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:

User:Cryongen[edit]

The user contributions, both articles and materials still in their sandbox, shows a pattern that might possibly represent undeclared paid COI editing. I've given a warning for promotionalism, but I leave it to others to investigate further. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here. Jytdog (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog seems to have cleaned this up. Muthoot Pappachan Group had two obvious SPAs, and the active one, Muthoot MPG (talk · contribs), has been blocked. Cryongen has been cautioned. I went through the article and took out some of the more promotional language such as "jewel in the crown" (referring to a hotel). Their charitable work needs a citation, too. John Nagle (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Editor Johnmoor[edit]

Johnmoor (talk · contribs) appears to be a paid editor, editing against a conflict of interest to promote people and products on Wikipedia. There's little or nothing to add from the previous COIN discussion. It ended when Johnmoor apparently left Wikipedia. He's returned. He's never addressed the overwhelming evidence that he is here editing articles against our COI policy, likely being paid to do so. He's never denied his identity. He denies being the paid editor that uses his name, photographs of himself, and the same graphic that he has on his userpage. He ignores the evidence that he is editing against a COI. --Ronz (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ronz where in WP is the outside matter discussed? Also, I read User_talk:Johnmoor/Archive_2#Paid_editing.3F with interest. He did not say that he is not a paid editor - he didn't answer the question, and you didn't push for a yes or no. Lost opportunity there. Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I tend to be conservative when it comes to discussions about editors activities outside WP, so there's not much besides the previous COIN, User_talk:Ronz#Nofel_Izz, and User_talk:Bilby/Archive_10#Nofel_Izz. --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Defence

When you are in conflict with Ronz (talk · contribs), you get accused of so many things! I am not paid to contribute, but in trying to get me to stop contributing to articles that I am in dispute with him, here are some of Ronz's numerous accusations:

  1. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 68#Editor Johnmoor
  2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive221#User:Johnmoor reported by Ronz .28talk.29 .28Result: .29
  3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive221#User:Johnmoor reported by Ronz .28talk.29 .28Result:Warning .29
  4. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard&oldid=577993322#Grammarly
  5. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive 43#VOSS Solutions needs rewrite
  6. Wikipedia:Administrators%27 noticeboard/3RRArchive253&oldid=621992605#User:Johnmoor reported by User:Ronz .28Result: .29
  7. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive258#User:Johnmoor reported by User:Ronz .28Result: Both warned.29

There are also extensive discussions on the talk pages of Talk:Grammarly and Talk:Nofel Izz, and to ensure that I get blocked, Ronz reached out to other users too — User talk:Bilby#Johnmoor being discussed at COIN again and User talk:Bilby/Archive 10#Nofel Izz. Thank you.
JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

As I wrote on your Talk page you behave very much like a paid editor. Your content has too much puffery and your sourcing is really bad - way too many press releases. You don't seem to be following our policies for content at all, regardless of your motivation. Content should be stated in a neutral manner, with WEIGHT given to content based on what reliable independent sources say about the subject. You are creating a ton of work for the rest of the community to clean up after you. The accusations of paid editing would have less meat on them if you wrote better, and better sourced content. That is all about your behavior and is completely in your control to improve. Jytdog (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Johnmoor, it is probably in your best interests just to walk away from the Nofel Izz articles. Would you be willing just to let Nofel Izz and the related articles go? - Bilby (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog, How many of my contributions have you reviewed, and how long ago where those with perceived "puffery" created? Users grow and improve here. Besides, I disagree with your presumption on my talk page. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Bilby, I do not think that it is right for any user to be asked to walk away from any article or content; if you have issues with the contents of Nofel Izz or my contribution there, let us discuss it, because I do not know of any of its related article to which I am actively contributing. Besides, have you asked Ronz to walk away from it or even cautioned him for WP:WIKIHOUNDING me all this while? No, you have not! —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
And as I wrote on your Talk page, you can be combative and ignore good advice, and keep doing down the path you are on (which In my view will lead you getting blocked for promotional editing) or you can listen and change. It is your choice, completely. Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Johnmoor, I'm not concerned about Ronz as my interest here is only in ensuring that editors abide by the terms of use, which require that they disclose their relationship with clients when being paid to edit articles. I have no reason to believe that Ronz was hired to edit Nofel Izz, but if there was compensation involved I would insist on disclosure or walking away from directly editing the article. - Bilby (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

As expected, Johnmoor refuses to address the evidence. --Ronz (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

So two straightforward questions for Johnmoor:

  1. Have you been paid for any of your editing on Wikipedia?
    No! —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. You have used information obtained directly from the subjects of the articles you have written about. What relationship did you have with them when they provided you with this information? (Obviously, they had contact information for Johnmoor that they obtained somehow, they trusted Johnmoor with the information, and provided the information for the purpose of creating the articles.) --Ronz (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    No! —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    It's not question where a yes or no response is meaningful. We know you have interactions with the subjects of the articles you've created. The question is what is the nature of the relationship with those persons and companies. --Ronz (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Johnmoor has been indef blocked for denying his conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup needed=[edit]

