Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard
| Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
| ||||
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
| ||||
|
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
|
| ||||
| To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:
| ||||
| Search the COI noticeboard archives |
| Help answer requested edits |
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
|
Penn State Nittany Lions Football
Resolved- Penn State Nittany Lions football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I have tried to change/edit the Penn State Nittany Lions Football page in regards to the all-time team versus team records in their rivalry games getting the records up to date and accurate with the number of games won/lost when considering the child sex abuse scandal and the wins taken away from that. But someone keeps deleting my edits and is trying to have me blocked from Wikipedia editing for some reason. They keep putting back outdated information when the information I have entered is correct and up to date. My main antagonist is Trlovejoy.
- Unless you have any evidence or even suspicion that Trlovejoy has a close connection to Penn State football, this is a matter that doesn't really belong here. It would be better suited for WP:NPOVN. OlYeller21Talktome 18:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have made similar mistakes in the past. It is not always easy to select the right board if you don't know the ropes, but please don't let this discourage you. Just copy and paste the source of your complaint here into the correct board. Please also remember to sign your posts with four tildas (~~~~) so that we know who you are. (The wiki will replace the trailing four tildas with your signature and a timestamp.) Thanks, Dusty|💬|You can help! 01:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Monocle
- Monocle (lifestyle magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Monocle 24 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Edited by :-
- Monoclemag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
StaleWelcomed with COI template, and seems to ignore clear connection between user name and articles edited. sats 00:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- and continues to edit as if no messages have been sent, it is getting frustrating see how slow this page is here, and how the editor continues as if writing
about the company is no big deal despite having the COI tag on the page. sats 09:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'll check it out. Sometimes templates are ignored because they assume you're a robot. I've also been told of a study that showed how often people ignore talk page messages if they're quickly hit with templates. Not sure if that's the case here but it may be why they're ignoring messages. OlYeller21Talktome 18:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- It looks like they finally acknowledged the issue, claim not to be affiliated (just a fan), and are going to create a new account to avoid confusion. The edits look fine but show that they either just aren't adding references that they're pulling info from or have an intimate knowledge of the organization.
- Keep an eye on things, if you will please. If you see anything that look problematic (NPOV editing, ownership issues, etc.), please report back here. OlYeller21Talktome 18:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'll check it out. Sometimes templates are ignored because they assume you're a robot. I've also been told of a study that showed how often people ignore talk page messages if they're quickly hit with templates. Not sure if that's the case here but it may be why they're ignoring messages. OlYeller21Talktome 18:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
COI: Government of Serbia
Hi – I'm notifying people here that I work for Bell Pottinger (see my talk user page for more info) and have proposed minor edits to a number of articles on behalf of my client, the Government of Serbia. Those articles are: Accession of Serbia to the European Union, Government of Serbia, National Assembly (Serbia) and Ivica Dačić. See the talk pages for details and feel free to chip in on any/all of these suggestions. Many thanks. Vivj2012 (talk) 09:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- I assume these requests were dealt with. I can't find any the requests anywhere (in CAT:EDITREQ or on the talk pages of the listed articles). Unless I've missed them somewhere, I consider this a resolved issue.
- Thanks, Vivj2012, for going through the hoops to avoid any COI issues. OlYeller21Talktome 19:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi OlYeller21, thanks for replying – the requests are on the talk pages. My proposed edits to the Accession and the Dačić article have been agreed, and I'm discussing edits to the National Assembly article (under Women in the current Parliament). I haven't had a response to my request on the Government of Serbia talk page (Cabinet reshuffle), but I notice you've posted under it regarding the list of agencies and made the edit accordingly (completely agree by the way). I'm proposing an update on the composition of the cabinet, which is starting to change since it was formed last year. What's your view on my suggestion? Many thanks. Vivj2012 (talk) 10:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, OK. I was looking for the {{editrequest}} templates which was rather narrow-sighted of me. I'll check out the requests in the next day or two. OlYeller21Talktome 18:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks very much. Vivj2012 (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, OK. I was looking for the {{editrequest}} templates which was rather narrow-sighted of me. I'll check out the requests in the next day or two. OlYeller21Talktome 18:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Voice intro project
ResolvedThis obviously won't apply in contentious cases, but when you are corresponding, on- or off- wiki, with article subjects who make good-faith edits, please consider asking them to contribute a short audio recoding of their spoken voice, as described at Wikipedia:Voice intro project (currently a holding page, linking to the project page on Commons). The template {{Voice Intro Project invitation}} is also available for your convenience. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- I saw this template appear on an editor's talk page that I had edited. That's a really interesting project. I'll try to keep it in mind, not only because it will be beneficial to that project but because I think showing a new COI editor that while COI editing may cause problems, Wikipedia still values them and their contributions.
- Thanks for the heads up. OlYeller21Talktome 18:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- That's a terrific idea! Andrew327 19:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
WYRD-FM
Resolved- WYRD-FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- EntercomGreenville (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User edited the article in question, apparently in good faith, to update the radio station's broadcast schedule. However, the article states that the radio station is owned by a company called Entercom Communications. Tckma (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- The edit doesn't seem to violate any policies or guidelines, as far as I can tell. The username is most likely going to be considered a WP:USERNAME violation, though. Any admins watching or should I take it to WP:UAA? I added the article to my watchlist and another user has warned them about COI editing. OlYeller21Talktome 18:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Editor has changed username to avoid violating policy and appears to be cooperating. Good faith wins. Andrew327 19:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
ResolvedAn editor has accused me of having a non-disclosed COI here and I mentioned that the right place for determining whether an editor has a COI is this board. The editor has not responded to my arguments about his adding content not directly supported by the source and has suggested that the article be reverted to his version on the basis of their COI accusations. He also continues to refer to my prior account name, even though they are aware I changed usernames to avoid personally identifiable information. Not sure where to go from there, but based on the tone, I figured it would escalate here quickly anyway. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 02:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I had no intention of escalating anything. At SmartScore, though we did not entirely agree on all points, I noticed no editing by CorporateM that appeared anything but impartial. I've little more to say on this than I've already said at Talk:SmartScore. The user's previous username is an overt redirect to the present one. The previous username overtly declared here: "I am a paid editor of this nature, but one that has taken the time to understand the rules, get involved and vowed to not touch articles directly, but collaborate with neutral editors". On the face of it, that appears to me to suggest that WP:NOPAY is relevant here, and the editor should not be directly editing articles on commercial products or services. But that's not my call. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- "I noticed no editing by CorporateM that appeared anything but impartial." Then it seems like there is no issue here. As there is no need to determine whether an editor has a COI, if their edits are neutral, nor is there any need to revert such edits even if a COI was confirmed. Because maybe 30-50% of my edits are done in a PR capacity does not forbid me from editing other articles, nor does it volunteer me for any restrictions or COI speculations beyond what any other editor would receive, where a COI is not disclosed. CorporateM (Talk) 14:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- OK; please remember that you, not I, brought this here. It is my opinion, based on my reading of WP:NOPAY, and without any particular knowledge or expertise in this area, that if you work as a paid editor some of the time, then it would be politic to refrain from editing articles on commercial products or services at all times. To do otherwise puts a very considerable strain on your own honesty (which may of course be quite up to the task) and on the good faith of other editors. I repeat that I saw nothing at SmartScore that seemed to me anything but impartial; but perhaps that just means that you are very good indeed at your job? It would be helpful if some other editors here would see fit to comment. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- "I noticed no editing by CorporateM that appeared anything but impartial." Then it seems like there is no issue here. As there is no need to determine whether an editor has a COI, if their edits are neutral, nor is there any need to revert such edits even if a COI was confirmed. Because maybe 30-50% of my edits are done in a PR capacity does not forbid me from editing other articles, nor does it volunteer me for any restrictions or COI speculations beyond what any other editor would receive, where a COI is not disclosed. CorporateM (Talk) 14:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Not really sure what the issue is here. CorpM has a bunch of conflicts and declares them. If we assume good faith (which, based on my interactions with him at AFD, I certainly will) then what reason do we have to think he wouldn't declare a COI here if he had one? I spend plenty of time working with conflicted editors and a few do it properly and declare everything they should. I have no reason to think CorpM should be moved from that category. Having a conflict in some places shouldn't preclude editing in others. Quite the opposite. Stalwart111 12:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm with Stalwart here. JLaN, if you don't want to escalate things, I'd be careful about making accusations in the future. I understand and identify with your suspicions but asking probably would have been better than accusing. I wouldn't mention this at all had you not incorrectly cited WP:NOPAY, stating that he had violated it. Even if he was a paid advocate of that subject, that doesn't bar him from editing articles. Perhaps I misunderstood your statement here. In any case, I don't think it's worth continuing to hash out this issue here but I'd be more than happy to continue a discussion on my talk page if anyone wants to. OlYeller21Talktome 21:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks to both for replies. That's good enough for me. I reiterate that I didn't bring this here in the first place, but can understand that CorporateM might want some sort of endorsement from others of his good faith, which he has now had. Now, any comment on Louise Blouin Media below? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
user 24.95.76.248 - general counsel for Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund
- Raw milk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- United States raw milk debate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 24.95.76.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
24.95.76.248 claims to be Gary Cox [1][2][3], a lawyer and general counsel for Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (http://farmtoconsumer.org), an organization that promotes raw milk and fringe theories about it.
His edits to date have been what you'd expect of a new editor that's a lawyer that defends promoters of fringe theories: violations of WP:V, WP:OR/SYN, WP:NPOV, WP:MEDRS, and WP:FRINGE. He likes to juxtapose information in a misleading way to promote the pov of the organizations he represents. He has a WP:BATTLE mentality, and has ignored comments to him about NPOV and COI beyond claiming he is unbiased. He doesn't have many edits yet, so the problems are obvious and blatant from my perspective. I can provide diffs if needed.
I always like to think that new editors can learn how to contribute in a positive manner, but he's off to a very bad start. A short block is probably warranted. How much trouble would it be to give him a (short?) ban from all relevant articles while still allowing him to contribute to the talk pages? --Ronz (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- He's made 27 edits in 2 days which are confined to just 3 pages. I don't know if we can topic ban an IP but this editor definitely has a POV and a COI. If he doesn't stop of his own accord then we will have to do something. Dusty|💬|You can help! 01:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oy. I told myself I'd stay away from situations like this for a while so that I don't burn myself out again.
- Ronz has made some good progress on the article and the IP claiming to be Gary Cox hasn't edited since the 7th which may be due to running into some resistance. If he continues to advocate for his organization, please report back here. OlYeller21Talktome 21:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Louise Blouin Media
- Louise Blouin Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Louise Blouin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Art+Auction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- JPLei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Percival Buttermere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Caitmunro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Antonyj0403 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Tammy.Heller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Micksteroony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Ninasilver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Louise Blouin Media appears to have been created by someone using a username similar to the real-world name of an employee of that company, and to have been subsequently edited by at least three other editors with usernames very similar to the real-world names of other employees of the company, who of course may or may not actually be those employees. The edit histories of two of them also include massive and systematic additions or modifications of external links to the website(s) of the same company in many articles here. I have left {{Uw-coi}} notices on their talkpages. Can the problems arising from this all be dealt with here? If not, who else should be notified? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm going to take a look now but can you help us out by listing all of the affected articles in the top of the report that you mention in your report?
- I'm weary of assuming that these people are actually working for the company, off the bat, but that won't matter. We can still address the issue.
- To save us some time, can you provide links that show the comparison between the usernames and the employees?
- You obviously have done some work here and have some evidence. It will be helpful to people here at COIN if you share that evidence with us. OlYeller21Talktome 22:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for your reply. I'm concerned that providing too much evidence may come uncomfortably close to outing some editors. I've now added above two more pages closely connected with the first, and three more editors. I have identified the potential connected editors as {{connected contributor}}s on the talkpage of each of those three articles. A quick Google search for "Louise Blouin Media" (with quotes) together with an intelligent guess at the real-world name of each of the seven editors, based on the username, comes up in some but not all cases with the position, past or present, of an individual with a closely similar name within the company. Those that do not immediately show up in such a way show a closely similar pattern of editing, at different times, on one or more of the three articles mentioned above. User:JPLei has over 500 edits, all (well, all that I have checked) adding links to artinfo.com to the pages of various artists; Antonyj0403 has recently been active changing each one of those to Blouinartinfo.com. I believe this to be a serious, far-ranging, substantial and possibly systematic abuse of this wiki, but have nowhere near the skills or experience to be sure. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- So can anyone offer any response here? I'd really like to know what, if anything, could or should be done about this. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for your reply. I'm concerned that providing too much evidence may come uncomfortably close to outing some editors. I've now added above two more pages closely connected with the first, and three more editors. I have identified the potential connected editors as {{connected contributor}}s on the talkpage of each of those three articles. A quick Google search for "Louise Blouin Media" (with quotes) together with an intelligent guess at the real-world name of each of the seven editors, based on the username, comes up in some but not all cases with the position, past or present, of an individual with a closely similar name within the company. Those that do not immediately show up in such a way show a closely similar pattern of editing, at different times, on one or more of the three articles mentioned above. User:JPLei has over 500 edits, all (well, all that I have checked) adding links to artinfo.com to the pages of various artists; Antonyj0403 has recently been active changing each one of those to Blouinartinfo.com. I believe this to be a serious, far-ranging, substantial and possibly systematic abuse of this wiki, but have nowhere near the skills or experience to be sure. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
No Gun Ri and the AP's Charles Hanley
- No Gun Ri Massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Cjhanley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
AP writer Charles Hanley's behavior at the No Gun Ri Massacre article needs to be addressed. Hanley's work on this subject has been the subject to fair degree of criticism (for reasons I need not mention here) by other writers and historians. Hanley is currently is editing the article under username Cjhanley (a fact he freely admits) and refuses to have material introduced into the article regardless if it meets sourcing requirements WP:V, WP:RS if it does not conform to the reporting he did on the subject. It seems he has a particular animus towards Westpoint historian LtCol Robert Bateman whose book and writings on this subject Hanley wont entertain inclusion of. WeldNeck (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- This posting is highly inappropriate and without merit. It also was done without notification to the subject, as required by the page's rules. "WeldNeck" suddenly appeared out of nowhere on 8 August (who or what prompted it?) to make 16 changes in an article on a sensitive subject on which he seems to know little, beyond various red herrings promulgated by apologists for the U.S. military's mass killing of South Korean refugees at No Gun Ri in July 1950. In the midst of our trying to address his questions and clarify his misconceptions on Talk, as we requested, he instead went ahead with damaging changes to the article -- for example, deleting an accurate early North Korean report on the massacre, because, well..... it's communist. To suggest that the professional journalists who have done probably the most extensive research on the subject should not be contributing to the article is ludicrous. Wikipedia relies on the most authoritative contributors drawing on the widest array of sources. Until 2012, the article was a poorly sourced, incomprehensible mess, having been taken over by chauvinist advocates of minimizing a war crime. It shouldn't be allowed to fall into that pit again. Charles J. Hanley 11:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Cjhanley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)
- For my own sanity, I'm not going to dive into this situation without learning more. Anyone else is obviously free to do whatever they wish.
- WeldNeck, you say that "Hanley's work on this subject has been the subject to fair degree of criticism (for reasons I need not mention here)". You're not really doing us a favor by not not mentioning those reasons here. I don't mean to sound rude but do you expect people here to just take your word for it or spend their volunteered time to figure out what you already believe?
- I think there's little to no chance that anyone here is going to dive into this situation when it's obvious that there's some back story that's being intentionally omitted.
- If an editor involved in this article has a close connection to the subject, please provide diffs that prove or even suggest that. If someone is advocating or promoting a point of view, please provide diffs that suggest that.
- I understand that either of you may feel a certain way about the other editor but please don't expect people here to do hours of work to learn what you already know. Providing no diffs to support any claims made here isn't a good way to convince others to participate and help out. OlYeller21Talktome 22:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Let me apologize to Cjhanley for not informing him of this notice, I was unaware of the necessity. Some criticisms of Hanley and the AP can be found here: [4], [5]. Westpoint Historian LtCol Robert Bateman is one of Hanley's more vocal critics and Hanley has so far refused to allow any of his material in the article on the grounds that describing his work as "gross unreliability". The heart of the COI here is Hanley's exclusion of another WP:RS whose work meets [WP:V]] criteria based on what appears to be a professional feud between the two of them that has turned personal. For what its worth, I think Hanly is sincere with his beliefs about LtCol Bateman but that alone isnt a good enough of a reason to allow Hanley to exclude him.
- And the implication that I am here because someone or something sent me here is without merit. WeldNeck (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- How can there be a "conflict" in pressing to adhere to standards of accuracy and truthfulness in an important WP article? You might as well include the "findings" of David Irving or Iran's Ahmadinejad in the main Holocaust article. Bateman is of use only to No Gun Ri deniers, his gross unreliability having been amply demonstrated in material that WeldNeck has thus far resisted reading and viewing. And Bateman's personal vendetta, as a 7th Cavalry booster, against the journalists who first confirmed the 7th Cavalry's mass killing of refugees doesn't belong in the article, which should deal simply with the facts of No Gun Ri. Now, let's return this discussion to the Talk page, where it belongs.Charles J. Hanley 14:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)
- Besides being the first to violate Godwin's law your characterization of LtCol Bateman's work is your personal characterization and is not shared by additional reliable sources. Considering the professional and personal friction between the two of you, I think this COI speaks for itself. WeldNeck (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Additional useful background can be found at the SF Gate inlcuding an account of Hanley attempting to intimidate Bateman's publishers to not print his (then) upcoming book on the subject:
Late last year, Hanley wrote a nine-page letter to Stackpole Books, the Pennsylvania publisher bringing out Bateman's book this month, saying it would be a "grave mistake" to publish Bateman's "diatribes and defamations." A copy of the letter, filled with personal attacks against the author, was made available to The Chronicle. The letter is the kind of dark threat that gives free speech experts the chills -- "an effort at prior restraint," said Bill Kovach, chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists -- not to mention the fact that in this case, there is a certain reversal of roles. "It's ironic for a journalist, someone whose livelihood is protected by the First Amendment, to be seemingly threatening to curtail the speech of a military person," said James Naughton, president of the Poynter Institute, a journalism school in St. Petersburg, Fla. "The way matters like this tend to get resolved over time is for people to be able to make their own judgments about which version of events holds up on examination. More access to publishable versions, rather than less, seems to be desirable."
WeldNeck (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Angelique
- Article name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
DisregardReplace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 68.173.190.124 (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC) In 2008 I purchased 50 % of a partnership (we shared same lawyer) 3 month later we inter a franchise agreement using same lawyer 2010 I used same layer to do a closing of another business 2010 also uses same lawyer for breaking a business partnership agreement using same lawyer In 2012 I had a fake lease under my name and the franchiser another sight by the same lawyer Know it been almost two years that I been with a different lawyer because the franchisor want to close my business down Back in 2008 my layer ( the one I thought it was my layer had me sign a consented staining I didn't want counsel) I just have a associated degree if I had known he wasn't my layer I was able to afford one At the time and won't be getting sue about to lose my bread and butter .
- I apologize but it's very difficult to understand what you want. You haven't linked any article or user that may have a conflict of interest and I can't deduce any information based on your edit history (only edited this page).
- We'll need more information if anyone here can help you but please keep in mind that this noticeboard is for reporting issues where an editor with a close connection to a subject is editing the article about that subject in a way that is contrary to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. OlYeller21Talktome 21:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Milo Yiannopoulos
- Milo Yiannopoulos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 141.0.153.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 2003:45:470E:4A01:A477:1B2C:5910:2509 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The behaviour and a technical aspect of 141.0.153.217 (it has not been CheckUsered) effectively confirms that the subject has been cleansing his own entry. Among other things, this edit - with a totally disingenuous edit summary - removed mention from the lead that the company the subject operates was issued with a court order to enforce the repayment of debts, and removed mention of him having lost his previous employer, The Telegraph, a significant amount of money. That was after it was editorialised in this edit by a German IP address, which also inserted promotional-y testimonials in the lead section and also uses exactly the same elaborate/prosaic style of edit summary.
I actually created this article, but I feel that a conflict of interest - I write for the The Telegraph - prevents me from intervening in the way that is necessary: obviously the editing of one's own Wikipedia article is allowed, but edits like these and the spreading of scrutiny to make them is not, and on that basis, the reference to him losing The Telegraph a lot of money should be restored. WilliamH (talk) 06:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I've done a little digging and there is a clear scrutiny-evading element to this: based on deleted contributions to the Milo Andreas Wagner article, the following accounts almost certainly belong to the subject: Milohanrahan (talk · contribs), Milo Andreas Wagner (talk · contribs), Milo Yiannopoulos (talk · contribs). WilliamH (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Is a SPI being initiated? That seems like it would be the most productive step at this point. OlYeller21Talktome 22:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Ginsters
- Ginsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Stevefearn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
There has been repeated editing of the article by User:Stevefearn, as well as similar edits in the recent past by users such as User:Hartopj, User:KateCorradi and User:GinstersCornwall. A person called Steve Fearn identifies themselves on LinkedIn here as "Brand Engagement Manager at Ginsters", responsible for "Management and generation of digital strategies to drive online traffic to both company website and social media platforms; Developing and managing specific digital marketing campaigns; Tracking conversion rates and monitoring brand engagement levels across platforms; Overseeing the social media strategy promoting continuity across wider comms/CRM strategy; Managing online brand campaigns to raise brand awareness; Responsibility for planning and budgetary control of all digital marketing activity; Evaluating customer research, market conditions and competitor data; Review new technologies and keep the company at the forefront of developments in digital marketing..." User:Stevefearn has been warned for apparent COI, with no response. Any advice? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- It seems clear that there's a COI and it looks like you've done everything right so far. I find that leaving a personal message (an obviously not-template) is a good way to get the person's attention to start a discussion. After that, whether or not the person is willing to follow policies and guidelines usually becomes very clear.
- I'd leave a message and see what they say. They'll probably be looking to talk to someone after they see that a lot of their additions were reverted.
- Feel free to report back here if you need any help talking to them or protecting the article from problematic editing. OlYeller21Talktome 22:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- International Rice Research Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Golden rice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Genetically modified rice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- System of Rice Intensification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- etc etc
- Sophie Clayton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Although this user has declared a Conflict of Interest, she has consistently ignored the advice of other editors on her talk page to stop directly editing articles with which she has such a conflict of interest. She continues to edit the page of her employer as well as those related to her work there. This is in direct violation of the Conflict of Interest policy. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 07:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- this edit (which I have reverted) is something of a gem, changing the otherwise NPOV text of a Nobel Prize winner's article to refer to her own organization. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 08:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- User:UseTheCommandLine May I request some help with this edit please that you reverted. The original edit I did and as stated in my comment was because the information as presented may give the impression it was only Borlaug involved in developing semi-dwarf rice, which does not accurately reflect the very significant role others played. It is captured a bit better on the Green_Revolution page under history. This non-IRRI source seems to capture it well too I think and another source written by someone around at the time is the IRRI-published book An adventure in applied science - see page 53 for mention of who was responsible. Sophie Clayton (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification User:UseTheCommandLine. Yikes - sorry - I thought it was OK to edit other pages and link to my organization's site where the information was unique and stated in an unbiased way - and provided I had declared my conflict of interest. I can see that was not good enough and I apologize, I should have been more careful. I have now more carefully read the Conflict of interest - advice for editors who may have a conflict of interest and will henceforth make suggestions on talk for others to consider and not directly make edits on pages that have anything to do with my organization or our interests across rice science. I added photos directly yesterday - is that OK to International Rice Research Institute? I couldn't quickly find a reference about that. But I can remove if they are inappropriate. Sophie Clayton (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Most recently, another editor asked you on 12 Nov 2012 to stop adding references to your employer (see WP:SELFCITE) but you continued to do so for many, many edits. In fact, from what I gather, the majority of your edits where a reference was inserted were references to your employer.
- Other editors have on multiple occasions politely asked you to refrain from this behavior, and I did not see it stopping as a result. I was confrontational for that reason.
- From WP:PSCOI:
Paid advocates: If you have an ethical responsibility to edit Wikipedia to advance your client or employer's interests, then you stand in a clear conflict of interest and should not edit articles directly, even with disclosure. You may be professionally obligated to advance goals that conflict with neutrality and Wikipedia's mission. This includes lawyers, public relations representatives, corporate communicators, marketers, and others in similar positions. This kind of engagement is very controversial and often results in community and broader media backlash if discovered.
- Please ensure that this situation does not arise in the future. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 03:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- As for photos, i think as long as the rightsholder is willing to have them released under the CC-BY-SA license we use here on WP (like the rest of your content as work-for-hire), that this is not a problem. Whether it gets used in the article or not is a different matter, and dependent on the editors of those pages, i think. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 03:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- OK so I'll leave the photos as uploaded but remove them from page. Sophie Clayton (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Got it now I think! Thanks for helping me understand. Sophie Clayton (talk) 03:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am a minor contributor to the article, and I have looked at many of the contributions in question. I am one of the editors (two of us prior to the current discussion, one in 2010 and one in 2012) who have posted COI comments on her talk page. For the most part, I don't have any objection at all to Sophie Clayton's edits. IMHO, she's doing good work, doing it openly and without bias, and just happens to work for IRRI.
- As for photos, i think as long as the rightsholder is willing to have them released under the CC-BY-SA license we use here on WP (like the rest of your content as work-for-hire), that this is not a problem. Whether it gets used in the article or not is a different matter, and dependent on the editors of those pages, i think. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 03:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- The COI Behavioral Guideline says "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." I don't see much incompatibility between Clayton's edits and Wikipedia's aims. IRRI is a very important but little-known organization in a remote part of the world (from the U.S. and other English-speaking countries). It is worthy of being covered in some depth, but there are probably few editors who are qualified to do so. Having an IRRI person make non-controversial factual edits while clearly declaring her position doesn't seem to me to be much of a negative.
- When I look at the COI material on cultural-sector professionals, I see Sophie as a subject specialist (while acknowledging her role as a promoter). She seems to be pretty NPOV in her edits, too. When I look at wp:PILLARS, I think that Wikipedia does not have firm rules has a lot of pertinence to this case. Lou Sander (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Christy Lee Rogers
- Christy Lee Rogers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Setomorp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I would like to bring to the attention of the community User:Setomorp, who personal information removed by Andrew327. This user created an article on behalf of Christy Lee Rogers, a church member. When I started the AfD for this article and stated that there was a potential conflict of interest on the part of Setomorp and that it is possible the article is a vanity article, I was shot down by others who ignored the fact that there are barely any secondary or tertiary sources that meet our standards of reliability and verifiability. Anyone who bothered to do a search would discover that the few articles appearing in magazines such as Vanity Fair and Bazaar did not contain any verifiable data, indeed containing at most a blurb as virtually all the articles are image-heavy with little to no informative text, and a couple of interviews which also do not provide any verifiable details or data regarding the subject. The rest are all literally blogs. Considering the standard set by WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, as I have stated on the article's talk, the article will remain at best a stub, and at worst, will eventually become an out-and-out advertorial. The fact that Setomorp, who undoubtedly is an employee of the aforementioned Scientologist-run PR firm in the UK, there is a definite conflict of interest on the part of this user who should, out of respect for community policies, refrain from further involvement in that article as well as refraining from starting any new articles for Scientologists.
While I consider the article to be a rather pointless exercise, since there is no verifiable date of birth for the artist, no verifiable place of birth, no verifiable record of education or employment or how they produce the photography, etc and taking into account the fact that every single source, whether in print or on the Web, uses statements, claims, and assertions directly from the subject herself, as there are not even any external sources, I really have no opinion as it seems AfD's lately are a hell of a lot more lenient and inclusionary compared to the more stringent standards upheld in years past. But it is disturbing that yet another PR firm connected to Scientology is shamelessly taking advantage of Wikipedia for promotional ends. The edits of User:Setomorp do not show any attempt at upholding guidelines and policy, but rather promoting advertorial-style copy. A similar situation apparently had occurred on the page of Grant Cardone, who for quite some time had a Wikipedia article that was nothing more than pure advertorial promotion. As with the articles of a number of low level Scientologist notables, Cardone's article cannot be improved very much since there are very few reliable, verifiable secondary and tertiary sources -- most of the article is forced to use Cardone himself as the paramount source.
Taking into consideration the conflicts and melodrama that surrounded Scientology's official involvement in editing Wikipedia, I urge the community to not take these issues lightly and if possible, for the community to take a stronger line against the editing of articles by paid PR writers. Thank you, Laval (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- !sdrawkcab promoteS:resU gnidaer yrT Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ha, I don't know how I missed that. Good catch. Andrew327 01:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)