Misplaced Pages

:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DarknessShines2 (talk | contribs) at 13:28, 9 April 2010 (add a coi request). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:28, 9 April 2010 by DarknessShines2 (talk | contribs) (add a coi request)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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:Group14 Technologies 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:Mitre Corporation 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:Sharp Memorial Hospital Talk:Louise Showe Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Uppsala Monitoring Centre Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Possible autobiographies found by bot

    • User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult   This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.

    Requested edits

    • Category:Requested edits.  Editors who believe they have a Conflict of Interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should undo the {{Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requestor to explain your decision.

    User:Dpyb and autobiography found by aosasti

    Someone really should look at this. The article reads somewhat like a resume, with an exhaustive list of the author's works. Editor continues to edit after being given a COI warning, and doesn't put meaningful comments on edit summaries. Editor has not responded to COI either on her talk page or the article talk page. Rees11 (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

    Gallet & Co.

    Resolved – Editor denies COI and is conforming to relevant policies. Rees11 (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

    This well organized, beautifully illustrated, carefully referenced article, an example of some of our best work in all other regards, appears to have been written by its subject. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

    It's not that good. I've seen worse, but it's full of unsourced peacock words and has a generally promotional tone to it. The user name probably should be changed as it's obviously promotional. The editor has a couple of copyvio notices on his talk page. I'll leave a COI warning. Rees11 (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
    Also, the editor seems to admit to a COI, as he claims to hold the copyright on many of the images used in the article, images that apparently belong to the subject of the article. Rees11 (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

    I'm going to need some help with this. The editor has created a whole slew of few articles connected with his company and edited several others, and I've found one copyright violation so far, in addition to the dubious status of the images. Can someone help look into all this? Rees11 (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

    For the past 30 years I have been working in the capacity of an amateur timekeeping historian and have contributed my personal research to a number of related publications. As the oldest watch and clock manufacturer, Gallet has been of particular interest to me to a point that borders on obsession. Besides having acquired the one of the world’s largest collection of their vintage timepieces, I probably possess the most extensive reference library of documents on the company’s history. As a result, I have found myself in the unique position of providing the bulk of the images and content that appears on the Gallet Company’s website, as well as the Misplaced Pages subject page. As such, the matter of copyrights is not a personal concern in this case. That said, I am relatively new to Misplaced Pages and am still learning the process. The recent issues that have arisen are a blessing, as they have pushed me around the learning curve to quickly become a more effective editor and contributor for Misplaced Pages. I am also addressing the matter of changing my username to better comply with Misplaced Pages policies. Thank you for everyone’s help. Galletgroup (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

    This article was not written by the subject of the article I am not affiliated with the subject in any professional capacity, and have never received any sort of compensation from the subject except for a thank you for the donation of my personally authored works and images for use on both Misplaced Pages and the subject’s website. For over 30 years, I have been an amateur timekeeping historian, even though my words and images have been copied and utilized in numerous publications, both in print and on the web. The assumption that I am closely affiliated with the subject of the article is understandable due to my unusual level of knowledge and enthusiasm with the subject, and I greatly appreciate the concern of others for maintaining the quality and integrity of Misplaced Pages. With this said, I wish to have the COI and advert tags removed from this article. Time Maven (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

    I'm inclined to believe that you don't have a conflict of interest in this case. However, please be aware of our policy on original research. If you want to use your own words that have been officially published, that is allowable per WP:COS, but use caution in doing so. Keep in mind, also, that you don't have to be affiliated with Gallet for what you have written to be considered an advertisement, any information that is unduly promotional either in tone or with specific "peacock words" as mentioned above by Rees11 can be considered advertisement. Other editors should be willing to help you with such problems at the articles you edit. This is, after all, a collaborative project and everyone who edits in good faith is more than welcome, especially a person with expertise who can help us find reliable sources to add more verifiable information to such articles. -- Atama頭 00:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
    So you're not affiliated but you are the copyright holder of trademarks the company used 131 years ago? Rehevkor ✉ 04:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
    I think there are still problems with copyrights on the images. There was also a hunk of text copied from the company's web site, which the editor claims he wrote and contributed to the company's web site. It all seems very suspect but I'm still willing to assume good faith at this point. Rees11 (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

    The editor is engaged on the talk pages, has changed his user name, is observing the relevant policies, denies COI, and is working to fix the copyright problems. I'd like to mark this "resolved" if no one objects. Rees11 (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

    Daniel David Ryan

    Resolved – Article deleted and editor silent for a week. Rees11 (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

    sudden massive editing burst on Urethra Gauging and similar topics. Seems to have clear COI, has not yet responded to attempts to communicate. Where now? DBaK (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

    I tried, but I'm close to rolling out {{uw-create}} if he keeps going... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 23:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks, and yes, quite. I am pretty sure it's good faith, but he's not getting it and he's not engaging with attempts to discuss it... he's edited his Talk page quite recently and one assumes must have seen all that stuff ... on the other hand he doesn't seem to be creating new articles either so maybe that has got through a bit ... DBaK (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
    Update: keeps going. Now creates articles including his favored link on talkpages instead of article-space. I've had it. uw-create-3 given. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
    There's a twofold problem here. Daniel doesn't seem able to properly communicate on Misplaced Pages, even on article and user talk pages he only writes external links or text that should go into an article. The other problem is the persistent advertising attempts. Urethra gauge has had the advertising information removed, so it doesn't necessitate a speedy deletion, but I don't know if it has hope as an article going forward. If Daniel makes one more attempt to advertise his device, I'll block indefinitely as a spam-only account if someone else doesn't do it first. I'd block him now if it wasn't for the fact that the urethra gauge article might have a slim chance of being notable. -- Atama頭 16:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
    Thank you. I've been trying to be kind, and AGF, and so on, but it's tricky when there's effectively no communication taking place. And, indeed, there is I suppose the risk that rather than being an innocent new user thinking merely to tell the world of their device (my preferred view) there's also the risk that it's less innocent and more calculating than that and has to do with, perhaps, a desire to drive traffic to the website or manipulate its search engine results or whatever. I hate to be cynical about new people but clearly he can read and edit so he's either really not getting it in a very serious way - which I can empathize with - or choosing not to get it, which is not nice. Hmmm. DBaK (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
    Addendum: having said all that I should add that Daniel has currently stopped again, and has been stopped for a while, so maybe it's over? Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

    Urethra Gauge seems to be a trademark, not a generic term. And Daniel David Ryan has applied for a patent on it. I think the article should be deleted as spam. Rees11 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

    I think an AfD would be the best way to go about it. That way if the article is recreated in any form similar to the original it can be speedily deleted per G4. Although I do stand by my statement about blocking Daniel if he keeps trying to advertise his product. -- Atama頭 19:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

    Salt Spring Coffee Co. and Cmtremewen

    Resolved – Editor indef blocked. Rees11 (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

    I tried to advise User:Cmtremewen that their various edits and content-additions to Salt Spring Coffee Co. were both SPAM and COI, but the user blanked my message from his/her talkpage - see User talk:Cmtremewen and this edit of that page. Same user had previously removed templates from the coffee company page, which has only survived two AFDs by helpful edits from experienced users such as User:KenWalker and User:Maclean25; the latter recently reversed my re-addition of the {{notability}} tag due to those previous fixes and teh failed AFDs, but since then User:Cmtremewen has continued with Spam/Own/COI edits, including blanking the article's talkpage and, as seen in this reversion by Maclean25, blanked whole sections he/she didn't like of the main article, including fixes and updates by other editors. The gall of the line on the usertalkpage "If content on this page is not authorized or created by the owners of the company then it is spam. This site has been compromised." is, to me, bizarre, and the same sentiment was expressed in the edit comment in this edit which says "Removal of material not submitted by the company". I think both a userban, and a revived AfD, are called for, but then I'm not an admin and, well, not known for my brevity or politesse. The article is, to me, blatant spam for an inconsequential coffee chain with delusions of its own importance, and the user is clearly completely without any sense of wikipedia guidelines, or interest in learning or obeying them...and User:Cmtremewen has edited no other article than the coffee company page and its discussion page, clearly a WP:SPA.Skookum1 (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

    Editor is now indef blocked as a spammer. Rees11 (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

    Knox College, Otago

    Resolved – Helpful feedback left on article's talk-page as requested. --Philtweir (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

    While this article (on a New Zealand university college) has been extensively and informatively developed from a historical perspective, it has been left rather underdeveloped with regard to its functioning, idiosyncrasies and human history for quite some time and I've prepared a few proposals for changes to bring it into more rounded and into line with other articles on colleges at other collegiate universities.

    However, as a current resident and recipient of a scholarship from this college (supplementary to a University PhD scholarship), as a consequence of being the nominated "Senior Tutor" (though not formally staff), I would be keen to check whether this brings me into a conflict of interest. I hope to demonstrate through the changes I've suggested and this declaration, that that is not the case and that I just happen to want to improve a Misplaced Pages article on a topic I know something about! While I would like to do something similar for the other colleges, my knowledge there is currently lacking (though please note that I've prepared samples of the Selwyn College, Otago and St Margaret's College, Otago articles using the new templates applied to the proposed Knox changes). If it is felt that this is a conflict of interest, I'll pop a Request Edit template on the talk page. Alternatively, if it felt that, provided I maintain WP:NPOV and edit as I would any other article, there isn't an issue, that would be even better.

    For full details, please see the proposal under my user page or the article's talk page, which links there. Cheers! Philtweir (talk) 10:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

    DarkBlade4658 - GameZone

    This is quite tricky. DarkBlade4658 has disclosed that they are an editor at GameZone and all the edits that I have checked were adding reviews from the site to articles. Whilst GameZone is presumably a reliable source, I'm not happy with an editor with a COI adding reviews all over the place. There are over 1000 links over the project to GameZone and DarkBlade has only made 100 edits so obviously others are adding them. Whatever happens to the links already in place, I would strongly suggest that DarkBlade stops adding more links to GameZone for the moment. Smartse (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

    Medifast1

    Resolved – Username spamblocked. – ukexpat (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

    Medifast1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a SPA and in violation of the username policy. He clumsily added some content to Medifast in Feb. that probably should have been caught by the edit filter, but wasn't. Cites corporate websites where an independent source would be preferred. It either needs to be cleaned up or simply reverted to the Jan. 11 version. 69.221.163.227 (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

    I've done a quick clean up, the article is still a mess but it is better than before. The username would be blocked if we spotted it when it was created but won't be now. Thanks for posting here to bring it to our attention. Smartse (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
    Why shouldn't it be blocked now? Where does it say that if you have a CORPNAME, but manage to avoid detection as such for some period, that you cannot be blocked? This is pretty blatant and I have reported it to WP:UAA. – ukexpat (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

    St. James' Settlement (Hong Kong)

    Came upon this one doing copyright cleanup (as usual), and it looks to be a very sincere and very unencyclopedic article about a charity in Hong Kong. It is being worked on by a series of WP:SPA contributors who are obviously interrelated, given their usernames. I've given them the standard COI notice, but I think the article could do with a look-over by somebody for neutrality and sourcing. I pulled some employee lists () under WP:NOTDIR, but I'm back to the backlog at copyright cleanup. --Moonriddengirl 14:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

    Webcomic creator?

    Could someone take a look at this editor's contributions? 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

    See here, I think it has been well taken care of. -- Atama頭 16:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

    Diploma mill crusader?

    This sockpuppet investigation resulted after an edit war between two groups of editors involved with the Washington International University article. One group was trying to spin negative information about the subject, while two other editors were assisting each other in trying keep negative information in the article, mainly about allegations that the institution is a diploma mill. The first group of editors, both as a result of the checkuser and other reasons, have been banned. I feel, however, that questions remain unresolved about the latter two editors who continue to edit.

    One allegation raised during the sockpuppet investigation is that User:TallMagic is someone who actively works to discredit diploma mills, including doing so in Misplaced Pages. redacted per WP:OUTING

    My question to the independent reviewers here is, if TallMagic is this same person who appears to be actively trying to discredit diploma mills, is it a COI for this account to be editing this subject on Misplaced Pages? Is any follow-up action appropriate here? Cla68 (talk) 06:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

    You're trying to establish the real life identity and that makes me nervous although I can see why. Without commenting further on that, you've raised concerns about two editors but only mentioned one, I think you should state the problem with the second rather than leave it vague. As for the COI, I presume you are comparing this with editors like WMC? Dougweller (talk) 08:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
    I need to make one correction. Not all of the accused sockpuppeters were banned. Glasscity09 was cleared. Orlady appears also to concentrate on exposing diploma mills via Misplaced Pages in conjunction with TallMagic, but I have no opinion on whether a COI might exist with Orlady. I'm not comparing this situation with any other editor, just asking the experienced editors who frequent this board to examine the situation and give their opinions on whether there is any cause for concern or anything that should be done here. Cla68 (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

    We should be grateful that an expert on the disingenuous tactics employed by the reasonably repulsive diploma mill "industry" is willing to help maintain Misplaced Pages as an accurate and reliable reference work that neutrally and accurately states the unvarnished facts about diploma mills. Hipocrite (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

    I was not notified about this discussion, although I see that I am being accused here.
    For the record, other than having graduated from several well-regarded fully accredited schools, I have no real-life interaction with educational accreditation, diploma mills, or related matters.
    I first got involved with Misplaced Pages articles related to the topic of accreditation in 2007 after receiving a message from another user who questioned the credibility of a particular U.S. accrediting organization. I concluded that it was a legitimate accreditation agency for primary and second schools, but not for tertiary institutions, and edited the article and replied to that effect to the other user, but that experience led me to become interested in the problems of explaining in Misplaced Pages how accreditation works (particularly in the U.S., but also worldwide) and researching/documenting the status of entities that represent themselves as academic institutions and/or accreditation agencies, but appear to exist only as websites. Along the way, I've learned a lot about accreditation and about how to find out about the status of an educational institution. In pursuit of this interest, I've interacted often with TallMagic, whose knowledge of the topic dwarfs mine. The fact that he and I have both edited a lot of the same articles does not mean that we are working together -- and I wouldn't recognize him (nor would he recognize me) if our cars collided on the highway.
    I've also interacted often with single-purpose accounts whose only "contributions" involved repeatedly changing the text of one specific article from something along the general lines of "Stupendous University is an unaccredited provider of distance education that does business from a post office box at the South Pole..." to "Stupendous University is a world-class educational institution that is renowned for the quality of its programs and the success of its graduates...", and several of those SPA contributors have accused me of POV-pushing, COI, etc. -- I figure that it comes with the territory.
    The case cited by Cla68 appears to have been a rare instance of an unaffiliated good-faith contributor (Glasscity09) running across some edits by a SPA, echoing and expanding upon the SPA's criticisms of the article based on his/her own investigations, and inadvertently "inspiring" further involvement by other accounts that may have been SPAs, but more likely were persons intent on disrupting Misplaced Pages for the purpose of disrupting Misplaced Pages. --Orlady (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
    Orlady has been editing Misplaced Pages for 6 years, in good standing (no real blocks), and has been an admin for a year, with almost 800 articles created and over a dozen barnstars. I'm not really concerned about her. ;)
    And honestly, I have to side with Hipocrite here. I'm confused about the concerns of people "discrediting" diploma mills; that's like saying that someone is trying to ruin the reputation of a felon by mentioning their felonies in an article. I suppose anyone that's on a "crusade" about anything, trying to expose "THE TRUTH" is going to cause problems no matter what the subject. But honestly, any institution that truly is a diploma mill isn't going to have a very positive article if given proper treatment. I've looked over the talk page of the article, and the pro-WIU arguments are ridiculous in large part, complaining about bringing up "old laundry" about the institution. -- Atama頭 15:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
    I must echo Hipocrite and Atama's confusion - how can ensuring accuracy by someone who has some knowledge on the subject be a COI? COI is I wrote a book, let me tell you how wonderful it is (and delete all negative comments) it isn't expert contributions to the betterment of Misplaced Pages content-wise and NPOV-wise. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 15:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
    My edits stand on their own. This person is not attacking my edits which cover many articles instead they appear to me to be attempting to attack me as a person. I edit Misplaced Pages in areas that I'm familar with. I'm familar with accreditation and unaccredited institutions. I primarily edit both accredited and unaccredited educational institution articles. There are just far more edits in unaccredited articles because that is where vandelism is most frequent. If a police officer decided to edit Misplaced Pages in article topics that he was familar in say crime, would that be conflict of interest? What kind of conflict of interest am I being accused of here? It is a vague and unfounded accusation. I suggest that Cla68 either puts together a list of my edits that violates Misplaced Pages policy or they prove that I'm affiliated with some accredited/unaccredited institution or they apologize. I am also dismayed that the admins here are allowing what appears to me to be attempted wp:OUTING. These vague accusations are just sad in my opinion. TallMagic (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
    TallMagic has correctly detected an odor of wp:OUTING in this discussion, in effect continuing an effort by a now-blocked user. The sockpuppetry case has already been blanked. I'd like to request (on another user's the behalf) the same treatment for portions of Cla68's first post here. --Orlady (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
    • We are allowed to out editors on this board, because that is how a COI is frequently established. If anyone doubts this, please look through this board's archives, in spite of what the banner above the editing window says. Nevertheless, I was careful not to mention the account's off-wiki name, which may, in any case, be a pseudonym. Besides, the editor had created an account under the "real" name, so no actual outing is occurring. Anyway, I think I need to remind everyone who has responded so far that Misplaced Pages doesn't take sides on the subjects it reports on. We, as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, don't care if diploma mills are getting away with fooling the public. So, if someone who is actively involved in discrediting diploma mills decides to use Misplaced Pages to do so, then we should be concerned about it. Orlady and TallMagic ask if any of their edits are problematic, well, here you go. If negative information about the school was removed from the Oregon database, most likely by a legal challenge, it is a violation of NPOV to report on it in the article. Now, should Misplaced Pages play host to a campaign by an advocate or activist? Is that what we're here for? Cla68 (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
    Outing is never allowed even here. You may be thinking of cases of self-identification. "Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Misplaced Pages." I'm not sure this is a case of voluntary posting, it looks like a mistake to me. Rees11 (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
    Cla86, continuing to push this is not wise, as outing an editor is grounds for an immediate block. Outing someone without realizing it was a violation is one thing, being told to not do so and insisting that it's okay to do so is really pushing it. I've redacted the information, don't restore it. -- Atama頭 00:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
    Cla68, you say, "most likely by a legal challenge". You believe that to be true based on? ... on what? Oh, based on nothing but your own wild guess? I have great respect and appreciation of Misplaced Pages. I do my best to try to produce the best article that I can. Seldom is there a chance to add positive information to an article on these unaccredited institutions. When I do run into that chance I don't hesitate to do that. TallMagic (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
    It hardly requires saying, but of course Atama and Hipocrite are correct. I suppose one might write something like "I have reason to believe that in real life X works for Y", but any form of outing (such as linking to a wiki or external page with clues about a real life identity) is prohibited.
    While POV-pushers can be irritating, there is a strong distinction between someone interested in, say, someone promoting a particular political POV (where validity can never be established), and someone promoting the exposure of documented cases of fraud. A quick scan of User talk:TallMagic shows that editors should be grateful that TallMagic is helping to remove unwarranted promotions from articles seeking to portray diploma mills as top-rate educational institutions. Johnuniq (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
    I agree with John above. Whether a COI is in effect should be judged on edits, and I don't see anything wrong with TallMagic's edits. The outing, though, seems to be a problem. Cla86, it clearly says "When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to out other editors." on the edit page for this board. Dayewalker (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
    Good grief guys, this account self-identified by naming his/her first account after their "real" name, then later started using an alternate account and signed an edit by the first account using the second account. Isn't that illegal socking? Does that sound above board or like there might be something to hide? Cla68 (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
    Actually, these two accounts were editing at the same time. That isn't a problem for any of you? Cla68 (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
    OK, well, I've filed an SPI request. Cla68 (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
    Okay Cla68, I don't know what put a bee under your bonnet regarding me. But you've stretched my ability to assume good faith to the breaking point. Please stop your personal attacks. I didn't request that your account be blocked for harassment simply because after looking at your contributions to the encyclopedia I was impressed and pleased. However, at this point let me just say PLEASE STOP YOUR PERSONAL ATTACKS AND HARASSMENTS!!! Sincerely, TallMagic (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
    The SPI request has been closed, no attempt to deceive. I concur. Dougweller (talk) 05:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

    COI Edits Swami Sivananda Radha

    Resolved – article deleted via AfD Smartse (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

    Are the only users on this article except for matniece edits that added tags, 6(?) articles Created all praising this Guru. Curently her page is the only one left of those. After i slapped the COI tag Yasodohara went dormant, the ip how ever continued. The Ip according to the Geolocate Tool traces back to the vicinity of where this woman's Commune/Retreat in canada. Very suspicous Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

    Yasodhara is the name of Swami Sivananda Radha's ashram, so that does seem to be a COI, although as you say Yasodhara has not edited recently. The article is up for deletion. Rees11 (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
    i know the Ip popped up at the discusion, Thats why i brought it here Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
    The article was deleted at AfD so I'm marking this as resolved. Smartse (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

    User:Nezzo, Equilar refspam, and paid editing?

    An apparent single purpose account, User:Latinsavedlatin, has racked up 77 edits, all of which appear to be WP:REFSPAM, inserting links to equilar.com as citations. In some cases, this includes replacing more direct sources with Equilar webpages, which almost certainly do not meet our criteria for reliable sourcing. My feeling is the editor in question should be asked to cease adding these links, all of the existing links should be removed, and prior reliable sources should be restored. I wanted to be sure this was the proper course of action, and the likely conflict of interest seemed to be most problematic? jæs (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

    The more I dig, the stranger this seems. The articles for Equilar, TuVox, and VisiStat were all created or significantly edited by User:Nezzo, who is apparently a "web marketing professional" and who appears, from a simple web search, to have been employed by at least two of those three companies. That same account has also inserted links throughout Misplaced Pages, sometimes en masse, for each of those three companies. Other single-purpose accounts related to these three companies are User:CDwrites (who is apparently employed by VisiStat and originally created their article here) and User:Ck415 (who has solely inserted numerous links to Equilar). jæs (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
    See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive555#Problem, looks like people found Ck415's edits to be problematic before. Smartse (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
    Certainly the ones where Latinsavedlatin replaced a reliable source with his own web site should be reverted. The ones where he added info that wasn't there before, I'm not sure about. Either way it's a big job, we might even need a bot to clean this up. There is a COI template on his talk page but someone should try to engage him directly. Rees11 (talk) 11:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
    Based on that ANI thread, I suspect there were many other articles that were eventually deleted due to copyvio, Smartse? I agree with you completely on undoing any edits that removed reliable sourcing, Rees11, but I've also come to feel that any and all of these external links should be removed. First, they are nowhere near reliable by our standards. Second, they were spammed here. Third, given almost all (if not all) of these articles are BLPs, I'd frankly rather have no source (and, if necessary, no content) than an absolutely unreliable refspam. In any event, if these facts are accurate, they can easily be cited using the publicly-available primary source documents available from the SEC. jæs (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

    Hi. I'm the person who has been doing these edits, and yes, I do work for Equilar. You guys may consider this spam, but the fact of the matter is that if we don't add this information (which we also provided to the New York Times, and which they published on Sunday: http://projects.nytimes.com/executive_compensation), no one else is going to add it-- no one on Misplaced Pages seems to really care about this subject, considering that over half of the Top 200 CEOs don't even have their own pages. Isn't it more of an instrumental good that people have the data on the subject within their reach? We're clearly the leading reference on this subject (look up the company name in Google News to see how many times we were cited as a reference just in the past three days), and the information is independent of the companies and unbiased. It's not like we're adding a bunch of advertising; we're just referencing the pages, which in 90% of the cases was already done for the 2008 figures on a given CEO's page.

    Why cite us instead of the Times? Well, our information is much more detailed and complex than the condensed version the Times published, with past-year info and graphs. In the case of the Iger entry, I thought our info was better and more detailed than what was there before, which only linked to the proxy statement-- you're going to have to spend a ton of time searching through that giant PDF to find less information than what we provide plainly on one page). If you want to delete all the work I put in, go ahead: I can't stop you. But no one else is going to go in and put in correct and up-to-date information, guaranteed.

    Side note: Nezzo is someone who used to work here; I have no idea who CK415 is, nor does anyone else here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Latinsavedlatin (talk • contribs) 22:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

    Hello Latinsavedlatin, I very strongly suggest you read this article which is from a public relations magazine explaining why using Misplaced Pages to advertise is a very bad idea from a business perspective. My guess is that it's part of your job to spread the word about Equilar (marketing) but Misplaced Pages is not a good place to do it. If your only interest is truly in correcting inaccuracies, you can do so on the talk page of your company's article, which is completely within our conflict of interest guideline (it's not only allowed, but encouraged). Other editors will be far more receptive if you do so. Thank you for participating in this discussion. -- Atama頭 00:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

    The article you linked to here contains the following paragraph: "Wikidpedia has laid down guidelines to prevent what it construes as an abuse of its resources, and states that to qualify for inclusion, the business must be the subject of multiple non-trivial works whose source is independent of the company itself, listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by independent publications or used to calculate stock market indices."

    Our company is the subject of multiple non-trivial works whose sources are independent of the company. Our research is used by the U.S. Treasury. Our research is prominently featured in major packages done by The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Financial Times, Fortune, and over 40 other newspapers. CNBC discusses our research on television. I think that's a pretty non-trivial and independent group of sources. The media calls us for information on these stories, and not the other way around. http://www.equilar.com/Executive_Compensation_Equilar_In_The_News.php

    You didn't address any of the things I said above. Who is going to update the content on these pages if we don't? I understand that you don't want people advertising on this site, but considering that no less a publication than the New York Times uses us as its source, I think our role in this sphere is extremely non-trivial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Latinsavedlatin (talk • contribs) 16:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

    You are in a role not dissimilar to, say, LexisNexis or even Gartner and other companies. Sourcing is a very important issue, and one of our principles is relying on the editorial judgment of publications, periodicals, journals, and so forth. While your research and compilation of data is being used by highly reputable reliable sources, that does not, in turn, make your company an acceptable primary source for direct citation on Misplaced Pages. The best citations, by our standards, is your research being cited in The New York Times, or, barring that, the direct primary sources of the proxy statements and other filings from the companies themselves. Your role to The New York Times is certainly not trivial and is obviously a measure of success on the part of your company, but our position here isn't a reflection of the quality or integrity of your work. Our policies on sourcing were not written to try to exclude your company in particular, they were designed to try to ensure Misplaced Pages itself is not used for original research (among other reasons). Your company is exactly that, a company that specializes in research. I hope this helps clarify. jæs (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
    Latinsavedlatin has confused notability (of an article's subject) with reliability (of a source). Rees11 (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
    Yes, these links should be removed. This is a spam campaign, plain and simple. - MrOllie (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
    If he doesn't "get it" mighty soon, suggest an indef block. In the sense of indef until he agrees to behave and play by our rules.(unsigned by Wehwalt)
    First of all, I'm not planning on editing any more pages until this gets resolved, so there's no need to block me. I am just trying to understand your byzantine rules (which greatly challenge the notion of this being "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit," considering that all these governance entries you cite are basically unreadable-- and this is coming from a graduate of a top school).

    I greatly understand your need to keep overt advertising off the site. But the New York Times and other media outlets are businesses themselves. Furthermore, links to those sources are filled with advertisements. Ours are not. Simply put, we are enriching these entries in a non-commercial manner. Compensation of executives is a critical subject, and if we don’t spend the time to enrich your entries, Misplaced Pages itself will lose out, since no one else will. While you may call this "spam" in your rules, this is not spam as the general public would define it; in my opinion, you are using the term flippantly and recklessly. It is 100% contextual to the subject being discussed, and we are making every attempt to serve readers with useful content (which spam, as the layman would describe it, is not). Additionally, there is specific IP in our complex methodology to compute executive compensation – that IP is why the NY Times, CNN, Fox, WSJ, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, Reuters and countless media come to us for support. There is a reason why these publications don’t simply cite “proxy statements” as a source. We have information and computational resources that can't simply be found in a proxy. --latinsavedlatin (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

    I understand your perspective, but we do not permit those who have a COI under these circumstances to directly make such an edit. You are free, of course, to draw other editor's attention to the proposed link on the article talk page, and advocate that it be done, of course disclosing your COI. Many thanks, --Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
    I still believe that the site as a whole won't benefit from this decision, but I won't edit any more pages from this point forward. I'm aware that this is a difficult site to moderate and I wish you the best. --latinsavedlatin (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

    James Gomez: Possibly created by subject himself

    Article about James Gomez seems to be in violation of conflict of interest since it is highly possible the article was created and mainly maintained by the subject himself. Evidenced by an IP trace ] which shows the IP originating from Monash University Australia at the campus where the subject is working/teaching (as stated in the article itself). The account is also Single Purpose Accounts as it have not contributed to any other articles.Zhanzhao (talk) 03:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

    This shows the edits that have been made since 130.194 started to edit the page, the article was already mainly written years before this so I can't see how "it is highly possible the article was created and mainly maintained by the subject himself". It looks like the only problematic edit was adding the list of publications but this seems to have settled down already. Overall, I don't think the edits are too problematic, although it is discouraged, there is nothing to prevent people editing their own articles so long as they stick to editing guidelines, as far as I can see only WP:ELNO has been contravened which isn't a massive problem. The other edits seem to be minor changes which are fine by the COI guidelines. Smartse (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks for the clarification. My original worry was that Misplaced Pages was being abused as a means to channel internet traffic for a personal purpose, but there should be little chance of that now that the excessive externally linked self-publications are removed. Zhanzhao (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

    City_Harvest_Church

    |edit]] | [[Talk:Association_with_Controversial_Healing_Evangelist_Benny_Hinn |talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/Association_with_Controversial_Healing_Evangelist_Benny_Hinn |history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/Association_with_Controversial_Healing_Evangelist_Benny_Hinn |protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/Association_with_Controversial_Healing_Evangelist_Benny_Hinn |delete]] | links | watch | logs | views)


    COI with members of the City Harvest Church congregation repeatedly deleting a whole article regarding it's verified close association with a certain controversial Evangelist figure.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 5Proof (talk • contribs)

    Mm, not really. The section has been deleted by one user who is a member of the Church, in addition to several who are not (myself included). At the root of this, however, is not a COI issue, it's a coatracking issue. An article on a Church should not contain a biography on a person who is associated with it. That's what his own article is for. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
    Just to add on, as I follow this article and also New Creation Church's article too, Ahnan seems to have some issues with both CHC and NCC and hence adding lots of controversial events. 5Proof is a very recent user and might just be a puppet. For the record, I am not a church member, nor a Christian. I only want to see a fair wiki article. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

    Boomerang Generation and others

    Swhitbo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has added external links to several articles which point to entries on the blog of http://www.psychologytoday.com/. I have asked whether the user has any affiliation, but have not gotten any response yet. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

    Update: I pieced together some more clues from the editor's behavior and determined that they are (or at least, indirectly self-identify as) a blogger for that website. I posted a note asking them to review COI policies. Is that good? I haven't really encountered this sort of situation before, and still consider myself to be a relatively new editor. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

    Shane Salerno

    It's highly likely this article, Shane Salerno, was/is written by the subject or a party close to him. I've made some attempts to edit the page and suggested sources but the page itself is very promotional, something that should stay out of Misplaced Pages at all costs seeing how that theme has permeated every other facet of the internet. Thanks in advance for any help. Jim Steele (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

    The Hockey Stick Illusion & The Real Global Warming Disaster

    I request that User:William_M._Connolley should be topic banned from these articles due to a conflict if interest. He is mentioned less than favorably in both books and his edit historys in both appear to me at least to be disruptive. His most recent edit being This An experienced editor like WMC knows better than to put POV unsourced material into an article, yet he has anyway. I believe he is biased against these books due to the way he is described in both of them and a topic ban is required mark nutley (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

    Categories: