Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Find this page confusing? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. (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-wpwikipedia.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:Asia Society Talk:Australian Maritime College Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Connections Academy Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:Fundbox Talk:Globe Life Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Golden State Foods Talk:Gregmark Records Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Irish Cave Rescue Organisation Talk:JLL (company) Talk:Scott Kurashige Talk:List of sequence alignment software Talk:LPL Financial Talk:Moroccanoil Talk:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation Talk:Operation Santa Claus Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Pod Point Talk:Runner's World Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Augusta Read Thomas

Christian humanism

• Christum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Christian humanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This probably explains itself nicely. --Jayron32 02:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. Any edit summary that begins "my book is..." spells trouble. Perhaps a note suggesting he raises concerns at talk rather than editing the article? Looks like he's just trying to "right that wrong" rather than make a long-term contribution to the article. Stalwart111 09:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

No, over the last 6 months he has become the most prolific contributor to the article, making major revisions, mainly re-writing the pre-20th century history in September, referencing only himself. I suppose its good he's waited that long before doing (or changing?) his own bit. His book came out last year but JSTOR has no mention as yet. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Yeah, missed that - should have kept scrolling! He also ignored Jayron's talk page post (about this thread) and re-added the information again. And it looks like those long tracts added in September constitute almost entirely unsourced WP:OR. Next step? Stalwart111 22:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

BP updates to financial data

• BP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, I am posting here as a COI editor with a request that I hope someone can help with. As you might guess from my username, I work for BP, and I have been offering resources and drafts to help improve accuracy and depth of information about the company on Wikipedia since last summer. Last week I made a request on the BP article's Talk page to update the infobox with new financial data from the company's Quarter 4 and full year 2012 financial results. As that request has not received a response, I wanted to ask here if anyone could make these simple updates. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and sorry you were kept waiting... no one must have noticed your posting on the talk page. I've made these updates for you. And in case nobody has said so already, thanks for respecting the COI guidelines. Your good conduct is a great example of how COI editors can contribute constructively. Cheers! --Drm310 (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the edits, Drm310 - and also for the barnstar. (My first!) If you are able to, it would be helpful to also get your feedback on another suggestion I've made on the BP Talk page, for the restructure of the "Environmental record" and "Accidents" sections, to remove duplication and reduce confusion about where incidents should be mentioned. Although others have shown interest in the restructure, the discussion has currently come to a stop. The discussion so far is here and I've placed a draft form of the proposed structure into a sub page of Talk:BP here. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The current subsection headings are insufficient to provide an overall structure from which to develop the article. As I posted on the BP article talk page and here, you are destine to year after year disputes over what should and be in the main BP article and what should be in Wikipedia:Summary style article. The answer to your ongoing desire to improve accuracy and depth of information about the company on Wikipedia lies in the headings provided in the existing FA and GA company articles. Focus on the overall structure of the article and then the finer details will take care of themselves. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparent mischief on Moody's articles

Greetings, I am a representative of Moody's, and I wish to ask for specific assistance about some recent problematic changes on company-specific articles. This past weekend, one or more individuals based at the IP addresses 24.45.162.83 and 98.14.243.231 (IPs with no prior history) made a series of edits to the three articles about Moody's listed here:

• Moody's Investors Service (MIS)
• Moody's Corporation (MCO)
• Moody's Analytics (MA)

In some cases, verified and useful information about the company's history was deemed "irrelevant" and summarily deleted, and on MIS and MCO warning tags questioning the articles' neutrality were added. However, no comments were added explaining what was in question. I believe these edits are simply mischief and should be reverted by an uninvolved editor, so I wish to ask someone here to consider that now. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the warning tags as I don't think they were appropriate. As far as I can tell, the changes to Moody's Analytics were benign layout changes - is there something I missed? A chunk of recent history (spinoff from Dun & bradstreet) was removed from the MIS, which I have reverted because it seems to be pretty good stuff, sourced, neutral, relevant &c. However, I could understand why somebody might remove text about the history of bond markets from Moody's Investors Service as that are really background rather than being about MIS - does anybody else have any thoughts on that one? bobrayner (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The changes made by IPs '83 and '231 to the MIS article are here. The addition of "{{POV-check|date=February 2013}}" probably is not needed. The IP editors revised the bond market info -- "While the Dutch had created a bond market as early as the 1600s" -- to be related to MIS -- "Moody was forced to sell his business ..." which is fine. Bond market info can be added back in so long as it relates to MIS. I'm not sure why the spin-off information -- "announced it would spin off Moody's Investors Service into a separate" companies -- was deleted. The revisions to the See also section seem more an editorial decision that could be changed back or discussed on the article talk page. In general, the edits do not seem like mischief (also see WP:AGF). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, thank you both for looking at these changes, I appreciate your reviewing and taking action. About the edit removing the history of bond markets information, this is well-supported information that provides context to the development of Moody's as a rating agency. However, if the agreement here is that this was a reasonable edit then I won't push it further. The changes to the "See also" in the MIS article are problematic in that they've added in a formatting error and removed relevant links. Could this be fixed? I also see that the warning tag is still present on the Role in capital markets section of MCO, is this needed? Mysidae (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The bond markets info seemed merely to be in the article, even if it was well supported. Based on the way it was written, it did not come across as providing context you mentioned. It's probably just a matter of looking at the cited sources and resummarizing how they relate the bond market info to MIS. Talk page consensus can bring out whether the edits were reasonable. The see also section seems too long. Take a look at WP:SEEALSO to see what should be kept and what should be removed. Some of them should be added to a Moody's company templates. Use Template:Microsoft as an example of how to create a company template. You can find other examples of company templates at Category:Company templates by industry. I don't think your COI would prevent you from creating a company template since the template is posted in Template space, not article space. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Mprinfo

• User: Mprinfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Article: Minedas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Article: Mindaugas Jonušas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Username report was denied as not blatant, not sure how this was misunderstood...Article made was Minedas (page has been moved), a promotional article, Hence the acronym Minedas Public Relations Info or Mprinfo. Requesting username block as this is a promotion only account Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see a link to the Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention report on Mprinfo. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Linksoftware

• User: Linksoftware (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Article: Linksoftware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Article: Link Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Indian company; at least he's honest about it! His first 2 days worth all reverted, but no warnings issued. No doubt he'll just go underground. Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

User name has been blocked as a WP:CORPNAME.--ukexpat (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

E-mail to OTRS

• On a personality (person - Akshat Rathee)[1][2]
• On a group of companies (NODWIN Group) Nodwin Group[3]
• On a gaming firm (NODWIN Gaming)[4] Nodwin Gaming[5]
• On an ideas lab (NODWIN Consultants), Nodwin Consulting[6]
• On a Biofuels for (Earth100 Biofuels), Earth-100[7] Earth 100[8]
• On a food cart business (Undaz)

Folks, an e-mail as been sent to OTRS making us aware of this freelancer.com posting. Just making you aware of it so that articles that may be created as a result, if any, can be properly scrutinised. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I have watchlisted the given titles, plus some possible variations. bobrayner (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Akshat Rathee topic meets WP:N. I only found: Akshat Rathee, Managing Director of the bio-fuel company Earth-100[9] and Akshat Rathee, chief gaming officer, NODWIN Gaming.[10] "Nodwin" does not appear to meet WP:N either, so none of its variation would. Earth 100 might (might eventually) meet WP:N.[11] Undaz does not meet WP:N. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Trent Leyshan

• User: Morryone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Article: Trent Leyshan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Article: ClarkMorgan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Article: Network HR (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted via AfD)

