only account? Axad12 (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, I could block him. I wanted to see if anyone agreed with me first. I guess I have a high bar for G11, but I could tag it to see what another admin thinks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Concerns about editing with an undisclosed (and disruptive) conflict of interest have been voiced by Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Pemilligan and Hemiauchenia regarding the following users and pages:

    ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Both blocked. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The issue is now mentioned in Camille Herron, cited to media coverage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Further discussion at Talk:Camille_Herron#Proposal_to_add_"Controversy_section"_as_follows:. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Editor who may or may not actually be Kim Krizan is editing to insert Kim Krizan into the film credits. I don't know whether the character she added is minor or not, but she was informed of our policies regarding COI in June but has edited D&C twice this month. DonIago (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    A quick question...
    The Dazed and Confused article is, as would be expected, a high traffic long-standing article. It has a lengthy cast list which did not include Krizan until yesterday. Reference to Google suggests that Krizan did indeed play that role, so why has that info not previously been included in the article here? Is it because her appearance is a non-credited cameo or some similar reason?
    And then, by contrast, the Krizan article states that She is known for her part in Dazed and Confused (1993) - a claim which, on the face of it, wouldn’t seem to be borne out by the fact that nobody added her credit to the D&C article until (if appearances are to be believed) the subject did so herself over 30 years after the film was released.
    So, what has been going on here and how are these two elements to be reconciled? Is it because the Krizan article has a history of COI editing? There seems to have been a long history there of editing by WP:SPAs, most of which are IP addresses. Axad12 (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    For example, various SPAs: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Axad12 (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    As far as her 'omission' from the D&C article; per WP:FILMCAST, "try to name the most relevant actors and roles that are most appropriate for the film". I would imagine Krizan hasn't been included because she didn't play a principal role.
    I haven't really looked at Kim Krizan, but the claim that she's known for her role in D&C isn't sourced and was itself added by an IP editor in 2009. It could just as easily simply read that she played that role without making the dubious claim that she's 'known' for having done so. I think the article needs a fair amount of clean-up. DonIago (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, I would certainly agree with that sentiment.
    The other puzzle here is that although...
    (a) the Krizan article seems to have been extensively edited by a COI user (or users) for many years,
    and (b) that user (or users) has also added Krizan's name to various other articles,
    and (c) the subject seems to have been regularly mentioning the role elsewhere online,
    ...it is a surprising fact that only yesterday was an attempt made by a COI editor to add Krizan's name to the cast list of D&C. Is it perhaps because the credit was only recently added to imdb (which the user has recently attempted to use as a source to include a further credit on the Krizan page).
    I do take your point re: WP:CASTLIST but there are 25 names on the current cast list in the D&C article which (as with many film articles) transcends the limits suggested by WP:CASTLIST. Hence my surprise that Krizan's name hadn't previously been added to the already long list by a non-conflicted user if Krizan appears in the end credits.
    Incidentally, well done for removing some of the unsourced material at the Krizan article. Axad12 (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I just made a low-key effort to try to determine whether anyone had attempted to add Krizan to D&C in the past but had no luck with that. Maybe Krizan (the editor) was waiting for IMDb to be updated...or updated it themselves for that matter...before trying to update here using IMDb as their reference?
    I haven't seen D&C in long enough that I'd be reluctant to try trimming the cast list there myself, and I do recognize that it's an ensemble film, so personally I'm willing to give it some leeway in any case, though I probably wouldn't push back if someone else made trims to non-top-billed characters.
    Thanks! I can't exactly say I had the interest, but I had the time. :p DonIago (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    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 [14]) 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 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.

    Known for whitewashing the said article[15][16] this editor was asked to reveal his COI before too but has made no response.[17]

    His first edit was to create Robert Bosch Academy (non-notable subject) where Brahma Chellaney works.[18] 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.[19] 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.[20] That's why it does not need an AfD. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

    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

    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

    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

    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 [21], 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 [22] 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 [23] and here [24]) and a general lack of sourcing. Axad12 (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

    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, as this appears to be a SPA and not WP:HTBAE. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

    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