Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard 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 does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connections with article topics. An edit by a COIN declared COI editor may not meet a requirement of the COI guideline when the edit advances outside interests more than it advances the aims of Wikipedia. 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. Sections older than 7 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Shortcuts:
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.
  • Be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline.
  • 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.
  • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the What is a conflict of interest? list. 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}}.
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, MiszaBot II will automatically archive the thread when it is older than seven 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 does not meet 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:Requested edits is where COI editors have placed the {{Request edit}} template:

LA Models[edit]

On 30 June I filed a WP:CCI request for Trident13, who keeps a very curious miscellany, including a number of copyvios, in hidden text in his various sandboxes. Looking through some contributions, I found this, the initial version of our article on LA Models. I was particularly interested to read this part of the article:

Hey Ian,

Sorry to hear about your rough patch, hopefully all up hill for 2014? :)

Thank you very much for your help, we really appreciate it. Sounds like you're more than qualified to tackle our Wikipedia woes.

Here is all the info we have:

Company Name: LA Models

Website: www.lamodels.com

Most of the articles we are mentioned in are not directly related to the agency. We have a repertoire of press releases but, not many published articles. The bulk of what we have that could be considered valid has already been tried and rejected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/LA_Models

Found the 2 below references. In your opinion, if they seem like something valid, we can track down print copies or continue to move in that direction. If not, it would be much appreciated if you could please furnish us with examples of what you need to get this done. We're here to help. :)

We also have a sister agency that is on Wikipedia without issue. Here is a link to that page for your reference:

New York Model Management From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia New York Model Management is a modeling agency based in New York City. New York Models started when Heinz Holba started L.A. Models (now its sister agency) in 1985. After operating international agencies, he opened New York Models in 1997. Marion Smith, the current vice president of New York Models, worked under Eileen Ford with world famous modeling agency Ford Models, Smith joined Holba in 2001.[1] The current director of New York is Cory Bautista. Notes[edit]

^ http://models.com/agency/New-York-Model-Management External links[edit]

Official Website New York Model Management in the Fashion Model Directory New York Models at Models.com

Potential Sources:

http://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/news/americas-next-top-model-laura-james-wins-20121711

http://pagesix.com/2013/01/21/beautiful-webbs-ny-move/

Regarding images, yes, we can def get some to you. Is there a preferred size?

As you are the expert, what is the typical window in which the page is flagged/removed? A couple weeks, a month? We'd prefer to hold payment (or perhaps do 50% upon completion, 50% after the said time frame has passed) to ensure the page stays up. Again, this is your forte, not mine.

Let us know what else you need on our end, we appreciate your help! :)

Best,

Kate

I don't think there's any question that Trident13 has a conflict of interest at LA Models, and at New York Model Management, which he first edited on 9 May 2014, three days before he moved User:Trident13/LA Models "into production" as LA Models (that sandbox was, by curious coincidence, deleted at his request yesterday). What I'd really like to know is how many other articles this editor, who has over 100,000 edits, has created for pay. Are you going to give us a list, Trident 13?

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I am quite happy to admit that I create paid for articles - its is still not the majority of my content, on either a daily or any other period measured basis - and this has been known by some including Admins for a period. But this is not in conflict with Wikipedia's Terms & Conditions, and I have not been asked before this point as to whether I had a COI re LA Models. If I had been asked or if it had become an issue re the articles inclusion, I would have happily and openly admitted so. Secondly, having been asked over seven years ago by Admin Fuhghettaboutit to be open in my method of creation - to help others to learn - I now find Justlettersandnumbers over-zealous pursuit of my editorial record in conflict with both this, and WP:AGF. I further amended my method of creation in light of comments in 2008/9, still including research but both noidexing the stub and hiding any collected content. In light of this WP:AOBF-driven posting by Justlettersandnumbers, I will be pursuing mediation. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
That is an interesting link that you post about WikiExperts. You seem to have been more than a little economical with the truth in replying to editor Bilby there. And perhaps you could explain how you think that keeping a large number of copyvios as hidden text in your various sandboxes satisfies Fuhghettaboutit's request that you be "open in [your] method of creation"; hidden text in a sandbox is hardly "open", I'd have thought. While we're at it, would you like to clarify why you went on creating copyvios in your sandboxes after you had been advised in October 2011 by JamesBWatson, Diannaa and Lagrange613 that it was unacceptable to do so?
Anyway, back to the purpose of this board: would you be prepared to list the articles that you have accepted money to edit? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Trident13 under the ToU you are obligated to disclose paid contributions. Whether anyone asked you or not, is irrelevant. I strongly recommend you disclose every article where you have made a paid edit since the ToU changed. Again, disclosure of paid edits is now required; it is not optional or "available upon request." Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
You're definitely required to disclose every edit you've been paid for since June 16, 2014 by the Terms of Use. May I also suggest that you go back to LA Models and clean up the adspeak and promotional tone. There's no reason that you should make other editors clean up after you. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Trident13 I feel like i was a harsh, and want to give you a chance to speak... I have a hard time seeing how you are trying to comply with the COI guideline and ToU. Can you please explain how you are? If this thread is a surprise to you and you are seeing things differently and intend to start editing differently, please let us know that too. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
All the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia drive towards Neutrality. Hence, IMO, all wikipedians should exercise honesty while editing. Considering the present situation, either full article or portion/s of article even images, if any at WP or COMMONS, should be listed and scrutinized by a neutral editor/user regarding involvement of copyvio or promotional tone and necessary action need be taken. It will be better all paid contributions of an IP/User (irrespective of edit count/access level) at wikipedia could be moved to WP:AFC, where it is possible for fine tuning the contents as there are good number of active reviewers are available there. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 10:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
@Trident13, Jytdog: I don't see how our colloquy in 2007 is being interpreted by you as me asking you to be "open in your methods of creation", but it doesn't really matter because I don't see how being open in methods of creation has anything to do with the issues here. A copyright violation is a copyright violation and paid editing is paid editing and methods of creation has nothing to do with either (unless you're saying I was in some way endorsing paid editing, as a motivation for creation; to that extent, I most certainly was not). The former must not be engaged in; the latter is repugnant to me, but policy does not forbid it but as other have pointed out, the Terms of Use, as of June 16, 2014, does require your affirmative disclosure. To wit:

"These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:
     • a statement on your user page,
     • a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
     • a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.
"

What I am not clear on is whether you are obligated to provide disclosure for paid edits prior to June 16, 2014, as has been called for above, but I think you should without further prompting. I certainly appreciate your many good edits over the years but even if you didn't know of the changed ToU you do now and it's been almost a week since this discussion was opened without any action I can see to comply for your post-ToU-change edits. You say above that "I have not been asked before this point as to whether I had a COI re LA Models. If I had been asked or if it had become an issue re the articles inclusion, I would have happily and openly admitted so." As others have also pointed out, you do not need to be asked. Again, you have an affirmative obligation and should meet it without delay. As for the copyvios, I have not seen your response to that, but I have also not seen any evidence presented of any ongoing copyvios being posted or a widespread problem. If someone can point out which supbpages contain problems I'll take a look. My edited time right now is very constrained.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Fuhghettaboutit. I too am about to be away from here for a couple of weeks, but just quickly, in case you want to look: WP:CCI request is here; the article that revealed the first problems is Soughton Hall; Michael Hogben is listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 July 11. I still don't know if the CCI is really needed. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Palringo[edit]

Hi – I have prepared a userspace draft to replace the current article for Palringo, which has been flagged for poor referencing and notability issues. My COI is that I work for Bell Pottinger and that Palringo is my client. The redraft is fully referenced and NPOV. If anyone would like to leave feedback either on my talk page or on the current article's talk page, that would be much appreciated. Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Adam Rapp[edit]

Joshua Davis (web designer)[edit]

I noticed that an article on my watchlist just started being edited by a user with a username that suggests he is the subject of the article. I know I'm completely ignoring the guidelines for this page, since I haven't talked to the user at all, but I really don't have the time or interest to discuss the conflict of interest guidelines with that user or to edit the article in question. The article was only on my watchlist since I patrol prods for articles that were prodded but had previously had a prod contested or previously been at AFD. I was hoping someone with more time and more interest in the conflict of interest guidelines could review that user's contributions to the article, and discuss the conflict of interest guidelines with him if you feel there is a conflict of interest. Calathan (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


--

thanks Calathan... we're a studio of 42 people, and Joshua Davis does work here... and I'm making edits to his Biography, to reflect his "actual" Biography rather than a ton of short unconnected statements posted by fans. Eventually we'd hope to have his page changed to Joshua_Davis_(designer) since he isn't and has not worked in the medium of the web for several years... Joshua is a designer working across multiple disciplines, the web only being 1 facet of his career.

if there is a better practice for helping me update Mr. Davis's credentials and avoid future COI issues... I'd love the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaDavisStudios (talkcontribs) 18:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm leaving the template {{uw-coi}} message that highlights the use of the talk page to request changes rather than editing the article directly. I'll also mention the username issue. —C.Fred (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Editor for hire[edit]

Not sure what we can do about it, but OTRS has just been made aware of another company offering "paid editing" services, like Wiki-PR: http://www.submitexpress.com/wikipedia-page-creation.html --ukexpat (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisting editors not scrutinized before being archived[edit]

It appears that being comparatively uninteresting is the way for editors with conflicts of interest to escape scrutiny. These editors with virtually the same name as the pages they edit happened to end up on this page at about the same time as #LA Models. The cases received no comment after nomination. Cnilep (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Self-initiated COI investigation[edit]

I would like to submit evidence privately that I have no COI that prevents me from editing anywhere on Wikipedia. I have talked with my CPA and he is willing to provide (privately, to a functionary) an affidavit that my spouse is the sole source of income in our family and that my spouse does not work in a capacity or in an industry that in any way compromises my edits. I would also be happy to provide (privately, to a functionary) that I have credentials as a trained editor. Lightbreather (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Utterly pointless. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I am having trouble finding where any discussion regarding even a potential COI involving Lightbreather has taken place. For those of us not familiar with the backstory here, why would we care who does or does not employ him or his spouse, and how would it be relevant? I see that Lightbreather has recently become subject to a topic ban ([1]) as a result of ongoing edit warring and tendentious editing; beyond that topic ban, is there something I'm missing? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)