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 84.120.179.232 (talk) at 19:46, 31 August 2013 (→Oscar del Santo, possibly paid editor: new section). 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:Bill Ackman
    Talk:Asia Society
    Talk:Australian Maritime College
    Talk:Carbfix
    Talk:Cofra Holding
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Fundbox
    Talk:Globe Life
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Kevin Hartz
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:List of sequence alignment software
    Talk:Moroccanoil
    Talk:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation
    Talk:Oneok
    Talk:Ornge
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Pod Point
    Talk:Runner's World
    Talk:Lester Sill
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Thandeka (minister)
    Talk:Lorraine Twohill
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Xsolla
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Louise Blouin Media

    Louise Blouin Media appears to have been created by someone using a username similar to the real-world name of an employee of that company, and to have been subsequently edited by at least three other editors with usernames very similar to the real-world names of other employees of the company, who of course may or may not actually be those employees. The edit histories of two of them also include massive and systematic additions or modifications of external links to the website(s) of the same company in many articles here. I have left {{Uw-coi}} notices on their talkpages. Can the problems arising from this all be dealt with here? If not, who else should be notified? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going to take a look now but can you help us out by listing all of the affected articles in the top of the report that you mention in your report?
    I'm weary of assuming that these people are actually working for the company, off the bat, but that won't matter. We can still address the issue.
    To save us some time, can you provide links that show the comparison between the usernames and the employees?
    You obviously have done some work here and have some evidence. It will be helpful to people here at COIN if you share that evidence with us. OlYeller21Talktome 22:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks for your reply. I'm concerned that providing too much evidence may come uncomfortably close to outing some editors. I've now added above two more pages closely connected with the first, and three more editors. I have identified the potential connected editors as {{connected contributor}}s on the talkpage of each of those three articles. A quick Google search for "Louise Blouin Media" (with quotes) together with an intelligent guess at the real-world name of each of the seven editors, based on the username, comes up in some but not all cases with the position, past or present, of an individual with a closely similar name within the company. Those that do not immediately show up in such a way show a closely similar pattern of editing, at different times, on one or more of the three articles mentioned above. User:JPLei has over 500 edits, all (well, all that I have checked) adding links to artinfo.com to the pages of various artists; Antonyj0403 has recently been active changing each one of those to Blouinartinfo.com. I believe this to be a serious, far-ranging, substantial and possibly systematic abuse of this wiki, but have nowhere near the skills or experience to be sure. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So can anyone offer any response here? I'd really like to know what, if anything, could or should be done about this. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be really happy to read any comments people might like to make on this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    He's still doing it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Anastasia International

    This Anastasia International article has had some really suspicious activity on it for the last 6-8 months. A major contributor was blocked for being a sockpuppet (User:Entyre) and I'm currently in discussions that other users now editing the page might be sockpuppets of that user. However, on that discussion page, which you can see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Alexis418, Alexis418 admitted that he used to work for the company, which for me means he has a WIKI:COI. Not only this, all the edits I make trying to improve the article and clarify the companies controversy, he is merely reverting. I personally don't think someone who could be a disgruntled ex employee should be editing this page, especially when all they are doing is reverting edits. Verdict78 (talk) 10:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Still having problems with a disgruntled ex-employee on this page, could someone look into this and advise how to proceed please. Again, on the sockpuppet page (link above) Alexis418 said he'd worked for the company previously. In the last 10 days the user has reverted around 10 attempted improvements. During this 10 day period, he has made no effort to improve the article, merely explain briefly on the talk page why he doesn't think the change should take place. He constantly keeps repeating he knows a lot about the company but yet is to make a single improvement on the page during this period. It wouldn't surprise me if he sees this and does just that! To me its obvious (for whatever reason) this user is blocking any progression of this page, with no intention of making any changes. I hope someone can look into this sooner rather than later, because this is eating into my editing time considerably. Verdict78 (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Verdict78 might consider doing more thorough research on the subject material, so that his edits would be accurate and stick. I've repeatedly suggested we try to come up with a clear common description of our common and different viewpoints so that we can solicit 3rd opinions where we differ. Reading the conflict of interest policy carefully, I do not have a conflict of interest. I do have a personal interest, but not a financial or otherwise conflictual one. If we don't allow people to edit areas where they have a personal interest, unfortunately we would also be disabling the editors who have the most knowledge about specific subjects. Any other editors who are interested to help with the Anastasia International article are welcome. I had previously asked for a 3rd opinion but the editor who came to help said we had not articulated our 2 positions well enough on the talk page to be ready for that yet. Alexis418 (talk) 07:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You do have a conflict of interest and I quote - "Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a conflict of interest." You've just admitted above to having a 'personal' interest in the outcome of the article. Not only this you also stated that you were previously an employee of the business on the sockpuppet discussion here. You are yet to make a single edit on the page, and are reverting every change I make. You also seem to 'become active' on the page the minute anyone seems to change the article dramatically as you can see on your history page. My personal opinion in dealing with you and viewing all this information is that for the last 6 months you have sat, reverting edits on a single page. You are a single use account, and have openly admitted to having a COI on TWO occasions now. Can someone please look into this so that myself and other real editors can get on with improving Wikipedia Verdict78 (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    That is hilarious, Verdict78. I don't have an external relationship with Anastasia, none whatsoever. I did in the past and I acknowledged it, I have an interest just as many people with knowledge of topics have that knowledge related to their interest in the topic. I doubt you could say the same. Is it a coincidence that the chrunchbase page you just decided to reference was modified to say exactly what you wanted it to say in the past few days? 10 days ago it didn't say what it does now - http://web.archive.org/web/20130807215042/http://crunchbase.com/company/anastasia-web - you've had it changed, or changed it yourself, to support a fantasy that Anastasia's dark past was cut off from its present. Yes, there's a conflict of interest here - now how about you tell the truth and reveal it, because you are the one with the conflict of interest to whitewash the company's business practice. Who is paying you, and how much, to whitewash the Wikipedia page for Anastasia? Alexis418 (talk) 08:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Deflecting the investigation to me - nice work! Funny you say that you don't have an external relationship with Anastasia, even though you say on two occasions that you do? Rather than wasting my time arguing with you, I think I'll let others decide who is in the wrong. Verdict78 (talk) 10:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    As I have said in the past, I have a PAST employment relationship with the company and at present only an INTEREST but not an external or material interest. Perhaps you should go back and do what I have suggested 5x to you, you should actually READ the references that you keep deleting, instead of creating fake references of your own on the internet - and after you have READ the references, then we can together come up with a common statement of our different opinions of what are the relevant sources and then ask for 3rd party suppert. You are like your president Obama whose strategy in every election has been disqualifying in one way or another and trying to befriend the media and police, rather than making a valid case. Meanwhile, the question remains, why were YOU so INTERESTED in Anastasia that you went out of your way to EDIT an EXTERNAL PAGE in order to support your case that was not based on any publicly available information, Verdict??? You're right, something STINKS in the article, and it's Your Side that is "Interested". I reread your comments on another page and you are talking about MALTA and say "It's not a corporate office"... Well I found at http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10740233.htm that MARK BROOKS is currently CHIEF STRATEGY OFFICER of ANASTASIA -> http://www.meetup.com/Expats-Malta/members/12174821/ and is in MALTA. I also noticed that you love to post links to Mark Brooks Blog http://www.onlinepersonalswatch.com/markbrooks/mediterranean/ ?? and that an editor Mcbrooks has editied Anastasia article? But maybe he prefer to IP edit from MALTA? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/McBrooks is deleted and that's fine because I prefer to focus now on the subject material, not so much obsess about other editors. Do you work for McBrooks, is that why you have edited an external page in order to fill out a story to make it something Mark Brooks would approve of? Just wondering but since you bring this subject up in the COI page let's all be honest now. Alexis418 (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's even more interesting than this. I have taken a look at Graham Philips (supposed sockmaster, if I'm not mistaken Verdict78 is even trying to accuse me of being his sockpuppet.) and Mcbrooks more closely. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mcbrooks - this sockpuppet investigation was "deleted" by Rschen7754 on April 19 at 4:58. Then a few hours later, Rschen7754 closed the "GrahamPhilips" sockpuppet "investigation": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FGrahamWPhillips&diff=560581229&oldid=560579468 - With a $100 million budget, it's likely that this company convinced Rschen7754 to do both these things to ban all editors who disagreed with them. Maybe it was a coincidence and Rschen7754 was just cleaning out the sockpuppet page that day. I'll ask Rschen7754 to comment whether or not anyone contacted him/her with a request to act on these 2 "investigations". Alexis418 (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I deleted that investigation because you provided no proof to back up your claims of sockpuppetry. Before that, a CU had rejected the request for CU. And the accusation of my being paid to close or otherwise handle SPIs in a certain way is ridiculous. --Rschen7754 08:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Rschen7754 here. I don't understand why you keep making out everyone is a paid editor? It would be great if someone can look at this issue. Alexis418's reverts have caused the page to become protected. Verdict78 (talk) 11:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I raised the point because many of the original editors of this page were sockpuppets who are employees of the company at present, even Corporate officers. You edited an external page in order to support your point. Why would an independent person do something like that? So it's consistent that your edits are motivated. Alexis418 (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Found these two hostile discussions that I think should be noted. Discussion 1 and Discussion 2 Verdict78 (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Alumni list for Bronx High School of Science

    GabrielF discounted my requests to have my name added to the list of alumni of the Bronx High School of Science by sending me this note after my third or fourth request: "Why don't you post your request at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard? GabrielF (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)" So that's what I am doing.

    I graduated BX Science in 1976. There are already many of my classmates and about 70 more alumni listed. Although some (8) are Nobel Laureates, some only have such notable qualifications as "biologist", "Conservative Rabbi", "ecologist", "Professional ballroom dancer", "Professor", "owner of a printing company", and then there's the former runner up in a beauty pageant. If we forget everything else that I did - forget the acting, which should be good enough since I have been in "multiple notable films, television shows, & other productions" as can be verified on IMDb here: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4582170/ and elsewhere with minimum searching; forget the authoring, which should be good enough since I have had 10 or more blogs and articles on 12 Step Recovery on InTheRooms.com: http://bamrubenstein.caimanhunter.com/published015_itr_02.html, http://na-blog.com, and have spoken at numerous NA conventions as the keynote speaker, some of my MP3s are listed here: http://bamrubenstein.caimanhunter.com/speakertapes.html; the over 2 years of monthly columns in Biker Living magazine; and forget all the other accolades that I've received, such as attaining the rank of Chief of a fire department, being a crew chief in the US Air Force Fire Department, being the Commander of a medical standby company, and having attained the certifications and degrees as a fire science instructor, HazMat tech and Science Officer and guest instructor at TEEX Fire Science Training School at Texas A&M University.

    Forgetting all of those, I believe I rank among notable alumni of Bronx Science due to one undeniable thing that I've accomplished - which meets all of your criteria - and that is my work with caiman. You might not know what they are and you might not think that they or it's a big deal, but caiman are one of only 23 different types of crocodilians, they are the third nastiest of all crocodilians and caiman have been on the endangered species list in the past and are still on the protected watch list. I was called "the US' #1 authority on Caiman" by Reptile Channel. Reptiles magazine called me an "Expert in my Field" and had me do an article on caiman for them - the article can be found here: http://caimanhunter.com/expert.html; Reptile Radio interviewed me and did a one hour show focused on my and my work with caiman, which can be found here: http://caimanhunter.com/images/videos/reptileradioshowwbam.mp3; I was asked to do my own 1/2 hour weekly blogtalkradio listener call-in show on caiman called, "Live with the CaimanHunter" - archives of past shows can be found here: http://my.blogtalkradio.com/bam-the-caimanhunter; my rescue operation was seen on Fox7 News and I was interviewed by Nancy Zambrano - the piece that aired can be seen here: http://caimanhunter.com/images/videos/thrallcaimannews.mpg; I have gotten calls from Texas Fish and Wildlife to capture loose caiman; and I have a web site dedicated to caiman that is extensively used as a resource by Bayou Beasts, ZooKeepers, and other reputable reptile rescues. My work with caiman, alone, should get me on the alumni list, if not a page on Wikipedia all to myself.

    GabrielF thought that I should come here since, for some unknown reason, she kept turning my requests down. The first time she wrote: "I will not add your name to the list of alumni of The Bronx High School of Science. Our policy on lists of alumni can be found at WP:ALUMNI. In order for an individual to be considered notable, we require that that person be covered by multiple, reliable secondary sources, for instance, newspaper or magazine articles. We do not consider IMDB or an Amazon authors page to be reliable sources as they can be written by the article subject and there is no editorial review. GabrielF (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)" But even though IMDb articles may be written by the subjects, checking their stats against the movies pages themselves or doing any number of other searches should remove that obstacle, as well as the fact the IMDb does background checks before they will let you say you were in a movie.

    The second time she wrote: "Respectfully, I am certain from the links that you have provided that you have lived a rich and fulfilling life. However, I do not believe that you would meet the notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. You've presented some articles that you've written and some places in which you've been quoted. Some of this is relevant, some of it is not. For instance, I could not find your name in the Austin American Statesman article. And we do not accept IMDB as a reliable source for reasons that I described above. What's left are a couple of articles that you've written, which we would not consider evidence of notability as they are not independent of you as a source, and a couple of local or specialized publications where you've been interviewed or quoted. All of this is commendable, but I do not believe it meets the notability criteria in terms of depth of coverage. Consider that the alumni list includes eight Nobel laureates. I have no conflicts of interest regarding anything that you've been involved with. If you would like another editor to look at this issue, I would recommend posting at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/noticeboard. GabrielF (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)" If some is relevant, and that covers the minimum requirements, what's the problem?

    And finally she wrote, "Why don't you post your request at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard? GabrielF (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)" So I am.

    Thank you, Lee Bam "CaimanHunter" Rubenstein Bx Science class of 1976 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BRubens (talk • contribs)

    Alumni lists are limited to those persons who either have an article on Wikipedia or are likely to have an article in the future. Our inclusion standards for biographies can be found at WP:BIO. From the information you have provided, I agree with GabrielF that you do not meet our notability standards. This is not a slight against you, or an attempt to diminish your work, but a simple interpretation of Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. The reason we discourage conflicts of interest is that it is generally impossible for a person to think objectively with regard to themselves or very closely related subjects. The advice we always give to people is to not try to add themselves (in an article or in a list) to Wikipedia. If you really think you meet the notability guideline and want to ignore this advice, you may consider submitting a draft article on yourself to WP:AFC, where an experienced editor will review it, and if you have an article, then it would be appropriate to add you to some lists. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also advise that you read these essays before submitting an article for creation request:
    --Drm310 (talk) 06:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Conflict of interest usernames which might be of interest to you

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

    Sexycristina As far as the talkpage mentions is that the current user violated the Wikipedia's conflict of interest rule by using above as a username. He/she didn't made a single edit, but her userpage was deleted, but the talkpage remained. What should we as a community do?--Mishae (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sovtek The current user is apparently using a Russian company name (see above).--Mishae (talk) 04:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Aveda The current user is apparently using his or her user name for a promotional reason. See the top for clarification.--Mishae (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Brooklyn riot This user apparently promotes the music group, see the userpage for more info.--Mishae (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Riddick7 This user uses a brand name of a video game. Conflict of interest?--Mishae (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • No violation, no active or deleted edits to suggest abuse. Drmies (talk)

    Ultra Games This user is using Australian Ultra Games as his user name, a clear username violation here!--Mishae (talk) 05:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Agentia imobiliara Inter-Med Sibiu Uses the name of a foreign agency.--Mishae (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't necessarily disagree with any of the above and some probably are conflicts of interest. But shouldn't each of these be referred to WP:UAA first? Stalwart111 10:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to do it with Sexycristina and they referred me to here.--Mishae (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll address them individually.
    It looks like Peridon is handling the Sexycristina issues. There are several but the damage has been reversed at this point.
    I can't see deleted edits but Sovtek doesn't appear to be violating WP:USERNAME because they aren't promoting the company. If my last name is Ford and my username is Ford55, the username isn't a violation unless I start posting promotional material for Ford on my userpage (or elsewhere, maybe). I left a COI template on their talk page.
    Aveda's edits have all been deleted so I can't see what they did. Assuming there was damage done, it's been deleted and they've stopped editing. I left a COI template on their talk page.
    Brooklyn Riot's username is a WP:USERNAME violation because it promotes a group and is seemingly used by a group. They've used "we" to describe themselves but that was probably to describe the musical group as opposed to who has control over the account. I reported the name at UAA and it should be blocked soon.
    Riddick7 - I understand the concern but it's not really a problem until they make it a problem. It's definitely not a COI. UAA probably wouldn't even respond. Any promotional edits would probably be best handled with WP:NPOV and WP:SPAM.
    UltraGamesAU is a WP:USERNAME violation and has been reported. I'm hesitant to deletion of the userpage because it could be a legitimate article, although notability isn't established yet (there may be a claim of importance). I tagged it as a userpage with no indexing and moved it to a subpage. It's no longer being indexed by Google to curb any hopes of it being an effective WP:FAKEARTICLE. If you ever want to do that, you can always tag such a userpage with {{userpage}} and {{noindex}}.
    WP:USERNAME violation. Reported. OlYeller21Talktome 14:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if Softek's user name would have been Smirnov like Smirnov Vodka I won't complain much since its a common Russian last name, just like Ford is in the United States. But Softek is different. Either way, do you mind and see if this user is violating anything as well?
    There is no indication whatsoever that Sovtek95 has anything to do with Sovtek and given the name consideration given above, I can't find anything wrong with it. Drmies (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Martin raul campos at Edgar Perez and The Speed Traders

    User:Martin raul campos has created extensively edited the above articles, on Perez, "an American author and entrepreneur" and his book The Speed Traders, together with the recently-deleted Knightmare On Wall Street (book) (see AfD [1]), and appears to be unconcerned with the promotional tone of the material, despite being informed of policy and guidelines (see for example his deletion of notability and advertisement tags here: [2]). I have also repeatedly drawn the attention of Martin raul campos to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy, but had no satisfactory response. Given his editing behaviour, it seems entirely reasonable to me at least to assume that there is indeed a conflict of interest. I would therefore ask for comment by other editors/admins as to what might be the best course of action to deal with this issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    He's just removed the notability and advertisement tags again: [3]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    Hi Andy, thanks for your help. I have no relationship with Edgar Perez I just found his books particularly interesting and that's why I was editing them. I was trying to make it more neutral but unfortunately you erased the page. I understand all the guideline and policy of wikipedia so I respect what you've done. I'm just learning that's why I couldn't do it correctly. I think I'm going study and practice more before I move a new article. Thanks for everything Martin CamposMartin raul campos (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Frankly, given your editing behaviour, I don't believe that for one minute. And I haven't 'erased' anything. The article on Knightmare On Wall Street was deleted is the result of a community discussion - one which you didn't even attempt to participate in. And if you are proposing to recreate the article on Knightmare On Wall Street, I'd strongly advise against it, as it is clear that there simply aren't the third-party sources to establish the level of notability required to meet Wikipedia guidelines. I suspect that this may well be true of The Speed Traders too, given that the 'reviews' linked in the article seem mostly be cited to minor websites and/or blogs of little note. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. While the plethora of for instance inline URLs in earlier versions of the Perez article are certainly not acceptable, I can't see as yet that it is evidence of a COI, or of spamming. Ukexpat cleaned it up considerably and Campos has not reverted those edits. As for the book, it's iffy: it's not totally neutral, but what appears to be advertising is sourced to a Bloomberg review. What's more, the four reviews together do suggest notability at least by our (regrettably low) standards for reviews and books, so I can't really argue against their removal of the notability tag. While there certainly is a whiff of more than usual interest in those topics, as an admin I wouldn't act on it. I would suggest that Campos acquaint themselves thoroughly with our guidelines for neutral editing and proper referencing, and that they take Andy's advice to heart. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The only citation to Bloomberg in the article was to this [4], which mentions neither Perez nor his book The Speed Traders. Given that it was accordingly being 'cited' for material that it couldn't possibly support, I've removed it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Obvious COI at McMurry University

    Editor keeps re-inserting a very, very fluffy list of "notables". The COI is obvious from their user page, which contains this rather unacceptable message: "I work at McMurry University. Unless you an official of McMurry University, do not undo my edits." They're persistent and they're just asking for a block for COI and OWNership, not to mention plugging their employer, which is what their (non-MOS compliant) version of the "notables" list is doing. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • They just left a rather pissy message identifying themselves, on their talk page. Drmies (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And now they are removing their own edits, in a kind of reverse ownership move. An IP has come along, with edits of mixed value--I can't really tell if it's the same editor as the named account. Any admins around who can maybe wave a stick? Oh, and see the account's user page. It's pretty mild for an attack page, but it's not kosher. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking for help with Accenture article

    Hello, I'm currently working on behalf of the company Accenture, looking to improve two articles here on Wikipedia: the article for Accenture itself, as well as that of the company's chairman & CEO, Pierre Nanterme. Since I have a financial COI here, I won't be making any edits myself; instead, I've proposed changes on Talk:Accenture and Talk:Pierre Nanterme, and have been trying to solicit help from volunteer editors to review the changes. However, it's been something of a struggle to find folks to help, despite posting in a number of locations, like Paid Editor Help, as well as reaching out to some editors individually. User:FeralOink was helping out at Accenture for a bit, but they seem to be busy now, and one of the remaining issues there is something I'd like another perspective on anyway. So, if someone here is willing to take a look and give me a hand here, it would be very much appreciated. Thanks in advance! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 18:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've made the requested changes to Pierre Nanterme. I'm happy to make some changes to Accenture, but some seem to have been made already? I can compare the two but it might be quicker if you could clarify which are still left to make? Maybe start a new edit request? Cheers, Stalwart111 10:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Stalwart111, thanks for your help on Nanterme, and sorry about the confusion on Accenture. The conversation got a bit messy at one point. I've now cleaned it up, creating a new section at Talk:Accenture called Outstanding issues which contains just the requests that have yet to be addressed. If you have time to take a look, would really appreciate it! Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jcmeberhard

    User came to WT:MED asking for eyes on a deletion discussion (for Malafa). Entered vote, but upon looking at user page Noticed that all articles they created were physicians from Moffitt cancer center, seemed pretty thin on RS, and were rather obvious resumes. See also this deletion discussion. Articles spring apparently fully formed from this editor, without collaboration, AfC, or sandbox activity. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 18:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    If I am correct, this editor has created three articles, one of which has been deleted. These articles are about cancer researchers. These new articles are not about garage bands or brand new fashion brands, or internet memes, or anime characters. These are about physicians and professors at a leading cancer research center. And on their talk page, this new editor has shown a willingness to learn our policies and guidelines, and comply with them. Of course, this new editor has made mistakes. Most new editors have, though perhaps UseTheCommandLine never has made a mistake. If there was a policy here that says that editors with a conflict of interest are simply not allowed to edit Wikipedia, then I would agree that action should be taken against this editor. But so far, what I see is a new editor creating articles in good faith about people they believe are notable. I was an amateur California mountaineer in my youth. When I started editing Wikipedia, I created quite a few articles about notable California mountaineers, people far more accomplished than I. Experienced editors welcomed me and praised my beginner's work. Why not offer a similar greeting to this new editor? I don't see any cause to pillory this new editor. Encouragement and explanation seem far more appropriate to me. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Good faith? I disagree. The created articles are promotional. A second of this user's articles looks like it's going to be deleted now, and the user is fighting against the deletion, so I don't know how that fits with a your impression of a willingness to learn policies and guidelines, because if they had read WP:COI and WP:Conflicts of interest (medicine) then they would now not be arguing for the article to kept. Lesion (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The COI seems fairly obvious. Please however don't bite him because (1) he's done a reasonably complete job on the biographies, and this would have taken him time (2) he's only ever been polite. I think this is a case of a new editor not understanding Wikipedia policies and how it works, rather than anything malicious. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine as far as it goes, but people can be polite while still doing harmful things. happens all the time. I'm fairly confident that there is indeed a CoI here, and what I'm most curious about is if this was something this editor was told to do, in which case I feel like that should be pushed back against somehow (how exactly i'm not so sure), or whether it was their own idea, in which case i'd be a lot more inclined to be nicey-nice. If the former, though, I think it's important to relay to decision makers at these sorts of institutions that this is unwelcome behavior.
    As for point number one, well it looks like they were more or less editing during typical work hours, and presumably getting paid for it. whether that took them time or not, i don't much care. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 16:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Video Unlimited

    The contents of the Video Unlimited Wikipedia are wrong, particularly the countries that Video Unlimited is listed as being available in. We've submitted corrected copy on the Talk page for that entry but we're hoping to expedite the issue by flagging it here.

    Here's the page's current copy:

    The service includes films from several major studios, including Sony's own studio; Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, Fox Home Entertainment, Lionsgate Home Entertainment, MGM Home Entertainment, NBCUniversal (Universal Studios), Paramount Home Entertainment, Walt Disney Home Entertainment, Warner Home Video, 2 entertain, BBC and RTÉ. It can be accessed through Sony Blu-ray players, personal computers, the PlayStation 3, Sony Ericsson Xperia Arc, BRAVIA televisions and some portable music players.[1] It has been announced that the PlayStation 4 will also be able to stream content from VU on launch day. It became available in the United States of America in June 2010, on the night of Sonys E3 2010 announcement it launched Canada, in July 2010. It launched in the United Kingdom and Ireland in September 2010 and in China, Hong Kong and Japan on 26 January 2011. It launched in all European union countries including Scandinavia (except in Finland), Greece, Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Portugal in June 2011 (originally scheduled for November 2010). It launched in Australasia in July 2011. On 2 November 2012, it also became available in South Korea.

    Here's our requested edits, which just deal with factual inaccuracies:

    The service includes TV episodes and new release films as well as a wide variety of favorites, classics and local language movies from all major studios, including Sony's own studio; Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal Pictures, Paramount Pictures, Walt Disney Pictures, and Warner Bros, as well as many small and independent studios. It can be accessed through Sony Blu-ray players, personal computers, the PlayStation 3, Sony Xperia smartphones and tablets , BRAVIA televisions and some portable music players.[1] It has been announced that the PlayStation 4 will also be able to stream content from VU on launch day.
    It became available in the United States of America in February 2010 in the United States and expanded to the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain in November 2010. The service later launched in Japan, in January, 2011, Canada in February, 2011 and Australia in June 2011

    Help here would be appreciated since we want to make sure to respect the Wikipedia community and the process for making changes. User:Gbelloni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    National Museum of Patriotism

    National Museum of Patriotism, about a formerly physical, now virtual museum, has recently been expanded with some overtly self-interested edits[5], including some content expressly credited to the director of the museum. Some of these changes strike me as sufficiently-sourced improvements, other changes may be viewed as excessive and not NPOV. And some of the content sounds like it may have come directly from museum literature, although I haven't yet spotted any clear copying. Attention from some COI-experienced editors would be beneficial. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Matthew Bryden

    Hi – I have posted on the talk page of the article for Matthew Bryden, who is my client. I work for Bell Pottinger, a PR firm – see my user page for more info. Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I considered making the changes you requested on the talk page. While the sentences are fine, I think you can find better sources and only need one source for one fact. The article suffers from a similar problem. You would be better off focusing on using print newspapers, books, magazines to tell Mr. Bryden's life story. Some government publications are fine as well. Try avoiding citing to websites. The Controversy section should be moved and intermixed with the chronological events of his career, since having a separate section gives the Controversy too much weight. If I were going to work on the Matthew Bryden article, I would ignore what is now in the article, do my own research to find biographical information on Mr. Bryden's life events in newspapers and books and magazines, and then write the article from scratch, using a few example articles from Category:FA-Class biography articles to guide me on how to construct a Wikipedia biographical article. If you consider that approach, develop a draft article at User:HOgilvy/Matthew Bryden (draft) and, when finished, post back in this forum requesting that the draft be moved to article space. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Catalan Way

    Dear board, I'm seeking some advice on the above mentioned article. It is about a highly controversial and very recent topic (part of the article has not yet taken place). In my view, Wikipedia is being used for Campaigning as described in WP:COI. This article is used in the following website [6] as campaigning material to promote certain political views by a group of editors. I cannot however prove that these editors are directly involved in the webpage mentioned. In my opinion, this article does not follow Wikipedia's policy as it shows a tendentious approach WP:PEACOCK and WP:POV Arcillaroja (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • For a conflict, you would need to link a specific editor to a close personal or business connection with the September 11, 2013 event article topic. The topic likely is attracting editors with a bias (which is not the same as a conflict). You may want to post at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. The article topic is the September 11, 2013 event, which should be only about things that have happened so far towards the event. All the "this will/may happen" items seem more speculation and, as you mention, promotional. Phrases like "The human chain will follow" should be rewritten to focus on what in fact has already happened, e.g. "The route for the human chain was finalized on xxx, and is planned to cross 86 towns and municipalities." (there's no need to list the towns and municipalities). The Background section should be removed since Catalan independence is a better place for it. In short, post at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and suggest that the article be trimmed/stubbed until after the September 11, 2013 event per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. You also may want to post at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard with regard to the Background section in the article. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    2012 references

    The organizers said there will be more than 200 journalists accredited in the Catalan Way, more than last year. Therefore, it will be again in the international focus and it's important to have a complete article. --Davidpar (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Oscar del Santo, possibly paid editor

    This user:

    Creator of these articles:

    by his own admission (at some point was editing his own (now deleted) self-biographical article) is Oscar del Santo [7].

    He has created a number of articles in the same line, regarding mostly professors of a few institutions (see above). These professors/researchers, in most cases do not meet the criteria for notability (if every reasearcher with 40 publication deserves a wikipedia article, there should be tens of thousands of placeholder biographies that would not give any information that is not available in their published CV's on their personal pages). Moreover, the links in the above articles (only the biographical ones, the other are institutions, and as such deserve their articles) only point to self-created materials such as pages in their own institutions, or their own research articles.

    I understand wikipedia should not be used for self-promotion or in order to achieve more notability. There are clear hints that this editor has clear ties to the institutions and professors whose articles he is editing, and all of them should be reviewed. It is probably also a case of WP:NOPR WP:NOPAY.

    While I do not know personally any of the professors involved or the editor, I am reporting this anonymously. Spain is a "small" country. 

    84.120.179.232 (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=570984227"