Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Find this page confusing? Just put a note on your talk page with {{Help me}} (including the curly brackets) above it and someone will assist you.
Noticeboards and related pages (Dashboard)
General
Content
User issues
Noticeboards
Report a possible conflict of interest
Before posting, determine whether this is the most appropriate place:
Shortcuts:
This noticeboard may be used to:
  • Request help with users that are affected by the conflict of interest guideline. Editors may not use Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality.
  • Ask for advice or get help with proposed article changes if you are affected by a conflict of interest. Propose changes at the article talk page, and then leave a message here if more neutral editors are needed to establish consensus.

Please note that the conflict of interest guideline does not absolutely prohibit subject-matter experts or other people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have a connection to the subject fully comply with the conflicts of interest guideline when they discuss proposed changes on a talk page or make non-controversial edits in mainspace consistent with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Furthermore, accusing another editor of having a conflict of interest in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited and may result in sanctions against you.
Reporting form
Enter the name of the article in the space below:

Please help with the requests in Category:Requested edits, where COI editors have placed the {{Request edit}} template:

Requested edits
  Talk:Alex Konanykhin
  Talk:Aspen Dental
  Talk:Callista Gingrich
  Talk:Danny O'Donoghue
  Talk:James Cantor
  Talk:New Media Strategies
  Talk:Open Translation Engine
  Talk:PHP
  Talk:Political positions of Newt Gingrich
  Talk:TripAdvisor
  Talk:University of Cumbria
  Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid Editor Help
  Talk:Wolff Olins

Contents


[edit] circumcision

There is an editor of the circumcision page. He or she professes strict neutrality. No articles which conflict with his or her opinion, however, get through. He or she is a published author, with 6 co-authored pieces to his or her name, on the subject of circumcision, according to Microsoft Academic Search. Though not a medical professional, he or she has been published in the American Journal of Public Health, the International Journal of Std & Aids, twice in the British Journal of Urology, and in Sexually Transmitted Diseases. He or she has been cited 7 times in 6 publications. The difficulty comes in in that his or her articles all point to the same non-neutral conclusion. His or her wikipedia edits, if analyzed, all point in the direction of the articles, with no room for variation or dissent. If he or she cites a primary source, there is an acceptable rationale. No one else is allowed. His or her death grip on the circumcision article amounts to one man or woman rule. Newcomers to the page are harrassed. I personally was harassed, not by the aforementioned editor, but by someone who had been pointed to postings outside of wikipedia in which there was conflict between the editor and me, in comments made to published articles. Quotes outside wikipedia of my words were posted on the circumcision talk page, and I was mentioned by user name, with it being implied that 'people' were sent by intactivist groups to penetrate wikipedia. I find the inference laughable, but when there is a strong reaction from editor B as if I am a danger to be neutralized, it creates a less than level playing field. Please let me be clear. In the complaint of harassment, I am not singling out the editor/author. I am stating that there appears to be a tag team, where one person riles another, and the secondary editor goes on the offensive. Between the two of them, there is a tremendously hostile atmosphere projected to newcomers. You may have to go back a month. I see that all postings I wrote on the circumcision talk page have disappeared.

Back to editor A. You can't profess neutrality, and then have every expression be on one side of an issue or subject. Any truly neutral analysis of editor A's postings would show that numerically, statistically, his or her posts, and the posts he or she allows, only support one conclusion. Best regards, tftobin Tftobin (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  • tftobin, I've moved your signature to the end of your message where it belongs. WP:TALK has more guidance on how to format messages on discussion pages (it's not done the way it is on internet forums). I had a look at the article's history and at least three different editors have reverted you. Holding a particular point of view doesn't equate to a conflict of interest, any more than your point of view on the subject (which you clearly have) equates to a conflict of interest. What matters is that the content of the article is as neutrally presented as possible, backed up with high quality resources. I see no evidence of any of the other editors you seem to be talking about linking to their own publications or using them as sources for the article. This seems to be a content dispute between several editors, and more specifically over the appropriate kinds of sources to be used and the application of the guidelines for sourcing medical articles. Furthermore, the quoted message from an outside forum posted by one of the editors gave absolutely no indication of who had written it, nor had they connected it to any other Wikipedia editor's name.
This whole issue of a putative "conflict of interest" by one of the editors in that article has already had a lengthy discussion at Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents last summer where the consensus was that there was not a CoI issue, but a content one. Concern was also expressed there at a possible canvassing issue with respect to this external site. There is a current Request for Comment open at Talk:Circumcision with a variety of editors participating. I suggest you continue to participate in that, but stick to commenting on content issues rather than on other editors. I also note that this same issue has been repeatedly brought up at at Wikiquette assistance [1], [2] and a currently open one in which you have also participated. The general view of outside editors there seems to be once, again, that this is a content dispute. Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards like this is generally not an effective way to reach consensus. By the way, your messages haven't "disappeared". The article's talk page is archived automatically by a bot. You'll find your most recent past messages in Talk:Circumcision/Archive 70. Voceditenore (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Note: I am only commenting on the conflict of interest issue raised here. I have no views one way or another about the content issue. Voceditenore (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
It is permissible for a wikipedia editor to go outside of wikipedia, in effect stalk a person, come in, and post their writings in a talk page while insinuating they are a sock puppet, and sent by an outside organization to infiltrate, as long as they merely insinuate, and don't connect the name directly, all the while mentioning the person by name in a group of names? I have zero affiliation with http://www.facebook.com/pages/Make-Wikipedia-Recognize-Male-Circumcision-As-Male-Genital-Mutilation/241713385868218, or any other group trying to change wikipedia. I am having a hard time reconciling all this, with 'don't bite the newbies'. It is OK for a wikipedia editor to object to everything he or she doesn't agree with, even if he or she has 6 published works on the subject, merely by stating NPOV imperially, even though the talk page has 4-6 objections to his or her moderating? How is this neutrality? I don't object to being reverted as a newbie editor. One did it with politeness and grace, Doc James. I'm new, and I make newbie mistakes. What I object to is that someone non-medical who has published 6 articles of one viewpoint is allowed total editoral control of what goes in, or does not go in, whether it meets the standards or not. Witness ThereWillBeFact's struggle to get a secondary source in, on the talk page. One editor is allowed to use primary sources as references. No one else is. It's not about me, or what I would like to see. It is about a non-level playing field. It is about total control in the hands of a tiny number of people, who all share the same viewpoint, and effectively have a lock on the article. One of whom is a published author, who always takes the same viewpoint, in their articles, and in their wikipedia edits of what they will allow, or not allow. Tftobin (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tftobin (talk • contribs) 12:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
How does all this equate to "newbie biting"? You've been editing here since 2009. In any case, this noticeboard is not for content disputes particularly those involving multiple editors who disagree with each other. You're simply not going to get a lot of traction here by characterising everyone who opposes you as having a conflict of interest, any more than your opponents would. There's an open Request for Comment at Talk:Circumcision. It will be closed 30 days after it opened by an uninvolved administrator. I suggest you await the outcome of that, and if you are still not satisfied, try one of the other dispute resolution processes. The Conflict of Interest noticeboard is not one of them. Voceditenore (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
When I said 'newbie', I meant newbie to attempting to edit circumcision. No deception intended. I also didn't realize that the Wikiquette_assistance was still open. Thank you for letting me know. That actually makes me feel better.
My intention is not to be a jerk, or to seek revenge, or to take the place of anybody. I doubt I'll even be contributing, since I find it nearly impossible to find secondary sources which confirm that healthy body parts work. I simply want what everybody wants, a little fairness.
Does editor A have 6 published papers, on the topic of circumcision, or not? Do they all have the same outlook on the subject at hand, or are they neutral? If both are true, is his or her editing statistically slanted to one side, or is it consistently neutral, when counted, edit by edit? If so, does COI apply, or not? Tftobin (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Once again, this editor does not seem to have pushed for his own articles to be added as references or linked in the article, and indeed they aren't. In my view the article uses very high quality references. Obviously he has a particular point of view, as do you. But that doesn't equate to a conflict of interest on either side. Nor does it necessarily equate to the article itself not having a neutral point of view. That's an issue for discussion on the talk page, not here. I note that multiple editors on that talk page agree with him on various points and there are some who agree with your stance. That's what the RfC is for, to seek consensus. Voceditenore (talk) 08:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience, and your clarity, Voceditenore Tftobin (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] FortressCraft

This page has been going through a heavy edit war between editors and Projector Games staff members. For example, 87.194.139.68 has revealed himself to be the game's lead designer, KingFredrick VI runs the FortressCraft Wiki and HereticKiller6's only edits have been reversions about information that might portray the game in a less than favorable manner. This has been going on far too long and I believe intervention is necessary. Now, I haven't been the biggest contributor to the page, but when I have, I've been caught up in this ridiculous edit war. I think that after ten months of this, we need some administrative attention to this page. DarthBotto talk•cont 04:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see something done about this, namely the banning of the listed users (as the reasons why are very clear). I've been watching from the sidelines for quite awhile and I did revert one of Heretic's edits, but Cluebot reverted my revert. The article itself is now highly biased (or whatever the correct term is) towards the creator of the game, thanks to numerous ungodly edits from the listed-above editors. 209.159.183.132 (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Side note: If I remember correctly, KingFrederick also seems to favour editing the CastleMiner. Might wanna examine that article to see how biased it is. 209.159.183.132 (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Department of Corrections (New Zealand)

The user is strongly interested in problems with the New Zealand criminal justice system and has been editing articles (mainly the two above) to reflect his views. After these edits were noticed several regular New Zealand editors looked at the articles and reverted much of what he has done and tried to engage him. Eventually he has admitted that he is Barry Horton Roger Brooking and has written a book on the subject and various other activities.

However he has refused to admit that he has a conflict of interest in the subject or that his edits reflect that COI. He has also accused myself directly (and possibly another editor) of being employed by the Dept of Corrections. His edits continue and I am getting a little frustrated, perhaps somebody from outside NZ might be able to help. Most of the discussion is on the Talk:Department of Corrections (New Zealand) page. - SimonLyall (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Mr Lyall has outed me a second time by placing a link to my book above. He harrassed me the talk page of the Department of Corrections and that conversation was deleted by Beeblebrox. He now continues to harrass me here!!! Being knowledgeable on a particular subject does not qualify as a conflict of interest. Perhaps someone would consider implementing wikipedia's harassment policy against Mr Lyall.Offender9000 (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I would ask that editors review the talk page (and participant's edits) to see exactly who outed who and who may (or not) have a conflict of interest rather than going off statements here. - SimonLyall (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I am involved in this as well. SimonLyall has a very different style to myself, but I'll not fault his actions. It is also worth pointing out that Offender9000 is an WP:SPA with >1000 edits in this area. I wrote a posting (see below) but withdraw it because both SimonLyall and Offender9000 beat me to it and all the important points are similar. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Since User:Offender9000 is repeatedly charging SimonLyall and myself with COI, I've added us to the userlinks above. I don't see the User:Offender9000 has posted any evidence, however, and it's not a claim I support. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I have gone through the edits and can confirm that Offender9000 outed himself as follows: he introduced a reference in this edit and identified himself as the author of the work cited in this edit. To me that is self-outing, surely: once individuals have identified themselves, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest in appropriate forums. However, I am a little confused as the name referred to by SimonLyall above is not that given on the web page of the work cited. Some material on talk page was removed as it related to outing so I am asking the admin to comment on this.Babakathy (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I'm using the name above rather than the name of the author. Barry Horton is a misspelling of the name of an acquaintance of mine. No idea why I put it in above, my mind must have wandered at the time. Sorry for the confusion - SimonLyall (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I have been involved in this, but solely in my capacity as an admin and oversighter. The edits that were removed were edits where attempted outing by Offender9000 of other users was present on the page. I removed the entire section because article talk pages are for discussing articles, not the users who edit them. Offender9000 did in fact out themselves by openly admitting authorship of some of the refs they were adding, so there is no issue there. As I have told these users multiple times, what is needed here is a re-focus of this discussion to comment on proposed edits instead of each other. COI is merely a factor to be considered, the value of an edit or the source used to verify it is in no way dependent on who made the edit, so I would again ask that these users comment on content, not each other. I've repeatedly suggested to the involved parties to pursue some form of WP:DR, and I've protected the page to stop their edit warring. I don't know why none of them seem interested in soliciting a wider range of opinion through DR, but that is what needs to happen if this ever going to be resolved. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
    We were going to see how this all turned out. I was hoping that somebody could at least point out to Offender9000 that he has just a little COI here since he is unable to acknowledge that or that it is relevant. While he was no doubt hoping that once we were all exposed as employees of the Dept (see below) he would be free to make sure the articles were "correct" - SimonLyall (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
    Have been working on analysing the edits, will post soon. I also wanted Beeblebrox's comments on the outing issue before making any mistakes myself.Babakathy (talk) 06:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis

  1. I have tried to make a review of 425 accumulated revisions by 9 users (mostly Offender9000). The old version is the last edit before Offender9000 started editting. The newer version is the last edit by Offender9000 before Stuartyeates or SimonLyall started editting. I think. I hope that gives me an overview of the material contributed by Offender9000 which is under discussion.
  2. Offender9000 introduced a reference to the book Flying Blind in this edit and identified himself as the author of the work cited in this edit. To me that is self-outing, surely: once individuals have identified themselves, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest in appropriate forums. This view is confirmed by the admin who looked into the outing, Beeblebrox here. Following the link inserted by Offender9000 in this edit, the author of Flying Blind is Roger Brooking, which is pertinent to analysis of the edits.
    I DID NOT OUT MYSELF. I merely acknowledged that I, Offender9000, was the author of Flying Blind. AT NO STAGE DID I ADD MY NAME TO ANY DISCUSSIONS. Wiki states: When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to reveal the identity of other editors. My name was added to the conversation by others including in this conversation here. Beeblebox deleted an entire section after I pointed out that Mr Lyall and Mr Yeates had outed me. You have also outed me in your analysis. THIS CONSTITUTES REPEATED HARRASSMENT Offender9000
    Actually you added your name to the article here: [3] . Daveosaurus (talk) 10:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
    This is a clear case of self-outing, which Beeblebrox confirmed. The precise wording of the policy is Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information. Offender9000 did both by making a post identifying himself as the author of Flying Blind, inserting a reference that provides the name of the author, and by posting links to a website which prominantly displays the name of the author. Babakathy (talk) 06:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  3. The detailed analysis is here.Babakathy (talk)
  4. Roger Brooking has a clear agenda in reforming the NZ prison system and in opposing penal populism, which he pursues in Flying Blind , online, in complaints to broadcasters and so on. From what I read in this article, it needs reform - but that is not the point. Roger Brooking is an alcohol and drug counsellor in Wellington and he provides comprehensive alcohol and drug assessments on offenders - the edits I have gone through argue that these assessments are far too few. Roger Brooking thus has some financial interests associated with the political agenda: as a provider of these assessments and to increase sales of Flying Blind .I am in no way suggesting the financial interests are behind the political agenda or are more important than the politial agenda to Roger Brooking, I am only saying they exist.
  5. The edits advance the political agenda of Roger Brooking and do not contain opposing voices.
  6. If Offender9000 is the author of Flying Blind (as per his self-outing discussed in my introduction), there is a clear COI with both the political agenda advanced off-wiki and the financial interests. This is a clear COI.Babakathy (talk)
    This is a very, very, very long bow to draw. There is big difference between having an interest in a particular subject and having a conflict of interest. Do you want to know how much I make from the sale of each copy of Flying Blind - $1.50. Does that mean ALL the information I provide is irrelevant because I might sell one more copy of the book and earn $1.50. Mr Lyall was deleting everything. One has to wonder why - is it possible he has a conflict?Offender9000 (talk) 07:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
    As regards financial interests, they exist but I have explicitly said I am not suggesting they are more important than the political agenda.
    I stand by my point above that the edits advance the political agenda of Roger Brooking and do not contain opposing voices. That is a serious conflict of interest per the guideline. Note that it is the nature of the edits and the fact that they advance an off-wiki interest that constitute a COI, not the mere fact of the edits. Babakathy (talk) 06:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  7. In summary, while I have a lot of sympathy for the positions advocated by Offender9000 in his edits, the edits are very POV (thus against policy) and the COI is clear and inappropriate (thus against guideline).
  8. Finally, if either of the other two users involved are employed by the Department or closely associated with it, that would be a very clear COI indeed - but I have not looked through their edits yet. Babakathy (talk) 06:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  9. I have updated my analysis to over the edits by Stuartyeates and SimonLyall and I do not think edither of them is editting in violation of WP:COI, no COI. Babakathy (talk)
    Here is the evidence: "Try an reflect on why we are editing this article vs why you are editing this article (hint: it is not because we are employed by the Dept) - SimonLyall (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC) In other words, Mr Lyall acknowledged that he and Mr Yeates work for the Department but subsequently refused to confirm it when asked. Anyone who didn't work for Corrections would have no hesitation in denying it. Instead they repeatedly ask me to prove it - so that then they could accuse me of outing them. I have no need to prove it - because they already outed themselves... Offender9000 (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
    Neither Stuartyeates nor SimonLyall has admitted any such thing in any edit I have seen. (The phrase you cite does not mean what you claim it means.) Also note that at WP:OUTING it states:

    If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information. Doing so would give the person posting the information and anyone else who saw the page feedback on the accuracy of the material.

    So, indeed, it is proper for the editors to refuse to confirm or deny your claims.
    On the article talk page, I suggested that you try to summarise your points in a short, neutrally worded, well sourced paragraph. Instead, you added more jouralistically worded advocacy. In future, if you want your edits to stand, I suggest that you follow the neutrality guidelines that other Wikipedia editors are expected to abide by. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
    WP:COI focuses on the edits, not merely on the editors. The precise wording is Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers.. The analysis that I posted of the edits carried out by Stuartyeates and SimonLyall suggests that comply with WP:NPOV and do not as such constitute editting to promote an outside interest, so there is no breach of COI guideline.Babakathy (talk) 06:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  10. Finally, if the material added by Offender9000 is removed on the basis of the COI and POV, the earlier version has issues of POV (only one statement I think) and WP:COPYVIO that need addressing, as posted by Offender 9000 here.

I am an uninvolved editor and not an admin. Babakathy (talk) 09:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow thats is a lot of work. Thanks for looking into this - SimonLyall (talk) 22:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for this work. I apologize for restoring a POV statement, it was a genuine accident. I have an edit on the talk page of what I think needs to be done to the article, but I'm not going to have time to start that this month, because I'm in the middle of coordinating the local section of Wikipedia:WikiWomen's_History_Month. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I have previously asked Offender9000 to stop referring to me as "Mr Yeates." Stuartyeates (talk) 07:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Noamusician and NOA (singer)

User appears to represent or is the said person in the article in question. Appears to be a conflict of interest given that autobiographies are usually discouraged. Said user account also appears to be for the sole purpose of promoting the abovementioned musician. GrayFullbuster (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The username has been blocked as a SPAMNAME and the article title protected against re-creation. – ukexpat (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Introducing myself

Hello, just wanted to introduce myself to the community. My current employer is Autoweek Media Group. Due to this, I will not be directly editing any Autoweek or Crain Communications articles, but merely making edit suggestions for others to review and implement. Please note that there is a colleague of mine who maintains a Wikipedia account (ChauTime), but we are two separate people. I have read WP:SOCK, am familiar with Wikipedia’s username policies, and will ensure that I refrain from participating in any of the same content discussions.--DetroitSteele (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for being forthcoming about your association. That always makes things much easier for everyone involved if you end up editing that article. I redacted the name of your associate to avoid WP:OUTING. I'm sure you did it in good faith but we have to protect him. He may have already posted here, in which case, we can put the name back. Otherwise, we'll have to wait for him to declare his connection.
Thanks again for declaring your connection. It's much appreciated. OlYeller21Talktome 20:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I'd like to introduce myself as the colleague of User:DetroitSteele as mentioned above. Oldyeller, thank you for your caution - I am OK with my name being posted here on this board, so if possible, can you please retract the redaction? I'd also like to disclose my conflict of interest as I am employed by Autoweek Media Group, and I will not be making direct edits to any of our articles. Thanks! --ChauTime (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi OlYeller21, was hoping you, or someone in the community may be able to help with a stylization request on our Autoweek article. In June of 2011 we switched our branding from "AutoWeek" to "Autoweek" for all mentions of our publication. You can take a look at our site and see that all versions using upper and lower case letters are styled with a capital "A" and lower-case "w" (outside of some metas that I am trying to fix as well). Would really appreciate if someone could make a similar update to our page to reflect our current styling. Thank You!--DetroitSteele (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Rklawton (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Could someone post links sources regarding reviews/awards or anything else notable about this publication? At the moment, this article only has one source, and it doesn't support the information provided in the article. Rklawton (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I redacted my redaction. Sorry for the delay. OlYeller21Talktome 16:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
On a side note, I'd help out but I'm on a Wikibreak. OlYeller21Talktome 16:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rklawton, thank you for making the stylization correction. I appreciate you pointing out that the article is lacking reliable sources, and completely agree. That is part of the reason why I am here, as I can help identify WP:RS. I have created a sandbox and am working to write up a draft of the history section (including reliable sources). This should take a few days, but when completed should I return here, or would it be better to take it to a place like WP:Automobiles?--DetroitSteele (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I recommend putting your work on the article's talk page (always) and post a note in the appropriate project and/or here (optional). Rklawton (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip, as soon as it is ready I will post it on the talk page along with a note on the project page
OlYeller21, I also revised the colleague name from my original post. It appears the update listed myself as the colleague, rather than ChauTime. --DetroitSteele (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Many articles

This user appears to be editing articles and inserting references to himself. This seems like a conflict of interest and original research. There are many more articles than those listed here.

The user appears to be inserting original research which are referenced to himself into tonnes of articles. Original discussion: [4]. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Lipton Brisk

I work for PepsiCo, and I have observed some inaccuracies on the Lipton Brisk page. I would like to provide clarification in hopes of correcting some of these, but I am not sure what course of action to take. Let me disclose that I did make significant edits to the page (which has since been reverted to a prior version); I thought I was following protocol by first disclosing my relationship with PepsiCo on the Brisk talk page and then citing reliable sources for each update. I was not aware of this discussion board and otherwise would have posted here instead. Where can I discuss the inaccuracies and request that a neutral editor make the changes? Scd269 (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The appropriate place is the article's talk page at Talk:Lipton Brisk. Please be prepared to provide reliable sources to substantiate your changes. – ukexpat (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Blackfriars student accommodation

Would someone care to deal with this advert? Halls of Residence tend in my experience to be notable, but here we have a cut & paste from a sales pitch. I'm off doing other stuff and not wanting to touch it right now. thanks Tagishsimon (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like obvious spam to me, and tagged for speedy deletion as such. – ukexpat (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I think three of us were thinking that at the same time, since I was about to delete it but Rklawton beat me to it. SmartSE (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Pure spam. Rklawton (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Peterdevreotes - I'm being asked for advice by someone who has written an article on their boss

This is a draft article in userspace. I'm being asked on my talk page for advice as to how to make it live. This is to be a BLP and the person asking me works for Peter Devreotes. I'm off to bed shortly and really do not know what to advise him because of the COI issue, so if anyone wishes to reply and give some advice on my talk page or his it would be really appreciated. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

First, remind them that once it's published, he loses all control, and the article may become something his boss really won't like. Next, advise them to request the article through the usual means (include the draft in the request). Finally, remind them that everything in the article should be independently sourced. At the moment, I see no actual references in the article. Rklawton (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. But I just discovered that he has moved the article into namespace. Well, to be exact, he's moved his talkpage and a userpage into name space, converting a user into an article. Weird. Dougweller (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Fixed that, and gave him your advice and some more. Thanks again. Dougweller (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] My Conflict of Interest

Hello noticeboard watchers! I have a conflict of interest in my editing, and I would like to disclose it fully. Unfortunately, I haven't ever seen anyone openly disclose this sort of thing. I have created a page User:Achowat/COI to explain my COI as well as the operative steps I will take to ensure that my potential Conflict will never negatively affect the project or my own edits. Would you fine folks be willing to look over my Disclosure and look for any lose ends or the like? Achowat (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It's been five days with no response, so I'm going to de-Watchlist this noticeboard; if comments arise to this post, would someone be so kind as to inform me on my talk? Thanks and Cheers! Achowat (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Possible COI in Sen. David Vitter Article

Hi, I'm a new Wikipedian, so I was hoping some more experienced editors could review this for me. I was looking at the talk page for Sen. David Vitter and I noticed a user had unilaterally removed sections of the article, without seeking editorial input, especially related to the Senator's involvement in the DC Madam Scandal. The user appears to have edited several articles on conservative groups and according to his talk page was banned from Wikipedia in September 2011, about a month after making the edits to Sen. Vitter's page. Could someone more experienced than myself please review the page and see if there indeed have been edits that violate WP:COI or WP:NPOV? Thanks. DerkDark (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Department of Corrections (New Zealand)

Two other editors keep deleting material that I post on the Department of Corrections (New Zealand) website. They appear to have a significant conflict of interest. Beeblebrox has already deleted an entire conversation on the talk page where discussions about the conflict of interest took place and one of them outed me. These two editors are continuing to delete material that I have posted on this page now claiming that it is a coatrack. The material they deleted in the last two days has been up there for weeks - but they didn't make this claim that it represented a coatrack until Beeblebrox intervened. Offender9000 (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I assume that I am one of those editors. I would like to see your evidence of significant conflict of interest please. That or clarify that I am not one of the editors you refer to. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Department of Corrections (New Zealand)

User is a WP:SPA with >1000 edits on this page and related pages. The user pushes an pro-rehabilitation viewpoint, to the point of turning articles into attack pages. Many references were originally to a book which the user says they wrote and appears to have self-published, more recent references are to popular press articles. The user often says that feedback isn't exact and asks for specifics, by which they appear to mean small scale copy-editing. Tellingly this response has appeared in completely different conversations with completely different editors. The user appears to think that WP:BALANCE and WP:ATTACK issues can be fixed by minor copy-editing even when the page largely consists of controversies and negative press related to the topic. The page is currently locked, the the user has been warned for WP:3RR, recently material was removed from the talk page under WP:OUTING. In short a complete mess. Minor secondary issues include (a) the user appearing to be unwilling to learn to cite properly and (b) the users preference for popular press references with no personal by-line over authoritative primary sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflict, see above. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Phoenix Lights

In the Pheonix Lights article a report published by Dr. Bruce Maccabee contains information on his page 5 is missing coordinates for the location of the Lights viewed by Hamilton and King on March 13, 1997 at my home. I had invited the MUFON investigators to my house to review tapes I had recorded of the lights each of previous three nights. They filmed the lights and Maccabee produced his report without reviewing the full tapes in 1998. He made some assumptions based on a frame of film showing a light that appeared 5 minutes prior to the large array. In 2007 I, Steven Blonder, contacted Dr. Maccabee about the omission of my coordinates which would have changed his triangulation of all 4 videos (including the one shot from my home). His triangulation only shows the other 3 videos coordinates he visited in Phoenix. In 2010 Dr. Maccabee agreed to take my sighting into account with new photographic evidence and a submission of coordinates. In March 2010 a Phoenix based investigative journalist shot new twilight pictures which were used with pictures shot in 1997 by Bill Hamilton to use to create film composites of the sighting to determine the span and line of site coordinates using Google Earth. The investigator and I worked together on the project for two years and shared the results with the National Geographic producers who planned to interview the investigator and myself in January for a new two hour show on the history of UFOs. Neither of us did not appeared due to limited time and budget. I've provided a link to the storyboard we drafted on my site and have provided the public with all the data so they could check the results for themselves since the data points to at least two true unknowns in videos shot at my home by Tom King and video shot by Dr. Lynne Kitei (owner of the Phoenix Lights Network site and also linked to from the Phoenix Lights article besides Dr. Maccabee's report, Bill Hamilton's report and others who have been intimately involved in the Sightings. While my site promotes an e-book (by donation) the link I've provided is to all the data collected and processed by Lowe and myself for education and scientific purposes. While I understand that this Sighting has been highly politicized over the years, adding data should not be viewed as self-serving. My book is about my reaction to the Sighting and is not dependent on any findings one way or another. My goal has been, and continutes to be to make sure the coordinates of my key location be included in the study which has been used by many debunkers to prove that all lights seen by all witnesses at 10:00 pm were definitively flares. The data my site is providing challenges that conclusion. Dr. Maccabee has already revised his coordinates for the other witnesses based on the implications of my coodinates and line of site. I would appreciate it if my link can remain on the Wiki entry because it presents the hardest evidence available today from any one witness. Sblonder (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Clothianidin / USEPA James

Someone please have a look at what has been going on at Clothianidin, a pesticide linked with honey bee colony collapse disorder which has been heavily edited by User:USEPA James -- who has said from the outset that he works for the Environmental Protection Agency -- to remove and downplay the connections, contrary to what appear to be very strong statements in secondary peer reviewed sources. After being reverted, there is now forum shopping on noticeboards and attempts to establish "consensus" in his userspace by soliciting opinions of editors who haven't edited on the subject and don't claim to have any particular expertise pertaining to it. Unfortunately, the EPA has been involved in several lawsuits pertaining to honey bees and clothianidin, which USEPA James did not disclose before he started making major revisions to the relevant parts of the article. Guidance from more experienced editors would be helpful here. 66.225.195.47 (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This would appear to be a content dispute, rather than a COI issue. I can't any way that an employee of the EPA could stand to benefit from that article being a certain way. It looks as if there are already experienced editors involved too. SmartSE (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems very unlikely that the editor is actually with the USEPA. Given that similar editing patterns have been occurring on the closely related Imidacloprid article from a variety of IPs and an editor who showed up at about the same time, a sockpuppet investigation would be prudent. 222.165.255.198 (talk) 01:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been watching this develop. If you were a public relations contractor assigned to protect a $1 billion insecticide business facing the nightmare that is http://google.com/search?q=neonicotinoid+bees why would you not try to focus on Wikipedia, which seems to have the only suggestion that the case is not already closed among all the sources of all quality on the first five pages of those Google results? 82.192.79.139 (talk) 07:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire

Hello,

I am a frequent editor of the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire article. I have recently been accused of having a "Conflict of Interest" by user 99.149.229.151. The following conversation took place on the user's talk page:

Hi 99.149.229.151,

I saw you added the conflict of interest tag to the UW-Eau Claire article. As I am the most frequent contributor to this article, I assume you mean me. I take my role as an editor of Wikipedia seriously, and I strive for neutrality at all times. If you could point to specific portions of the article that violate neutrality, I would appreciate it.

