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 MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 06:40, 18 January 2011 (Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 7d) to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 47.). 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:James F. Allen (businessman)
    Talk:American Water Works
    Talk:Vishal Amin
    Talk:Anaxam
    Talk:Florence Ashley
    Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals
    Talk:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Bank of Greene County
    Talk:Bastion (agency)
    Talk:Benchmark Mineral Intelligence
    Talk:Bending Spoons
    Talk:Marc Benioff
    Talk:Breyers
    Talk:Brookfield Properties
    Talk:Burford Capital
    Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes
    Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
    Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz
    Talk:Change Healthcare
    Talk:Character.ai
    Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange
    Talk:Chime (company)
    Talk:Sujit Choudhry
    Talk:Citadel Securities
    Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square
    Talk:Slaid Cleaves
    Talk:CoBank
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Aaron Cohen-Gadol
    Talk:Danny Cohen (television executive)
    Talk:Community-engaged research
    Talk:The Culinary Institute of America
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment
    Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker)
    Talk:Nina L. Diaz
    Talk:Daniel Diermeier
    Talk:DISA (company)
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:Ed Dodds
    Talk:Double Union
    Talk:Ecolego
    Talk:Mary Baker Eddy
    Talk:EF Education First
    Talk:ESAB
    Talk:Ex Libris Group
    Talk:Far East Organization
    Talk:Farm Credit Bank of Texas
    Talk:Farm Credit Council
    Talk:Farm Credit of New Mexico
    Talk:Scott Farquhar
    Talk:Fastly
    Talk:Mark Felton
    Talk:Randy Fine
    Talk:Anne Finucane
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Bryan Fogel
    Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather
    Talk:John Freund (business executive)
    Talk:Bradley Fried
    Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media
    Talk:Judy Genshaft
    Talk:Geotab
    Talk:Kellie Gerardi
    Talk:GetYourGuide
    Talk:GLX Digital
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Colin Goldberg
    Talk:Grail (company)
    Talk:Kenneth C. Griffin
    Talk:Grove Collaborative
    Talk:Shashi Gupta
    Talk:H.B. Fuller
    Talk:Holly Ham
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Heterodox Academy
    Talk:Eric Hippeau
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Industrious
    Talk:Infillion
    Talk:Institutional Venture Partners
    Talk:International Churches of Christ
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Simcha Jacobovici
    Talk:Valerie Jarrett
    Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones
    Talk:Michael Jones (entrepreneur)
    Talk:Amitabh Kant
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:KieranTimberlake
    Talk:King the Land
    Talk:A. Gary Klesch
    Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
    Talk:Latvian ISBN Agency
    Talk:LD (cigarette)
    Talk:Dion Lee
    Talk:Jeffrey Leiden
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Ronnie Liang
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:List of people from Darwin
    Talk:List of University of Queensland people
    Talk:Robert Luciano
    Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn
    Talk:Masdar
    Talk:McCain Institute
    Talk:Media.Monks
    Talk:Metlifecare
    Talk:Christos Metskas
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:MP Materials
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:List of New School people
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:David Nirenberg
    Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0
    Talk:Oasis Management
    Talk:Olivier Cornet Gallery
    Talk:OneHope
    Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:V Pappas
    Talk:Dana G. Peleg
    Talk:Gregory Pence
    Talk:Pendragon (role-playing game)
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management
    Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker)
    Talk:Matthew Pittinsky
    Talk:Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
    Talk:Pure Storage
    Talk:Qiagen
    Talk:QOR360
    Talk:Quantitative storytelling
    Talk:Shlomo Rakib
    Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership
    Talk:Revel Transit
    Talk:Revolut
    Talk:Eric Rubin
    Talk:Roland Rudd
    Talk:Jay Ruderman
    Talk:Rick Sanchez (journalist)
    Talk:Scandia (theme parks)
    Talk:Stephen Schlesinger
    Talk:Schott AG
    Talk:Science Inc.
    Talk:Milton Shedd
    Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85
    Talk:Snowflake (software)
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:SolidWorks
    Talk:SoundExchange
    Talk:South Fort Myers High School
    Talk:Spotfire
    Talk:A. G. Sulzberger
    Talk:Sysco
    Talk:Joseph Tabrikian
    Talk:TaskUs
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:The Grey Knight
    Talk:The Peninsula Hotels
    Talk:The Red Sleeve
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Topps
    Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire
    Talk:Edward Trobaugh
    Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan
    Talk:UK Biobank
    Talk:Carla Ulbrich
    Talk:United Launch Alliance
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:UnitedHealth Group
    Talk:Up TV
    Talk:Veris Residential
    Talk:Versapay
    Talk:Terry Wahls
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Washington University Medical Center
    Talk:Joey Wat
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Xavier University
    Talk:Sam Yagan
    Talk:Yelp
    Talk:Zero-day vulnerability
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation


    UTF-8

    Garazy is running builtwith.com. Almost all of his contributions to Wikipedia consist in placing links to builtwith.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CeanS (talk • contribs) 17:29, 1 January 2011

    Possibly this should be mentioned at WP:ELN (external links noticeboard) because people there are familiar with links that might be WP:REFSPAM. Johnuniq (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've dropped them a note and pointed them towards this thread. I've also checked for links to builtwith.com and it looks as if most had already been reverted by other users, but I've finished the job off. Replacing references like here to your own site is definitely frowned upon and shouldn't be done. SmartSE (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I just realised I only checked www.builtwith, but there are still >25 links to trends.builtwith, I'm not sure whether it is a reliable source or not. Any opinions? SmartSE (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added an IP who added a lot of links, last February. SmartSE (talk) 11:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ciplex

    • Disclaimer - This user has stated a possible COI with me and Vector Marketing in which we are in a editing dispute. I'll be happy to participate in any discussion on this board on that matter. However, I request that any such discussion be a separate COI report.

    Per information I have presented on the AN/I board and recommendation to proceed here, I would to report a possible Conflict of Interest between AkankshaG and Ciplex. There is also other articles affected, however Ciplex is the main issue. During an editing dispute, A photograph [1] uploaded for Vector Marketing revealed a name for someone as an account executive at Ciplex, which leads me to believe that AkankshaG is an associate for Ciplex. I like to note that her editing behavior suggests that she might be being paid to create Puff Articles, and in one such article she had edited extensively, she participated in sockpuppeting Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AkankshaG/Archive at that article's AfD [2] with other meatpuppets. Other editors and involved Admins have also voiced concerns of WP:PUFF.

    An important note, Ciplex advertises not only website creation and hosting, but marketing services as well. Marketers often attempt to use Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX (aware or unaware of policy), which its established its clearly wp:not.

    This is yet another attempt to intimidate me because of an editing dispute with User:Cutno/User:Phearson at Vector Marketing and attempted WP:OUTING

    I have been editing here since 2006, and have edited over 1,000 articles. I have no history of blocks or bans.

    What User:Phearson has failed to disclose here is that he and I are in an editing dispute over at Vector Marketing, which is owned by Cutco Cutlery. If you click on User:Cutno, it resolves to User:Phearson. See this diff where he states: “Hello, I'm Phearson, I originally came to Wikipedia to patrol a very disputed article relating to the Cutco Corporation (formally Alcas) and its Marketing arm "Vector Marketing". Needless to say, if you understand what Multi-level marketing is, and what Scientology is. You probably will know what I'm talking about.” Phearson/Cutno provides in this diff: “I disagree, Vector marketing when I worked for them told me not to say that I worked for them and that I was an "independent contractor." User:Cutno|Cutno (User talk:Cutno|talk) 19:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)”

    Phearson/Cutno has apparently been locked in a fierce and protracted battle with the forces of evil over the Vector article, where one side wants a decidedly positive piece, and the other side apparently wants a decidedly negative piece. The primary contention seems to be the characterization of the company as a direct sales company vs. a characterization of them as a multi-level marketing company, and questions about whether the representatives are employees or contractors.

    I’ve been watching the article for awhile, and left a message on the talk page Dec 11th indicating that I thought the article was unbalanced, and needed to look more like a regular company article does on Wikipedia, citing the Apple, Inc. article as one that contains historical, organizational, marketing, outside activities and critical information about the company. I didn’t get any response from Phearson/Cutno, so on December 27th I uploaded a new version of the article, which included a controversy and criticism section. I didn’t include the materials from the SAVE site or the Consumeraffairs sites, as that material is from the Anti-Cutco SAVE organization, which isn’t WP:RS. Rather than any discussion at all, Phearson/Cutno immediately reverted back to his version. On Dec 27th I asked Phearson/Cutno to revert to the draft plus add back the entire controversy and criticism section that he authored, which I again asked him to add back his version of the controversy & criticism section, and again. Rather than respond to these requests and include his version of the controversy and criticism section, he reverted everything back to his previous negative version of the article. As I said in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vector_Marketing&diff=next&oldid=404417728 this comment, I think a complete article needs to have a controversy and criticism section, it just shouldn’t be the whole article. My last correspondence on the talk page was a request to Phearson to wait until the New Year’s weekend to allow me to address his issues, as I needed to do actual work work during the week and nut be futzing around with Wikipedia. Rather than trying to work through the editing issues with me and waiting for the weekend as I requested, Phearson/Cutno launched a series of attacks on me and articles I’ve edited, apparently believing that the best way to maintain his version of the article is to crush any editor who challenges it. And now we’re here.

    User:Phearson/User:Cutno didn't get the result he wanted in one ANI, then another ANI, and a sockpuppet investigation, and now he's WP:Forum shopping and trying to get a different result here. He's also tried to OUT me, which he was cautioned against by an WP:OVERSIGHT administrator. Not satisfied with that, User:Phearson/User:Cutno has tried to intimidate me from editing the Vector article by going around and nominating my work for deletion.

    I don’t work for mywikibiz, viziworks, ciplex, scientology, vector, or cutco (all theories offered by Phearson/Cutno at one time or another). I do work in the video game industry, beyond that, I’m not willing to say more, as I’m greatly concerned that there are some editors in our community who have lots of time on their hands and would take that information and track me down in RL. Our WP:OUTING policies are here for a reason, and that is to discourage intimidation tactics, and I hope you all will respect that and remove any theorized ruminations about my RL identity.

    Lastly, I’ll say this. Wikipedia has been mostly a happy and safe place for me over the years, someplace I can relax to and have fun with. Bizarre as it may seem to an outsider, I enjoy taking a craptastic article like Vector and completely redrafting it, tracking down every last little bit of information I can find and turning it into something worthy of an encyclopedia. Disagree with my approach to drafting or my edits, fine, let’s work it out on the talk page, but going after me personally both on Wikipedia and off-Wikipedia: That’s just not cool. AkankshaG (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Response

    I replied to most of these accusations already in the ANI. It was suggested that I take my concerns here. For the record, I stated that I would work with Akanksha on Vector Marketing should she not be blocked. But she is not going to her POV way either, and repeating the large wall of text of allegations of intimidation here and other pages are not helpful. I'm sorry you feel offended, but I'm not happy doing this either. And if nothing comes of this, I will stop here. But I think that there is clear COI regarding Ciplex. I also have never accused you of working for Scientology, or Viziworks. And I have placed a disclaimer stating your concern about me, and you have ignored my request to begin a separate COI notice. Phearson (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What I want is for you to stop stalking me and attempting to WP:OUT me in some effort to prevent me from editing your favorite article Vector Marketing. All of your faux politeness does not cover your dozen attempts to chase me away from your precious article. And you have no right to edit my comments here either. AkankshaG (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not just me objecting to your changes to the article, user:Ryulong has also raised an objection to your insertion of blatantly promotional material on the article's talk page. As for the stalking charge, I have acted within the law of Florida and other jurisdictions when I connected the author of the photograph with someone listed as an account executive at Ciplex. You have effectively outed yourself via the license of that photograph, and you have been called out on it. Nothing unlawful occurred here. And I did not edit your comments here, other then to put them in a box like user:tedder did at Ciplex's AfD. Phearson (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    the main argument here seems to be over the decidedly negative tone of the article regarding vector marketing. i would like to point out this is the case because literally all of the WP:RS used in the article are discussing the company in a negative light. if you read the sources, even the sources used to reference neutral parts of the article talk about the company negatively. if the sources used to reference the vector marketing article all discuss the company in a negative light, this is what the wikipedia article should reflect. WookieInHeat (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This COI is not specific to that article in which a dispute has occurred. Ciplex in particular was edited heavily by AkankshaG who as I keep pointing out, has ties to Ciplex. I've already gone ahead and AfD it awhile back, if its not deleted, a heavy review of its sources is needed, including articles connected to Von Dutch who was also edited heavily by AkankshaG. Phearson (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    While I am also concern with the edits on other articles, I went and tagged a few that were loosely connected to Von Dutch. AkankshaG is claiming further that I am stalking her and is reverting tags I have placed on them here & here. Phearson (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Guy Bavli

    I have removed the {{coi}} tag from the BLP article Guy Bavli, and replaced it with an {{underconstruction}} tag. Some improvements have already been made (See the previous COIN notice) I am in contact with the subject of the article, and they have expressed interest in helping in a wikipedia-friendly manner. Thanks.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)     20:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The coi tag was put back today. I left a short note on the talk page of the editor. If there are any disagreements regarding this article, then a coi tag may be appropriate. However I'm not aware of any disagreements. Thanks.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)     17:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The COI tag is not solely for disagreements. In this case it marks an article edited with a conflict of interest that requires clean up. I think it is entirely appropriate. --Leivick (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, large sections of the article are unreferenced and presumably based on OR by the paid editors and I'm not exactly sure we need the level of detail regarding the TV program either. SmartSE (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Pierre-Louis Parant

    While searching Google to try to find more sources for this article, I noticed that on what is currently hit #9 here, although the Twitter link does not actually work, the title matches the name of this article and the username in the URL matches the author of the article. This suggests to me the possibility that the article may be written by the subject himself. I'm a newbie here, so I'm not sure how to proceed in this situation. Any advice? jcgoble3 (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The lack of secondary sources - reliable third-party coverage - places doubts on the notability anyway, making the COI irrelevant. 217.44.19.143 (talk) 11:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks. I've taken the article to AFD. jcgoble3 (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't remember basic procedure

    I've recently discovered that my church has received significant attention in multiple independent reliable sources as a historic site, so at some point down the line, I'm planning on writing an NPOV and properly-sourced article about it. As a longtime editor, I'm well aware of WP:COI and wish to be as transparent as possible, but I'm not generally aware of the procedures that are best to follow. Would it be considered appropriate to write the article in userspace and leave a note here asking an unrelated party to review the article and move it into mainspace if warranted? Nyttend (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If you've declared your potential conflict (which you mostly did here), then userspace draft seems like a good idea. For an unrelated party review, better places might be Wikipedia:Requests for feedback or Wikipedia:Articles for creation.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)     10:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In your position I don't think making a userspace draft is necessary as you don't have anything to gain from writing an article about your church and (I assume) would be writing it with the primary aim of improving the project. To me this is the crux of the COI policy, regardless of possible links between the editor and the article. From what I see at DYK, most historic churches are notable, so as long as you make sure everything is sourced and not based on your experience then it should be fine. You can disclose that it is your church, but I don't think there is any need to and you may not want to, to maintain your privacy. SmartSE (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gjshisha

    The actions of Gjshisha (talk · contribs) seem to be directed at promoting someone G.J.Szekely. In particular, this user on several occasions have edited other articles by adding references to Szekely's works, even when such references are either non-notable or even irrelevant. Examples: [3], [4], [5], [6], etc.  // stpasha »  06:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The Library is on Fire

    Clearly and openly editing on behalf of her client and his projects. "Can this be fixed so I can restore it to my client's page?" Orange Mike | Talk 22:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul Vitale

    The original author is single purpose and COI. This is all promotional as I see it. I note that the photo was uploaded by the article subject (PAVitale) but can't find history of that user. I will notify user of this posting so they have an opportunity to explain.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Jamaica Kincaid

    The IP is repeatedly removing criticisms of Ms. Kincaid from her article. The IP resolves to Claremont, California, which is where Ms. Kincaid teaches. Corvus cornixtalk 02:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed the controversy section because I felt it was WP:UNDUE and in particular, I couldn't see where it was being classified as a controversy. Unfortunately no one tried to speak to the IP and they ended up getting blocked. The article is severely lacking in sources, so it is possible that the IP was legitimately removing incorrect material from the early life section per WP:AUTO#IFEXIST "you should feel free to remove mistaken or unreferenced out-of-date facts about yourself". I'll drop them a note to try and get them discussing it, rather than just editing. SmartSE (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Rolling Paper

    We have all been through this before. I had to re-report it as they're back at it again. There are various accounts used by Bambu Brand promoters on Wiki. This is because they use Wiki for advertising and even link their own website http://www.bambu.com/history.php to our List of oldest companies. Admins have warned them not to re-post the 1764 year without verifiable references but they can't resist. It's imperative to their branding and thus here we are again. The now-blanked talk pages of Lostsociety and ArnaudMS are filled with warnings relating to Bambu, including 6 bambu images that were taken down for improper licensing and many other types of promotional text warnings, have a look. They were asked not to insert the 1764 year again without verifiable references, however they couldn't resist and went right back at it again.

    I don't think there could be stronger language of warnings on their talk pages from various Admins. At this point I think we all need to move up to the next level. They are VERY good at writing long finger pointing posts whever anyone complains about them (one should be coming below shortly) so please don't beleive anything I have written here. Instead have a quick look at their actions and warnings and decide for yourself what you think. Have a great weekend and happy Wiki'ing! Nahome (sinebotH8R) (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This situation is not as simple as Nahome (talk · contribs) is portraying it. He recently requested page protection at Bambu rolling papers to stop IPs and new accounts from removing criticism he was adding. I checked the article and found he was adding material that was either not in the sources he provided, or the sources weren't policy compliant. I have a concern that he's Mrtobacco (talk · contribs), an account found to have a COI who stopped editing in 2009. They share exactly the same interests, the same writing style, and both have telephoned stores that other users said they worked in, to find out whether they really did work there. Here's Mrtobacco doing it in 2006. [7] Here's Nahome doing it in 2011, [8] and EdJohston warning him about it. [9] It appeared that Mrtobacco worked for one of Bambu's competitors.
    I've added full protection to the article, have reduced it to a stub, and have asked Nahome to re-build it using only good sources and sticking to them very closely. See Talk:Bambu rolling papers#The need for good sources. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    SlimVirgin I don't want to rebuild that article by myself, I think I have already dedicated enough time to this. I appreciate your involvement and am kind of asking you and other editors to do it. The more I post the more I get called names, and now you think I'm someone who I really am not. The reason I called that store was because I was asked to. I admit that I did not read the link above to see if that was the same situation for Mrtobacco, but likely that was the cause. If we are both dealing with the same sockpuppets asking us to call them and hitting us in a similar manner, you can expect there to be similar responses. I really would prefer if you and other editors get involved and edit the articles to your (not my) standards. That way you can't say I'm a competitor or anything else. I asked you many times in the talk page to please do this - I hope you will look back and see this. Then, maybe you could consider getting involved enough to write the article YOUR way (not mine). Then, in a few weeks when you've been fully attacked by the Bambu Sockpuppets someone else will be up here saying they think you are Mrtobacco and me :) If that happens I will really laugh a good belly one. Anyway again please - edit it your way and keep the sockpuppets off that article. I won't edit it - but am asking you to - your way - so there is no way - you can say - it was done my way :) Nahome (sinebotH8R) (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no interest in rebuilding it; I'm there only as an admin. But I'm glad to hear you're taking time away from the article, and I hope you'll extend that to related articles so the situation is allowed to calm down. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I want to let it go but I kind of need you to confirm that you'll pick up the watching/protecting of the 3 articles in question which all related to that 1764 promotional year. Will you do that and oversee them to normal wiki standards? Please say yes so I can remove them from my watchlist. Nahome (sinebotH8R) (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have the three pages on my watchlist, yes. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, I feel the weight removed! Now I need to do some Ohms and enjoy my newfound freedom. Please talkpage me if you need anything and thank you again for the blessed release. "Free at last, free at last" Nahome (sinebotH8R) (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to update people, as several admins are involved now. I requested a CU. ArnaudMS (talk · contribs) and Lostsociety (talk · contribs) are the same. I've blocked the former for 24 hours, and the latter indefinitely.

    Nahome (talk · contribs) is also linked to another account, but it involves a real name, so I won't post it. That real name is linked on the Web to a tobacco company. I'm going to ask him which account he wants to edit with, and block the other indefinitely; if it's the real-name account that needs to be blocked, I'll ask another admin to do it so I don't out him.

    I'm thinking that both these users have a COI, so we should topic ban them from all tobacco-related articles. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Nahome chose the real-name account to use from now on, so I've blocked the Nahome account indefinitely; see his talk page. If we agree a topic ban, I'll let the other account know by email. I'll also email the name of that account to the other admins dealing with this, so I'm not the only one keeping an eye on him. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a non-admin who had a bit of inconsequential copyediting to Bambu rolling papers overwritten during the recent war, I think a topic ban is a good idea. IMO, the stubbed state of the article right now is sufficient coverage of the subject. --CliffC (talk)
    Whew! Late start for this American today, but I agree with all that's been said so far. The longer this went, the louder the little bell in my head was tingling that there was way too much interest in these articles for _both_ parties. Sometimes, I AGF too much. Thanks, everybody! :-) KrakatoaKatie 22:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with a topic ban for Nahome and ArnaudMS from Bambu rolling papers and from any Bambu-related edits anywhere, for instance at List of oldest companies. Whoever closes the ban discussion should specify whether it includes talk pages. Nahome's other account should also be banned; I'm not sure how to manage that without disclosing which it is. Evidently all admins who may be able to enforce the ban should be told by email which account it is. Since it's not usually practical to topic ban an IP, and since some IPs have also caused a problem about Bambu, I suggest at least two months of semiprotection on Bambu rolling papers to keep COI-affected IPs from editing. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ageing - author promoting own works

    Promotion of the author F. J. Ninivaggi. User received the standard COI warning on 18 October but has since dropped six more mentions of Ninivaggi works into Wikipedia articles. With the exception of two edits to Wilfred Bion, user's edits all seem to promote Ninivaggi works, and a search finds about a dozen mentions. User identifies himself as Ninivaggi here. --CliffC (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Politics of the Maldives

    Niall Cook openly admits on his user page to be director of marketing technology for the PR firm Hill & Knowlton. The company is best known for making up the story of "Nurse Nayirah" who lied to the Congressional Human Rights Caucus that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers killing Kuwaiti babies by taking them out of incubators that were then transported to Iraq. This was done in order to gain support for the war against Iraq. Niall Cook keeps contributing to wikipedia. As this edit reveals, he sometimes uses an IP that can be tracked back to Hill & Knowlton. On top of obscene vandalism, they were found to use wikipedia for whitewashing the government of the Maldives that had hired the firm for improving its reputation that had been harmed by human rights violations. Although it was reported on several websites, [10] [11] [12] [13] apparently no one has ever reacted to it at wikipedia.
    The Hill & Knowlton article is not frequented by many editors but seems to be on the watchlist of a guy who proudly writes on his user page that he had a conflict with Micheal Moore over wikipedia articles. Checking the IPs that contributed to the article about WPP Group that Hill & Knowlton belongs to one can see that several belong to companies that belong to the group or have other professional interests. Not so surprising for an article about a big media company. But how can we deal with such things? Is there a tool to check all IPs that contributed to articles where they are from so that one can check if anything worrying was done? Can IPs that are known to belong to companies be blocked from editing articles related to them so that even if they log in with a user name they cannot edit? Knopffabrik (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no way as far as I know to block an IP in a way that prevents new accounts being made, although if an article was semiprotected new accounts would not be able to edit it for 4 days which may put them off. Have you tried reinserting the apparently removed criticism with sources etc.? If they are really just censoring, the information will be put in somewhere along the Dispute resolution process. I'll have a closer look later, but in the mean time go through normal editing, present a discussion on the talk page describing your edits (empty talk page). Additionally, if there's enough evidence it may be worth submitting a checkuser between the user and IP. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of these edits are ancient, and while I agree that they some are problematic there is not really anything to do at the moment. The diff you gave about the Maldives isn't really problematic (and is from >5 years ago!) as it was removing unsourced controversial information e.g. "President Gayoom routinely uses torture, propaganda, and censorship as a means to cling on to political power." which should obviously have been sourced. From what I can tell Niall Cook is following our COI guideline to the book, by disclosing who they are and only commenting on the talk page. Is there anything that actually needs attention? SmartSE (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the diff link is old and I have not yet revealed anything urgent. I don't agree that the diff link I gave isn't problematic. Changing unsourced "Political parties in Maldives was not allowed, though the constitution allowed it, until June 2005." into unsourced "In June 2005, as part of an ongoing programme of democratic reform, new regulations were promulgated to formally recognise political parties within the framework of the electoral system." while being paid by the government is about as much a conflict of interest as you can get. Given that several websites reported about it, it is not surprising that the same IP was not used again to edit articles related to the Maldives. (And more surprising that someone who reveals himself to be marketing director of a PR firm continues to use it for obscene vandalism and for comments signed with his real name.) What I am worried about is that obviously professionals use wikipedia to improve their or their clients' reputation. They will have learned from experiences like the one with the Maldives and do it in a way more difficult to detect. If they edit articles that have not so many editors - like politicians from developing countries or about PR firms - it will often remain unnoticed. And if they log in we cannot detect the origin. So at least a tool would be handy that shows where IPs come from in articles suspected to have been influenced. And in striking cases like the one above in my opinion we should at least think about checking which other edits were made from the same IP ranges, logged in or not. Knopffabrik (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because an IP address belongs to a company, that does not mean that one individual user using that IP address has made all the edits assigned to it. We have hundreds of employees who - just like many other companies - broadcast the same IP address on the public internet. Any edits that I have made have been made using my username (unless I've sometimes forgotten to log in, which I have then quickly rectified) and in line with Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guidelines. If you have evidence to prove otherwise, then please present it here, otherwise withdraw your allegations. Your accusations that I have personally made anonymous edits is nothing short of WP:Harassment. Niall Cook (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't claim that all edits by that IP were made by you. By signing several edits made by that IP you just showed that those were made by you. The IP can be tracked back to belong to your company, so for the conflict of interest issue it doesn't matter if it was you or anyone else. I don't know you personally and don't care. As a professional you should know that it does not shed a very positive light on you if clear POV and obscene edits are made by an IP that you use and that can be tracked back to your company. As a director you also have responsibility for your team. As I had already written, your reaction is not unexpected to me, but instead of counter attacking I insist you should apologize on behalf of your company and change your behaviour in the future. Knopffabrik (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Knopffabrik, I completely agree that this is a potential problem and one that is hard/imposssible to deal with. However Niall Cook has not done anything wrong as far as I can tell and there are no current problems that need dealing with. If you wish to propose a way in which we could detect such edits in general, then maybe post at the village pump but this thread is not going to achieve anything. SmartSE (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter which person it was, and I am not after anyone personally, but there was wikipedia manipulation by a PR firm paid by a dictator. As I don't know much about Maldivian politics, I feel unable to deal with those content issues and would be very grateful if others could take a look at them.
    For the more general question of how to deal with IPs and users that may have a conflict of interest, thank you very much for the link to the village pump, I guess that helps. There's already a page "Tracking attempts to spin wikipedia" at sourcewatch.org and the tool that was used to detect the Hill & Knowlton spin on the politics of the Maldives was Wikiscanner - which doesn't seem to work right now because of an update. Knopffabrik (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you feel there is an issue with a statement in the article that is unsourced, slap a [citation needed] on it. That would at the same time alert possible POV, but also encourage those working on the article to find a source for it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, that is a good starting point. Both articles that were found by wikiscanner already had a note that they lack sources when I first looked at them. However, in the case I saw the problem was more deleted information than unsourced information that was added, so difficult to leave a tag there. Furthermore, as I know practically nothing about Maldivian politics I don't know which other articles may be involved. I already left a note on the talk page of the articles I found. Knopffabrik (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe we should keep a close eye on the Hill & Knowlton article for any COI issues, but the present form of the article seems neutral. It includes some well-sourced negative information. Regarding the IP range: if you view the last 50 anonymous contributions from Hill & Knowlton's range, I see no problem with recent edits. There was some funny stuff about the Maldives from June 2005 as Knopffabrik noted, but edits since 2006 look OK to me. If the 2005 editing pattern were to recur, blocks should be considered. User:Niallcook clearly discloses he works for Hill & Knowlton, even in his signature above, and is attempting to follow our COI policy. I am not aware of any current problems with the article on Ahmed Shafeeq Ibrahim Moosa. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh thanks, that was exactly the kind of tool I was looking for. So let's hope it's not just that they have learned from the revelation and do all the evil things while logged in now. And I'll try and see if wikiscanner2 gives new information once it starts working. I'd appreciate if someone who feels able to do it could take a look at Politics of the Maldives and check whether the problems caused by partisan editing still exist. Knopffabrik (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Xenia Tchoumitcheva

    Can someone please review this situation. Cioccolatina (talk · contribs) appears to be a WP:SPA with a WP:COI relating to the subject of the article. The user may be the subject, a friend or relative of the subject, or an associated of the subject's modelling agency. There is a history of adding promotional material to the article. There is a verified history of the subject's birth date being altered for professional reasons. Apparently, someone provided OTRS with convincing bt false information. This user was involved in adding the false birth year to the article. The user now wants to remove the known birth year.
    My questions are:

    • Should the user be banned from directly editing the article?
    • Should the subject's birth date be included in the article?
    • Should the article point to the conflicting sourced birth dates? Note the reference on the talk page showing that this has been subjected to public interest. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This was bought up before in August but nothing much happened. This isn't the place to request a topic ban and COI doesn't prohibit someone editing an article, so it is best to treat their edits at face value, i.e. by warning against removal of sourced content etc. If, as is discussed on the talk page there are reliable independent sources for her DOB being in '87 then I see no reason not to include it. Similarly if the sources discuss how she says she is a different age, then this too should be included. SmartSE (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Nicole Miller

    User has all sorts of warning templates on the user talk page -- ample warning, repeated edits to the Nicole Miller page. Banaticus (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User indeffed as a spam only account. SmartSE (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=408544940"