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 M.soumen (talk | contribs) at 16:24, 23 December 2018 (→M.Soumen and Vistara related articles). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.
    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:Chris Daniels (musician)
    Talk:Dell Technologies
    Talk:Michael Dell
    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: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:Shuntarō Tanikawa
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science
    Talk:Uppsala Monitoring Centre
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Edits by User:Munenejohn

    The user has repeatedly moved Draft:Africa Policy Institute into mainspace, bypassing WP:AFC despite request. Munenejohn has not provided disclosure despite requests:

    K.e.coffman (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I have requested move protection, but ideally a response can be got from Munenejohn.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure enough, a simple off-wiki search implies (on the basis of username) that the editor in question may be affiliated with the Africa Policy Institute. Cant really say more, respecting WP:OUTING.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For anyone looking into this, please keep an eye on the revision history. The user still doesn't seem to understand that they should not remove COI templates (or AFC comments) until the article has been reviewed. See this revision just 20 minutes ago. – numbermaniac 07:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    He's again gone and removed the template with no explanation in the edit summary. He either doesn't understand it despite a billion explanations on his talk page, or he deliberately doesn't care. Is there something we can do about this? – numbermaniac 05:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Numbermaniac: I have started a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Munenejohn concerning this issue. I am guessing this will be resolved shortly.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Another new user, with a one week old account, has created a draft at Draft:AFRICA POLICY INSTITUTE (API). This user appears to be following the process by submitting their draft for review properly, but the content of the article is, in large parts, identical to the original at Draft:Africa Policy Institute. Don't know if this user is an undisclosed paid editor, but this might be worth keeping a watch on. – numbermaniac 12:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked as a sock of AfricaPolicyInstitute. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI

    Jytdog appears to be leaving: User_talk:Jytdog#That's_all_folks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    My guess it's a "you can't fire me I quit" situation in light of the Arbitration case that's about to be opened to look at what he's been doing offwiki. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well not quite, as he says "I urge Arbcom to do just do a motion and indef or site ban me." So I think it's more a case of "you can fire me, but I will have already quit". A shame really as this was, as far as I can see, a big mistake rather than something really malicious. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And a big loss to Wikipedia, that such a prolific contributor had to leave. Mistake no doubt, but that wasn't a reason enough for indef or a retirement. hope he returns back someday.--DBigXrayᗙ 20:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The Culinary Institute of America

    After some recent warnings/instructions at User talk:Jnormy from Jytdog on not directly editing articles, Jnormy continues to directly edit The Culinary Institute of America. I would notify Jytdog, but it appears they've left Wikipedia. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Meh. Yes, editing under a COI is to be discouraged, but it has never been outright banned, and the content here seems fairly neutrally worded. The recent additions are of a tone I would expect of someone to write in who didn't have a conflict of interest. If you had written it, I wouldn't change a word of it. For that reason, I don't see the issues with the recent edits. COI is only an issue when it produces bad writing, and when it doesn't, I don't see the problem. We only require that people declare their COIs and that they write otherwise neutral text. The user seems to have done both. --Jayron32 19:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, these edits look fine to me as well and seems to be within existing guidelines. Only when they start to insert promotional/corporate puffery under the disguise of "updated information" I would start to be alarmed. Alex Shih (talk) 07:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well they have in the past... Just because these recent edits are okay doesn't mean they can subvert WP:COI and only request-edit when they think it'll be problematic, can they? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 14:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Subvert WP:COI"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:恒冰

    This user appears to be a single purpose editor. They have not responded to three requests by me on their talk page to disclose their CoI status, and they continue to perform problematic edits.

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwmhiraeth (talk • contribs)

    Blocked by Edgar181 for undisclosed paid and disruptive editing. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Niall Ferguson

    Negative material being removed without explanation, and replaced by more positive material. Failure to use edit summaries, failure to respond to User talk notices. DuncanHill (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked Koolhausmedia for the username. 331dot (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    General advice on COI policy - New article I am creating - advice if this is a COI issue?

    Hi - I'm a University librarian (in the Business faculty) and a Wikipedian. I'm creating a page for an academic staff member who is also a composer of note in another faculty (Music). Is this of itself, a COI issue? While we both work for the same institution, he isn't in the same department, and I'm not otherwise connected to him, and not doing it for the cash....just to help out. Any advice here would be good, thanks!!! Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Deathlibrarian, and thanks for reaching out in advance for advice. I see you've been around Wikipedia for a long time so I imagine you are pretty well-versed in policies and guidelines. If you aren't representing his interests, then I don't see a conflict of interest. Nonetheless, putting a brief note on your userpage (User:Deathlibrarian), summarizing you wrote above, would reassure everyone that you are editing in good faith. If you have any kind of personal or professional relationship with him as a colleague, friend or acquaintance, it would be good to note that. Here's an example I whipped up, which you could alter to your liking:
    I work for (institution). I created an article about (person), who is also a faculty member at (institution). I am not being paid to write about him. (Any other relevant details)
    Perhaps other will have different opinions, but I think that should be enough. Good luck with your article! --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much Drm310, I'll do that.If anyone else has anything else to add, or sees it as an issue, please comment - (I've now added the draft of the article to this post as well).Deathlibrarian (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Koko.BMF

    British hip hop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Koko.BMF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User appears to be promoting themselves as an "up-and coming road rapper" on the page - see [1] [2].

    Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I left a reply for them at Talk:Koko, here. Hopefully that gets the message through. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Epic Sciences

    New user; username suggests they are affiliated with or representing the subject organization. The only 2 edits so far have included removal of the Undisclosed Paid COI template from the article. Amp71 (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Amp71. I left a response on my User talk page. Apologies for the confusion. My previous edits were not meant to include removing the 'Undisclosed Paid' COI (I'm not a native coder) and I must've deleted it while drafting new text. The goal of updates was to refresh the history, funding rounds, and current offerings of the company. How do I best disclose that I work for Epic Sciences when posting? Thanks, EpicSciences (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Meprolight

    Extra eyes on this article would be appreciated, MeproUS was warned about COI with no response and then another new user Cadlaxer23 shows up and starts making edits. shoy (reactions) 14:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    NeedaAnsari00

    Returning to an editor I took an interest in previously, NeedaAnsari00 created a number of suspiciously-high quality articles before ceasing to edit. I asked them about having a possible COI, but they continued to edit without responding. However, I recently was contacted on my talk page at User_talk:SamHolt6#Conflict_of_Interest/Paid by the subject of one of the articles created (albeit because of a different issue), where they more-or-less confirmed they were in contact with the editors who created their article. As such, it seems fairly easy to conclude (when given the quality, disparate topics, and disappearance upon being questioned) that NeedaAnsari00 was at the very least a COI editor and at the worst an undisclosed paid editor. I have boldly moved several of the articles they created and edited without the input of other editors. I started this thread to inform other editors.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Claire E. Walczak, Ph.D., Indiana University & Draft:Valerie Dean O'Loughlin, Ph.D.

    While perusing the AFC feed, I noticed an interesting phenomena. Before I begin reviewing an article (Walczak's), I always check to see if the author may have a conflict of interest. While the article seemed clean, (for some reason) I clicked back on the new pages feed. I don't know how to explain this with words (in an efficient manner) so here is an image. Im not really sure what the protocol for handling this is, so I figured I would ask.

    The author of these posts appear to be the subject of the opposite.

    SilverplateDelta (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Pranay.offcl

    User created draft talking about themselves in a heavily promotional way, which I tagged as G11. I have also left a COI notice on their talkpage. Agent00x (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The username alone suggests a COI and I will block this user. Deb (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Leonid Afremov

    Pages on this artist are being spammed. I can't see what account has been doing the previous spamming because the articles have been deleted. The account is probably a sockpuppet, but I need admin help to identify the sockmaster. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Not spamming at all. Just one article was created two days ago. Since it was deleted we responsibly created a DRAFT to be examined by Wikipedia. It was deleted too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scm5791 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Scm5791 - Who is "we"? You say that you "responsibly created a draft", but creating copyright violation is not responsible. Anyway, in Wikipedia, one account should belong to one human. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scm5791: The draft was removed because it was an "Unambiguous copyright infringement of https://afremov.com/Leonid-Afremov-bio.html". See WP:COPYVIO. General Ization Talk 18:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scm5791: As were previous versions of the article, going back to 2013 in both draft and mainspace, for the same reason. General Ization Talk 18:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I have nothing to do with 2013 version. I'm just a fan of Leonid Afremov trying to post an article of him. I'm from Argentina. What has to be done to use that excellent biography? https://afremov.com/Leonid-Afremov-bio.html scm5791 (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The "excellent biography" is copyrighted. What can be done to use it is that users can view it on the web. If you think that its subject is passes artistic notability, you can rewrite the biography in your own words. The question about how to use an excellent biography shows a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You apparently have something to do with the most recent version, which was deleted as a copyright violation, as I stated above. See the guidance at the link I posted above. General Ization Talk 18:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I will try to post a draft of Leonid Afremov with my own words. Not Copy/Paste from other websites. Thank you. scm5791 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Bazadais created an article in mainspace on December 15, 2018 - about the same time as Scm5791. None of the accounts in the deleted history appear to be blocked; Special:Contributions/Bob Roberts created the original article and Special:Contributions/Afremov appears to be the oldest coi account who says he is the son of Leonid Afremov. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Rjensen

    Rjensen is involved in a discussion regarding the External Links section at Military history. They have a close connection to two of the links: Web Sources for Military History and H-War. Rjensen's conduct and editing seem to be entirely appropriate, however I have encouraged him to disclose his COI when discussing these sites, which he disagrees with. This is a very minor issue and there's no need for sanctions, but I'd like to get input from a few uninvolved editors. –dlthewave ☎ 18:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I do own "Web Sources for Military History" and americanhistoryprojects.com. the possible COI issue was not hidden-- another editor already raised COI about the website and they dismissed COI as not an issue http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=873954699 As I told Dlthewave, I think I am following the COI two guidelines: a) = WP:EXTERNALREL Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise and b) from WP:SELFCITE Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. On the second point, H-War. No. I have no "close connection" with H-WAR--I am a subscriber like thousands of people & I posted a few messages in recent years. It is one of 200+ academic discussion lists published by H-NET-- i was one of the leaders of H-Net when 130 new lests were created in the mid 1990s. Richard J. Jensen covers my permanent departure from H-Net in 1997. (I did remain active on some lists until a few years ago, but not H-War). I suggest that "close connection" is not a useful criterion here regarding ne & either H-War or H-Net. I did complain that the guidelines on COI are very vague --they seem to be specific only on paid editing (I was never paid to edit) and I hope the folks here can make some improvements. Rjensen (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a non-issue. It would be one thing if Rjensen was editing articles on those sites, but participating in a discussion on a related article about a list of external links which includes them? Come on. A formal disclosure would be completely over the top. – Joe (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Human Appeal

    Both users are WP:SPAs. The newer one - CliveMilkychops has only edited Human Appeal. Ed1911 has also edited Othman Moqbel (former CEO of Human Appeal) and Nooh al-Kaddo (former trustee). Both users are attempting to remove controversies involving the organization, while relying on somewhat dodgy sourcing (an opinion piece by a WP:DAILYMAIL journalist in MEE). Icewhiz (talk) 10:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Art of Living Foundation

    I am self-reporting a possible COI and invite the editors to review my contributions to the page. Also, I am unclear whether my contributions fall under COI because I have volunteered with the non-profit in the past, without any benefits (financial or otherwise). I have taken special care for before making any edits, but would like some feedback about my situation. More discussion here [3]

    Marcel Saucet

    Articles on this businessman (who may or may not have a doctorate) have been deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcel Saucet and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcel Saucet (2nd nomination). However, the create-protection is being gamed by using the honorific. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] 

     Robert McClenon (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Accounts blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OfficialBiancaJ. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding the User Mukesh.bhardwaj40

    I've been following this user for a while as part of New page patrol since he created an article about an agency called Oye digital marketing, It was deleted by someone else. That company states on its page that it tries to promote people's social media presence. I posted a COI notice on his talk page. After that incident he created a page about Rhythm wagholikar, a non-notable author. I Nominated it for CSD and got it deleted, This user approaches me and tries very hard to convince me of its notabilty. Now that attempts by the user to promote a non-notable author and his books seem dubious . And I am almost certain of it being a clear promotion, once I googled the username along with the agency's. Daiyusha (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Daiyusha: If you go to https://www.oyedigitalmarketing.com/a, you will see that "Rhythm Wagholikar" is a client of this agency. This is a clear-cut case of undisclosed paid editing. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I just noticed that this editor actually did disclose his employment here. But they still need to make a formal indication on their userpage if they are going to write about their clients. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been done, so they are now in compliance with WP:PAID. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Martha L. Black-class icebreaker and User:VintageCCG

    I believe the user has COI based on his testimony on his talk page where he quotes CCG policy at me without ever linking to it and misunderstands the difference between ship classification and a ship class, attempting to assert CCG methods of classification over that of reliable secondary sources, based on that misinterpretaion. He claims to have been a "marine professional" and "Just isn't done that way, notwithstanding that some other fleets might follow that convention. We don't." I asked him to declare his COI and refrain from editing in this area, but he denies it. I hope maybe this can help shed some light if I was right and maybe ask him to refrain from trying to impose Canadian Coast Guard guidelines on Wikipedia. Thank you. Llammakey (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed I provided a link to the CCG source material http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/e0013696 and here is a second source link https://inter-j01.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fdat/vessels/vessel-details/84 I have no COI other than being an expert on Canadian Coast Guard policies and history, and I am merely seeking to correct inaccurate identification of CCG ship classes in this and other Wikipedia articles. Otherwise, readers will be confused by the conflicting misinformation ... outside this Wikipedia reference, if you cited a "Martha L Black Class icebreaker" then anyone with knowledge of the CCG would wonder why you were calling it that rather than the published name of the ship class i.e. High Endurance Multi-Task Vessel HEMTV which is cited in all CCG publications and communications. The "first-of-class" naming convention is common in naval fleets but is not followed by the civilian Canadian Coast Guard. This is not a subjective matter nor an opinion which might be subject to bias or agenda. It is simply a reflection of class naming conventions as practiced by the Canadian Coast Guard. I am not sure how to effect a correction for accuracy that is repeatedly reverted by an editor. VintageCCG (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor is an employee of Vistara. Per his twitter page, he is the airline's network planner, that is to say, they know of where the airline plans to fly or would cease to even before the same is published. Their primary edits are to any airport article related to this airline. Edits so far by this user related to Vistara are without any solid references. There is no declaration on their user page about their CoI and their edits are of concern given the failure to verify the content. — LeoFrank  Talk 15:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    Yes, I agree the above fact that I work for Vistara. However I deny any malpractices which can be categorised as conflict of interest. Edits done from account mostly supported by published articles. In few incidents when I had edited despite lack of published supporting material those were removed as'original research" and I have accepted those changes against my edits. I am primarily an aviation geek and love to read/learn/edit wikipedia articles on aviation (airliens/airports). User:M.soumen [[User talk:|Talk]] 16:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=875075102"