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
→‎Bert Martinez: explanation
XiuBouLin (talk | contribs)
241 edits
Line 124: Line 124:
[[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Hype_Magazine]] silly voting links [[User:Chastized]] with:
[[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Hype_Magazine]] silly voting links [[User:Chastized]] with:
*{{userlinks|XiuBouLin}} (clearly not a new editor)
*{{userlinks|XiuBouLin}} (clearly not a new editor)
:I do not have any relation to "The Hype Magazine", or any other article that I edit, I even avoid editing articles about my home-city of Hong Kong. [[User:XiuBouLin|XiuBouLin]] ([[User talk:XiuBouLin|talk]]) 02:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

* {{la|Intaction}} edit history links [[User:Hillysilly]] [[User:Caribbeanbio]] with:
* {{la|Intaction}} edit history links [[User:Hillysilly]] [[User:Caribbeanbio]] with:
* {{userlinks|IntactKnowledge}} (blocked)
* {{userlinks|IntactKnowledge}} (blocked)

Revision as of 02:01, 10 November 2014

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:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Monica Behan
    Talk:Marc Benioff
    Talk:Shmuley Boteach
    Talk:Breyers
    Talk:Michael Calvey
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Nina L. Diaz
    Talk:Daniel Diermeier
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:Earth Journalism Network
    Talk:Mary Baker Eddy
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Ex Libris Group
    Talk:Far East Organization
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Harsco
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Elham Kashefi
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:A. Gary Klesch
    Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
    Talk:Lally School of Management
    Talk:LD (cigarette)
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:Masdar
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:Dana G. Peleg
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Poster House
    Talk:Joely Proudfit
    Talk:Shlomo Rakib
    Talk:Ranker
    Talk:Eric Rubin
    Talk:Science Inc.
    Talk:Seagull Trust Cruises
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:Spotfire
    Talk:A. G. Sulzberger
    Talk:Steve Tappin
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Topps
    Talk:UK Biobank
    Talk:Carla Ulbrich
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:UnitedHealth Group
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Yahoo Finance
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Bert Martinez

    Bert Martinez's company created an article on him which is based on self-published books, press releases and trivial mentions in press. Now they are offering a Wikipedia program for $750 to create articles on others - www.bertmartinez.com/wikipedia-program/ . 99.229.119.114 (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The articles Everybody's Goin Thru Something and Joe Vitale (author) also seem to be maintained by them! 99.229.119.114 (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Yup, I worked through the articles checking them out. All SPAM, seems to be a editor tag-team. The paid writing advert linked above has been online since Sep 29, 2010.

    Widefox; talk 11:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    In order to prevent further disruption of this sort, I have given an indefinite block for promotional editing to User:Psychicconsultation, User:Amyxcell, User:Poshemo-2007, User:Bertjedi, User:Jvwikie , User:Richardjonas , User:Donaldmarkus , & the two ip addresses. DGG ( talk ) 22:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I will block the other 3 if they do any substantial editing. Anyone else, let me know. I also changed some of the prods to speedy G11s, but I alwasys let another admin confirm the deletions. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Would someone else please take this to spi--the edits are recent enough to be worth the trouble, but I am not familiar with the procedures there. DGG ( talk ) 22:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Amyxcell#24_October_2014 . There may be more, these are just the linked ones clustered around Bert Martinez. Widefox; talk 09:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    New one:
    and I found another one

    Widefox; talk 11:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Another one

    Widefox; talk 08:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Previously unlinked, now they've edited the only undeleted article, (adding PR/primary sources) & removing maintenance templates to challenge the PROD on Money for Lunch, now listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Money for Lunch
    See this edit [2] for two co-workers of Emilysantoss. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    These are those two accounts (I gave them the mandatory notification for being mentioned here)

    Widefox; talk 23:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stuttering_Hexagon SPA !voting links the account Emilysantoss with[reply]

    SPA Editors on Intaction Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Caribbeanbio/Archive

    SPA !voting in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sammy_Porter (where User:Klokus discloses paid editing)

    Widefox; talk 23:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    As I've listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Amyxcell

    More linked by articles and User:Cristine nickol

    Widefox; talk 19:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Electronic Recycling Association (locked due to edit war / promo editing): (see other editors concern #Please have a look at the page bellow (Electronic Recycling Association))

    Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Hype_Magazine silly voting links User:Chastized with:

    I do not have any relation to "The Hype Magazine", or any other article that I edit, I even avoid editing articles about my home-city of Hong Kong. XiuBouLin (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Widefox; talk 21:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not know Ianjoy8311 and his coworkers. I do not even live in America or Canada to be related to them or ERA. I am a neutral user who improved a subject under bad influence from start and I am willing to correct promotional data it was my try at first. You can see how much I improved this subject. Editwar happened because all my improvement was deleted by users obsessed with Conflict of Interest without raising concern on my written work. Sorry for helping to improve if you guys will put my name in a laundry list like this. My work is my own opinion and I am not related to any company. Actually I will be happy if all fake accounts above are banned by admins. --TheSawTooth (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    TheSawTooth Let's come back to that. Your edit history [24] shows you made 10 minor edits to start with, then created a new article in your sandbox and started editing Electronic Recycling Association . That good level of proficiency would be unusual for a new account, have you ever had another account or edited as an IP before? Can you explain that? I believe that matches the edit pattern of the banned User:Morning277. Please can you not remove the connected template on the article talk for now. Thank you. Widefox; talk 22:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't quite understand the formatting here. But note that Carter Hargrave was edited by BiH, Emilysantoss, Lanaelle007 (blocked sock of NZ), and a few suspicious SPAs. Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Please have a look at the page bellow

    Wrong venue. Please move to Talk:Electronic Recycling Association

    (striking. holy cow part of huge mess. my apologies Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC))[reply]

    Talk:Electronic_Recycling_Association#Restore_to_non_promotional_version - 180.149.0.249 (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Had my eye on that article, and is now included above - see #Bert_Martinez) Widefox; talk 20:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Conflict of Interest abusing on this subject may be present so I improved every edit from start. I have asked two editors on talkpage to find concerns in current revision but they want to revise to original poor condition revision which has blog reference and half detail. I invite neutral editors to tell concerns on talk page as I want to correct this notable subject which is under bad influence as I am neutral editor. Thank you Widefox for warning but this page is protected. It is unfair to delete everything and ask me to get consensus without any raising any concerns. So please review it first and see what sources are saying. Read my complete justification on talkpage of only few primary sources and all other secondary references. I am willing to revise my edit if concern is raised.

    Rahat got this subject protected by admins now he is informing this noticeboard while logged out of his account to pretend to be two users [27] [28]. How to report this to admin? --TheSawTooth (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Sawtooth, two thing: 1) Please assume good faith; people sometimes just forget to log in. 2) About the worst thing you can do at this point is start pointing fingers at other editors. So just stand down and deal with the sock puppet investigation when that comes. Ctg4Rahat please confirm that you filed this COIN posting - the diffs shown by SawTooth make it clear that you did; it would be useful for you to acknowledge it. Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I raised concern about IP address which is editing his account page. Nothing else. Is Widefox assuming good faith for me? People some times can be real people who are pro recycling and want to improve a subject. I have made my note on his topic above. Jytdog you were sensible in dealing of dispute on talk page before so I listened to you. --TheSawTooth (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. It's me. I just forgot to log in. I forget it at times. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 05:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No evidence of any COI. This is just a content dispute that needs to be worked out on talk page or through the regular content dispute procedures. Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC) clearly big problems as described by Widefox. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Nitero

    Jbalich has created the Nitero article, he claims to be a member of a PR Company representing Nitero. Avono♂ (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Private data (and COI) at help desk

    Could an admin please look at Wikipedia:Help_desk#L.W._DE_LAURENCE and remove the personal info? The same data is also displayed on the user's userpage. Some standard COI warning couldn't hurt aswell, I guess. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Most already covered (thanks). GermanJoe (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Dany Bahar

    Hi – I have prepared a userspace draft for Dany Bahar, a prominent player in the automotive industry. The current article has been tagged for neutrality, poor citations and may need to be rewritten entirely. My COI is that I work for Bell Pottinger and Dany Bahar is my client. Feel free to take a look and ping me or post on my talk page or the article talk page. Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    There's already an article on Dany Bahar. More at Talk:Dany Bahar John Nagle (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    SavvyMedia

    I've come to the conclusion that the marketing company SavvyMedia edits Wikipedia for their clients as a standard practice. For everyone of their clients and partners that has an article, there is a history of single-purpose accounts doing promotional editing. I first brought up this issue at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gracesavvymedia, but it's clear that this company is too savvy (pun intended) for a mere sockpuppet investigation to be effective. The list of clients and partners is from their own website. Summary of what I've found:

    Company owner

    Clients (those listed in the company testimonials)

    No article

    Partners

    No article

    Same editors as above I can't link these subjects to Savvymedia, but they have some of the same editors as above, italicized

    All of these articles need careful review to remove advertising content, and at least some should probably be deleted. I would also suggest that several editors watchlist the redlink articles, as well as obvious spelling variations on those. If there are ways we could tell this company to stop, or report to their hosting company, that might also be warranted. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I trimmed Honest Tea a bit; listing every flavor and when it was introduced was a bit much. Becky's Fund is barely an article, after some major deletions a few years ago. Dreams for Kids is missing its talk page. I'll look into that. Anything else? John Nagle (talk) 06:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I've watchlisted all the redlinks just in case. Also, once the sockpuppet investigation is closed, I'll probably nominate some of them for deletion. Most of the accounts are stale, so blocking won't help, so what can we do to stop this stuff in the future? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=633174210"