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)
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:

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.


File uploaded by Chastized. "Evidence: The license statement can be found online at:". User Jerry Doby.


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


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


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)
There is a pending AfD for this article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hype Magazine. It needs some additional opinions. John Nagle (talk) 06:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Result of AfD was "Delete". John Nagle (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Related COI. Paid editing clean up, Blanco Caine/TheUrbanLink, Edubb/Jdobypr duffbeerforme (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Some of the editors who were involved in the Walterlan Papetti article (now deleted, but edited by Chastized among others, see the first diff above) and its AfD discussion have now clustered to another AfD where they argue to have that article deleted - I'm not sure whether this is merely POINTY or what, but it is frankly a bit puzzling. People with more experience of the modus operandi of this group would be welcome to take a look. --bonadea contributions talk 11:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
That was deleted, too. We seem to be done here. John Nagle (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate Controversy[edit]

Cortes Wesley Randell[edit]

This was never a great article to begin with, but over the past few months it has been heavily edited by either the person who is the subject or someone closely associated with them. This has been done to remove or whitewash negative information about Mr Randell's past. I believe that the accounts in use are sockpuppets. I think it needs a great deal of reverting or rewriting, and something to be done about these sockpuppets PredatorsFan (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I did a big revert to before the anon edits. See Talk:Cortes Wesley Randell. Bogus info was being inserted; for example, the article said he had published three books. One of the three is a real book, but he didn't write or publish it. (It's a paperback version of public domain testimony before Congress, anyway.) The other two I can't find in Amazon, Bookfinders, or the Library of Congress catalog. LC does not show him as having authored anything. Please watch this article for further bogus additions. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Gustavo Ferraro[edit]

I have come across the entry for Gustavo Ferraro. The editor DaltonCastle has blatantly disregarded all the removed information and reasoning behind it. This editor has taken their crusade against anyone they perceives has a connection to Néstor Kirchner or Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and created entries that are set up solely to include a section filled with quotes and theories by editors of publications to attack. The list includes Carlos Zannini, Miguel Ángel Pires, Carlos Molinari, Enrique Omar Suárez, César Guido Forcieri, Juan Pablo Schiavi and Federico Elaskar. And those are just the new ones the editor created. This editor allegedly used LinkedIn to create the background before the accusations against Gustavo Ferraro but that source doesn't exist. I will request speedy deletion of this entry but wanted to note the obvious non-neutral and conflicted agenda of the editor that should be examined. Wikipedia is not meant to be a venting blog for theorists.--SimpleStitch (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This gets complicated. The article needs someone who's up to speed on the Argentine debt restructuring to straighten it out. It's going to take more sources to resolve where this person fits into that crisis. Mentioning this on the debt restructuring talk page. John Nagle (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings. I have addressed this issue on the Talk page for Gustavo Ferraro but will make a quick note here. I have a long history of working on pages related to political corruption. I have many interests on Wikipedia but this is certainly one of them. I apologize if SimpleStitch feels offended, but I can assure anyone taking note of this that my work is based solely on personal interest and research. I do my best to use many sources and cover many viewpoints, although that can be difficult with controversial characters who have a great deal of negative press.DaltonCastle (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

John Nagle the problem with this entry is it has no source for the background of the individual claimed. The editor used a dishonest practice to avoid an orphan tag, which was removed. The copy presented is opinions and theories of editors of the publications. This is not Occupy Wall Street and Wikipedia is not meant for individuals to slight anyone. It's not an opposing view or fringe theories, the point is Wiki has no views, it's facts.--SimpleStitch (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I have no opinion one way or the other on this. My point was merely that dealing with this problem knowledge about the Argentine debt crisis. So I put a note on the talk page for Argentine debt restructuring to ask for help. John Nagle (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Integris and the advertising agency Ackerman McQueen[edit]

It appears that articles related to the company Integris Health are the subject of highly promotional editing by the advertising agency Ackerman McQueen.

Articles affected:

External link:


These editors are all essentially single-purpose accounts creating the Integris articles, adding promotional content to them and the related articles, and/or adding external links to across multiple articles. The user Ackermanmcqueen has an obvious username connection to the agency. Ajoseph213 said, "I'm the Digital Marketing Specialist for INTEGRIS Health". WhitleyOConnor started the article Ackerman McQueen. Deli nk (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

USBWA National Freshman of the Year and Ackerman McQueen turn out to be relatively decent articles at present. The first one doesn't even mention Integris, and there are lots of news references to players winning that award, so that's probably OK. The Ackerman McQueen article is just a stub, it says they're the ad agency behind the NRA, and has a good reference to a non-flattering Washington Post article about it. So we're left with the hospital articles. John Nagle (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The hospital articles have too much advertising-like prose. I've been taking out lines like "Each of these facilities uses state-of-the-art technology in its battle against illness and is led by highly skilled, experienced and caring individuals who are committed to staying at the forefront of medical technology to give patients from across Oklahoma the best care available." That's ad copy, unsuitable for Wikipedia. See WP:PEACOCK. John Nagle (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
There are only four hospitals, but there were seven articles, some of which were about subunits of the hospitals. We're now down to five articles, and if the merge for the cancer center is approved, we'll be down to four. John Nagle (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Removed some more peacocking and brochure-like language from the hospital articles. They could use more information from reliable sources, and less from in-house sources. These are reasonably large hospitals; they should be covered well in Wikipedia. As paid editing goes, this wasn't too bad.John Nagle (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look and fixing/improving the articles. Deli nk (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


I have a conflict of interest and would like to advertise the discussion I started "poorly sourced contentious material" primarily regarding the second half of the "Controversy" section, which relies heavily on blog posts and forums, as well as the section on RealAlternative, which seems to rely on equally poor sources like personal blogs and

I didn't think it would be appropriate to remove poorly-sourced criticisms myself, so I have used the Talk page and asked that a disinterested editor take a quick look. If someone has a few minutes to make whatever edits seem appropriate, I'd appreciate it. CorporateM (Talk) 15:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)