Morryone has been identified as a corporate colleague of the subject of the article Trent Leyshan, and notified of COI issues multiple times. Edits also to ClarkMorgan where he is or was a corp officer, yet continues to only be contributing to COI articles like these. — Brianhe (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Careful! Unless this person has voluntarily identified himself or herself, then this is WP:OUTING. --Drm310 (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Whether it is really that person or not (seems pretty darn likely) their editing clearly establishes that they are a single-purpose account here only to promote these subjects, and they have never made a substantive edit to any talk page. I have therefore blocked them in an attempt to drive home the seriousness of the situation and try to force some discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with the above approach due to Morryone's little interest replying to the concerns of others about Morryone's editing. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Brianhe, do you have any diffs to support the assertion that Morryone is a corporate colleague of Trent Leyshan, the subject of the Trent Leyshan article, or that Morryone is a corp officer at ClarkMorgan? It also would help of you provided diffs of notified of Morryone being notified of COI issues multiple times. To provide these diffs, please add the diffs to your original request. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I believe the self-identification was in a file permissions section for an image uploaded by Morryone then later deleted, so it can no longer be ascertained (maybe by an admin). See TheFeds comment in this AfD discussion. There was a username concern raised that probably should have been labeled a CoI notice: [12] (5/2011) then templated CoI notifications were made:[13] (11/2011) and [14] (2/2013). Morryone never responded to any of these, in fact hasn't edited his own talk page since 2009 (which was a response to a bot!). Brianhe (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• I would day Morry's own edits at that AFD [15] where he makes it clear he has insider information about that magazine, coupled with this make it pretty clear that if it is not Morry Morgan himself it is somebody acting on his behalf. As I mentioned above it doesn't really make a difference which it is, their behavior is not acceptable. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Tuff TV

• Tuff TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sjmckeeman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 50.73.82.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Both accounts claim to work for the subject [16], [17], and both have persisted in promotional edits, copying text from the network's website. They've even registered separate votes at Talk:Tuff TV. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• I opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sjmckeeman. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Unless there's another account involved, I'm guessing they won't do a CU. At any rate, there's obviously a conflict of interest and the issue needs attention. OlYeller21^Talktome 02:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• The IP seems intent on warring, re-adding unsourced material without first discussing it on the talk page or even providing an edit summary. Qworty (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll add the information along with a source and a summary. Seems like quite a hassle, and the total removal of content from the page is an over reaction. Sjmckeeman (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Tom Miller (Politician)

• Tom Miller (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Agiowa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The subject is the Attorney-General of Iowa and his article has been greatly expanded by a new user with an evident COI, who is currently username-blocked and requesting unblock. I am minded to remove the whole "Significant legal cases, events" section, which is sourced almost entirely to Mr Miller's own press releases and, while factual, reads like (what it presumably is) something put together by his PR people listing achievements to make him look good. Moreover it gives me copyright concerns - sentences put into Google turn up sources like this and this - evidently state AGs combine in these legal actions and all put out similar press releases. Comments welcome. JohnCD (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with you and I've made the edit per WP:BOLD. Qworty (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

User:IbankingMM

• IbankingMM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 98.212.30.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New articles

• Organizational capital
• Process capital
• Intellectual capital audit
• Exit planning
• Charles G. Smith
• Bankruptcy examiner
• Pegasus Intellectual Capital Solutions
• Relational capital
• Platform company

Existing articles

• Boutique investment bank ‎
• Financial market
• Structural capital
• Private equity
• Middle-market company
• Human capital ‎

WP:SPA accounts working together, extremely likely that the ip is just IbankingMM not logged in.

IbankingMM appears to work for Pegasus Intellectual Capital Solutions in some capacity given his claim that he made File:Schematic_of_Intellectual_Capital_and_its_components.png which he made for and was copyrighted by Pegasus.

IbankingMM has created multiple articles all related to Pegasus and it's services, incorporating links to pegasusics.com articles. In a similar fashion, he's very prominently introduced similar information to already existing articles.

He had been notified of WP:COI after making his first few edits back in December '12. I've removed all the inappropriate pegasusics.com links and references, as well as the most blatant advertising.

The new articles should all be reviewed against WP:NAD, and his edits as a whole should probably be examined closer for undue bias and promotion. --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Ronz is engaging in harassment outside his/her area of expertise. A cursory review of the work of the work of Leif Edvinsson and Karl-Erik Sveiby, et.al would establish the veracity of every article or edit made and the value of the addition to the knowledge available in Wikipedia. Intellectual Capital is a new (1990's concept) that is poorly understood outside of the largest or most forward thinking corporations. I have no objective other than to further the awareness of corporate finance in general and Intellectual Capital in particular.

Ronz is engaging in disruptive editing. He is clearly not operating withing his/her area of expertise, and should adhere to the Wikipedia mandate to avoid harassment and the deletion of material. From what I have seen, he/she not an Editor. He/she is nothing but a self-assigned vigilante.

It is abundantly clear from his/her 'contributions' that Ronz don't actually make any contributions to Wikipedia such as an article submission or modification. Rather, he/she simply deletes the material of others without due process. Wikipedia explicitly states that deletions of material should be used with greatest of caution, above and beyond any suspicion of self-interest, of which I have none. Ronz, however, does not research the material she/he deletes, since, apparently, that would require effort. It is clear that she/he does not do any research because she/he had deleted my entry in Human Capital before I had a chance to even review it myself.

It is quite clear from the record that Ronz is fond of deleting material, as she/he has no positive contributions to any articles. It would seem that this is the case as it is so much easier to harass than create. I would suggest that Ronz might try writing something, certainly something more substantial than a malicious 'talk' entry.

I have authored the following, de novo. This is entirely new material, relevant, and well documented.

• Exit_planning
• Relational_capital
• Platform_Company
• Bankruptcy_examiner
• Intellectual_capital_audit
• Process_capital#Overview

Ronz is engaging in Vandalism, and I respectfully request that she/he desist. IbankingMM (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Calling another editor a "vigilante" is unacceptable. Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Lack of civility is considered disruptive editing and can lead to your being blocked. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

User:ManagerUSA

• Jim Meskimen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nancy Cartwright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Joe Mantegna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nervo (duo) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• ManagerUSA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 76.94.85.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All edits by ManagerUSA and the listed IP appear to relate directly or indirectly to Bruce Edwin (a talent manager) and his websites. If I recall correctly, Edwin is associated with the Church of Scientology. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of a person's religious or political affiliation, for one to be affiliated with a group does not quantify grounds of censorship, if they provide information about certain members of that group in a non biased and newsworthy manner. Furthermore, there is not evidence of any association with Edwin with any church. Examination of his websites show reportage of persons of various faiths including Christian, Jewish, and Wiccan among more. added at 04:54, 19 February 2013‎ by User:ManagerUSA

Bruce edwin, an article I deleted a little earlier, was a puff piece taken directly from bruceedwin.com, more specifically from its top page (which, so far as my browser is aware, is its only page). This doesn't have the usual formula about all rights being reserved, but it also says nothing about copyleft or the public domain. I therefore deleted Bruce edwin as a copyright violation.

Bruceedwin.com tells us that Bruce Edwin

is founding publishing editor of www.TheHollywoodSentinel.com. [. . . and] is also President of Starpower Management LLC[. . .]

ManagerUSA does seem to have editing interests that are remarkably similar to the interests of this Bruce Edwin. Here he is adding links to both of Edwin's websites in a single edit. (Note the phrasing of "Exclusive interview with Tracy Reiner by Bruce Edwin": just who or what is excluded, or is this mere advertising waffle?)

If Edwin isn't a Scientologist, Google shows a remarkable number of transcribed chats between him and minor celebs whose praise for Scientology he greets with "Wow, cool" or similar. -- Hoary (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Dark pattern

• Dark pattern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dark patterns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Marcmiquel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Creation of articles linking to user's website and related unreliable sources. Appears promotional. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It may seem promotional but the concept "dark pattern" exists beside the webpage and it is important for the encyclopedia. --Marcmiquel (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Please, delete the page "dark patterns", there is no need for the plural. My mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcmiquel (talk • contribs) 14:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It's been deleted. If the term is important then you're welcome to remove links to sites in which you or your associate are involved and add objective reliable sources. Here's a Google search link [18] 99.136.254.88 (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)