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 10:59, 2 April 2012 editWLU (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers52,243 edits →James Cantor: comments← Previous edit Revision as of 16:00, 2 April 2012 edit undoWhatamIdoing (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers121,698 edits →James Cantor: cNext edit →
Line 358: Line 358:
::::::::The idea of paring back all citations to 10% of what is currently there is also inappropriate. Each citation's use and presence stands on its own merits - not on who added it. So what ''current and specific'' citations are problematic? ::::::::The idea of paring back all citations to 10% of what is currently there is also inappropriate. Each citation's use and presence stands on its own merits - not on who added it. So what ''current and specific'' citations are problematic?
::::::::I simply can't see why this is being discussed on COIN when James Cantor obviously understands that citing himself is inappropriate (he may consider his self-imposed restrictions excessive, but that doesn't matter - what matters is that he edits in compliance with the COI guidelines). Since there is no current conflict of interest issue to be resolved, why is this discussion here? Why not take it to individual talk pages? ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 10:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC) ::::::::I simply can't see why this is being discussed on COIN when James Cantor obviously understands that citing himself is inappropriate (he may consider his self-imposed restrictions excessive, but that doesn't matter - what matters is that he edits in compliance with the COI guidelines). Since there is no current conflict of interest issue to be resolved, why is this discussion here? Why not take it to individual talk pages? ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 10:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::The bigger problem with BitterGrey's anyone-connected-to-Cantor worry is that it's an incredibly small field. In the end, basically every mainstream pedophilia researcher is "connected to Cantor" directly or indirectly. That's because there just aren't that many of them. You could seat them all in a single room.
:::::::::Here's a simple illustration: If you go to Pubmed and search for "pedophilia", you'll get a list of 300 papers published in the last ten years. More than ''one-eighth'' of those papers are either written by Cantor or written by someone he's co-authored a paper with. Far more of them cite a paper he's written or that one of his close colleagues has written. Cantor has one paper that (according to Google Scholar) has been cited more than 100 times. Several others have been cited fifty to seventy times. These are not minor papers by some fringe-y outfit that are being ignored by the academic researchers in the field. If Misplaced Pages isn't citing papers by Cantor or someone connected to Cantor at a fairly significant rate, then we're not doing our jobs right.
:::::::::Naturally, an activist like BitterGrey will have his own opinions about whether Cantor is ''right'', but I doubt that even BitterGrey would try to claim that the work by Cantor and his colleagues doesn't represent the mainstream "establishment" view of pedophilia. ] (]) 16:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


== Many paid for articles with problems == == Many paid for articles with problems ==

Revision as of 16:00, 2 April 2012

See also: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Paid Advocacy Watch 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 and 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.
    You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
    Additional notes:
    • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
    2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
    3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
    • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the 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:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:AvePoint Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Edi Birsan Talk:Adam Boehler Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Bunq Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Casualty Actuarial Society Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Commvault Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:DEGIRO Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Michael Dell Talk:Etraveli Group Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire Talk:Group-IB Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Insight Meditation Society Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:Khalili Foundation Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician) Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:Louise Showe Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Uppsala Monitoring Centre Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Sexual Selection

    A few years ago, I published a couple of alternatives to the current theories in sexual selection, in peer-reviewed journals. I added a brief paragraph to the WP article on sexual selection describing those articles, but other editors have said it violates guidelines on conflict of interest because it's self-promotion. As I read the rule, peer-reviewed publications do not violate this guideline, as long as I cite myself in modest and appropriate ways. Please clarify for us. Thanks.--BooksXYZ (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

    Using Misplaced Pages to promote a theory that has had next-to-no recognition in the field in which it applies may however sometimes be seen as self-promotion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
    Andy, thanks again. See my other comment to you.--BooksXYZ (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
    An alternative is to provide the information to the talk page, and ask other editors to add it to the article. Then it's much harder for people to say that you're promoting yourself (although even that hands-off approach doesn't stop people who have a vested interest in the article saying something else). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks, that's what I'm worried I may be facing. Misplaced Pages editors do not need to be getting into disputes among scholars. That's what I'm trying to keep these editors from doing. My take on it is that Misplaced Pages is the most comprehensive review of human knowledge ever assembled. When there is any doubt about differing theories, a good review should err on the side of inclusion. Paper & ink are no longer limitations. --BooksXYZ (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
    'Paper & ink' may not be limitations, but article length is. More to the point though, Misplaced Pages readers expect our articles to cover the topic with a broad brush, as it is currently seen and described in mainstream sources - for this reason, we base general article structure on secondary sources, rather than discussing every single primary source available. If there was any evidence of a significant 'dispute among scholars' concerning your theory, it might well be worth mentioning in the relevant article - but there appears not to be. For your theory to get recognition in Misplaced Pages, it will need to have been recognised elsewhere - which is to say commented on, cited, and discussed in secondary sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

    McKinsey & Company

    This ip address which seems to derive from the subject company has three times blanked an entire section today. Since the blanking is unexplained and since there appears to be a conflict of interest, I thought it prudent to list this here. FULL DISCLOSURE: I recently tagged some of the content with citation needed templates; I've explained my rationale on page talk. It appears that two company editors have been editing in this area, and I've been mentoring a freelancer who has been playing it straight (WikiProject:Cooperation); this editor also has self-identified as having a paid interest in this subject. BusterD (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

    Please note these edits are not sanctioned by McKinsey and we take this behavior very seriously. McKinsey is committed to adhering to Misplaced Pages's core principles and agree that this behavior is inappropriate. It runs counter to internal McKinsey guidelines and we are taking immediate action internally to make sure unauthorized edits cease immediately. Dbrown762 (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
    I am the said freelancer and Dbrown762 is Devin Brown from McKinsey. I took the liberty of looking into all the contribs from this IP address. As a result I made this small change, I noted but did nothing about an old 2007 edit, but would suggest Wikipedians review and consider reinstating the content removed here. It appears to be a good faith effort in 2011 to remove uncited criticism with a tag, however there is an available citation here. I am not personally aware of whether the companies mentioned were McKinsey clients or not, but McKinsey and I agreed to proactively review the IP address' edits solely to bring to light any edits that could give the appearance of impropriety. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 16:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

    Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs

    User:Toimad's Talk page indicates he's Imad Farrah, a PASSIA employee. Yesterday he vastly expanded the PASSIA article without any secondary sources.—Biosketch (talk) 08:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

    …and with a lot of copy-paste from the organisation webpage - I've removed a load on the way past but not had a chance to properly look… Fayedizard (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

    FortressCraft (2nd report)

    This issue was already posted about here on the noticeboard, but nothing was ever done. Here's the original posting. Basically, as DarthBotto had stated in his report:

    • 87.194.139.68 has revealed himself to be the lead designer of FortressCraft (see this diff).
    • KingFredrick VI runs the FortressCraft Wiki and has been removing the Video game clones category from the articles.
    • HereticKiller6's only edits have been reversions about information that might portray FortressCraft in a less than favorable manner. Basically he's pushing his own personal POV about the game.


    Here's some diff's of various issues I've touched on above:

    I could also go through a ton of diffs relating to edit warring on the FortressCraft article, by HereticKiller6, but I think you guys should really just check out the page history.


    As for myself, I don't have any conflict of interest with any of the three articles whatsoever. Yes, I've played all three games on my XBOX. But that's not really pertinent information. I'm not a member of any Wikis for any of the three games. The only reason I'm bringing this discussion back up is because this edit warring has continued and something needs to be done about this, and because the original posting that DarthBotto had started went unnoticed and is now archived. As DarthBotto stated in his report, "I think that after ten months of this, we need some administrative attention to this page". However, it's now been over 10 months of this, and despite editing slowing down on the three articles, I still think that something needs to be done.

    Now, I'm not 100% sure on how to notify the people who have been named that there's a discussion here that they are a part of, so if someone can notify them for me, that would be greatly appreciated. 209.159.183.132 (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

    I should also note that I believe one of the editors of the CastleMiner article could potentially be the creator of the game, or someone involved in creating it, due to the statement in the "Reception" section of the article. "CastleMiner Z was the #1 downloaded Indie of 2011. It is widely considered the best XBLIG, and it has received a lot of awards because of this." Seems very biased to me. Personally, I think that either all three articles should be locked so only admins can edit it, or users such as KingFrederick, HereticKiller6, and the IP of the creator of Fortress Craft (87.194.139.68) should be blocked from editing due to their obvious COI issues. 209.159.183.132 (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
    Not sure if "bumping" things is "kosher" here on Misplaced Pages, but I'm gonna bump this to prevent the bot from archiving it. This still needs attention. 173.238.166.40 (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

    Stephen Dalton (photographer)

    User has same surname as the subject of the article they've created. The article uses lots of promotional words and all but a small section is unsourced. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

    Slight clarification - Lee is Stephen's son. Fayedizard (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

    California State University, San Bernardino

    User:Csusbnews has identified itself as the public affairs department of the university here. Unsourced information has been added to the university article by the university. 72Dino (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

    Needs studious depuffing - all I did was remove one of the many brochure images - I do not think Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a college recruiting brochure? Collect (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

    Christopher P. Lynch

    According to his userpage, Mhong2011 self-identifies as an executive at one of the companies run by Christopher P. Lynch, and his edit contributions have been pretty much as a single purpose account for the promotion of Lynch. This editor is starting to show some serious ownership issues - after noticing a recent addition of a pile of additional promotional content to the article, I removed that and rewrote the article in a much more neutral tone, with proper sourcing and citations; however, Mhong2011 keeps reverting to his preferred promotional version, which is not only poorly formatted, but also has many sourcing issues. I feel this needs more eyes on the situation. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

    While Mhong2011 is currently blocked for edit-warring, I fear he is trying to evade the block - a new account (Lovemellon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has shown up to continue the promotional edits, as well as trying to scrub the COI template from the page. I've opened a sockpuppet investigation, but I could really use another set of eyes on the article. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

    InvestUS

    Claims on their user page that they work for the company InvestUS and has created a highly promotional article about the company. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 10:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

    Alexander_Misharin

    A small follow-up to the edit war I had to go through last autumn.

    The context: User:Ssr erased the "Controversies" section at the A. Misharin article. That led to some disputes, obviously: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_52#Alexander_Misharin http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive138#Alexander_Misharin The problem was, Gov Misharin is the employer of Mr S.S.Rublev (and Ssr admitted that he is S.S.Rublev and that he is employed by A.Misharin). Mr Rublev's position is kind-of internet "press-secretary". Kind of COI, right? Previously, Ssr and his colleague E.Zorin were involved into similar edit wars on the Russian Misplaced Pages.

    The new part: recently there was an e-mail leak scandal. Basically, it came out that A.Misharin maintained a net of paid commenters posting under fake identities. Raw e-mails are published at slivmail.com. An article at politsovet.ru cites a leaked document saying: "В блогах успешно работают Сергей Рублёв и Евгений Зорин" (Segrey Rublev and Evgeny Zorin work on (other people's) blogs successfully.) So, basically, those two doctor their employer's public image openly, while their junior colleagues use fake/anonymous accounts. Gritzko (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

    (disclaimer: I don't read Russian) Challenging issues. My approach would be: (a) detail what the tensions are in the Sverdlovsk Oblast which affect his job as governor, talking about the tensions then gives a framework for talking about his responses to those tensions and the responses to and impact of those tensions; hopefully this avoids the he-said-she-said structure so common (and inappropriate) in biographies (b) use, where ever possible, english-language sources that editors here can read and treat the removal of reliable english-language sources as vandalism. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    Note - This issue has been brought here before. OlYeller21 19:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

    Inside Edition

    User name indicates user might work for the subject of the article. Edits made have been promotional in nature. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

    Depuffed a bit more Collect (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

    JMCAD

    Infobox in the article gives the author's name as Yuriy Mikhaylovskiy. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

    First Utility

    Edits seem to be mainly promotional. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

    Comment editor has only made one edit so to say 'edits seem to be mainly promotional' is a large leap and lacking in good faith. The one edit is not wholly complimentary about the company and is reliably sourced. NtheP (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

    Chris Kelly (British politician)

    There have been several attempts to remove material relating to a scandal about Chris Kelly and his use of his Parliamentary email account to find a job for his sister. These edits are all from IP addresses registered to the Houses of Parliament. I have proposed the material is retained in the article on the article talk page but I would prefer several eyes on this case as Jayen466, who has been published as recently having meetings with the deputy chairman of the Conservative Party has decided to also get involved and remove the same material. Thanks Fæ (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

    The "scandal" is, as far as I can see, one article in the Daily Mail, and a complaint from a Labour MP that Kelly used a parliamentary e-mail address for a private matter. I can't see that any reputable biographical dictionary would devote 20% of a parliamentarian's biography to something like this, and neither should we. --JN466 19:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    The DM is a reliable source in this instance. It was originally sourced to my beloved Private Eye. The 20% figure may reflect the fact that he has had a not particularly interesting parliamentary career. I am disturbed by the HOP editing, wherever it occurs. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    Would you have a link for the original Private Eye story? I think you may be confusing this with another story that was in the article once, and removed by Scott Mac. And while it's a bit daft to have the same conversation in two places – this seems to be something that only the Daily Mail took an interest in. There is fairly wide consensus that The Daily Mail should not be used for controversial information in BLPs; recent discussions at RSN have tended to conclude that its reliability is borderline, that it's better to cite other papers, and that if there aren't any others reporting on a particular Daily Mail story, the material probably has little business being in an encyclopedia article in the first place. The Daily Mail is at the bottom of our reliability and relevance scale. In my view, inclusion puts too much weight on a very minor episode which the Daily Mail very much tried to make something of, but which no one has claimed broke any laws or parliamentary rules, and no one else seems to have taken much interest (unless you insist on counting the Stourbridge News, a local free newspaper). Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid. Cheers, JN466 21:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    This was my original addition to the article. It was PE issue 1280. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    So the e-mail thing was in Private Eye as well, was it? Looking at your diff, with respect, that was a pretty weaselly addition. "Following his election it was revealed that Kelly had emailed all Conservative MP's asking if they would give his sister, Nicola, a secretarial job. Kelly was accused of abusing his position." What is that doing in an encyclopedia? I could understand if it had been something discussed in multiple broadsheets, or had had any significance whatsoever, but as it is, it is just petty, and an example of what I called WP:ADAM here. Also see . JN466 08:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

    Jayen466, in consideration of your meetings with senior Conservative Party members, could you confirm you have no possible conflict of interest when it comes to removing negative material from Conservative party biographical articles for active politicians, or if others might later judge that you do have a conflict that ought to be declared and managed? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

    Herewith confirmed. No conflict of interest whatsoever. This is not about party politics, Fæ, but about BLP quality. I make no difference based on whether it is a LibDem, Conservative or Labour MP. JN466 08:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

    Outside view: No COI exists here. Collect (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

    Subir Chowdhury

    Extensive edits by two anon IP addresses belonging to

    • ASI Consulting Group (the article's subject's business), and
    • Someone in the Detroit, Michigan area (the article states the subject lives in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit).

    Edits include:

    • Removing improvement templates without explanation: , ,
    • Repeated removal of content in an apparent attempt to conceal the article's subject's relationship with the author of one of the sources: , ,
    • Promoting his books for sale: , , ,
    -- DanielPenfield (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

    Shaahin Cheyene

    Has made edits to the article removing sourced information critical of the subject. Has also created an article (Excelerol) for a product created by the company owned by Shaahin Cheyene. This new article reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia entry. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

    Yes - and the Excelerol article is making unsourced claims, contrary to WP:MEDRS. I suspect that much of the content for the ludicrously-long list of ingredients is simply unattributed copy-and-paste from Misplaced Pages articles too. Speedy deletion has been contested by User:Herbaldoctorz (note the name), who has only made significant edits in regard to the Shaahin Cheyene article - again suggesting a possible COI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    See also: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Fareast eagle. Staceymont and Herbaldoctorz are only two of several WP:SPAs, probably sockpuppets, promoting the man and his products, and airbrushing out inconvenient mentions of his past business ventures. Scopecreep (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    Previous product puff for this company was deleted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Vapir Vaporizer. Scopecreep (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

    Phunware

    User has twice added promotional-only information to the article. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

    Sheba Karim

    User is possibly the subject of the article, judging by the user name and user's addition of a long list of where stories have been published, a number of which aren't listed on the official site. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

    Woodforest National Bank

    User Woodforest80 has made 11 edits, all to Woodforest National Bank, most recently about 9 months ago. The article doesn't get much attention from editors, but its prose has a distinct COI glow about it. It got about 100 views a day last month. I have flagged the article as COI and warned the user. ke4roh (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

    Article depuffed. Collect (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

    Could do with a bit of careful handling this one...

    So I've no idea what to do about this promotional edit, given that there appears to be some school project run by Rhona_McEwen which some students are working hard - if it were a lone user I'd revert as promotional but this looks like I might be getting myself into a little trouble… any expereinced hands want to jump in? Fayedizard (talk) 09:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

    And one of the reasons it might require careful handling is that one of the groups of students appears to be charged with creating an article about the course leader? from Misplaced Pages:Canada_Education_Program/Courses/The_Rhetoric_of_Digital_and_Interactive_Media_Environments_(Rhonda_McEwen))

    <START QUTOE>

    Group 3

    Group name: CAST
    Topic: Rhonda Nanette McEwen

    Spokesperson & Designated Sandbox: (User:sherry.yuchengr/sandbox) <END QUTOE>

    So year - would be good to get other people comments on this… Fayedizard (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

    Thanks, Faye. Unquestionably a COI. I actually know the parties involved, so I'll send them a line. Bob the WikipediaN 22:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
    I'm an online ambassador for that Misplaced Pages:Canada Education Program. I don't actually remember signing up for this course, but it did appear on my watchlist so I'm following up on the concern. I sent an email to the professor (McEwen) and the instructor listed on the course page notifying them of the COI guideline and asking for them to direct the students to alternate articles. maclean (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

    David E. Henderson

    Could an uninvolved editor look this over please. The articles subject is editing the article and attacking me for asking for citations. Theroadislong (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

    I am now being accused of slander and I am extremely concerned at the continued personal attacks.Theroadislong (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
    and now this... http://www.davidhenderson.com/2012/03/30/looking-behind-the-veil-of-wikipedia-and-who-is-pulling-the-levers/ where I am mistakenly named as another user.Theroadislong (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

    Bloomberg Markets Article

    Hello. I introduced myself here a while ago to acknowledge my activity with Bloomberg L.P. Recently I have been working on a revised draft of the Bloomberg Markets article, as the current article lacks any significant information. (My draft is here: User:RivBitz/Bloomberg_Markets_Sandbox}. I discussed revisions for the article with User:Mrmatiko in the Help Desk live chat and he said he approved of the revisions. I do not feel comfortable posting the revisions myself because of my conflict of interest. Would anyone here be willing to take a look at the draft, and if the article revisions seem appropriate, posting the edits into the actual article? Thanks --RivBitz (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

    Article style and references look good. There appears to be a complete absence of negative coverage. Has no article has ever been withdrawn or criticised? Stuartyeates (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks for the feedback. The magazine is relatively new (hit newsstands in 2000), and I have not come across any reliable sources that criticize the magazine. However, I'm definitely always open to adding critical sources if they arise.--RivBitz (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

    Kirsty Lang

    A new user with the name Kirstylang has made two edits to the article on Kirsty Lang. Both were constructive, but there is a clear conflict of interest. Uvghifds (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

    I've dropped a note on her talk page . --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

    The Widowmaker – Ian Easton

    User name is the name of the subject of the article. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

    Push Girls

    New account of Sundancechannel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Sundance Channel being the channel the show will appear on. Edits have been reverted as unsourced and promotional in nature. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

    Hunger Games (film)

    This article is highly unbalanced with many favourable edits coming from IP addresses (unregistered users).

    Just random examples (there are more if you look): 1 2 3

    Genjix (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

    This is very common with recently broadcast TV shows and released films in the USA. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
    Being biased is not the same as having a conflict of interest. If the POV pusher gets no real-world benefit for the biased edits, then there is no COI violation. You could consider a trip to WP:NPOVN, which is the place for garden-variety biased editing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

    User:Focusanddetermination08

    Articles created
    1. Ahmed Samerai
    2. Sahara Communications
    3. Kevin Pho
    4. Ryan Messick
    • Account appears to have been used for single purpose of spam/promotional/publicity purposes, possibly by some sort of public relations firm.
    • Large gap of edits between December 2011 and March 2012, then this, diff.
    • Could use a bunch of editors looking into the above articles, as well as other stuff from Special:Contributions/Focusanddetermination08.

    Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Meghan.reilly/Archive may be helpful. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

    James Cantor

    While researching an answer for a previous COI/N discussion, I found a pattern of old COI edits that was surprisingly extensive: Of the times James Cantor has been written into or cited in Misplaced Pages articles, roughly 68 of 79 were by James Cantor, an IP, or a login that was permanently blocked for suspicious edits. I've assembled a preliminary list of details and diffs for the refs to Cantor and CAMH. (Please feel free to add any instances I missed and correct any mistakes.)

    To summarize: James Cantor has been written into the bodies of Misplaced Pages articles at least 11 times; 7 by Cantor, with 5 of those anonymously as "MariontheLibrarian." Some of these included edit wars (eg ...). 3 were added by IPs or now-permanently blocked logins. Of the 11, only one was added by an account without a COI, permanent block, etc.

    James Cantor has been cited at least 68 times; 45 by Cantor, with 39 of those anonymously as "MariontheLibrarian." These sometimes replaced citations to rivals (eg ). Another 13 were added by IPs or permanently blocked logins. Of the 68, only ten were added by accounts without a COI, permanent block, etc. (To isolate this from a separate issue, two articles were excluded from these figures.)

    Since James Cantor's recent edits haven't been that bad, new disciplinary action might not be warranted. However, it seems likely that James Cantor's past edits as a whole have placed undue emphasis on himself and possibly his colleagues. Perhaps it would be best to post a comment about this pattern on the talk pages of the affected articles. This would provide those maintaining the articles with the big picture. They could then decide what adjustments, if any, to make to the article content. BitterGrey (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

    Every single one of those citations are from 2008, and Cantor's latest post on COIN (from the archives) pretty instrumentally demonstrates that he understands COI on wikipedia. This very much looks like there was a problem of selfcitation in the past, but is no longer an issue. The issue may be that Bittergrey objects to the use of any citation by James Cantor. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/complex 21:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
    I'd invite everyone to go to the list, click on the first dif attributed to Cantor, and see that it is clearly not from 2008. Obviously, WLU's claim "Every single one of those citations from 2008" is untrue. That written, this is a matter of old content, not recent edits, exactly as I stated in my original post.
    As usual, WLU is both wrong and is hounding me. The more recent example was at sexology, escalating to EL/N. I had questioned one EL, and WLU reacted by removing all the other ELs, leaving that one. WLU hadn't checked the ELs. If he had, he might have known that I was arguing to keep an EL that James Cantor had added some time before, but that WLU had removed. (Technically, Cantor re-added it, but that is beside the point.) This actually wasn't the first example of me defending a position which turned out to be Cantor's against WLU. I could give more, but I think the point is made. He's been hounding me for a year, and has picked a lot of fights. WLU attempted to hijack that EL/N discussion, including declaring it resolved twice, just as he is trying to hijack this one.
    I wish I could write that WLU's practices have improved as much as James Cantor's. BitterGrey (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
    If you have a problem with my behaviour, you are welcome to bring it up somewhere appropriate. All the links on this page are from 2008, and the most recent discussion on COIN was from James Cantor alerting the community of a new peer reviewed article he authored - which he did not add himself. The apparently new link is from April 2010, two years ago. Again, his latest COIN shows that he is well aware of conflict of interest issues. I see no reason to bring this up here, there is no recent activity indicating a problem. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/complex 01:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
    No, WLU, as you can see by the section title, this is about James Cantor, not you. You are the one who is butting in here, as you do most everywhere else I edit.
    I specifically left the two articles affected by WLU's hounding of me out of the above figures. (The actual reason I made the list was to learn this: WLU appears never to have named or cited Cantor before WLU started hounding me, and never in any article that I either had not edited or had given him free reign to edit. Apparently, he only mentions or cites Cantor when he thinks it will cause a fight.)
    Now back to the subject of James Cantor, if WLU will stop butting in.BitterGrey (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
    I am grateful for the consensus that I have been editing quite appropriately for years. (I would add, however, that I believe that my earlier edits also followed both the spirit and the letter of WP:COS.)
    But, despite that even BitterGrey says my editing has been fine for years, he is nonetheless making this report at COIN. Indeed, he has been making such reports at noticeboards, edit warring with multiple other editors about me, for a long time. (I stopped participating in such discussions myself also a long time ago.) Also of note is BitterGrey’s usersubpage, tracking anyone who might be part of the conspiracy to promote me, anyone I know, any topic related to anyone I know, and so on. Clearly, WLU is not hounding BitterGrey. Rather, BitterGrey is hounding me, and WLU is simply the most recent editor to have gotten caught in the conspiracy theory.
    I study some very controversial issues, and being hounded just comes with the territory for me. But other editors should not have to bear the consequences.
    Whether the representation of me, my colleagues, etc. in WP is disproportionately large (because of my editing) or small (because of BitterGrey’s) is, of course, for other editors to decide.
    — James Cantor (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
    It appears to me that JC has used Misplaced Pages to promote himself and closely-related people and topics. I can't say I know what to do about it, but it appears to me that BG wants a mass deletion of Cantor-related material. I would like to get a sense of what sorts of changes/deletions are being considered by BG. Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
    re Binksternet: While I'm open to other ideas, my suggestion was to provide those maintaining the affected articles with the big picture and let them decide what adjustments to make. A mass deletion of Cantor-related material wasn't my intent. Over ~10% was added by other established editors in good standing, so it makes sense that more than 10% should remain. I hadn't planned on deciding how much more myself. I thought it best to post here, in case others had better ideas.
    re Cantor: I wrote that your editing had improved, not that it was fine for years. For example, since you work with the person who's name is on the autogynephilia article, you shouldn't have called for the deletion of the (non-auto) gynephilia article in 2011. Perhaps if I were paying closer attention to you, I would have some more recent examples. Your claim of a "consensus" based on only one editor doesn't inspire confidence. BitterGrey (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
    My name shows up 17 times in that section. 13 of those mentions are by you, Bittergrey. You are bringing up my behaviour, not me. My two comments to date focus on James Cantor's behaviour, my sole discussion of my own was to note that this is not the place to discuss my behaviour. So if you want to talk about James Cantor, do so.
    It's never appropriate to say "X author/source is used too many times". The gross numbers never matter. What does matter is how each specific reference is used. A controversial source could be used to cite uncontroversial information like definitions, dates, names and the like. What is needed is an example, or list of current uses of citations by James Cantor that are problematic. Though, since this is COIN and not NPOVN, the real issue is specific examples of current behaviour by someone with a conflict of interest. I would venture that there are no such examples for James Cantor. The most recent diff I've seen so far is two years old, while the COIN discussion I linked to is from January, 2012, and was started by James Cantor to demonstrate that he wasn't engaging in conflict of interest editing.
    The idea of paring back all citations to 10% of what is currently there is also inappropriate. Each citation's use and presence stands on its own merits - not on who added it. So what current and specific citations are problematic?
    I simply can't see why this is being discussed on COIN when James Cantor obviously understands that citing himself is inappropriate (he may consider his self-imposed restrictions excessive, but that doesn't matter - what matters is that he edits in compliance with the COI guidelines). Since there is no current conflict of interest issue to be resolved, why is this discussion here? Why not take it to individual talk pages? WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/complex 10:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
    The bigger problem with BitterGrey's anyone-connected-to-Cantor worry is that it's an incredibly small field. In the end, basically every mainstream pedophilia researcher is "connected to Cantor" directly or indirectly. That's because there just aren't that many of them. You could seat them all in a single room.
    Here's a simple illustration: If you go to Pubmed and search for "pedophilia", you'll get a list of 300 papers published in the last ten years. More than one-eighth of those papers are either written by Cantor or written by someone he's co-authored a paper with. Far more of them cite a paper he's written or that one of his close colleagues has written. Cantor has one paper that (according to Google Scholar) has been cited more than 100 times. Several others have been cited fifty to seventy times. These are not minor papers by some fringe-y outfit that are being ignored by the academic researchers in the field. If Misplaced Pages isn't citing papers by Cantor or someone connected to Cantor at a fairly significant rate, then we're not doing our jobs right.
    Naturally, an activist like BitterGrey will have his own opinions about whether Cantor is right, but I doubt that even BitterGrey would try to claim that the work by Cantor and his colleagues doesn't represent the mainstream "establishment" view of pedophilia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

    Many paid for articles with problems

    Expewikiwriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (already blocked per WP:SOCK and WP:SPAM) has created many articles this year, many of which are on subjects of questionable notability and which contain advert-like content. The most recently created ones have been dealt with, but if anyone has the time to go through older contribs and deal with them it would be helpful. SmartSE (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

    I've PROD'd about half-a-dozen article to which he has been the main contributor. They have varying levels of non-notability. One or two of the articles I didn't may actually be notable, so I didn't touch them. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
    Categories: