Misplaced Pages

:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:48, 18 July 2011 view sourceOlYeller21 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,886 edits →Approach to Bloomberg articles← Previous edit Revision as of 15:57, 18 July 2011 view source Bentheadvocate (talk | contribs)580 edits →QuidcoNext edit →
Line 273: Line 273:
] (]) 20:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC) ] (]) 20:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
:Per ], if an editor reveals their identity on Misplaced Pages then it's not outing if you use that information to find their affiliations. By placing his info on linkedin.com he volunteered it, so no worries. And this is a common occurrence. -- ''']'''] 20:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC) :Per ], if an editor reveals their identity on Misplaced Pages then it's not outing if you use that information to find their affiliations. By placing his info on linkedin.com he volunteered it, so no worries. And this is a common occurrence. -- ''']'''] 20:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
::Unfortunately, this does not count as identifying oneself. There's no proof it's the authors real name. If it's the authors name, there's nothing to tell us that it is the same stuart coggins. As a matter of fact there's a company called Coggins claim services that has an office in Stuart, Florida so we don't even know that it's really a name.


==FXUK== ==FXUK==

Revision as of 15:57, 18 July 2011

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    ShortcutsSections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline.
    Are you in the right place?
    Notes for volunteers
    To close a report
    • Add Template:Resolved at the head of the complaint, with the reason for closing and your signature.
    • Old issues are taken away by the archive bot.
    Other ways to help
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests Talk:260 Collins Talk:Academy of Achievement Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:Aspen Dental Talk:Atlantic Union Bank Talk:AvePoint Talk:Edward J. Balleisen Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:Neil Barofsky Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Edi Birsan Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Pamela Chesters Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Doncaster College Template talk:Editnotices/Page/List of Nintendo franchises Talk:Alan Emrich Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:Richard France (writer) Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Genuine Parts Company Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Group-IB Talk:Hilary Harkness Talk:Hearst Communications Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:Scott Kurashige Talk:Andrew Lack (executive) Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:List of PEN literary awards Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health Talk:Anne Sofie Madsen Talk:Laurence D. Marks Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Roland Mertelsmann Talk:Metro AG Talk:Modern Meadow Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:Polkadot (blockchain platform) Talk:QuinStreet Talk:Michael Savage (politician) Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:SolidWorks Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko Talk:Sysco Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Tencent Cloud Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:TKTS Talk:Trendyol Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:Loretta Ucelli Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Alex Wright (author) Talk:Xero (company) Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Dew Tours

    I've run across Dew Tour 2010 which was tagged as a large unwikified new article. I can't find that it's a copyvio but the tone of the articles are on the line between unecyclopedic prose and an advert. The articles are well linked together but all that I have seen only have one included reference to the official website of the event. They even go as far as to make notes about companies not being mentioned at the event but not officially affiliated (e.g. Sony & PlayStation).

    Here's where the COI starts:

    Companies

    • The Dew Tour is put on by a company called Alli Sports which is somehow short for "Alliance of Action Sports".
    • The various tours build a park for the tours to use in each city called the AST Dew Tour Park.

    Users

    Pages edits

    I don't even know where to start with this issue. The COI is vast in its reach and I'm not even sure that any of the events are even notable. I haven't touched on that because I'm assuming they are given the sponsorship and even if it's not, the COI needs to be addressed. What do we do here? I was originally going to tag the Dew Tour 2011 article as a G11 until I noticed that it's the tip of the iceberg. I was then going to tag several articles for G11 but noticed that once notified of the possible speedy deletion, anon SPAs pop up and decline the speedy. Even stranger, some of the pages were created by a now retired user (Tv145033 (talk · contribs)) with a seemingly unrelated user name (may mean nothing).

    Lastly, I was thinking that a mass AfD nom would be the way to go but I think that may not be the best thing for WP. Whoever is behind the creations knows what they're doing and what hoops to jump through to keep the articles off the radar. Mass prods may work but that wouldn't address the COI and socking issue.

    I'm taking all suggestions. If we can't come up with a better way to deal with this issue, I'll probably just do a mass AfD. in a few days. OlYeller 00:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

    Not sure how to handle this user but I've confirmed a conflict of interest. I'll leave it at that to avoid outing them. If I've said too much already, feel free to delete this edit and let me know of my mistake. OlYeller 00:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
    This is a big case and needs to be looked into thoroughly, there are a lot of articles involved and multiple editors. I will say though that the usernames seem to be violations of WP:ORGNAME which, when combined with the COI and possible spam issues, would warrant indefinite blocks. I'll have to evaluate this more.
    As to the second issue, I don't think you've "said too much", you haven't really said anything at all. ;) Which is something of a problem, I'm not sure that anything is actionable. If we can't even mention the reason for suspecting the COI, we can't really admonish the editor, that's a bit too Kafkaesque for my tastes. We do need to avoid outing anyone, though, that's more important than any COI concerns. -- Atama頭 16:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
    I don't know how much we need to worry about that last user: no edits since 2008 and I've found via OldYeller's info the user's CV, which shows that she stopped working for the company in 2010. P.Oxy.2354 (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
    P.Oxy got it right and it's probably nothing to worry about given the ~3 year hiatus. From here, would you like me to create a more thorough list of articles and the accounts that edit them? I can be liberal with the list of editors and include anyone that could possibly be associated with the involved companies (including IPs). OlYeller 06:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
    If you don't mind. You've already spent a considerable amount of time reviewing this, and it will help ensure that nobody is spending time trying to gather info that you've already gathered. -- Atama頭 16:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
    I should be able to get it all written out by this weekend. Had a busy week. OlYeller 17:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
    Almost done. I'll have it up here in an hour or two. OlYeller 20:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

    Here's the information I've put together. I made it a subpage of my userspace as it's a rather large report. OlYeller 22:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

    Paid editing?

    Article was created by Bamanh27 (talk · contribs) a couple days after the ad was posted. The same user has created several other articles. I realize the community is divided over whether paid editing should be allowed, but in my opinion it's a huge COI problem. They can't be neutral, I'm certain the client would not accept or pay for an article with negative content in it. -- œ 02:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

    The article was deleted (obviously). The ad was reported at this address. Looking at the editor's contributions, where they have created a number of articles from scratch and developed them in a focused manner, I would suggest that all of their edits have been done for financial motives. This is clearly a conflict of interest. As you pointed out, we've been unable to come up with any kind of policy or even a guideline about how to handle editors who are paid for their contributions, so we have to judge the editor's contributions on their own merits. But it's worth noting that this is occurring, and it would be in the editor's best interest to disclose this.
    By coincidence, I declined a speedy deletion request on another article they recently created, National Speakers Association. It was nominated per G11 as an advertisement, but I didn't feel it was quite promotional enough to qualify. I still stand behind that decision but the article does need a bit of cleanup, but I really have trouble pointing out any particular wording that's bad, it's just the overall tone that feels a little too positive. Someone who is a better editor than myself might be able to figure it out. As to the group's notability, this article in Forbes is 2 pages long and at least half of it is about the group, which seems pretty significant to me. -- Atama頭 20:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
    It should probably be noted that two other contributions from this user, Dianna Booher, and Laura Stack, are listed on the National Speakers Association website. The other page created by Bamanh27, Sahpreem A. King, is said in the lede to be a "public speaker", but that might be a coincidence. P.Oxy.2354 (talk)
    There have been cases in the past in which commercial speakers agencies have spammed content from their speaker's bios into articles.   Will Beback  talk  00:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
    This user is indeed a paid editor, his profile is here where he proudly advertises his "Misplaced Pages Page services" and his job history includes comments of thanks from none other than 6ixspace (was paid $124), Sahpreem A. King ($99 article), and Laura Stack ($137 article): “Andy is great to work with! Responsive, kind, and knowledgable. Knew how to write a wikipedia page and get it up quickly! All technical aspects satisfied and page passed muster by the wikipedia reviewers quickly. Will definitely recommend him to my colleagues! Thanks Andy!” -- œ 21:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
    I've reviewed - and tagged for cleanup - those articles. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
    That's ok.. if the subject truly is notable I'm okay with the articles existing.. even if they may not be in a neutral state.. As long as there is no official policy on paid editing, what I want is for the paid editor.. any paid editors.. to disclose their conflict of interest on their userpages and on the talk pages of any articles they create, including how much they were paid to create the article. -- œ 23:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
    I'd agree with all that apart from the financial info - that's private to the parties involved, and may in any case be part of a wider arrangement involving other services. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
    Agree with OE. We want good articles and from some of the free editing I've seen, it may be worth having a few professionals around, provided potential COI is addressed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

    Cohen & Hari

    In:

    Cohen, Nick (9 July 2011). "Diary". The Spectator. Retrieved 9 July 2011. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

    Cohen continues his spat with fellow journalist Johann Hari, alleging improper editing of the articles about each of them, and others, by User:David r from meth productions; implying CoI. I have no views as to the veracity of his claims, but this seemed the best place to raise the matter. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks for this, someone mentioned this at WP:AN also. I'll take a look and see if there's anything actionable and comment further. -- Atama頭 23:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
    So just from a cursory examination of David's edit history and talk page notices, it looks like Cohen is not the first to be suspicious about David. Also, David has been inactive for a few months. I'll dig further, my main concern here is the possibility of sneaky BLP violations. -- Atama頭 23:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

    Semi-protected both articles. The CU data is stale on User:David r from meth productions, so not much can be done there unless he returns. Brandon (talk) 12:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

    I have had emails from David R in the past - if any of them would be useful then I will gladly forward. But note also this. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

    More, by David Allen Green, who also writes for the Spectator , at http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2011/07/who-is-david-rose.html Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

    Just to clarify, David Allen Green is a writer for the Spectator's rival, the New Statesman. http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green Doctorbob (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
    Of course. How silly of me. Apologies. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

    Manmin Central Church

    Over a period of more than a year this user has consistently been editing the above articles to delete negative sourced material, remove English sources, insert hagiography attributed sources which turn out not to be independent (either TV stations controlled by the church, or press releases which have been reprinted in mainstream newspapers), and use sockpuppets (Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Presidentofctai/Archive). I have requested help from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Korea but no one there is interested in looking into this situation. The article has also had problems with previous strings of sockpuppets, but I have no evidence of a concrete link between them and Presidentofctai. "CTAI" I believe refers to be the Christian Trade Association International, which has an association with Jaerock Lee's publisher Urim Books.

    Some examples of recent problematic edits include:

    • : removing a BBC story on an event, leaving no English sources in the paragraph for a reader to investigate further
    • : removing the description of church organisers misleading participants in an event in Estonia
    • : repeatedly removing an Israeli news agency source describing Lee as a "cult leader" (something which he also tried in April)

    Any help on this matter would be greatly appreciated as I am the only other editor watching this article and I do not have remotely enough time to scrutinise his numerous edits. Thank you, cab (call) 04:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

    The editor was blocked for sockpuppetry, I'm surprised with all of the damage they cause that they were allowed to go on as they did. Their username alone would have merited at least a softblock per WP:ORGNAME (and considering the COI, sockpuppetry, and NPOV editing a hardblock was definitely warranted). -- Atama頭 16:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

    Blunt (magazine)

    The article's creator and major contributing editor has supplied two references that are from the subject's website (or its parent organisation). The article has a list of "Contributing Writers" which includes "Emily Swanson" and thus there appears to be a conflict of interest by self-citing or self-promotion.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

    The article was deleted, so I'm not sure what else needs to be done except to note that if that article or similar articles are created in the future, that the editor needs to be aware of our COI and promotion guidelines, and that disruption may lead to a block. -- Atama頭 18:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

    GrowVC

    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. DavideLerda (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Hi, I created GrowVC page and I have 2 notifications: - possible conflict of interest - it lacks inline citations I'm going to work on point 2, since we have citations on Misplaced Pages http://en.wikipedia.org/Sweat_equity http://en.wikipedia.org/Crowd_funding but I want to know how to solve point 1. I wrote the article in a descriptive way, to avoid marketing, and added external links (BBC, LAtimes). Is it sufficient? Having thousands of users, we can ask on our website for somebody to create a descriptive page on Misplaced Pages. Let me know which way you prefer.

    A few of points. First, I will be tagging the article for deletion because I think it is too promotional. Second, you cannot use other Misplaced Pages articles as a source, because Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. Third, to avoid the COI problem, don't edit the article. It is almost impossible for someone with a conflict to edit from a neutral point of view, that's why we suggest that you don't try. Advertising for someone to create/edit the article won't help as they would also be conflicted. Please use the article's talk page to suggest changes, if it survives my speedy deletion tagging. – ukexpat (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
    Ukexpat, do you think it would have been deleted as a non-notable subject or article with absolutely no hope of de-spamming or other improvement if it had gone through a full AFD? If not, then you shouldn't have tagged it for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion is only to be used when you are 100% certain that the page would be deleted at AFD, no questions asked. It is not a handy way of disposing of articles whose current versions need a lot of work.
    David, I suggest that if you try to re-create the article, that you ask for help at WP:FEEDBACK, which is better suited to giving advice on articles from new people. Folks at COI see some of the worst abuses, so naturally we tend to assume the worst on occasion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
    I'd also suggest that you review our guide at WP:PSCOI, which is meant to help editors who may have a conflict of interest to understand our policies and guidelines and avoid running into problems. And I'd like to add to what Ukexpat said before; he's correct when we say we "suggest you don't try". Editing with a COI is strongly discouraged. But it's not entirely forbidden. If you make the effort to work with other editors here, and act conscientiously, then you might find it easier to get along. I think the fact that you chose on your own to bring the issue to this board is in your favor. -- Atama頭 18:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

    Violinconcerto

    User Violinconcerto keeps adding links to his own website, and has started edit-warring over this. COI warnings have been ignored. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

    The editor added spam twice after your last warning so they've been blocked indefinitely as a spam-only account. I also left a note that if for some reason someone decides to unblock this editor, that their username must be changed as well. -- Atama頭 18:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
    I don't think that the name violates the username policy. A Violin concerto is first and foremost a notable thing, not a company name. Any person seeing the account name is going to think "Oh, that person likes this kind of music", not "I bet they're associated with a company or website named ViolinConcerto.com". Consequently, while the user deserved the spam block, the username does not appear to meet the "unambiguous" standard set by the username policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
    WP:ORGNAME is mostly about representation. Usually, an editor with a name that matches the company or organization they are affiliated with is asked (or forced) to change their name because our username policy requires each account to represent a single person, not an organization. In other circumstances the username would be perfectly fine, but when you are adding links to a web site called "violinconcerto", that username is unacceptable. I'd consider a username that exactly matches the domain name of the web site being promoted is unambiguous enough (even if the .net TLD is excluded). -- Atama頭 17:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

    Vancouver Observer

    Article about online news site is being edited by account whose name matches the name of the editor and owner, Linda Solomon. Promotional material is being added. The Interior (Talk) 16:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

    Linda's only other contribution is to The Tyee, another online publication that she was associated with. I've given her a COI welcome. The article itself was substantially cleaned up (which required gutting it, essentially) so whatever problems were added by Linda before have been removed, and I've removed the COI tag. If she continues to edit in a disruptive manner, I strongly suggest trying to talk to her (her user talk page was blank so obviously that has never been done). -- Atama頭 16:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
    I agree. The updates have eliminated most if not all of the advertorial content and have taken care of any the COI concern (assuming she doesn't add anything else). OlYeller 16:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks both, (and ukexpat), it looks like the editor has done a bit of policy reading and removed some material herself. While we're here, what about the notability tag? I'm thinking the awards put it on the notable side. The Interior (Talk) 06:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

    Bobby London

    Bobby london1 has claimed to actually be Bobby London, and has made a huge series of major changes to these articles, adding a wealth of unreferenced content, removing items that portrayed him in a negative light, and in general white-washing the articles into something entirely more promotional, IMHO. I've warned him about the COI, but this really needs more eyes on the articles. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

    Until we can verify that this is the real London, I've blocked that account as a potential impersonator, while leaving instructions on how to verify identity. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

    Rangoon11

    Resolved After a long discussion, Lorifredrics has conceded that not enough evidence exists to pursue COI allegations. Discussion of Lori's actions here and elsewhere can continue at WP:ANI if necessary. -- Atama頭 21:16, 15 July 2011 (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've noticed that this editor has a history of the largest contributor to editing articles on behalf of two large media law firms, DLA Piper and Clifford Chance, and on behalf of several large UK universities, e.g. Warwick University and University College London. They recently demonstrated an unexpected interest in editing (or preventing thereof) an article on Kingston University. Could any other editors review this editor's contributions and suggest whether or not they might have an undeclared COI? If they are going to edit in a paid capacity, I would hope they would at least declare this in their user talk pages.--Lorifredrics (talk) 04:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

    I've also noticed that Rangoon11 has a history of being blocked for sockpuppetry. When taken together I am beginning to wonder if he has an undeclared COI as a paid Misplaced Pages editor for these organizations. Anyone have any further thoughts or suggestions?--Lorifredrics (talk) 05:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

    • A couple of things... Rangoon11 is a "she". Also, she used a sockpuppet once when she was new, in October of last year, and was blocked for it, but was unblocked a week later after she agreed to only use one account from that point on and has lived up to that. So why would you bring that up now? Do you have any evidence that she has broken that pledge? And why are you alleging a COI, is there any evidence other than that she shows a lot of interest in a few subjects? If that is evidence of a COI, then every Misplaced Pages editor would have a COI. I hope you have something to back any of this up, as it states at the top of this page, "accusing another editor of having a conflict of interest in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited and may result in sanctions against you". -- Atama頭 06:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    Apologies for not being aware of Rangoon11's gender. Obviously, you must be sufficiently acquainted with her so as to have become aware of this. As for "accusing another editor of having a conflict of interest" I have made no such accusation. Rather, I have expressed a concern openly and requested input from other editors who might have greater experience in dealing with circumstances that might lead to lodging actual accusations of a COI (or not, as the case may be). The evidence I have is as I've described -- an editor with a history of being the largest contributor to specific articles involving media law firms and certain UK universities. That combination is, in conjunction with an seemingly heightened interest in opposing edits to the Kingston University article, on its own, suspicious to me, as it suggests that the editor may be on the payrolls of these universities and media law firms as a paid Misplaced Pages editor. It would be unusual for an editor to have such strong interests in and knowledge of this particular combination of topics, without having connections to these organizations. Perhaps it is pure coincidence, and I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. Hence my putting it out there for feedback from more experienced editors. On the other hand, if there is a COI, then it would be simple for her to declare it openly.--Lorifredrics (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    The "evidence" you've cited so far doesn't remotely suggest that this editor is on "the payrolls" of the various instiutions you've mentioned, as you have also suggested inappropriately at Talk:Kingston University, not to mention a similar unfounded accusation about another editor to that article. It was pointed out to you then that Rangoon11's edit counter shows her having edited 3714 different pages and on everything from cars to helicopters to the Japanese inventor of a mechanical pencil to listed buildings in Norwich. Yes, many of her edits are related to Britain, and British universites and organizations, but it is normal for content editors to have a general field of interest. The vast majority of the articles I've edited or created are about opera singers, opera houses, operas, composers, etc. Does that mean I am on the payrolls of these subjects? Have you actually looked at Rangoon11's edits to Warwick University, for example? The ones I saw related to correcting formatting, copyediting for style, restructuring material into a more coherent organization, etc. Can you please cite some edits with links to them which can be construed by a neutral observer as attempting to significantly slant the multitude of different articles and subjects edited by her? I'm happy to be corrected, but if you cannot, I agree with Atama's analysis above and his warning to you. Voceditenore (talk) 08:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    "Expressing a concern openly" without presenting any evidence feels more like an attempt to muddy the waters in a content dispute to me. The "paid Misplaced Pages editor" accusation (and don't pretend it wasn't) clearly falls under the sanctions mentioned by Atama. I suggest you either provide some evidence or withdraw with an apology. By the way, your user page is pretty close to breaking other wikipedia conventions. --Snowded 08:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    There is a thread on WP:ANI about this here (where the user page is also discussed.) Mtking (talk) 09:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    I remain concerned about Rangoon11's editing history. The history shows more than mere contributions to many, many articles that read to me almost like corporate promotions. (e.g. Maxus, Pfizer_UK, King's_Health_Partners, Pharmaceutical_industry_in_the_United_Kingdom, etc.) These articles were all, in fact, created by this user. I therefore believe there is reason to question whether or not they might have been paid to write these articles by these companies/organizations. That doesn't violate WP:COI policy, however it would be appropriate to include a statement acknowledging such a COI if it exists. I would add that attacks against me and my pages should not be topics of discussion on the COI Noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorifredrics (talk • contribs) 14:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    Making more vague insinuations about yet more supposed conflicts of interest, without providing any evidence beyond your 'concerns', is doing your case no good whatsoever. Can I suggest that you either provide diffs to particular edits by Rangoon11, you consider to show actual evidence of a COI, or cease making what amounts to a personal attack apparently based on nothing more than an assumption that everyone who disagrees with you is automatically in the pay of outside interests? I think we have shown an exceptional degree of tolerance towards you, but we will not provide a forum for your dubious assertions indefinitely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    This is not about a disagreement. This is about a user whose pattern of creating and editing articles suggests that they may be on the payroll of large companies for their editing work. The evidence has been provided via the articles themselves. No need to note diffs, as this editor is, in many instances the sole author and editor. You are, of course free to disagree with this expressed concern without resorting to veiled threats of sanctions.--Lorifredrics (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    I am not making 'veiled threats'. I am pointing out that we do not provide a forum for unsubstantiated insinuations, and will take appropriate action to prevent people abusing facilities provided by the website. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    It appears that I'm not alone in having concerns about the objectivity of Rangoon11.--Lorifredrics (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    Actually, Lori, I've never heard of Rangoon11 until your posting here. But she set her gender to "female" in her user preferences. I have a script that shows me a person's info when I view their user page and user talk page, and one thing it shows me is a person's gender (if they have declared one in their preferences). I didn't expect you to know her gender, that's why I mentioned it. :) -- Atama頭 15:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

    Enough. I am going to ask that appropriate action now be taken to halt this ludicrous sequence of half-baked allegations. You clearly have no substantial evidence to back up your 'concerns', and are instead using this noticeboard as a platform for your attack on the integrity of contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

    Lorifredrics may bring the WP:BOOMERANG upon herself if she continues to accuse others a conflict of interest. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Misuse_of_the_COI_noticeboard_by_User:Lorifredrics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    Another of cause for concern is Rangoon11's apparent insistence on including what reads like corporate promotion rather than genuine notability in her edits in the Linklater's article.Lorifredrics (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    Provide links to wikipedia to establish that accusation not to an offsite forum. I'm tempted simply to delete it --Snowded 16:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    This source originates on Misplaced Pages Talk pages, as should be obvious from a cursory examination.Lorifredrics (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    I think it was just redacted from ANI so if I were you I would get your act together. You're working yourself into a position where blocks are inevitable --Snowded 16:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    I redacted it in case it was an outing attempt. ANI has a new post every few seconds, sometimes, and if I have to do a revision delete then I had better do it right away or I'd have to delete a dozen revisions. But it was just a clumsy attempt to link to an article talk page, so no outing. I've undeleted the revision. Don't hold my knee-jerk reaction against Lori. I'm just overly cautious because outing is a constant problem when you are dealing with COI issues. -- Atama頭 16:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    Noted, but my reason for almost deleting the comment was that it was yet another attack on another editor based on innuendo/vague accusations etc. etc. i.e. disruptive --Snowded 16:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

    (←) Lori, here is the thing. Conflicts of interest are determined one of two ways... Either the editor admits to it, or does something on Misplaced Pages that makes it obvious. In other words, if they choose a username that identifies who they are (as you chose to), or that shows their affiliation (someone named "MicrosoftPR" editing the "Microsoft" article) or something similar. Showing an interest in a subject is not evidence of a COI. The vast majority of my article space edits have been related to World of Warcraft and iPhone, but I'm not affiliated in any way with either subject. So my suggestion to you is to drop the accusation. There is no harm in raising the question on this board about whether or not an editor might have a conflict of interest, and we could consider the matter closed. However, if you continue to insist that there is a conflict of interest, and especially that Rangoon11 is being paid to edit, based solely on the subjects she chooses, that can be considered a personal attack and isn't tolerated. I hope you can agree to gracefully withdraw your accusations and move on. -- Atama頭 16:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

    Thank you Atama for your comments, which are quite constructive and helpful. I appreciate your acknowledging the validity of raising genuine questions/concerns on this board. It is most unfortunate that other editors were so quick to presume nefarious intentions on my part and to conflate an expression of concern put forth for public input with a bona fide accusation. As the phrase goes, "if it walks like a duck..." -- well, it was beginning to develop webbed feet and a bit of a waddle in my eyes, and continued to do so the more I investigated, but I will accept what the consensus off editors is, particularly where such a view is so clearly and constructively expressed as it was by you. The issue of paid editing is one that is near and dear to my heart, and I shall continue to remain vigilant in my questioning of those who appear to be paid editors who don't openly acknowledge as much.--Lorifredrics (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    I appreciate it, and in consideration of your concession I'm going to close this discussion as resolved, since it's not doing anyone any good, least of all Rangoon11 and yourself. -- Atama頭 21:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    Really, Lori, this has got to stop. Talk:Linklaters#Offices_Section, which you characterise as "what reads like corporate promotion rather than genuine notability " is a disgreement amongst editors as to whether all the office locations of a company should be listed. Rangoon11 wasn't the only editor arguing that it wasn't necessarily promotional to list them. Yet, you jump from that to the accusation that she is on the payroll of Linklater's? And a twitter post from a UCL researcher (Rangoon11 has a ravenous appetite for anything UCL related. check his edits going back two months and a half) you characterise as someone "having concerns about the objectivity of Rangoon11"? It's either grasping at straws or a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the content of the links you provide as "evidence". Either way, it's a misuse of this noticeboard and has reached the proportions of a personal attack on an editor who disagrees with you (one of the many, I might point out). Voceditenore (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    Rangoon11 used to study at UCL, she disclosed this voluntarily on her talk page last year. That's her only connection to that school. And it doesn't constitute a COI either. -- Atama頭 18:29, 15 July 2011 (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.

    Kayakmusic

    Created promotional article for their client - relationship noted on their website. Constantly removed COI tags from the article. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

    Seems to me there was a WP:UAA entry on this username a month or so ago... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    I doubt it, the user account was created 3 days ago. -- Atama頭 16:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    You were right. I was thinking of User:Kallistimusic. Lesson: don't rely on memory. Especially at my age. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    Two more things... I blocked the editor. Besides the username issue, the paid editing, conflict of interest, and spam, the editor chose to delete notices warning of her misbehavior (if she was more cooperative I would have just discussed things with her). On another note, Mike, there was no need to restore the warnings, per WP:BLANKING she was fully within her rights to do so (deleting a message on your user talk page is considered an acknowledgement of the message). Only a very limited number of user talk page messages can't be deleted by the user. -- Atama頭 16:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

    Robert William Taylor (baseball)

    The article was created by User: Theoriste2, who used to use the account User:Theoriste. The name on Theoriste's user page matches that of Robert Taylor's daughter.. Theoriste2's creation of this page and her participation in its AfD appear to violate the conflict of interest guidelines. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

    Quidco

    Hi,

    I am the creator of the article quidco. I created the article because there was dearth of information on the phenomena of reward websites on wikipedia other than information from large corporations. Sadly the article has turned from a fairly neutral article into one that's more like an advert. Much of this content seems to have been added by the editor Stuartcoggins. Sadly there's a massive conflict of interest with this user editing the article as he appears to be the marketing manager of quidco. I hope this post isn't seen as outing as the users identify is contained in his username. ] Supposed (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

    Per WP:OUTING, if an editor reveals their identity on Misplaced Pages then it's not outing if you use that information to find their affiliations. By placing his info on linkedin.com he volunteered it, so no worries. And this is a common occurrence. -- Atama頭 20:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, this does not count as identifying oneself. There's no proof it's the authors real name. If it's the authors name, there's nothing to tell us that it is the same stuart coggins. As a matter of fact there's a company called Coggins claim services that has an office in Stuart, Florida so we don't even know that it's really a name.

    FXUK

    User has edited recently the FX UK tv channel wikipedia page, from the username they have chosen there may be a conflict of interest. Surly the username violates username policy as wellRuth-2013 (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

    discounts

    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 75.15.150.190 (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC) why do you not give military discounts to the poeple that are giving their lifes for you?

    Gihan Sami Soliman

    This editor (and quite possibly the same as User:dove.eyes) has created an extensive autobiographical article that clearly contains a lot of material that is not NPOV. External links are repeatedly added within the article text to author's own websites. I have asked her repeatedly, in both edit summaries and via talk page messages, to abide by Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines on COI, autobiographies, reliable references, and external links. She continues to undo these changes and add the information and external links back to this and other articles that she is creating/editing that all represent a COI. The article is currently at AfD, but the author has so far chosen to continue these editing behaviors. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 15:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

    Seems to be using multiple accounts - 'dove.eye' is another one. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
    This seems to be getting out of hand. The article was looking good despite not establishing notability until it was rightfully nominated for an AfD. Since then, the subject of the article has been adding in several links to self-published information that wouldn't establish notability. I've asked them on their talk page to discontinue editing so we'll see what happens. They claim to be an English consultant but their English doesn't seem great (that may just be their written English) so I'm not sure how much is getting through to them. OlYeller 20:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
    The editor has agreed to no longer edit the article. OlYeller 22:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

    Approach to Bloomberg articles

    As is explained on my User Page, I work with the communications department at Bloomberg L.P. I'm familiar with the WP:COI as well as Misplaced Pages's content policies. I've read the prior discussions about Bloomberg on WP:COIN (here in November 2010 and here in July 2010) and I understand that these attempts fell short of appropriately editing articles with a Conflict of Interest. The reason I am here is not to edit Bloomberg-related articles directly, but to go to the Talk pages of these articles and propose edits for discussion. Several of these articles currently fail to meet basic standards, e.g. Dan Doctoroff, which is clearly cut and pasted and is a WP:COPYVIO. I've begun to put together working drafts in my own Sandboxes and I plan on proposing these changes gradually on each of the articles' Talk pages once I feel they are ready for others to consider. I welcome any thoughts about this approach. Thank you. Ordwayen (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

    This sounds perfectly fine to me, Ordwayen. I'd be glad to help out if you need. I'm especially interested in getting the copyvio removed as soon as possible. OlYeller 14:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions Add topic