Misplaced Pages

:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jreferee (talk | contribs) at 14:01, 7 October 2013 (→CV used as reference and external link: Notice). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:01, 7 October 2013 by Jreferee (talk | contribs) (→CV used as reference and external link: Notice)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
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:2020 United States Postal Service crisis Talk:Academy of Achievement Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Anaxam 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:Bell Bank Talk:Bobbie (company) Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Gráinne de Búrca Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Pamela Chesters Talk:Cloudinary Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cognita Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Covivio Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dell Technologies Template talk:Editnotices/Page/List of Nintendo franchises Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:Richard France (writer) Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Genuine Parts Company Talk:Dan Gilbert Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Group-IB Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Hilary Harkness Talk:Hearst Communications Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:Elizabeth Koch (publisher) Talk:Scott Kurashige Talk:Andrew Lack (executive) Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Kewsong Lee 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:Metro AG Talk:Modern Meadow Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:Ornge Talk:Parexel Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:Philly Shipyard Talk:Polkadot (blockchain platform) Talk:QuinStreet Talk:Prabhakar Raghavan Talk:Michael Savage (politician) Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:SolidWorks Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko Talk:Sysco Talk:Tamba-Sasayama Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Tencent Talk:Tencent Cloud Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:TKTS Talk:Trendyol Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:Loretta Ucelli Talk:Ughelli Power Plant Talk:University of California, San Diego School of Medicine Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Alex Wright (author) Talk:Xero (company) Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Susan C. Aldridge

    Can someone take a look at this article? A person contacted me after tags were placed on the article to say that, after repeated deletions by one or two editors who appear to have conflict of interest, news reports about certain events were repeatedly removed from the article. This person also reported that several tries were made to reintroduce newsworthy information into the article, but instead ran into instances of repeated deletions by at least one, if not both editors. If that is the case, the actions of editors in question may also be exhibiting issues related to WP:OWN in addition to WP:COI. At present, this article is clearly written as a resume or curriculum vitae for the subject of the article. →Lwalt 00:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

    It certainly looks a mess. Can you identify the editors you believe may have a conflict of interest there? If so, please replace "username" in the * {{userlinks|username}} template you see above (when in edit mode) with the name of the editor (you can copy the template to a new line as often as you need if there are several editors); you'll also need to notify each one of them of this discussion. Meanwhile, I've taken the liberty of adding the article name in the appropriate place. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
    I've now added the editors who may be in question regarding this issue and notified them by placing a COI notice on their talk pages. →Lwalt 08:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
    Thank you. I have now (I hope!) removed all of the copyvio material which has been serially added since 2010 by three of the above editors, Tasj007, Saldridge2 and Anol1098093. In the process I have also restored (and subsequently edited) the account and news reports of those "certain events". As usual, I am open to criticism of my actions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
    Adil.faisal has now confirmed a professional connection to Susan C. Aldridge, which is helpful. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I will be blunt. Even a cursory examination of this situation reveals serious COI. I have commented on the article talk page regarding the article, and the obvious attempt to whitewash the subject. There is a substantial media trail leading to Aldridge, with numerous reliable sources that show some major questions have been raised, including by Senator Tom Harkin in this Washington Post article, regarding Aldridge's professional career, which can be viewed as dubious. Google her name and a big list of controversy pops up. Dr. Aldridge and her defenders may not like it, but a Misplaced Pages article with a decent amount of neutrality is going to bring this up in detail, including the allegations of lowering of academic standards, removal of faculty objecting, and "hush money.". No amount of Wikilawyering about BLP's can get past this widely reported material. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and we let the chips fall where they may when reliable sources are available. The last-ditch suggestion that we delete the article is unacceptable. Jusdafax 09:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    Isn't that the stuff that is currently covered in the article, though in a somewhat less flamboyant style? Anyway, it seems we have a new POV-pusher, MARYLANDSMITH, who appears determined to add a load of resumé-style guff back into the article. Does anyone hear a quacking noise? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    Lots of quacking and the pitter-patter of webbed feet. Nevertheless, User:75.85.139.55 seems to be the odd one out, since he's actually restoring well-sourced content the others were keen to delete and should not be included in the list above. Kleuske (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
    Quite right, my error in the initial posting, now struck through. Thanks for pointing it out. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
    Except that it wasn't me that made that posting, memory lapse, user error! I hope User:Lwalt doesn't mind that I struck through that IP address? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
    I'm confident he will care less about who struck this entry than he would about accidentally blocking a good faith contributor. Just write it down as "collaboration". Kleuske (talk) 10:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

    Getnet abebe

    I noticed that a new user, Getnetabebe, created an article about himself. I warned him on his talk page and shortly after placed a speedy deletion tag onto it. He removed the tag so I put a warning about that up and shortly afterwards, the IP above removed the speedy deletion tag once more. I'm not sure if this is the right place, but since the article is about himself I thought it would be. Can someone delete the article? Thanks. Jns4eva (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

    It appears that Getnetabebe has been banned, though his IP continues to remove the speedy deletion tag. Jns4eva (talk) 06:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
    This user appears to be socking as well. This IP has edited his bio on another account (Getnet abe) and he continues to revert my speedy deletion tag on the page. Jns4eva (talk) 06:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

    User:EagerToddler39 and elance articles

    Recently I stumbled upon EagerToddler39, a prolific content contributor and also a paid editor who operates via Elance. The elance account is pretty stealthy, getting the paid submissions taken off the site (hidden from view) after they are completed and in at least one case (Lucibel) he had the contractor remove evidence of the specific article he worked on. When confronted with this information, he did not deny any of it but he did remove all evidence pointing back to him as harrassment.

    Now it is commonplace on Misplaced Pages to link accounts here with elance accounts and this should be no exception, as his elance account reveals little to no personal information about him and he is already linked from WikiProject Integrity. So I would like EagerToddler39 to understand that he can't scrub the evidence of him being a paid editor through a faux-claim of "harrassment".

    Since I am very busy "in real life" I lack the time to go through EagerToddler39s large contribution history thoroughly for other paid or promotional articles. So I would like a hand if anybody wants to check this out. ThemFromSpace 18:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

    I offer no objection to anyone reviewing my credibility or neutrality. What I object to are masked attempts to post information that links this Misplaced Pages account with an account at Elance, posting links to someone's personal information. I already responded to ThemFromSpace's accusations by encouraging him to review and edit/delete whatever he finds that is inappropriate in those articles. I too am busy in real life. I note that the links to Elance were removed by another editor, to which ThemFromSpace objected. I was simply following through with that decision to omit those links to someone's personal/professional information. Happy to stay away from further discussions since my integrity is sound. EagerToddler39 (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

    Advanced Technology Investment Company

    The Advanced Technology Investment Company page possesses significant factual inaccuracies and also does not reflect the majority of the organization's activities. As an employee with a COI, I would very much appreciate if another editor can review the page. I've made suggested amendments on the talk page, which are all reinforced by objective third-party sources. Harrisonrice (talk) 08:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Advanced_Technology_Investment_Company

    I have replied to your post on that talk page. Rivertorch (talk) 05:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

    Jehrentraut

    Jehrentraut is a dual-track WP:SPA who created and maintains Joseph G. Healey and Thomas J. Healey, with no substantive editing to other articles (both were created as outright copyvios, but that's for another board). It appears from User talk:Jehrentraut that the editor has access to the personal emails of Joseph G Healey. It may or may not be relevant that someone called Jennifer Ehrentraut is described on pipl as an Administrative Assistant at Healey Development LLC - a company with which Thomas J. Healey is associated. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

    Italian company advertising their services

    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Fgnievinski (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

    The most recent posts from that IP were in April 2012. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
    SInce the edits seem to be mostly adding weblinks, wouldn't this fit better at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

    I have a problem...

    While reading through some Japanese literature articles I discovered a user had made a fairly significant number of edits. The user now appears to be inactive, and most of their edits were constructive, but a few were problematic. They kept inserting references to a source I thought looked dodgy. Examining the background of the source, I found that there was such a close correlation between their background and the selfbio on the user's user page, that they are almost certainly the same person. I could remove most of the refs as self-published, but...

    One of them is not self-published, but is a "translation" by the person of a short poem. The user in question added it, and in the same edit made a dramatic mistake that indicates he/she doesn't actually speak Japanese. The "translation" is likely an adaptation of one of the previous translations (it's been done at least twice by recognized experts). This seems somewhat inappropriate to be quoting in an encyclopedia article. However, I can find no direct indication that the author (as opposed to the Misplaced Pages user) can't speak Japanese.

    How can I deal with this without outing the user?

    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

    Without being sure what the article is, it's hard to give specific advice, but I don't see why you can't fix the problems without outing the user. If a source is dodgy and the content it supposedly supports seems wrong, you can remove them both, and you don't need to specify why you're doing so in the edit summary; just indicate you're removing dubious content with a dubious source. If the user who added the material is now inactive, perhaps that will be the end of it. Rivertorch (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

    Ivica Dačić

    Hi, I've recently proposed some edits on the talk page of the article for the Serbian Prime Minister Ivica Dačić. I have registered my COI here before with regard to this and other Serbia-related articles, but would like to reiterate again that I work for Bell Pottinger and that the Government of Serbia is my client. Thanks. Vivj2012 (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

    CV used as reference and external link

    A user (contribs) has been changing links to papers he apparently wrote concerning world population figures for Islam. The old links had rotted, and rather than updating them to working urls he has been linking instead to his curriculum vitae. He has done this with both external links (example) and inline references (example). His CV page does link to PDF versions of the papers in question. I have multiple concerns, some of which are beyond the usual scope of this noticeboard:

    • The user has an apparent conflict of interest.
    • Personal résumés or CVs are always inappropriate links for articles, whether used as references or as external links.
    • It's not clear to me that the papers dealing with population statistics, which apparently were submitted as part of the user's participation in an academic conference, meet either WP:RS or WP:EL. (Note that it was an arts and humanities conference and that the papers' author is associated with his university's Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Computer Science.) I am disinclined either to update the urls properly or remove them without resolving these questions.

    I initiated a discussion, which I have now copied onto my user talk page. I would be grateful for the opinions of other editors on the points I've raised above. Rivertorch (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

    • 1. I do not call this "Personal Resume" http://bigcat.fhsu.edu/~kettani/vita.html This is my CV: http://bigcat.fhsu.edu/~kettani/KettaniVita.pdf I linked to the former so that the reader has access to a bank of related papers to the topic in hand and the link is robust to changes, unlike a specific pdf file.
      2. The papers are published in international conferences, journals and a book (by esteemed publishing company) and acknowledged by researchers. FYI: a statistician/engineer can publish in social science and humanities topic, when applying their skills to such areas. So now, by you pointing such insinuations, it begs the question if you have a conflict of interest in editing such page. May be you have an issue with the topic itself! (Islam/Muslims). Hkettani (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm more than willing to assume that you're adding the link in good faith. That you're unwilling to assume good faith in return is unfortunate, but so be it; my editing record is public and will, I believe, withstand any amount of scrutiny with regard to conflicts of interest on any topic. I'm afraid the bottom line is that the link is improper and the pdf documents you propose I link instead do not conform to either WP:EL or WP:RS (the relevant guidelines for external links and reliable sources, respectively). If you wish to challenge my opinion in this regard, I suggest you open a new thread at WP:ELN or WP:RS, two noticeboards that fortunately are busier than this one. Before you do that, you may wish to consult WP:THREAD to learn how to indent your talk page replies. Rivertorch (talk) 04:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
        • 1. I checked the links you mentioned and I still do not see why you keep revoking "conflict of interest"? or "reliable sources"? The work was published in peer-reviewed international conference and was first included by another user who I do not know.
          2. I see you got offended by my response to your point (3) which was nonsense (and I explained why). This led you to the deletion of the article and replacing it by "reference needed". Letting your emotions affect your decision is not objective editing and is a dis-service to WP community.
          3.By the way, I did not add the reference (which I authored) to that article, and it was added several years ago. I only updated the link since I was aware of the existence of a new link (sincere help to WP readers).
          4. No one agrees with your decision, and thus I demand that you undo the deletion. Out of respect, I will not redo, but will ask you to undo.
          5. While you should be commended for your oversight on some WP articles, I believe you got this one wrong. Hkettani (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
    • As an author on the URL linked sources (example 1) (example 2) cited by Rivertorch above, User:Hkettani has a close personal or business connection with those references. The URL's posted by Hkettani are hidden behind text that does not truthfully inform the reader where the link leads. The links lead to an individual/personal web page having Curriculum Vitae at the top with little to no relation to the topic of the external link. bigcat.fhsu.edu/~kettani/vita.html is a general site that has information about a variety of subjects not related to the Misplaced Pages articles and should not be linked from the articles. See WP:LINKSTOAVOID. The reason give by Hkettani for the URL change is "the reader has access to a bank of related papers to the topic." There is no evidence that this is an aim of Misplaced Pages:External links. Hkettani edits advanced outside interests more than they advances the aims of Misplaced Pages. Hkettani has a Conflict of Interest with regard to URLs used in Misplaced Pages references in which Hkettani is an author and is required to comply with Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest with regard to URL used in Misplaced Pages references to which Hkettani is an author. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

    Peter Pakeman

    This article about a guy who played soccer 30 years ago reads like a resume... take a look at the version before I just edited it, which was even worse.

    I can't say any more because of the red instruction at the top of this page! Which is confusing... Demon Cat >:3 (meow!) 15:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

    I think I may have broken that rule with my edit summary too :( sorry... can an admin fix it? Demon Cat >:3 (meow!) 15:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
    The edit summary can't be fixed, but I've seen worse. Read over Edit summary dos and don'ts and that should take care of that. As for the article, it visually is hard on the eyes due to so many words using upper case first letters, which seems to try to show subject importance through formal event name dropping rather than his life events. Nice photos, but they do not appear to be free license photos. If the topic does not meet WP:NSOCCER, then a trip to AfD should fix the matter. -- Jreferee (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
    There's no diffs posted showing a direct connection between Peter Pakeman and User:205.207.78.4, User:Xave2000, User:InPerpetuity, or User:184.147.37.128. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks for your help Jreferee. I was unsure about mentioning those users but I guess it's okay since you've done it. I can't prove any direct connection with the named users but the version of the article before my edit said that Pakeman works for the Canadian Health Information Management Association. 205.207.78.4 belongs to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, so it seems to me that this is a case of autobiography. I see you have also done AfD and PUFC listings, thank you for that. Demon Cat >:3 (meow!) 10:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

    Diane Harper COI editing

    It appears as though Diane Harper has discovered her Misplaced Pages page and has created an account whose only contribs are to that page: This isn't really a big deal. The reason I am posting here is that she may have created a sock account to make similar edits (i.e. edits which aim to make Harper look good). That account is User:Cassandraofdelphi, which has also only ever edited the Diane Harper page. User:Softlavender already posted on Cassandra's talk page warning him/her, and I would like to ask for an admin to see if one account is a sockpuppet of the other. Jinkinson (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

    This noticeboard is something of a ghost town at present. If you seriously suspect disruptive sockpuppetry, you can request that a CheckUser investigate by filing a report at WP:SPI. Rivertorch (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
    Much of the written account of Diane Harper's life in the Misplaced Pages Diane Harper article is not independent of Diane Harper. The references in the article in which she is an author are not independent of Diane Harper and the information sourced to those references should be removed from the article. If what is left is not enough for a stand alone biography, then AfD should be considered. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard Add topic