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
→Dow Corning: new section
Arr4 (talk | contribs)
11,473 edits
Line 250: Line 250:


{{od}}. Update, after a few days of not editing, {{u|Ctg4Rahat}} came back today -- see contribs. Added a bunch of connected contributor tags to Talk pages, removed the COI tag from articles. Has not disclosed employer/client/affiliation for each edit, per Terms of Use. I left a note on his/her Talk page telling Ctg4Rahat not to remove the tags (conflicted articles need ''independent'' review for NPOV) and to disclose employer/client/affiliation for each edit. This is really bad behavior. If he or she does not do that today, I will seek to have Ctg4Rahat site banned unless someone else indefs them first. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 14:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}. Update, after a few days of not editing, {{u|Ctg4Rahat}} came back today -- see contribs. Added a bunch of connected contributor tags to Talk pages, removed the COI tag from articles. Has not disclosed employer/client/affiliation for each edit, per Terms of Use. I left a note on his/her Talk page telling Ctg4Rahat not to remove the tags (conflicted articles need ''independent'' review for NPOV) and to disclose employer/client/affiliation for each edit. This is really bad behavior. If he or she does not do that today, I will seek to have Ctg4Rahat site banned unless someone else indefs them first. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 14:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

:Okay. I am disclosing everything. Don't want to violate Wikipedia policies and also don't want to get blocked. I love to edit Wikipedia articles of my interest. I was hired by various clients from Elance, created the disclosed pages and some of the drafts (not all). But some days ago, my elance account was suspended by Elance authority due to taking payment from clients outside of Elance. You can see I have some drafts which are not edited or moved to mainspace for many days as I will not get paid for them and I have also increased articles of my own interest. Thanks. - <font style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; font-size:18px;">[[User:Ctg4Rahat|Rahat]]</font><font style="font-family:Calibari ITC; font-size:12px;"> ([[User talk:Ctg4Rahat|Message]])</font> 17:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


== Ontario Ombudsman/Andre Marin/David Paciocco ==
== Ontario Ombudsman/Andre Marin/David Paciocco ==

Revision as of 17:49, 3 March 2015

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:Bill Ackman
    Talk:Asia Society
    Talk:Australian Maritime College
    Talk:Carbfix
    Talk:Cofra Holding
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Fundbox
    Talk:Globe Life
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Kevin Hartz
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:List of assets owned by Hearst Communications
    Talk:List of sequence alignment software
    Talk:Moroccanoil
    Talk:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation
    Talk:Oneok
    Talk:Ornge
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Pod Point
    Talk:Runner's World
    Talk:Lester Sill
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Thandeka (minister)
    Talk:Lorraine Twohill
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Xsolla
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Enbridge

    IP is registered to the subject of the article. User has been warned previously, and there is a previous COIN discussion here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_68#Enbridge_editing_Enbridge. Recent edit to the article: [1]. The edit may or may not be appropriate, but this user should request the edit on the article talk page rather than editing directly. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This user appears to have registered an account now: Enbridge Bus. Comms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Brian Morris (biologist)‎

    Yesterday, an IP editor started altering the Brian Morris article and adding a lot of information to it. The IP also included a substantial amount of peacock terms and general aggrandizing of Brian Morris' accomplishments, leading me to suspect an association with him. After reverting the edits, the IP (presumably) created an account with the name "Professor emeritus brian morris" (spaces added), making it almost certain that this user is, indeed, Brian Morris editing his own page. I reverted his changes once more this morning and they have been re-reverted, though with a fair bit of toning down of the puffery. I'm nevertheless concerned about the potential bias being introduced into the article. Brian Morris is a relatively controversial circumcision advocate and the article now contains statements like "...[others and] Morris demonstrated that RACP policies on infant male circumcision were not evidence-based" which were not there previously. I'm concerned that, even after toning down, there may now be a substantial bias to the article based on Brian Morris' own interpretation of events. – Robin Hood  (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for posting! I re-did your deletion. re-added COI tag. added connected contributor tag. watching the article. asked PBM to disclose whether he has has a conflict or not on his Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't sure if it was appropriate to keep the COI after reverting, so thanks for doing that. I've learned my new thing for today. :) – Robin Hood  (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Marc Bell (entrepreneur)

    99designs

    Eponymous account working on article. Have given them a username warning, have tagged article and talk page and notified account of this posting. Jytdog (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    System Development Integration

    Creator account is a SPA, appears to be a throwaway used for this purpose. article is very promotional. COI-usernamed account was recently created and made edits; they are currently applying for new username. i have tagged the article and talk page, and warned both users. article needs review for NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Niall Mellon

    edits by IP listed above have removed negative sourced content and added unsourced positive POV content. Likely COI. Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Article on Carol M. Swain

    Resolved
     – no evident COI Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    my username: Minnie Katz

    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Minnie Katz (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe one or more editors of the page for Carol M. Swain, a professor at Vanderbilt University, is seeking to promote Swain's views on Islam by linking to them under a dubious "Controversy" category.

    It appears that the major purpose of the insertion of this text is to draw attention to a recent opinion piece by Swain published in the Nashville newspaper. I have deleted this text twice as irrelevant to Swain's career history. Each time, another editor has reinserted it.

    The opinion piece referenced in the new section wasn't notable, and neither was the reaction to it. Other aspects of Swain's career, such as books she has published, are more notable. The incident someone is trying to insert into her biography is not appropriate material for a reference service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minnie Katz (talk • contribs) 21:15, 25 February 2015‎ (UTC)

    i looked at this. i see no evidence of COI. New user making a (sadly typical) mistake of personalizing a content dispute. Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Heritage Documentation Programs

    This user has been editing the article to include links to a photographer's website. The username transparently suggests that the user is the photographer, Stephen Schafer. I initially removed the link added by an IP editor because it didn't seem to meet WP:EL, and the person then added a short quote with the website as a reference. It seems to be the editor's intent to work their website into the article in any way that'll stick, rather than improving the article. (The website may be in principal useful as a B-quality source until the article is improved.) Knight of Truth (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Knight of Truth you need to leave notice when you cite someone here. i did that, and am watching the page. Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that. I thought users got automatically pinged when linked to nowadays? I'm not really familiar with use of the noticeboards. Knight of Truth (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's ok lots of people forget. but it is an obligation that is described in the header of all noticeboards --see the top of this page, the text in red, in the red box... in bold... :) Jytdog (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Rabies vaccine

    COI declared on their Talk page. Actively editing the article. Tagged it and its talk page. Article needs review for NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. Will do. A few other accounts also appear to be from the company in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Hand

    Crawaaron is a paid editor of Robert Hand, and has been editing the article. In Talk:Robert Hand, they have attempted to claim complete ownership of the article, saying that all edits to the article must go through them/his company, which I believe violates WP:OWN and WP:BULLY. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    oy. you need to give him notice of this posting. I did that, and will do some other stuff. Thanks for brining this here! Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake, thank you for doing it on my behalf. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    national practitioner data bank

    The National Practitioner Data Bank is a division of HRSA, which is a division of the federal department of Health and Human Services of the U.S. government. The National Practitioner Data Bank wikipedia page has been edited multiple times by employees of HRSA. For example, on 13 May 2013 there was a significant edit by an editor named "Joni A. HRSA"; and on 20 March 2012 there was a significant edit by an editor named "HRSAgov". One can only imagine that material unfavorable to the HRSA has been removed from the National Practitioner Data Bank wikipedia page. Employees of controversial organizations should not be editing their own organization's wikipedia page. This is particularly true for "Big Brother"-type organizations such as the National Practitioner Data Bank.

    You need to provide notification when you cite someone here. I have done that, and tagged the article and its talk page. I also nominated it for speedy deletion. Jytdog (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Health Resources and Services Administration

    The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) is a division of the federal department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of the U.S. government. Employees of HRSA appear to be editing the page and maintaining the page. For example:

    • On 5 August 2007, an edit was made by editor HHSman2007.
    • On 11 January 2010, the last time a major edit was made to this page, it was made from IP address 162.99.227.22 This IP address is located in Silver Spring, MD, right next door to HRSA's headquarters in Rockville, MD.
    • On 20 March 2012, editor "HRSAgov" edited the wikipedia page 3 times.

    216.254.82.45 (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviewed the edits (there are about 10) most seem benign (updating html links to current locations (all but one of HRSAgov's edits -see below), changing division to agency (HHSman2007's only edit), etc.). Only edits I found that could be problematic are:
    • the creation of the National Data Bank article - but that article has changed substantial and is tagged for cleanup - current status doesn't seem that bad to me. (by HRSAgov)
    • substantial text changes - these are still in the article but doesn't seem that biased to me and regular contributors have edited the article since then. (by IP)
    Vertrag (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Mary Wakefield

    Resolved

    Mary Wakefield is the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the federal department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of the U.S. government. Employees of HRSA and HHS appear to have created and are maintaining and editing Dr. Wakefield's wikipedia page. Since Dr. Wakefield's actions as an HHS administrator are regarded by some as highly controversial, it seems inappropriate that HRSA employees should be creating the wikipedia site of their boss, Dr. Wakefield. Examples:

    • On 19 March 2009, this wikipedia page was created by editor "Mulysse"."Mulysse" made an additional edit on 16 July 2009. "Mulysse" is almost certainly [redacted per WP:outing], who [is likely an employee] Department of Health and Human Services.
    • On 11 January 2010, editor Salexander1 made 2 edits to Dr. Wakefield's wikipedia page. Salexander1 is almost certainly [redacted] who works [at] HRSA.
    • Also on 11 January 2010, an edit to Dr. Wakefield's wikipedia page was made from IP address 162.99.227.22 This IP address is located in Silver Spring, Maryland, right next door to HRSA's headquarters at Fishers Lane in Rockville, MD.
    • On 26 March 2009 and 27 March 2009, user Tniem edited Dr. Wakefield's page. Tniem appears to work for HRSA, perhaps for the Office of Rural Health Policy. According to [redacted] editor page User:Tniem: "I am a mid-20s Washingtonian, originally from Western Michigan. I work in the health policy world and have done a lot of work on rural health specific policy issues."

    216.254.82.45 (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Redacted personal information and details - my edits are in [] Vertrag (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    was mostly a big copyright violation. working it over and will add connected contributors tag to it, and mark this as resolved, when done. thx Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Company offering paid editing

    They call themselves "Wikipedia Writers" [2] Not sure if they are disclosed editors or not. Mentioned here [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    From godaddy/whois:

    • Domain Name: WIKIPEDIAWRITERS.COM
    • Registry Domain ID: 1669802475_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
    • Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com
    • Registrar URL: http://www.godaddy.com
    • Update Date: 2014-07-01T11:32:14Z
    • Creation Date: 2011-08-01T01:39:28Z
    • Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2015-08-01T01:39:28Z
    • Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC
    • Registrar IANA ID: 146
    • Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse@godaddy.com
    • Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.480-624-2505
    • Registrant Name: Abid Karmali
    • Registrant Organization:
    • Registrant Street: Garden East Karachi
    • Registrant City: karachi
    • Registrant State/Province:
    • Registrant Postal Code: 0000
    • Registrant Country: Pakistan
    • Registrant Phone: +92.3082825979
    • Registrant Email: infotrancemedia@gmail.com

    hm. Jytdog (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes there are lots of paid editors from both India and Pakistan. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Have proposed a clarification to the OUTing policy that pertains to COI

    Here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Premia Spine Limited and many others

    Editor has declared a COI for those two articles, [here] and here but without disclosing employer, client, and affiliation. Looking a bit at the history of those articles led me to the user's sandboxes (11 of them) where a whole slew of promotional-looking articles were or are being drafted. I just left a message for the user here, and will notify the user as soon as I save this.

    List of other articles that concern me. This is not exhaustive.

    Draft articles as of today:

    The editor seems to do so much other great work here. This is really unfortunate. Perhaps I am incorrect that these are paid edits but it looks a lot like it is that way, and we have semi-declarations for two. Jytdog (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes we need disclosure. Without clear disclosure a block should be implemented. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree oh Administrator-with-the-power-to-block-people-who-is-actually-here.  :) Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We will give the user in question some time to disclose. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    With that I agree. I was ready to go to ANI if you elected not to act after a reasonable time. Good to know we are on the same page. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    . Update, after a few days of not editing, Ctg4Rahat came back today -- see contribs. Added a bunch of connected contributor tags to Talk pages, removed the COI tag from articles. Has not disclosed employer/client/affiliation for each edit, per Terms of Use. I left a note on his/her Talk page telling Ctg4Rahat not to remove the tags (conflicted articles need independent review for NPOV) and to disclose employer/client/affiliation for each edit. This is really bad behavior. If he or she does not do that today, I will seek to have Ctg4Rahat site banned unless someone else indefs them first. Jytdog (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay. I am disclosing everything. Don't want to violate Wikipedia policies and also don't want to get blocked. I love to edit Wikipedia articles of my interest. I was hired by various clients from Elance, created the disclosed pages and some of the drafts (not all). But some days ago, my elance account was suspended by Elance authority due to taking payment from clients outside of Elance. You can see I have some drafts which are not edited or moved to mainspace for many days as I will not get paid for them and I have also increased articles of my own interest. Thanks. - Rahat (Message) 17:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ontario Ombudsman/Andre Marin/David Paciocco


    Ontario Ombudsman and Andre Marin pages are edited and maintained by two of the subject's employees, his communications director Eljadubya and his digital/social media person Abursey. Both use the same username on other social media and links directly to their profiles that name them, place of work and positions at Ontario Ombudsman. According to the protocol as I understood it, I first informed them of my COI concerns with as it pertains to paid communications and to political relationships. I will also inform each, according to protocol, that I have placed this here.

    I am new to Wiki and had not planned on spending all my time on these two sites, so if any help is available, that would be greatly appreciated. Thissilladia (talk) 02:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, I had a very quick look at this. There is a posting about this at WP:BLPN (here) as well:
    • Abursey declared his COI here.
    • I do not see where Eljaydubya declared his relationship with the Ombudsman's office within Wikipedia. Thissilladia where is that? Please do not discuss anything outside of Wikipedia - see WP:OUTING.
    ALSO, I looked at the history of both articles, and Thissilladia, both you and CheckersBoard have a clear, and angry focus on these articles. Please read WP:SPA and since this is the board about COI, please declare if you have any personal interest in the matters being discussed in the articles. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For now I am adding Thissilladia and CheckersBoard and FriendlyBillingsgate to the list of possibly conflicted editors. Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    same cast of characters at David Paciocco. Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Jytdog, I don't have a COI relationship with the subjects of these articles. My only connection is following these stories in the media, but I did see that none of the information (controversies) I thought were extremely importanton these pages whatsoever. I had originally signed on to contribute to other articles. Originally, it was heated between Abursey and I: compensating/over-compensating, however, I think my subsequent revisions of have been much more neutral. Thissilladia (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure why (User talk:Thissilladia) is being attacked here. That editor has consistently posted citations that backed up their edits. The current Obudsman is a controversial character, and the articles that were associated with him were sanitized press releases or resumes. I even tagged his article a few years ago as a resume. A balanced article not only tells of someone's accomplishments, it also shows their faults, which Mr. Marin has many (like most human beings do). It is obvious that Eljaydubya is in a clear COI and outed themselves, and the Outing policy doesn't apply. I now have a full file on them, based on her Internet effluent.--Abebenjoe (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That editor has consistently posted citations with the edits, but they usually don't back up the content. It's like he bases his opinion on the article, and then relays that opinion instead of what the actual words say. All things must be directly verifiable, there's no cite one claim, get one free deal. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:35, March 1, 2015 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)Thanks for answering, Thissilladia. COI is not just about money or employment; there is a very thin line between WP:COI and WP:ADVOCACY when it comes to messing up Wikipedia. What is "extremely important" to you is not what is important to WP. From the point of view of an experienced Wikipedia editor those articles are in many worse now, than before you started. Really - we are an encyclopedia - we think about "importance" in terms of the big picture, not what is Hot News Right Now. Believe me, i get it that the guy appears to be an ugly character - i get it. But please read WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:UNDUE. All three of them. And then have a look at the articles again, with the big picture in mind. Please. I think you will see what I mean. Jytdog (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Abebenjoe, thanks for your note; please see my note to Thissilladia above - i agree that warts have to be in articles too, for sure! NPOV does not mean "all nice" nor even "fair and balanced" - it means give weight according to reliable sources, aiming for the big picture. And for sure, the guys folks from Marin's office have COI issues. I had an exchange with Abursey on his her Talk page, and I believe he she "gets it" and will not directly edit the articles going forward. Waiting to hear from Eljaydubya. I asked Thissilladia and I'll ask you - can you provide a dif where Eljaydubya outed himself? Please provide that, it will be very helpful. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC) (correct gender, with apologies Jytdog (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    Not that it really matters, but Abursey is a woman. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:46, March 1, 2015 (UTC)
    thanks! Jytdog (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So is the other guy. I won't out her, but Google easily does. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:37, March 1, 2015 (UTC)
    Hey look, I'm famous. If any of you three are this guy, with his ridiculously blatant conflict of interest, this would probably be the place to admit it. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:43, March 1, 2015 (UTC)
    Many thanks for notifying me of this discussion, and to the editors who have addressed the troublesome content. I have confirmed my identity and role on my talk page and disclosed my job title on my user page - as noted above, my username was always transparent and easily searchable online, but I'm happy to make it as clear as possible, and to address any concerns about conflict. Please let me know if you have any further advice for me or my colleague in dealing with this situation. Eljaydubya (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. This thread is almost done. I am still not clear what interests CheckersBoard and FriendlyBillingsgate have in this topic. If any of them are former employees or relatives, or are involved in politics, or have any other substantial interest in this matter, they have a definite COI and need to declare it. It is very clear that Thissilladia was acting as an WP:ADVOCATE and I think is starting to understand that this is not OK here. Jytdog (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Hello (User talk:Jytdog) et al. I have been watching all this unfold from the sidelines. And have to say it’s been fascinating. In full disclosure, I should say that like my wife, (User talk:Thissilladia), I have don’t have any connection to these pages other than my own interest. But unlike my wife (which will make (User talk:InedibleHulk) happy), I will not be continuing as an editor on WP—which brings me to what I have observed with respect to IndelibleHulk’s behaviour through all this.
    First-I have noticed the very different tone he takes with wife as compared to (User talk:Abursey), which is at very lest curious. In general, he is snappy, rude and has already made-up his mind. When my wife politely said she did not know who was posting the un-cited gossip and personal attack snippets aimed at Abursey, he spat back at her and changed the subject to other content:

    "That's just the first section. Many more examples of POV and poor grammar there. I suggest you stick with your plan and not spend much time on this subject. Let editors who are interested in neutrality fix the balance problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:22, March 1, 2015 (UTC)"

    I don’t know all the WP policies, but I guess this is probably not appropriate for someone who is supposed to be setting an example for new editors. Second, he throws around a lot of accusations as he accuses people of—throwing around accusations (the irony of all this being said about Andre Marin’s pages is wonderful). On this noticeboard, he posts:

    "Hey look, I'm famous. If any of you three are this guy, with his ridiculously blatant conflict of interest, this would probably be the place to admit it. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:43, March 1, 2015 (UTC)

    "

    He also calls states that several new users are (not "may be," "look like," "could be" or "appear to be") single user purpose accounts. The fact is, new users have to start somewhere
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyBillingsgate (talk • contribs) 22:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

    Besides appearing to be from an angry 17-year old rather than a “senior” WP editor, I would imagine that this breaks some policies. It comes close to mudslinging, it is definitely accusatory and a passive aggressive attempt to discredit the editors he does not like, in favour of those whom he favours. I have seen Jytdog refer to “outing” and “within WP” a few times, how this fits with that is unclear.
    "Third-in the long conversation with Abursey on his talk page, InedibleHulk claims he has edited the pages in question to “just say what the sources say:”

    I think I did a fair job cleaning up the "allegations" section there to just say what the sources do. Not nearly what it was cracked up to be. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:50, February 28, 2015 (UTC)

    "

    Reading his edits, this is only a partial truth. He often cherrypicks from the sources and weights in favour of the subject. In some cases completely mangling what the sources are actually talking about or conflating events. In one of his edits to the Ontario Ombudsman site, his note says:

    "21:18, 28 February 2015‎ InedibleHulk (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,183 bytes) (-8,572)‎ . . (Reverted whole thing to before the single-purpose accounts showed up. There may have been some good, but the bad outweighs it. Too much to comb through.) (undo)"

    Basically, a senior editor is too lazy to read the entire thing, so he deletes it all so he doesn’t have to read it. His edits appear to be rushed and are sloppy.

    Fourth-He has set different standards for different users and fro himself. An editor is well within ethics to use generic value words like “widely” and “serious” based on the number of sources, the weight/status of the opinion holders and/or when these are accepted views long established in coverage of the subject in question. He certainly does not apply this same standard to the Andre Marin’s editing team and he does the same thing he has accused my wife of doing.

    So far, I have observed Jytdog, Thissilladia, Abursey and (User talk:Eljaydubya) act respectfully, professionally and cooperatively, hopefully leading to an eventual acceptable, if not completely desireable, detente. On the other hand, even if he is correct in his concerns, InedibleHulk continues to rev-up this mini editor-spat to a more personal and leading to a more confrontational one. He is has not been constructive. Jytdog, you seem genuinely invested in the veracity of WP and in taking in new editors. I would hope InedibleHulk would choose to voluntarily remove himself from involvement these pages, for the simple fact that he cannot participate without inflaming the situation. If that’s not an option, I’d ask that at very least he be placed on the same COI lists for these pages as the rest of us have been.

    FriendlyBillingsgate (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

    I removed the comment above under WP:NPA and it was just restored by InedibleHulk. I do not think it is good to let inappropriate comments like this stand, but I will not edit war over it. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    He put a lot of time into it, and these are probably his honest opinions. Only fair to let him have his say. None of the attacks are particularly strong, and it gives valuable context. Husband and wife team, with some relation to this sole-purpose Twitter account. Same quote here and there.
    It should be obvious by looking at my talk page/history, but I'll say it anyway. Abursey didn't ask me to do anything specific (yet), and I knew very little about the Ombudsman before yesterday. Certainly never met him. The article was just in a sorry state, POV-wise, and I tend to dislike that sort of thing. Abursey brought the article to my attention, and that's it. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:35, March 2, 2015 (UTC)
    Not sure why this account I've never dealt with should think I'd be happy to hear the guy behind it is quitting Wikipedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:21, March 2, 2015 (UTC)
    fwiw I don't think you should respond or consider it much; it was inappropriate. Jytdog (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    Are you kidding me?
    "Husband and wife team, with some relation to this sole-purpose Twitter account. Same quote here and there."
    This kind of conspiracy mud-slinging doesn't violate a policy? There are 1000s of twitter users and wiki users. According to InedibleHulk's logic, birds can fly, bees can fly, so all birds are bees and all bees are birds! You guys are amazing! As FriendlyBillingsgate said, IndelibleHulk would ONLY inflame the situation. Time to take this up a level Thissilladia (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    There's nothing at all wrong with having a Twitter and Wikipedia account. But when both are solely dedicated to a very specific cause, that's a huge red flag. Note that this tweet suggests CheckersBoard is involved. If the tweet was in Eastern Standard Time, anyway.
    And I'm not "indelible". InedibleHulk (talk) 02:50, March 2, 2015 (UTC)
    If you meant CheckersBoard, then you should not have said: "Husband and wife team, with some relation to this sole-purpose Twitter account. Same quote here and there." After CheckersBoard, you seem to make the next most accusations based on conjecture. 174.116.244.215 (talk) 02:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    Actually, you said "husband and wife team," now you are saying CheckersBoard? Seriously, you should step out of this. Thissilladia (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    I mean it suggests CheckersBoard is also involved. In the space where the Twitter account can advertise a website, this is what it chose. I'm no Sherlock Holmes, but that's a fair clue that Thissilladia is involved. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:03, March 2, 2015 (UTC)
    InedibleHulk if you are seriously concerned about the twitter thing (and you have every right to be - that tweet was a completely wrong action for a Wikipedia editor. That is not at all ambiguous) I suggest you take that directly to ANI. Talking about it here will just fan the flames of dramah. In my view we have three new editors with axes to grind (one of whom is leaving, it seems) who did some stupid shit and seem to be starting to try to figure things out. The post above was in my view an ugly parting "fuck you" from "FriendlyBillingsgate". You seem to be letting it eat you, which I think is a bad idea. But if you really want to pursue it, ANI is thataway. You can probably bring them all down for meat. If you want the drama. Jytdog (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    It's not eating me. It implied I had a conflict of interest, so I said I don't. The bit about me being glad this apparent stranger was leaving tingled my Spidey senses, in a COI way. Seemed relevant here. I didn't rebut everything he said, which I tend to do when I'm pissed. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:17, March 2, 2015 (UTC)
    And Thissilladia, and Checkers, and Friendly - You came with some good intentions which you executed badly and with the tweeting you all really stepped into it. Period. The more stupid things you write here the deeper you dig a hole for yourselves. I suggest you apologize, promise not to do it again, (even if you didn't do it - just end the drama and then go learn how to work on articles. This is all unproductive. Jytdog (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    That is my too-blunt opinion. You all will do exactly as you like. Jytdog (talk) 03:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

    Robert W. McChesney

    The Mack Attack admits that he is editing his own page. He is in fact the major contributor to his own page, and has been for years. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

    Apparently he is also editing pages of co-workers without identifying his COI.

    Capitalismojo (talk) 03:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

    holy shit. thanks. you forgot to notify him - I did it we need to start adding the conflicted articles above. whole shitload of work for us. ah well never boring. Jytdog (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

    Hello, whilst gnoming one particular article I noticed that this users contributions solely consist of adding external links to 3D scans that he has created. I don't know if this is intentionally promotional (probably not) or even problematic in itself. NB I haven't notified Cosmo myself, as would prefer experienced editor to assess first. regards 94.192.37.1 (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

    Dow Corning

    Hi all, I work for a communications firm that represents Dow Corning and we're hoping to expand the article to include more detail (cf. Dow Chemical). As an initial step, I've drafted up some additional information and citations for the "History" section of the article and shared them on its Talk page. If someone could take a moment to review my suggestions and provide feedback, I'd be extremely grateful. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=649715887"