| Revision as of 10:19, 28 December 2008 editජපස (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,478 edits →User:Nicholasethier and Excel Corruption: COIN← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:19, 28 December 2008 edit undoජපස (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,478 edits →User:Jim ButerNext edit → | ||
| Line 179: | Line 179: | ||
| User admits to having a direct conflict of interest by stating he works for ] . User does not readily understand the basic Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies in regards to the article he has created. <font color="#063">]</font> (<font color="#063">]</font>) 01:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC) | User admits to having a direct conflict of interest by stating he works for ] . User does not readily understand the basic Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies in regards to the article he has created. <font color="#063">]</font> (<font color="#063">]</font>) 01:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == ] == | == ] == | ||
| *{{userlinks|Jim Butler}} | *{{userlinks|Jim Butler}} | ||
Revision as of 10:19, 28 December 2008
| 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.
| ||||||||||||
|
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. | ||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||
Additional notes:
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:
| ||||||||||||
wikipedia.org for review by a Possible autobiographies found by bot
- User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.
Requested edits
- Category:Requested edits. Editors who believe they have a Conflict of Interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should undo the {{Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requestor to explain your decision.
Severe conflict of interest
Geoffrey Edelsten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gepa (talk · contribs) freely admits he is the PR representative of the article subject. Please note that this article has been subject to a variety of sockpuppets in the past (all now blocked) including socks connected to the company Zeumic which hosts Edelsten's personal website. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Additional information, Mr Edelsten on his own website is totally against Misplaced Pages http://www.geoffreyedelsten.com/Wikipedia-Discredited-Wikipeedonya/ in fact his website also claims that he will launch a campaign against Misplaced Pages to the Australian Government. http://www.geoffreyedelsten.com/Appeal-to-the-Australian-Government/ It is clear to me that a paid representative of Edelsten (User:Gepa) only has one agenda and it's not in the spirit of Misplaced Pages Michellecrisp (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
user:24.0.178.190
Linkspam. . ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is not COI. Take it to WP:WPSPAM. --68.161.185.186 (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Peer review
If I have peer-reviewed a publication, do I have a conflict of interest with it? Thanks, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- A self-published source that has been peer-reviewed is usually allowed (see WP:SPS). As long as its use in the article is not self-promotional it should be no problem. Some don't like to see "excessive citations" from SPS'es, even when notable, though that's obviously fairly subjective and hard to quantify. Peer-reviewed and being used by yourself as (I assume) an expert in the subject is not COI in my opinion. Arakunem 17:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I'm asking for the situation where I am the reviewer of someone else's publication. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Supervision
If I have supervised a project, do I have a conflict of interest with it? Thanks, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not necessarily, you just have to be very careful when editing an article and keep to WP:NPOV. Michellecrisp (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- What project? Guido knows COI guidelines perfectly well. There's a deal of Wikidrama going on relating to this user, and I think this is very likely to be a disingenuous enquiry. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Korn/Ferry
- Korn/Ferry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I rolled back a couple of edits on this article by Kornferry (talk · contribs) that were blatantly promotional; after I wandered off to do other things, an IP, 65.125.188.130, jumped in and did a bunch more blatantly promotional edits. Surprise, surprise: the IP resolves to Korn/Ferry. I'm going to roll the edits back again, then have to do other stuff again. Someone want to look over this article and keep an eye on it, please? I've left a COI notice on the registered user's talk page, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
User:WikiHealthAuthority
WikiHealthAuthority (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Edits only to an article about a health authority. Probable conflict of interest. Also reported at WP:UAA but recommended I bring it here. Unusual? Quite 21:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
user:DrSturm
DrSturm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
DrSturm contends that this subsection should be included in the Yggdra Union: We'll Never Fight Alone article. The only sources for the subsection are forum posts on a website (fansite?) of which DrSturm is a member, example here. User has stated I'll be banned from editing Misplaced Pages before I give this up on the article's talk page, made personal remarks and insults and edit warred.Mr T (Based) (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is not really COI. You're not talking about an NPOV problem with the content. "This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing the application of the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline to incidents and situations where editors may have close personal or business connections with article topics." Try WP:WQA for personal remarks or WP:AN3 for edit warring. If he's clear about refusing to cooperate towards consensus, you can take it to WP:AN/I. --68.161.185.186 (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hm? You didn't notify the user. --68.161.185.186 (talk) 06:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
User:Wikibratupdates
- Wikibratupdates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Seems to be a SPA interested in adding details on "Brat Culture". Created article Donna Musil, added large content to Military brat (U.S. subculture) refering to Donna Musil and her work, created Brats Without Borders, Inc. and on its talk page admitted that they were in fact Donna Musil diff, director of this company. Unusual? Quite 21:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Leonard Sax
- Leonard Sax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Fritzvonturin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is persistently removing material critical of Leonard Sax (sometimes without being logged into an account), rephrasing the critical claims to make them sound less negative or less persuasive, or immediately inserting rebuttals from Leonard Sax phrased in such a way as to sound like Leonard Sax disproved the negative claims against him. He is also flooding the article with positive reviews of Leonard Sax, sometimes by cutting out the critical material in a review and leaving only the positive components of it behind. (Consider, for example, this diff between my edits and his. Look at the explanation of the JAMA review near line 13: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Leonard_Sax&diff=259452499&oldid=259407824 . Also consider how he eviscerated the criticism section). Fritzvonturin's comments on the talk page make me believe that he is not making a good-faith attempt at creating an unbiased article. Please consider my proposal of what the article should look like on the talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Leonard_Sax&action=edit§ion=4 . DarwinPeacock (talk) 07:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
User:USTL Lille
- USTL Lille (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Account seems to be operated on behalf of Université Lille Nord de France. All contributions to date have been to the article about the university or to people who attended the university. No obvious spam that I can see, but future risk of the same given that it appears to be a SPA Unusual? Quite 23:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- {{uw-username}} posted on usertalk solicited a reply to the effect that the editor was not affiliated with the university and would use a new account from now on (diff). Unusual? Quite 23:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Note to self - finish edit before saving. Therefore, will close this report - no action required. Unusual? Quite 23:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
R&R Partners
- R&R Partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- KDR81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User KDR81 continually edits the R&R Partners article to post material critical of the organization. We have reason to believe KDR81 is an employee of the organization who has been critical of R&R and our client the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority. The edits and information is very one sided. We believe KRD81 also operates as a sockpuppet or as a meatpuppet under the alias LVAustrian. I have attempted to correct only to be locked in an edit war. There are items posted to our page that are factually incorrect in regards to the controversy. What is our recourse in regards to this Misplaced Pages conflict of interest?Adexpertinlv (talk)
- Sounds like there's two conflicts of interest here. Remember, you should use extreme caution when editing an article about a company you're affiliated with as well. I tagged the article as having a conflict of interest and you two should try working out your differences on the article's talk page. Themfromspace (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I understand and respect the sensitivity of having a company edit an article. Thanks again.Adexpertinlv (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Possible conflict of interest
- Susanna Foster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)- User Micah Vita (contribs) appears to be the son of the article's subject as he added links to a YouTube account of the same name in which he identifies himself as her son. He has added a great deal of unsourced personal info to the article. I left him a warning on his talk page, but he did not respond or stop editing the page.Copana2002 (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Definitly a conflict of interest. I reverted the article back to the 4 December before the COI became a runaway problem. The edits done were NPOV and uncited which aren't allowed per the WP:BLP, so nothing valuable has been lost. Themfromspace (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Hubert Harrison
- Hubert Harrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been heavily edited by Perjef (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is evidently Harrison's biographer Jeffrey B. Perry. The user has inserted a great deal of self-promotion for his work. Offenbach (talk) 03:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
The Hubert Harrison page is factual and accurate with numerous source citations and links. It has been used and favorably commented on by others. My interest in Hubert Harrison is, and has always been, because he is important—he was important in the early twentieth century and he is important today. Harrison’s importance is growing and as others begin to write on him, significant new contributions should continue to be cited. If there is anything that is inaccurate in the Harrison page, it should be corrected. The fact is that at this point in time I am especially familiar with Harrison’s life and work, have written more on him than anyone else, and desire to share information about him (including links to items I have written) with others. Though one writer “feel(s)” this is wrong and another seeks to “out” me and label the piece self-promotion—they miss the point. The Hubert Harrison wikipedia page is about Hubert Harrison and introducing more people to his life and work.Perjef (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Offenbach has apparently misleadingly altered the Offenbach comment of 03.28 25 December 2008. That original offering ”outed” me, complained that I contributed too much to the Hubert Harrison page (I note Offenbach has never made a contribution to the factual content of the page), and was part of an effort to censor the Harrison page on generalities because Offenbach “agreed” that he or she did not like how the page “feels.” I think if Offenbach has a new comment to add it should be entered (and timed and dated) as a new comment. I think it is important that in Misplaced Pages comments, as in Misplaced Pages pages, we pay attention to factual accuracy. I repeat my previous comment— “The Hubert Harrison page is factual and accurate with numerous source citations and links. It has been used and favorably commented on by others. My interest in Hubert Harrison is, and has always been, because he is important—he was important in the early twentieth century and he is important today. Harrison’s importance is growing and as others begin to write on him, significant new contributions should continue to be cited. If there is anything that is inaccurate in the Harrison page, it should be corrected. The fact is that at this point in time I am especially familiar with Harrison’s life and work, have written more on him than anyone else, and desire to share information about him (including links to items I have written) with others. Though one writer “feel(s)” this is wrong and another seeks to “out” me and label the piece self-promotion—they miss the point. The Hubert Harrison wikipedia page is about Hubert Harrison and introducing more people to his life and work.” I don’t think the Hubert Harrison article should be censored based on Offenbach’s “outing,” feelings, or misleadingly altered comment above. Perjef (talk) 13:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Hubert_Harrison" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perjef (talk • contribs) 02:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
My response to Perjef is on Talk:Hubert_Harrison. No need to repeat everything here. Offenbach (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Offenbach claims to have “altered” the initial Offenbach outing comment “after familiarizing myself with WP:OUTING so as to avoid any inappropriate dissemination of personal information.” I think this indicates one of the major problems with what has gone on. Offenbach should not have been so quick to “out,” so quick to “censor,” and so quick to “alter.” I think if more thinking would have been done in the first place many problems could have been avoided.
I think Offenbach improperly outed and improperly censored and I think that which was altered should have been reverted, or returned to a former state (no censoring and no outing), with a properly dated and timed comment indicating what was done.
If Offenbach would have proceeded with more caution Offenbach might have read in WP:COI that “When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to out other editors. Misplaced Pages's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline.”
What should have been done? I think that Offenbach should have started with an assumption of good faith on my part. I think that Offenbach’s behavior does not suggest an assumption of good faith. I think that Offenbach should have realized that “There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists”; that “Editing in an area in which . . . one has . . . expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest” and, most importantly, “The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor.” I think if Offenbach would have proceeded in this way it would have been in the best interest of Misplaced Pages.
Offenbach acknowledges that “the factuality of the information provided in the article is not in question here.” Let me repeat that, “the factuality of the information provided in the article is not in question here.” Nevertheless, Offenbach jumped to a censoring tactic without any discussion with the author. I don’t think this was the correct way to proceed.
Offenbach offers as an explanation for the quick jump to censoring that the “self-citation in the article . . . seems excessive.” “Seems excessive”--that is a pretty illusory standard for imposing censorship. Is Offenbach familiar with the literature in the field? If so, why not enter some citations that Offenbach thinks are necessary ? (In fact, Offenbach was quick to censor an article to which Offenbach never contributed). I am familiar with the literature in the field and I think the works cited stand. Again, Offenbach should have realized that “There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists” and should not have moved to censoring without discussion.
Regarding the talks about Harrison -- they are one of the principal means that people currently have to learn more about Harrison--many talks are in free public libraries (often in very poor communities). It is my assumption that many people go to Misplaced Pages when they want to find out about somebody or something and that they also use it to find out where they can get more information on the subject. Citing talks at free public libraries etc. is not (to use Offenbach’s original words) “a pretty clear” conflict of interest. I would like to see more such citations about other listings of talks by others on Harrison. I think that Offenbach is way off base on this.
The Hubert Harrison page is factual and accurate and makes a contribution It cites sources where people can get more information on Harrison. If Offenbach has more to add, good. But don’t censor the article for listing what is out there.
I think that Offenbach should remove the censor template. I think that the outing and the censoring are not in the best interest of Misplaced Pages.
Then, pursuant to Misplaced Pages guidelines, “The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to dispute resolution may help. Another option is to initiate discussion at WP:COIN, where experienced editors may be able to help you resolve the matter without recourse to publishing assertions and accusations on Misplaced Pages.” I also think that Offenbach should realize that “Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban.”
My suggestion--Offenbach should remove the censor template that Offenbach imposed on the page and if Offenbach wants to discuss the page we can--and we can use existing Misplaced Pages channels if necessary.
Again, I think that the censor template should be removed --in the best interests of Misplaced Pages. Perjef (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've had a look at the article, and I agree with Offenbach that there's a problem of excessive self-linking (as well as peacock wording and, despite the copious footnotes, very little specific sourcing).
- The linkspamming - decidedly non-minor self-links added under the guise of minor edits - is also of interest. See ,,,,
- The short answer - and it help if Perjef could keep discussion considerably terser per Talk guidelines - is that where there appears to be a conflict of interest, Perjef should follow WP:COI guidelines and let uninvolved editors make the call about inclusion. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Rich Gunning
- Rich Gunning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - IP editor claims to be the business partner of the article's subject. Whoville (talk) 04:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
User:69.123.97.189 and Long Island Rail Road
- 69.123.97.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User claims to represent "LIRR management" in edit summaries, and has been repeatedly removing a paragraph about a recent scandal involving the LIRR. Also made a passing accusation of libel. Rhobite (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Note — IP temporarily blocked for the legal threat. MuZemike (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Arts Foundation of New Zealand
- Arts Foundation of New Zealand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Arts Foundation of New Zealand Laureate Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- artsfoundation.org.nz: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
- Artsfounation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Artsfoundation
--Hu12 (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
User:Sunsetavw
- Sunsetavw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user is only contributing to articles related to Aviation Week and the Ares Blog (run by Aviation Week). They have continually removed maintenance templates and, for example, merge suggestions without discussion. The user name "...AVW" suggests a link to AViation Week and a possibility of a conflict of interest. Unusual? Quite 12:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
User:Nicholasethier and Excel Corruption
- Nicholasethier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Excel Corruption (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User admits to having a direct conflict of interest by stating he works for Microsoft here. User does not readily understand the basic Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies in regards to the article he has created. MuZemike (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
User:Jim Butler
- Jim Butler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User is a practicing acupuncturist whose website promotes many pseudoscientific concepts. He is currently too active in editing these articles and dominating talk page discussions in an attempt to minimize the mainstream understanding of acupuncture including the fact that there are criticisms of acupuncture for its pseudoscientific aspects and its lack of evidence basis. Indeed, uniquely among many editors on pseudoscience pages, we can be sure that Jim Butler stands to benefit monetarily (at his acupuncture practice) for preventing Misplaced Pages from reporting on the criticisms of acupuncture and related health items (he is also a fan of the pseudoscientific canard of facilitated communication, though he probably does not get direct compensation for its advocacy).
Currently, one of the pages he is editing List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts has been tagged by me to point out his specific conflict of interest (though there are others on that page as well).
This user should probably not be editing Misplaced Pages in these areas in the way he is doing.
ScienceApologist (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Categories: