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:Scott Bessent
    Talk:Cinq Music Group
    Talk:Clover Health
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Sonalde Desai
    Talk:Nina L. Diaz
    Talk:Daniel Diermeier
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:The Donkey Sanctuary
    Talk:Stephan DuCharme
    Talk:Earth Journalism Network
    Talk:Mary Baker Eddy
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Darnell Edge
    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:Grayscale Investments
    Talk:Greystar
    Talk:Group-IB
    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:Valerie Jarrett
    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:MoneyWeek
    Talk:MongoDB Inc.
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:One Energy
    Talk:Oneok
    Talk:Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation
    Talk:Pallywood
    Talk:V Pappas
    Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician)
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Poster House
    Talk:Joely Proudfit
    Talk:Shlomo Rakib
    Talk:Research Corporation
    Talk:Reworld
    Talk:Rhizome (organization)
    Talk:Rivulis
    Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist)
    Talk:Rakefet Russak-Aminoach
    Talk:Science Inc.
    Talk:Simprints
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:Spotfire
    Talk:A. G. Sulzberger
    Talk:Julie Sweet
    Talk:Steve Tappin
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:UK Biobank
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Martha G. Welch
    Talk:Wingtech
    Talk:Xsolla
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation
    Talk:Zyn

    Brahma Chellaney

    [edit]

    Known for whitewashing the said article[1][2] this editor was asked to reveal his COI before too but has made no response.[3]

    His first edit was to create Robert Bosch Academy (non-notable subject) where Brahma Chellaney works.[4] 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.[5] 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.[6] 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 [7], 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 [8] 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 [9] and here [10]) and a general lack of sourcing. Axad12 (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ek Main Aur Ek Two

    [edit]
    Ramdattabuvaji blocked indef. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:01, 15 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.

    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]
    Persistent COI user was blocked yesterday by Star Mississippi. With thanks, Axad12 (talk) 04:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you all! Fram (talk) 14:44, 14 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.

    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]

    Since I filed the report, the editor has started contributing to other articles, seemingly to create the impression they're not a SPA. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:04, 15 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... [11], 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]
    I agree that the user seems to have been engaged in an amount of self-citation over the years, and is currently engaged in trying to get a self-authored article about himself into Wikipedia (albeit not very successfully). Upon returning to Wikipedia after a 3 year hiatus to start work on his own article he appears to have commenced work by removing certain info [12] from his user page which would otherwise have connected him to the subject of the article.
    I also noticed the following thread [13] which the user initiated, and where he very animatedly appears to try to get (previously removed) negative allegations installed on the article for another author. Given that the user seems to be an effective WP:SPA on himself and matters that he is related to, I couldn't help but wonder if there was some form of link.
    It seems to be the only issue on Wikipedia that he is animated about, and appears to be both arbitrary and to correspond with the second time his autobiographical article was declined. So, what do we have here, WP:RGW, WP:COI, WP:POINT or something else?
    It seems to me like a most unusual post for an editor to have posted on Wikipedia and I do wonder if it should either be revdelled or the user be warned not to use Wikipedia in this way again?
    The material that the user is animated about was added to the relevant article twice by two IP addresses, here [14] and here [15]. It seems that only 2 IP users and one registered user have any interest in this issue, so what is going on? Axad12 (talk) 07:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think WP:NOTHERE is the bets fit. They're not here to build an encyclopedia, but to increase his prominence in the academia in the hope of scholars coming to articles, seeing their work cited, then cite those works in other scholarly work. Graywalls (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I removed a further instance of self-citing here [16]. I also noted that one of the user's books was one of only seven 'Books & Journals' listed at the end of the article for prominent UK politician Michael Gove. Not sure which user added it there but it was clearly tangential (or irrelevant?) to the subject matter so I removed it. Possibly an instance of self-citing, possibly not, but removed either way [17].
    In fairness to the user, he does seem to have disappeared since being told in July that he wasn't notable and that autobiography was suspected.
    Re: the other material mentioned in my earlier post. I will ask the owner of the talk page if they will delete it. The issues referred to have previously been deleted twice from the article concerned, presumably on the basis that they are poorly sourced, potentially defamatory and non-BLP compliant. That being the case, they probably shouldn't be sitting on someone's talk page either. Axad12 (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Faisal Mahmud Faizee

    [edit]
    Justice FAISAL MAHMUD FAIZEE blocked indef. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:59, 15 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.

    New SPA has been white-washing the article which is clearly about themself. Numerous warnings have been issued including a final warning and the article has bee Draftified by Wikishovel. I have posted an extended warning about COI on their talk page but everything has been ignored.  Velella  Velella Talk   14:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that Justice FAISAL MAHMUD FAIZEE is persistently removing sourced content, which disrupts the editing process, I recommend a temporary block. This would enable another editor to take over the control of the BLP for the time being. PS. If they are indeed the subject themselves, as their username suggests, it's quite ironic that a high court judge would be engaging in such editing behavior and violating our P&Gs. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User now indefinitely blocked by Star Mississippi. Axad12 (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "the Braveheart of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh" now that is some over the top promotion! COI or not there are some clear issues here Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 14 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:Metalworker14

    [edit]

    I've definitively determined there's a strong COI between the editor and the band Symphony of Heaven and personally identifying private evidence has been emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org. It isn't hard to find it, but we can't directly post such information. I am opening the case here, because I suspect further promotional activity such as promoting bands, record labels or sources cited within the articles the editor created. The user is a prolific creator of articles about Christian Metal and Metal bands, albums and record labels. Suspicion was triggered when Metalworker14 uploaded an image into Symphony of Heaven through Commons, stating that they were the copyright holder only for me to find that it's a downsized version of the black and white photo right above "biography" from the band's official website. The band's website is copyrighted and does not identify the author of the photo, and the photo that was on Commons did not have VRT verification. The user has previously been notified about uploading an image from the band's Facebook. In the process of investigating copyright matters, I browsed the band's website and came upon "For managemental concerns: Return to Dust Promotions" at contact section of the page. When I went to seek information on that company, the search result suggests COI with the extensively cited source "The Metal Onslaught Magazine is extensively cited in Symphony of Heaven as well as other articles created by the same author. Graywalls (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    While I cannot comment on whether there is a COI issue with the article you flagged without seeing the off-wiki evidence you found, I would like to add that this website themetalonslaught.com is not a RS at all, yet Metalworker14 has excessively used it across many articles which raises serious suspicions that they may have a COI with the magazine. I strongly suggest they stop using this source entirely unless they receive approval at WP:RSN. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Saqib:, I believe that there is COI with the Magazine and the inserting party, actually. I just had to be really careful to not go foul of WP:OUTING but if you spend a few minutes Googling, it should become clear. Graywalls (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Off-wiki evidence does suggest that they have a COI with both Symphony of Heaven and Ascending King. And according to our P&Gs, Metalworker14 is required to declare their COI either on their user page or on the tps of the relevant articles, which they have yet to do so I strongly urge them to do so as soon as possible. Also, I recommend they refrain from directly editing these articles but if they continue to ignore these warnings, a temporary block may be necessary to get their attention. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Symphony of Heaven is one thing, but the bigger issue is the extensive use of sources they're closely related to that are not WP:RS trying to bolster the notability of non-notable bands, albums and recording companies. If you spent more than a minute or two searching with the research skills held by quite a few Wiki editors, that should become obvious. All I can say is that it's highly plausible and convincing that Metalworker14 has vested interest to promote certain authors and certain magazines, production and promotion companies. Graywalls (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is absolutely correct. The user has created over 150 articles and the frequency with which certain sources and authors are used would be considered industrial grade spam if those references were being added to pre-existing articles.
    The fact that the user created the articles themselves and used these non WP:RS compliant sources to support notability makes the matter worse rather than better.
    To be honest, the sheer number of links makes me wonder if Search engine optimization was a factor here. Axad12 (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a large part of what music promoters do. Outside evidence suggests involvement of suspected COI editor partaking in the promotion business. Perhaps themetalonslaught needs to be suggested for Mediawiki blacklisting. Graywalls (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite so. There is no place on Wikipedia for this sort of activity. Axad12 (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Eric Gilbertson (climber)

    [edit]

    User User:KnowledgeIsPower9281 has a likely conflict of interest with Eric Gilbertson (climber). The majority of that article's references constitute links to the subject's personal blog. In addition, KnowledgeIsPower9281 is engaged in taking original research presented in said blog that is being used as a reference on multiple articles. This includes ones they created (see examples here and here) and existing articles such as Mount Rainier where a discussion on the talk page regarding these edits is ongoing.

    KnowledgeIsPower9281 has received notes reminding them the need to disclose COI here and here, both of which were ignored. Their use of original research is disruptive and they are by far the primary author of Eric Gilbertson (climber), which I nominated for AfD last week. I am bringing up the COI notice here because of disruptive edits elsewhere. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 14:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    DJ Cane, First, since you’ve already nominated the BLP for deletion, I don’t understand the logic behind filing this COI/N report. Second, which blog are you referring to that is being used as a reference in multiple articles? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your response @Saqib. If there is a better place to handle the original research edits, please let me know. The blog is referenced as Country Highpoints. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 14:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    DJ Cane, I agree that countryhighpoints.com is not a RS, but a WP:SPS and KnowledgeIsPower9281 appears to be aware of this concern, as reflected on the article's tp, yet they continue to cite it across multiple pages, including on this BLP which is concerning. In light of this, I would suggest that an admin step in and issue a warning to KnowledgeIsPower9281 to cease citing this WP:SPS going forward.
    As for the issues with the BLP, since the article is already at AFD, it may be best to wait for the outcome of that discussion. If the BLP is kept, I recommend initiating a discussion on the article's talk page to try to resolve the WP:OR concerns there and incase if that approach doesn’t lead to a resolution, you can revisit the issue here. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at edit history of Eric's article, the timing of edits suggest some kind of off-wiki coordination with another editor named keithgilbertson (talk · contribs) which has all of two edits under their account. Graywalls (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is mentioned in my conflict of interest declaration. It appeared that Eric's father independently uploaded a picture of Eric on the summit of K2 in 2022. I was not contacted by him, but thanked him for the contribution and fixed the formatting of the file. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello all, I have declared the COI. I believe Gilbertson's achievements are notable in the climbing world, so if other editors rewrite the page in a more encyclopedic tone, decrease the reliance on the subject's blog, and use some of the reliable sources Gilbertson has done interview with (mentioned on talk page), could the article still be salvaged? KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    KnowledgeIsPower9281, Thank you for declaring your COI. Whether the BLP is kept or not will be decided at the AFD, so I suggest you wait for the outcome there. If the BLP is kept, I recommend avoiding direct edits to the article and instead, please use the BLP's talk page to propose any changes. In the meantime, as I mentioned above, please refrain from using countryhighpoints.com as a source in articles. I’ve noticed that it has been repeatedly cited across multiple articles by you. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When it comes to surveys he's done on mountain peaks and highpoints is Peakbagger sufficient as a source? KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Peakbagger has been used as a source extensively, but things written directly by him don't meet the guideline. If his survey leads to Peakbagger updating their updating the elevation info section, this seems fine to me for minor mountains. Major mountains like Mount Rainier should not have this information presented in the infobox but can have it discussed in the body because in instances like Mount Rainier there remains a large body of official reporting, which should be favored over Peakbagger. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 15:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've abated a bunch of original research that's not directly supportable by the Peakbagger sources. Graywalls (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @KnowledgeIsPower9281:, what is the nature of your relationship with various corporate sponsored events, if any? I am seeing you've started multiple sports related events, only citing the event owner/sponsors. Graywalls (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello @Graywalls, see my response in my user talk page. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Rick Castro

    [edit]

    User Eigilvesti, who has been editing the article "Rick Castro" since 2020, has just stated on his talk page that he is the subject of the article, Rick Castro. I have in the past tried to deal with the promotionalism and poor sourcing in the article, but wearied of it and slacked off. I'm posting links to WP:COI and WP:RS to the user talk page. I would appreciate other eyes on the article. Donald Albury 15:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Eigilvesti (or better said, Rick Castro) has been editing their own BLP since 2007 and has been given enough warnings by now, but if they still won’t stop writing their AUTOBIO, I honestly don’t know what will make them stop. I must note that the BLP is in poor shape, with significant issues of WP:OR and PROMO content and it’s evident that Rick Castro is using Wikipedia as a platform for self-promotion, which violates our P&Gs. While I don’t wish to sound overly harsh, but I believe it may be time for Eigilvesti to be temporarily blocked to give them the opportunity to reconsider their approach. A temporary block could help reinforce that they do not own the BLP and should refrain from editing it directly going forward. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    this reeks of over policing. all my sources are verified and factual. this is the history of my art. nothing is make up, created, fake or slanderous. Eigilvesti (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Eigilvesti, I don’t want you to get blocked, but it’s important to respect our P&Gs, especially regarding AUTOBIO, which is not allowed - even if you're citing RS. You’ve been editing here since 2007, but continuing to insert PROMO content is wasting others' time. Even if you're a SPA but as long as you comply with the P&Gs, you’re welcome to continue editing and proposing changes on the BLP talk page. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you. I do my best to comply.. I guess I will not post for awhile, since this all makes me nervous. Wikipedia is important to me and I don't want to abuse it. could you please restore my most recent post? all the sources are publications and posting by the book shops and venues in question. thank you for your time. Eigilvesti (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of the sources you have offered have not been compliant with our guidelines. Beyond that, being verifiable from reliable sources is a requirement, but not a guarantee of inclusion in Wikipedia. Content that the community regards as "promotional" is subject to removal regardless of the reliability of sources supporting it. Donald Albury 16:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that the article here is problematic on a number of counts, which is presumably the result of long term conflict of interest editing...
    I've removed an amount of unsourced material from the article, including a long section on Critical Assessment which was entirely unsourced. The article was tagged for needing extra citations 5 years ago so the subject/COI editor has had abundant opportunity to locate and add these. I would encourage Eigilvesti to track down relevant WP:RS citations where possible and present them at the article talk page via a COI edit request (details of the process can be found here: WP:COI).
    I'll leave it to others to address the original research, promo and reliable sourcing issues. There are also some issues around overall tone. However, I must say that the article in its current form seems to me to be very poor indeed. It is essentially just a long list of disembodied sentences listing lots of things the subject has done. Some of these sentences are linked together to form paragraphs but it can't be avoided that it basically says: 'Rick Castro did this. Castro did that. Rick did the other' ad nauseum without any sense in which the reader is learning anything about the subject except being exposed to a list of exhibitions and awards.
    The overall impression is that most of the article is WP:UNDUE coverage and just an indiscriminate collection of facts. For example, the article is peppered with facts like the subject attending book signings, receiving grants, etc., none of which is encyclopaedic information. Axad12 (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Alison Creagh

    [edit]

    Hawkeye7 created an article about the President of the Australian Paralympic Committee and nominated it for DYK. They dispute having a COI here, despite Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-09-26/Serendipity, e.g. "media representative, with accreditation supplied by Paralympics Australia" and "Support from Paralympics Australia did not end in Australia. In Paris, they had set up headquarters at a site near the Paralympic Village known as "Our Mob", which contained meeting rooms, a TV studio, dining room and a McCafé concession (McDonald's being one of their sponsors). Tim Mannion, the General Manager of Communications, gave generous and welcome assistance and support to our efforts, including providing passes to the opening and closing ceremonies." Fram (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hawkeye7: Writing a BLP about someone who sponsored your trip to the 2024 Paralympics to enhance Wikipedia content is one thing, but nominating their BLP for DYK seems a bit excessive and might not reflect well on you as an editor. I get that Fram has valid concerns, but I also see that you declined any involvement of paid editing, so to help ease the tension, I’d suggest you consider withdrawing your DYK nom. If someone else finds it interesting, they can always nominate it later! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Paralympics Australia did not sponsor my trip to Paris; it provided my media accreditation and assistance and support for our activities. I have never been involved in paid editing; this allegation is false and baseless. The article cannot be re-nominated later. WP:DYKRULES: At the time of nomination, an article must be considered new, which means it was created, expanded fivefold, or promoted to good article status in the seven days preceding a nomination. Nor can I withdraw it, for that is the prerogative of the reviewer and prep area builder. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hawkeye7, for the clarity, I didn’t allege you were involved in paid editing.— Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that was Fram. All I have done is carry out my role as Wikimedian in Residence, writing articles to expand our coverage of Australian paralympians, coaches and administrators, and Australians at the Paralympic Games. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hawkeye7, here are some quotes from your Signpost article:
    Media accreditation meant that I had access to the media tribunes at the venues and could attend any game even when the event was sold out (as was usually the case). [...]. It meant that we could use the buses of the [...] the Olympic transport system. It meant we had access to the resources of the Main Press Centre (MPC) and the Venue Media Centres (VMCs) [...] It meant that my photographer [...] had access to the Nikon store at the Stade de France, where she was able to get some of her equipment repaired and borrow some very expensive equipment for the duration of the games to supplement the gear she had brought with her from Australia – all for free. (My emphasis on 'all for free').
    And Tim Mannion, the General Manager of Communications, gave generous and welcome assistance and support to our efforts, including providing passes to the opening and closing ceremonies (presumably also for free).
    And Getting from one venue to another involved a trip on the Paris Metro using the Navigo cards issued to us as part of our media kit. Each day we criss-crossed the city on the Metro as we moved from one venue to the next.
    This all sounds like quite a trip. Adding up the financial benefits of this package, what would be the approximate equivalent cash value? Would, say, USD500-1,000 cover it? And what about cost of flights, accommodation, etc?
    The idea that there was no financial conflict of interest seems to be quite baseless. There is no meaningful difference between being paid for doing something and being given a large amount of expensive benefits for free.
    The project to create large numbers of articles on Australian paralympians has been going in since 2011. During that time you have created many such articles and, based on your Signpost article, attended multiple competitions, possibly under similar terms to those described above. That being the case, what do you estimate to be the total value of benefits received over that period from Paralympics Australia or other organisations?
    You deny conflict of interest and paid editing, so I think it would be useful to have a financial figure here to allow other editors to estimate to what extent that was (or was not) the case.
    Please note that WP:PAID states: Paid contributions on Wikipedia involve editing any page in exchange for compensation, including money or other incentives. (Again, my emphasis on other incentives).
    If an editor is in receipt of lucrative fringe benefits for the duration of a trip where they are researching future potential articles in relation to those who provided those fringe benefits then under the definition above the editor is being paid. However, regardless of that fact, the existence of COI seems quite clear. Axad12 (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also would you care to share the details of the situation underlying the arbitration finding of 2011 where it was established (by a vote of 10 to 0) that 10) Hawkeye7 has a previously undisclosed conflict of interest with regards to LauraHale and should not be taking administrative actions on LauraHale, or at the behest of LauraHale. If I recall correctly, LauraHale was an editor who was also involved in producing large numbers of sports-based articles and had some specific relationship to netball. To what extent do the details there resemble the situation above (except in relation to your undeclared conflict of interest)? Axad12 (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a brief update here... There is a marked similarity between the Australian Paralympic related activities of Hawkeye7 and those of the now dormant and WP:VANISHED user LauraHale. Both users seem to have created industrial volumes of Australian paralympic articles which were then swiftly nominated for good article status and inclusion in "Did You Know". Presumably this is some kind of joint endeavour, in which some form of conflict of interest was first demonstrated many years ago. Axad12 (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding the likes of Mary Major serves on the board at the International Rootbeer Chugging Society, and citing the society itself or her own website is quite common promotional articles. The fictional IRCS is likely authoritative and reliable that Mary Major is on their board, but I have to say that's probably undue inclusion. I'll leave it up to others to weigh in on this re-addition Graywalls (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems very odd that a user would go on at great length in Signpost about the generosity of their patron, but not take the entirely reasonable precaution of making a simple CoI declaration on their user page re: all the generosity they have received. It is clearly concerning that instead of doing so the user is opposing unconflicted users' edits on the article they recently created on the president of the organisation providing the generosity. Axad12 (talk) 04:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1251474307"