Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Johnadonovan (talk | contribs) at 21:27, 1 May 2010 (→Johnadonovan and Royal Dutch Shell: added Royal Dutch Shell safety concerns which was missing from the list). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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:Ada Aharoni
    Talk:Alameda Belt Line
    Talk:Australian Maritime College
    Talk:AvePoint
    Talk:Madeline Bell (hospital executive)
    Talk:Black Hawk (Sauk leader)
    Talk:Charlotte Hornets
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:CoStar Group
    Talk:Creative Planning
    Talk:Barbara Dane
    Talk:The Donkey Sanctuary
    Talk:Stephan DuCharme
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Darnell Edge
    Talk:Empire (magazine)
    Talk:Energy Capital Partners
    Talk:Epic Aircraft
    Talk:Fano (militia)
    Talk:Global Citizen Awards
    Talk:Globe Life
    Talk:Golden State Foods
    Talk:List of Harvard University people
    Talk:Jacob Helberg
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Insteon
    Talk:Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy
    Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones
    Talk:Kennedy Center Honors
    Talk:KieranTimberlake
    Talk:Kathleen Kingsbury
    Talk:A. Gary Klesch
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Leviton
    Talk:List of compositions for flute
    Talk:McCain Institute
    Talk:MongoDB Inc.
    Talk:Moroccanoil
    Talk:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation
    Talk:Oneok
    Talk:Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation
    Talk:Ornge
    Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician)
    Talk:Principal component analysis
    Talk:Joely Proudfit
    Talk:Rivulis
    Talk:Rakefet Russak-Aminoach
    Talk:Sarepta Therapeutics
    Talk:Roger Steare
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:TradingView
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Wingtech
    Talk:Xsolla
    Talk:Sam Yagan
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation
    Talk:Zyn

    Possible autobiographies found by bot

    • User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult   This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.

    Requested edits

    • Category:Requested edits.  Editors who believe they have a Conflict of Interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should undo the {{Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requestor to explain your decision.

    Former Volunteer/Employer

    Proclaims to be a follower or a close friend and uses his own site/book to support the bio. Wikidas© 08:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure what can, or should, be done about it, but the conflict of interest does seem to be pretty clear in this case. -- Atama頭 17:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Dog Whisperer and Cesar Millan

    User:842U has edited 1,424 unique articles in wikipedia, with a total of 14,772 edits. Of the 2,535 pages in Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs 842U has edited 5.

    This pattern of edits would seem to suggest a special interest in Cesar Millan on the part of 842U - which could potentially be a vested interest. Marj (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     Done: My work is unrelated to the field of dogs or television. I work in a field related to engineering. I don't use any Wikipedia pages to promote my work. I own a dog. And three cats. I had a dog when I was kid, before CM was born. It was a mut. The dog I have now is not a Pit Bull or a Rottweiler. I've watched the Dog Whisperer (with CM), It's Me or the Dog (with Victoria Stillwell where I've made less than a half a dozen edits — would that help my percentages?) and Dogs 101 (sometimes featuring N. Dodman, the man who says CM set dog training back 20 years). My dog is pretty well behaved, but I got the dog before I'd heard of CM. I don't receive the network that Dog Whisperer is on; I received one of the DVD's from a past season as a Christmas present. I've watched the Dog Whisperer on Hulu before, too... maybe five or six times. It's a pain. I don't work for a company that has anything to do with CM's work, the show, etc. I do not use the page on the Dog Whisperer or CM in any way, shape or form with my livelihood — nor any other page — although I have referred to articles sometimes to get answers related to work questions. I'm not Mexican, nor am I a naturalized citizen. I don't have any associations with dogs through my work — except for sometimes, on occassion I take my dog to work. One of the three articles I've edited related to CM is about his dog that passed away. Marj gave me the idea for that with her edit here. I recently read a book about a dog, and made an article about it: The Art of Racing in the Rain. I also edited heavily the article about the movie that inspired the book, State of Dogs as well as the article about Garth Stein, author of The Art of Racing in the Rain, which was featured on DYK. My interests are pretty wide broad. I have a special interest in cars and motorcycles. My work is completely unrelated to either of those fields. Of all my edits I am most proud of the section of the Augusta National Golf Club article dealing with the 2002 membership controversy which for a section about controversy has been itself free from controversy — and which, I think, really demonstrates how to write about controversy in a balanced way. I don't Golf, live in Augusta or know Hootie Burke or Hootie Johnson. I'm also very proud of the Chicken Tax article I created, which scored something like 14,000 hits when it was featured in DYK. I eat and like chicken. I tend to get interested in something, go whole hog, and then improve and follow the article. I like hogs just fine. I try to often read the Wall Street Journal we get at work; you'll see a lot of references I insert come from the WSJ. I once indulged in Sockpuppetry, it was brutal all the way around, and learned a lot from the experience. I recently found a sockpuppet in an article. I recently found a company that was Refspamming also. I've eaten Captain Crunch and SpaghettiOs (not together) and then turned around and edited those articles. Lock me up.
    I will answer any questions anyone would like to pose me about the interest I have in CM or any connection it could possibly have to my livelihood. If all this fits a pattern of special interest or vested interest in dogs... I'll be a monkeys uncle. In the meantime, I'm going to take a two-day rest from this. 842U (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't get Marj's line of reasoning, it looks like mud-slinging to me. If 842U has edited over 1400 articles, I can't see that there's a particular interest in anything. ;) -- Atama頭 00:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The 1400 articles are primarily related to transport. The five dog related articles are all on Cesar Millan. 842Us systematic abuse, ridicule, harassment, accusations and slander go beyond mudslinging. I will not be editing wikipedia in future. A request for images (ironic huh?) led me to see your comment. Marj (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    NatDemUK

    The above editor has a history of tendentious POV editing in regard to racist and/or fascist groups in Britain. Here the editor admits to being a member of the BNP, an article which has a long history of members and/or supporters editing tendentiously. I'm pretty sure this editor has also admitted to being a member of other organisations they edit, I'll ask Snowded (talk · contribs) to chip in as he has more experience with this editor than me. 2 lines of K303 13:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well he finally admitted what several of us had suspected, namely that s/he is a member. He can be a member of the party and edit, but needs to use sources and stop editing on the basis of his/her personal opinion. S/he tends to make a series of factual edits then suddenly throws in a couple of POV ones and therefore requires constant monitoring which is a pain! On the positive side, no edit warring. Not the most problematic editor but could improve would be my opinion. --Snowded TALK 01:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You make have spoken too soon regarding the edit warring....although previously there has been some slow-paced edit warring and general lack of discussing controversial edits that have been reverted. Some outside input about this editor would be appreciated though. 2 lines of K303 13:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Articles relating to University of Wisconsin

    It looks like this single purpose account is on WP with the sole aim of editing University of Wisconsin pages to best promote the Universities.

    He has been warned twice here by an admin and here by me but contiues to edit in the area so would welcome someone with more experience looking at the articles.

    Codf1977 (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not promoting. I'm adding well-sourced information. On the other hand,User:Codf1977 is taking every effort to delete the info that the artilcles should have. For example, [1][2][3][4][5] and many others disruptive behavior of his. In his eyes, Wikipedia school articles shouldn't have a "Rankings" section and shouldn't have subarticles. Revws (talk) 09:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly "promoting" and "adding well-sourced information" are not mutually exclusive;
    Secondly NONE of those edits of mine are disruptive and
    Thirdly you failed to address the question - do you have a WP:COI with the University of Wisconsin articles ?
    Codf1977 (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    NO. I attended University of Illinois at Chicago. Revws (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Attending is not the only reason for a connection. It is worth noting that Revws's first off University of Wisconsin topic edit was 3 mins after the above post where he/she moved a {{too many photos}} tag from University of Illinois at Chicago to University of Wisconsin–Madison with his/hers very next edit. To me his/hers WP:COI just quacks. Codf1977 (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Far Eastern University

    I just wanted to request extra eyes on this. The article is currently fine and the contents are neutral, but that's because I keep selectively deleting and dumping the copyvios into subpages. :)

    Nutshell: since 2005, this article has been disrupted repeatedly by rotating IP and registered editors with copyright violating text that is promotional and in some cases verifiably fraudulent. It was listed on the copyright problems board in late 2009, where it came to my attention. I worked with the contributors of the article (mainly User:Rmcsamson, who has valiantly tried to protect it for 5 years) to clean it up then and have several times since had to come back to remove the same material, much of which can be seen at [6] and [7].

    Extra eyes are requested because (a) I'm heading off for a couple of weeks in the middle of the month, and (b) I contributed content in the course of the earlier cleanup. I do not consider myself involved with the article and will handle copyright problems accordingly, but because much of the content currently in the article was written by me, I will not risk becoming involved by intervening with poorly sourced, promotional text (presuming it shows up in copyvio-free language :D). If I start defending the article against that, I won't be able to use my tools for the copyvio issues, and these recur frequently enough that my tools are needed. There aren't very many of us who work that department, so I can't just pass it off to somebody else. :)

    Anyone (admin or otherwise) willing to keep an eye on the article for a month or so until this latest round of effort to propagandize the article settles down? I'd really appreciate it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ongoing Conflict with ChrisO and BLP subject Don Murphy

    Exactly one day after an explosive showdown between producer Don and author Erik, ChrisO inserted false information about Dons father-in-law into article Susan Montford. ChrisO has been the subject of a months long thread on Don's message board seeking a reward for his identity. Author ChrisO knows this and nevertheless chose to enter the false information, and indeed edit the article at all. A ban from all Don related articles is proposed, at least. BassandAle (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    And you're aware of all of this because?   Will Beback  talk  18:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    why would it be hard to be aware of it? ChrisO is outed on Don's site. Susan's article is changed this morning with false informaton by Chris O. Why would I NOT be aware of it?BassandAle (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is of course complete bollocks. I edited and watchlisted Susan Montford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - a person of independent notability - to update it after noticing that it hadn't been touched since January 2009. I got one detail wrong - that SM was the daughter rather than the second cousin of a famous sports commentator. BassandAle also got it wrong [8], claiming that she was the niece of said sports commentator. I checked and corrected the article.[9] There really is nothing more to it than this. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oddly enough, the person being reported here (ChrisO) is probably the only person without a COI in this matter. Clearly Bassandale has a conflict. If there are problems with a person's biography, WP:BLP/N is the proper venue, not here. -- Atama頭 18:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity's sake, I should add that as far as I know Susan Montford has never complained about, commented on or otherwise done anything concerning her biography. I invite anyone to have a look at it to see whether there's anything that could be considered remotely objectionable in there. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem isn't what IS in there it is of course what people like you do next. That's why there isn't an Erik anymore. You are out to upset Don and should not be near anything to do with him BassandAle (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How, exactly, is this an "attack on Murphy"? --NeilN talk to me 19:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that Erik account User_talk:Erik has retired. Off2riorob (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would set a bad precedent if we say that biography subject can force an editor to stop editing by outing them. If the editor in question is making bad edits then that can be handled in other ways.   Will Beback  talk  19:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So let me get this straight, BassandAle... You come here essentially blackmailing an editor by mentioning that there are people trying to out them on an off-Wiki site and saying that they "nevertheless chose to enter the false information". I suggest you clarify that ASAP, because those kinds of threats have zero tolerance on Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 22:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not a native English speaker but blackmailing requires me to demand something in return for something else you don't want to do. ChrisO has a conflict with Don. He inserted incorrect information into Don's wife's article this am and only changed it when I forced him to. ChrisO should not be editing Don related article. Blackmail? As I said I am not an native English speaker. What's your excuse?BassandAle (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You inserted incorrect information into Don's wife's article, which I corrected. What's your excuse? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Except I didn't. She is his niece. BassandAle (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    How do you know that? The cited source says that she's his second cousin. I'm not saying you're wrong - but we can't operate on the basic of undocumented personal knowledge. The biographies of living people policy specifically rules out editors' personal knowledge as a source of facts. We operate on the basis of what has been documented in reliable sources. That's as much for biography subjects' protection as it is for ours. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    well I haven't changed it back have I? I know that because I know Susan. I understand that truth and accuracy is not your goal. But hey, go look at earlier versions of the article- it was correct back then. BassandAle (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Susan_Montford&oldid=73838909 BassandAle (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "I am not a native English speaker but blackmailing requires me to demand something in return for something else you don't want to do." Yes, that's true, and you're demanding that ChrisO not edit articles related to Don Murphy, and have given no justification for such demands except that Don Murphy doesn't like him. That doesn't fly here. Also, have you previously edited Wikipedia as SharkJumper? I notice that your account was created just a day after that account was blocked, and your very first edit was to take up right where SharkJumper left over before they were blocked. -- Atama頭 15:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully ask you to stop antagonizing me. I have demanded nothing and proposed that a conflicted editor avoid conflict. The justification is clear- he has been outed by Don and therefore has animus towards him. Sharkjumper was Don. I am Gaston. Stop your unwarranted attacks upon my person. ChrisO isn't claiming blackmail, which is a crime. You are>BassandAle (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll reiterate what I said before, that the only person with a clear conflict of interest here is you. Wikipedia tries very hard to be as accurate as possible in biographies of living persons, but Wikipedia is under no obligation to obey every demand made by the subject and their friends, relatives, and representatives, and has no tolerance for threats against either the project itself or its editors. The one problem that you're raising such an undue amount of noise about was a simple mistake that was corrected by that person after they made the mistake, and they acknowledge the mistake. If you were able to show that ChrisO was engaged in a campaign to consistently falsify biographies or otherwise use Wikipedia to defame people, then action would be warranted. All you have shown is that yourself and Don don't like ChrisO and have hounded at least one other editor away from the project. If you think you're going to find support in those efforts, you're sadly mistaken. If you have legitimate concerns about ChrisO's edits, or other people's edits, and can show where such disruptive edits have been made, I'll be happy to look into them and offer warnings and/or blocks as needed, or bring it to a more public forum myself. If all you have is a request for a topic ban because an article subject doesn't like the editor, the answer is no. -- Atama頭 17:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Be self righteous all you want. The postings above are clear and cannot be twisted by you. The conflict has been pointed out and raised. You don't get to make decisions all by yourself, thankfully. So the answer is far from a no . BassandAle (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Good luck with that. -- Atama頭 17:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good luck in life. BassandAle (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The History Press

    St.themill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user has been adding books published by The History Press to various articles, even when they don't meet WP:FURTHERREADING. Some of the users edits to The History Press article, have a promotional tone. I've added a COI notice to the user's talkpage, and a COI tag to the History Press article but the user has removed the tag and continued to edit the page. The username appears to be derived from the name of the company's HQ. Grim23★ 13:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Boston Youth Symphony Orchestras

    A new account, BYSO (talk · contribs), has significantly expanded Boston Youth Symphony Orchestras, adding uncited peacock information. Yes, it's one of the best youth orchestras in the United States, but we need someone else to say it before you put it in the article... As I once auditioned (unsuccessfully) for the group, it would be good for uninvolved people to chime in as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    MuZemike has softblocked the name as a violation.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Jim Al-Khalili‎

    Presumably it is him, but if it isn't then he's being impersonated, in which case it needs to be stopped.

    But if it is him then he is editing the article Jim Al-Khalili‎ and removing/changing/watering down verifiable information. e.g. [11]. I mean he did write in a national paper that he is non religious, and he's now removing it from the wikipedia article for some reason, more than once. It's all a bit hmmmm.- Wolfkeeper 17:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Cohan

    User Zagalejo and others with vested interest have abusively edited the Chris Cohan page to restrict its representation as only positive. The most radical changes and involvement coincided with news of a pending sale of the NBA team Cohan owns. Chris Cohan's public image directly correlates to his efficacy in the sale of the Warriors.


    See the "just wait until he gets fired" comment in the edits.

    Implying that once Cohan is not associated with the NBA then Zagalejo will not protect his public image.

    Let me explain something. I didn't even know Cohan was planning to sell the Warriors. I don't follow the Warriors very closely. I've only had that page on my watchlist because of this. I interpreted "soon-to-be ex-owner" as meaning he will be fired soon, which, in retrospect, doesn't make much sense; I must have had him confused with the general manager. But when I saw the edit, I interpreted it as a malicious, unsourced rumor, and thus reverted it. Maybe I was a bit hasty.
    To clarify what I meant in my edit summary: I was saying that we should wait until Cohan was actually "fired" before saying that he was on his way out. (Again, that doesn't actually make sense, since he's the owner, but I was momentarily confused.) I wasn't saying that Warriors fans were free to go wild with the article once he left the team.
    I'm not being paid by the NBA, though I don't know how to convince you of that. I certainly wouldn't remove the page from my watchlist just because Cohan sold the team. Look through my contributions history. I've reverted vandalism and done other cleanup work at many pages on ex-NBA figures. I'm not trying to protect the NBA's image; I just don't want the bios to look tacky. Zagalejo^^^ 01:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe you. Just understand that Cohan's business has been caught in other venues performing anonymous misrepresentations and manipulations of the public discourse. With that in mind there is a certain suspicion of the modes in which the public image of he and his product are represented. As well as a sensitivity to the way in which those representations are received. I'd be happy to cite it on wikipedia if you like. ; ) FamilyJoels (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I find it unlikely that anyone so high in the chain of command at the Warriors as to know of an incipient firing would a) spend his time whitewashing Wikipedia and b) would blab.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    I thought he was a PR rep for the NBA acting on Cohan's behalf until the sale is over. Other than that, you are right, and that is why the Warriors hire third party PR firms to do their dirty work after some embarrassing incidents. With the pending sale of the team this is Cohan and Rowell's last chance to get season ticket money. The announcement of the sale itself coincided with the lock-in date. It's the most convoluted season ticket sales gimmick ever in that it is predicated on the potential of a new owner. Since you find it so unlikely I'll go ahead and link one (of many incidents) in which Warriors PR was caught astroturfing. It's not the exception. Here's the link: [[12]]

    Chinese Room

    I don't see a conflict of interest established here. People tend to edit around their interests, especially initially. We assume good faith. Reading glasses' response to you on his talk page seems entirely appropriate to me. If I interpret what he says correctly, he's studied Isaac Rulf intensively and wants to make contributions in the area.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if someone asked me if I had a conflict of interest in an area where I did not have a conflict of interest, I would just say 'no' rather than avoid the question and make accusations of bad faith against the questioner. Dlabtot (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The one time I was accused (without basis) of COI, I'm afraid I was less than polite (though still civil) with the other party. Why not fight this one on the ground that "cultural references" are trivia, which of course they are, and that they should not be included unless commented on by secondary sources?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really concerned with the politeness issue, I simply asked whether the editor had a conflict of interest, and did not a receive a positive nor a negative reply. Common sense suggests something when that happens.
    I have made the argument you suggest, many, many times, although I don't consider it a fight. If you wish to comment at the talk page your input would be welcome. I'd rather not get off topic at this noticeboard. Dlabtot (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree about the common sense thing. You mean the guy is editing WP in knowing violation of our policies but is so wedded to the truth he can't lie about it?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I take it back. I don't really know what common sense tells us when someone is evasive rather than forthcoming. I doubt anyone who knows me would use the words 'common sense' when describing me, so I suppose I'm not in any position to define it. But I certainly didn't mean what you inferred, which is why I didn't say that. Dlabtot (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    People need not evade here, since it is hard to check up on them. They can simply lie. In which case I don't know what the problem is. Isaac Rulf died over 100 years ago, it would be hard to stand in COI regarding him. You might applaud his work, or denigrate it, that doesn't mean you have a COI. Right now, we have no information that says this is a conflict. We lack subpoena power and Jimbo borrowed the waterboarding equipment, so unless he tells us there is a conflict, we're basically stuck.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (←) Wehwalt is correct, there are only two ways that we establish a conflict of interest. The first way is that they admit it openly, the second way is that they reveal it inadvertently. Usually the latter is accomplished through username choice or assertion of authority. They might pick the username "Joepsmith" and you see on LinkedIn that Joseph P Smith is the name of the PR representative for the company they are promoting on Wikipedia. Or they declare in a discussion that what they want to add to the article is true, and they know because they work there. But absent an on-Wiki "smoking gun" or admission of the connection, we just don't know. People can edit with a POV, and often do, when there is no COI involved. If I have no connection to KFC except that I hate their fried chicken, and keep declaring how bad their food is in their article, I have no COI but clearly I'm editing with a POV. There's even a separate noticeboard for editors who edit with a POV. -- Atama頭 17:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Reading_Glasses here... I'd like to point out that Dlabtot suddenly took an interest in my editing history after a contentious dispute and this mediation. As a relative newbie, my edits so far are mostly on things I'm aware of from life. Please scrutinize any of my edits on their merit, and my editing as a whole. Really. But I hope that Dlabtot's own involvement (which he left unmentioned) is also noted. Also please note I am working through proper channels, requesting mediation and RfCs, not exactly sneaking around to promote my own interest, whatever that would be. Thanks. Reading glasses (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:12.151.35.132 at ArcSight

    12.151.35.132 (talk · contribs), which is an IP from ArcSight, is editing the already-ad-speak article into an even worse version. I've reverted and issued a COI warning. Woogee (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Johnadonovan and Royal Dutch Shell

    I know this has been brought here before see

    But he has just created a new artical Royal Dutch Shell market manipulation that I think needs some attention. Codf1977 (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Added article below missing from the list. --Johnadonovan (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Merrimack College

    I believe that there is a Conflict of interest on this article by Barbagallom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user has been adding information that appears promotional. Most of the edits are copied and pasted from Merrimack's website/promotional materials without attribution. A few IPs and I have mentioned this to her (I think "her", at least) but she has refused to discuss the edits in question and has continued editing this way. On an older revision of her userpage she stated that she is working for the Merrimack PR department and was told to edit the page by her boss. I think this might qualify as a conflict of interest, so I'd appreciate it if someone could take a look at this article. Thanks, Qrsdogg (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    GroupLens Research

    GroupLens Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The above article has been created and heavily edited by members of GroupLens Research. It needs a review of sources, most of them are self-published and the few independent ones don't mention GroupLens Research or not substantially. It should also be mentioned that several members have pushed for the adoption of Wikipedia:Research as policy and the related Wikipedia:Subject Recruitment Approvals Group. Cenarium (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    El Nuevo Herald

    El Nuevo Herald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Also The Miami Herald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Editor seems intent on removing content involving controversies surrounding this newspaper. I have not been able to get the editor to explain the deletions to see if it is due to inaccuracies in the article or whether they simply want to avoid mention of the controversial material. Thanks! Jminthorne (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ETA - the editor in question is User:Cgomezpina Jminthorne (talk) 05:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Erick Arenas

    Sea of Cowards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as edited by Erickarenas. Appears to have added self to external links, and it was reverted. First edit reverted by ClueBot was not obscenities, but rather another external link. mechamind90 18:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=359516514"