This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA.
|Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)|
|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 does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connections with article topics. An edit by a COIN-declared COI editor may not meet a requirement of the COI guideline when the edit advances outside interests more than it advances the aims of Wikipedia. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.||Sections older than 14 days archived by MiszaBot II.
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
|To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|Search the COI noticeboard archives|
|Help answer requested edits|
I've cast the net somewhat wider this round as the previous heuristic was getting less effective, so expect a few more false positives. Still, there's plenty of spam to go around and quite a bit has been nominated for deletion. MER-C 19:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
And sure enough, there was another large bunch of socks.
Sigh. MER-C 14:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Some historical stuff. MER-C 16:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
From the latest SPI. MER-C 08:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I think there are a few socks in this dump. Note that there is another new heuristic for catching accounts that clearly aren't the first ones operated by the relevant editors. MER-C 16:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Might as well post these while I'm here. MER-C 14:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Amb sib is linkspamming cellosaurus (web.expasy.org/cellosaurus/) and has been doing so for years. This is the editor's own database as stated here "(such as mine, the Cellosaurus)".
Some of the many, May 2018 , April 2018 , March 2018 , Oct 2017 , March 2017 , Oct 2016 , Aug 2016 , July 2016 , Nov 2015   (a massive linkspam in nov 2015), Nov 2015  where it may have started.
It is one of the resource key to the fight against cell line misidentification:
While, as a group leader at the SIB and a founder and developer of [[UniProtKB/Swiss-Prot|Uniprot], ENZYME, PROSITE, neXtProt and other resources I personally spend time on the Cellosaurus this is not "my" resource.
I am not sure if you are aware of the work being done in the life sciences in the last 30 years to establish core resources to help scientist carry out research. This is a key element of modern research and the contribution of databases such as Swiss-Prot or the Cellosaurus are recognized by the community as exemplified by the lastest ABRF award:
So linking Wikipedia pages representing biological objects to biomolecular resource is essential. This is also true of the integration of these resources in Wikidata. Recently all the Cellosaurus cell lines were entered in Wikidata as part of an effort to have life science resources contribute to a FAIR infrastructure.
Its true I added these links myself instead of asking another of my group member or other Wikipedia contributors to do it. If you prefer that it be done by someone else I will ask the community to do so. It seems to me a waste of time to delegate this task and took upon myself to contribute to the Wikimedia movement.
The Cellosaurus has now been described in a perr reviewed publication:
But I guess you will say that as I am the sole author it is conflict of interest :-)
As an example of the use of the Cellosaurus to authenticate cell lines and thus clean up experimental errors, see a very recent example published a few days ago:
On a personal note I resent your accusation of "linkspaming": cross-referencing to scientific resources is not only the reverse of spamming but one of the strength of modern biological sciences.Amb sib (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
This user is doing nothing but adding many links to the same couple of websites.
I realize the potential for BOOMERANG here. I should not have never gotten involved in this edit war between these two parties, one of whom is my client Aviv Hadar. I was contacted by a former client who asked for assistance after his page was repeatedly and for months was being vandalized (see history of Aviv Hadar). I cleaned it up, upload a photo he sent me, and requested page protection which was granted by Amorymeltzerto expire on 6 July 2018. The exact moment protection expired yesterday, KillroyMichael came into the picture with the recent POV edits to Aviv Hadar. What I did not realize is that my former client was also doing POV editing of his own to SoulPancake with whom he has had a lengthy legal battle which you can read about here.
The most recent changes to Aviv Hadar are IMO precipitated following this edit most like by my client. Notice how KillroyMichael removes all wikilinks from Aviv Hadar to SoulPancake. All in all a very messy situation that will likely lead to me being deservedly blocked, topic banned, or permanently banned. I bring it to your attention because of the potential BLP ramifications. I truly apologize for my part in creating this dumpster fire. Consider me at the very least topic banned. I don't do paid editting on Wikipedia anymore and will likely never edit at all from this point forward.—አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh64) (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Above user admits a COI for the above pages, where they are apparently an employee. I am posting here as the kind of work that is being done at Ottawa-Gatineau Art is so blatantly promotional of the area and the gallery. Said article cites a catalogue published by the gallery over 100 times! Yikes. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Above user admits he works for the Pro Vice Chancellor (Administration)'s office of Dhaka University and hence there arises a COI when the user only edits the page of the Vice Chancellor of the aforementioned University. I am posting here as this page may need additional review. Kaisernahid (talk) 05:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I came across a page creation by the user Leeallenmack that smacked of COI and a very brief search on the web confirms without any doubt that there is a WP:PAID editing problem. I assumed good faith and templated them with a COI notice here as they made no reply I asked them several times about this COI here here here so as to give them the possibilty to declare their COI with Naked group and its owner which they have either ignored or skirted around here and here where they replied to my request for clarification with the following ...Whether you believe there is COI is immaterial.. In the beginning I thought they were acting in good faith but I am having trouble with that idea now. This user is now adding other pages that also smack of promotional content Le Bouchon and Element Fresh. When you do a search by combining the names of the owners of Le Bouchon and Naked group you come across this. . The other user is an inactive account that created Naked Group. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Good morning! I thought now would be a good moment to respond to the rather serious accusations being leveled against me. And I'll apologize in advance for not using the wonderful Wikipedia markdown in penning this - I'm sorry but I just can't be bothered to look up all the references right now. If that disqualifies everything I am about to say, then that says more about WP than about me. I proceed.
First, there is no conflict of interest. None. No real conflict of interest, that is. Clearly there is appearance of conflict of interest. There must be otherwise your good selves would never have raised the possibility. But let me assure you right here right now and in no uncertain terms - I have never been offered financial reward or ANY KIND OF REWARD for publishing the content I have published on WP. Nor have I ever been threatened with punishment as a way of coercing me to publish what I have published on WP. My role is not to "raise the visibility" of ANY company on WP. That's the fact. No matter how many WP administrators you get to echo and amplify your suspicions, it won't EVER change the actual fact. 2+2 are never going to equal 5.
The real fact is that I am a person in Shanghai, China, who noticed a lamentable lack of quality entries on things in China and tried to rectify that. I can imagine you might say - "Go post in Chinese wikipedia". Well, Chinese wikipedia is blocked here and mainland Chinese people don't give a toss about Chinese wikipedia because Chinese wikipedia is edited almost entirely by non-Mainland-living Chinese people. It has it's own biases and predilections. In any event, these days more Chinese than Americans people speak and read English. That's another fact and a very interesting one at that.
So, I choose to put up some listings in English relating to notable things here in China. naked Retreats - very famous resorts in China. Element Fresh - the restaurant chain that kicked off the healthy food trend in China, it's served more people over the years than PF Chang, that shameful excuse of a Chinese restaurant chain in America which seems to have passed the notability criteria on WP with flying colors. Le Bouchon - the first French restaurant in Shanghai. It's been operating out of the same location for 20 years. Maybe you don't get how utterly unbelievable / improbable that is.
And there's more to come - YY Bar, the nightlife equivalent of Le Bouchon, operating in the same location for what 22 years now. The brand new AMAZING river walk park which has just opened in Pudong which now stretches some 11km - unbroken - which has given new life to derelict riverfront space. There are iconic Chinese films which are not on WP. There are Chinese writers who are not on WP. There are glaring problems with the existing pages for various Chinese artists. My friends, there are a lot of truly notable things happening in China right now which WP will be poorer without.
And if you say to yourself that you just don't want these listings put up by me, well that's fine. That's your right. Your loss, really, not mine.
I know you guys believe in what you are doing. I know you believe what you are doing is right. I won't presume to articulate the benefits which you receive from policing WP. Regardless, there must be benefits or else you wouldn't devote so much time doing it. Good for you. Good for you. You no doubt help shore up the edges of knowledge which are always threatening to unravel under the assault of the masses. In many cases you are right. But not this one. Not this one. In this one you are wrong.
Determining the worth of an WP entry based on the sources - fine. Having a reasonable discussion about reliability, objectivity, blah blah blah - all good. Hurling untrue accusations against me - not cool. Deleting pages because of suspected conflict of interest - not cool. Even your own WP administrators admit there is no consensus about what do to with a page that is suspected of being put up by some with a conflict of interest suspected or otherwise.
Anyway, enough of my time spent on this thread of discussion. Have a pleasant day! It is sunny here in Shanghai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeallenmack (talk • contribs) 01:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Editor removes unflattering content from Charlie Engle (marathoner), and has stated that they "represent Charlie Engle":
@magnolia677 Thanks for the feedback. I apologize if I have not understood protocol for Wikipedia. Please allow me to address some of these things.
I did not remove any unflattering content. Other people, however, have removed lots of referenced materials from this page. Yes, I wrote that I represent Charlie Engle. Perhaps that is a poor choice of words. I was simply trying to assert that I know that my information is factual. I did not think there was a conflict of interest.
The prison section that I deleted today was much shorter than the one that was already on his page. **The original one referenced two articles in the New York Times, an article in Outside Magazine, and a PBS special about Charlie's prison sentence. All of those sourced materials were removed by another editor. Therefore, I deleted their trimmed-down (and insufficient with respect to references) version to restore the previous, very well referenced section.
I felt like there was an onslaught of activity on this page as I was simply trying to add referenced information. Editors, such as yourself, started undoing not only my changes but content that was created several years ago by other parties. I did not know how else to respond to the onslaught of changes other than to "undo" them. In the end, none of that worked.
|this is not a board for discussing content|
|The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.|
For example, why would a world-record setting run across the Sahara desert that was referenced in a myriad of ways be removed? Along with the people involved such as the other runners, the narrator of the documentary film, the name of the person who wrote the score to the film....? [www.runningthesahara.com]
Examples of referenced materials that were removed today. This is a limited list: [www.simonandschuster.com]
Requested speedy delete on User:Rca institute as corp spam. Basically a corp article that would not have passed AFC. Just wondering if there's a way to detect more of this kind of thing. Maybe userpages containing certain heuristics such as an external links section. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Ljugador admits to being Valente's assistant, and seems to be totally clueless about COI editing and why Valente should not be allowed to write his own article. Orange Mike | Talk 21:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I have just made an Edit Request on the University of Canada West (UCW) wiki-page. I have requested for the inclusion of a sentence mentioning the 2018 launch of an Associate of arts degree - a notable fact of UCW. My COI is that I am an employee of Global University Systems - the company that owns UCW.
A new editor with a suspicious username is making suspicious and incompetent edits here. I do not speak any Indian languages, and this subject is so very controversial that I am uncomfortable dealing with it. Orange Mike | Talk 16:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
It appears that COI editing has been happening with both of these related articles, and they are starting to resemble adverts. I'm a bit too busy with other tasks at the moment to sort out the content, but would appreciate some extra eyes on them. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
The above two editors, and seemingly a few IPs, are single-purpose accounts, not disclosing an obvious COI (based on edits and the username), and are abusing multiple accounts and IPs under WP:SOCK. I cleaned up most of the article just now, will appreciate more help. Thanks, ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
This is my first post to WP:COIN and I'm not really sure what to do in this situation:
An IP editor made several edits to this article that have since been reverted (not by me at first). In comments of one of the reverts  they said "This is my page! I am Peter Lemongello. Stop trying to change it!." I was most concerned with the blanking of 2 sections that contained content that appears to be reliably sourced. I went ahead and reverted the edits and blanking  and explained in the edit summary "Please see WP:COI and WP:BLPEDIT. Please obtain consensus on the talk page before removing sourced content." I then posted on this user's talk page a similar heads up.
Despite this, the user has gone ahead and reverted my (and other editors) reverts and continued to edit the article and another () they may have COIs with.
I've just made an Edit Request on the St Patrick's College - London - page, asking for a correction of courses from those now extinct. My COI is that I am an employee of Global University Systems - the company that owns the college.
I've just made an Edit Request on Sagi Harvost page - asking for an update of his academic and professional titles. My COI is that I am an employee of Global University Systems - the company that owns the institutions Sagi works for and are of relevance to his updated titles.
When I created the article on Flags of the Australian Defence Force I disclosed a potential conflict of interest in that I had an affiliation with the Flag Society of Australia which has now been severed. However on closer inspection it appears this would not have given rise to any conflict of interest in the first place. Not only does the FSA have no wikipedia page. It is a non political organisation dedicated to the study of flags in an entirely academic sort of way. Which as I read it means I'd only have some special expertise to bring to the subject as opposed to being too close to the Australian Defence Force itself. On the basis that I have been made aware of the need to use sources independent of this organisation would it now be possible and proper for me to remove the COI tag on my talk page given that there will still be a thread there which draws attention to the fact I was once an FSA member and where the issue has been discussed at length? Aussieflagfan (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I've just made an Edit Request on the Abigail Spanberger page, asking for a link from this page to the GISMA busines school wiki-page (which is mentioned in the article). My COI is that I am an employee of Global University Systems - the company that owns the GISMA Business School.
This looks like an undisclosed paid editor as per a number of images he uploaded in commons and he's only here to promote Draft:R. Raghunatha Reddy and Rathan Linga which he also recreated under Rathan linga. I left a COI notice on and then also but there is no reply. Thank you GSS (talk|c|em) 08:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I've just made an Edit Request on the London College of Creative Media page - asking for the inclusion of a sentence regarding the sealing of a partnership with between LCCM and two brands of musical instruments (including sources). My COI is that I am an employee of Global University Systems - the company that owns LCCM.
An editor with a COI recently asked me if there is a video that he or she could watch that has advice and instructions for dealing with a COI. Does such a thing exist? ElKevbo (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Cap2201 (talk) recently disclosed that they have editing for pay on behalf of various unnamed clients via Upwork. They made their disclosure  after Jake Brockman (talk) notified  them that their edits seemed to be a possible conflict of interest. Since this first disclosure (noting that by this point Cap2201 had been editing for over a year), Cap2201 disclosed they were paid to create Draft:Anthony Esposito (musician). However, they did not reply to Jake Brockman's ask for them to disclose any other articles they created for pay; I seconded this question, and then later started a new thread  asking the same thing. None of these questions have received a response, and Cap2201 has ceased editing.
In light of this, some sort of action should be taken. The best evidence for another article created by Cap2201 for pay is Joanne Wilson, which contains promotional language and an image that (per its WM commons page ) was given to Cap2201 by Joanne Wilson's husband, Fred Wilson, indicating a clear COI. Other articles created by Cap2201 could also be forms of effectivly placed native advertising.
My solution would be to tag all of Cap2201's work with UDP tags and quarantine them in the draftspace until they respond. Would anyone be opposed to this (some article subjects seem notable), or offer an alternative?--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Just placing this notice to attract other editors to weigh in on a COI edit request. The full discussion is at the talk page here. Thank you ! 12:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I am an expert on the referenced subject since many years (producing indicators and discussing biases) and I am logically involved in some of the references existing in the article prior to my contribution. Few months ago, I made a contribution, without hiding my identity (my Id is my name), trying to clarify a subject poorly treated in Wikipedia for years (two commercial linked sources are shown without any advice on biases and the historical controversy about the place of English in the Web is not covered, all that making this article misleading).
I edit my contribution with an extremely prudent attention in terms of neutrality and avoiding auto-promotion As a matter of fact I just added a pedagogic introduction removing the confusion between the 2 main indicators, presenting/comparing in a flat manner the main results of the existing 3 indicators (the third and new one being from my own researches, which was one year old and has not been mentioned so far) to warn about discrepancies and let the rest (the data from the other sources) as it was, avoiding to present my figures as a mark of respect for the existing sources. The important aspect of biases was mentioned with a clear reference to the source. Note that for the past years there were only 2 sources on the subject and this new third one covers both indicators and discuss extensively all the biases (including its own).
Recently I discovered the contribution was entirely scratched away. I am not an experimented wikipedian and i am trying to found my way in the rule, procedures an usages around. I entered in the corresponding talk page I read I was accused of having a "blatant conflict of interest" (which is the subject which deserve discussion here) and that I "should not assert in the article that my organisation's methodology is superior" which is absolutely false and really defaming. The referenced talk includes many value judgments which professionally are weak to say the least, but this is it out of scope here. I followed the opened thread and after explaining that the rules does not prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject and asking this editor to document the unethical claims, i concentrated on content which is what really matters to me.
In the following discussions (Talk:Languages used on the Internet#Lead is awful) I never managed to have this editor focusing back on content neither documenting the claim of conflict of interest beyond the fact that i am one of the researcher on that field. I tried very hard to keep my patience and avoid a revert war, but it was useless, this editor never accepted to discuss the content and kept accusing me of conflict of interest with no solid ground as a way to escape any discussion on content.
I requested a mediation and it was rejected due to the disrespectful manner to (not) agree from this editor.
I am now convinced that the only way out of this situation is to have a neutral party investigate if I there is really a conflict of interest on my contribution to this article (or if I had made controversial edits) or, in the opposite, if I am correct to see this a perfect example of an editor using COI allegations as a "trump card" to avoid discussing the article content. If I am correct, I expect this will permit to have this editor to comply to the following rules :
- refrain from further accusing me of having a conflict of interest
- focus on content
- stop playing gatekeeper of this article and stop blocking badly needed improvements (note that this article is classified high importance within the scope of WikiProject Internet.
Again, the net is cast somewhat wider to haul in more spam. I don't think there are as many false positives as last time. MER-C 20:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)