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 HelenOnline (talk | contribs) at 07:11, 7 December 2013 (→Daniel J. Caron: indent). 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:Dan Abrams
    Talk:Bill Ackman
    Talk:Asia Society
    Talk:Australian Maritime College
    Talk:Carbfix
    Talk:Brian Chesky
    Talk:Cofra Holding
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Creative Planning
    Talk:Fundbox
    Talk:Globe Life
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Golden State Foods
    Talk:Gregmark Records
    Template talk:Hearst
    Talk:Hearst Communications
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Irish Cave Rescue Organisation
    Talk:David Kabiller
    Talk:Scott Kurashige
    Talk:List of assets owned by Hearst Communications
    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:Schillings
    Talk:Lester Sill
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Thandeka (minister)
    Talk:Augusta Read Thomas
    Talk:Lorraine Twohill
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Xsolla
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Derek Wayne Johnson

    This biographical article is written like a résumé

    The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. sites own sources of information

    Fashion Net

    Shousokutsuu is the creator and principal maintainer of Stig Harder, Fashion Net and {{Fashion Net}}, though various monothematic IPs have also contributed. Fashion Net is an internet search engine started by Stig Harder; the template is simply a vehicle for links to it, of which some dozens or perhaps hundreds have been added to various articles by Shousokutsuu, who nevertheless maintains that they are not spam - see User talk:SFK2#Fashion Net template and User talk:Justlettersandnumbers#Fashion Net template. There are related discussions at WP:RSPAM#Fashion Net and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 November 19#Template:Fashion Net. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It is perhaps also worth noting that Shousokutsuu stated that he/she is a "senior independent fashion editor" [1]. -SFK2 (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed. But I think the clincher is the diff from 2007 that you posted on Shousokutsuu's talkpage, where he clearly states his real world identity and also his connection with Fashion Net: "I, Stig Harder, am the author of this article. I'm the founder of http://www.fashion.net". I believe that decisively confirms that Shousokutsuu has a conflict of interest at the articles listed above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Not at all. After reviewing the external links on several fashion-related profiles on Wikipedia, I replaced several links to the Fashion Model Directory (such as http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/designers/domenico-dolce--stefano-gabbana/) with links to Fashion Net (http://www.fashion.net/designers/dolce-gabbana/). To my knowledge now and then, and after lengthy discussions with Justlettersandnumbers and SFK2, these links can in no way be considered spam, but are rather useful links that do indeed "further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy" as well as comply with Wikipedia's external links policies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_links). Moreover, Fashion Net's Domain Authority is 62 (http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/links.html?site=www.fashion.net); it is the number one search result for "fashion" at DMOZ (http://www.dmoz.org/search?q=fashion) and near the top on major search engines such as Google (https://www.google.com/search?q=fashion) and Bing (http://www.bing.com/search?q=fashion). (Search rankings for "fashion" have varied somewhat after May 22nd, before which Fashion Net was number one on all.) All of this, to my understanding, and also considering Fashion Net is the world's first site related to fashion, establishes authority. Shousokutsuu (talk) 05:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Furthermore, Fashion Net -isn't- a search engine, as alleged by Justlettersandnumbers above -- it -has- a search engine and the pages linked to from Wikipedia aren't search results, they're hard coded pages that can be searched, just like those on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanel isn't a search result, although searching for "chanel" on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=chanel) will point directly to the hardcoded page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanel This, by nobody's definition of the term, makes Wikipedia a search engine. Fashion Net's search function may include external sites, but only sites listed on Fashion Net. Shousokutsuu (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that this is a conflict of interest noticeboard, it might be a good idea to actually address the issue in your response. -SFK2 (talk) 06:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no conflict of interest and I herewith rest my case. Shousokutsuu (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately it doesn't work like that. There is a fairly conclusive COI case, given this comment. -SFK2 (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the COI is conclusively established, thanks to research by SFK2. Shousokutsuu says he is Stig Harder. He therefore has a COI at that article (obviously), at Fashion Net (started by Stig Harder) and at {{Fashion Net}}, at Lumière (magazine), started by Stig Harder, and at Stephen Todd (editor), editor of that magazine. I suggest tagging those articles accordingly. Are there others to be added? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Answering my own question: Hatice Güleryüz, wife of Stig Harder according to our article on him, should be added to this list. Shousokutsuu is the principal editor there. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    While I do not wish to reveal my identity, I'm very well connected in the industry; my aim has been to document without bias the early days of online fashion. Shousokutsuu (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You are under no obligation to reveal your identity. But be aware that COI editing (i.e. editing articles which you are affiliated with) is strongly discouraged. -SFK2 (talk) 07:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Daniel J. Caron

    Frelau is a new single purpose editor who, based on this comment on my talk page, appears to have a conflict interest and has attempted to remove any controversial material including references from the article ([2] [3] [4] [5] [6]). I have warned them about COI on their talk page and mine, tried to work with them to make the article neutral and now need some help with the situation. On finalizing my edits to the article as discussed with Frelau on the article talk page, I was accused of COI by Frelau and received an edit warring warning from a brand new user Leptiminus that doesn't make any sense to me. I have no personal connection to Caron or the LAC (Caron's previous employer) whatsoever. I welcome a review of both our edits. See article talk page and my talk page. HelenOnline 06:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:HelenOnline has been warned fo past behaviour of edit warring, and this unecesary escalation constitutes the beginning of a harassament behaviour. The post on the editors' talk page was a reminder to follow known processes to address edit warring in order to encourage a productive, congenial editing style within community norms. --Leptiminus (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry it still doesn't make any sense to me. In line with WP:NPA, please provide evidence for your accusations (diffs). HelenOnline 13:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I had a quick look at this. It seems to me very likely that Frelau has a conflict of interest at Daniel J. Caron. It also seems to me very unlikely that Leptiminus, whose first edit read "I suggest you both re-read WP:BRD and WP:BLP", is a new editor. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    From that edit and their comment here, it seems Leptimus may be taking their cue from the previous discussion on my talk page, with a user who was blocked for edit warring and is now the subject of an Arbcom discussion. HelenOnline 06:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This was the first time I posted here and except for one comment by JLAN I have been ignored and the case archived without resolution. Can someone please help me resolve this? HelenOnline 07:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    RE: User:88rockzmyworld

    Can someone take a look here and see if "The Wikipedia Adventure!" represents any kind of COI, intentional and/or otherwise? Thanks. Quis separabit? 04:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    @Rms125a@hotmail.com: It's a community approved (some would say tolerated) initiative like the Teahouse to engage and help out new editors. --NeilN talk to me 20:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Thanks. Didn't know. Quis separabit? 22:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Bob Huff

    Billbird is Huff's head press agent ("Communications Director") and was previously in the same position for another State Senator. He has been making COI edits for years on behalf of his boss, and has been tossing the word "libelous" around lately because he doesn't like the fact that edits do not reflect Huff's own website (which Billbird controls). When after increasingly heated discussion on his part it became clear that other editors were not going to do what he demanded, he went ahead in spite of repeated warnings from multiple editors, and crossed the Bright Line with some very NPOV-violating edits. He was reverted by one experienced editor, and I have now blocked him briefly (72 hours). Orange Mike | Talk 20:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have rarely come across an editor so clueless about how a conflict of interest should be handled. Most editors will try to deny the conflict or attempt to portray themselves as neutral. Some quotes from this editor: "It makes [me] a tad upset because it makes the Senator a tad upset. Since I do work for this person, and the way he is portrayed in public is important to him, I do my best to make him happy. I would hope that you would understand this." [7] and "These latest changes aren't going to make him happy..." [8] --NeilN talk to me 20:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is my favorite Billbird quote so far (from NeilN's talk page): "Listing rankings from organizations that do not support Republicans or Republican policy and have clearly aligned themselves with one political point of view is not neutral, third party, editing. It's a blatant political attack. This is libelous. It is an attack." I am aghast with near-admiration at the utter, boundless depths of his cluelessness. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Given this editor's two-year history of promotional edits to the Bob Huff article, his blatant disregard of other editors, and his cluelessness about both COI and NPOV, a topic ban would seem in order. 71.139.157.123 (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    We're asked to stay away from personal attacks on these pages, and keep arguments calm and concise, correct? Yet you have editors like Mark Miller (Redacted) Really? You call this calm and concise? Avoiding personal attacks? --Billbird2111 (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Retract that, apologize or back that accusation up sir.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Bill, what are you talking about? If this (Redacted), the last public (non-official) post on that page was on October 23. Dwpaul Talk 22:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually Dwpaul you have to (Redacted). I am also a Californian who lives just outside Sacramento. I then quoted the BLP policy on how to contact WMF if they are not satisfied with the content. That is all.(Redacted) I have screen captured it and can show exactly what was stated if needed.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    OK. The proper thing to do when an editor appears to be clueless is to politely offer them a clue. On-wiki. If they either don't get get it, or continue on in an appropriate way, you educate them, with as much good faith as you can muster, while reverting their bad edits and escalating warnings. Eventually, an admin takes the action OrangeMike did and upwards from there. What you don't do is complain about it, off-wiki, to the person who appears to be his boss. Did I understand that this was a complaint to the subject of the BLP on(Redacted)? If true, that's a much worser thing to do than the original edits. We have ways, on-wiki, to deal with out-of-policy edits and editors who violate core rules. But as clear-cut as this might seem, there ARE other possibilities. The editor could be purposely impersonating the person we assume him to be, to make trouble for him. If so, the manipulation has worked. Now, I grant you, Occam's Razor seems to be in play here, and the editor is probably who he purports to be. But even so, posting to the BLP subject's (Redacted), to try to get him to rein in the editor, is bad business. Reverts, blocks, even bans might be appropriate reactions. But off-wiki contact with someone who may be (ok, who probably is) a guy's boss? That behavior is far more troubling than the initial, edits ever were. Those edits are garden variety misbehavior, committed by an editor who's either truly off-course or doing one helluva job of acting. They're just electrons, easily erased. The (Redacted), as described by User:Mark Miller himself, could have real-world consequences for the real life person, whether he is the editor called Billbird2111 or not. David in DC (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    There was no complaint made, but a simple request that was outed here against our policy. If you want to discuss my off-Wiki activity, do so through my e-mail. WP:PRIVACY--Mark Miller (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You announced what you did in your own post, right on this page. I see now that someone has redacted it. If you post what you did here, there's no policy based reason I should react in horror right under your announcement. What you said you did is reprehensible. It ought to win you a block. It has certainly won you my scorn. David in DC (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you review our policy on privacy. I have told you point blank to stop linking to my off wiki private accounts and to use e-mail as our policy does indeed mention. Period. This has now become harassment.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reviewed it. It does not require me to ignore self-disclosure. This is what User:Mark Miller posted. "Actually Dwpaul you have to (Redacted). I am also a Californian who lives just outside Sacramento. I then quoted the BLP policy on how to contact WMF if they are not satisfied with the content. That is all.(Redacted) I have screen captured it and can show exactly what was stated if needed." Except I responded to it before he self-redacted. I violated no policy by responding to User:Mark Miller's own post before he chose to self-bowdlerize. I resent the accusation that I did. I suppose it's foolish to hope for an apology. But hope springs eternal for fools like me.
    Please do not misunderstand me. I think Billbird2111's edits violated WP:COI and that Orange Mike's block of him was well-waranted. But I stand by my assertion that the behavior that User:Mark Miller explicitly announced that he'd engaged in, right here in this very thread, is far worse, and reflects badly on wikipedia and wikipedians. David in DC (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I am a Californian and as I said and have not redacted or retracted. I have also stated that I live in Elk Grove California (something I have mentioned many times). You did, in fact, add other information after it was redacted. I find that harrassive and if you, as the fool you claim to be, are sanctioned...then you well deserve it. As for your fucking "scorn". I don't give a goddamn rat's ass about the shit. --Mark Miller (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Europeana

    An IP tagged this article for COI, and set forth his evidence on Jimbo Wales user page.[9] I'm not comfortable with the COI tag being added under these circumstances but wanted to see what other editors thought. Coretheapple (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    IP is right. No third party sources, reads like advert, it should be reverted far back to the start of January 2011.--Loomspicker (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the COI tag? I removed it, pending further input from here. Coretheapple (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    First, to disclose, I was alerted by e-mail this morning to problems detected in the Europeana article, as my friend knows that I've long been interested in revenue waste by the European Commission and related bodies. Can I just say "Bravo!" to the IP editor who bravely pointed out the conflict of interest editing taking place on Europeana? I just discovered myself how European Commission IP addresses are editing subjects like Europe by Satellite, European Federalist Party, and Economy of the European Union. Some of their contributions, they are even going so far to attach copyright to the edits, which is not how Wikipedia works. Nothing about Template:COI says that its use here would be improper. In fact, I think it's highly necessary to warn readers when government workers are caretaking the supposedly "neutral" presentation of information about government agencies. I think you should add back the COI notice. Percolaytor (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Traditions of Louisiana Tech University, Spirit of '88

    I was reading the section on the Spirit of '88 and noticed an obvious conflict of interest. It comes off as a story that promotes Louisiana Tech as a university. Somebody should take a look at the rest of the page to determine whether or not it is that lone section.

    Thank you. 68.185.226.140 (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Diane Harkey / Jeff Gorell / Brian Dahle

    Three politicians possibly editing their own pages. __ E L A Q U E A T E 11:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    Autocephalous Greek Orthodox Church of America and Australia

    It seems pretty clear that there is a connection here, given this statement. The text is obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia -

    As a faithful Shepherd, Archbishop Dionysios guided the flock entrusted to him by Christ our Saviour of the narrow path of salvation. His Eminence was a true pillar of Orthodoxy and defended the faithful little flock and vigorously any Wolf that were around the sheep. Away off the modernists, and the pseudo-orthodox defenders of heresy.

    I came upon this working copyright and flagged the COI, also notifying the editor, but I haven't got time to strip this down to usable content - copyright work beckons. I mention it here in case somebody else does. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Tutorvista management editing own article

    This whole debacle started when I was watching the abuse filters one night and found Subrata2011 was blanking the Tutorvista page [10]. I restored the content and went to notify him on his talk page, only to find that he had a warning from both ClueBot and Slazenger about unconstructive edits (though Slazenger redacted his warning after discussing it with him on his talk page), so I gave him a level 2 warning [11]. He then added in material that was in violation of WP:PEACOCK and was seemed to be advertising in nature due to the way it was written and the addition of non-notable people without references [12]. I undid his revision and warned him again [13]. He then blanked the page a second time [14] so I gave him a final warning [15]. He immediately quits editing the article and posts a message on Slazenger's talk page about how he was merely trying to edit the article and that I was stopping him from doing so, asking Slazenger to help him out [16]. I replied both on Slazenger's talk page and on own talk page to try and clarify Wikipedia's procedures and to try and help him edit the article positively. Instead, he ignores the message I put on his talk page and writes a lengthy rant, saying things like "Whatever reason your reviewer (myself) has put across to you is nothing but justifying his/her action", "i will have a serious doubt about the reviewers knowledge of things or wiki's checking methods itself." and "What your reviewer did yesterday was plain and simple knee jerk reaction to changes" [17]. Within the post, he mentions that "I am may be from Management of this company but i will definitely won't want the tags that we have now in our page" and earlier, when he's addressing Slazenger, he mentions that he is "Subrata Majumdar, Assistant Manager, Content Development, TutorVista, Pearson Education Service." [18]. I then post another lengthy reply, stating exactly what he's doing wrong and how to fix it [19], which I assume he doesn't read, as he disappears for several days. However, he seems to have completely ignored the post and has since resumed editing the Tutorvista page, continuing with adding in non-notable people, violating WP:PEACOCK and not sourcing his material [20]. While I think he could be a useful editor, I think his position as a manager and the fact that he continues to make comments like "our page" and "force to be reckoned with" are clear examples he isn't adhering to WP:NPOV. While Slazenger has been gracious enough to attempt being a mediator in the debacle, I believe it's time to seek higher help since Subrata isn't listening to our advice (as Slazenger has told him to reference his material and keep a neutral point of view [21]). Jns4eva (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I took a look and cleaned up a little of the COI phrasing and added sourcing. It looks like it used to be a sourced page, but all the back-and-forth stripped the links away in favor of company boosterism and unsourced hype. Subatra's edits are bald-faced promotion, and unfortunately there are thin sources for anything other than its acquisition by Pearson. It still needs work. It would be helpful if he could point to non-company references for this company, but the page doesn't need more of anything promotional, and I think he's been told this. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the eyes and for cleaning up the article Elaqueate, it's much appreciated. I was planning on doing it myself but I was trying not to start an edit war with Subrata. I tried to discuss how to edit positively and neutrally with him, but the discussion went stagnant as he merely took our advice as an attack and returned to his previous behavior. Jns4eva (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added this page to my watchlist as well, so if nothing else, there are now more eyes on the article to keep an eye on things. —C.Fred (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you C.Fred for your assistance and for keeping an eye on the page. Hopefully this will help improve the article and serve as a wake up call to Subrata. Jns4eva (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Nevron Open Vision

    Hi.

    This looks like a potential COI situation. An editor called Christo nevron is adding mention of "Nevron Open Vision" to the articles listed above. The added entry lacks source, lacks evidence of notability and goes against WP:NOTDIR. This user has had no other activity on Wikipedia since registration.

    Best regards,
    Codename Lisa (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Trafigura

    Hi – I have recently posted on the talk page of the article for Trafigura, a multinational commodities trader. My COI is that I work for Bell Pottinger, a London-based PR firm, and that Trafigura is my client. The current article lacks important information on the company's history, structure and business operations. I have submitted a draft Company History section to my user space here, and I invite editors here and on the article talk page to review it and offer feedback. Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    American Legislative Exchange Council

    American Legislative Exchange Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (ALEC)

    Rebeccalutz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Ms. Lutz is an WP:SPA who has done not much beyond low-level edit warring,WP:PROMOTION, and consistent pro-ALEC POV-pushing, and her edits both in the article and on the talk page reveal an overall pattern of disruption and disregard for Wikipedia WP:BASICS. She denies she has a COI but her edits speak much louder than her words. Some of this is more appropriate for other noticeboards so I'll just stick with the COI-related stuff here:

    Insider behavior: Ms. Lutz has demonstrated an uncanny knowledge of ALEC without evidence of prior research. Four instances:

    • She added, unsourced, not only the city where ALEC recently moved to but also its neighborhood (Crystal City, Arlington, Virginia). The ALEC website doesn't list the neighborhood, and none of the sources cited in the article mention it either, so this suggests Ms. Lutz is at the least quite familiar with the DC-Metro area. Moreover the facade of the building is unmarked so she can't say she was driving by and noticed it.
    • She changed the date of ALEC's formation from 1975 to 1973 without sourcing. This change his was not supported by the article as it had existed. On the talk page, she stated with surprising confidence (and no sources) that she was right. Subsequent discussion suggests that she had done no online research beforehand.
    • She stated matter-of-factly, without sources, that the Edison Electric Institute is currently a member of ALEC. My subsequent research confirms this, but I had to go beyond the article and its cited sources.
    • She has repeatedly changed all references to "model bills" to "model policies," and has pushed hard on the talk page for this change. Her representation that "most" of our sources use "model policies" is verifiably false; I went through all of them, and (excluding ALEC's website) not a single one used "model policies." Feel free to do the same. The overwhelming majority use "model bills," "model legislation," or a mix of both. So who is using "model policies" in reference to ALEC? There are some reliable sources out there that do, but they aren't cited in our article. But it just so happens that ALEC has made a sustained effort in the last two months to scrub references to "model bills" and "model legislation" from its website and replace them with "model policies." The evidence comes courtesy of the Wayback Machine:
    (As an aside, another, now-inactive ALEC SPA, TheGregMachine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), did the same thing in July, see here, here.)

    Temporary pattern of COI-aware editing: Ms. Lutz started editing on Oct 28 but her first edit to ALEC was on November 14. From Nov 19-25 she followed a pattern of exclusively editing the talk page rather than the article, except for edits that she might have seen as uncontroversial, in line with COI recommended practices. On Nov 25 I noted on her user talk her possible COI and made some suggestions. The next morning, she acknowledged my message, and, 3 minutes later, abandoned her COI editing practices. After that the disruption began in earnest.

    Reliance on ALEC's website: Here are examples of self-serving / promotional additions she has made, citing only ALEC's own website:

    • "According to IRS documents, ALEC recieves 98% of its funing from foundations, corporations, other nonprofits and meeting revenue." [22]
    • "ALEC's website contains a searchable list of provisional model policies intended as academic documents for individual study." [23]
    • "The Task Forces were built to model Task Forces created during the Reagan Administration to address questions of Federalism." [24]

    Promotion of ALEC: Just about all of Ms. Lutz's edits are biased in favor of ALEC, but here are some of the most egregious ones that rise to the level of WP:PROMOTION:

    • ALEC's allowing legislatures to research "best practices" ([25]) a term frequently used on ALEC's website
    • "To this end, ALEC's website contains a searchable list of provisional model bills that it says are intended as academic documents for individual study." ([26], [27], [28]) (edit warred over this)
    • "ALEC's Justice Performance Project is 'an program to advance proven criminal justice reforms based on over two decades of data-driven research and practice' focused on 'Corrections and Reentry, Pretrial Release, and Overcriminalization'." ([29]) (Ms. Lutz denied that this language was unduly self-serving.)
    • referring to "ALEC's proposed solutions" ([30])

    Well that's about it. Oh, and there's some off-wiki evidence, but I don't want to run afoul of WP:OUTING. I guess I'm WP:DUCK hunting. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    As an involved editor at the ALEC article, I would agree this is an agenda-driven single-purpose account. Circumstantially, the contribution history looks exactly like one would expect from a COI account. For the record, this editor denied any conflict of interest in response to my direct question, so I'm not sure where that leaves us. MastCell Talk 23:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It leaves us waiting for uninvolved editors to pore through the evidence and evaluate it. I hope someone takes up the challenge, since the disruption is pretty major. Productive work on this article (which has been hot in the news lately) has ground to a halt. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    This is a frivilous complaint by an editor who disagrees with me who only started this after he began losing the two discussions that he started at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I edited other pages before ALEC and am interested in doing so in the future but when I do there is this one guy who keeps following me and undoes my edit on pages that he has never edited before 1, 2. Fleishchman is clearly biased against the topic and exhibits considerable Wikipedia:Ownership of articles issues. His personal opinions are fine but his constant need to revert what others have edited have led to him reintroducing factually incorrect statements several times, even though they were not supported by any source.
    Per Fleishchman's accusations that I have "insider knowledge"
    1 No, I didn't source their location being in Virginia because, you know, something that uncontroversial shouldn't need to be sourced, was not sourced previously and is not currently sourced. Why did you fight me so hard on this? Why did you keep reverting my edit to say that they are located in DC?
    2 ALEC was founded in 1973. Every source that we have says that. I am surprised that no one noticed it earlier. Why did you revert that edit? Why did you reflexively revert something so clearly true and present incorrect information?
    3 EEI and ALEC's relationship is only mysterious if you haven't discovered google yet. I didn't even scroll down. I learned this while researching a questionable source introduced by Fleishman, one of the Reliable Source discussions currently in progress.
    4 Wikipedia described them as "model policies" well before 2 months ago. It was the standard description and you changed it to something more sinister sounding which was not supported by our sources. I asked you why you did that on the talk page. Nothing too mysterious there.


    I wanted to expand the criticism coverage in the opening paragraph as well as expanding what is arguably their most controversial topic and my sources were Rachel Maddow and MSNBC. But while we're throwing around accusations: how many positive edits have you made to this page? What is your interest here?
    • Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand who does that page quote? Thats right, the IRS tax documents that they voluntarily disclosed. Quite different from taking their word for it, as you imply that I did.
    • The text "ALEC's website contains a searchable list of provisional model policies intended as academic documents for individual study." predates my editing of the ALEC page. Get your story straight.


    • Lots of people use the term "best practices". The ALEC page used the term "best practices" well before I showed up.
    • Again, I didn't write that text, that text predates my editing of the ALEC page.
    • Yes, I quoted their website. As a quote. In quotation marks.
    • Is "proposed solutions" controversial? They're solutions that were proposed. ALEC proposed them. I didn't think that choice of words was controversial but am more than happy to discuss it on the talk page if it really offends you that much.


    Per Fleischman's ownership: along with several smaller edits that could be considered reversions, Fleishman has made more that 3 flat out reversion inside of a 24 hour period constituting the classic definition of edit-warring:
    • 1 at 4:50 on 2 Dec.
    • 2 at 4:51 on 2 Dec.
    • 3 at 5:03 on 2 Dec.
    • 4 at 18:08 on 2 Dec.


    Thanks for trying to stalk me, I guess? I'll make sure to sleep with a phone in reach.
    Once again, this is a frivolous complaint by an edit-warrior who is disappointed that he is losing the discussion. Rebeccalutz (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to take your edit warring complaint to WP:ANEW, if you wish. But make sure you read up on WP:3RR before you do. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Re "best practices": It is indeed true that this material pre-dated Ms. Lutz's time here, but she did revert it back in, without explanation I might add. It was originally added back in October 2011 by yet another ALEC SPA, this one Jude1979 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Although Jude1979 only made 2 edits, those edits share a common whitewashing style with both Ms. Lutz and TheGregMachine, and the following edits show a more link between Jude1979 (here) and TheGregMachine (here). Probably not enough evidence to prove anything, but a very troubling possibility of meatpuppetry. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the accusation, remind me to return the favor some time. If the phrase "best practices" offended you so much why didn't you ever bring it up on the talk page? Rebeccalutz (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks to DrFleischman for bringing such good evidence here. I am involved at the article, and I just assumed Rebeccalutz's conflict of interest, obvious as it was to those of us working at the article, was something that could not be addressed with any success. DrFleischman proves me wrong. The evidence is 100% circumstantial, but this is no different than the evidence we very often use to determine similar cases. I find especially unconvincing the non-response supplied by Rebeccalutz to explain her knowledge of the precise neighborhood where ALEC had recently moved. Binksternet (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Their precise location is available to anyone who knows how google works: http://www.alec.org/contact-us/directions-to-our-office/ Rebeccalutz (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Those directions were not cited in your change to the article. The Wayback Machine shows they had only recently changed, so now we can conclude you are either extraordinarily alert to changes at ALEC's website, or you learned the location in some other manner. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well Ms. Lutz didn't start editing until after ALEC changed its directions. The bigger point is that nothing on the new page says ALEC is located in the Crystal City neighborhood. From personal knowledge I can say that DC-area residents talk about Crystal City like it's almost a separate place from the rest of Arlington. You don't say you're going to Arlington, you say you're going to Crystal City. There's no reason a non-DC area editor would go to the "Directions to Our Office" page and then list "Crystal City" based on it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes gentlemen, I have been to Washington before. Any other smoking guns you would like to discuss? Why are you giving my shit for giving a different answer than ALEC gives as to which sub-section of NOVA they're in? Rebeccalutz (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    NOVA, interesting. I've never heard that term before. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously? Its right up there with SoCal. In either case, I should not be held guilty for your geographic ignorance. Rebeccalutz (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it's not. This is borne out by a comparison of Northern Virginia versus Southern California, as well as a comparison between the relevant Google searches: "northern virginia" "nova" -"northern virginia community college" vs. "southern california" "socal" (almost 4x as many hits). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not from DC, but am familiar with the East Coast usage of "NOVA", and a cursory look at newspapers in the East from South Carolina up to New York shows it is widely used and known. [31] comes from a fairly reliable source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That link is broken, but it comes from the Washington Post, the Local section no less, which supports my very point. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL! That is a clear case of "IDONTLIKEIT" at this point -- would you really like three hundred cites on this page? I trust not. But if you think dismissing the WaPo is being "local news" means much (NoVa is "local" to the WaPo, but that does not reduce the use of the term in the RS any more than NYT use of "SoHo" means that people outside NY will not know what it means!) BTW, Wikipedia lists "Northern Virginia" on the disambiguation page for "Nova". I take it that you did not find that WP already knows what NoVa means? Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No no, I think you're missing my point. Of course NoVa is known to mean Northern Virginia. What I'm suggesting is that it's more of a local term than a national one. "SoCal" is much more widely known, which is why it appears in the first sentence of Southern California. "SoHo" is inapposite because that's the common name of the place (as reflected by the title of the article). There's no other name for it (aside from "South of Houston," which would draw funny looks). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't say I proved you wrong, we'll see. We need uninvolved editors who are willing to do a deep dive into the evidence. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I find myself somewhat dismayed by this COI action. The evidence seems wildly thin. I live in Wisconsin but have visited DC often. Anyone who has would look at the org's website address and know that the Crystal Drive address is in Crystal City. The fact that she takes the 1973 date from the org's website as accurate is entirely unremarkable. The "model bill"/"model policy" debate is absurd. Clearly she has viewed the usage on the org's website...so what? The EEI bit is already debunked. Lastly, if there exists some secret off-wiki knowledge you had better discuss it with admins because I couldn't find any using google, and suggesting it without proof seems wrong, unfair, and a cheap shot. I find this a sad, sad thing. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate the input and I can understand Capitalismojo's reaction, even though I disagree with it. There are strong feelings with every COI accusation. I don't understand what is meant by "The EEI bit is already debunked." And regarding the statement "Clearly she has viewed the usage on the org's website," if this was the basis for her position then Ms. Lutz wasn't being straight with me in this discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, Capitalismojo is involved in the article and some of the relevant disputes. As are MastCell, Binksternet, and of course Rebeccalutz and myself. Unfortunately (but not unexpectedly) our positions on the COI issue are lining up with our positions on the substantive issues. This highlights the need for uninvolved editors to do a deep dive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    So far this appears to be far more witchhunt than proof. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Manulife Financial

    I work for Manulife in a communications role, and have been in discussions with the Wikipedia editing community over the past several months to update this entry. On Nov. 12, I proposed some changes to the structure and content of this entry's History section via the article's Talk page, including revising content and adding new sub-section headers, with the intent to ensure the information is complete and coherent (the current text is confusing and in places inaccurate). I work closely with Manulife's Manager of Corporate Archives, and have researched / documented the appropriate references for these proposed changes. I can provide source PDFs if needed. (Please note: I had submitted all of the references in my submission on Nov. 12, however for some reason they did not show up on the Talk page as they did when I previewed.)

    These proposed changes have not been addressed since I submitted them more than three weeks ago, and I am wondering if I could engage some help via COIN. Would someone be able to take a look and provide some advice / guidance? I am more than happy to discuss here or via my Talk page. Thanks for your time. Jnuwame (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi there. Thanks for disclosing your COI and adhering to COI best practices. An editor might assist you based on your note above. An even better way to get assistance is using a {{request edit}} tag. Instructions can be found here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Oops, I see you already did, but it was a long time ago. I think you need to add a new tag for each new requested edit (or each new set of requested edits). If you add requests without adding a new tag the tracking system will think your request has already been fulfilled. You should be able to monitor the status of your request here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Phineas Gage

    EEng has over 1000 edits to Phineas Gage and has prominently displayed his work along with the work of a co-author to the point that the article is not neutral and is hampered by a long and well-known pattern of ownership that was not resolved even amongst our best editors like @John:. The issue of sources and dominance of Macmillan has been discussed in the past at Talk:Phineas_Gage#GAN.2C_McMillian_and_Gage and formatting at Talk:Phineas_Gage#Eccentric_formatting. EEng has a history of edit warring and abrasive interactions with other editors and making personal attacks. However, the main reason for bringing this here, is EEng's significant deviation from NPOV by omitting other academics. EEng's bias and pushing of the co-author's work represents a clear COI that EEng refuses to acknowledge or work within. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Of the earlier discussions ChrisGualtieri links above, one is about formatting, and the other is a concern raised by one editor, which I answered, and which ended there.
    • CG himself cries "COI" over and over but refuses to say anything specific at all. As I said at Talk:Phineas_Gage#COI:
    WP:SELFCITE provides:
    Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion.
    Despite multiple requests, you have given no example of anything in the article violating the above. It's perfectly obvious that you haven't the foggiest idea about the subject or the relationships of the sources -- you're just talking through your hat.
    So once again, I challenge CG to point to anything in the article violating SELFCITE, including an explanation of what makes it a violation.
    EEng (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=584961372"