Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

• 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)Reply

Yes, seems problematic.

It looks like the O'Toole article is heading for deletion at AfD (here [1]) which ought to solve the main issue.

How much of a problem are the user's edits to other articles? I had a quick look, they seemed to be adding fairly trivial detail, possibly unsourced. I may have missed something though. Axad12 (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

• 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[2][3] this editor was asked to reveal his COI before too but has made no response.[4]

His first edit was to create Robert Bosch Academy (non-notable subject) where Brahma Chellaney works.[5] 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.[6] 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.[7] That's why it does not need an AfD. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

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 Additionally, the editor has access to an unpublished photograph of a living member of the family and has knowledge of when that family member will be publishing and what photograph will be used with that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

Dear Voorts, is any communication with the family a COI? Of course I had CONTACT with them as well as experts in the field, but what I mean is that they have not paid me, and neither I or my supervisor are related to them or has received payment. I have to check of course so that I have not have the "biographers bias". This is always a risk. However, the project is finished right now and as promised I shall contact the family directly and the publisher and include my supervisor for transparency and come back with the full record of the history of this photo. Again, of course I have heard about the history and background about the photo from them directly, but I it does not mean that I automatically have a COI. If the facts about the photo are different that I thought/heard, then I will update the facts and if there is an unclear copyright situation I will vote for deletion too. GustenGast (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This isn't about your upload of the photograph, which was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, but about your writing of articles on English Wikipedia about the family. Wikipedia has conflict of interest rules that differ from those in an academic setting. I'm not sure if your situation is or is not a conflict of interest, which is why I brought the discussion here for other editors to weigh in. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

GustenGast WP:PAID editing is one specific category of WP:COI editing, but is not the only concern. Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. Someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith. You have an external relationship here that has the potential to influence your editing. This means (a) you should always declare your conlifct when editing, and (b) you should be putting your articles through the WP:AFC process for review rather than simply moving them into main space yourself. Melcous (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Understood! I will not edit more here. The Swedish page was edited by people without any such possible COI. When I saw the result and the feedback from you I think I followed the advice and added more sources and amended it. I think it became better. I clearly see what you mean. I welcome further review ad hoc. I will from now only submit "for review" if I find any useful source or so, but will from now not edit any further. Will now focus on other sites! Regarding the photo I shall ask if the somehow the photegrapher themselves can upload it, would simplify. Many thanks your unbiased input. GustenGast (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Beyond the COI angle I worry that you are perhaps delving into WP:OR, there is more than one problem with an editor being in contact with a subject. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, absolutely, I agree. I leave this for your or others' review. GustenGast (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The original picture was first published here on 25th April 2024:

https://news.ki.se/cloud-based-personal-health-record-with-ai-is-it-safe

I have contacted them and I will ask the photographer to upload their name, rights and the photo themselves directly to Wiki, if they have an account. GustenGast (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The name and the organisation is at least published already on that site too. GustenGast (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Clare Dimyon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Oma-Clare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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. Jauerback^dude?/_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. Jauerback^dude?/_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. Jauerback^dude?/_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 [8], 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. Jauerback^dude?/_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 [9] 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 [10] and here [11]) and a general lack of sourcing. Axad12 (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Howard Maibach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Dermatotoxicologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Umar Saif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• RaviEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Richardatlarge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Draft:Richard DeGrandpre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Meaning-making (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Special:Diff/1052421820
• Mind–body dualism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Special:Diff/133503545
• Alfred R. Lindesmith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) very extensive quotation of Richard DeGrandpre authored contents and one of the main purpose of creating the article appears to be featuring Degrandpre published source.

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... [12], 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 [13] from his user page which would otherwise have connected him to the subject of the article.

I also noticed the following thread [14] 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 [15] and here [16]. 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 [17]. 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 [18].

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

• Symphony of Heaven (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Metalworker14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• [nearly all additions of themetalonslaugth.com] appears to be from Metalworker14

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

• Eric Gilbertson (climber) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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