Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Find this page confusing? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. (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-wpwikipedia.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:A&P Talk:David Adjaye Talk:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:American Speech–Language–Hearing Association Talk:American Water Works Talk:Timothy Archambault Talk:Avia Solutions Group Talk:Bastion Collective Talk:Bell Bank Talk:Boku, Inc. Talk:William Bolcom Talk:Doug Bremner Talk:Bruce D. Broussard Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Martin Casado Talk:Cboe Global Markets Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Character.ai Talk:Brian Chesky Talk:Cheyne Capital Management Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange Talk:City of Whittlesea Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Cyberattack Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Edmund de Waal Talk:Derby della Lanterna Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Discovery Land Company Talk:Michael Douglas Talk:Edelman (firm) Talk:EF Education First Talk:EMarketer Talk:End-user license agreement Talk:Engine No. 1 Talk:ESAB Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Steven Furtick Talk:Gibson Dunn Talk:Global Strategy Group Talk:GLX Digital Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Graph database Talk:Green Line (TRAX) Talk:Evan G. Greenberg Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Gulfstream Aerospace Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:Roy Hamilton III Talk:Richard Harland Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina Talk:HOK (firm) Talk:Hong Kong Free Press Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:Barry Irwin Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies Talk:Amitabh Kant Talk:Labaton Keller Sucharow Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Alison Lawton Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Lemelson Foundation Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Anthony Marinelli Talk:Mascot Books Talk:Masdar Talk:Michael Meldman Talk:Milwaukee Electric Tool Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Norwest Venture Partners Talk:Obama Foundation Talk:Omaha Steaks Talk:Open Source Initiative Talk:Operating system Talk:Orphan Train Talk:Orphanage Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Pacific Equity Partners Talk:Lubos Pastor Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Plinabulin Talk:Programming language Talk:PureTalk Talk:Qiagen Talk:QIAGEN Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Quarter Pounder Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Marc Rowan Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist) Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Security AppScan Talk:Simprints Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Software Talk:Software license Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SoundExchange Talk:Stichting IKEA Foundation Talk:Stikeman Elliott Talk:Subway (restaurant) Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:The Inter Faith Network Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Titmouse, Inc. Talk:Tricentis Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Bradley Tusk Talk:Union Pacific Railroad Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Bulat Utemuratov Talk:Versapay Talk:Dan Wagner Talk:Wasserman (company) Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator Talk:Maya Wiley Talk:Andy Wright (music producer) Talk:Zearn Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Gediminas Žiemelis Talk:Alice Zorn

Academy of Art University

• Academy of Art University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• AdamNisbet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Academy of Art University has had a good deal of trouble with less-than-neutral editing in the past, by employees as well as critics. A new editor, AdamNisbet, has recently appeared, and is determinedly adding material to the article. Some of the edits are OK, others are rank promotion. On one edit, AdamNisbet left the summary "This is a minor edit to include Tom Bertino with 3 citations and linking to his wikipedia page which already links to us", which prompted me to ask if he/she was connected to the school in any way, and whether he/she is editing here for financial reward. Those questions elicited no reply, but the editor continues to make changes. I'm concerned that the Terms of Use are perhaps being ignored. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That article is very favorable to Academy of Art, which is a sketchy operation.[1] It doesn't mention that they have a 100% admit rate.[2] There's no criticism section. This article needs more editors looking at it. John Nagle (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Jewelry Television

• Jewelry Television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fredrockjtv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For years this article has been a major source of COI's, with IPs and editors with a close connection to the network editing the article to make it overly promotional and not meeting the basic guidelines of WP:TV; it got to the point where 207.106.153.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (which leads to the network's headquarters city) had to be permanently blocked for making tenuous edits to the article and those of the network's competitors.

The named user has resumed this same behavior, and I came upon the article last night to remove claims that the network is on every cable system in the United States (considering The Weather Channel and C-SPAN with near 100 million homes outrank this network's 80 million, this is impossible), updated the broadcast affiliate list to remove stations that no longer carry it, and removed claims which led to 404 pages. Above editor then restored everything, claiming viewers searching for the network would not find anything about the network based on my removals of promotional items and trying to redirect to the network's channel guide, which is inappropriate via WP:ELNO. The user then made claims on my talkpage that I was holding back viewers from finding their channel number and claimed I was hurting people by removing promotional content (hardly the case at all; I was just updating and neutralizing the article). The username makes it clear their COI and I'm asking for some kind of action to restore neutrality to the article. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 01:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hm. I made some minor fixes, but didn't change much. The big Jewelry Channel flap was a 2008 lawsuit over them selling cheap artificially treated stones as valuable. That's in there, and it was settled (which isn't in the article and should be.) There's a channel guide, which I'm tempted to delete per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. What's the right way to handle that? Other than that, the SPA needs to stop edit warring. John Nagle (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The channel guide can be converted to an affiliate list format or prose easily; I did check and make sure that those stations do air it (I tried to make it less specific to not run into the NTVG buzzsaw to mention which stations use the network to fill their entire day or just the overnights, which is somewhat important for these shopping networks for disclaiming purposes). Everything looks good; I didn't have any issues with the text outside of the 'every cable system' claim which is impossible to attain, the Roku channel not being so prominent since it's a niche service, and the other stuff which 404'ed out. Nate • (chatter) 19:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Senior Wrangler (University of Cambridge)

• Senior Wrangler (University of Cambridge) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ruthjhendry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The Senior Wrangler is a title given to the highest-scoring undergraduate mathematics student at the University of Cambridge. The user listed above claims to have been given the title in 1992, but there is no proper evidence other than self-assertion. Her account is a single-purpose account with the intention of including her name on the article. Here are the two main edits where she has tried to push her name onto the article against consensus and commonsense [3], [4]. She has only provided two 'sources': the first a link to her Linkedin page [5][6] and the second a self-published and completely unverified letter [7][8] supposedly from a Cambridge fellow that is hosted on the website of her workplace. Quite simply, something this obscure and dubious does not deserve a place in the article, as she has been told on the talk page here [9] and here [10] and on her user page here [11], all of which she has ignored. The lady is not here to 'build an encyclopedia' but only to push her name onto this article, something that falls well below Wikipedia's standards. Since she has repeatedly ignored the guidelines that have been brought up and continued to force her name onto the article, complete with aggressive language and numerous capital letters(!), I can only suggest some kind of block or final warning here. 86.158.181.1 (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

This is my response: I am not a regular Wikipedia user, and I only wish that the fact that I am Senior Wrangler 1992 be recognised on the page. I believe the editor who has stripped a long list of names post 1909 has been too prescriptive in doing so. I am aware from discussion with another editor (who has taken the time to email me personally to discuss the matter in a helpful and pleasant manner) that there are many who prefer the approach of marking names as 'citation needed' rather than deleting them. In deleting the list, this editor has lost potentially valuable information, which could be the source of research to obtain the citations. It would perhaps be an alternative to create a separate section on the article entitled 'suggested Senior Wranglers' explaining that these names have been put forward and are subject to further verification. Does the editor who deleted the long list still have them, or has this accumulated data been lost permanently? I am not clear as to why this editor is so intent to have me removed from the list, and what particular interest they have in this matter. I am the 1992 Senior Wrangler, and I have provided a copy of the letter which was sent to me by my Director of Studies (Dr Richard Weber, now Professor Richard Weber, Churchill Professor of Mathematics for Operational Research) confirming this. It is identical in format to the two letters from the previous two years, where I was placed 6th (part IA) and 2nd (part IB). I uploaded it to my husband's website so that it is in the public domain. It is inherent in the non-public nature of Senior Wranglers since 1910 that evidence is hard to obtain, and the fact I have the original letter is something that others have not offered. (If the links are followed to the citations given for many of the other Senior Wranglers, the link is to a profile page on a university website or similar, which it is very likely the person has written for themselves, as I know we wrote our own profiles when I was a doctoral student at Warwick University.) It is very upsetting that this editor is taking this aggressive approach and their accusations above are very hurtful. I will admit I stated firmly on my edit - including using capital letters - that their approach to editing is unacceptable, because I was very keen that they stop making these changes. I think that it is the editor above who should be asked not to approach the editing of this page in this way. In the meanwhile I would invite the editor, as they are clearly very keen to have an accurate list of Senior Wranglers, to email Professor Weber (see http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~rrw1/ for his profile and contact details) to ask him to verify that the letter is genuine. I do wonder, as this editor seems so interested in the subject, whether they would like to look at the list of suggested names (if they have kept it) and contact the colleges listed, which I am sure will be able to verify their own alumni's achievements. A single contact with Trinity College would probably produce a long list. To the people at Wikipedia considering the above: I am sorry if what I have written above is not written in the proper format, or expressed in the proper way. I have not edited anything on Wikipedia before, and I cannot compete with the editor above who seems intent on removing my one achievement in life from Wikipedia, even though I have provided adequate proof that I have this achievement. I am feeling harassed by this person and very upset by it all and would appreciate your help in stopping them doing this any further, and allowing my edits to remain. Thank you. Ruth Juliet Hendry.

'I only wish that the fact that I am Senior Wrangler 1992 be recognised on the page.'

I am sorry, but that is simply not how Wikipedia works. You have a conflict of interest, which is defined here as 'an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor'. Your role as an editor is to edit the encyclopedia neutrally, not to include your name in an article.

'There are many who prefer the approach of marking names as 'citation needed' rather than deleting them. In deleting the list, this editor has lost potentially valuable information, which could be the source of research to obtain the citations.'

Whilst this might be appropriate on a personal website of someone who is interested in senior wranglers, it does not conform to Wikipedia's standards. A hugely important principle of Wikipedia is verifiability: an unsourced and unverified list of names cannot be included in the article. Further, we have to be even more careful when considering naming living people.

'Does the editor who deleted the long list still have them, or has this accumulated data been lost permanently?'

Previous versions of the page can be found in the article history (look at the tab at the top of the page).

'I am the 1992 Senior Wrangler, and I have provided a copy of the letter which was sent to me by my Director of Studies (Dr Richard Weber, now Professor Richard Weber, Churchill Professor of Mathematics for Operational Research) confirming this.'

We simply cannot take your word for this, sorry. In order be part of Wikipedia, the information must come from reliable sources. If reliable sources cannot be found, it indicates the information is not appropriate or notable enough for Wikipedia.

'If the links are followed to the citations given for many of the other Senior Wranglers, the link is to a profile page on a university website or similar, which it is very likely the person has written for themselves.'

If this is a concern for you, make a note on the talk page discussing whether these names should also be deleted.

'In the meanwhile I would invite the editor, as they are clearly very keen to have an accurate list of Senior Wranglers, to email Professor Weber to ask him to verify that the letter is genuine.'

This is absolutely unacceptable, sorry. All editors must follow the rule of no original research. If the information is to be included in the article, it should be documented in a reliable source: 'to demonstrate that you are not adding OR [original research], you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.' The unverified and unsupported letter does not constitute a reliable source.

'I cannot compete with the editor above who seems intent on removing my one achievement in life from Wikipedia, even though I have provided adequate proof that I have this achievement.'

I am sorry to read this. Becoming senior wrangler is a proud achievement for many. It is not your role to provide proof for the article, however. It is the role of reliable sources. If no sources exist, then there is no place in the article.

'I am feeling harassed by this person and very upset by it all and would appreciate your help in stopping them doing this any further, and allowing my edits to remain.'

I am also sorry to read this. My intentions are not to harrass you but to prevent Wikipedia from falling below important standards. I have removed numerous names, not only yours: it just happens that you are the only editor who has made an account to restore your name to the article. Because of the seriousness of a harassment claim, I have made a note of this at the administrators' noticeboard.

I strongly suggest you avoid further attempts to push your name into the article. I have explained quite clearly why it is completely inappropriate. I would welcome you, though, to begin editing Wikipedia generally, without a conflict of interest, in topics that interest you. This means having a neutral point of view and following verifiability. If you would like to learn more about this, feel free to visit the teahouse. 86.158.181.1 (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Being "Senior Wrangler" is not notable enough on its own. Unless Ms. Hendry is currently notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, she has no need to be mentioned anywhere on the project. Besides, Ms Hendry agreed not to write about herself when she signed up. None of this is harassment, and making such claims is definitely inappropriate the panda ₯’ 15:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If being a Senior Wrangler isn't notable, why do we have an article on the subject which lists every one that we have a reliable source (in Wikipedia terms) for? As for what Ms Hendry 'signed up' for, I very much doubt that anyone reads through the entire bureaucratic labyrinth of Wikipedia policies and guidelines before signing up - and I suspect that were people to do so, we'd have substantially less contributors. The facts of the matter here are that Ms Hendry has seen a list which she considers she has a legitimate claim to be included on, and she has offered what she considers to be a reasonable means to verify this. Failing to understand the intricacies of Wikipedia policy concerning sourcing does not constitute a 'conflict of interest' by any stretch of the imagination, and accordingly this should never have been brought up here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

A conflict of interest is defined at WP:COI as an 'incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor'. Miss Hendry has added inappropriate references against consensus and without discussion, thereby disrupting the aim of Wikipedia, in order to satisfy her individual aims (as she has described above, 'I ... wish that the fact that I am Senior Wrangler 1992 be recognised on the page'). Advice has been provided on multiple pages, but her attempts to force through her edits have not stopped. This edit [12] suggests she is unwilling to consider this and is instead focused on her underlying aim, which is not an aim that benefits the encyclopedia. 86.158.181.1 (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Panda, the frequently grumpy Andy has spoken wisely above. And in fact the Terms of Service item that you may be referring to is only about paid promotional editing. Nothing like that appears to be going on here. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 Ruth - you can find all earlier versions of the article in the article history, here (or just click the "history" tab at the top of the article). I personally find the letter from Richard Weber to be fairly persuasive and would be inclined to accept it if someone confirmed it with him by email or if he posted it on his own site (we could then possibly use it per WP:SPS). 86.158.181.1, please try to be less confrontational and more understanding. That said, Ruth: according to the article, the institution of publicly fêting the Senior Wrangler was done away with in 1910, so it comes across as unseemly for someone to promote themselves in this manner. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPS is certainly not possible at all here: it states to 'never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer'. I apologise if I have come across as confrontational: it was not intended in any way. I gave a lot of detail above and directed Miss Hendry to relevant pages that give further information. I explained that being Senior Wrangler is a big achievement, but also on what is necessary when contributing to a Wikipedia article. 86.158.181.1 (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Now you're wikilawyering. This is not a contentious BLP issue and there is no need to treat it as one. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Not at all: it quite clearly says 'never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer'. It is so important never is in bold. No exceptions are made to this point on the page. 86.158.181.1 (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You continue to wikilawyer. It's not appropriate to argue over something like that unless there's an actual issue of contention regarding the info under discussion. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Not only is it Wikilawyering, it is Wikilawyering based on a clear misunderstanding of policy - written in plain English. There is no 'third party' involved here. The 'self-published source' only concerns the person who 'published' it - Ms Hendry. Not a third party. That section of BLP policy is a complete irrelevance here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

There are two possibilities here. The first, as originally suggested by 50.0.205.237, is that Prof. Weber posts a letter on his website. Prof. Weber is arguably an 'established expert', but the letter is about a living third party, since Miss Hendry is independent of Prof. Weber, so 'never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer' applies. The second is that, as currently, Miss Hendry posts the letter on her website. This is unacceptable becuse she is not an 'established expert on the subject matter'. Either way, WP:SPS does not apply. 86.158.181.1 (talk) 10:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Please refer back to AndyTheGrump's excellent analysis of this situation:

• Ms Hendry has seen a list which she considers she has a legitimate claim to be included on, and she has offered what she considers to be a reasonable means to verify this.
• If being a Senior Wrangler isn't notable, why do we have an article on the subject which lists every one that we have a reliable source (in Wikipedia terms) for?
• Failing to understand the intricacies of Wikipedia policy concerning sourcing does not constitute a 'conflict of interest' by any stretch of the imagination, and accordingly this should never have been brought up here.

The IP's comment here is unfortunate, unfair and sadly sounds too much like the kind of comment leveled at women in 1909.

• so it comes across as unseemly for someone to promote themselves in this manner

If there is, what is considered by agreement to be a reliable source, and that is the real issue concerning this content, then content should be readded . That is the only appropriate discussion, in my opinion. Further, that discussion belongs on the article talk page.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC))

Just to clarify, the IP that made the comment about promoting oneself is a different IP to me. On a somewhat related note, I wholeheartedly insist this discussion is solely about an academic title: editors should be very careful not to let issues of sex, which are entirely unrelated to the matter at hand, to disrupt the discussion. 86.158.181.1 (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

About reliable sources, yes, the problem is that no reliable source exists and Miss Hendry has repeatedly attempted to place her name in the article despite this. Discussion has been attempted at Talk:Senior Wrangler (University of Cambridge) and User talk:Ruthjhendry, amongst other places, but Miss Hendry has not participated in any of these. This note at WP:COIN was made simply because the edits have continued. 86.158.181.1 (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

No, the problem here is that rather than attempting to engage someone who is clearly unfamiliar with the workings of Wikipedia in dialogue, you chose to start a thread here in an entirely confrontational manner. Ms Hendry had provided what she clearly considered to be a legitimate source, and had been given no indication as to why it wasn't acceptable prior to this thread being started. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Whether a reliable source exists is a discussion for the article talk page. A new editor, should any of use remember what that was like, should be walked, kindly, through the process of identifying RSs, something to keep in mind on the article talk page.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC))

More good comments from Andy and Olive. An old talkpage comment[13] mentions a possible source available at Cambridge. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The editor wants to add her own name to a WP article. How could that possibly not be a conflict of interest? This editor was invited to discuss the matter on July 30, and twice added her name back in after that time without discussing. I think bringing the matter here was a reasonable next step. I am sorry she feels harassed but I'm not sure how else this could have been handled. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• COI is an issue in Wikipedia because of how people sometimes try to compromise the neutrality of articles for self-serving reasons. The particular info under dispute was neutral and added missing info to a list already created by other editors, so the primary objection to COI editing doesn't apply. At most there's a secondary issue because of the slightly more difficult resulting discussion. I think Andy is right, this didn't need to be brought here. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly - there is no conflict of interest involved in adding encyclopaedic information to an article. A COI comes about when someone compromises article content for reasons of personal benefit, which clearly wasn't the intent here. Ms Hendry was reverted earlier because there wasn't a RS-compliant source given. She restored her name to the list while providing what she thought was a valid source. At that point, the correct approach would have been to explain to her why the source wasn't acceptable - instead the whole thing has been blown out of proportion by an entirely unnecessary escalation.AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

We should be very clear here: Miss Hendry repeatedly 'compromised' the article by attempting to place her name in the article with unacceptable references, against previous discussion and advice. Miss Hendry has admitted above that she is not interested in improving the list but just to have her 'one achievement in life' 'recognised on the page'. This is a single-purpose account that has shown no interest in improving Wikipediia, but only for a specific personal interest. As Kendall-K1 write, 'how could that possibly not be a conflict of interest?'. 86.158.181.1 (talk) 10:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, from the evidence presented here, you seem to show little evidence of actually wishing to improve Wikipedia yourself - instead you seem intent on harassing someone for no better reason than not understanding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I suggest that you drop the matter, and find something better to do with your time, before you are obliged to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the material because the lack of references means it falls well below Wikipedia's intended standards. It is ridiculous and offensive, as two other users have written above, to accuse me of harassment because I have removed unverified and unsourced content. As usual, when somone runs out of arguments, he lowers himself to accusations and threats. If you cannot sustain a civilised discussion, I suggest this is not the place for you. 86.158.181.1 (talk) 11:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

A civilised discussion wouldn't have started with you describing one of the most significant academic achievements in British scholarship as "something this obscure and dubious", and nor would it have included you asking for a contributor to be blocked for no better reason than misunderstanding Wikipedia policy on sourcing. It should be noted that there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Senior Wrangler (University of Cambridge) at which the appropriate sourcing of recent Senior Wranglers (including I have no reason to doubt, Ms Hendry) is being discussed. If you really want to contribute to Wikipedia, I suggest you participate there, rather than continuing in this thoroughly bad-faith attempt to get your way over what should only ever have been a minor issue, more appropriately dealt with on a contributor's talk page than here and at ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

There is potentially a reliable source for this. It's being discussed at Talk:Senior Wrangler (University of Cambridge). There is a published class list for each year in which the Senior Wrangler is marked, but it is not online. It is, however, available in the British Library and at various libraries at Cambridge. Perhaps someone will check the source and cite it properly. It would be a nice gesture if someone in London or Cambridge did this. The reason we're having so much trouble with this is that most Senior Wranglers went on to a career in mathematics, and if someone wrote a biography about them, their being a Senior Wrangler would be mentioned. Ms. Hendry went into law, and it's not mentioned in her brief legal bio, which lists her Cambridge career only as "MA in Maths at Queens’ College, Cambridge"[14] John Nagle (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Kaplan University

• Kaplan University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MT wKaplan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Judelawparis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These two editors have been responsible for most of the recent edits to Kaplan University, and both have a massive WP:COI, in particular reportage about a lawsuit against Kaplan by one "Jude Gillespie", who Judelawparis admits to being here. MT wKaplan isn't being secretive, but he is much too active on the article about his employer. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Possible COI, problematic maps from User:Unocha.visual

• unocha.visual (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would like to point out a possible problem with User:Unocha.visual and their locator maps on various country articles. The user adds maps against WP:WATERMARK, clearly trying to promote the OCHA (f.e. File:Tuvalu - Location Map (2013) - TUV - UNOCHA.svg on Tuvalu. A polite request to stop and get community consensus first ([[15]]) was ignored, more maps have been added since then. The user has also added slightly promotional content to the original OCHA article (which i have reverted here [[16]]). (1) As the user seems unwilling to search for consensus, what can/should be done? (2) Do we have a bot to mass-revert such changes? GermanJoe (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how you can say the warning was ignored. As far as I can tell, the editor's last contribution anywhere on WP was about two hours before the warning was placed on his talk page. Have I mis-read this? Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Arnoutf posted a detailed comment with tips and arguments against such maps on 3 September 20.44 (see first link above). 20+ more maps (Mauritius ... Uganda) have been added since then. But my main concern is more about handling the possible COI-content and avoiding future additions of more maps from this source. GermanJoe (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I was caught in a timezone warp between the edit histories, which are in my local time, and the talk page signatures, which are in UTC. Still, I would wait to see if the problematic editing stops before bringing the issue here. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Agree, it's not very urgent (just annoying). For now i'll revert those additions manually (as clearly against WP:WATERMARK and WP:COI). Would be great, if anyone would know a bot for such a task. GermanJoe (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

High-Frequency Trading and User:Sophie.grothendieck

Sophie.grothendieck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor is extremely involved in topics related to high-frequency trading such as IEX, which is evidenced by the fact that he made six reverts within 17 hours, each time re-inserting the same criticism section:

02:21, 7 September 2014

15:01, 7 September 2014

17:03, 7 September 2014

17:59, 7 September 2014

18:13, 7 September 2014

19:14, 7 September 2014

The main issues here are however that this editor

1. has a conflict of interest with respect to topics related to high-frequency trading
2. made controversial edits in violation of Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest policy
3. and finally, he has lied repeatedly about his conflict of interest.

Let's start with the first point. Using the information this editor disclosed himself, it is easy to find a video presentation about the trading firm that this editor himself called "his firm" and "his employer". In this recorded presentation at time index 04:25, a slide is shown with the following content:

XXX is a high-frequency trading hedge fund at the intersection of computer science and finance

I replaced the name of the firm with XXX for privacy reasons. If desired, I will provide a short instruction how to find this video on the web and can do so without disclosing information that this editor did not disclose himself already. So here we have this guy's firm/employer and they identified themselves as "a high-frequency trading hedge fund" during a public presentation, which proves the first point.

The second point is obvious from the edit warring pointed out above and to add a bit of background, IEX is a financial trading venue that spoke out against certain predatory strategies employed by high-frequency traders.

The third point is proven by these quotes:

I cannot make a qualifed statement if we are "doing HFT" because I do not believe there is a general consensus on the definition of that term.

— Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 07:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that's an accurate description of what I consider to be "high-frequency trading" but if that is the definition that you go by, then no, we do not meet those criteria.

— Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I have clarified my position on the talk page that I have no conflict of interest

— Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 04:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it is very unfair to sincere editors who properly disclose their conflict of interest and go through the process of requested edits and the like, when this guy can just lie his way through and gets a pass on it. Kristina451 (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

(Not an admin). I've given a 3RR warning on Sophie.grothendieck's talk since there doesn't seem to be one already. Stickee (talk) 06:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

If somebody is called "Sophie" maybe we should call them "she", not "he" Spumuq (talk) 07:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Or how about "they" until they self declare? SPACKlick (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes! Spumuq (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That's just an arbitrarily chosen alias and I know who he is with certainty. May an admin advise if I can say what role he executes at his high-frequency trading hedge fund? It is a very prominent one and relevant for the fact that he has lied so blatantly about his conflict of interest.

He also knows full well about policy and it would be naive to assume he was not familiar with 3RR. After all, it was him who eloquently requested the semi-protection of that HFT-related topic at 02:23, 7 September 2014 before he went on to violate 3RR by making another five reverts.

But the main issue here is really this guy's excessive abuse to push his vested interest in high-frequency trading, and that he has lied about it. His hedge fund takes other people's money and the public image of HFT affects his fund raising. Kristina451 (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Kristina451, it's always been difficult for us to write policies for COI and disclosure that don't punish the honest while rewarding the dishonest. Have faith that generally in the long run it'll all sort out. This post is better suited for WP:COI/N than here though. Gigs (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. As per your suggestion, I will move the discussion to this noticeboard. Kristina451 (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

A question you may have seen for the nth time

• Children's Mercy Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nightryder84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello. I work in the capacity of a clinical faculty at CMH, a non-profit teaching hospital. I do not get paid by CMH to edit on WP. I only edit on WP for fun. Is there a COI with someone like me editing on CMH's article? Let's even say that my edits do end up somehow promoting CMH (e.g. our hospital went up in the US News & World Report rankings, and I added the news and link), are things still not OK as long as I stay within the bounds of NPOV? The WP:NOPAY doesnt exactly seem clear on what is meant and what is not. Thanks.Nightryder84 (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

If you stick to information that is obviously true and obviously relevant, and for which you have an undeniably reliable source, there is no problem; for anything that you have any doubt about, suggest it on the article's talk page., and let others decide whether to include it. What you havedone so far seems OK to me. And for what it is worth, I consider the present state of the article a little promotional: I have removed the charity fundraisers section, which is just an excuse for namedropping. I am in addition not sure that USNews rankings for hospitals are considered a reliable measure of quality, but if they are given, they should at least be correct. The present emphasis on ratings on articles on colleges I consider excessive, and a POV disgrace, and I wouldn't want to see it spread. DGG ( talk ) 07:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Phineas Gage

• Phineas Gage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• EEng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It is apparent that EEng has an apparent COI, specifically under WP:EXTERNALREL, due to great personal and academic involvement in the Phineas Gage article. EEng is not related by blood or working on behalf of Phineas Gage, but he is personally and academically involved in the page and has used the article as a soap box and as an extension of his work with Macmillan. Note that EEng self-discloses his identity as [redacted -- see below]. EEng has worked with Macmillan - [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09602011003760527#.VBKKCRYXPRU co-authoring this paper, updating Macmillan's site and even acknowledged as a colleague by Macmillan.[17]. EEng edit wars nearly every edit made to the article, even minor ones, and his personal attacks recently got him blocked. He then decided to re-title the block header to "Admin blocks for criticism of himself" just "for the record". EEng has effectively made improving the page akin to Sisyphus and the boulder. An example of the extremely convoluted state of EEng's page can be seen from this diff and entering the edit window. The article was over 50% markup. Of 104,829 characters about 27,000 characters were in text body and some 21,500 characters comprised foot notes. Recently, EEng added some 5000+ characters to reference bomb the text and make it effectively unreadable. EEngs 1300+ edits to the article has improved it, but it seems that EEng's WP:OWNership of the article is a persistent problem. Make no mistake, this is not a content or formatting dispute, these are mere symptoms of EEng using Wikipedia markup and claims of "stewardship" to maintain a preferential state. I feel EEng has a COI under WP:EXTERNALREL. It may not be paid editing, but it is extremely difficult to deal with an editor who has self-cited and displays a strong and selective bias for (his co-author) Macmillan. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG. There has just recently been a now-archived wall-of-text at WP:ANI about EEng and the Gage page, and it petered out after ChrisGaultieri conspicuously began to play nice with EEng. I cannot begin to spell out how disappointed I was to log on today and see a note at my talk about this COIN thread. And I've looked at the Gage talk page, and the only incivility to come from there has been from Chris, with nothing happening in the past day to justify the opening of this COIN complaint. There has previously been a COIN complaint about exactly the same things, and it ended without a clear consensus. Chris' opening of this complaint is sufficiently disruptive that it may justify a block. Otherwise, there is nothing to discuss here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'll discuss this on your talk page to prevent from derailment. The question being asked is simple: Is there or is there not a conflict of interest in editing a page dominated by references to materials co-authored by yourself and your colleague? If yes, EEng has one. If no, please explain it to me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It depends on the degree to which the editor edits the page so as to promote the possible COI. And in this case, there has been absolutely no issue of concealment of the possible COI. Recently, EEng has been increasingly cooperative about toning down the references to Macmillan, and there has been nothing recent to indicate that the situation is getting worse with respect to COI. The effect of a decision here that there is a COI would be tantamount to topic banning EEng from editing the page, and restricting him to the talk page. I believe that you very recently expressed an opinion on that at ANI. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• ChrisGualtieri, I have asked you repeatedly [18] [19] not to spell out my IRL identity explicitly in posts, yet here you've done it again. (I've redacted it above.) I imply my identity on my user page in such a way that those who want to know can easily figure it out -- specifically in the context of Gage [20] -- but my employer and clients will not tolerate my name popping up in web searches, particularly in conjunction with reckless accusations such as yours. This is serious business, and way over the line. You're much better at urging probity than practicing it. Don't ever do that again.
• I am an engineer and computer scientish with no career or financial interest of any kind in any of this -- Gage is strictly a hobby for me, and I just want the article as complete and up-to-date as possible. As for Macmillan, I've never met him and have spoken to him on the phone maybe four times, the last time many years ago; I doubt we've even exchanged emails in the past six months. That you think I've put up with all your crap for a year just to inflate Macmillan's Wikipedia citation count underscores your ignorance of research, relationships among researchers, and scientific publishing. You've been told all of this several times -- can you get a clue at long last?
• Two of your recent conversations with other editors are worth linking here for the record: [21][22]. One very useful comment is an evaluation of sources by editor DGG, a research librarian:

I conclude from this that Macmillan's book is the most important secondary modern principal source, unless there are reliable review sources to be found that consider it inadequate.

What, then, do the reviews say? Well...:

Extended content

(Sources at [23] -- and these are all different reviews. Yes, this list is from Macmillan's Phineas Gage website, but you're free to go look for others inconsistent with these.) "the definitive history ....the first and only comprehensive study of Gage’s injury and its influence on the history of medicine, neuroscience and psychology. ... remarkable piece of historical research .... cleared up much misinformation ... will be recognized as an authoritative and valuable resource for many years to come." "almost certainly knows more about Phineas Gage than anybody else" "painstaking research" "The definitive account. One of those rare occasions on which one can truly say that further research is not necessary." "scoured all the sources and commentaries ... this must be a definitive work" "explored every related area ... to shed new light and provide an authentic account" "meticulous research" "knowledge of detail is prodigious" "comprehensive and scholarly account" "remarkable work of scholarship ... first rate example of carefully done historical work" "ingenuity and energy in tracking down sources are truly awesome" "painstakingly thorough and accurate" "fantastic reference source ... a great deal of overlooked early literature ..." "fine piece of research clarifying precisely what we do and do not know about Gage’s story ... far more detail than you require..." "enormously detailed book (sometimes too detailed...)" "shows convincingly that all other reports either derive from Harlow , or are inaccurate to the extent that they do not ... invalidates all retrospective attempts at the precise localization ... yeoman's job" "extraordinarily well-referenced" "at times excessive details of Gage’s accident, recovery, later life, and death" "After Macmillan’s exhaustive account one wonders if there is anything left to be uncovered ... immensely detailed ... time will tell that this is the definitive work on Phineas Gage." "fastidious archaeological removal of the layers of legend" "absolutely exhaustive interrogation of the historical bases of Gage’s story, his treatment, and its subsequent scientific reconstructions. As a piece of historical detective work it demonstrates a scholarly commitment which borders on the obsessional." "exquisitely detailed re-examination" "stunningly researched, ordered, and written history." "unprecedented detective work ... Macmillan collected practically every piece of information about Gage ... Moreover, he analyzed all that material almost on a word-by-word basis." "obstinately searched all possible sources. It seems very unlikely that anyone else could find a relevant piece not considered. ... sober and meticulous inquiry"

This -- not the fealty you fantisize I owe Macmillan -- is the reason the article has more cites to Macmillan than to pop books, children's book, authors giving unsourced paragraph-length fables of Gage, and other sources you've championed. EEng (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've requested oversight to redact it from the record. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking that trouble, though actually it's not necessary. My IRL identity is not a secret -- I just don't want it popping up in web searches . Editing it out from the live version of this page, as I've already done, takes care of that, and it really doesn't matter if it's in the revision history. So if any doubt is expressed about oversight or revdel, don't worry about it. EEng (talk) 06:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Guess I got a second message to send - close this COIN. I'm done dealing with EEng on the Phineas Gage page entirely. No page is worth this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You know what I dearly wish, Chris? I wish that six months from now all of this is forgotten, and we're great pals. I really mean than, and it's really possible -- sometimes former "adversaries" (maybe not the right word) become the best of friends, because the intense shared experience begets mutual understanding. But that can't happen so long as you spend more time talking about my motives than about the sources and their relative reliability. EEng (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Rob Hegel

The article Rob Hegel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created and is almost exclusively edited by Robhegel (talk · contribs). Robhegel has only edited this article; nothing on talk pages nor other articles. This strongly suggests an autobiography which is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia policy. The article contains much poorly referenced material including puffery and peacock terms. The few attempts to discuss the issues seem to be ignored. Tags have been repeatedly removed, though in some cases with good cause. I have done minor copy/editing but much more needs to be done. Jim1138 (talk) 07:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)