Thanks,

88guy88 (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the first thing we need to know is if you are an employee of the university and, if so, are your edits in Wikipedia done on university time. Thank you. 99.149.229.151 (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not an employee of UW-Eau Claire, and I have never been an employee of UW-Eau Claire. I will not be answering any further personal questions about my employment or my work schedule as they are intrusive and inappropriate. Again, please point to specific portions of the article that violate neutrality.

Thanks,

88guy88 (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

As of yet, I have not received a reply from the user. I did, however, ask User:Woohookitty, an admin and frequent contributor to Wisconsin related articles, to pitch in and help out. I wrote:

Hi Woohookitty,

I noticed that you have made several edits on Wisconsin related articles, so I was hoping you could help me out. The UW-Eau Claire article has been the subject of a couple of controversies these past few weeks. The article was recently accused of engaging in "academic boosterism." I took this accusation to the dispute resolution noticeboard, and I worked out an amicable solution. (I removed some problematic sentences and used more third-party sources). Recently, a user has given the article the Conflict of Interest tag. I assume the user is refering to my edits, as I am by far the most active editor on the UW-Eau Claire article. I know that admins do not engage in "dispute resolution," but I was still hoping you would be kind enough to closely look over the article, not to "pick sides" but to help make useful edits and give constructive advice to all parties involved. Whatever the case, I feel it has been too long since an experienced administrator has worked on the article. Any help you could offer would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

88guy88 (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Woohookitty replied thusly: It's my alma matter, so I'd be glad to take a look. :) Class of 98. :) --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 01:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

These posts comprise the entirety of the dispute. So far, no action has been taken and the Conflict of Interest tag remains at the top of the article. I hope that members of this forum will look over my edits and will offer constructive advice. As I said to user 99.149.229.151, I take my role as an editor of Wikipedia seriously. I strongly feel that I do not have a conflict of interest, and, since 99.149.229.151 has provided zero evidence of such a conflict, I think this dispute can be resolved quickly.

Thanks for your help,

88guy88 (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

All I am asking 88guy88 to do is declare his connection to the university in full since virtually all of his edits have to do with the university article or articles directly related to it. If he has nothing to hide, why is he being so defensive? 99.149.229.151 (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
If his edits are neutral, sufficiently notable, are cited with reliable, verifiable sources, why do you care? Results matter - not motivation. Rklawton (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have already written that am not and never have been employed by the university. Let's assume good faith and not ask mean-spirited leading questions - i.e., "If he has nothing to hide..." C'mon, let's avoid this type of nonsense and work to better the article as a team! 88guy88 (talk) 03:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Agreed - any more demands for self-outing would clearly constitute harassment and warrant sanctions. Rklawton (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I am certainly not out to get anyone sanctioned. I also would like a couple of admins to look over the article to see if they can find any violations of neutrality. I know I'm not perfect! I think Woohookitty might be the one for the job, though I would be grateful for any other admins/experienced editors to jump in and help out. Whatever the case, I have to say I find the "Conflict of Interest" tag quite annoying; it seems to be little more than an unsubstantiated accusation of my motives. What steps need to be taken before it can be removed? 88guy88 (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Since user 99.149.229.151 has not provided evidence of a conflict of interest, I am going to remove the tag. I will also leave a message on his talk page informing him of the removal of the tag. If we could keep this discussion open for a few more days (in case the user would like to bring forward evidence) I would appreciate it.

Thanks,

88guy88 (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Norwegian Defence League biased rewrite attempt

I have just started the section Talk:Norwegian Defence League#Possible COI major rewrite reverted about what may appear to be an underhanded attempt at slanting the article by removing mention of information that could be seen as damaging to the article's subject. I'm also notifying the NPOV noticeboard. I have ventured to revert the contentious edit. I have also requested on Filippusson's talk page that any COI issues be disclosed (I'm unsure whether it is appropriate to notify both boards, but I'm unsure which is the more correct one). My own connection to the subject has been declared on the article's talk page. __meco (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have some reason to believe the user has a COI, more than the POV of the edit? Babakathy (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you realize just how horrid an article it is at this point? Including obvious COATRACK issues and violations of WP:BLP even if the people are the most horrid people in the world, Wikipedia policies still apply. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting removal of a sentence on Dairy Management Inc. Wikipedia page

Dairy Management Inc. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I am an employee of Dairy Management Inc., writing on behalf of the organization in regards to the Wikipedia page posted for Dairy Management Inc. I am requesting removal of a sentence that misrepresents the organization and how it is funded.

The misrepresenting sentence is in the second paragraph; specifically the second sentence. This sentence reads “It is funded by a tax imposed on dairy farmers administered by the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board”. Dairy Management, Inc. is funded by a weight assessment fee charged to dairy producers, as depicted in the following sentence, “The corporation has 162 employees and a budget of about $140 million mostly funded by fees charged to dairy producers. It is headed by longtime chief executive Thomas P. Gallagher.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoseDMI (talk • contribs) 17:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a difference between "diary producer" and "diary farmer"? Rklawton (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Dairy farmers have cows; dairy producers, actually dairy processors, process dairy products, see Dairy Promotion Program. There is little overlap. I think I probably put the language Rose is complaining about in the article. Wrong, someone else reverted my edits and put in their unsourced POV opinion see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dairy_Management_Inc.&diff=448161042&oldid=448100715 . I can remember having a great deal of trouble researching the matter. Not sure what is right. There is a dual structure though, I remember that, which confuses things. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
All edits made after my last edit, and the edit complained of have an anti-marketing POV. Whether commodity checkoff is tax is more a bone to chew on than a fact. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
This edit is particularly perverse; I am no friend of animal fat and find a vacuous slogan promoting it, "Offering the products consumers want, where and when they want them." just the ticket. No criticism is more devastating than one's own words emphasized. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on COI guideline

People here may be interested in a current request for comment regarding the COI guideline and this noticeboard: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COI. SmartSE (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wendy E. Long

BLP subject has recently announced a candidacy for U.S. Senate from New York. Recently SPA Lynnbaby has begun pruning and shaping the page sloppily, several times trying to insert a headshot in copyright vio. In view of the circumstances, it appears to my eyes that Lynnbaby is somehow connected to the subject. Look at the photo caption in this version. BusterD (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I created this page during the Sonia Sotomayor hearings, noting the outspoken involvement of the subject and listing works. BusterD (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of warning the user named. BusterD (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Ebuyer

I'm afraid I don't have time to look into this right now, but the recent edits to Ebuyer are rather spammy. Cheers, Alex Muller 09:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, screw that. After reading the entire diff I've just reverted to an old revision. It's ridiculously spammy, removing all the negative stuff Alex Muller

[edit] Sandra Shevey

I would appreciate a quick review of the edits at Talk:Sandra Shevey wherein the subject is blanking notability discussion and replacing it with promotional material. I have some involvement in the article and would appreciate someone else stepping in to explain the nuances of COI to Ms. Shevey. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Tov Rose

User Toviaheli has been trying to create article Tov Rose. This article has been speedy-deleted twice before (at least) as non-notable. With the latest attempt Toviaheli has added a lot of personal detail about Tov Rose, such as birthplace, father's profession, information about his siblings, and places he lived growing up, all entirely without attribution (in fact, this BLP is entirely unsourced) and none of this information looks to be available anywhere online. Getting suspicious, in my AfD for the article I brought up the COI issue here. Since then, I have twice now direcly asked Toviaheli if he is Tov Rose, here and here. Toviaheli has since edited the AfD page several times now and has avoided addressing the issue. I have even put a talkback notice on Toviaheli's talk page here and he has not responded. With this edit summary Toviaheli indicates he "contacted" Tov Rose. Toviaheli needs to explain his relationship to Tov Rose so that we can make sure his edits comply with Wikipedia WP:COI policy. Zad68 (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC) I have notified Toviaheli of this discussion here Zad68 (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Tareq Salahi

Since December a user with names that infer a relationship with the subject of this article has been making edits to the article on Tareq Slahi. I'd appreciate some eyes on the article to check to see if there is anything there that violates WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE. Considering the public drubbing Salahi endured after the 2009 U.S. state dinner security breaches and that this is a BLP, I think the situation needs to be handled with care. AniMate 20:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:TurkishFootball

All contribution of this user is limited to adding links to a website entitled www.turkish-football.com either in external links or refereces. This website is niche based on number of user comments posted there and looks like a personal website. There are also many copyright violations of images there. Therefore I think that User:TurkishFootball is using wikipedia to advertise a website with which he is associated.--Oleola (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

User name reported to WP:UAA. – ukexpat (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
And now spamblocked. – ukexpat (talk) 13:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Seth Morgan Romero

The article for Seth Morgan Romero was created by Malvinworks, who I believe is the subject of the article itself. (See these links which shows that Malvinworks posted on IMDb under the original name, which was later changed to match the name of the article subject: [5] [6] [7]) The article has also been edited by two other users whose sole edits have been to the Romero article and to defend the article in its AfD discussion. There has been repeated deletion of the AfD template as well. I've warned the users by posting the COI template and tagged the article accordingly, but I'd like it if someone could check to see if all of the editors are from the same IP or area. I have a suspicion that due to the extremely limited notability of the article subject, that they're either all one person or are several of Romero's friends editing to try to keep the article. I do want to say on their behalf that they are merely arguing the deletion and are not trying to flood the discussion with "keep" votes. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

  • Additional. One of the editors (OmniWorldMan) has posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Morgan Romero the following: "I'm an assistant at Constance Productions. We're working on maintaining Wiki articles not only on Seth Morgan, but other sources pertaining the company."Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

[edit] Jeffree Star discography

This discography page (especially the Singles section) keeps on being changed by the artist User:Jsteininger and User:Jeffreesworld, their fan page, which states that the information that's currently on the page is truth, but sources state that the information is false. User:Jeffreesworld has tweeted me on Twitter stating, "It doesn't matter what research you've done, it's what Jeffree wants up there that will be up there." I thought that the articles on Wikipedia weren't supposed to be ran by the person themselves, ie What if User:KatyPerry ran the page Katy Perry and all of it's sub pages? That wouldn't be right. There's no notability when a person edits it themselves. Jeffree Star/User:Jsteininger has even tweeted me saying that I've "REPEATED made [stuff] up and caused problems" and in another tweet he stated "STOP changing my photos and info." I didn't do anything wrong. I just changed a spelling error and removed a deleted photo and added a new one. Devin Davis (talk) 22:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=479880601"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export