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:A&P Talk:Advanced Research and Invention Agency Talk:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:American Water Works Talk:Bank of Greene County Talk:Bell Bank Talk:William Bolcom Talk:Doug Bremner Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Cboe Global Markets Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Character.ai Talk:Cheyne Capital Management Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange Talk:Chime (company) Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Comcast Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment Talk:Edmund de Waal Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Discovery Land Company Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Michael Douglas Talk:Edelman (firm) Talk:End-user license agreement Talk:Engine No. 1 Talk:ESAB Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Randy Fine Talk:Anne Finucane Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Bradley Fried Talk:Judy Genshaft Talk:GLX Digital Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Green Line (TRAX) Talk:Evan G. Greenberg Talk:Kenneth C. Griffin Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Richard Harland Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina Talk:HOK (firm) Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Industrious Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:International Churches of Christ Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Mark Z. Jacobson Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Talk:Nick Jordan (artist) Talk:Amitabh Kant Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Martin Lewis (financial journalist) Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Anthony Marinelli Talk:Masdar Talk:Metlifecare Talk:Monero Talk:MP Materials Talk:Netvibes Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Omaha Steaks Talk:Operating system Talk:Orphan Train Talk:Orphanage Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Plinabulin Talk:Programming language Talk:Pure Storage Talk:Qiagen Talk:QIAGEN Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist) Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Joanna Shields, Baroness Shields Talk:Simprints Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:SoundExchange Talk:Stichting IKEA Foundation Talk:Subway (restaurant) Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Titmouse, Inc. Talk:Tricentis Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan Talk:Bradley Tusk Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:Veris Residential Talk:Versapay Talk:Dan Wagner Talk:Terry Wahls Talk:Washington University Medical Center Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator Talk:Maya Wiley Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Zearn Talk:Zero-day vulnerability

Laurent Schwartz (oncologist)

• Laurent Schwartz (oncologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Laurent Henri Schwartz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Biorébus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:Ludivine1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This account's editing has been confined to these three articles. The account created an image at Wikimedia Commons, the logo of Biorébus[1], with a description of the logo as "own work." Based on that description, I added a "connected contributor" tag to the talk page of Laurent Schwartz (oncologist) because Schwartz is a principal of that company. However, the template documentation is unclear as to whether this is sufficient basis for the tag, and guidance on this would be welcome. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it, as Commons is not an "on-Wikipedia" discussion, and I think that the connected contributor tag needs to be confined to that circumstance. I agree that it is a close question, and certainly won't object if someone reverts. Coretheapple (talk) 21:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm mostly curious about Commons not being considers on-Wiki. Is there a guideline about that? I've never seen this come up so I'm interested.

Usernames are global, aren't they? I thought that, for instance, my username couldn't be used by anyone else but me across all WMF projects. If that's the case, I don't see a reason to not consider other WMF content to be on-Wiki but I admittedly haven't put much thought into the situation. OlYeller21^Talktome 05:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. What's your view of the "connected contributor" tag in light of that? Coretheapple (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, unless I'm mistaken about accounts being global, a user's activity on any WMF website would be consider on-Wiki. If they out themselves or show a clear and close connection to a subject on any WMF website, that would be grounds for adding the close connection template. The COI template could also be added, assuming the article is showing a POV slant as a result of the COI editor's edits.

Asking about accounts being global and the definition of "on-Wiki" at WP:ANI might be beneficial. I've never dealt with this situation before and I'm not finding any clear answers in any guidelines or policies.

For this specific case, "own work" is often used by people trying to upload files to Commons without the proper licensing. They click "own work" because it gets them through the upload wizard. I personally do not believe that "own work" alone is enough to assume a connection unless it's paired with their own name in the author field. Furthermore, unless there's an error, which seems possible these days, the listed editor has no non-deleted edits. Unless there are other editors to list with evidence of their own of a close connection, I don't see a clear issue here.

At any rate, the article is currently at AfD. I'll keep an eye out of SPAs popping up. If it fails (result is not delete), we can go from there. No need to waste the energy if the article will just be deleted, in my opinion. OlYeller21^Talktome 05:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You better watchlist it. It seems to be headed toward a "no consensus" at best. I took off the "connected contributor" notice but I won't bother putting it back on at the moment.Coretheapple (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Leslie Cornfeld

• Leslie Cornfeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MRB-NYC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MRB2-NYC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 74.71.75.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Users have repeatedly added WP:SOAP material to page. Page itself reads like a resume and is considered for deletion anyway. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

There's definitely promotional behavior going on here. At the very least, WP:EL is being broken regularly. I would also agree that there's soap boxing and WP:NPOV editing.

I don't see any evidence of a close connection. MRB in the name presumably refers to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and NYC is obviously the city that he's the mayor of. Leslie is apparently his public policy advisor. That doesn't scream close connection but that may be a moot point.

The article is currently at AFD so rather than keep looking for a connection or passing this off to WP:NPOVN, let's see how it goes. Specifically, let's watch out for WP:SPAs showing up to the AFD or ballot stuffing. OlYeller21^Talktome 05:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Foxit

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

This article appears to be a PR release, not anything that should be on Wikipedia... doesn't seem too neutral, almost all promotional.216.31.187.250 (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC) - Thomas

Thanks for the report.

Typically cases like this would be redirected to WP:NPOVN but I'm not going to split hairs with so little going on at COIN right now.

It looks like 64.125.119.210 has been the one adding promotional and copyrighted material taken direction from the company's website. I don't see any clear relationship between that IP address and the company, though.

I reverted the article to a previous version that doesn't look like an advert. This has been done twice in the past.

The article is currently at AfD. I'll wait until that concludes to do much else. OlYeller21^Talktome 01:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I changed the username and article link templates so that they aren't generic. OlYeller21^Talktome 01:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

COI of user DrChrissy on Marian Dawkins

Please see the section on the talk page for a detailed report. 124.170.237.33 (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

This IP does not even understand what the term "conflict of interest" means. Looie496 (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The comment above suggests the user did not research into the issue.124.168.8.38 (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Before I jump in and do anything, i'll need some evidence of a close connection. Otherwise, this belongs at WP:NPOVN, if it's not just a content dispute. OlYeller21^Talktome 04:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Tagging DrChrissy so that they know this conversation is taking place.

On a side note, assuming good faith isn't a suggestion. Accusing others of POV editing or COI editing based on no evidence is not assuming good faith and is not civil.

I'm not accusing anyone at this point but a quick glance at the talk page shows that there's quite a bit of mud flinging going on. OlYeller21^Talktome 04:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Below text was in my link, but I copy it here again. As requested, I list some of DrChrissy's promotion of MD's work below:

• on animal welfare, she added original research to promote MD.
• she created animal welfare science, added this sentence "Several books on animal welfare science have been written, for example by Professor Marian Dawkins." She only mention MD's book without provide sufficient evidence of notability. Infact there are numerous books about animal welfare science (search animal welfare in Google book). A more recent revision have a list of notable works on the topic
• just several paragraphs above, she advocated the creation of an article for MD's notorious book: 'An article on the book should be created'.
• she is also active removing/opposing any edit that decreasing the exposure of MD's work. See recent editing history and talk pages of animal welfare science, pain in animals, animal welfare and this article for more information. 124.168.28.54 (talk) 08:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You never pasted those links here. You posted a single link to an entire talk page. If you want help, please don't expect people go read that entire discussion, look through article histories, and look through editor contributions to find evidence you should have before coming here. This is explicitly listed at the top of this page.

untrue, I post the link direct to the records section, not to an entire talk page124.170.240.130 (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

So I'll point out three issues with your report.

1. You didn't notify the person you were reporting. This requirement is in red, bold text in a red box at the top of this page. This is important because we're looking for both sides of a situation to deal with COIs - not be the judge in a content dispute.

Untrue, I notified, see here 124.170.240.130 (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Please go read WP:COI. It clearly states that one must have a close connection with a subject to have a conflict of interest. You've still given no evidence of a close connection. It appears that you're inferring from your bullet points that POV editing implies a conflict of interest. It does not and that brings me to my next point.
2. You're not assuming good faith. That's no an option. It's required here on Wikipedia. Also, you may want to check out WP:BOOMERANG as your report is shedding light on your actions which could easily lead to you being blocked from editing for a period of time.

According to this logic, anyone posting a report on the noticeboards are not AGF. Not reporting an major violation in my opinion is irresponsible. 124.170.240.130 (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• 1) AGF is a guideline. A generally accepted standard. Saying it is "required" and "not an option" is simply wrong. 2) AGF isn't a suicide pact. There may comes a point where AGF isn't realistic. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll be closing this report today if there's no evidence of a close connection. As I've stated several times before, if there's no evidence of a close connection, this belongs at WP:NPOVN. WCS100 (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like add a secondary person who has COI with this matter see here: Epipelagic's connection with MD and DrChrissy 124.170.240.130 (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I really have no idea why I am being accussed of COI by this IP hopper. I re-insert Marian Dawkins' work into articles because it is, in my opinion, one of the best books on the subject. I make no mention in the article about my opinion of the book's quality, or the opinion of others on the book's quality, so I am not promoting it other than it being part of a list of several books on the subject matter. It is a neutral inclusion. I have asked on several occasions for the IP hopper to explain why they think there is COI but I have not yet read a coherent explanation of this. Several other editors have commented that this IP does not even understand what the term "conflict of interest" means.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I have just followed the link the IP hopper provides suggesting COI on Animal welfare science. For anyone following this, please note the link is to the day I created and uploaded the original page....November 8, 2011! This is disengenuous on the part of the IP hopper to put it politely - a bloody waste of editors' time is another way of putting it! Since that day, (2 years ago!) I and several other editors have added other works. My apologies for not uploading a perfectly finished and polished article in 2011.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to add an WP:OWN case of DrChrissy. AslanEntropy raised the case just now, he appears to be from USA, I am from Australia. Click here for detail124.170.240.130 (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Anirban Sengupta

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Anirban Sengupta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Anirban Sengupta discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (AfD)
• List of songs recorded by Anirban Sengupta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Merge proposed to Anirban Sengupta discography by the autho of the article)
• Mr. Anirban Sen Gupta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Pure WP:COI. Keeps creating unsourced BLPs about himself. He's made several self-promoting articles. Most of them are deleted. There's one in the mainspace right now which has been BLP PRODed by me. Ankit Maity § ^(chatter) _«Contribs» 07:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Surjendranil may be of interest. This editor appears to have had several '... Sengupta ... ' or 'Sen Gupta' accounts blocked. 220 of ^Borg 07:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Very less chance. This person is adding self-promoting information. However, it's not vandalism, it's a COI and not to mention all are unsourced BLPs (and it's claimed to be a singer). That sockpuppet was based on complete vandalism. However, I am not ruling out the possibility. --Ankit Maity § ^(chatter)_«Contribs» 07:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

They removed the prod twice, I returned it twice and in-between they have added 2 references that appear to be bogus, in that they do not mention his person by name at all. 220 of ^Borg 10:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what "Very less chance" means or is referring to but if this user has been socking and is evading a block, this absolutely is vandalism and a block evasion. I think it's also a violation of Wikipedia's WMF:Terms of Use. As for the previous SPI, I'm trying to learn more about naming conventions in India and I'm not that knowledgeable, still, but I think that Sengupta may be a title or common portion of a name. I'm not sure that it would imply that it's the same person. Even if they're not block evading, removing speedy deletion templates as the author of the article after having been warned, is vandalism.

I'm willing to support using WP:DUCK to assume a WP:COI based on the name of the user and the subjects they are editing. At any rate, if we're strictly following the deletion process, the next step would be an WP:AFD.

I'll take a look in the next few hours and try to deal with the affected content. If someone wants to start a WP:SPI to deal with user, that would be great. WCS100 (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree to your WP:DUCK idea. =D Same here. So, I dropped in out there at SPI and found 220 of Borg already dealt one case. Thanks a lot. I activated the CU request, as we don't have any comparative diffs.--Ankit Maity § ^(chatter)

_«Contribs» 17:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Alexf has deleted the necessary pages and blocked several accounts, so this issue is, I hope, over. I won't be surprised if 'Sen Gupta' comes back though! :-\ 220 of ^Borg 17:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, right. --Ankit Maity § ^(chatter)

_«Contribs» 17:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Closing. --Ankit Maity § ^(chatter) _«Contribs» 17:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.