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 Uzma Gamal (talk | contribs) at 11:17, 16 February 2013 (→‎BP updates to financial data). 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: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:Bell Bank
    Talk:Boku, Inc.
    Talk:Doug Bremner
    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:Michael Douglas
    Talk:Edelman (firm)
    Talk:EF Education First
    Talk:EMarketer
    Talk:Engine No. 1
    Talk:ESAB
    Talk:Scott Farquhar
    Talk:Fastly
    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:Evan G. Greenberg
    Talk:Grove Collaborative
    Talk:Gulfstream Aerospace
    Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School
    Talk:Shashi Gupta
    Talk:Roy Hamilton III
    Talk:Richard Harland
    Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina
    Talk:HOK (firm)
    Talk:Hong Kong Free Press
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Infillion
    Talk:Institutional Venture Partners
    Talk:Barry Irwin
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Simcha Jacobovici
    Talk:Valerie Jarrett
    Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service
    Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies
    Talk:Amitabh Kant
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:Labaton Keller Sucharow
    Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
    Talk:Alison Lawton
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Jeffrey Leiden
    Talk:Lemelson Foundation
    Talk:Robert Luciano
    Talk:Anthony Marinelli
    Talk:Mascot Books
    Talk:Masdar
    Talk:Christos Metskas
    Talk:Milwaukee Electric Tool
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Operating system
    Talk:Orphan Train
    Talk:Orphanage
    Talk:Overseas Development Institute
    Talk:Pacific Equity Partners
    Talk:Lubos Pastor
    Talk:Matthew Pittinsky
    Talk:Poster House
    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:Roland Rudd
    Talk:Security AppScan
    Talk:Diana Senechal
    Talk:Simprints
    Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85
    Talk:Software
    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:Romesh Wadhwani
    Talk:Dan Wagner
    Talk:Joey Wat
    Talk:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator
    Talk:Maya Wiley
    Talk:Andy Wright (music producer)
    Talk:Sam Yagan
    Talk:Zearn
    Talk:Zero-day vulnerability
    Talk:Alice Zorn

    Financial Consumer Agency of Canada

    Long-term pattern of COI editing by an agency of the Canadian federal government. Article was created by a COI editor and has been extensively edited over the years by other COI editors with WP:ORGNAME accounts. Copyvios are repeatedly added, and references are all to primary sources. Drm310 (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm wondering if we need to escalate this to a SPI and a rangeblock. I'm inclined to stub the article on principle. Mangoe (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any sign that they were cautioned before DRM310 did so yesterday. Collectively the contribs were made in bursts, on one day in 2006, four days in 2010, and five days this year. These editors were likely oblivious to each other. More our failing than theirs, it seems. I think we can AGF and just correct the clumsiness of their approaches. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The proof in such articles is always in the pudding. Are their edits clumsy? That's fixable, and not a violation. Are they copyvios? We can set that straight and warn the editor(s). Are they promotional? Well, it's a government agency: there is no product to sell. In principle it's not out of the question--one could imagine a "promotional" scenario in the US, where various government agencies and even entire departments are under attack from tea parties etc., but that doesn't seem to be the case here (so the "advert" tag was really pointless). In the current version of the article (which is of course not a very good article), I don't see any problems, and I agree with LeadSongDog. As for Scott Bury, I don't understand the charge of "compromised". As long as these editors understand what they can and cannot do I don't see a problem (and they are communicating), and their "outing" is not necessarily a bad thing. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Scott Bury

    A user who made one edit in 2010 to an unrelated article has come back to life and is engaging in the same pattern of edits in destubbing the article, including restoring the old content. I am engaging them on their talk page but I have to suspect that this account has been compromised. Mangoe (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a message on my talk page confirming that this editor and all his predecessors have been employees of the agency. Mangoe (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Christian humanism

    This probably explains itself nicely. --Jayron32 02:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh dear. Any edit summary that begins "my book is..." spells trouble. Perhaps a note suggesting he raises concerns at talk rather than editing the article? Looks like he's just trying to "right that wrong" rather than make a long-term contribution to the article. Stalwart111 09:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, over the last 6 months he has become the most prolific contributor to the article, making major revisions, mainly re-writing the pre-20th century history in September, referencing only himself. I suppose its good he's waited that long before doing (or changing?) his own bit. His book came out last year but JSTOR has no mention as yet. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. Yeah, missed that - should have kept scrolling! He also ignored Jayron's talk page post (about this thread) and re-added the information again. And it looks like those long tracts added in September constitute almost entirely unsourced WP:OR. Next step? Stalwart111 22:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Rumi

    There is no conflict of interest. Take it up on the article talk page. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    For many years, this page had correctly stated Rumi's place of birth as Balk, Afghanistan. The content has been falsified and changed to indicate Rumi is a native of Tajikistan. This is false information that must be corrected immediately. Many Thanks. Template:Unsigned bottom

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

    BP updates to financial data

    Hello, I am posting here as a COI editor with a request that I hope someone can help with. As you might guess from my username, I work for BP, and I have been offering resources and drafts to help improve accuracy and depth of information about the company on Wikipedia since last summer. Last week I made a request on the BP article's Talk page to update the infobox with new financial data from the company's Quarter 4 and full year 2012 financial results. As that request has not received a response, I wanted to ask here if anyone could make these simple updates. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, and sorry you were kept waiting... no one must have noticed your posting on the talk page. I've made these updates for you. And in case nobody has said so already, thanks for respecting the COI guidelines. Your good conduct is a great example of how COI editors can contribute constructively. Cheers! --Drm310 (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your help with the edits, Drm310 - and also for the barnstar. (My first!) If you are able to, it would be helpful to also get your feedback on another suggestion I've made on the BP Talk page, for the restructure of the "Environmental record" and "Accidents" sections, to remove duplication and reduce confusion about where incidents should be mentioned. Although others have shown interest in the restructure, the discussion has currently come to a stop. The discussion so far is here and I've placed a draft form of the proposed structure into a sub page of Talk:BP here. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The current subsection headings are insufficient to provide an overall structure from which to develop the article. As I posted on the BP article talk page and here, you are destine to year after year disputes over what should and be in the main BP article and what should be in Wikipedia:Summary style article. The answer to your ongoing desire to improve accuracy and depth of information about the company on Wikipedia lies in the headings provided in the existing FA and GA company articles. Focus on the overall structure of the article and then the finer details will take care of themselves. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparent mischief on Moody's articles

    Greetings, I am a representative of Moody's, and I wish to ask for specific assistance about some recent problematic changes on company-specific articles. This past weekend, one or more individuals based at the IP addresses 24.45.162.83 and 98.14.243.231 (IPs with no prior history) made a series of edits to the three articles about Moody's listed here:

    In some cases, verified and useful information about the company's history was deemed "irrelevant" and summarily deleted, and on MIS and MCO warning tags questioning the articles' neutrality were added. However, no comments were added explaining what was in question. I believe these edits are simply mischief and should be reverted by an uninvolved editor, so I wish to ask someone here to consider that now. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed the warning tags as I don't think they were appropriate. As far as I can tell, the changes to Moody's Analytics were benign layout changes - is there something I missed? A chunk of recent history (spinoff from Dun & bradstreet) was removed from the MIS, which I have reverted because it seems to be pretty good stuff, sourced, neutral, relevant &c. However, I could understand why somebody might remove text about the history of bond markets from Moody's Investors Service as that are really background rather than being about MIS - does anybody else have any thoughts on that one? bobrayner (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The changes made by IPs '83 and '231 to the MIS article are here. The addition of "{{POV-check|date=February 2013}}" probably is not needed. The IP editors revised the bond market info -- "While the Dutch had created a bond market as early as the 1600s" -- to be related to MIS -- "Moody was forced to sell his business ..." which is fine. Bond market info can be added back in so long as it relates to MIS. I'm not sure why the spin-off information -- "announced it would spin off Moody's Investors Service into a separate" companies -- was deleted. The revisions to the See also section seem more an editorial decision that could be changed back or discussed on the article talk page. In general, the edits do not seem like mischief (also see WP:AGF). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, thank you both for looking at these changes, I appreciate your reviewing and taking action. About the edit removing the history of bond markets information, this is well-supported information that provides context to the development of Moody's as a rating agency. However, if the agreement here is that this was a reasonable edit then I won't push it further. The changes to the "See also" in the MIS article are problematic in that they've added in a formatting error and removed relevant links. Could this be fixed? I also see that the warning tag is still present on the Role in capital markets section of MCO, is this needed? Mysidae (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The bond markets info seemed merely to be in the article, even if it was well supported. Based on the way it was written, it did not come across as providing context you mentioned. It's probably just a matter of looking at the cited sources and resummarizing how they relate the bond market info to MIS. Talk page consensus can bring out whether the edits were reasonable. The see also section seems too long. Take a look at WP:SEEALSO to see what should be kept and what should be removed. Some of them should be added to a Moody's company templates. Use Template:Microsoft as an example of how to create a company template. You can find other examples of company templates at Category:Company templates by industry. I don't think your COI would prevent you from creating a company template since the template is posted in Template space, not article space. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Mprinfo

    Username report was denied as not blatant, not sure how this was misunderstood...Article made was Minedas (page has been moved), a promotional article, Hence the acronym Minedas Public Relations Info or Mprinfo. Requesting username block as this is a promotion only account Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Linksoftware

    Indian company; at least he's honest about it! His first 2 days worth all reverted, but no warnings issued. No doubt he'll just go underground. Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User name has been blocked as a WP:CORPNAME.--ukexpat (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    E-mail to OTRS

    Folks, an e-mail as been sent to OTRS making us aware of this freelancer.com posting. Just making you aware of it so that articles that may be created as a result, if any, can be properly scrutinised. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have watchlisted the given titles, plus some possible variations. bobrayner (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Akshat Rathee topic meets WP:N. I only found: Akshat Rathee, Managing Director of the bio-fuel company Earth-100[9] and Akshat Rathee, chief gaming officer, NODWIN Gaming.[10] "Nodwin" does not appear to meet WP:N either, so none of its variation would. Earth 100 might (might eventually) meet WP:N.[11] Undaz does not meet WP:N. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Trent Leyshan

    Morryone has been identified as a corporate colleague of the subject of the article Trent Leyshan, and notified of COI issues multiple times. Edits also to ClarkMorgan where he is or was a corp officer, yet continues to only be contributing to COI articles like these. — Brianhe (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Careful! Unless this person has voluntarily identified himself or herself, then this is WP:OUTING. --Drm310 (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether it is really that person or not (seems pretty darn likely) their editing clearly establishes that they are a single-purpose account here only to promote these subjects, and they have never made a substantive edit to any talk page. I have therefore blocked them in an attempt to drive home the seriousness of the situation and try to force some discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the above approach due to Morryone's little interest replying to the concerns of others about Morryone's editing. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Drm310, do you have any diffs to support the assertion that Morryone is a corporate colleague of Trent Leyshan, the subject of the Trent Leyshan article, or that Morryone is a corp officer at ClarkMorgan? It also would help of you provided diffs of notified of Morryone being notified of COI issues multiple times. To provide these diffs, please add the diffs to your original request. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Tuff TV

    Both accounts claim to work for the subject [12], [13], and both have persisted in promotional edits, copying text from the network's website. They've even registered separate votes at Talk:Tuff TV. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=538544264"