Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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)
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 does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connections with article topics. An edit by a COIN-declared COI editor may not meet a requirement of the COI guideline when the edit advances outside interests more than it advances the aims of Wikipedia. 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. Sections older than 14 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
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.
  • Be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline.
  • 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.
  • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the What is a conflict of interest? list. 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, MiszaBot II will automatically archive the thread when it is older than seven 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 does not meet 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:Requested edits is where COI editors have placed the {{Request edit}} template:

Cleaning up after User:Zpeopleheart[edit]

The above are a few of the recent draft articles that were accepted by Zpeopleheart, and generally I find them to be lacking. I have done some editing on the Ashante P.T. Stokes article, but the actions of the editor, User:Hamilton ford (see User talk:Hamilton ford) could be interpreted as indicating COI, and a COI notice was given but never answered. I suspect that Zpeopleheart has left behind a long tail of articles needing attention. I hope it isn't a breach of etiquette for me to bring them here - I didn't know of a better forum. LaMona (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up on Ashante P.T. Stokes - User:Hamilton ford has declared COI and PAID as they work for what appears to be the agency for Stokes. I believe the user has ceased direct editing of the article. They have another article in draft (Draft:Salvation RMX (PT the Gospel Spitter music mini-film and song)) which doesn't look like it will meet notability criteria. LaMona (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't know about the others, but Surbana International Consultants Pte Ltd was summarily and very inappropriately taken to AfD, where I have !voted an obvious "keep". I hope people will slow down and not simply rush to nominate the other articles for deletion without performing due diligence. Voceditenore (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Replied here for the above. This particular article is an interesting WP:BOGOF situation and I'm wondering if we can find a sustainable way of handling without losing information while also not diverting volunteer effort. Pinging Widefox and Brianhe to have a look. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
If I've understood correctly (and I haven't looked at the articles), if this is an undisclosed paid editor, both views - preserving notable topics or just CSD/PROD/AfDing them all is acceptable in my book as the burden should be on the creator and we shouldn't incentivise with a BOGOF offer for the customer(s). Pushing them all back to AfC may be a good compromise which may encourage disclosure so everyone is happy? Widefox; talk 10:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Michael J Palumbo[edit]

Posted at ANI. User blocked. (non-admin closure)--Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

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.

Following some early spam edits promoting his own book, editor has been a WP:SPA on this article he created, on which they have a COI (let me know who I should email evidence to.) Editor has been been using promotional info referenced to subject's and subject's companies' websites, and has been inserting into the intro and elsewhere subject's recent, unnotable self-published book with an Amazon sales link as reference. Following being COI templated on his talk page, user continued to reinsert the book into the page, and to reinsert boastful claims sourced to subject's companies. Editor has never involved himself on the article Talk page, despite my having started multiple (intended) conversations over several years. Nat Gertler (talk) 05:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, they have now posted quite a lot of text (some of it in CAPS) on the talk page. Pretty sure there is a COI, but oh well "thou must not violate WP:OUTING" holds. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
As for sending private information, this might be relevant. Only oversighters, checkusers and Arbcom members are the ones we can send to. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

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.

WhereverTV[edit]

The editor listed above (see their edit history) has somehow gone three years undetected continually adding paid links to the WhereverTV service to a litany of around 50-75 television network articles in their external links sections as 'official live stream' links without calling out the provider, along with turning the article List of Internet television providers into their own advertising playground where links to Wherever replaced the official sites of foreign and U.S. domestic television networks. The user was already warned twice on TWiT.tv about their spam this month; discovering this through my usual travels on television network articles and finding their entire editing history revolves around promotion Wherever is insidious, especially when a COI has never been declared. I am also deliberating taking Wherever to AfD, as having a questionable notability; the majority of these networks are free, but WhereverTV seems to charge fees for accessing all of their streams on one site, which makes this look like a COPYVIO source which has no business being linked here. Their other effort with Harvey Kaltsas seems to be creating a puff article involving an Eastern medicine practitioner. Nate (chatter) 09:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Editor has now made this edit to Westerns on Televison since my final warning to them. At this point, AntonioTelevize is a net negative to the project who is clearly only here to spam their workplace. Nate (chatter) 21:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
And another one to Canal Sur. Can someone please look at this? Nate (chatter) 04:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Mrschimpf, my apologies for not looking at this sooner. The editor is a clear WP:NOTHERE case. I suggest adding the links to the spam blacklist. In the meantime, I will try cleaning up some of them. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much; you found even more than I did when I did my clean-up and I probably will do a blacklist request, along with the AfD. Nate (chatter) 20:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Christopher Holcroft[edit]

The vast majority of this user's surviving edits are to Christopher Holcroft, which was recently been deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Holcroft as non-notable, but has been userfied at User:7Lawrence/Christopher Holcroft. The only purpose of this page appears to be promotional. The user has also previous created articles and drafts about Holcroft's individual self-published books (see their talk page). The user signs their edits "Christopher". Previous requests to declare their COI have been ignored. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Given the sheer amount of deletion notices and warnings (as well as the blatant ignoring of such for approximately five years), I see no need to play with kid gloves here. The user has been very bluntly requested to knock it off. If he doesn't, I see no reason why WP:NOTHERE would not apply. MSJapan (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
The user came to the Teahouse a while back, where he was warned of the article's notability there as well. The question was something about Google and book covers, I think, and it is in the archive I've linked above. Feel free, of course, to search for other questions they've asked in the Teahouse archives. The search box for the archives is at WP:THQ. I've been following the user's talk page since I helped with that question. -- Gestrid (talk) 01:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I've opened an AfD for the M. H. Holcroft article, as the article doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. I thought I should let you know since this discussion involves that article. -- Gestrid (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm of the view that M. H. Holcroft might be notable, but Christopher Holcroft isn't, and no amount of editing is going to make him so. Should User:7Lawrence/Christopher Holcroft be taken to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
IIRC, you can't do that immediately after userfication. Otherwise, why userfy it? If it isn't worked on, however, we do not keep that stuff indefinitely. MSJapan (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Good point. I disagreed with the userfication, but we are where we are. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Planned presidential transition of Donald Trump[edit]

Discussion going on here. Closing. (non-admin closure) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

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.

An IP editor representing themselves to be a security officer with the Trump transition committee has requested the street address of the Trump transition office be deleted from the article due to safety concerns. I have opened a RfC here to resolve the question. LavaBaron (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK, that goes right to Oversight. MSJapan (talk) 06:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

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.

Neuber Software[edit]

Both articles deleted. SPAs are no longer active.(non-admin closure)--Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

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.

I'm way out of my comfort zone reading about software, but I was slightly struck by the tone of Security Task Manager and see that it was created by a user with few edits who also created Visual TimeAnalyzer; both of these programs were developed by Neuber Software (our article about this company was deleted at AfD, and apparently had some spam problems: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuber Software GmbH). Could someone more au fait with this kind of thing than I please take a look? Josh Milburn (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Stale account - the articles were created in 2010, and the user hasn't been back since. Did some digging, found nothing, AfDed both of them. MSJapan (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Articles deleted at AFD. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

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.

John Duignan[edit]

My impression is that Michael has been taking great care to follow the rules, but given the appearance of identical last names, the COI question needs to be addressed.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Have I jumped the gun? I should wait for the editor to respond to the warning on their talk page before bringing the issue here. Sorry.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Pterygium (conjunctiva)[edit]

User:Lawrence Hirst has been adding promotional content to Pterygium (conjunctiva) using references solely authored by LW Hirst. I have trimmed some of the promotional wording, but it could use another set of eyes I think. I'll notify WikiProject Medicine of this report as well. Deli nk (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2016[edit]

Discussion moved to ANI and closed at ANI (permalink). Further discussion here. Closing as requested.(non-admin closure)--Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

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.

Some input from other editors would be appreciated in this case. The question concerns what endorsements to list for the Green Party leadership election. User:RogerGLewis has added various endorsers for one candidate, David Malone, but describes a relationship with Malone's campaign on the Talk page. I have twice removed the material as I felt the endorsements were not notable and insufficiently supported. Is there a COI issue here? And, irrespective, what endorsements should be listed? Bondegezou (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Personally in a situation like this I go with 'Is the endorser notable?' as an easy cut-off. Basically, do they have a wikipedia biography. Otherwise you just end up with a list as long as your arm with non-notable endorsements. The question of 'should endorsements be listed' is a content discussion for the article talkpage really. As assuming the facts can be reliably sourced, it is rarely going to be a controversial addition. Someone working for a candidate insisting on including *ALL* their endorsements in order to engage in candidate puffery would be an issue, but absent a discussion saying not to... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou Only in death does duty end Regarding Lists and notability I feel these references are worth applying as a test. [1] Notability[edit] While it is best to re-establish notability within the list, it is not always necessary. Some lists are notable because the topic itself is notable. If the topic is notable then a list dealing with the topic is notable and vice versa. the opposite is [2]

if a topic does not meet the notability guideline, then a list on the topic is also not notable.

For more complex lists where there is a qualifier, such as List of birds of Canada and the United States other factors come into play. [3] [4] It is clear that a wikipedia article on the subjects of the list is not necessary where the subject is noteable in itself and deserves an article here there is no challenge to the notability of the article. For lists containing entries not suitable for articles in themselves their belonging to a sub set of a notebale group or article is sufficient for inclusion in a list. This suggests that the Wiki Article on the persons involved is not the only criteraia to apply, if applied at all and common sense is cautioned. The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject. Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member, but this does not need to be explained in the title itself. For example, the correct choice is List of people from the Isle of Wight, not List of people who were born on or strongly associated with the Isle of Wight and about whom Wikipedia has an article. Instead, the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list. Best practice is usually to avoid words like notable, famous, noted, prominent, etc. in the title of a list article. Similarly, avoid titles like List of all Xs.[5][6][7] A leader to the list stating criteria is what is advised in all of the souces of guidance wikipedia offers. [8] I think you failed to give due weight in your reasoning to this aspect of Only in death does duty end opinion Bondegezou ´´ assuming the facts can be reliably sourced, it is rarely going to be a controversial addition. Someone working for a candidate insisting on including *ALL* their endorsements in order to engage in candidate puffery would be an issue, but absent a discussion saying not to... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

On Common sense see here. Common selection criteria[edit] As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of list should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should thus factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. For example, all known species within a taxonomic family are relevant enough to include in a list of them; but List of Norwegian musicians would not be encyclopedically useful if it indiscriminately included every garage band mentioned in a local Norwegian newspaper. While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list. Avoid red-linking list entries that are not likely to have their own article soon or ever.[9][10] RogerGLewis (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC) RogerGLewis (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Thanks.

References

All the endorsements added by User:RogerGLewis are individuals who do not have Wikipedia pages of their own. Most of the other endorsements listed in the article are individuals with their own Wikipedia pages (with a few exceptions discussed on the Talk page, which I wouldn't contest the removal of). I have explained my reasoning, along the same lines of yours, on the Talk page, but RogerGLewis has repeatedly re-added material and so I've left the article with those endorsements in until getting more people involved in the discussion.
I'm not that clear as to what RogerGLewis's involvement with the Malone campaign is (you can see his description on the Talk page), but he argues that he should not be picked out for it (see User_talk:RogerGLewis#Notice_of_Conflict_of_interest_noticeboard_discussion). Further opinions on that question also welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
RogerGLewis is making a lot more edits to the article now. Input to aid this editor contribute most helpfully would be much appreciated. I am concerned about WP:NPOV and WP:RS as well as WP:COI. The editor is, shall we say, unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. Bondegezou (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate some further input regarding noteable endorsements, I have made my arguments on the Talk page and clearly :Bondegezou and i can not agree what is noteable with respect to seniority within the green party. Regarding what position an official of the party must hold to be considered noteable in a bottom up party with high democratic ideals Local Party Chairs are notebale and influential in the party more so than in other parties. The Wikipedia Page argument is in my opinion not strong enough to hold as an absolute Ian fraser is an award winning Journalist and Broadcaster for instance and does not have a Wikipedia Page the link to the Glasgow Herald Biog page for Mr Fraser is however clearly indicative of his journalistic standing. I also make the Argument that linking to the original endorsement page for the Bartley/Lucas campaign is an edit made from an untraceable IP address in Bromley, the indiividual endorsements are not supported by independant varifiable sources. I am not saying they are not genuine endorsements but the link offered falls foul of WP:SELFSOURCE Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met: The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. The article is not based primarily on such sources. These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.. RogerGLewis (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Alleging that links to actual endorsements on endorsees twitter and face book acounts and personal blogs is not sufficient evidence of endorsement is In my own opinion creating a double standard and also an un attainable standard given modern communications, sworn Affadavits clearly are not practical, the links provided point to the evidence the evidence is clearly not false. This is a stub article which needed a lot of work. Under the campaign section all that was mentioned was Brexit and the campigns for leadership of other parties nothing of the Green Party Leadership campaign and its issues and discussions. There are several edits I have ffered in that regard which Bondegezou has removed, The Section is very very weak and nothing I have offered actually idicates a preference for other candidates I have stated that I am doing what I can to promote Malone, Ali and Womack as the Green Leadership team, I am not a member of the Green Party I do not have a vote and Isupport David Malone as his economics accords with my own Monetary reform activisim and I have been an advocate of the green policy EC661 since the 2015 Elelection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerGLewis (talkcontribs) 14:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I would recommend you review and consider WP:V and WP:NPOV, as well as WP:COI. These explain what material should be on Wikipedia and how it should be presented. It would also be valuable if you would respond to the points made by those editors who have joined the discussion and offered the third opinions you asked for. Bondegezou (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
With respect to all editors involved, I don't see a substantiated COI issue here. This looks like a content dispute which is to be conducted on the article's talkpage. - Brianhe (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC

Brianhe I acknowledge your input and agree it is a content dispute and I have read the relevant articles on Notability and the cited comparable articles such as the Scottish Indie referendum and Jeb Bushes campaign in 2016. The Green Party is a sui generis case in a sense in that the number of candidates, the voting system and the RON option in STV AV systems are all quite different to other first past the post or single issue campaigns in referenda. Distinguishing the Green PArty of Engalnd and Wales as a specific class of campaign and the make up of the green party itself with co leaders or co deputy leaders and gender balance as well as LGBT inclusion policies with also the Greens of Colour BAME grouping means that each of these contituencies as well as the local party constituencies do have key roles that make party officers noteable.This structure in the US Democratic party would seem lowly given their Hierarchical top down constitutions of old fashioned patriarchal establishment parties. The Green party simply is not like that and one of the campaign questions is it it worth adopting a patrifocal structure to get elected or should Matrifocal and grassroots up ideals prevail as a point of principle. I will endeavour to work out a workable solution and metric with Bondegezou and continue my efforts to improve the article and get it into some sort of balance based upon consensus I have asked other greens interested in Wikipedia to get involved as well, of course electroal reform is a core issue in Green Party politics.RogerGLewis (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC).

User:Brianhe closed this discussion, but agreed to re-open it on my request.
While there are content disputes, I don't feel the COI issue has been resolved. Specifically, User:RogerGLewis made the followings comments at Talk:Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2016, having added a set of endorsements for candidate David Malone:
"Here are the endorsements I have listed I am awaiting a further list from David Malone and crosschecking both his endorsements of deputy leadership candidates and other endorsements he has also recieved" diff
"I am assisting David Malone with his campaign media and there is a legnthy list of other endorsements which i hope to be updating over the next few days." diff
But also said: "I am not a member of the Green party and whilst I support David Malone this is based upon my own area of political involvment [...] With independant endorsements suitably cited it is actually irrelevant whether or not I personally support or am employed by Malone. In fact I am not employed and do not act in any official capacity for Malone but have been doing some social media support for Malone purley on a voluntary and independant basis." diff
The former comments imply an active involvement with a campaign team, a clear conflict of interest, although the last quote may suggest otherwise. Further comments from RogerGLewis have not explained the earlier quotes, but have denied a COI or indeed the validity of the concept. The most detailed are at User_talk:RogerGLewis#Noticeboard_issue. RogerGLewis: what did you mean by the first two quotes? Are you in regular contact with Malone about his campaign?
O wise minds of COIN, input on the content dispute of course welcome, but what do you think of the COI issue? Thanks.
PS: RogerGLewis, please note WP:CANVASS. Bondegezou (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou talk I have spoken to David Malone 3 times since the end of June I have also spoken with Andrew Williams who has been editing on this page we both had a conference call with David at the beginning of the campaign to discuss informally how social media works in the modern political process ( This I have counted in my 3 conversations via Skype ) I have never met David Malone in person and shaken hands let alone broken bread or shared a cup of tea or had a Coffee purchased for me at whatever coffee houses there are in Scarborough.I participate and have done since 2011 in the active and lively comments section of Davids Blog where Davids running was announced other readers there have gone further than me in that they have joined the Green party specifically to vote for him, I do not engage in party political politics and have political opinions which are negative against the illusion of choice democracy that masquerades as real democracy, I have explained this elsewhere but a discourse on my own politics is surely not necessary is this the new inquisition, ( see Ekklesia, for good faith assumptions and also) [1] [2] I am not formally directed by or allied to the Malone Campaign and have no financial, political or filial interest in the outcome of this Election and therefore no conflict of interest within the Wikipedia definitions and the wider professional and legal definitions of the term. I am a Member of the RICS and have studied Conflicts of interest as they apply to my professional Field of expertise as a past admissions assessor for the RICS membership board I have professional experience of interviewing candidates on their obligations with regard to conflicts of interest. I have also studied Ethics and Jurisprudence as part of my Philosophy studies. I do not have a conflict of interest.Should my editing indicate a possibility of Bias I could understand your continuing questioning on this issue, Andrew Williams sent me an e mail this morning saying he is returning from Hols at the weekend and will sort out the links for the endorsements I have added should they indeed need sorting out?, perhaps you would hold this in abeyance and settle the question of Notability and Source reference with Andrew. I have accepted your explanation on Ekklesia [3], and possible connection COI to the Bartley/Lucas campaign in good faith, I see no reason why you will not reciprocate in kind, but that is a matter for you. I respect that you must act according to your own volition. I have exchanged comments on blogs with Clive Lord and I have also posted a series of Blogs on my own blog which I have of course not referred to as it would be improper to do so, I have promoted and engaged in discussion on the Leadership to ensure that Monetary reform and Green Party Manifesto Policy EC661 I blogged about this policy in 2015 [4] and have many posts in comments sections on many publications referring to it and explaining its import to Political Economy, I support David Malone as he wishes to expand and explain this part of green policy and that coincides with my own political objectives as informed by my own activism which is unaffiliated to any organisation or other individual although I do identify as a supporter of various campaigns including the Malone Green Party Leadership campaign Supporting a candidate and declaring support does not constitute a conflict of interest, one also realises that ones editing should not be biased and I think it is safe to say there is no indication of Bias in my interventions here whilst I do have concerns that the Article is unbalanced and gives a bias in the Direction of Lucas/Bartley which I am sure they would also be horrified by. With respect to Lists and wikipedia not being one, I expect that David Malone will receive more votes than Natalie Bennet secured to win the leadership in 2012 Bartley and Lucas will similarly get more votes, Williams is likely also to poll a larger number as well Clive Lord Martie Warin and Simon Cross will also I think poll between them more votes than the winning tally from 2012. As the turnout is unlikely to be lower than 2012 and the membership is enlarged to 60,000 and with declared support for Davids Campaign already having been counted in the order of several hundred messages, 5 endorsements hardly count's as a list and as I have said before it is absurd to have an article which suggests that The front runners and other Candidates have no notable endorsements In politics notability must also be in the eye of the beholder, for instance Nigel Farage would not consider an endorsement from Marie Le Penn or Tommy Robinson for instance to be noteable , in a good way at least. No candidate would wish to give the impression of scraping the bottom of the barrel by citing a bloke up the pub , that said he thought the policies of x were mint. I 'have expanded on my reasoning elsewhere regarding the distinguishing features for a sui-generis approach to the extant election. Again I invite you to await input form Andrew when he returns from Hols. Meanwhile shall we do some constructive work on a metric for more Democratic elections for parties like the Greens.I will have a look at the Labour Leadership , UKIP leadership and other STV AV examples and put something up for discussion in the Elections and referenda talk page if you think that is a good idea? RogerGLewis (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Bondegezou (talk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrewdwilliams#Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales_leadership_election.2C_2016 Andrew Williams asked to comment.invited to comment ?RogerGLewis (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

References

No comment on the substance of the matter at the moment but can people please stop starting big paragraphs with a space - the Wiki converts this into a very hard to read font and it's painful on the eyes. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

RogerGLewis, thank you for taking the time to answer me. As a minor point, I would echo Timrollpickering's point and suggest you look through some Wikipedia formatting tips because it can be hard to follow what you're saying! I also suggest sticking to one point at a time. Here, on the conflict of interest noticeboard, let's focus on the COI issue. Other issues can be discussed at the article Talk page.
It seems to me that you have some small relationship with the Malone campaign that does constitute a small conflict of interest. COI is often not an all-or-nothing affair, nor is having a small conflict of interest a barrier to contributing. To quote WP:COI: "That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity." I hope others more experienced with COI issues can weigh in here with their thoughts.
I do not wish to banish you from the Green Party leadership election article, but I do urge you to read, consider and take to heart WP:COI and to acknowledge that you have some small relationship with a candidate's campaign that does constitute a small conflict of interest. Most people editing the article have no relationship whatsoever with any of the candidates. (Despite your insinuations, I have zero relationship with any of them.) Given the situation, it would be wise, I suggest, for you to tread carefully with the election article. Make use of the {{request edit}} template as appropriate.
I disagree with certain edits you've made on other grounds, regardless of COI or no COI, and will continue those discussions on the Talk page, and I thank others here for their input on those discussions. However, I note that you are currently pushing content that others have opposed and that, it seems to me, goes against standard practice and policy, and that content promotes Malone's candidacy. Given an attested relationship with Malone's campaign, albeit a small one, that looks questionable to me. Bondegezou (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou (talk Hi, on the COI I disagree with you I have given full disclosure and do not accept that I have a conflict of interest or that the edits I have made are partial to the Malone Campaign over others, the evidence in the history bears me out on this and I am suprised that you should alledge that. On the Insinuation regarding your ecclesisika edit history, I havenot made an insinuation I asked you out right you stated your position and I accepted it in good faith. I pointed out that Wikipedia policy as I have quoted at legnth advises Good faith. On COI the position of Brianhe (talk did not change regarding COI , he said there was no evidence of COI, he did agree for you to seek other input on the question to which I have no objection and I have set out my position at legnth and remain happy to make representations to other editors regarding COI, even small COI concerns. There are a number of points I have made regarding the issues that remain unanswered oin the talk page, I look forward to discussing them and i am trying to get other Greens to pitch in to raise the standard. See you at the Article Talk page I look forward to learning from you there, I am the first to admit that my skills in formatting with this platform are rudimentary but I promise to be a good student. RogerGLewis (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The principle dispute has been your addition and repeated re-addition of 5 endorsements for Malone. You have not added endorsements for any other leadership candidates (except within a revert of my edit). Most of the deputy leader endorsements you have added have been for candidates Malone supports. Many of your other editors have been critical of the rival Lucas/Bartley leadership candidacy. You have added and re-added disputed material that promotes Malone, while having some connection to the Malone campaign. Bondegezou (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou (talkThe reasson I have undone your edits is fully explained on the talk page and making an entry and re instating it with cogent arguments does not support a conflict of interest argument.Adding endorsements for other candidates is quite equally your responsibility if it is to be mine again this is covered on content and does not go to conflict of interest in any way. On Policy of inclusion and editing on articles which people know about I offer the case of Peter Kropotkins entry on Anarchism in the Encyclopedia Britanica. [1]Between 1882 and 1886, in France, Prince Kropotkin, Louise Michel and others were imprisoned.here the authour of the entry refers to himself.

"ANARCHISM (from the Gr. av-, and apxi?, contrary to 

authority), the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government — harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being." Full text of "Peter Kropotkin entry on 'anarchism' from the Encyclopaedia Britannica (eleventh ed.)"[2] With respect to my editing on the article I am an Expert observer interested in a policy area of monetary reform in which I am also an Expert, whilst I support and have declared support for David Malone I am not interested in any conflict of interest sense in the outcome of the Green Party Election. Any other arguments as stated here "::With respect to all editors involved, I don't see a substantiated COI issue here. This looks like a content dispute which is to be conducted on the article's talkpage.´´ - Brianhe (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC . 08:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)RogerGLewis (talk)

References

Resolution[edit]

Discussion largely moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:RogerGLewis_editwarring_against_consensus.2C_possible_COI and a resolution has since emerged at Talk:Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales_leadership_election,_2016#Should_the_.27endorsements.27_list_contain_only_notable_endorsements.3F. I suggest closing here. Bondegezou (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


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.

Konrad Mizzi[edit]

and the following are possibly the same person as above or also CoI users:

I have good reason to believe that this user is involved in a case of CoI on this article. Almost all this user's Wikipedia contributions are on this article and there seems to be a edit war of sorts going on in terms of removing sources I and others have cited in terms of details relating to this BLP. The subject of this article is involved in the 2016 controversy known as Panama Papers -- I highlighted this on the article talk page several days ago. I don't think that this user is acting alone or the same user is may be using multiple accounts. I'm not an admin and therefore cannot CheckUser. I am hesitant to revert/undo/rollback the edit again. I have no desire to persist with an EW on this article. I have placed a coin-notice on the user's page. --ToniSant (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

ToniSant, they are an WP:SPA for sure. Whether they have a COI is a bit hard to determine. Nevertheless, I think it would help to get some more eyes on the article. As a suggestion, if you feel that multiple SPAs are POV pushing, start an RFC on the article talk page. It helps to get some more eyes on it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

DataCore (COI & SPA)[edit]

Speedy deleted G11 (unambiguous promotion) by Seraphimblade - Brianhe (talk) 10:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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.

These 4 (now 5) IP and IPv6 accounts were created to revert changes on DataCore page and add DataCore references to other pages as well like f.e. Software Defined Storage. One of the IPs confessed on the Talk page he has interest in DataCore while others are pure throwaway ones. NISMO1968 (talk) 03:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, I think other editors on that page who have an interest in competitors of DataCore should disclose their COI also. Editingwords16 (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I am dealing with this, per an OTRS request., ticket Ticket#2016081110014741 DGG ( talk ) 21:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I've been reverted once by an anon editor geolocating to the vicinity of corporate offices. More eyes on this article might be needed. – Brianhe (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I e just added one more IPv6 and one acc reverted you. NISMO1968 (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
The buzzword level in that article is excessive. "Hyper-converged Virtual Storage Area Network"? This turns out to be a real thing, and there's a definition of it at Hyperconverged.org.[5]. There's Convergence 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0, although these are marketing terms, not accepted terminology like RAID levels. There's "The Gorilla Guide to Hyperconverged Infrastructure Implementation Strategies", and a self-published "Hyperconverged Infrastructure for Dummies". The technology is interesting, and could use explanation on Wikipedia. Preferably with diagrams. But this article isn't helping. It's a collection of buzzwords in search of meaning. I put a note on Talk:Storage_area_network asking that someone add a section on that subject. An section or article on the technology with a mention of the vendors (there are others beside DataCore, including Microsoft and VMware [6]) would be appropriate. Basically, these guys are one of at least 13 players selling various new approaches to connecting up disks/flash drives, servers, and virtual machines in large data centers. They didn't originate this stuff and aren't the biggest player. Someone needs to tone the marketing language down a lot. John Nagle (talk) 07:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
to make things worse most of the content is a definite copy-paste from some marketing bs and pretty much every sentence or claim needs citation source added. IMHO of course! NISMO1968 (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
A declared paid editor, Davykamanzi, has been at work recently on this article. I have asked him for clarification on his status article-by-article, which doesn't appear to have been disclosed yet in accordance with ToS. - Brianhe (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Text is getting better obviously but is still peacock language and no reliable sources given. Datacores attempts to push their content to Wikipedia using all possible and impossible transports like sock puppets and paid editors are encouraging at least and best. NISMO1968 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
@Brianhe: Article-by-article disclosure is now available on my talk page. Davykamanzitalkcontribsalter ego 21:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
@Davykamanzi: Just so I'm getting this right, your disclosure says this edit to Human was paid? Who was the client/employer? - Brianhe (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
@Brianhe: Disclosures are available on the talk pages of every article I've done paid editing on. In the case of the Human article, the client went by the name "Goro Goro"; I never got his/her real name. Davykamanzitalkcontribsalter ego 20:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@Davykamanzi:Could you double check what you just said? I see no disclosure at Talk:DataCore Software for instance. - Brianhe (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@Brianhe: I've provided disclosure on that page as well now. Davykamanzitalkcontribsalter ego 07:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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.

Micro-Star International[edit]

note: I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia procedures.

According to http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/59.125.101.61 , User:59.125.101.61 is a Taipei "confirmed proxy server". Since 2013, this IP has exclusively edited the Micro-Star_International page (a company based in Taipei). by removing vandalism and adding awards. In addition, it has removed Template:Advert tags twice:

I suspect this is MSI PR attempting to "preserve" their image by removing advertisement tags. Jimbo1qaz (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jimbo1qaz: confirmed proxy ≠ open proxy. Only the latter is strictly prohibited here. – Brianhe (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if it's an open proxy or not. It might be a MSI network. Is removing advertisement templates without discussion prohibited behavior? Should I slap on a COI template? Jimbo1qaz (talk) 06:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Note that apparently someone pasted in a huge chunk of text, and some citations are mistakenly appearing below this section. I don't know how to fix it, though. Jimbo1qaz (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Trimmed the article, removing most of the hype. Please check; I may have overdone it. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Fixed the citations issue you noted; they were falling down from an earlier conversation. - Brianhe (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I did another round, removing duplication and rewriting the timeline into paragraphs. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Pterygium (conjunctiva)[edit]

Dear editors, Thanks for your feedback.

Deli nk has accused me of adding promotional content. I would like to respond to this, commencing with the following quote from the NPOV policy page.

“The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias."

I am a qualified ophthalmologist and have been researching Pterygium for 25 years, and as a result have published over 100 peer reviewed journal articles and research papers based on solid and scientific research methodology. The ophthalmology community consider me as a subject matter expert, with journal editors regularly requesting my revision of any research into pterygium. As a result of my cumulative research on pterygium, I have been awarded the highest degree that the University of Queensland awards, a Doctor of Science in 2015.

As a respected member of the global ophthalmology community, I supported all my edits on Wikipedia with research which is published in books or journals. In the instances I have referenced my own research, again, to remind you it is scientific, therefore neutral, and published research, it is because it is the only research available on the topic. All of these referenced works are in peer reviewed journals and in fact the principal article which describes the world’s largest prospective series of pterygium surgeries was the lead article in the highest ranked clinical ophthalmic journal in the world, “Ophthalmology”.

My goal with editing the Pterygium page was to remove the dangerous content, ie claiming that radiation was a form of treatment, when in fact it is dangerous to the patient’s vision and has long been banned as a method of treatment. And to update the content to reflect current standards and procedures. Yes, I have referenced my own research, but it is, as stated in the NPOV, ‘properly sourced bias.’

My apologies for the unintended result of appearing promotional. And I request any advice for avoiding that in the future.

Lawrence Hirst (talk) 02:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lawrence. A few things that will help you adjust to the culture here:
(1) Don't talk about your own qualifications and the high regard in which you are held within your specialization. First, it doesn't matter in terms of Wikipedia's policies. Second, it won't impress anyone. There are lots of senior academics editing here (including myself) so you're just one of a crowd.
(2) Don't cite your own work. Ever. Propose such citations on the article talk page using neutral language (i.e., without asserting your own importance) and let other editors evaluate it.
Wikipedia works frustratingly slowly but over time it asymptotes to the correct result. Well, usually. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Sevurud Associates[edit]

This user was cautioned on August 16, 2016 about a conflict of interest regarding Severud Associates. On August 18, 2016, BarbaraDD disclosed to User talk:199.188.67.126 that she is employed by Severud Associates, and "my client asked to have their Wiki page updated as well". Several articles have had Severud Associates added to them by this editor (after being cautioned), seemingly in a way that cherry picks this engineering firm, while neglecting other engineers and architects that should have been mentioned. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I am going to look through these edits today. I had a look at this one and realised that the citation doesn't support the content. I noticed that the editor is now willing to comply with our guidelines. As such, it would be good to let them know that we need reliable third party citation for claims. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Markus Rothkranz (again)[edit]

JzG deleted this as G11 and indeffed Checkiloo for sockpuppetry. - Brianhe (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

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.

This article was under scrutiny at COIN archive 101§Xandyxyz (undisclosed paid editing). An editor in the case named Xandyxyz was indeffed as a sock of Boskit190. Now an SPA is at work on some rather odd edits. By the way this is the second time today I've been working on something that bears a connection to Orangemoody. - Brianhe (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I've mentioned this at FT/N. -Roxy the dog™ bark 08:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
... And it has vanished. -Roxy the dog™ bark 10:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

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.

Muneeb Faiq[edit]

Muneeb Faiq is essentially a hagiography. The article is full of puffery and WP:PEACOCK and probable self-promotion. The content of the article is entirely the work of a single-purpose account, Wikiwetwo, and an IP address that belongs to the subject's employer. Other editors, myself included, have added appropriate cleanup templates such as {{peacock}}, {{POV}}, and {{COI}} but the above editors just promptly remove them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.195.202 (talkcontribs)

This needs a hard look from someone with a medical background. The article subject proposes a new theory of glaucoma as "brain diabetes". They have published many papers, but they're not in big-name journals. Is this fringe science, per WP:FRINGE, or is this legitimate new work? Checked the glaucoma article, and no one has been putting this theory into that article. John Nagle (talk) 05:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I mentioned the problem at WT:MED, the medicine wikiproject. Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • That is a truly horrible article. I have moved it to Draft:Muneeb Faiq for now as it cannot possibly stay in main space. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Probable self-promoting sockpuppetry[edit]

I have been cleaning this up. VCHunter added many, many cites to Bishop's work (Bishop added many of his own of course). Most of these are either from his own websites or published through a journal run by IGI Global, who Beall characterises as extremely low tier, stating that he himself would never publish in one of their journals even though they are in his field. The number of users adding cites to Bishop's work is tiny, and in many cases the edits advanced an obvious agenda (see the websites above for why this is not a surprise).

Posting for review and discussion. Guy (Help!) 16:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

CLSA[edit]

I've just reverted four promotional edits, the only edits this user has made. The talk page hasn't been used in nine years, so I thought I'd note it here. Suspect I'm watching because of this board, not sure. Could somebody take a brief look, thx. -Roxy the dog™ bark 08:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I have added a couple of more accounts which were active on the article earlier. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Fulvio Melia[edit]

Adding a lot of self-referenced publications to the subject's biography. Experts in their fields of endeavor are necessary here, but sometimes we're not terribly objective about our own work. May require some guidance and oversight. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Scrovegni_Chapel#Errors_recently_confuted[edit]

This recent addition looks like puffery and excessive weight/recentism on one scholar's opinions ("discoveries"). It looks like a possible COI, and I don't know enough about art to judge it any other way. What should be done? Geogene (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Geogene, would you able to provide the diffs of the edits? It would be helpful to identity the editor/IP responsible --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)