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 (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 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:

Kevin Mitnick[edit]

Suspect that https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dvannamers is in fact the subject of the eponymous article. Single-purpose account is engaging in namecalling, 3RR violations, blanking vandalism, and threats on the user pages of other editors, and has adopted a very personal approach to the article's edits. Friendly attempts to gently guide the individual's efforts through talk page feedback has been met with threats and aggression. Boorsours (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You are also a single-purpose account, no? --SubSeven (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Unusual eBay listings[edit]

User:Officialmichaelgreen edited the article Unusual eBay listings to include their own self-promotional entry beginning with this edit added the story of Michael Green attempting to sell a GIF for $5800 (...) and ending with small grammar error touched up.

The edits were then removed by 198.144.40.1 with the edit summary "Let's just pretend this whole thing never happened....".--DrWho42 (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  • COI aside, I've blocked the account per WP:ISU. The editor is welcome to request a rename or create another one if they so wish. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
All that aside, the whole premise of that article seems dubious to me...--ukexpat (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The Hype Magazine[edit]

Chastized is here to promote, mainly around The Hype Magazine.
"His photography work is celebrated globally" [1]. " a plethora of testimonials" [2]. Admins can see the promotional material added to Rahim Hirji

Claims to "have not connection to Jerry Doby" [3] but activity shows otherwise.
Primary edits have been around The Hype Magazine

Editor In Chief is Jerry Doby.

[4]

File uploaded by Chastized. "Evidence: The license statement can be found online at: http://www.fiverr.com/users/jerrydoby/manage_orders/FO424FB6EB83". User Jerry Doby.

[5]

Uploaded by Chastized. From Flickr [6] which shows a request from Jerry Doby, "Can you make this photo available for use on Wikipedia?"

[7]

Claims to be the copyright holder of a proclamation given to Just Jay of The Hype Magazine.

[8]

File uploaded by Chastized. "This file is directly from the magazine's archive and placed on it's Wikipedia page with permission from the publisher." The publisher being The Hype Magazine. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

U.S. Army Communications Information Systems Activity, Pacific[edit]

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 144.59.12.226 (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

A newly created page, which lists the organizations current commander as "USA Lt. Col. Lan T. Dalat, Director."

The user that has created the page, and every edit, is Landalat. This appears to be a COI as the head of the organization is the one that created the page and all information contained within.

I marked the article for a proposed merge. U.S. Army Communications Information Systems Activity, Pacific is part of the 1st Signal Brigade (United States) of the Eighth United States Army. It can be merged up a level into its parent organization, which has a very short article. It's a system administration group, part of a larger organization, and there's no indication of notability. John Nagle (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I did that. There wasn't a vestige of a reference in the whole thing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Martine Rothblatt[edit]

This user, RothRep (as in Rothblatt representative), has a conflict of interest and has been negatively editing the Martine Rothblatt article and an associated article (BINA48, a robot project of Martine Rothblatt's). -12.30.109.2 (talk) 07:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Michael McGee, Jr.[edit]

I am working through Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting and ran across what looks like COI in Michael McGee, Jr.. There were nine consecutive edits by Mcgee4me on 13 September, none with any sourcing. The user has not made any other edits, so it's unlikely s/he would see anything put on her/his user talk page or the article talk page. I don't want to be diverted from working on the tracking category, and I lack experience addressing COI situations, but I thought perhaps someone here might wish to pursue this. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm tempted to undo edits back to where it was before Mcgee4me (talk · contribs) became involved, simply because none of those edits adds a new reference to justify it. The talk page indicates that the issue of balance was raised in 2007, and the last comment is that "everything is cited". Nobody has offered any citations indicating otherwise. Of course, we're probably bringing down the hammer on a reasonably well-intentioned new user who thinks they're doing the right thing. They didn't whitewash the article, but they probably added original research. Comments? John Nagle (talk) 05:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)