Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Genetically Modified Food Controversies: on conflicts of interest, specifically the lack thereof
Line 272: Line 272:
Just dropping here a quick note to say that I have been in contact with Jytdog, and I am confident that he does not have a conflict of interest with respect to GMOs, or GMO food controversies, or other such things. I will likely provide a more detailed statement soon. [[User:Someguy1221|Someguy1221]] ([[User talk:Someguy1221|talk]]) 05:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Just dropping here a quick note to say that I have been in contact with Jytdog, and I am confident that he does not have a conflict of interest with respect to GMOs, or GMO food controversies, or other such things. I will likely provide a more detailed statement soon. [[User:Someguy1221|Someguy1221]] ([[User talk:Someguy1221|talk]]) 05:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
:Thanks, Someguy1221! In my opinion, that completely puts to rest any question about Jytdog editing with an undisclosed COI (not that there was really any question before, either). Any further statements about Jytdog's supposed COI without new and substantial evidence really should be regarded as violations of [[WP:NPA]], particularly if made on article talk pages. We should be able to move on from that now. And this noticeboard is not the correct place to discuss whether or not [[WP:COI]] is unclear or whatever. Improvements to [[WP:COI]] should be discussed at [[WT:COI]]. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 13:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
:Thanks, Someguy1221! In my opinion, that completely puts to rest any question about Jytdog editing with an undisclosed COI (not that there was really any question before, either). Any further statements about Jytdog's supposed COI without new and substantial evidence really should be regarded as violations of [[WP:NPA]], particularly if made on article talk pages. We should be able to move on from that now. And this noticeboard is not the correct place to discuss whether or not [[WP:COI]] is unclear or whatever. Improvements to [[WP:COI]] should be discussed at [[WT:COI]]. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 13:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


Wikipedia defines a conflict of interest in the following manner: "''When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.''" [[WP:COI|The guideline]] goes on to describe in more detail various types of conflicts of interest.<p>In a nutshell, {{User|Jytdog}} does not have a conflict of interest. To my knowledge, based on both Jytdog's email to me, and information I found elsewhere, he does not have any financial motive to promote the safety of genetically modified organisms.<p>While it is true that some researchers within Jytdog's university system receive public and private funding for GMO research and dissemination, and the university system may profit from the resulting technology, the campus where Jytdog works does not perform agricultural research or hold agricultural patents. Jytdog's day to day work has nothing to do with agricultural biotechnology, and he receives no financial benefit from public acceptance of GMOs.<p>I don't know if some editors feel that university students and employees may have a conflict of interest regarding technologies that may profit the university, but I do not. Your typical university has hundreds or thousands of scientists conducting research on a myriad of subjects. For a sufficiently large university, such a viewpoint would declare that every student and employee has a conflict of interest in nearly every technological subject, even though most obtain no financial or otherwise personal benefit from the research.<p>I sincerely believe, based on the information provided to me, that Jytdog is not motivated by personal gain or anything else that may be defined by Wikipedia as a conflict of interest. The same general theme here also goes for {{user|a13ean}}, who also emailed me with his personal information.<p>For full disclosure, for about a year I held a job as a technician with a group that developed genetically modified organisms. I have not held that job now for years. I gain no financial benefit from their continued work, and I have no desire to return to that group when I graduate. I am currently a graduate student at a University where research into GMOs is conducted, but my own work does not touch the subject, no one in my lab studies GMOs, and I gain no personal benefit from the work conducted by those scientists who do. [[User:Someguy1221|Someguy1221]] ([[User talk:Someguy1221|talk]]) 00:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


== Allison Crowe ==
== Allison Crowe ==

Revision as of 00:19, 22 August 2013

Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    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 meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. 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.
    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.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • 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. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. 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|Article}}.
    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, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 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 meets 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:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:Bashir Al-Hashimi
    Talk:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Monica Behan
    Talk:Madeline Bell (hospital executive)
    Talk:Marc Benioff
    Talk:Shmuley Boteach
    Talk:Michael Calvey
    Talk:Commvault
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Data Commons
    Talk:Vincenzo de Cotiis
    Talk:Nina L. Diaz
    Talk:Daniel Diermeier
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:Earth Journalism Network
    Talk:Mary Baker Eddy
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Nigel Edwards (health)
    Talk:Eric Gallager
    Talk:Ex Libris Group
    Talk:Far East Organization
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Global Citizen Awards
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Golden State Foods
    Talk:GoToGate
    Talk:Grail (company)
    Talk:Grayscale Investments
    Talk:Greystar
    Talk:Grove Collaborative
    Talk:Harsco
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Huron Consulting Group
    Talk:Illa del Rei
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Jats
    Talk:Christian Kälin
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:Kennedy Center Honors
    Talk:Kathleen Kingsbury
    Talk:A. Gary Klesch
    Talk:Lally School of Management
    Talk:LD (cigarette)
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Leviton
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:Mark Twain Prize for American Humor
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:MongoDB Inc.
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Nuffield Trust
    Talk:One Energy
    Talk:Oneok
    Talk:Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation
    Talk:Dana G. Peleg
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Poster House
    Talk:Joely Proudfit
    Talk:Shlomo Rakib
    Talk:Bob Renney
    Talk:Reworld
    Talk:Rivulis
    Talk:Royal Match
    Talk:Rakefet Russak-Aminoach
    Talk:Science Inc.
    Talk:Simprints
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:Spotfire
    Talk:A. G. Sulzberger
    Talk:Steve Tappin
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Topps
    Talk:TowerBrook Capital Partners
    Talk:UK Biobank
    Talk:Carla Ulbrich
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Martha G. Welch
    Talk:Xsolla

    Louise Blouin Media

    Louise Blouin Media appears to have been created by someone using a username similar to the real-world name of an employee of that company, and to have been subsequently edited by at least three other editors with usernames very similar to the real-world names of other employees of the company, who of course may or may not actually be those employees. The edit histories of two of them also include massive and systematic additions or modifications of external links to the website(s) of the same company in many articles here. I have left {{Uw-coi}} notices on their talkpages. Can the problems arising from this all be dealt with here? If not, who else should be notified? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going to take a look now but can you help us out by listing all of the affected articles in the top of the report that you mention in your report?
    I'm weary of assuming that these people are actually working for the company, off the bat, but that won't matter. We can still address the issue.
    To save us some time, can you provide links that show the comparison between the usernames and the employees?
    You obviously have done some work here and have some evidence. It will be helpful to people here at COIN if you share that evidence with us. OlYeller21Talktome 22:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks for your reply. I'm concerned that providing too much evidence may come uncomfortably close to outing some editors. I've now added above two more pages closely connected with the first, and three more editors. I have identified the potential connected editors as {{connected contributor}}s on the talkpage of each of those three articles. A quick Google search for "Louise Blouin Media" (with quotes) together with an intelligent guess at the real-world name of each of the seven editors, based on the username, comes up in some but not all cases with the position, past or present, of an individual with a closely similar name within the company. Those that do not immediately show up in such a way show a closely similar pattern of editing, at different times, on one or more of the three articles mentioned above. User:JPLei has over 500 edits, all (well, all that I have checked) adding links to artinfo.com to the pages of various artists; Antonyj0403 has recently been active changing each one of those to Blouinartinfo.com. I believe this to be a serious, far-ranging, substantial and possibly systematic abuse of this wiki, but have nowhere near the skills or experience to be sure. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So can anyone offer any response here? I'd really like to know what, if anything, could or should be done about this. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be really happy to read any comments people might like to make on this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Milo Yiannopoulos

    Resolved
     – Closed per the reviewer's suggestion on his talk page to keep an eye on any new activity on the article. WilliamH (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The behaviour and a technical aspect of 141.0.153.217 (it has not been CheckUsered) effectively confirms that the subject has been cleansing his own entry. Among other things, this edit - with a totally disingenuous edit summary - removed mention from the lead that the company the subject operates was issued with a court order to enforce the repayment of debts, and removed mention of him having lost his previous employer, The Telegraph, a significant amount of money. That was after it was editorialised in this edit by a German IP address, which also inserted promotional-y testimonials in the lead section and also uses exactly the same elaborate/prosaic style of edit summary.

    I actually created this article, but I feel that a conflict of interest - I write for the The Telegraph - prevents me from intervening in the way that is necessary: obviously the editing of one's own Wikipedia article is allowed, but edits like these and the spreading of scrutiny to make them is not, and on that basis, the reference to him losing The Telegraph a lot of money should be restored. WilliamH (talk) 06:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, I've done a little digging and there is a clear scrutiny-evading element to this: based on deleted contributions to the Milo Andreas Wagner article, the following accounts almost certainly belong to the subject: Milohanrahan (talk · contribs), Milo Andreas Wagner (talk · contribs), Milo Yiannopoulos (talk · contribs). WilliamH (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Is a SPI being initiated? That seems like it would be the most productive step at this point. OlYeller21Talktome 22:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Milohanrahan. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Filed and archived. WilliamH (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have looked to see when those people had lasted editing. Still, it will be good to have that SPI archived in case someone else pops up.
    At this point, we just need to check the articles for POV/advert related issues. OlYeller21Talktome 01:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sophie Clayton and International Rice Research Institute

    Although this user has declared a Conflict of Interest, she has consistently ignored the advice of other editors on her talk page to stop directly editing articles with which she has such a conflict of interest. She continues to edit the page of her employer as well as those related to her work there. This is in direct violation of the Conflict of Interest policy. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 07:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    this edit (which I have reverted) is something of a gem, changing the otherwise NPOV text of a Nobel Prize winner's article to refer to her own organization. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 08:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    User:UseTheCommandLine May I request some help with this edit please that you reverted. The original edit I did and as stated in my comment was because the information as presented may give the impression it was only Borlaug involved in developing semi-dwarf rice, which does not accurately reflect the very significant role others played. It is captured a bit better on the Green_Revolution page under history. This non-IRRI source seems to capture it well too I think and another source written by someone around at the time is the IRRI-published book An adventure in applied science - see page 53 for mention of who was responsible. Will add same to talk page. Sophie Clayton (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Please see the WP:THREAD guideline.
    2. This discussion belongs on the talk page of the article in question. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 09:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the notification User:UseTheCommandLine. Yikes - sorry - I thought it was OK to edit other pages and link to my organization's site where the information was unique and stated in an unbiased way - and provided I had declared my conflict of interest. I can see that was not good enough and I apologize, I should have been more careful. I have now more carefully read the Conflict of interest - advice for editors who may have a conflict of interest and will henceforth make suggestions on talk for others to consider and not directly make edits on pages that have anything to do with my organization or our interests across rice science. I added photos directly yesterday - is that OK to International Rice Research Institute? I couldn't quickly find a reference about that. But I can remove if they are inappropriate. Sophie Clayton (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Most recently, another editor asked you on 12 Nov 2012 to stop adding references to your employer (see WP:SELFCITE) but you continued to do so for many, many edits. In fact, from what I gather, the majority of your edits where a reference was inserted were references to your employer.
    Other editors have on multiple occasions politely asked you to refrain from this behavior, and I did not see it stopping as a result. I was confrontational for that reason.
    From WP:PSCOI:

    Paid advocates: If you have an ethical responsibility to edit Wikipedia to advance your client or employer's interests, then you stand in a clear conflict of interest and should not edit articles directly, even with disclosure. You may be professionally obligated to advance goals that conflict with neutrality and Wikipedia's mission. This includes lawyers, public relations representatives, corporate communicators, marketers, and others in similar positions. This kind of engagement is very controversial and often results in community and broader media backlash if discovered.

    Please ensure that this situation does not arise in the future. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 03:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As for photos, i think as long as the rightsholder is willing to have them released under the CC-BY-SA license we use here on WP (like the rest of your content as work-for-hire), that this is not a problem. Whether it gets used in the article or not is a different matter, and dependent on the editors of those pages, i think. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 03:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    OK so I'll leave the photos as uploaded but remove them from page. Sophie Clayton (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it now I think! Thanks for helping me understand. Sophie Clayton (talk) 03:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a minor contributor to the article, and I have looked at many of the contributions in question. I am one of the editors (two of us prior to the current discussion, one in 2010 and one in 2012) who have posted COI comments on her talk page. For the most part, I don't have any objection at all to Sophie Clayton's edits. IMHO, she's doing good work, doing it openly and without bias, and just happens to work for IRRI.
    The COI Behavioral Guideline says "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." I don't see much incompatibility between Clayton's edits and Wikipedia's aims. IRRI is a very important but little-known organization in a remote part of the world (from the U.S. and other English-speaking countries). It is worthy of being covered in some depth, but there are probably few editors who are qualified to do so. Having an IRRI person make non-controversial factual edits while clearly declaring her position doesn't seem to me to be much of a negative.
    When I look at the COI material on cultural-sector professionals, I see Sophie as a subject specialist (while acknowledging her role as a promoter). She seems to be pretty NPOV in her edits, too. When I look at wp:PILLARS, I think that Wikipedia does not have firm rules has a lot of pertinence to this case. Lou Sander (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's fine that you see it that way. I don't. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 09:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you be more specific about that? It would help my thinking if somebody would point out some of the inappropriate or conflicted edits that she has made. It would probably be helpful to other editors, too. Lou Sander (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a bit later... Sorry for being a bit critical above. I've checked out the Borlaug article that you referred to way up above, and I see your point. At the same time, I observe that Clayton seems to be learning about COI, and seems to be very willing to do whatever is right, given her position with IRRI and Wikipedia's many guiding principles. I am hopeful, and encouraged, that she will accept properly-motivated guidance from other editors. Lou Sander (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lou - this is not Cultural-sector related at all -WP:COIU- is very clear, and unfortunately it is very clear that Sophie has breached this with her edits on issues related to her work. I don't doubt her motives or sincerity. Roxy the dog (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked HERE and saw "subject specialist", and considered that IRRI is a cultural institution of sorts, though not a museum, etc. (Food is as much a part of "culture" as is art, though I won't argue with anybody about it.) Yes, while Sophie is employed by IRRI, nobody else who is editing the article seems to have anything substantive to contribute to it. Many can see Sophie's COI, and many seem to acknowledge her motives and sincerity, but none seem to be able to replace her as an editor of the article. Maybe it would be good if she would post proposed edits on the talk page, and let other editors move them to the article if they approve. Lou Sander (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lou Sander - I think you're missing the point of Wikipedia:Advice_for_the_cultural_sector. If Sophie was contributing to articles by adding information about "rice agriculture" because he/she is an expert on the subject, then that would be fine and wouldn't represent a conflict of interest. Sophie wasn't contributing information about "rice agriculture" as a "rice agriculture" expert. She was contributing information about IRRI as an employee of IRRI. There's a substantial and obvious difference between those two things. NickCT (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @NickCT I agree that there is such a difference. I haven't looked very deeply into all the edits to which people have objected, but if she's been putting IRRI mentions into non-IRRI articles, I agree that she ought to stop doing so directly. Having observed her behavior on the various talk pages, I would expect that as her understanding of COI improves, she will comply with all reasonable requests, cautions, etc. She seems to be a highly professional person in a highly respectable scientific organization, and to behave as such people would be expected to.
    BTW, I keep getting notifications on my watchlist page that you have mentioned me somewhere. This is new to me, and useful. How do you make that happen? I'm guessing that it is by using @Lou Sander, but I don't know for sure. Once I know how it is done, I'll try to develop the habit of using it myself. Lou Sander (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lou Sander - re "This is new to me, and useful. How do you make that happen? I'm guessing that it is by using @Lou Sander, but I don't know for sure. Once I know how it is done, I'll try to develop the habit of using it myself." - Yeah. It's useful isn't it! You're right in your assumption. You just have to put "[[User:X|X]]" somewhere and "X" will get the message. This a relatively new feature. I think it's quite useful.
    re "putting IRRI mentions into non-IRRI articles" - Ok. Well, looks like we're closer to seeing eye-to-eye. But, as you know, I'd take a dim view on her working on the IRRI article itself. But perhaps that's a discussion for another page.
    re "She seems to be a highly professional person in a highly respectable scientific organization" Yes. Agree. She seems to have been fairly cooperative over the WP:COI warnings. NickCT (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Eben Alexander (author)

    This appears to be the author in question. Ealexander3 has made additional edits without responding to my query. Ealexander3 has also edited Eben Alexander, the great-grandfather of Eben Alexander (author).

    Various red flags: no contributions to any other pages, addition of unsourced information, "Dr. Alexander's extraordinary experience..." [1], and regarding the writer who criticized Alexander's book in Esquire, "...Luke Dittrich and Esquire had committed journalistic malpractice through their blatant disregard for pursuing and conveying facts about Proof of Heaven and Dr. Eben Alexander." [2] Vzaak (talk)

    I reverted a 2nd edit by this editor, partially because it was copyvio from [3] although I gather if we honor Jesus we can use it. We need a response from this editor as if it is not actually Eben Alexander we should perhaps block the account and ask them to get a new username. Dougweller (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this notice was posted a whole paragraph in the criticism section was removed in addition to the usual reverts. Vzaak (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Because of the re-addition of copyvio material after a warning and concerns over possible impersonation, I've blocked this account with a notice that explains clearly why he was blocked and how to get unblocked or get a new username. Dougweller (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Gh26 / Jill Purce / Rupert Sheldrake

    Gh26 has a personal/mentoring relationship with Jill Purce and created the article Jill Purce. Gh26 has also been involved with editing the article of Purce's husband Rupert Sheldrake, who according to Purce "thinks that mantras and rituals work through morphic resonance"[4], "morphic resonance" being a redirect for Rupert Sheldrake.

    If the COI is already enough then going into Gh26's problems at Rupert Sheldrake would be overkill. Otherwise here are a couple examples:

    Vzaak (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed this as well, Gh26 (talk · contribs) seems to be an WP:SPA as regards Sheldrake and his missus. Whatever good he has to say is counteracted by the incessant complaining at talk:Rupert Sheldrake. A topic ban may be appropriate. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoting from the top of the page: "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." I would say that I comply with the COI guideline because the majority of my engagement on Rupert Sheldrake's WP article (to which Vzaak and Barney the barney barney are referring) has been in discussion about proposed edit changes on the talk pages, and only a small part of my engagement has been involved in editing, which I believed at the time to be uncontroversial and in the interest of NPOV, i.e. adding some references to represent the marginal view but still allowing the mainstream view to remain there. Vzaak and Barney the barney barney have also been accused by others for not reaching consensus before making controversial edits, in the same way that I have been accused by them. I would argue that this COI allegation is being used against me as a trump card because disputes on the talk page of Rupert Sheldrake's page have not been resolved.

    The general test for WP:SPA is "A user who appears to have a very brief editing history, or an apparent focus on one (or at most a handful of) matters or purposes, creating a legitimate reason for users to assess whether their editing and comments appear neutral, reasonably free of promotion, advocacy or personal agendas, aware of project norms, not improper uses of an account, and aimed at building an encyclopedia." I would argue that because I have been careful to allow the mainstream view to remain in place but have been making a case for the marginal view to be represented makes the case that I am, as much as one can reasonably be, neutral. I also felt that I would be of better service as an editor focusing on topics that I know about rather than spreading myself thin over topics that I know less about.Gh26 (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Re trump card, the reason I brought this COI to attention is quite the opposite. You've been consistently throwing out the 2s of non-trump cards, thinking you won the round, without any understanding of the rules. You don't seem at all interested in WP:LISTENing and you consistently refuse to read or understand the policies. This is provably the case in the above example I gave. The most charitable assessment of this behavior is that you're too close to the subject. Vzaak (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Gh26, putting to one side about writing on talk pages, do you accept that you have a conflict of interest with regards to these topics, and that it was inappropriate for you to create and edit articles where you have a conflict of interest? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the above accusation are ridiculous IMHO - e.g. Vzaak accuses Gh26 of 'assuming WP:CONSENSUS after 2 hours and 24 minutes of WP:SILENCE' when Vzaak has him/herself made non-consensus changes to the article in question, sometimes without any delay at all, as I have repeatedly pointed out on the talk page. So does Vzaak volunteer to be banned too? And 'unwillingness to WP:LISTEN' is of course an accusation which can be made against anyone who disagrees with you. "I've just so totally proved you wrong, and you keep on arguing with me, so you're obviously not listening". Similarly Barney barney accusing Gh26 of 'incessant complaining' - i.e. of not agreeing with Barney barney & Vzaak. Ben Finn (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Bfinn, this is not the place to argue against WP:FRINGE and other policies. If you sincerely think my changes were not in line with WP policy then open an incident against me. It would only highlight your own ongoing misunderstanding of the policies. In any case, none of this is relevant here (you're just saying tu quoque).
    As to the second point, the problem is obvious from the small snippet of conversation I gave. I explain that we're not here to argue about the evidence (WP:VNT), Gh26 responds with a personal attack calling me a hypocrite for not arguing about the evidence. I explain the JSE is not indexed and point to WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Gh26 (having not read the policy) thinks I'm just expressing my opinion. And that was just a sample. Regular people don't behave like that except in cases like a COI. Vzaak (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the COI is pretty open and shut. It is quite clear that Bfinn (talk · contribs) and Penraeth (talk · contribs) are fans of Sheldrake's writings, with little interest in writing an encylcopedia, and seem incapable of understanding WP:FRINGE and why it needs to be applied to the article on Rupert Sheldrake. Given that lack of understanding, I'm not surprised that Bfinn also fails to appreciate WP:COI for similar selective reasons. It's what the community wants to do with it that's important, I suggest a topic ban but don't think it's going to be long before new users with a sole interest in that article and a mysterious understanding of how Wikipedia works appears at talk:Rupert Sheldrake regurgitating tired old arguments and wasting everyone's time. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Vzaak, my arguing for the evidence for the marginal view to be represented alongside the mainstream view is not in contradiction to WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, for the reasons stated in this quote from the talk page: "if the sources that you cite (Skeptical Inquirer and JSPR) also contain contributions by Sheldrake then the WP:UNDUE claim cannot be used, because the policy states: 'Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.' Therefore, if Wiseman's and Sheldrake's viewpoints are given equal space in JSPR, which you class as a reliable source for Wiseman, then they should be given equal space on WP as stipulated by this policy quote. This conclusion and rationale is also supported by the wording of the WP:FRINGE policy when it says: '...and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner'. If a reliable publication is representing both Sheldrake's and Wiseman's viewpoints in full, then it is showing the relationship between these viewpoints 'in a serious and substantial manner', as per the WP:FRINGE quote."
    As argued previously, if the JSE is not acceptable because it is not indexed (even though it is peer-reviewed), then nor is the Skeptical Inquirer, which is neither indexed nor peer-reviewed, and yet the SI is included in the article but the JSE isn't.Gh26 (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you understand the reason for this COI incident? You didn't disclose your relationship with Purce. You said you had researched her work, but you didn't mention that you had a close personal/mentoring relationship with her. The Sheldrake links are there to demonstrate that the COI has not had benign effects. Your purpose here clearly appears to be to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Vzaak (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Lest Gh26 thinks this is a trump card, I will note that Gh26 never answered or acknowledged my refutation of his argument (continuing the pattern of not WP:LISTENing). And just to go the extra mile I've responded again here. Vzaak (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The JSE is unacceptable because it prints pseudoscientific nonsense, wile the Skeptical Inquirer doesn't. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Gh26 (talk · contribs), this is the conflict of interest noticeboard - this may seem obvious but it's for discussing conflicts of interest. You've already proven yourself more than capapble of discussing the Rupert Sheldrake article at talk:Rupert Sheldrake. That is not really important here. If you want to contribute here, can you acknowledge your conflict of interest and explain how you still think you can constructively contribute to the article in an unbiased manner? Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    As I said above quoting the COI guideline, I argue that I do not have a conflict of interest, because I have only tried to make a page more neutral, rather than less neutral. If I was getting constantly engaged in edit wars to banish the mainstream view and promote the marginal, so that the marginal view becomes all that people see then I would have a conflict of interest. However, I have not done this. I have engaged in discussion on the talk page, rather than getting involved in edit wars, and my concern has been to make the page more neutral. Therefore I do not feel I have any conflict of interest to declare. You think I am biased and I think you are biased; this is an unresolved dispute, not a case of COI. By getting rid of me, you remove an opponent who is able to argue against your edits. Wanting to eliminating opponents when they argue against your large numbers of edits on the talk page, but when they make a minimal number of edits in comparison with you raises suspicion.Gh26 (talk) 08: 28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

    Gh26 (talk · contribs) You have a conflict of interest if you have a close connection to the individual discussed in the article concerned. You have not addressed this point. Meanwhile, yet again you are continuing to show your inability to comprehend and implement Wikipedia policies, in particular but not limited to WP:FRINGE and WP:CONSENSUS. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The first bullet point directly contradicts your assertion re edit warring and discussion. Your response as a whole is like a final "Q.E.D.". Not getting it, not reading or understanding the policies, not listening, apparently not WP:COMPETENT regarding the basics of how science works, not realizing the arguments proffered are directly contradicted by WP policies, not apologizing for or acknowledging personal attacks resulting from lack of understanding, and a hint of persecution mentality. The COI is among the most charitable explanations for this behavior. Vzaak (talk) 10:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Barney the barney barney: do not make personal attacks on me or other people. Ben Finn (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Vzaak: please would you also stop making personal attacks on people? Your accusations and tone are offensive. Thanks. Ben Finn (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Entirely spurious claims of personal attacks aren't a trump card either. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You accused me and Penraeth above of bad faith ('little interest in writing an encylcopedia' [sic] among other things). And Vzaak just accused Gh26 of 'a hint of persecution mentality'. These are personal attacks. I'm not going to get drawn into a debate about it. Ben Finn (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Bfinn, you are very selective in your outrage. Why not say something about the two personal attacks Gh26 made in the second bullet point above? Or the most recent "wanting to eliminate opponents" that "raises suspicion"? I am obliged to respond to such accusations; indeed my response was quite measured considering the charges. However I am happy to remove Gh26's personal attacks here along with my response, as well as recent needless responses by others. Vzaak (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I responded to a personal attack which I saw had been made on me, and to one I then happened to see at the very end of the section when I added my response. I do not have the time or inclination to read all the ins and outs on this page or indeed on the Rupert Sheldrake talk page, nor am I a policeman for either. However, note I did not go and unilaterally edit other people's text, and I suggest you don't do so either.
    I'd also say (without accusing anyone in particular) it looks like the tone on both pages has become increasingly patronising and uncivil, with a persistent air of 'I am obviously right, anyone who disagrees must be biased/incompetent'. Can we stop this, please? Ben Finn (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    In answer to your point on COI, "researched" is correct. My music PhD thesis is a psychological/anthropological study of chant and led me to discover and research the work of Purce online, followed by research interviews. It was purely a matter of coincidence that this led me to the work of Sheldrake, as his ideas on social behaviour were relevant to my research on group psychology. There is no link between their work and most people don't even know they are together. Your sample, where Purce quotes Sheldrake, was merely because someone specifically asked her about him in an interview, if there was any connection between their work - her brief response must have been the best she could find by way of an answer, as her work has nothing to do with his.Gh26 (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You left out the close personal/mentoring relationship (again), which is the reason for the COI. To what extent do you know Rupert Sheldrake personally as well? Vzaak (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt very much any serious academic researcher would be interested in Sheldrake's "work". To do so would naturally lead one to bark up the wrong tree. I also doubt that any serious academic researched would be as unfamiliar with the scientific process as Gh26 (talk · contribs) seems to be. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was describing the relationship as it is. As I also explained, it is the same as with Sheldrake.Gh26 (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you now denying the close personal/mentoring relationship with Purce? Vzaak (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot be clearer when I say I was describing the relationship as it is. Simply repeating your question does not help. Like BFinn I have neither time nor inclination to continue this, and I have no interest in attempting to edit Sheldrake's page any more as I now have to finish my PhD.Gh26 (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid all I see is obfuscation. Are you now denying the close personal/mentoring relationship with Purce? Yes or no? Vzaak (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I will privately send details to an administrator that directly show the personal/mentoring relationship, the reason for this COI notice. There are many issues on display here, but to summarize the main ones are Gh26's:

    • Not disclosing the COI at the outset of creating the Purce article.
    • Continuing efforts, shown here, to dissemble when asked about the COI directly.
    • Clearly problematic COI edits even after being repeatedly informed of WP policy, as shown in the first bullet point at the top of this notice. These contradict statements by Gh26 here that such edits were non-controversial.
    • Ongoing refusals to read or understand WP policies regarding fringe theories, despite many attempts by others to explain it, as shown in the second bullet point at the top of this notice.
    • Personal attacks, as shown in the second bullet point at the top of this notice.
    • Very odd claim proffered here that, after creating the Purce article and making several Purce-related edits elsewhere, Gh26 then made significant edits to the article of Purce's husband purely out of coincidence.

    Vzaak (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Anastasia International

    This Anastasia International article has had some really suspicious activity on it for the last 6-8 months. A major contributor was blocked for being a sockpuppet (User:Entyre) and I'm currently in discussions that other users now editing the page might be sockpuppets of that user. However, on that discussion page, which you can see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Alexis418, Alexis418 admitted that he used to work for the company, which for me means he has a WIKI:COI. Not only this, all the edits I make trying to improve the article and clarify the companies controversy, he is merely reverting. I personally don't think someone who could be a disgruntled ex employee should be editing this page, especially when all they are doing is reverting edits. Verdict78 (talk) 10:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Still having problems with a disgruntled ex-employee on this page, could someone look into this and advise how to proceed please. Again, on the sockpuppet page (link above) Alexis418 said he'd worked for the company previously. In the last 10 days the user has reverted around 10 attempted improvements. During this 10 day period, he has made no effort to improve the article, merely explain briefly on the talk page why he doesn't think the change should take place. He constantly keeps repeating he knows a lot about the company but yet is to make a single improvement on the page during this period. It wouldn't surprise me if he sees this and does just that! To me its obvious (for whatever reason) this user is blocking any progression of this page, with no intention of making any changes. I hope someone can look into this sooner rather than later, because this is eating into my editing time considerably. Verdict78 (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Verdict78 might consider doing more thorough research on the subject material, so that his edits would be accurate and stick. I've repeatedly suggested we try to come up with a clear common description of our common and different viewpoints so that we can solicit 3rd opinions where we differ. Reading the conflict of interest policy carefully, I do not have a conflict of interest. I do have a personal interest, but not a financial or otherwise conflictual one. If we don't allow people to edit areas where they have a personal interest, unfortunately we would also be disabling the editors who have the most knowledge about specific subjects. Any other editors who are interested to help with the Anastasia International article are welcome. I had previously asked for a 3rd opinion but the editor who came to help said we had not articulated our 2 positions well enough on the talk page to be ready for that yet. Alexis418 (talk) 07:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You do have a conflict of interest and I quote - "Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a conflict of interest." You've just admitted above to having a 'personal' interest in the outcome of the article. Not only this you also stated that you were previously an employee of the business on the sockpuppet discussion here. You are yet to make a single edit on the page, and are reverting every change I make. You also seem to 'become active' on the page the minute anyone seems to change the article dramatically as you can see on your history page. My personal opinion in dealing with you and viewing all this information is that for the last 6 months you have sat, reverting edits on a single page. You are a single use account, and have openly admitted to having a COI on TWO occasions now. Can someone please look into this so that myself and other real editors can get on with improving Wikipedia Verdict78 (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Vikas Mishra (academic)

    Posting same issue as was at UAA. This user has a single-use account and refuses (semi-)friendly attempts to resolve issues and has received a myriad of warnings with no nothing backing it up. Further, I view some of the comments on my talk page as veiled personal attacks, such as the question on my editing abilities and the claim that I was "leveling accusations" without checking my facts. I have been thorough in this investigation. For this reason, this is the final noticeboard that I am posting at to avoid the appearance of harassment. Jackson Peebles (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Bulgarian Children's Chorus and School Gergana


    The IP 74.66.235.121 is repeatedly deleting the entire content of my edits even though I am citing independent sources. There is no explanation why my edits are being deleted and my calls for discussion on the talk page are not answered. This organization has a problematic history and the fact is that it has been left by the majority of its member families last September including the founder families following a prolonged conflict during which falsified documents surfaced as well as numerous disregards of the non for profit law and IRS guidelines for non for profit 501c3 organizations. I believe that this IP is closely connected to the current leadership which is trying to "delete" the problems from the organization history using Wikipedia for their own interests. There are false and self promoting statements in the article as well: Neli Hadjiyska is not an educator (she's been selling airplane tickets for a tourist agency for the last 15+ years) and was not the founder of the school. These facts are well known by the Bulgarian community in New York. All I am trying to do is add information to the article so neutrality is achieved. I believe this IP should be asked to disclose his/her interest in the organization. I also believe he/she is operating form two different IPs. The second one is 71.249.192.199 The same editor 74.66.235.121 created also the Bulgarian version of the article and is also trying to protect his/her version of the article in the same aggressive way deleting any edits that are not in sync with the false story they are creating. Please look into this matter as soon as possible. Thank you. Star Gazer 13 (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Star Gazer 13[reply]

    Genetically Modified Food Controversies

    I have been relentlessly accused of having a COI with respect to the suite of agricultural biotechnology articles, and I am sick of it. I wish to confidentially reveal my identity and professional work, and have COIN rule on whether I have a COI. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The best way to keep your identity and professional work confidential is not to reveal it. If you don't have a COI you don't have a COI. I would suggest not pro-actively revealing your identity to any editor, even those you feel you may trust. I would advise being wary of any editor/admin that steps forward to help with this request, either privately or publicly, IRWolfie- (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the editor has requested a COI assessment then I see no reason why he can't reveal his personal information in private to a non-involved COI familiar admin. That admin could then decide whether or not there is COI and whether it has enough merit to inform the community. I will provide diffs that I feel should be looked at if anyone wishes to save the effort of going through histories. I think the ANI discussion entitled Canoe1967 has enough listed to start. If you don't trust any admin that volunteers then Jimbo could be trusted I would think. He is busy for a few days with a child on the way but he may have time for input.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - User:Canoe1967 is one of those I mention who I feel has been harassing me over COI, and is subject of an ANI for that behavior,here. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think you should feel no obligation to reveal your identity to anyone. If it would really make you feel better, I'm willing to be the one to be wary of, as IRWolfie puts it. If you send me the information, I will judge it, report my judgement, delete the email, and promptly forget who you are (forgetting things is one of my few talents). Someguy1221 (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Someguy1221 is an oversighter, which means that he has passed a very high level of scrutiny as someone who can be trusted with confidential information. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Tryptofish. I will email Someguy1221. Someguy thanks for your kind offer! Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry Someguy1221, my email isn't working. I graduated high school with full academics. I worked packing groceries until I joined the infantry. I left the army because the pay sucked. I worked as a pig farmer until I capped out the salary level. I think I still hold the world Cargill record of 95-97% conception rate in sows without AI. I then became a journeyman electrician in industrial maintenance. In that field I have worked in everything from a beef slaughter house to a ski resort. I have edited very few of these articles but assist with discussions on them. I recently declared my COI in a new article here. My main hobby is photography where I do get very COI when it comes to images in articles and at commons. I think that can be expected from photographers when there are image discussions. I am a str8 male and drink beer. I don't see a big issue with outing oneself. --Canoe1967 (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody thinks you have a COI, Canoe. The issue in the ANI is that you keep accusing others, including me, of having one. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not accused others since I discovered that others read the COI policy differently than me. I didn't know that most think it only applies to paid editors.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know that most people read it that way. The key issue is NOT what you think COI is, it is how you behave when you think one exists. Harassing users on Talk pages, to their faces or behind their backs, is the wrong way. Bringing the issue to COIN, with notification to the editor in question, is the right way. If you understand this, then you should say so at the ANI where it is relevant. Not here. Jytdog (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How was I harassing whom and where did I go behind their back? I did bring it up at ANI. Depending on a COI decision then apologies may be due there. That issue depends on this one. Has anyone asked for COI policy clarification here yet? --Canoe1967 (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Canoe, why are following Jytdog here. In what possible way does this concern you, and why are you trying to side track it with irrelevant material about your life? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I stated at ANI that if someone wished to discuss it at COIN then I would as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a public noticeboard with input welcome from every editor. There is no need to question Canoe1967's presence here. Binksternet (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm questioning why he has decided to side track a discussion that doesn't involve him. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I stated at ANI that if someone wished to discuss it at COIN then I would as well. My infamous group of COI edits.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Just dropping here a quick note to say that I have been in contact with Jytdog, and I am confident that he does not have a conflict of interest with respect to GMOs, or GMO food controversies, or other such things. I will likely provide a more detailed statement soon. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, Someguy1221! In my opinion, that completely puts to rest any question about Jytdog editing with an undisclosed COI (not that there was really any question before, either). Any further statements about Jytdog's supposed COI without new and substantial evidence really should be regarded as violations of WP:NPA, particularly if made on article talk pages. We should be able to move on from that now. And this noticeboard is not the correct place to discuss whether or not WP:COI is unclear or whatever. Improvements to WP:COI should be discussed at WT:COI. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    Wikipedia defines a conflict of interest in the following manner: "When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." The guideline goes on to describe in more detail various types of conflicts of interest.

    In a nutshell, Jytdog (talk · contribs) does not have a conflict of interest. To my knowledge, based on both Jytdog's email to me, and information I found elsewhere, he does not have any financial motive to promote the safety of genetically modified organisms.

    While it is true that some researchers within Jytdog's university system receive public and private funding for GMO research and dissemination, and the university system may profit from the resulting technology, the campus where Jytdog works does not perform agricultural research or hold agricultural patents. Jytdog's day to day work has nothing to do with agricultural biotechnology, and he receives no financial benefit from public acceptance of GMOs.

    I don't know if some editors feel that university students and employees may have a conflict of interest regarding technologies that may profit the university, but I do not. Your typical university has hundreds or thousands of scientists conducting research on a myriad of subjects. For a sufficiently large university, such a viewpoint would declare that every student and employee has a conflict of interest in nearly every technological subject, even though most obtain no financial or otherwise personal benefit from the research.

    I sincerely believe, based on the information provided to me, that Jytdog is not motivated by personal gain or anything else that may be defined by Wikipedia as a conflict of interest. The same general theme here also goes for a13ean (talk · contribs), who also emailed me with his personal information.

    For full disclosure, for about a year I held a job as a technician with a group that developed genetically modified organisms. I have not held that job now for years. I gain no financial benefit from their continued work, and I have no desire to return to that group when I graduate. I am currently a graduate student at a University where research into GMOs is conducted, but my own work does not touch the subject, no one in my lab studies GMOs, and I gain no personal benefit from the work conducted by those scientists who do. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Allison Crowe

    On Commons, User:Rimbaud22ca has identified himself as Adrian du Plessis, manager of Allison Crowe. he also states that he is User:Adrian22 here, an editor who has been heavily involved with editing Allison Crowe. Perhaps someone can de-puff the article and remove some of the many unnecessary images? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for any and all input. I've been active here lately to clear up confusion regarding photographs I have taken, and/or those I am fully authorized to use, and, I have more to learn as to the appropriate tags and what-have-you are required to make such files properly noted and released. With respect to chronological, biographical details and such content, I have now been made aware of the COI policies and have more to read, but, clearly, I shall be mindful to not edit content so as to avoid any concerns about COI - real or perceived. cheers, Adrian22 (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DR SIMON KUON YUOT

    Userpage text appears self-promotional. Tckma (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Tekhsnabexport

    New editor with COI (Coi declared here) started to edit Tekhsnabexport and probably needs some assistance. I see the current edits somehow problematic. Beagel (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=569651725"