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 00:51, 17 December 2014 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,616 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 79) (bot← Previous edit Revision as of 23:46, 17 December 2014 edit undoAbductive (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers128,619 edits →Bob Jones UniversityNext edit →
(7 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 205: Line 205:
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> <!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Persistent ] messing about, copyright violation, edit-warring over the web address of the "university" (one faction trying to establish that it is in Poland). The university probably does not exist – see e.g., , obviously not a reliable source for our purposes but quite interesting. ] (]) 10:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Persistent ] messing about, copyright violation, edit-warring over the web address of the "university" (one faction trying to establish that it is in Poland). The university probably does not exist – see e.g., , obviously not a reliable source for our purposes but quite interesting. ] (]) 10:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

== Bob Jones University ==

<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{la|Bob Jones University}}
* {{userlinks|John Foxe}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
User:John Foxe has a COI with ] as a professor there. (He disclosed this under his enwp username to a .) Here is my complaint:

#'''Issues with article ownership'''. He has contributed 1105 of the 4077 total edits to the article, and has made 8X more edits than any other editor (per ). He has been accused of exhibiting ] by four different editors at three different points in time: in Feb 2007 by ] ( and ) and by ] (), in May 2014 by ] (), and in Dec 2014 by me ().
#'''Usage of misleading edit summaries'''. Recently, he has made several edits either removing controversial info about the university or changing its meaning under edit summaries that are misleading. For instance, in he used the edit summary "the "crest" is different from the logo" to make a minor wording change about the uni's logo but also to remove info about how the uni president disparaged two religions using the official uni website. In he used the edit summary "put the "cult" statement in a more logical place" to not only move the info of the the same event but also to completely change its meaning.
#'''Preventing change to POV statements'''. Two editors (, ) have removed a POV statement from the lead ("Though the conservative religious, cultural, and political stances taken by the university have often generated controversy, they have also resulted in greater institutional influence than might have been anticipated from a college of its size."), which he has reverted each time stating that he "can provide a reference", which he has never done and probably still wouldn't validate NPOV anyway.

Based on his contributions to this uni article, both recent and past, I am unconfident in his ability to contribute without bias there and feel action should be considered. —''''']''''' 22:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
#I'm unembarrassed to say that, with perhaps the possible exception of one other person, I know more about the history of BJU than anyone living. I've just finished a book manuscript about the early years.
#I admit to being a bit sloppy about edit summaries sometimes when I'm in a hurry.
#The alleged POV statement in the lead had a proper citation until ] removed it . I restored it, then eliminated it for a substitute that ] suggested.--] (]) 23:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
:::] admits to the COI. He edits against consensus to whitewash or downplay embarrassing material from the article about a place where he is employed. What more has to happen for him to be restricted? <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 23:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:46, 17 December 2014

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: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:Andrew Hoffman Talk:Insight Meditation Society Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:Khalili Foundation Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Home Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:V Pappas 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

    NQ Mobile Inc.

    This editor has edited ONLY on topics related to NQ Mobile Inc. and its CEO Dr. Henry Yu Lin, PhD plus a few other edits around the same subject. I believe that this is a single-use account and the editor is closely related to NQ Mobile and/or its CEO. I don't think that it was a great article to begin with, and some of these edits are useful, but it does seem somewhat promotional in tone and omits some (possibly controversial) information that was in there before. Shritwod (talk) 13:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

    Hello Shritwod,

    I do not know the CEO Dr. Henry Yu Lin, PhD aside from what I found on the web while contributing to the NQ Mobile Inc. page and I have no affiliation with the company. I'd planned on researching 2013 and 2014 in order to bring the article/page up to date but if what I've done so far is not good/promotional then I'd prefer to fix it first. I've looked at the Microsoft page and was trying to get ideas from there but didn't know enough about the company's history so thought a good first article/page would be to just put significant events or milestones and fill in the awards and recognitions. Then perhaps later someone will help/contribute to make the information more cohesive.

    Rgeurts (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

    There's an AFD underway for Dr. Henry Yu Lin, PhD, but it's probably going to end with "Keep"; he has verifiable notability. But the "Dr" and "PhD" have to go; that's being discussed at the AfD. I added a section to the NQ Mobile article about their stock crash and accusations of inflated revenue. John Nagle (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    I've done some investigation on this company, and one thing that is notable is that the stock has been on a rollercoaster ride recently, mostly downwards. Some of the financial indicators are looking weak. There's been a lot of negative comment on investor boards (although you could argue that is fairly normal). Now, I will admit that the article for NQ Mobile was in poor shape, and Rgeurts has certainly improved it, but it does seem to be a very polished and positive spin on NQ Mobile. Now this is where I get suspicious - the article and references are very good (although arguably it misses out negative comment) which indicates some experience in writing this sort of information, but the way that Rgeurts uses Misplaced Pages does not indicate an experienced editor. This makes me think that the article itself has been sponsored or paid for in some way, given the unusual fact that Rgeurts has only edited on this subject and nothing else. The pattern doesn't add up - most people do some tinkering first before doing a major overhaul of an article, but Rgeurts has leapt right on in there. Shritwod (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    The article does look rather promotional. Rgeurts (talk · contribs) leaps in whenever something is done to make it less promotional, yet edits in no other areas, which tends to raise questions. As for the company, there's suspicion in the press that something funny is going on, and reports of an SEC investigation. Lots of acquisitions, but where's the revenue? John Nagle (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    SeekingAlpha has a diverse set of articles on NQ Mobile which a somewhat contradictory, but do indicate that there are a bunch of people who claim that there is something fishy going on and a bunch of people who claim that everything is above board and legitimate. I don't know which of those points of view is correct, but it does indicate that there is concern about this company and its operations. And of course if you Google them one of the first things that you'll see is that article. I'd hate to put off a potentially good editor like Rgeurts if I'm wrong about my suspicions. But the editing pattern plus the background information about NQ Mobile definitely makes me go "hmmmm". Shritwod (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    Hi Shritwod, I saw the SeekingAlpha blogs and a few of the headlines were real grabbers so I had to click on them but after reading a bit it felt like tabloid journalism and they all seemed biased one way or the other. Just my personal opinion. Rgeurts (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    The SeekingAlpha articles are all opinions rather than news articles as such, but I think that they demonstrate the diversity of opinion on this company. Shritwod (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    This is my first time contributing and I wish I was being paid! Are you guys really this suspicious? I've worked hard to find information about this company and compile it here. I didn't find any SEC investigation but I did find the SEC papers/20f which I looked into and I see Nagle found it useful as well. Rgeurts (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

    Of interest, their CEO has resigned, that is on top of the allegations already discussed. I still cannot believe that the editing on this article at this time is not by an interested party. Shritwod (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

    Something big is happening over there, but it's not clear what. Here's Bloomberg's report: . Meanwhile, I suggested merging the "History" and "Timeline" sections. John Nagle (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

    Bert Martinez (2)

    Continuation of Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 79#Bert_Martinez

    Behavioural evidence

    Widefox; talk 11:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

    Most of the articles in question are now at AfD. Some have been deleted. John Nagle (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
    Just for the record, I started working on the articles after I noticed them on the new article list? Not sure what I have done wrong here? What does MEAT mean? Ed Lane (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
    WP:MEAT. So, for the record, User:Fasterthanyou123 and User:Ed Lane:
    It is not only WP:DUCK, but disclosed as happening! Widefox; talk 13:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    Again, I have no contact with user Fasterthenyou123, or I know this person at all. I took intrest in the pages after they showed up by searching for it. Besides that I'm an unique account, feel free to test that. Ed Lane (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    • You created a non-notable label article, replaced Sony BMG with that label (instead of adding) on an article, incorrectly removed the Speedy tag, moved it during the deletion process, at the AfD 1. invoked weak arguments 2. made a bogus claim of 50 incoming links (when there was only 1 previously).
    • Your comment here is from an IP located in Holland, which is geographically close to the label company.
    • You turn up just when one of the label's artists is trying to prevent deletion of their non-notable promotional autobiography (now deleted) and has disclosed he coordinates with "management" on editing, and other editors. You uploaded one of his album covers .
    • This promo activity fits in with the set of articles created by the above promo / paid editors
    • Each of those may be a coincidence, but together with your account not having made other edits
    • You have not disclosed any connection with Timezone Records, Stuart Styron, being a paid editor, or whether you have had any communication / were asked to edit these. Widefox; talk 16:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
    Correct, I use a Dutch IP (VPN) and a UK based IP (Level3 if you with to know). I started editing the articles at the moment I notice them, I did not get paid to do any edits. I moved the an article cause the name was wrong, is that a crime? I changed the label on the article since the artist changed label. I thought that was ok for Misplaced Pages right? You want CORRECT information?
    I can't disclose being a paid edittor since I'm not, besides that I'm not connected what so ever to Timezone records. Ed Lane (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

    Update on previous listing (I hadn't noticed these):

    I have denied many times and you are tagging my name without proof. I even deleted edits of COI users and did rewrite of topic 2 times. User AdventurousME who commented against me has worked half part with me to do second rewrite. Stop spreading false blame about me just talk about other users who you can prove. I have made improvement to ERA. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
    In fairness to TheSawTooth, he/she may just be a such a disruptive editor that their behaviour appears to several of us similar to disruption caused by COI. Widefox; talk 00:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

    EidosMedia

    I believe Jan0345 may have a conflict of interest. The article has a history of being created and maintained by employees/contractors for the company. In this case, the editor has only edited this article, adding positive references and removing some negative ones. I asked the user whether he/she has a conflict on the user's talk page, but got no response. Muckrkr (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

    Jan0345 seems to have narrow editing interests, but they're making more or less reasonable edits that make sense. The article has criticisms of the product, and it's not unduly long. Back in October, there were worse problems. The self-identified Eidos Media COI editor, Il Capitan Fracassa (talk · contribs), was so inept they were reverted by ClueBot for big deletions. John Nagle (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

    Hello, I don't have any relationship with EidosMedia. I am a user of the system and I am actually satisfied with it. I found the Misplaced Pages entry about EidosMedia and I thought it was extremely biased. This is why I wanted to correct it. Muckrkr thinks I have conflicts of interest because I inserted positive (real) comments and deleted others. I actually thinks that he might have conflicts of interest, since he posts only negative comments on the company and the product. Jan0345 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan0345 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

    Jan0345's statement that I post only "negative comments on the company and the product" is demonstrably untrue. I edited the sections on the background, customers and description of the company (which are neither negative nor positive). And I added the statement and source about News Corp. expanding its use of the program (which is positive). Unlike Jan0345, I also have also edited articles on different topics. But I agree with John Nagle that some past self-identified EdiosMedia COI editors made far worse edits.Muckrkr (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

    Green Man Gaming

    IP editor with no edits other than of the article in question. The editor added almost exclusively praise of the company, its catalogue, and features. I noticed the IP editor also added "VC Eden Ventures" including an external link to that company's website. 82.136.210.153 (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

    By the way, I added this here because the contribs are almost a year old and other editors worked on the article since; but lots of stuff added in January remained. Not sure what action - if any - is required. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

    discussion at WikiProject Medicine about IMS intention to work within WP

    Discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#IMS_is_back, for those interested in paid editing, COI and their management. Jytdog (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

    Jerry Yang

    Hi all, I work for a communications agency representing Jerry Yang. I'm requesting a few factual corrections to the article about him, plus some NPOV restructuring (the article currently has a separate "Criticism" section). I've posted details and citations on the article's Talk page. I'd be very grateful if someone could take a look and provide feedback. Thanks so much for your time. Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

    I made the factual edits requested. The article has a "Criticism" section that Mary asked to be integrated into the article. Per Misplaced Pages:Criticism#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_criticisms_or_controversies there is grounds to do that. I don't want to do that work; she asked if she could make a draft and post it and I said sure. I'll review and implement if good and will also post here when that happens so anybody not watching can also look in. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

    Francesco Aquilini

    This article appears to have been targeted by several editors with a personal or professional connection to the subject. The first editor was already the subject of discussion at WP:ANI but it was decided that there were good-faith intentions. The second user was banned for a username violation, and the third is a corporate IP editor belonging to a sports business owned by the subject.

    Since only the first editor declared her interest (somewhat hidden, in the edit summary), some past whitewashing and a complete lack of discussion on the article talk page, I'm asking for some monitoring for possible WP:BLP violations. Drm310 (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

    Dr Amal Roy

    User:Dr Amal Roy has been editing medical-related articles and citing his blog "www.webhealthsolution.com" as a source. An article about the blog itself was speedied as being non-notable and promotional. I'm no medical expert, so it could be that this person's contributions are medically sound. However, looking at WP:RSMED and WP:SPS, his activity looks a little too self-serving. Drm310 (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

    There is absolutely no what whatsoever that a link to a webpage on Natural abortion: Nine Safe Methods should ever be linked on Misplaced Pages - the website should be blacklisted immediately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    just searched and there are no more links as of now, but see here for current status. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    The Misplaced Pages search function often misses material added in recent edits - I've just removed material added by User:Dr Amal Roy from Septic arthritis and Psoriatic arthritis, on the basis that (a) it appears to be copied directly from the website, raising copyright concerns, and (b) I can see no evidence whatsoever that this website meets WP:MEDRS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

    Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica

    Persistent SPA messing about, copyright violation, edit-warring over the web address of the "university" (one faction trying to establish that it is in Poland). The university probably does not exist – see e.g., this discussion, obviously not a reliable source for our purposes but quite interesting. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

    Bob Jones University

    User:John Foxe has a COI with Bob Jones University as a professor there. (He disclosed this under his enwp username to a newspaper in Jan 2011.) Here is my complaint:

    1. Issues with article ownership. He has contributed 1105 of the 4077 total edits to the article, and has made 8X more edits than any other editor (per tool). He has been accused of exhibiting ownership by four different editors at three different points in time: in Feb 2007 by User:Emote (diff1 and diff2) and by User:Barang (diff3), in May 2014 by User:Abductive (diff4), and in Dec 2014 by me (diff5).
    2. Usage of misleading edit summaries. Recently, he has made several edits either removing controversial info about the university or changing its meaning under edit summaries that are misleading. For instance, in diff6 he used the edit summary "the "crest" is different from the logo" to make a minor wording change about the uni's logo but also to remove info about how the uni president disparaged two religions using the official uni website. In diff7 he used the edit summary "put the "cult" statement in a more logical place" to not only move the info of the the same event but also to completely change its meaning.
    3. Preventing change to POV statements. Two editors (diff8, diff9) have removed a POV statement from the lead ("Though the conservative religious, cultural, and political stances taken by the university have often generated controversy, they have also resulted in greater institutional influence than might have been anticipated from a college of its size."), which he has reverted each time stating that he "can provide a reference", which he has never done and probably still wouldn't validate NPOV anyway.

    Based on his contributions to this uni article, both recent and past, I am unconfident in his ability to contribute without bias there and feel action should be considered. —Eustress 22:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

    1. I'm unembarrassed to say that, with perhaps the possible exception of one other person, I know more about the history of BJU than anyone living. I've just finished a book manuscript about the early years.
    2. I admit to being a bit sloppy about edit summaries sometimes when I'm in a hurry.
    3. The alleged POV statement in the lead had a proper citation until User:Eustress removed it here. I restored it, then eliminated it for a substitute that User:Eustress suggested.--John Foxe (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    User:John Foxe admits to the COI. He edits against consensus to whitewash or downplay embarrassing material from the article about a place where he is employed. What more has to happen for him to be restricted? Abductive (reasoning) 23:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    Categories: