Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes: This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice. The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}. Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request: 1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}. 2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed. 3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days. Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:Aleksandr Agapitov Talk:Bashir Al-Hashimi Talk:Alameda Belt Line Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Monica Behan Talk:Madeline Bell (hospital executive) Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:Scott Bessent Talk:Shmuley Boteach Talk:Breyers Talk:Michael Calvey Talk:Clover Health Talk:Commvault Talk:CoStar Group Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Vincenzo de Cotiis Talk:Nina L. Diaz Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Earth Journalism Network Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:Edge Hill University Talk:Darnell Edge Talk:Nigel Edwards (health) Talk:Empire (magazine) Talk:Energy Capital Partners Talk:Eric Gallager Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Global Citizen Awards Talk:Golden State Foods Talk:GoToGate Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Grayscale Investments Talk:Greystar Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Hannover Re Talk:Harsco Talk:List of Harvard University people Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Camille Herron Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Huron Consulting Group Talk:Illa del Rei Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy Talk:Jats 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:Lally School of Management Talk:LD (cigarette) Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Leviton Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Mark Twain Prize for American Humor Talk:Chris McCarthy (executive) Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:MongoDB Inc. Talk:Moody Nolan Talk:Netvibes Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Omaze Talk:One Energy Talk:Oneok Talk:Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:V Pappas Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Poster House Talk:Joely Proudfit Talk:Shlomo Rakib Talk:Research Corporation Talk:Reworld Talk:Rivulis Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist) Talk:Royal Match 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:Tencent Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Topps Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:Unity (game engine) Talk:List of University of Chicago alumni Talk:Bulat Utemuratov Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Martha G. Welch Talk:Wingtech Talk:Xsolla Talk:Zyn

Users EastThermopolis & Lullaby09!/ Belmond Limited

• Belmond Limited (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• EastThermopolis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lullaby09! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Concerns over COI/UPE with user EastThermopolis have previously been raised at COIN here [1] and here [2] [Synopsis added in a separate post below, 9/9/24]. The user recently emerged from a 4 month dormant spell with this large edit [3] to the article for hotel chain Belmond Limited. History indicates that this user's larger edits are very often flagged as being PROMO. The user's talk page [4] gives some insight into the various other promo-type issues they have experienced.

Also, not connected with this user, some of the hotels etc in the very long list at the foot of the Belmond Limited article may be worth a look for notability reasons, for example [5] and [6], or more generally for PROMO and sourcing reasons. It looks as though the company previously had an in-house UPE account here [7] creating/curating the various articles, similarly more recently the apparent UPE/SPA user:Lullaby09! has served the same purpose. Regardless of the individual content, I'm not convinced that the long list of hotels etc is appropriate for a Wikipedia article.

In any event, the combination of a user where previous COI concerns had been raised (EastThermopolis) plus company articles with extensive UPE seemed worthy of raising here. User Lullaby09!, on the other hand, appears to be a straightforward case of UPE. Axad12 (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Further potentially non-notable, inadequately sourced, promo, etc. articles relating to this hotel chain and usually originally installed by UPE/SPA:

[8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], and [20].

Further eyes on these articles would be appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Synopsis of previous COI/promo activity by user EastThermopolis:

Unsourced personal info added to article of Russian oligarch Farkhad Akhmedov [21], also large scale removal of properly sourced material from that article here [22] and here [23]. Fallout here [24].

Completely rewrote the article for Turkish company Ciner Group here [25] adding press release material and removing properly sourced adverse material. Some of this edit was later removed as puffery and a tag added to the article for ‘reads like an advertisement’. A month later EastThermopolis completely rewrote the article for the company’s owner [26].

Article created for Zenus Bank, half of which later removed by another user to ‘tone down promotional material’ [27].

Article created for businessman Nick Capstick-Dale deleted for failing GNG [28].

Article created for ACF Investment Bank, subsequently nominated for speedy deletion under G11 (“unambiguous advertising”). [29]. Then undeleted and eventually removed via AfD [30].

Promo tinged page created for a Mongolian businesswoman and politician [31].

New article for Digitalbox rejected 3 times at AfC , the second and third times for ‘read like an advertisement’: here [32] and here [33]. Axad12 (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Axad12. Looks serious. I have somewhat toned down Belmond Limited. Edwardx (talk) 09:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping @Axad12 and apologies for the delay. My opinion is that while the edits were problematic, they're fairly stale. Please ping me if they resume disruption as it might merit a block then. Star Mississippi 14:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

WikiProCreate

WikiProCreate (talk · contribs)'s activity seems to suggest that they are either an involved party or an undisclosed paid editor. See Hassan & Roshaan. I'm going to engage with them on this; any other eyes on this process would be welcomed. — The Anome (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello @The Anome

I do not understand why am I being highlighted as someone with a conflict of interest with a popular band? It is funny because they are way out of my reach. But i understand if my nature of edits suggest that and I am willing to offer you an explanation or justification of whatever you point out. Can you let me know, what proofs or evidence would you need to clear your doubts? Thank you

WikiProCreate (talk) 09:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Your username suggests you are more than just a fan. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

My username, it is literally just a random name? I am confused. How do i defend my username which I just created out of nowhere.

WikiProCreate (talk) 10:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Your username suggests that you're a professional writer editing for a client. It's capitalized, suggesting the name of a business or of a page where you offer your writing services. You're editing primarily about a band; bands often hire writers to write for them here. If none of this is the case, okay, you don't need to do anything, but that is the initial impression people have. 331dot (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand the point. Wish I knew that this random thing would lead me to this situation. Thanks anyway. I appreciate you clarifying things for me. And yes, none of this is the case. The band is far out of my reach,

WikiProCreate (talk) 11:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I would like to let you know that I do not have a conflict of interest with the subject in question. I have joined this open-source platform to make edits and contribute to improving this platform in good will. I am open to feedback over my edits from other editors and any one else who has tips to share to help me become a good editor. I apologize, if in any way, I disrespected anyone involved.

Thank you

WikiProCreate (talk) 10:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I was the one who nominated one of their UPE article for deletion and I also strongly feel this might be a WP:BE sock. The editor has renamed their account name, but we’ll find out soon! --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Faith Theological Seminary

• Faith Theological Seminary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Stephenhague (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In January 2023, I opened a report about this user and their apparent undisclosed paid connection to Faith Theological Seminary. As another editor noted in the only reply in that brief discussion, Stephenhague previously disclosed that they are employed by the seminary as the academic dean. The seminary's website indicates that they are still employed by the seminary.

Their edits are blatantly promotional. They continue to flagrantly ignore WP:PAID and WP:COI. I think the only appropriate remedy is to block them. ElKevbo (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• I fail to see what is so blatantly promotional here. Regardless, the problem is not that it is (maybe) promotional, but that it is considerably unreferenced. Y'all focused on COI, but failed to clearly explain our policies WP:CITE and WP:RS (I dont think an occasional editor peruses all links in the "Greeting" canned text). Even if he has COI he still can suggest edits in talk page, but again, the suggestions must be supplied with valid refs. The person genuinely thinks he adds important info (maybe; dont care as long as it is unreferenced).

That said, I agree that a preventive block is due until the person complies with the demand about disclosure clearly stated in his talk page. --Altenmann >talk 23:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this user should be blocked. Disclosing COI and following the COI edit request process are easy to do. This user's refusal to do so, even after 13 years of COI editing, does him no credit.

It's probably reasonable to assume that the unsourced Oct '23 and Nov '23 IP edits were also made by the same user, given that the IPs geolocate to Baltimore (where the Seminary is located).

Incidentally, I was unsurprised to find plenty of copyvio in the article. Significant elements of the History section are directly lifted or closely paraphrased from the 'Our History' section of the FTS website, here [34].

E.g.: Direct lift John Gresham Machen died on Jan. 1, 1937, leaving behind a diverse movement of conflicting concerns and convictions that led to the founding of Faith Theological Seminary the following summer of 1937.

Direct lift Faith Theological Seminary was officially independent (by the design of the "Certificate of Incorporation of Faith Theological Seminary, Inc." Feb 7, 1938) of any specific denomination's control.

Direct lift FTS initially used the facilities of the First Independent Church of Wilmington (later Faith Bible Presbyterian Church), pastored by Harold Laird.

Cloesely paraphrased The original faculty consisted of Oswald T. Allis, Robert Dick Wilson, Allan A. MacRae, John Murray, Paul Woolley, Cornelius Van Til, Rienk Bouke Kuiper, and Ned Stonehouse.

Closely paraphrased: FTS grew in size and moved to Huston Hall in Wilmington in 1941,[2] then to Lynnewood Hall (the former Widener estate) in Elkins Park, Pennsylvania, in 1952

Closely paraphrased In 2020, the seminary's board of directors selected Jerry Harmon to serve as president.

If all of that material is removed, pretty much all that will remain will be the negative material in the latter part of the History section and the negative material in the Academics section.

As a final thought, is the negative material in the History even admissable, given that it is based solely on various unpublished sources (letters from the board of governors, a private attorney's report, an investigative report conducted by the institution's accrediting body, TRACS correspondence)? None of this is properly cited and the chances of proper citing emerging must be considered to be adjacent to zero. Axad12 (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest you to be WP:BOLD and trim what is suspicious. It is not a WP:VITAL article, right? If someone cares, they must do it right. --Altenmann >talk 06:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I've now removed the copyvio material and some other minor elements of text that made no sense once that material had been removed.

I've not removed the ?unsourcable? negative material and would be grateful for input from other users on how best to deal with that. My understanding is that if it is genuinely considered unsourcable then it should be removed, but if there is a prospect of sourcing emerging then the current 'citation needed' tag is adequate.

I searched on Google under various combinations of search terms but found nothing that addressed the events in question. However, I'm not sure that that would be considered the final word on whether sourcing might be located. Axad12 (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

User Kirkylad and Global Witness

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

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.[35], [36], [37], [38]. For example, the last of those diffs is simply noting that Global Witness called a CEO's salary 'sickening', plus a source.

Similarly [39] 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 [40](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 [41] 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)

I would not call editing 5 articles in 6 months particularly "spamming". --Altenmann >talk 20:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

Gandolf5 and Dan Meyer

• Gandolf5 (talk · contribs)
• Dan Meyer (entertainer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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)

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)

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)

Alireza Mashayekhi

• Alireza Mashayekhi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• SamiraVaseghnia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

SamiraVaseghnia (talk · contribs) has only edited Alireza Mashayekhi. Off-wiki evidence (Googling) suggests this user may have a CoI relating to this article. I have posted on the user's Talk page about CoI, and followed this up with a direct question, but not had a response. Tacyarg (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Tacyarg. I agree 100%. Also, the extended list of compositions, musical releases, etc. that the user added was clearly non-encyclopaedic. What is the best option here? I'm thinking maybe revert to the last good version as at some time in October 2023. Axad12 (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The user has deleted some of the list of works, which makes me think they have seen the discussion here, or are aware of the concerns via the posts on their Talk page.

I'm not sure what to do about the lengthy list remaining. I tend to agree with you that it's not encyclopaedic, and that it's more useful for readers to have a list of key works and some referenced information about why they are important. But I think I've seen a guideline somewhere saying that we should try to be comprehensive in listing creative works.

I have tagged the article with CoI. Tacyarg (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Nexperia

• Nexperia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wingtech (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• DavidRJD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This recently-created WP:SPA has already declared a COI on their talk page with respect to Nexperia. Their edits are focused solely on whitewashing the ownership Nexperia and its parent company Wingtech. What is typically the procedure here? - Amigao (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The edits accurately list exact ownership rather than cast dispersions using politically charged language. DavidRJD (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Worth adding that this WP:SPA has now repeatedly avoided answering questions about their declared COI and does not seem to care to follow WP:COIEDIT after it has been mentioned and explained multiple times. In addition to a COI, this is increasingly looking like a WP:NOTHERE situation. - Amigao (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree. From the discussion on the user's talkpage it seems fairly clear what is going on here. The user has stated that although they have an association with Nexperia, I am not paid for the edits. These edits are done on my own time. The conclusion to be drawn here is obvious, as that is a form of language frequently seen in scenarios where an employee makes edits in their company's interest when away from the office (and is usually stated while under the incorrect impression that that doesn't constitute a conflict of interest).

They have also said, re: the other company whose article they have edited: I receive no compensation for edits to Wikipedia and am not employed by Wingtech and I've had no contact with anyone within Wingtech regarding Wikipedia, and I have never been hired by or paid by Wingtech. However, they will not make a similar statement in relation to Nexperia.

Again, the conclusion to be drawn from this seems obvious. The user has been asked by 4 different users to clarify this point on their talk page but consistently refuses to do so.

Thus far they have limited their comment on their relationship to Nexperia as follows: I work in the semiconductor industry. Nexperia makes about 10% of semiconductors. Based on their other comments above I'd suggest that that is less than full disclosure.

The user's sole preoccupation seems to relate to whether or not these 2 companies are wholly or partly owned by China, edits to that effect being described by the user as designed to push an agenda [42]. This agenda is clarified by the user in this post [43], as follows: There is significant misinformation about semiconductor companies in the press, particularly from competitors who look to taint the image of one company by using racial or political affiliations to demonize it.

Now, I take no position on whether the user is right or wrong in that regard, but if he is attempting to remove (apparently correctly sourced) claims to that effect, and he has a link to either of the companies concerned, then full disclosure of COI is required. The whole situation also seems to have an element of edit warring and trying to right great wrongs. Axad12 (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I've followed the COI procedure by submitting the proposed articles via talk and requesting an editor intervene. As I stated, I do not believe I have a conflict, but out of caution, I am getting another editor to review them.

I hope this addresses your concerns. DavidRJD (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

So, once again you opt for evasion and refuse to answer the simple question of the nature of your association with Nexperia? Every time you take that approach it only increases my concerns.

You've already wasted a lot of volunteer time by repeatedly refusing to answer that question, by engaging in edit wars and making false statements (such as this one [44] about procedure at this noticeboard).

Given the WP:SPA and WP:RGW nature of your edits, and the repeated concerns voiced by several editors that you have a plausible COI I think it would be better if you were simply to state the nature of your association with Nexperia. Given some of your previous comments, the idea that you do not believe [you] have a conflict appears unconvincing.

Or, to be clear, you may not believe you have a conflict of interest, but you may be incorrect. It is common for users with clear conflicts of interest to make similar statements on this noticeboard. Axad12 (talk) 05:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I also note that despite your comment above you continue to edit the articles directly, e.g. here [45] with the same old agenda (removal of reference to state ownership). And in that case it was also without using the COI edit procedure and directly after being asked once again [46] to use that process. Axad12 (talk) 05:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

So, as you followed me to my mentor, I am seeking to do this the right way. My posts are pending review because we want to do this correctly. DavidRJD (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

DavidRJD, you said "we" in the message above? Who are this "we"? AllyD (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

We meaning all of us. We all want to do the right thing. DavidRJD (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I answered that question in the best way I feel comfortable given the tenacity with which you are responding. I'm cautiously following the COI procedure because I identified a connection. Please consider it would have been infinitely easier just for me to say no conflict and move on, but I did not and am asking for an editor out of an abundance of caution.

I have to disagree with the characterization of my edits. I know there is some adverse reporting about Amigao (even with a name posted), and I do not know if it is true, but I do not want to be in his shoes. DavidRJD (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Further evasion I see. If you have no meaningful connection to Nexperia then presumably you would feel comfortable in disclosing that fact. The fact that you won't do that suggests that you do have a meaningful connection which you are obliged to disclose.

The issue here is that the disclosure that you have given, that you work in the same industry, seems incomplete and may thus be liable to mislead.

With regard to your statement about "I do not want to be in [Amigao's] shoes", please provide further detail. What adverse reporting? If it is last month's 24 hour block for edit warring I hardly see the relevance to a discussion about your own conduct. You could easily have been given such a block twice over for your own actions in the last 24 hours. Axad12 (talk) 05:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

For completeness, I will mention that this user has reached out to me through the mentorship program, and I have attempted an answer here. AllyD (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I think we have resolved this, at least based on your comment on my page that ..."it sounds as though you were right to have been concerned". I'll follow my mentor's advice in posting to the articles in question. Thank you to everyone for taking the time to provide your commentary. Other adjustments were made to comments per Admin. DavidRJD (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

COI-editing, but

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:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1151#Removal of sourced content by Rundbowie, edits consistent with other accounts
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 204#Camille Herron
• Rundbowie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Temporun73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Camille Herron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kilian Jornet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Courtney Dauwalter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ultramarathon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Both blocked. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The issue is now mentioned in Camille Herron, cited to media coverage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Dazed and Confused (film)

• Dazed and Confused (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kim Krizan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kim Krizan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

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)

For example, various SPAs: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]. Axad12 (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Ciarán O'Toole

• Ciarán O'Toole (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Radioscot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

Yes, seems problematic.

It looks like the O'Toole article is heading for deletion at AfD (here [53]) 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)

Was the user informed of this discussion? -- Pemilligan (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The user has now been informed. Please remember to do this yourself in the future. -- Pemilligan (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

User ElKevbo COI

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• Brahma Chellaney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Robert Bosch Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Germanicguard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Known for whitewashing the said article[54][55] this editor was asked to reveal his COI before too but has made no response.[56]

His first edit was to create Robert Bosch Academy (non-notable subject) where Brahma Chellaney works.[57] Ratnahastin (talk) 07:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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.[58] Making baseless attacks against me will not hide concerns about your own editing. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

Again, making baseless comments about me won't hide concerns about your own editing. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

Robert Bosch Academy is non-notable thus it was uncontroversially converted into a redirect in 2016.[59] That's why it does not need an AfD. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

European Commision IP range

• European Commission Representation in Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• EIDAS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 158.169.40.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 158.169.40.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 158.169.40.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 158.169.40.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• EuroComIreland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

The only directly related archived discussion I could find is

• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 68#Europeana (2011)

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

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)

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)

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)