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 Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 00:49, 21 January 2015 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 80) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:49, 21 January 2015 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 80) (bot)(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:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Bunq Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Casualty Actuarial Society Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Commvault Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:DEGIRO Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Michael Dell Talk:Etraveli Group Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire Talk:Group-IB Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Insight Meditation Society Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:Khalili Foundation Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk: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 COI SPA at Mike Huckabee

    I'm concerned about a SPA editor 71.57.118.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and now 7157.118.25a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who showed up a few days ago to add some rather laudatory content to Mike Huckabee, a former US Governor who is a speculative candidate for US President in 2016. The editor has also removed some content critical of the subject. Here is their first edit. I would like to see if anyone else thinks this might be an editor with a COI. Thank you.- MrX 13:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

    You didn't give notice to the user; I did that. Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks. I thought they would be notified when I added {{User links}}. Let me test it on myself: MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).- MrX 15:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    Update: User links does not generate a notification. The more you know...- MrX 15:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    I have suspected COI for this IP since his first edit. I know suspicions aren't proof, but his edits (removal of what he sees as negative and replacing with only positive content) at the very least appear to be whitewashing and promotional. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, and they seem to be an experienced editor, although that's not proof either.- MrX 15:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

    Appreciated the notification Jytdog. In reality my concerns, as outlined on the Talk:Mike Huckabee page were that the former Mike Huckabee page had some overly negative sections. For example, the Mike Huckabee Recent Controversies section was in bad shape originally. Both the Clemency Controversies and Recent Controversies sections when I arrived were clearly negative criticism sections designed to disparage, in violation of the WP:BLP policy. My understanding of the WP:BLP policy is that:


    “ Biographies of living persons ('BLP's) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy... Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; see below. Non-administrators should tag them with db-attack. Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or in bad faith, is grounds for immediate blocking. ”

    As I furthermore pointed out in Talk:Mike_Huckabee#Recommendation_on_Controversy_Sections such sections are seemingly in violation of the WP:CRITS policy which states:


    “ An article dedicated to negative criticism of a topic is usually discouraged because it tends to be a point-of-view fork, which is generally prohibited by the neutral point-of-view policy.

    Likewise, sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism. Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. For example, if a politician received significant criticism about their public behavior, create a section entitled 'Public behavior' and include all information – positive and negative – within that section. If a book was heavily criticized, create a section in the book's article called 'Reception', and include positive and negative material in that section...

    Sections or article titles should generally not include the word 'controversies'. Instead, titles should simply name the event, for example, '2009 boycott' or 'Hunting incident'. The word 'controversy' should not appear in the title except in the rare situations when it has become part of the commonly accepted name for the event, such as Creation–evolution controversy.

    		”

    At any rate, I did not try to remove all mentions of criticism. I simply tried to add detail mentioning Mike Huckabee's defense of his clemencies to the Clemency Controversy section (which I've since renamed Clemencies to adhere to WP:CRITS, he has cited 6 factors in his decision which were summarized as follows.

    I remain concerned that given the recent revert of those changes, both the Mike_Huckabee#Clemencies and Mike_Huckabee#Notoriety sections are in violation of WP:CRITS and WP:BLP with primarily negative material. I did try to add some positive material to what were some highly negative sections, for example two positive paragraphs to the Notoriety section (previously named Recent Controversies) so that they wouldn't be entirely negative. However, I believe that, per WP:CRITS, "sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged" and "pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once."

    Both of these sections were clearly negative by using the word "Controversies" in their original titles and shouldn't have been named like they were in the first place. Even with the changes they still remain overly negative in tone. Both sections devote considerable writing to attacking Mike Huckabee and Mike Huckabee is not even quoted at all in the Clemency section now, and is only quoted in the Notoriety section when those quotes are being criticized.

    I strongly believe that if negative criticism is to exist on the page of a living person, the person who the page is about should at least be quoted regarding the subject matter so their defense is presented as well. And the Notoriety section has 6 of 8 paragraphs that criticize Mike Huckabee, even with the two paragraph additions I recently added, and remains heavily negative in tone. --7157.118.25a (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

    Also to clarify, I am not arguing for the deletion of the sections, just that if they are to remain they should be severely balanced so they are no longer pure criticism sections. Although, the Notoriety section is in such bad shape that I question whether it might be better off deleted, as it will be tough to salvage. The Clemency section though has figured prominently in the news and I agree the material deserves mention on the page.

    However, I do think the section should be less clearly negative and present Mike Huckabee's side of what occurred more proportionally in the Clemency section, rather than trying to fit a single, barely noticeable sentence on his views in, and spending the rest of the section criticizing him, as is currently the case. I don't think the page comports to WP:BLP, WP:CRITS, or WP:UNDUE standards at all even with all the recent changes made (and most of my recent changes were not controversial and involved fixes to dead links and source formatting). --7157.118.25a (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

    7157.118.25a, WP:CRITS is not a policy; it is an essay. And criticism and/or controversy sections are perfectly fine in a Misplaced Pages article, including in a WP:BLP article, if they are warranted and are abiding by WP:Due weight. Flyer22 (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

    "New draft" problem at Dany_Bahar

    (Previous mention on WP:COIN: )

    A paid editor, HOgilvy (talk · contribs) wants to replace Dany Bahar with their own draft. They sent me a note on my talk page. Discussion at Talk:Dany_Bahar#Article_rewrite. COI editor draft at User:HOgilvy/Dany_Bahar. Most of the issues revolve around Bahar being fired as head of Lotus and the subsequent litigation. Anyone want to look at this? Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

    John Nagle, I don't mind looking. The current version HOgilvy posted at his sandbox seems fine to me and an improvement over the existing article but I don't want to take any action if you feel there are issues outstanding? The conversation in the Talk page left me confused as to where that had netted. DocumentError (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    I haven't looked at the content. "New drafts" by COI editors are a big time sink for unpaid editors, and I was hoping someone else would deal with this. There's some controversy over the circumstances under which the article subject left Lotus. Searches for more sources are probably needed. John Nagle (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    The controversy centres on the allegations which were rife at the time, and are referred to in the statement at the bottom of Dany Bahar (taken from this article on gtspirit.com), of “improper or unauthorised spending”. As it happened Dany Bahar did indeed act “within the limits of his authority or with the authority of the board”, hence the out-of-court settlement ahead of the hearing of his lawsuit for unfair dismissal. The 2012 allegations were detailed in a few sources – including Bloomberg, This Is Money and the Telegraph – all of which appeared while the audit was underway and almost two years before the settlement (May 2014). HOgilvy (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    I have made some tweaks to the draft and posted comments on the Talk page. I advised that I would be willing to merge the modified draft into article-space after a couple more tweaks, but only if the editor is comfortable with a frequent paid editor reviewing their work and prepared to accept that there is a risk for drama as a result. CorporateM (Talk) 22:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    Hi – I've replied to your post on the talk page. Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

    Orion Edutech

    User created article and is writing from a first person POV. e.g. "We offer several courses that prepare our students..." The Haz talk 05:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

    I marked it for proposed deletion as advertising. It's also partially copied from their Facebook page, at . John Nagle (talk) 07:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    User recreated page, paraphrasing and adding citations to what was there before. The Haz talk 16:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    Someone else deleted it again. John Nagle (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

    Diosdado Cabello

    The users listed above have been editing the Diosdado Cabello, Derwick Associates and other related articles removing controversial material. The users may be a collection of individuals or a single individual since user RealEditing stated "hi im back", even though they had no previous contributions. Each user has a short period of time showing contributions and is usually there for a single purpose. Each edit seems to be defending Diosdado Cabello, Derwick Associates and others related to a controversy. ZiaLater (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

    I'd suggest requesting a sockpuppet check. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations John Nagle (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    Most of these have now been blocked in response to the SPI: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Naruto2839. Based on the talk page Talk:Derwick Associates there appears to be evidence of paid editing involved in these two articles, so both Diosdado Cabello and Derwick Associates should be checked for NPOV. Also, since this seems to be a persistent long-term issue, additional editors should watchlist these pages to monitor them for the likely situation where new socks arrive. Deli nk (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

    Gogebic Community College‎

    Can someone else please weigh in on the editing occurring in this article? I don't seem to be getting through to our colleague(s). Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

    It's not that you're "not getting through to me." My issue is that the content you're removing is only beneficial to someone interested in the article. Misplaced Pages is intended to be a free resource of information that's editable by those who are most knowledgeable on specific subjects. You're claiming there's repeated information and a conflict of interest. Information is not "repeated." It's basic writing structure - the first paragraphs give an overview of the school and content of the article and then the information is categorized and broken. And as far as conflict of interest goes - even if that were true, how is listing key information (types of degrees and academic programs available or mentioning what distinguishes the school - their Ski Area Management Program) a content violation. This is critical information for someone who may be researching the school and quickly browses Misplaced Pages.
    In addition, you're removing images that allow users to get a visual look at the school. Again, I cannot understand why you would remove these.
    Also, I have read a few questions on your talkpage from other users. I noticed you replied to one user saying "maybe once you've been here longer you will understand." I may be newer here too but that doesn't justify you're removal of quality and accurate content. I'm spending a lot of time having to undo your updates or make my own updates.
    AdatGogebicCommunityCollege (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2015 (CST)
    You're (a) using a role account to (b) edit your employer's article (c) in ways that clearly violate our neutral point of view policy and (d) copying material directly from other copyrighted materials in the process.
    This isn't another piece of your college's marketing materials. This is an encyclopedia with clear policies that prohibit all of the things you've been doing. It's also a community of editors with norms and expectations that you've ignored and violated.
    Change your username. Stop editing your employer's article. Stop adding puffery to articles. And stop copying copyrighted material into articles.
    If you need help or advice, ask and we'll be happy to help. But you've stumbled way over the line and you have to make some changes before anyone can help. If you continue your current behavior you're going to be blocked and eventually banned. ElKevbo (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    I cleaned up the article a bit, adding some data from the Michigan Department of the Treasury's report of basic statistics on the school. The picture problem can be fixed by someone at the school taking some pictures and uploading them. You can't just upload stuff from brochures, because of copyright issues, but you can take pictures yourself and upload them. A picture of the college's in-house ski resort would be interesting. John Nagle (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

    TPEG

    User:PR ERTICO is repeatedly adding inappropriate promotional content. Theroadislong (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

    Gustavo Ferraro

    This is my second posting of an entry I have come across for Gustavo Ferraro. The editor DaltonCastle has continually re-inserted unsourced or non-Wiki worthy sources (gossip rags). This editor has created multiple entries against anyone the handle accuses has a connection to Néstor Kirchner or Cristina Fernández de Kirchner in order to defame them.

    In addition to Gustavo Ferraro the editor has created the following fringe theory entries that, according to them, ALL have a close connection:(again, without a reliable source)

    Esteban Pérez Corradi
    Carlos Zannini
    Miguel Ángel Pires
    Carlos Molinari
    Daniel Lalín
    Enrique Omar Suárez
    César Guido Forcieri
    Raúl Jaime
    Juan Pablo Schiavi
    Federico Elaskar
    Martin Báez
    Carlos Bettini
    Sergio Tasselli
    Claudio Uberti
    Claudio Cirigliano
    Roberto Vignati

    And that isn't even all of them. All of them have foreign language sources (Spanish) but no Spanish Wiki. This editor stated on the Gustavo Ferraro talk page,"If its defamatory, then it is the fault of a major newspaper which should publish a correction of their mistake," as reasoning why he uses defamatory sources versus logic.

    So the question is really not about a lack of intelligence but intent. The attacks are one-sided, possibly Radical Civic Union, which is the opposition party. All follow the same format to try to mask the real intent by including an early life section, sometimes sourced (in Gustavo Ferraro's case sources do not exist). They are taking advantage of the flaw in the search engine algorithm to have a smear campaign show as a first page result for all the parties included. And in terms of content, what amounts to basically soapbox blogs.

    The Neutral point of View page states that if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

    Please do not excuse yourself from this matter by claiming you're not a subject matter expert. The subject is Misplaced Pages being hijacked for smear/political purposes.--SimpleStitch (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

    Categories: