Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Muckrkr (talk | contribs) at 12:20, 9 December 2014 (→EidosMedia: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:260 Collins
    Talk:Bashir Al-Hashimi
    Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
    Talk:Pamela Anderson
    Talk:AvePoint
    Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist)
    Talk:BEE Japan
    Talk:Edi Birsan
    Talk:Adam Boehler
    Talk:Edouard Bugnion
    Talk:Bunq
    Talk:Captions (app)
    Talk:Charles Martin Castleman
    Talk:Casualty Actuarial Society
    Talk:Cofra Holding
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Commvault
    Talk:Chris Daniels (musician)
    Talk:DEGIRO
    Talk:Dell Technologies
    Talk:Michael Dell
    Talk:Earth Journalism Network
    Talk:Etraveli Group
    Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel)
    Talk:Steven Grinspoon
    Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire
    Talk:Group-IB
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Insight Meditation Society
    Talk:International Motors
    Talk:Daymond John
    Talk:Norma Kamali
    Talk:Khalili Foundation
    Talk:David Lalloo
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss
    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:Louise Showe
    Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:TheSoul Publishing
    Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science
    Talk:Uppsala Monitoring Centre
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Glencore: French & German pages

    Hi there. I'm trying to make some improvements to the French and German Wikipedia pages for Glencore in order to make them more balanced and correct any factual inaccuracies. In the interest of transparency I am declaring that Glencore is my client. I have successfully worked with the editors of the English page and am now trying to engage the French and German editors on the relevant talk pages (French:https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Glencore and German:https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glencore) but have had no response. Is there any French or German speakers I could work with to discuss these edits? Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki6789 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Jytdog (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I applaud you for following guidelines for altering Wikipedia, however I fear that (at least as regards your French requests) fall out of line with Wikipedia rules as regards White-washing. That said... the English page seems to cover the company differently, so you may be right, and in that case you may want to provide sources for your opinions rather than mere arguments. Even if they are logical, you need sources to back up your claims. Jeremy112233 (Lettuce-jibber-jabber?) 04:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    NQ Mobile Inc.

    This editor has edited ONLY on topics related to NQ Mobile Inc. and its CEO Dr. Henry Yu Lin, PhD plus a few other edits around the same subject. I believe that this is a single-use account and the editor is closely related to NQ Mobile and/or its CEO. I don't think that it was a great article to begin with, and some of these edits are useful, but it does seem somewhat promotional in tone and omits some (possibly controversial) information that was in there before. Shritwod (talk) 13:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Shritwod,

    I do not know the CEO Dr. Henry Yu Lin, PhD aside from what I found on the web while contributing to the NQ Mobile Inc. page and I have no affiliation with the company. I'd planned on researching 2013 and 2014 in order to bring the article/page up to date but if what I've done so far is not good/promotional then I'd prefer to fix it first. I've looked at the Microsoft page and was trying to get ideas from there but didn't know enough about the company's history so thought a good first article/page would be to just put significant events or milestones and fill in the awards and recognitions. Then perhaps later someone will help/contribute to make the information more cohesive.

    Rgeurts (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    There's an AFD underway for Dr. Henry Yu Lin, PhD, but it's probably going to end with "Keep"; he has verifiable notability. But the "Dr" and "PhD" have to go; that's being discussed at the AfD. I added a section to the NQ Mobile article about their stock crash and accusations of inflated revenue. John Nagle (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done some investigation on this company, and one thing that is notable is that the stock has been on a rollercoaster ride recently, mostly downwards. Some of the financial indicators are looking weak. There's been a lot of negative comment on investor boards (although you could argue that is fairly normal). Now, I will admit that the article for NQ Mobile was in poor shape, and Rgeurts has certainly improved it, but it does seem to be a very polished and positive spin on NQ Mobile. Now this is where I get suspicious - the article and references are very good (although arguably it misses out negative comment) which indicates some experience in writing this sort of information, but the way that Rgeurts uses Wikipedia does not indicate an experienced editor. This makes me think that the article itself has been sponsored or paid for in some way, given the unusual fact that Rgeurts has only edited on this subject and nothing else. The pattern doesn't add up - most people do some tinkering first before doing a major overhaul of an article, but Rgeurts has leapt right on in there. Shritwod (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The article does look rather promotional. Rgeurts (talk · contribs) leaps in whenever something is done to make it less promotional, yet edits in no other areas, which tends to raise questions. As for the company, there's suspicion in the press that something funny is going on, and reports of an SEC investigation. Lots of acquisitions, but where's the revenue? [1] John Nagle (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    SeekingAlpha has a diverse set of articles on NQ Mobile [2] which a somewhat contradictory, but do indicate that there are a bunch of people who claim that there is something fishy going on and a bunch of people who claim that everything is above board and legitimate. I don't know which of those points of view is correct, but it does indicate that there is concern about this company and its operations. And of course if you Google them one of the first things that you'll see is that article. I'd hate to put off a potentially good editor like Rgeurts if I'm wrong about my suspicions. But the editing pattern plus the background information about NQ Mobile definitely makes me go "hmmmm". Shritwod (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Shritwod, I saw the SeekingAlpha blogs and a few of the headlines were real grabbers so I had to click on them but after reading a bit it felt like tabloid journalism and they all seemed biased one way or the other. Just my personal opinion. Rgeurts (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The SeekingAlpha articles are all opinions rather than news articles as such, but I think that they demonstrate the diversity of opinion on this company. Shritwod (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is my first time contributing and I wish I was being paid! Are you guys really this suspicious? I've worked hard to find information about this company and compile it here. I didn't find any SEC investigation but I did find the SEC papers/20f which I looked into and I see Nagle found it useful as well. Rgeurts (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Bert Martinez (2)

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

    Behavioural evidence

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

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

    sgs.com

    The three accounts are of exact same behavior: pop up once a year plugging in a link to sgs.com and a couple of innocent wikilinks. Even user names are similar (a typical "random...Not" numeric combination, but this may be the case with any drive-by editors, I reckon).

    I reverted their abuse, but I leave it to COI-experts for official dealing. -M.Altenmann >t 04:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This needs to go to SPI/Checkuser for further investigation (no time to file now). MER-C 13:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    SPI filed: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vicky4567. MER-C 07:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to need some help removing these links. If you find any more accounts, please add them to WT:WPSPAM so I can block them. MER-C 05:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks as if you got them all, MER-C. You could probably add VickyMa84 to the list above. Did the others also add links to .wwindea.org? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Whitehawk F.C.

    mentioned affiliation with this edit [12]. Could you guys please check if he was valid to remove sourced material about a price matching scandal involving two players of the following football club? WP:SYNTHESIS? Avono (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, there's a clear violation of user name policy and an admitted COI issue. John Nagle (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Reverted his second deletion, put a warning on his talk page, and added a note about commenting on talk rather than editing directly. Let's see what happens. John Nagle (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    An WP:SPA intended to add links of moz.com. When I told him to stop link addition of moz.com he then started adding links of searchenginejournal.com which again contains backlinks of moz.com in its every article. He says that updating this article is his homework project. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 04:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The additions seem to have been reverted. Adding an ad for a book on search engine optimization is a bit much. John Nagle (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hnancy (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Hello that I am an informatics student at UW and it is really my class project to edit a wikipedia page. Previously I tried to make a new topic called "link popularity" but later I adopted teacher's advice to work on the link building page. Moz didn't pay me at all and I even never heard of this company before. I accidentally used the resource from searchenginejournal because I think it is authentical and it has the resources I needed(I didn't realize that it has backlinks to Moz.)i actually could't finish my homework right now because I couldn't add new contents to the page. I am now editing the conflicts section and I try to add a brief section called "link building tactics" (which is highly related to link building I think). I hope I can finish these edits today so I am able to turn in my homework.[reply]
    I see what's happening. Apparently some clueless instructor told his students to go edit some articles. The instructor didn't set up a school project for this, as required by Wikipedia:Student assignments. So the student effort looks like a spam job, and the students are being hammered with warnings, threats of blocks, being sent here to WP:COIN, and there's even talk of sending this to WP:AN/I. I suggest that WP:BITE applies. If it looks spammy, revert, but explain why in detail, rather than escalating the threat level too much. I put a long explanatory message on User Talk:Hnancy for that reason. To the students involved: get your instructor to read and comply with Wikipedia:Student assignments. Aiming a class at Wikipedia without prearrangement leads to messes like this. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Appreciate the steps taken by John Nagle. But should I revert any reference link addition in Link building article which contains moz.com as back-link? The editor has added a new link as reference to the Link building article. I have gone through the new link and again found that contains an external to moz.com. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 07:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If the editor continues ignoring the issues, then we aren't bound just because it's a homework assignment. WP:BITE is useful when dealing with students in trying to help them out, but WP:NOTTA is very clear: "As always, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:BITE apply, but student editors should be treated in the same way any new editor is treated, without any special considerations that other editors do not receive." If the additions are indeed inappropriate, then continue as if they are a normal editor. There is no deadline, and if the editor cannot meet their course deadline, the professor will just need to be made aware of why. If it continues to a be a problem, WP:ENI would be the place to go. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    True. They've been given explanations and warnings. Also, adding links to an article on "link building" is inherently a bit questionable. John Nagle (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    HusnainMeerzadeh (talk · contribs) may be in a similar situation. See their edits. If there are two, there may be more. I put a note on WP:ENI#Class on search engine optimization editing Wikipedia? asking if anyone can locate the instructor. John Nagle (talk) 02:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    PR Agents on Jill Kelley and Paula Broadwell

    The article on Jill Kelley has been suffering from PR agents over the last two years. Primarily, these are IPs from Miami, Florida where Jill Kelley lives but a recent one was from a mobile-hotspot in Dallas, Texas. The effort from the PR agents has been to whitewash Jill Kelley's biography from what the reliable sources say to Jill Kelley's version of the events using blogs or obscure sources that generally quote her directly. A new user named Wordasaurus has been here for a few years and recently reverted to the PR version. I checked their contribs and I notice that not only are they whitewashing Jill Kelley's article, they've been trying to slant the Paula Broadwell article to Kelley's point of view as well. Request a block on the editor, and semi-protection on the article.--v/r - TP 17:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    There's definitely an issue here, starting with attempts to stuff the subject's POV into the lead. Another new editor has shown up (Chewstokyo) but I'm not sure if it's enough for a SPI. --NeilN talk to me 22:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    @NeilN:, no need to bother, they're  Confirmed (as is User:Yalebulldogs) and I've issued blocks as I saw necessary, and semi-protected Jill Kelley's article. Doesn't look like anyone has touched Paula Broadwell in a while, though... not sure there's a need to semi at the moment. Courcelles 22:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. --NeilN talk to me 22:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Heutagogy

    Heutagogy is a concept invented by Dr. Stewart Hase of Australia. Editor Stewart Hase has recently made substantial changes to what was a tiny stub, including the addition of a number of citations of publications by Dr. Hase. Thoughts, anyone? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems that heutagogy is just his term for self-determined learning, which is a recognized field predating the COI editor. I deleted most of his additions and put a note on the article talk page with some references for self-determined learning. This may belong under self-directed learning. John Nagle (talk) 06:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have boldy redirected to Autodidacticism.--ukexpat (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    self-determined learning in this sense isn't just autodidacticism (I reverted the edit redirecting it to the latter). Although I'm not an expert on this by any means, my understanding is that heutagogy is a sort of academic study of self learning from a pedagogical (an unfortunately loaded term in this context) or teaching and learning perspective (a study of how it works and how it can be used in, for example, education rather than a phenomenon of someone teaching themselves something). Only responding here because the redirect mentioned COIN -- we can continue this on the article talk page if you like. Note that I'm not arguing that the article is good and certainly not that we should keep any of the COI edits -- just that from the sources I looked at when it was AfDed some months ago it did seem a notable topic. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. See my note on the talk page for a way out of this. There seem to be two topics involved - self-teaching outside an educational environment, and student-directed formal education. Heutagogy is at best a form of the latter. Right now, both of those subjects are covered at Autodidacticism, and probably need to be separated. They were merged in 2010. John Nagle (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading a number of articles on educational terminology, I referred the problem to the Wikipedia education project: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Education#Heutagogy, Andragogy, and all that. They have as one of their goals putting educational articles into some kind of rational taxonomy. John Nagle (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Good move! No-one is wrong here (and thanks to all for the input). It seems to be the lack of an article about self-determined learning that's making the choices difficult, and I'd support creating one, either by demerger or ex novo. I regret that I just don't have the background to participate in that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Silicon Valley Leadership Group

    This seems to be mostly old history, some of it noted by Dandv in 2013; putting it here for the record. Persistent SPA editing and copyright violation (e.g., 1, 2) by several accounts, some of them very obviously related to the topic and to each other. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    They used to be the "Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group", and when the manufacturing moved out of Silicon Valley, they became irrelevant. Under their new name, the organization lives on, but the web-based companies (Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) have their own lobbyists. Note that most of the press coverage is from the Manufacturing Group days. John Nagle (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Manulife

    I’m an employee of Manulife and would like to help improve the accuracy of the Manulife entry. The article currently states that Manulife has 84,000 employees, which is inaccurate. Manulife currently has more than 29,000 employees and 53,000 agents under contract, which is an important distinction.

    To improve the accuracy of the article, I posted to the talk page, suggesting that that an editor list employees and agents separately in both the infobox and the body text, but have not received a response.

    For reference, I provided a link to the Company Overview on the Manulife website, which outlines the number of employees. Please let me know if you agree that this would be an appropriate update to the page. KABannister (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Updated article. Reference in article said 28,609 employees as of a few quarters back, so I put in 29,000. John Nagle (talk) 07:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    EidosMedia

    I believe Jan0345 may have a conflict of interest. The article has a history of being created and maintained by employees/contractors for the company. In this case, the editor has only edited this article, adding positive references and removing some negative ones. I asked the user whether he/she has a conflict on the user's talk page, but got no response. Muckrkr (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=637312606"