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 Sophie.grothendieck (talk | contribs) at 15:15, 10 June 2014 (→IEX and Brad Katsuyama: name removed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:15, 10 June 2014 by Sophie.grothendieck (talk | contribs) (→IEX and Brad Katsuyama: name removed)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles 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:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:V Pappas Talk:Matthew Parish 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:US Wind Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    TV Tropes

    Please see the previous discussion that occurred on this same noticeboard just ten days ago. User @Speededdie: is the cofounder of TV Tropes and continues to make inappropriate COI edits to the article, such as this one. This particular diff used an extremely misleading edit summary in order to remove maintenance tags; something user attempted several times before and which resulted in the original report. He obviously did not take the previous discussion seriously and seemed to simply think he could wait for a few days and make the offending edits again without notice. What should the course of action for this issue be now? Artichoker 03:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

    Further note: Judging by his contributions, User:Speededdie appears to be a SPA, having for all intents and purposes only edited the TV Tropes article, an article he obviously has a vested and conflicted interested in. Artichoker 03:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
    Addendum: I'm the chief administrator of the All The Tropes wiki (the "competition" to TV Tropes, though I prefer to think of it as an alternative), so my word may be considered biased, but since my attempt to privately contact the Misplaced Pages administration via email seems not to have gone through concerning evidence regarding this matter (I wanted to avoid conflicts with this editor nor start a disruption here), I am posting this information here in the interest of preventing further COI incidents. User:Speededdie has sockpuppeted numerous times under IP addresses as well under his own handle, repeatedly trying to remove information he did not like from the TV Tropes article, specifically as this IP and this IP. I have also seen evidence of his actions in doing similar editing offsite such as on WikiIndex and his IP has been used by Speededdie AKA Fast Eddie as seen here(68.190.131.24) and here(96.2.93.35). Again, as I run a site which this editor has expressed open contempt of (as well as myself), I am not the most neutral source in the world concerning this information, so I ask it be verified independently and appropriate action be taken by the appropriate parties if warranted. GethN7 (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
    Regardless of your potential bias, sockpuppets are not allowed. I'll file the SPI when I get home. Tutelary (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
    Just a small update; I didn't file one as some of the accounts have one edit, and some have their last edits as 2-4 months ago. I don't see any current sockpuppets, nor disruptive activities. Tutelary (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
    I categorically deny making any edit to the article involving a fact which has not been backed up by a linked reference or of in any way concealing my affiliation with the subject wiki. Or of using a sockpuppet here or anywhere else. Please do not accept a link to GethN7's wiki (which copies TV Trope's data and adds ads to it) as evidence of anything. It is a highly suspect source. In any case, GethN7 is a person who clearly has a real conflict of interest.Speededdie (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
    I categorically deny that All The Tropes has advertisement. This is a matter of wiki policy there; your statement only exists to spread misinformation. GethN7 and my biases are obvious and self-declared, but then we're not editing the main pages on tropes wikis -- we're only providing information to the community on talk pages. BrentLaabs (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

    Brand.com

    First time here, thought it would be good to bring my item to your attention though. I noticed that Brand.com has had a lot of suspicious editing, and really, an imbalanced article for a company that has a history of white-washing. So I tried to balance it, include information from the less flattering side, but also constructive information, including their logo. For some reason that whole contribution was removed, including the logo I added for the page. I tried to leave a COI warning on the page of the white-washer example. User:Smartse concurred with my initial addition of information, and I don't want anyone to get into trouble for edit-warring, so I thought I'd just raise it here to see if others agreed. Especially as I've been threatened with a) a COI charge in response to mine from an established editor without cause (User:Solarra being the individual) with absolutely no evidence as to why I would have a COI and b) was threatened by ArbCom almost immediately, which I have seen in the past is a tactic used by those trying to intimidate other editors off the page. I will admit to any COI proven against me, but I really have no idea what they are talking about. I'm just concerned that Wiki-PR has warnings against its ethical stance and that Brand.com did not. GenuineDiva (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

    Update — I received this message accusing me that something happened off Misplaced Pages that cause me edits. Very weird, considering I have had no contact with Brand.com and the SPU appears to believe they know I could have been involved with them somehow? What is happening here; am I being threatened by Misplaced Pages to stop speaking? GenuineDiva (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

    ArbComm isn't a threat. No legal threat of any kind has been made. A report is going to ArbComm so they can understand how Diva is using off Wiki conduct to try to make a company look bad. It's a right, not a threat. Except you have no idea who I am, and it's not Wiki PR or Brand.com. edits are not suspicious, they are plain as day. Diva is using Wiki as a place to air his grievances about things that are taking place off Wiki. Check the edit history of Mr. Diva. I am sending additional info to ArbComm so we can end this silliness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeloyiseBurron (talk • contribs) 23:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

    I first entered this seeing that there was a conflict of interest involved, and at first I thought it was GenuineDiva with the COI. Having looked at her edit history I see the COI is in fact with BeloyiseBurron as you can see with his edit history he is clearly editing to promote an entity. ♥ Solarra ♥ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 22:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
    Holy wow! So many threats in so little time just because I start editing on paid-editing company pages. Cripes. No wonder they run roughshod over the whole thing. Well, if the arbitration committee is used solely for pushing new users out when they raise an issue, fine by me. By wow, I cannot even believe that any balanced information about a paid-editing company is just removed with the snap of the fingers. Shocking there is so much support here for commercializing the site. GenuineDiva (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
    BeloyiseBurron has been posting ArbCom threats, I have warned the user. @GenuineDiva: Don't let one errant user dissuade you from the community, you are most welcome here :-) I originally thought Diva had a COI based on the edit summaries of BeloyiseBurron, after further investigation I removed the notice from Diva's talk page. ♥ Solarra ♥ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 22:58, 31 May 2014

    (UTC)

    Okay, lets make this simple. Things were rolled back to last week, before Diva began to heavily weight the references. We can discuss on the talk page. Make your case, Diva. --BeloyiseBurron (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

    Yup, somehow the Brand.com page was reverted to its prior form with no negatives whatsoever, and all new sources removed. As I said before, however it is happening, the page has been white-washed of anything but carefully crafted PR writing. I'll do what I can to keep this off, but if there is no support here, ANI is next I guess. GenuineDiva (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
    @GenuineDiva: I already posted to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:BeloyiseBurron reported by User:Solarra (Result: ) feel free to comment :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 23:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
    Okay; I've left a brief comment pointing to my prior discussions, but of course want others to make any decision. Lord knows anything else I really have to say may not be in line enough with Misplaced Pages rules to truly contribute well enough. GenuineDiva (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
    Thank you, your contributions have been more than adequate as far as I'm concerned. ♥ Solarra ♥ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 23:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
    This can be closed now, BeloyiseBurron was blocked for edit warring. ♥ Solarra ♥ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 11:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

    William Astor, 4th Viscount Astor

    User likely affiliated with subject, possible impersonation. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

    Charles Denham

    Hello! I work in the health sector and have a personal interest in health news. Earlier this year I learned about a court case mentioning Charles Denham and edited the article about the person, as the case was interesting to me. In my mind this did not relate to my employment directly, even though iit is in my professional field. The subject of the article, Denham himself, came to Misplaced Pages some time ago and has been interacting on the article page and an AfD. I have developed both his biography and the AfD discussion more than anyone else. Today he tells me that he sells a product which competes with one provided by my employer, and that I have a conflict of interest. That might be the case, and I proposed to leave all discussion entirely. I deny knowing that my employer and he were marketplace competitors as he suggests. Beyond my abandoning interaction with any Misplaced Pages articles related to Denham or anything close to him, I commit to be more conscious of avoiding COI in the future. I am posting here because as a new user, Denham should have access to someone who can give him relief for his concerns about COI, whatever that may mean, and I thought it would be best that since he made a COI claim against me that I come here and commit to stay out of this from here on and ask that someone else please help him address his needs. I am very sorry for the negative experience he is having. One problem which he raised was that he wished to know that I am employed by an entity which he says has competing business interests, and while I try to be open about this, the way that I put this information on my userpage was not sufficient to meet his needs and I regret this. I believed that I was acting independently of my employer, but regardless, I would am excusing myself from involvement there now. I am around otherwise if anyone asks for me. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

    • I was attracted to this page after seeing Bluerasberry, who I know reasonably well, on the BLP noticeboard. I don't think this string is necessary, because the page will most likely be removed soon. There is no strong consensus to keep the article and the BLP has requested deletion. The COI accusation is a symptom of the AfD dragging on long enough to make editors with competing views become irritable by the discussion.
    Having witnessed the presentation Consumer Reports did at Wikimania a couple years ago, I could see how Blue's work there could give him a strong opinion on the subject, though not actually a COI. This string represents an over-reaction to the kinds of COI accusations that get thrown around routinely, often against editors that may have some bias for another reason. CorporateM (Talk) 00:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
    • What's missing from this discussion (and those parts of the discussion which have been conducted in the corresponding AFD) is WP:AGF. It makes sense that BlueRasberry would naturally have an interest in something he has an understanding of. It would seem (from the edits in question) that BR's aim was to expand those parts of the biography where sources were available but information hadn't been included. Having a "controversy" section is perfectly acceptable and fairly common. That doesn't mean it's nice but nice and neutral are not necessarily the same thing and WP strives to be the latter. I suppose it's possible for BR to have discovered the link between the subject's work and the work of his employer (though I don't think there's even been confirmation that BR works in a related area) had he done more research. But having had it drawn to his attention, he has now committed to not editing that article. That's about as good faith an effort as we can ask from an editor who has amorally stumbled into a conflicted situation. Like CorporateM, I'm not actually convinced that paid employment with Coke gives you an automatic conflict of interest with regard to Pepsi. Even less so with regard to employees of the other organisation. Charles Denham you seem like a smart guy. You've made your point and achieved what you set out to achieve. Like CM, I think the article will probably be deleted. Lets all go about our business, shall we? St★lwart 04:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Just one more thought: As I pointed out at the AfD, Dr. Denham should hardly be the one to complain about possible COI, since the article about him was originally written, later edited, and strongly defended at the AfD by users who are admittedly affiliated with his foundation. As you say, it's moot now because the article is likely to be deleted, but I felt the accusation against Bluerasberry (whom I don't know at all) was unjustified and was a case of the pot calling the kettle black. --MelanieN (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

    Jeff Davidson (speaker)

    All of the above editors are single-use accounts that keep adding promotional language to this article which requires cleanup. I seems to me that the editors probably have a close link to the article subject, the way they are being used looked somewhat like sockpuppetry. The quality of some of the publications mentioned looks a bit think, and I think the whole article could do with a review by someone with more expertise than me. Shritwod (talk) 08:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

    Most of the edits that have been made by moderators has not been to correct neutral tone issues, but rather the mass cutting of information. I understand perfectly fine if there are issues with neutrality, however I have sought to substantiate all of the claims on the article with some sort of citation or another. Many hours have been put into researching the necessary citations, and I would appreciate if the concerned moderators would not remove the properly cited information. It will not ultimately serve Misplaced Pages or the common user if the proper information is removed. C3po2398 (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

    C3po2398, can I ask what you relationship with the subject is? And also, are those other editor accounts also under your control? Shritwod (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
    Shritwod, Jeff has given a presentation at the University I attend, and I took interest in some of his work. I don't believe that should constitute conflict of interest, and regardless to that issue anyway, I have sought professionalism and neutral tone in the information I have added to the page, citing as much as I have been able. So my request is that the information that I have dug up be there, and you can correct whatever neutral tone issues you believe there are. And to answer your other question, I have no relation to the other editor accounts. C3po2398 (talk) 8:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
    C3po2398, is it just then a coincidence that there is also an editor R2D29826398? Shritwod (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
    In the past, a number of editors have been hired to create biographies for speakers who are part of the National Speakers Association. The client has been hiring more than one editor per article. My guess is that this is the case here, although I'd expect that to only account for two or three of the editors. I'd propose that there were a couple of editors hired, one of whom has been creating multiple accounts. - Bilby (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Seankellywiki checkuser results should probably be here for reference. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

    metamodernism

    The metamodernism page is being held to ransom by Festal82, who is making threats and using bullying tactics to force an entirely subjective list of 'Notable metamodernists' onto the page, which other editors agree is divisive and inappropriate. There appears to be a clear conflict of interest at play here, and a possible attempt at self-positioning. This user has repeatedly ignored my requests to stop this behaviour, and has instead harassed me on the talk page, making wild and outlandish accusations, and making threats to delete the whole content of the page if they don't get their own way. The user also repeatedly accuses me of being somebody that I am not, every time I make an edit they have not sanctioned, despite there being consensus among other editors, and has sought to undermine my attempts to maintain the factual integrity of the article. (The user also seems to accuse me of penning the entirety of the article, which the edit history shows is clearly not the case.) Rather than respond to my requests in a reasonable manner, the user has instead offered a bizarre ultimatum, that effectively says they will not vandalize the rest of the page if they can keep adding to their list, and seems intent on instigating an edit war. Esmeme (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

    I'm happy to have anyone who wants take look at the Talk page for metamodernism and see what has really happened there. My last posted message on that page summarizes exactly the sort of behavior Esmeme has exhibited there for weeks now, including (as anyone who reads the History can see) accusing me repeatedly of being "Seth Abramson" and editing with an aim of "self-positioning" and then coming here to complain that I've made such accusations against him/her. Most appalling (besides outlandish representations, like a supposed "threat to delete the whole content of the page") is that this user has been flagged for violating WP:NOT and WP:RS for weeks now, leading to a "warning" tag being put atop the metamodernism page, and is now, incredibly, making accusations that in fact s/he has only been "attempting to maintain the factual integrity of the article." I do hope an editor will step in hold Esmeme to the WP:NOT and WP:RS and WP:OR standards s/he has been violating with impunity for over a month. I previously attempted to secure an administrator's intervention, but was told this was a content dispute; I then offered Esmeme two separate dispute resolutions to try to tamp down the conflict--both of which were ignored. All of this can be confirmed by looking at the Talk and History pages for metamodernism. Festal82 (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
    The talk page and edit history will show the above claims to be grossly misleading and untrue. Esmeme (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
    @Festal82: @Esmeme: - Both of you are making claims about each other's off-wiki interests and activities. Keeping in mind WP:OUTING, are either of you basing this on an admission of the other or are they just accusations? --— Rhododendrites |  19:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
    Apologies, Rhododendrites (talk)--you are right that both the OP and I have skirted this line more than once. My base claim has nothing to do with any of that, though; it's that Esmeme has shown persistent bias in favor of a non-WP:NOT, non-WP:RS website, while deleting all links relating to WP:NOT, WP:RS media outlets like The Guardian, Indiewire, et cetera. Esmeme has justified these deletions by assumptions of bad faith (thereby violating WP:AGF) and accusations that are either violations of WP:OUTING or WP:NOR. In responding to this bias and these allegations, I did the same thing Esmeme had been doing--make accusations regarding the likely identity of another editor, based upon what I perceived to be consistent biases. I know, for my part, that those allegations are in no way important to my concerns, finally--as again, the issue is the OP's persistent selection of non-WP:NOT, non-WP:RS websites over WP:NOT, WP:RS media outlets, based upon allegations which, as you note, violate WP:OUTING (in addition to being baseless). In fact, Esmeme has never provided any grounds whatsoever for deleting WP:NOT, WP:RS media outlet links other than claims based entirely on WP:OUTING and WP:NOR violations. A review of the article history and talk page reveals these are the _only_ grounds ever provided by the OP for his/her edits, while my grounds have consistently been as stated above. Festal82 (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
    I've looked through the edit history of the page and made some comments on the talk page here: Talk:Metamodernism#Outsider's point of view. --— Rhododendrites |  22:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

    Articles from a Wikipedian in Residence

    We have an editor who is a Wikipedian in Residence (see WP:WikiProject Consumer Reports) who has drafted a userspace version of articles here which he wishes to use for his own internal use. Please see Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bluerasberry/cr as I'm not sure of what to do. I suggest that the contents be merged into the current article but it seems like the user does not want to for additional months or years due to the current COI policies. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

    I have commented there. I see no harm whatsoever in keeping material by a trustworthy editor such as Blue that may be of some use, but I am quitepuzzled aboutwhy he might whant not to use it. If the WIR program acts to discourage high quality work from appearing in WP, it's being used perversely. DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC) .

    IEX and Brad Katsuyama

    Related articles and user

    Summary

    • Based on his/her edit patterns, KristinaChi appears to be acting as an agent for the IEX and Brad Katsuyama, and therefore has a conflict of interest with respect to these articles.
    • KristinaChi's accusative tone towards "HFT", and his/her repeated attempts to censor and suppress all content that is critical of IEX while keeping only content that appears to hurt the image of "HFT" fully intact, provides grounds to believe that the user cannot be trusted to maintain a neutral, objective and encyclopedic view towards the editing of these specific articles.

    Detailed description

    KristinaChi appears to have a significant conflict of interest with the editing of the IEX article:

    1. Immediately after the account KristinaChi was created, its first action was to undo all of the contributions made by me to the Brad Katsuyama and IEX articles. Moreover, the user's contribution history shows that he/she is solely dedicated to changing the articles on Brad Katsuyama and IEX to improve the image of Katsuyama and IEX. Furthermore, the user mounts extremely lengthy defenses of IEX on the IEX Talk page, which border on wikilawyering. This type of activity is unusual for new accounts and suggests that KristinaChi has a substantial conflict of interest: either a personal agenda against me, or personal connection with Brad Katsuyama and IEX.

    2. *** is the real name of my colleague from MIT. If you look-up my IP address from the revision history of Brad Katsuyama, anyone from the public can find the name of our group and *** is the only person whose name can be connected with our group from a Google search. It is clear that the account name KristinaChi was picked deliberately to resemble, harass and personally attack a person associated with me. This choice of username directly violates several of Misplaced Pages's editor policies on impersonation, harassment and personal attacks. I feel that a user with this level of maturity should not be trusted to maintain an encyclopedic and objective view of the articles at hand.

    2. KristinaChi's persecutory tone in the IEX Talk page further reveals that he/she is not editing the articles from a neutral or objective perspective:

    Sophie.grothendieck, is your firm doing HFT?

    IEX Talk page. KristinaChi (talk) 07:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

    I would like to rephrase the question I just asked before. Does this defintion apply to your firm?

    IEX Talk page. KristinaChi (talk) 07:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

    It appears to me you may be dodging my question. I'll rephrase again: how much does your firm spend on infrastructure, i.e. colocation, direct exchange connectivity, data feeds etc. per month approximately?

    IEX Talk page. KristinaChi (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

    Another editor, MrBill3, has come forward to point out the possibility that there exists a conflict of interest in the editing process of the article:

    If one believes an editor may have a conflict of interest the appropriate step is to post a message to their talk page asking them to disclose any conflict of interest. If the response is unsatisfactory the next appropriate step is to take it to the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. This is not appropriate content for this talk page.

    IEX Talk page. MrBill3 (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

    While I have fully disclosed my position, KristinaChi appears to be evading the topic of his/her conflict of interest:

    My firm engages in a mix of quantitative trading in global asset classes in various time horizons (including long-term macro trades) and we do not engage in U.S. equities trading... We do focus on developing bleeding-edge technology to protect ourselves against predatory practices from certain high-speed traders. As such, I am writing these views with an independent assessment of the facts.

    IEX Talk page. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

    I learned about IEX and Brad Katsuyama originally through a CNBC interview between BATS Global Markets's CEO and Katsuyama. As such, a citation referencing this interview was my first contribution to the article on Brad Katsuyama. As a member of the financial industry that is unassociated to Katsuyama, BATS and the "HFT" topic at hand, I found the topic interesting and carried out my own research to weigh the pros and cons. Seeing that the articles on IEX and Brad Katsuyama were lacking in neutrality because most of the content had come from either IEXCommunications (IEX themselves) or a single book, Flash Boys, that promotes IEX, I hoped to add a few references to balance the views in both articles.

    My contributions seem to be rational, as MrBill3 has pointed out:

    I tend to agree with an editor who pointed out this article relies heavily on primary or biased sources which seem to present the subject as "heroic". I think this should be toned down and balanced with content based on secondary sources' discussion of IEX. I also think the article could be made more clear and explanatory.

    IEX Talk page. MrBill3 (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

    Thanks for your kind attention to this issue! Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 08:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

    References

    1. "The Wall Street Journal Market Watch". marketwatch.com. Retrieved 2014-05-11.
    Comment: someone used a ref tag above for some reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    I was not notifed by Sophie.grothendieck about this discussion. I would like to clarify that I have nothing to do with either IEX or Brad Katsuyama, who happen to be prominent and public critics of HFT. For this very reason it is Sophie.grothendieck who has substantial conflict of interest, since he is involved in his own HFT firm and has lied about his HFT involvement in the very same dialoge he pointed out above. Also MrBill3 was taking about Sophie.grothendieck in the comment of 08:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC) and raised the issue on Sophie.grothendieck's talk page (diff), not on mine. KristinaChi (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    I think the fact that I was willing to lift the veil of anonymity to declare no conflict of interest is a very strong testament of my integrity. In contrast, the fact that you're using "HFT" in the negative connotation in the above sentence shows that you're not approaching this topic with a neutral point of view. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    My username is an alias and does not resemble a living person. I have never claimed otherwise. My initials are completely different to the initials of the person it was claimed I would impersonate and the last names share just one character, the "i" at the end. As a sign of good faith however I am willing to have my username changed if community consensus arises to do so. KristinaChi (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    KristinaChi and *** are evidently homophones. The fact that you showed no hesitation to namedrop non-fictitious entities (e.g. my group) further strengthens the premise that you were deliberately namedropping a non-fictitious person (e.g. ***), and shows your intent to harass us. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    (Redacted)
    Your accusation is defamatory. The tag "high-frequency trading" was added to the page because of our research interest in high-frequency trading, not because we practice high-frequency trading. I know a whole variety of domain experts at high-frequency trading (e.g. the SEC, the CFTC, Andrei Kirilenko) who nevertheless do not practice it - we don't consider them "high-frequency traders" simply because they stated high-frequency trading as a research interest. I replaced the name of our group with asterisks for security reasons, I think your blatant disregard for our confidentiality is disrespectful and uncivil, and in breach of Misplaced Pages policies. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    Before today, essentially all his edits were directed at prominent critics of high-frequency trading, such as Bradley Katsuyama and Katsuyama's firm IEX. KristinaChi (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    On the contrary, all of your edits are directed at censoring criticisms of Brad Katsuyama and IEX and it seems you have spent an inordinate amount of effort (word count of your talk page arguments) arguing just to remove the criticisms rather than adding any new content. I've also added factual content to MIT's page during those edits.
    As you say it yourself, Katsuyama and IEX have been making criticisms. Why is it that their points get preferential treatment in your editing efforts while you:
    1. call Scott Locklin's views a "smear",
    2. denounce the views of CEO of BATS Global Markets, a multi-billion dollar company by private market valuation, as "contentious"?
    The CEO of BATS and Scott Locklin has been held in great regard by buy-side investors like me even before Katsuyama's name became public. The huge contrast in creditworthiness is quantifiable: A Google search of "William O'Brien BATS" yields nearly 100x the number of results, and "Scott Locklin" yields nearly 10x the number of results, as compared to a Google search on Brad Katsuyama. I don't see a fair reason why references to their statements have to be silenced. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

    Sophie.grothendieck operated the following user names and IP addresses to advance the very same points/ make the same edits with the same oddities like forgetting to sign comments, among other oddities:

    198.0.163.1 starting 00:20, 12 May 2014
    Sophie.grothendieck starting 00:27, 12 May 2014
    Twosigmainvestments starting 04:41, 2 June 2014
    207.181.197.4 starting 04:57, 2 June 2014
    64.150.44.98 starting 18:50, 5 June 2014
    KristinaChi (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    This accusation is patently false.
    - 198.0.163.1 appears to be my current IP, which makes sense because I registered my account Sophie.grothendieck right afterwards.
    - 207.181.197.4 appears to have begun contributing on 23 January 2014 on List of Baby Daddy episodes, long before I started editing the IEX article. This is a static IP registered by RCN originating near Kansas City.
    - 64.150.44.98 appears to be a static IP registered by Illinois Century Network originating from Chicago.
    - Twosigmainvestments I have no CheckUser privileges but I think checking his/her IP will immediately clear me of your accusation.
    It is not plausible that I registered 3 other static IPs on different networks, under different organization names, based in different cities, and seemingly edited the article across every hour of the day. Static IPs cost substantial time and money to own and register, more so than it costs to run IEX's website. The more likely explanation is that these editors showed up because I emailed a buy-side mailing list about the IEX article to invite editors with a more objective view to take part in the editing of the article. This would be consistent with the fact that their origin cities appear to be financial hubs. Given that IEX was designed to help ] investors like me and probably those 3 other editors, our personal views should actually be biased in favor of IEX - and the fact that all of us seem to have converged on the editing efforts on the criticisms of IEX goes to show that we were able to practice full neutrality. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    Two other, experienced editors objected content Sophie.grothendieck added to IEX. Among other grave breaches of policies, at least a handful of times Sophie.grothendieck re-inserted a wordpress blog link into this article, it is currently in the IEX article as reference
    9. ^ "Michael Lewis: shilling for the buyside". April 4, 2014. Retrieved 2014-05-30.
    that was identified to read and look like a smear and was also objected by another editor. KristinaChi (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    I wholeheartedly agree to remove Scott Locklin's wordpress reference and I was about to do so. But I was unable to carry on my editing efforts on the article because you have been repeatedly and nondiscretionarily undoing changes from 5-7 different editors in bulk, including improvements to parts of the article unassociated to the section that I wrote - which is why I had to bring your destructive efforts and conflict of interest to the attention of this noticeboard.
    I was not notified by you that you think I have been in grave of policies. Also as a sign of good faith, I am willing to resolve your concerns if community consensus arises to do so.
    Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Looking at this, there seems to be a contradiction: Sophie.grothendieck has claimed to be both a disinterested researcher, and a buy-side investor ("buy-side investors like me"). I suppose it is possible to be both at the same time, but nonetheless I think that editor is too much involved with this topic to edit the article on HFT or any of the companies or other organizations involved in it. Even neutral edits can exhibit OWNership. I consider that . KristinaChi is similarly too involved--tho I understand that editor to be currently & I think rightly blocked for outing. I am prepared to issue corresponding topic bans, but I ask for comments. DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

    Banc De Binary

    I know a discussion on this article has already been archived, but I would like to renew it here. I find it suspicious that a marginally notable company article (which was previously deleted for not passing WP:CORP) has a large number of intensely interested editors that are persistent about using low-quality sources like press releases, court records, Investopedia, etc.

    Some circumstantial events suggest that the article has become a battle-ground for competing financial interests, whereas some are paid a small fee to use their accounts to add negative content, and the other has used a paid editing firm probably (if the accusations of socks, etc. are true), offered a bounty to anyone who can control the article and so on.

    Since a COI can never be proven anywhere and we have no way to obtain evidence one way or another, I'm just left with my paranoia and suspicious circumstances regarding online ads for paid edits. So I'm not sure anything can be done about it, except to focus on content and high-quality sources. However, knowing that there is most likely so much COI going on, with competing interests, it's probably impossible to develop a consensus that is not astroturfed. CorporateM (Talk) 01:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

    Deepak Chopra: RfC: Move criticism up lede?

    Talk:Deepak_Chopra#RfC: Move criticism up lede?

    Should we move criticism of Dr Chopra up the lede? Right now it's in the second half of the final para.

    Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

    Categories: