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 Ricky81682 (talk | contribs) at 02:06, 28 December 2014 (→‎Gerontology Research Group: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
    You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
    Additional notes:
    • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
    2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
    3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
    • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:Bashir Al-Hashimi
    Talk:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Monica Behan
    Talk:Madeline Bell (hospital executive)
    Talk:Marc Benioff
    Talk:Scott Bessent
    Talk:Shmuley Boteach
    Talk:Breyers
    Talk:Michael Calvey
    Talk:Commvault
    Talk:CoStar Group
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Data Commons
    Talk:Vincenzo de Cotiis
    Talk:Nina L. Diaz
    Talk:Daniel Diermeier
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:Earth Journalism Network
    Talk:Mary Baker Eddy
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Darnell Edge
    Talk:Nigel Edwards (health)
    Talk:Eric Gallager
    Talk:Ex Libris Group
    Talk:Far East Organization
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Global Citizen Awards
    Talk:Golden State Foods
    Talk:GoToGate
    Talk:Grail (company)
    Talk:Grayscale Investments
    Talk:Greystar
    Talk:Grove Collaborative
    Talk:Harsco
    Talk:List of Harvard University people
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Camille Herron
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Huron Consulting Group
    Talk:Illa del Rei
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy
    Talk:Jats
    Talk:Christian Kälin
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:Kennedy Center Honors
    Talk:Kathleen Kingsbury
    Talk:A. Gary Klesch
    Talk:Lally School of Management
    Talk:LD (cigarette)
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Leviton
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:List of RuneQuest supplements
    Talk:Mark Twain Prize for American Humor
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:MongoDB Inc.
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:Nexperia
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Nuffield Trust
    Talk:One Energy
    Talk:Oneok
    Talk:Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation
    Talk:V Pappas
    Talk:Dana G. Peleg
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Poster House
    Talk:Joely Proudfit
    Talk:Shlomo Rakib
    Talk:Bob Renney
    Talk:Reworld
    Talk:Rivulis
    Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist)
    Talk:Royal Match
    Talk:Rakefet Russak-Aminoach
    Talk:Robert D. Sack
    Talk:Science Inc.
    Talk:Simprints
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:Spotfire
    Talk:A. G. Sulzberger
    Talk:Steve Tappin
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Topps
    Talk:TowerBrook Capital Partners
    Talk:UK Biobank
    Talk:Carla Ulbrich
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:List of University of Chicago alumni
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Martha G. Welch
    Talk:Wingtech
    Talk:Xsolla

    Bert Martinez (2)

    Continuation of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 79#Bert_Martinez

    Behavioural evidence

    Widefox; talk 11:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Most of the articles in question are now at AfD. Some have been deleted. John Nagle (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, I started working on the articles after I noticed them on the new article list? Not sure what I have done wrong here? What does MEAT mean? Ed Lane (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MEAT. So, for the record, User:Fasterthanyou123 and User:Ed Lane:
    It is not only WP:DUCK, but disclosed as happening! Widefox; talk 13:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I have no contact with user Fasterthenyou123, or I know this person at all. I took intrest in the pages after they showed up by searching for it. Besides that I'm an unique account, feel free to test that. Ed Lane (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You created a non-notable label article, replaced Sony BMG with that label (instead of adding) on an article, incorrectly removed the Speedy tag, moved it during the deletion process, at the AfD 1. invoked weak arguments 2. made a bogus claim of 50 incoming links (when there was only 1 previously).
    • Your comment here is from an IP located in Holland, which is geographically close to the label company.
    • You turn up just when one of the label's artists is trying to prevent deletion of their non-notable promotional autobiography (now deleted) and has disclosed he coordinates with "management" on editing, and other editors. You uploaded one of his album covers [10] .
    • This promo activity fits in with the set of articles created by the above promo / paid editors
    • Each of those may be a coincidence, but together with your account not having made other edits
    • You have not disclosed any connection with Timezone Records, Stuart Styron, being a paid editor, or whether you have had any communication / were asked to edit these. Widefox; talk 16:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, I use a Dutch IP (VPN) and a UK based IP (Level3 if you with to know). I started editing the articles at the moment I notice them, I did not get paid to do any edits. I moved the an article cause the name was wrong, is that a crime? I changed the label on the article since the artist changed label. I thought that was ok for Wikipedia right? You want CORRECT information?
    I can't disclose being a paid edittor since I'm not, besides that I'm not connected what so ever to Timezone records. Ed Lane (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Update on previous listing (I hadn't noticed these):

    I have denied many times and you are tagging my name without proof. I even deleted edits of COI users and did rewrite of topic 2 times. User AdventurousME who commented against me has worked half part with me to do second rewrite. Stop spreading false blame about me just talk about other users who you can prove. I have made improvement to ERA. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness to TheSawTooth, he/she may just be a such a disruptive editor that their behaviour appears to several of us similar to disruption caused by COI. Widefox; talk 00:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But that doesn't alone explain why TheSawTooth account promo edits the same articles as the rest of the paid accounts. Widefox; talk 12:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Good Neighbor Pharmacy

    The user GoodNeighborPharmacy has reverted my removal of promotional content from the article of the same name (Good Neighbor Pharmacy). Username is in violation of WP:UN. I believe that this user previously added this promotional content under an IP identification.

    Diffs below.

    Diff today by GoodNeighborPharmacy

    Extensive addition of promotional material by IP address, probably the same editor. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User was blocked by Edgar181 (talk · contribs). I have watched the page in question, but this looks like a one-off attempt at promotion and not a long-term problem at this time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Asking for review of own contribution: User:ThaddeusB/George Billman

    I have written an article about a relative of mine. Per policy, I have disclosed my COI on the talk page. While I fully believe my work to be neutral, I am asking for at least one uninvolved party to take a look and "sign off" on it before I consider moving it to mainspace (will add a picture and maybe make a few tweaks before then, but the content is basically done now). This will eventually go to GA, so any comments on improvement of any kind are welcome. Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    My first instinct is that this article fails WP:GNG, however, I don't know enough about cardiac medicine to judge the merits of his work and the references are largely to scientific journals which I'm not qualified to interpret. There doesn't seem to be any RS coverage of Dr. Billman as a person other than a few quotes here and there. I'll have to defer to someone else to provide fuller comment. On closer examination of the Columbus Dispatch articles, I retract my previous statement. I think this seems like a fine and balanced article and, unless you're married to him, mere relation as a COI seems really quite tangential anyway. I support moving this article to mainspace. DOCUMENT★ERROR 11:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I appreciate the review. Notability under WP:NACADEMIC should be solid (full professors are nearly always retained; alternatively, roughly an h-index of 15 for biological sciences is sufficient. I do not believe anyone has ever been deleted with an h-index > 30 [Billman's is 38]), although you are correct that a pure-GNG case for notability would be weak... I edit under my given name, so I'm definitely not Rosemary. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Charles B. Pierce

    The user CharlesPierceestate claims to be the court appointed representative of the late Charles B. Pierce's estate here and in that same edit summary claimed to be "Setting The Record Straight From False Statements". Only edits have been to the Charles B. Pierce article. 331dot (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Has changed their username to User:MrWillyCreek. 331dot (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Microsoft

    Said user has stated explicitly on their talk page that they are employed by Microsoft and are here to correct and éxpand MS related articles. AFAIK, this constitutes a Conflict of Interest here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course I am here to keep a track especially on Microsoft Mobile articles(and may not be only the one. Many other colleagues may also be there. But none may have explicitly stated.:)) And my edit definitely fits (A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.) criteria. Article is definitely neutral, no anti-Nokia statements were made.... Reliably sourced, as i provided with sources and really no conflict between my aim and Wikipedia's aim. (If seen on other European language articles on Wikipedia about Nokia and Microsoft, my edit on English one would look perfectly fine)

    If you see, Microsoft Mobile and Nokia stuff confuses a lot of people. The information is rapidly changing say every few days. It is true that one day MS Mobile will definitely discard almost all things related to Nokia. But people have a sentiment that if products are available on the site, then they are in production, which is NOT TRUE, REALLY REALLY NOT TRUE. They may be, and in this case definitely are stock clearance. Hence transferred Series 40 and Asha to Nokia page.

    Online services was a legacy of Nokia inherited by Microsoft. MS never never worked on them. Hence the section was transferred to (List_of_Nokia_products#Services_and_solutions) If seen carefully, there are many other services which were already mentioned in the section, but never mentioned to MS Mobile article.

    I believe these explains everything. Feel free to have a discussion. Please let me know if anything incorrect by my side. Please try to revert to my edit, if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicrosoftBoy (talk • contribs) 03:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    MicrosoftBoy please actually read WP:COI and let us know if you think you are following what the guidelines and Terms of Use actually say. If you think you are following it, we have a problem. If you hadn't read it but now understand what you have done wrong, then we have some room to work. Thanks. (by the way, you should know that Microsoft does not have a good history at Wikipedia - please see Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia#Microsoft) Jytdog (talk) 06:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What struck me was the Username, which I was going to report, but the user page struck me. I brought it to COIN, exactly because of their bad history here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Brandi Glanville

    Editor is removing content and re-writing content at the request of the subject, who supposedly employs them. Haminoon (talk) 05:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    tagged the article and left user a warning.... let's see how the user responds. Jytdog (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Gerontology Research Group

    I'm starting with just the one at the moment but this looks like a problem with Gerontology Research Group. There's an old case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity about it. This article is about the list of oldest Belgian people. User:Scarface181268 created his own list on his own userpage with much more material. The userpage is up for deletion along with the article. @Scarface1812: (presumably related) began blanking the page directed at me and admitted that he was angry because he has been a correspondent for GRG and this was five years of his own research. Should there be a COI notice on top (if the article survives AFD) and should we look further into the conduct of other GRG consultants here? Note that every article such as List of living supercentenarians, Oldest people including listings all cases that GRG has not verified which seems to promote GRG while including names (BLPs) without any reliable sources (and birth dates as well) (also discussed at BLPN noticeboard. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=639888592"