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 Respect77 (talk | contribs) at 17:59, 28 December 2012 (→‎Susan Essien Etok). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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:AGCO
    Talk:Kati Agócs
    Talk:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Marc Benioff
    Talk:Breyers
    Talk:Michael Calvey
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    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:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    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:Zerodur
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    ASCII Group

    I had speedied this as a copyvio a few days ago, the editor requested the source via email, but when I obliged returned copyright violating material to the page (then in their userspace). Over the course of the next couple days, I outlined all the things I thought were wrong with the article and removed all the copyright violating material (I hope), but it seems like the editor is not making the changes necessary to make the article neutral and verifiable. The discussion is on the talk page. The editor stated their conflict of interest there but then removed it, so I'll leave it to folks to check the talk page history if they're interested. I think the article should be AFD'd for the reasons I outlined on the talk page but I'd like to step back from this so I'd like to leave it in the capable hands of folks here. Thanks much! delldot ∇. 02:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Jack Royerton

    As I pointed out here, there is an IP editor ([1]) who geolocates to Flagler College in Florida and keeps adding unsourced claims regarding a certain Jack Royerton to a wide selection of articles ranging from folk and rock music to theological topics. Apparently there is a Jack Royerton on the college's staff, raising the possibility of a conflict of interest (i. e., that the IP is either Royerton or one of his students). Most of these claims seem to be almost impossible to verify, since there is almost nothing about Royerton on the internet and a Google search for him consists almost entirely of sites that mirror Wikipedia. Perhaps someone should consider contacting him (or whomever is editing on his behalf), if there is a way of doing so, and asking him to provide reliable sources backing up the claim about him. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I added a more detailed notification to the IP user's talk page. If he's still using that IP, hopefully he'll notice it and respond. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Scott F. Wolter

    Hookedx claims to be the subject of this article and is reverting material critical of him with the edit summary "Nielsen is publishing his opinion based on negative personal bias. My geological work on the KRS was peer-reviewed by eight geologists and it is inappropriate for a engineer to publish comments about geological research he once supported." When he did it the first time I gave him a COI warning, but he's done it again with the edit summary "I will now be filing a complaint with Wikiepedia". I'll tell him about this discussion on his talk page now. I don't see any BLP issues as the edits are sourced and attributed and relevant. Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    comment: Does Wolter, or his theories, have any notability? The article appears to be WP:FRINGE and WP:PROMO (Google infobox glory / Book sales) with the only people who care seem to be the subject of the article and the person who disputes his findings. Seems like an AfD candidate with a possible merge of his glorious one paragraph into Kensington Runestone. PeterWesco (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my thought too - and I suspect that the books may possibly be self-published. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hank Harrison editing his own article and removing negative material

    Stone Savant has been removing negative material from this article and added a link to an anonymous polygraph test on Harrison's site with text saying "In 2011 he took and passed a series of Polygraph tests proving he is not racist or anti - semetic and did not give his daughter drugs at any time." which I removed as clearly not a WP:RS, containing material not in the source and also claiming a polygraph test can prove something.[2] I found a talk page in which he said he had uploaded an image of Hank Harrison and that it was copyright to Hank Harrison and assumed a close relationship and COI. He posted to my talk page saying " I do not have a close relationship with Hank Harrison. I Just took a snap and assumed I would be able to post it." So I assumed good faith and withdrew the COI allegations I made at BLPN over his continued removal of negative material (he is now at 3RR). Another editor noted that he is signing as zendogg@gmail.com which is Harrison's contact address.[3]. [4] shows that this is Harrison himself. See also User:Stone Savant Dougweller (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Stone Savant's posts at Talk:Hank Harrison now claim he is Hank Harrison. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    How to deal with COI

    I was recently investigating a source that kept popping up in one or two articles and seemed somewhat dodgy. One user was responsible for adding the source. While investigating, I found that one of the people behind the source bears an uncanny resemblance to the user's self-description on his/her userpage. (Being any more specific than this would come very close to outing.)

    How do I deal with this?

    elvenscout742 (talk) 06:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Do consider a simple, polite question to the editor: "Are you aware of our guideline WP:COI?" And possibly a followup "Do you have a conflict of interest of the type that WP:COI encourages you to disclose?" If, after a polite discusion with that editor, you have suspicions that he has an undeclared COI and is making problematic edits, post the problem here. Don't reveal the suspected name. Do realize that it's almost impossible to know who somebody is simply by his/her edits. Make sure that you are meeting the standards you're asking him or her to meet - e.g. have you declared any COI? Don't edit war. A little transparency can go a long way. Smallbones(smalltalk) 10:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Columbia International College

    This article keeps getting additional pictures and videos, to the point where it's as much a recruiting website as an article. Orange Mike | Talk 16:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    74.112.41.242 (talk · contribs)which is the school is reverting tags. I removed some promotional images and videos, and one of them was supposedly 'own work' by Higherhigherhigher and was a video of a staff member. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And they restored the videos, this may be higherhigherhigher. Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Marshall Strabala

    Previous participants

    Current participants

    Previous discussions

    I'm walking out the door but need to start this report. Several SPA-COI editors are attempting to remove information regarding a lawsuit against the subject of the article essentially because it was settled out of court. I can present more information later unless Novaseminary beats me to it. The COI editors include one IP with a declared COI and Jon Strabala. I'm bringing this here because the number of COI editors is increasing and one is now making accusations of libel. Sorry I couldn't provide more information right now but the talk page should be enough to bring anyone up to speed. Later, I'll continue to present more info. OlYeller21Talktome 19:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Young Liberals (Australia)

    Single purpose editor has been pushing very strongly for changes at the young liberal Australia article. this account has only edited this article although he claims to have previously edited under an anon IP. he believes the Young Liberals articles is the "worst" article and offers very long winded arguments on the article's talk page. in my long experience on WP, the style of pushing indicates to me a connection to the article subject. Veritas80 denies being a member of the group and just claims to be a "political science student". I've tried to engage him and request what other articles he has worked on and how he drew the conclusion of this from his "audit" of political articles. lastly he shows no interest in my request to edit or look at other similar articles in his determination to push through his changes. it's fine to check WP for bias but to say only one article is the number one and absolute highest priority for "correction". he has probably spent an hour arguing with no attempt to edit other articles. I ask the broader community to look into this. LibStar (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Susan Essien Etok

    This article appears to have been written by someone with a close connection to the subject, and it also extensively self-cites. I believe that the author is attempting to establish notability where no such notability exists.

    I believe that the key issue here is that the subject claims to be a long-time friend of Michael Jackson, although the only citation for that appears to be the subject's own blog, plus several unverified claims made through the media. There is no independent verification that Ms Etok was a long-time friend of Jackson's and none of the other claims seem to be verifiable.

    The author claims on my talk page to have no connection to the subject - User_talk:Shritwod#Susan_Etok_page, and yet they unloaded a copyrighted studio photograph (File:Dr_Susan_Essien_Etok.jpg) and then assigned usage rights under Creative Commons. The author then claims (in an apparent contraction) that they downloaded the picture from the subject's web site, and then afterwards that it was a picture taken by their employee instead. These claims are inconsistent.

    Furthermore, editor Respect77 has *only* worked on this one article, and at one point appears to accidentally reveal their IP address of 86.13.229.160, which is an IP address in Bedfordshire, UK, where the subject lives. I believe that this editor is either the subject themselves, or someone closely related to them, on the basis of the unusual editing history, matching IP address and uploaded photograph. Shritwod (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I am respect77 and yes I do live in Bedfordshire UK. I am not Susan Etok and neither have I ever met. I believe Shritwood is launching a hate campaign against me as a user and the subject of my article for an unknown resaon. There is no strange editing history at all. Please look at your editing history and realise that for the last 48 hours, you have done nothing but tried to get my article killed. This is absolutely shocking and I am fightling my case purely because I put so much effort into the article and do not want to see it killed because Shritwood does not like the subject of the article. I am also going to write two more articles relating to people.

    Shritwood is a michael jackson fan celarly and is mounting this campaign on off the back of the pressure from other Michael Jackson fans to kill this article. It surprises me that it bothers you that Dr Etok claims that she was Michael Jackson's friend. Whether she was or not does not affect the fact of the case.

    I do not appreciate you twisting my words Shritwood and trying to claim picture fraud. As I said to you before, it is very easy to verify. I feel that I am being bullied and harassed by Shritwood and will escalate this matter to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Respect77 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    For your information Shritwood there are NO QUOTES relating to the person in the articles blog whatsoever. You have gone through the article REMOVING CREDIBLE SOURCES and then launching complaints to try and get the article killed. This is very underhand behaviour. Why are you doing this. You have threatened me, called me a fraud and liar. Why? All because I wrote an article about someone who said something about Michael Jackson that you did not like?Respect77 17:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=530172069"