While I've quickly skimmed his remaining contributions, a thorough review is needed given his habit of using primary sources (mostly press releases) with few if any better sources. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Myitsone Dam[edit]

I've edited the talk page at Myitsone Dam and proposed some changes. I work for Bell Pottinger and represent China Power Investment Corporation, the major contractor in the project. If anyone wants to take a look, please post there or on my talk page. Thanks. Jthomlinson1 (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

DCNS[edit]

Unexplained removal of scandalous material in an article about a warship exporting company after burying said material below adspeak in a rewrite of the history section. I post this here without first attempting "ordinary talk page discussion" because I hope to get the attention of uninvolved users who may not read that talk page, so that perhaps somebody will at some point bother to inspect the user's other contributions, as there may (or may not) be more such cases that would otherwise go unnoticed. I do not want to further investigate myself, but at the same time I don't want to just ignore such an edit. To the contributor's credit, he's neither hiding the fact that he "work[s] in a french public relation agency" on his user page, nor has he archived away from his talk page an "only warning" dated February 2013. I have notified the user on his talk page. Thank you. 82.83.83.63 (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that searching this noticeboard's archives for the contributor's username returned no results. Wikipedia:Paid editing (essay) says: "It has, however, been made by consensus that editors who are paid represent a clear conflict-of-interest and are strongly encouraged to state this on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard what articles they are being paid to edit and declare whom they are working for before doing so." — By the way, I think there is at least one error in that sentence, but I am not a native speaker. 82.83.83.63 (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, Lc29en does seem to have rather narrow editing interests - DCNS, and the CEO of DCNS. The article has clearly promotional material: "The vision defines the destination to be reached, while the strategy determines the way to get there. In an effort to boost its performance in order to achieve its ambitions of growth, DCNS is focussing particularly closely on innovation, internationalisation and responsible development." Some cleanup is in order. --John Nagle (talk) 05:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Trimmmed some of the excess promotional verbiage. Is anything more than that needed? John Nagle (talk) 05:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't know whether more is needed, I trust your or others' judgement.
I have resurrected mention of the Taiwanese frigates scandal; after its removal, the reference in the controversy section no longer made sense. I think the scandal's magnitude as evidenced by the BBC quotation deserves it a mention in the lede. I was hesitant about linking to La Fayette-class frigate#Taiwan_frigates_scandal. The scandal is about corporate irresponsibility, so I think any information about it belongs in the article(s) of the involved companies until the scandal gets its own article, and La Fayette-class frigate should be about the warships themselves. 82.83.82.22 (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
No opinion on that. Incidentally, you can register for a Wikipedia account for free. This is helpful if you engage in extensive discussions, because everyone can tell it's the same person even if the IP address changes. John Nagle (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Malapr[edit]

Account is being used only for promotional purposes - Malaprop's edits look like GF edits, however the user has only been heavily promoting the JAMA family of paid academic journals.

Adding promo to JAMA publications:

Adding multiple references in medicine-related articles to paid publications by the JAMA network:

Strongly smells of COI or marketing.

Additionally, edits are supposed to look like sources of the said information, whereas these are just external links mostly unrelated to the sentence or paragraph where they have been inserted.

kashmiri TALK 20:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

appears to be a PR firm account, the name of which violates our username policy. I have put the template there. And Kashmiri please make sure you notify folks if you post about them here. it is in red lettering with "must" underlined at the top of this page. I have notified them. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Sorry, it's my first report here, I usually worked on SPI where you don't really notify the users... Will pay attention next time. Regards, kashmiri TALK 21:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing it in any case! and i hear about the difference at SPI - notification is optional there! Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

We also have User:Dempr who appears associated. As long as they are using secondary sources and those sources support the content in question do we have an issue? Of course we have the user name issue but that can be easily fixed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but will you have time to go through all these articles and check whether they contain anything relevant to the matter they are supposed to be sources of? Judging from the username (PR agency) they likely have been inserted with a degree of randomness... I removed the edits but feel free to revert or add them to "Further reading" section. BTW, articles in question are not really about rare diseases, and plenty of literature is available out there, including open access - so why adding commercial-access references? kashmiri TALK 09:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I went through the articles. He seems to be working unfairly to add citations to JAMA. His edits need to be reverted and someone should ban him as it is giving the JAMA authors a huge comparative advantage in citations: people tend to cite wiki unless they are familiar with topic. Limit-theorem (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Further, to avoid citation bias, articles need to be cited organically by those contributing to the articles.Limit-theorem (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I went through them this morning, and Kashmiri and Doc James had already been over both editors' contribs. Please review more thoroughly going forward. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Greta Berlin and Free Gaza Movement[edit]

The Greta Berlin and Free Gaza Movement articles have been subject to advocacy in the past. The account Truegreta was indefinitely blocked after a discussion here.[1] The COI and was further discussed at an admin's talk page.[2]

A COI concern was addressed here regarding user:Tecspk@aol.com.[3] The email address shows affiliation with the subjects.

I believe the account should be blocked due to evasion. The advocacy concerns are secondary.Cptnono (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)