Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 80) (bot
→Craig Walendziak: new section
Line 214: Line 214:
==[[Craig Walendziak]]==
==[[Craig Walendziak]]==
I just found this article and it seems to be almost entirely written by one user who only used the account to create the page. They did a really nice job too. Then another user who has the same first name as the page itself uploaded some pictures of the person who the page is supposedly about. As far as I know having two user accounts on Wikipedia and Wikicommons is not allowed but I also suspect it's not allowed to write an article about yourself (is the user "Craig mack378" is actually the same person as the person in the article). Anyway, this isn't my field of activity on Wikipedia so I simply wanted to bring this to the attention of more experienced editors who can decide if anything should be done about this. Thanks![[User:Monopoly31121993|Monopoly31121993]] ([[User talk:Monopoly31121993|talk]]) 19:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I just found this article and it seems to be almost entirely written by one user who only used the account to create the page. They did a really nice job too. Then another user who has the same first name as the page itself uploaded some pictures of the person who the page is supposedly about. As far as I know having two user accounts on Wikipedia and Wikicommons is not allowed but I also suspect it's not allowed to write an article about yourself (is the user "Craig mack378" is actually the same person as the person in the article). Anyway, this isn't my field of activity on Wikipedia so I simply wanted to bring this to the attention of more experienced editors who can decide if anything should be done about this. Thanks![[User:Monopoly31121993|Monopoly31121993]] ([[User talk:Monopoly31121993|talk]]) 19:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

== Craig Walendziak ==

<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{la|article name}}
* {{userlinks|username}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. [[User:Craig mack378|Craig mack378]] ([[User talk:Craig mack378|talk]]) 15:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I am Craig Walendziak. I did not write the article about myself, but I did add the pictures. I did not think this was a 'conflict of interest'. Was just adding for the sake of completeness.

Thanks,

Craig

Revision as of 15:46, 6 February 2015

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.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page.
     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:260 Collins
    Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
    Talk:Pamela Anderson
    Talk:AvePoint
    Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist)
    Talk:BEE Japan
    Talk:Edi Birsan
    Talk:Edouard Bugnion
    Talk:Bunq
    Talk:Captions (app)
    Talk:Charles Martin Castleman
    Talk:Casualty Actuarial Society
    Talk:Cofra Holding
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Current (newspaper)
    Talk:Chris Daniels (musician)
    Talk:Dell Technologies
    Talk:Michael Dell
    Talk:Etraveli Group
    Talk:Charles Frankel
    Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel)
    Talk:Steven Grinspoon
    Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire
    Talk:Group-IB
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Mark Hyman (doctor)
    Talk:Insight Meditation Society
    Talk:International Motors
    Talk:Daymond John
    Talk:Norma Kamali
    Talk:David Lalloo
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss
    Talk:Jon Levy (behaviorist)
    Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health
    Talk:Alexa Meade
    Talk:Metro AG
    Talk:Alberto Musalem
    Talk:NAPA Auto Parts
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Matthew Parish
    Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician)
    Talk:QuinStreet
    Talk:Sharp HealthCare
    Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Trendyol
    Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science
    Talk:Uppsala Monitoring Centre
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Editor Johnmoor

    Other articles from previous report for reference(likely incomplete)
    Deleted articles

    Johnmoor (talk · contribs) appears to be a paid editor, editing against a conflict of interest to promote people and products on Wikipedia. There's little or nothing to add from the previous COIN discussion. It ended when Johnmoor apparently left Wikipedia. He's returned. He's never addressed the overwhelming evidence that he is here editing articles against our COI policy, likely being paid to do so. He's never denied his identity. He denies being the paid editor that uses his name, photographs of himself, and the same graphic that he has on his userpage. He ignores the evidence that he is editing against a COI. --Ronz (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ronz where in WP is the outside matter discussed? Also, I read User_talk:Johnmoor/Archive_2#Paid_editing.3F with interest. He did not say that he is not a paid editor - he didn't answer the question, and you didn't push for a yes or no. Lost opportunity there. Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to be conservative when it comes to discussions about editors activities outside WP, so there's not much besides the previous COIN, User_talk:Ronz#Nofel_Izz, and User_talk:Bilby/Archive_10#Nofel_Izz. --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Defence

    When you are in conflict with Ronz (talk · contribs), you get accused of so many things! I am not paid to contribute, but in trying to get me to stop contributing to articles that I am in dispute with him, here are some of Ronz's numerous accusations:

    1. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 68#Editor Johnmoor
    2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive221#User:Johnmoor reported by Ronz .28talk.29 .28Result: .29
    3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive221#User:Johnmoor reported by Ronz .28talk.29 .28Result:Warning .29
    4. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard&oldid=577993322#Grammarly
    5. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive 43#VOSS Solutions needs rewrite
    6. Wikipedia:Administrators%27 noticeboard/3RRArchive253&oldid=621992605#User:Johnmoor reported by User:Ronz .28Result: .29
    7. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive258#User:Johnmoor reported by User:Ronz .28Result: Both warned.29

    There are also extensive discussions on the talk pages of Talk:Grammarly and Talk:Nofel Izz, and to ensure that I get blocked, Ronz reached out to other users too — User talk:Bilby#Johnmoor being discussed at COIN again and User talk:Bilby/Archive 10#Nofel Izz. Thank you.
    —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As I wrote on your Talk page you behave very much like a paid editor. Your content has too much puffery and your sourcing is really bad - way too many press releases. You don't seem to be following our policies for content at all, regardless of your motivation. Content should be stated in a neutral manner, with WEIGHT given to content based on what reliable independent sources say about the subject. You are creating a ton of work for the rest of the community to clean up after you. The accusations of paid editing would have less meat on them if you wrote better, and better sourced content. That is all about your behavior and is completely in your control to improve. Jytdog (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnmoor, it is probably in your best interests just to walk away from the Nofel Izz articles. Would you be willing just to let Nofel Izz and the related articles go? - Bilby (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog, How many of my contributions have you reviewed, and how long ago where those with perceived "puffery" created? Users grow and improve here. Besides, I disagree with your presumption on my talk page. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Bilby, I do not think that it is right for any user to be asked to walk away from any article or content; if you have issues with the contents of Nofel Izz or my contribution there, let us discuss it, because I do not know of any of its related article to which I am actively contributing. Besides, have you asked Ronz to walk away from it or even cautioned him for WP:WIKIHOUNDING me all this while? No, you have not! —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And as I wrote on your Talk page, you can be combative and ignore good advice, and keep doing down the path you are on (which In my view will lead you getting blocked for promotional editing) or you can listen and change. It is your choice, completely. Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnmoor, I'm not concerned about Ronz as my interest here is only in ensuring that editors abide by the terms of use, which require that they disclose their relationship with clients when being paid to edit articles. I have no reason to believe that Ronz was hired to edit Nofel Izz, but if there was compensation involved I would insist on disclosure or walking away from directly editing the article. - Bilby (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As expected, Johnmoor refuses to address the evidence. --Ronz (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    So two straightforward questions for Johnmoor:

    1. Have you been paid for any of your editing on Wikipedia?
      No! —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    2. You have used information obtained directly from the subjects of the articles you have written about. What relationship did you have with them when they provided you with this information? (Obviously, they had contact information for Johnmoor that they obtained somehow, they trusted Johnmoor with the information, and provided the information for the purpose of creating the articles.) --Ronz (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      No! —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not question where a yes or no response is meaningful. We know you have interactions with the subjects of the articles you've created. The question is what is the nature of the relationship with those persons and companies. --Ronz (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Johnmoor has been indef blocked for denying his conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Cleanup needed

    While I've quickly skimmed his remaining contributions, a thorough review is needed given his habit of using primary sources (mostly press releases) with few if any better sources. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Malapr

    Account is being used only for promotional purposes - Malaprop's edits look like GF edits, however the user has only been heavily promoting the JAMA family of paid academic journals.

    Adding promo to JAMA publications:

    Adding multiple references in medicine-related articles to paid publications by the JAMA network:

    Strongly smells of COI or marketing.

    Additionally, edits are supposed to look like sources of the said information, whereas these are just external links mostly unrelated to the sentence or paragraph where they have been inserted.

    kashmiri TALK 20:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    appears to be a PR firm account, the name of which violates our username policy. I have put the template there. And Kashmiri please make sure you notify folks if you post about them here. it is in red lettering with "must" underlined at the top of this page. I have notified them. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thanks. Sorry, it's my first report here, I usually worked on SPI where you don't really notify the users... Will pay attention next time. Regards, kashmiri TALK 21:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for bringing it in any case! and i hear about the difference at SPI - notification is optional there! Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    We also have User:Dempr who appears associated. As long as they are using secondary sources and those sources support the content in question do we have an issue? Of course we have the user name issue but that can be easily fixed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, but will you have time to go through all these articles and check whether they contain anything relevant to the matter they are supposed to be sources of? Judging from the username (PR agency) they likely have been inserted with a degree of randomness... I removed the edits but feel free to revert or add them to "Further reading" section. BTW, articles in question are not really about rare diseases, and plenty of literature is available out there, including open access - so why adding commercial-access references? kashmiri TALK 09:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I went through the articles. He seems to be working unfairly to add citations to JAMA. His edits need to be reverted and someone should ban him as it is giving the JAMA authors a huge comparative advantage in citations: people tend to cite wiki unless they are familiar with topic. Limit-theorem (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Further, to avoid citation bias, articles need to be cited organically by those contributing to the articles.Limit-theorem (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I went through them this morning, and Kashmiri and Doc James had already been over both editors' contribs. Please review more thoroughly going forward. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The ideal situation would be to have JAMA donate 100 accounts for Wikipedians to use. This is what I am looking into. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Have emailed JAMA. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That should be unconditional. Giving an unfair advantage to JAMA authors over others. Limit-theorem (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    {u|Limit-theorem}} I don't understand where you are coming from. WP is not a vehicle for anybody to get "citations". We are trying to build an encyclopedia and access to medical journals for editors - especially high quality ones like JAMA - is a bar to building high quality content. Several journals have relationships with Wikipedia under which they donate accounts. In my view, if JAMA were to donate accounts, that would be a great, great thing. Do you see what I mean? Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As an academic I find this highly unethical: to cite journals BECAUSE they give you a free account. Sorry, but this is COI. A reference on Wiki is something that leads to citations. Please note that there have been a few scandals of note with academic journals solliciting citationsLimit-theorem (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I kind of thought you were speaking as an academic. Are you aware of the relationships that WP has with other publishers? Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Greta Berlin and Free Gaza Movement

    The Greta Berlin and Free Gaza Movement articles have been subject to advocacy in the past. The account Truegreta was indefinitely blocked after a discussion here.[1] The COI and was further discussed at an admin's talk page.[2]

    A COI concern was addressed here regarding user:Tecspk@aol.com.[3] The email address shows affiliation with the subjects.

    I believe the account should be blocked due to evasion. The advocacy concerns are secondary.Cptnono (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It might have been a drive by attempt because the account is inactive again. Should this be closed? Does the user still need to be blocked?Cptnono (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Karlhard

    This editor, who has created a string of promotional articles (some deleted), appears to be an undeclared paid editor, in violation of the TOU. See [4]. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Promotional articles? Paid editor? I do not know who is "Furvah", I created a draft taking reference of some google research. See [5] but thought it was WP:TOOSOON for the article and decided to stop it there. I am just a new article contributor trying to create good articles such as Elijah Blake, Shmurda She Wrote, Urban Artist Soap, King Sesame, Tim White. If some articles created by me have been found out as "promotional" it doesn't have nothing to do with COI. --Karlhard (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you joking? Here is a partial list of your promotional, deleted articles. Cash L3wis, LiveSport24, Frankie Volo, Emanuele Congeddu. Two others are at AfD and will be deleted shortly [6] [7]. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Bill Adair (journalist)

    I created the page "Bill Adair (journalist)" earlier today, my first wiki page. Although I believe I have written a neutral and factual bio page, essentially just dates and a few quotes, I think it is important for the integrity of the page that I disclose that I am a colleague of Bill Adair. The talk page and wiki page have been tagged accordingly. Further, I will hereon out refrain from making edits to the page and encourage other editors to make contributions/edits as they deem fit. I look forward to learning from the rest of the Wikipedia community as this page evolves. 24.162.254.114 (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    QCoal

    The IPs have been removing criticism of the company from the article. The hostname of 203.174.180.226 is mail1.qcoal.com.au (here). Furthermore IP103 said in an edit summary: "This has been requested by Q Coal" (diff).

    Stickee (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Old Buckenham Airport

    The user has only ever offered contributions in relation to the subject article. The username, Priory Flyer, may we refer to an affiliation with Priory Farm, a nearby airfield in competition with the subject of the article. The user added a section called Accidents and Incidents which details a list of occurrences at Old Buckenham Airport. No such similar section exists at other small airfields similar to Old Buckenham. Further, none of the reports cited infer at all that the accident or incident was as a result of the airfield's wrong doing, infrastructure or otherwise. When read, however, it appears that this section was deliberately designed to give the impression that Old Buckenham is unsafe, when that has not been found to be the case in any of the cited incidents. I have tried dialogue using their talk page, but no response has been given. It appears that this account has solely been set up to create this misleading section and edits to remove or change the section are undone by PrioryFlyer with no discourse. I believe that they are essentially attempting to use Wiki to benefit a rival organisation and therefore this is a COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 453rdenthusiast (talk • contribs)

    In general, accidents and incidents sections should be added to more airport articles. Palo Alto Airport of Santa Clara County should mention the crash involving three Tesla employees who took off in heavy fog and hit high tension lines.[8]. As for this article, it's starting to look like edit warring. Both editors, please don't do that. It won't help. John Nagle (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I put a note on both user's talk pages about edit warring and how to avoid it. Let's see what happens. John Nagle (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dow Corning

    Hi, I have a few suggestions for edits to Dow Corning, which I've shared in a Talk page post. In addition to suggesting that one sentence be removed or reworded, I have citations for some unreferenced information currently in the article and suggestions for a few other basic facts to add. I'm not making any edits myself because I have a COI; I work for a communications agency that represents Dow Corning. I'd be very grateful if someone could take a look and offer feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Craig Walendziak

    I just found this article and it seems to be almost entirely written by one user who only used the account to create the page. They did a really nice job too. Then another user who has the same first name as the page itself uploaded some pictures of the person who the page is supposedly about. As far as I know having two user accounts on Wikipedia and Wikicommons is not allowed but I also suspect it's not allowed to write an article about yourself (is the user "Craig mack378" is actually the same person as the person in the article). Anyway, this isn't my field of activity on Wikipedia so I simply wanted to bring this to the attention of more experienced editors who can decide if anything should be done about this. Thanks!Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Craig Walendziak

    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Craig mack378 (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I am Craig Walendziak. I did not write the article about myself, but I did add the pictures. I did not think this was a 'conflict of interest'. Was just adding for the sake of completeness.

    Thanks,

    Craig

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=645906936"