Wikipedia:COIN
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:COIN".

content
General help
Report abuse
Request assistance
Noticeboards
Shortcuts:
WP:COI/N
WP:COIN
Notice Before posting, determine whether this is the most appropriate place.
Archives
Add new incident reports at the bottom of this page.
Sign your post with "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp.

This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing the application of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline to incidents and situations where editors may have close personal or business connections with article topics. It is for conflict of interest issues which require outside intervention, such as disputes with tendentious editors and cases where editors are repeatedly adding problematic material over a longer period of time. It is not for simple vandalism, material which can easily be fixed or removed without argument, or non-COI breaches of neutral point of view policy.

COI affected editors may use this board to get help with proposed article changes. Propose changes at the article talk page, and then leave a message here if more neutral editors are needed to establish consensus.

The COI guideline does not require editors with conflicts of interest to avoid editing altogether. An editor who has disclosed a conflict is complying with the guideline when they discuss proposed changes on a talk page, or make non-controversial edits in mainspace consistent with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

  • Please limit statements to 200 words or less. Long, drawn-out speeches may be ignored.
  • If you are discussing the actions of another editor here, please notify them.
  • You can tag COI affected articles with {{COI}}.
  • You can warn editors about COI concerns with {{uw-coi}}.

All Wikipedia editors are encouraged to help resolve reports of COI editing. More problematic articles can be found in Category:Wikipedia articles with possible conflicts of interest.


To report a possible violation of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline
  • Create a new section with the article name
  • Describe the dispute using the following format:
* {{article|article name}} - brief explanation ~~~~ or
* {{userlinks|username}} - brief explanation ~~~~
  • Add new entries at the bottom of the page
To close an incident
  • 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

Contents


Possible autobiographies found by bot

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

Requested edits

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

Idiomag

Pcarbonn

Pcarbonn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Look at this user's user page where he brags that he has "won the battle" over cold fusion. I think he should be banned from editing in article space per his obvious conflict of interest and WP:BATTLEGROUND.

ScienceApologist (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you explicate your argument for COI a little more? I'm sorry, but my first take is that this is an unusual COIN listing by someone who states on their own user page that they are "tired of silly drama on Wikipedia." Dppowell (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Read this. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I read it, but I still don't see a conflict of interest. Are you suggesting that writing about an instance of Wikipedia processes on a news site disqualifies someone from editing here? I agree that talking about "winning the battle" on one's user page is perhaps unnecessarily triumphalist, but I still don't see a COI (and certainly not a reason to ban the editor, not that this is the right forum for that discussion). Dppowell (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I can't see a sufficiently close relationship to the topic to count as COI. That said, the edit history certainly looks SPA and tendentious, with a sole interest in being here to overturn the article's reflecting the real-world sceptical consensus about cold fusion: see also this New Energy Times piece - "many of the prominent individuals known to New Energy Times who are observing the field are keeping mum though a few observers such as Ron Marshall and Pierre Carbonnelle have tried their best to participate") and other off-wiki discussions [1]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I have never tried to "overturn the article's reflecting the real-world sceptical consensus about cold fusion". Actually, I have fought hard for the article to represent precisely that view, instead of the view of rejection and pseudoscience that some editors have tried to impose without appropriate sources. I have asked editors to stick to what the 2004 DOE report was saying. This is also clearly described in the article I was asked to write for New Energy Times. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't come across that way.
"I'm pleased to report that the revised page, resulting from the mediation process, presents the topic as a continuing controversy, not as an example of pathological science. This is a major step forward in the recognition of the new field of condensed matter nuclear science and low-energy nuclear reaction research ... I now have a lot of respect for all paradigm-shifting scientists, like Copernicus, Galileo, Fleischmann and Pons, and the other courageous cold fusion pioneers".
reads as a distinct agenda of Righting a Great Wrong re cold fusion. We all have biases, but if your aim is push a new paradigm into Wikipedia, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:SOAP definitely apply. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
My particular concern over this is that New Energy Times is all over that article, with several citations and external links. It's not just a conflict of interest, it's self-promotion.[2] --Nealparr (talk to me) 21:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Conflating on-wiki disputes and off-wiki advocacy is never a good idea. While I think there is a bit of Pot-Kettle-Black going on here, I think an apology is in order, Pierre. However, you have been a strong contributor to this page and a topic ban is overkill. Ronnotel (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I should say that I'm not interested in a topic ban. I just want links that are promotional removed, and for the article to be reliable. --Nealparr (talk to me) 23:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I did not want to have the NET article mentionned in the cold fusion talk page. I just wanted SA to know about it, and I posted my message on his talk page. It's unfortunate that Seicer brought it to the cold fusion talk page. I wish I had sent it by e-mail to SA, as we would have avoided the whole thing. As I did not bring it up, I don't see what I have to apologize for, but welcome any suggestion. I wish someone would ask SA to apologize for the many personal attacks that me and others had to endure. This episode is nothing compared to the incivility that he has been blocked many times for. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
My response to another comment above: If the Great Wrongs is inconsistent with published, reputable sources, and if it is published on wikipedia, it is a service to wikipedia to Right it. The DOE does say it is an ongoing scientific controversy, not pseudoscience. Bragging about it out of wikipedia does not change this. I stand by what I wrote in the NET article and on wikipedia. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I've watched this unfold and it has been very frustrating. It was not helpful at all to the encyclopedia to have Pcarbonn boasting in an external publication that he has managed to influence it. SA's behaviour has been challenging at times as well. Full page protection should be extended and perhaps some editors should voluntarily turn their attention to other articles for a while. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

For your information, I have apologized to ScienceApologist by private e-mail on July 14. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

  • I am absolutely not surprised that Pcarbonn turns out to be part of the NET POV-pushing cabal, he should have declared this COI up front, and I support a topic ban. That article has been completely hijacked by proponents of a minority POV, to the detriment of neutrality and the project's reputation. From the article: "Ihope that the revised Wikipedia article will help put a stop to the epidemic of pathological disbelief and that it will help raise the interest of scientists so that prominent scientific journals won't be able to reject articles on the topic "because it does not interest our readers." - this is a clear abuse of Wikipedia for advocacy. We are not here to "correct" problems which exist in the real world. The real world views this as a pariah field, Wikipedia is, thanks to Pcarbonn and his very determined friends, blazing a trail in "fixing" that. This is a perfect example of how Wikipedia is abused by thiose who want to promote a fringe view, and an admission of how important it it to get Wikipedia to reflect your fringe view. I think it's unforgivable, and if we let them continue to get away with it as they have then we might just as well ditch WP:NPOV. Compare the current version with the FA version and see for yourself how much more the current version reflects the fringe view. And fringe it absolutely still is, though they fought tooth and nail against references which pointed this out. In fact, it went through months of mediation and Pcarbonn never once thought it might be relevant to mention that he was hoping to change the real-world view of this field. The apology above is incredibly hollow. "I'm sorry I abused the project to advance a fringe POV, but by the way I'm actually rather proud of it and am not going to back down". We shold return the article to the FA version immediately and wait for some editors who do not have a vested interest in promoting the frienge view of this subject. Guy (Help!) 06:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:COI says "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals, companies, or groups, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount." I am certain that the interests of Wikipedia remained paramount in all my edits. That's why I wrote many times "for the enemy", unlike many other editors. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
For the benefit of a hitherto completely uninvolved admin, could you provide some examples of where you've written for the enemy on cold fusion? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Pcarbonn, I am sure that in your own mind the interests of Wikipedia are best served by helping the real world to find out that it is wrong about cold fusion. Unfortunately, that conflicts with our core mission and non-negotiable policies. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any COI issue here. Guy needs to go check a dictionary or something. You want to topic ban someone because they dare hope that a truth they believe in gets spread? He might be wrong about the information itself, he might not be, but what the hell man. No really, what the freaking hell. You are just spazzing out here. "It's unforgivable" and "detriment of neutrality and the project's reputation". Are you sure you didn't get your web browser windows mixed up? -- Ned Scott 09:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, Guy's started a thread about Pcarbonn at WP:AN#Cold fusion, which he didn't bother to mention here (or to Pcarbonn). -- Ned Scott 09:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
So which bit is OK by you, again? The violation of WP:NPOV or the crowing about it? Guy (Help!) 12:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Large Hadron Collider

Oldnoah (talk · contribs) has a conflict of interest in regard to the Large Hadron Collider page. In the interest of not publicly "outing" the user (as I promised in an email to him), is there an email address to which I can send the evidence to be vetted? When I requested confirmation of the COI by email, he threatened to "out" other editors that contribute to the page, so I think this is a somewhat delicate situation. -- Mark Chovain 06:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, more than one editor of the Large Hadron Collider and Safety of the Large Hadron Collider are CERN employees including a Wikipedia admin. The shear numbers of pro-CERN editors and lack of equal respect for the opposition cause me to no longer feel comfortable contributing to the safety article. CERN has a direct interest in the outcome of the legal action in US Federal Court in Hawaii beyond any safety interests jointly shared with the plaintiffs. --Jtankers (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
And to be even fairer, the user you refer to is open about being from CERN, and has never used the tools on the article. That editor discusses all changes on the talk page, and never edits against consensus.
OldNoah on the other hand, refuses to take any part in discussions, edit wars against consensus with a clear intention of personal off-wiki gain, and threatens to "out" other editors.
Let's not pretend these two editors behaviour are anything like each other. -- Mark Chovain 23:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I dispute the statement "never edits against consensus". The CERN employee editor removed references to published peer reviewed papers that challenge the probability that Hawking Radiation might exist against editor consensus. I was personally reported by this editor as an Administrator Incident in what the editor later acknowledged was clearly a content dispute when I followed rules to the best of my ability while clear rule violations by another editor were ignored. I do not think the characterization that one editor is saintly and one is not is fair. --Jtankers (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Will you please stop hijacking discussions? If you want to report a conflict of interest, there's a "New Section" tab up the top of the page - you don't need to wait for someone else to click it for you. This section is regarding Oldnoah's disruptive editing where an undisclosed conflict of interest exists - period. To bring this back on topic, I'll repeat my points here:

  • Oldnoah has a serious, undisclosed conflict of interest.
  • Oldnoah has never (not once) taken part in the discussion of his contentious edits.
  • When discussion occurs, Oldnoah continues to edit against consensus.

-- Mark Chovain 00:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:JanetNguyen

JanetNguyen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - This user had been editing the article Janet Nguyen with POV text taken verbatim from her official website. Efforts to contact the user did not cease her activities. DHN (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

She's at it again. DHN (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
This user now seem to have a sockpuppet to do the edits. DHN (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The Janet Nguyen article has been protected. Dppowell (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Puget Systems article

Resolved.

Hello, COI affected editor here. I'd like to see an article about my employer, Puget Systems. After reading through WP:CORP I believe it's notable, and have compiled a list of evidence in userspace here. I've written a draft article here with the idea that if I do the bulk of the work, it's much more likely to actually get posted. I've tried to adhere to NPOV as well as I can, feel free to discuss or make changes if you see problems. Because of my COI, I don't want to put the article in mainspace myself. If someone could look over what I've written and put it in mainspace if it passes judgment, I'd greatly appreciate it.

By way of background info, Puget Systems was known as Puget Custom Computers up until earlier this year, there was an article created under that title by a Puget employee as part of a well-intentioned but misguided SEO campaign. It was eventually deleted at this AFD [3] as a combination of notability concerns and spam. Since then it appears to have been recreated and speedied as spam twice, and the page has been salted. I don't know if the creation of those articles was tied to Puget or not. This is a rather regrettable background, especially since businesses are often guilty until proven innocent on Wikipedia. I hope that Puget can be judged based on current notability rather than past articles.

Thanks,

Fire67 (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Dppowell (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • After checking out Fire67's draft and its references, I concluded that the subject fulfills WP:CORP and the article is ready for mainspace. I am willing to put it there. — Athaenara ✉ 22:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Article has been created by Athaenara at Puget Systems. My thanks to everyone who helped out, especially User:Moonriddengirl at the drawing board. Fire67 (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Minor point: I didn't create it, I moved it to mainspace :-) — Athaenara ✉ 23:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Drew Hayes

Drew Hayes is a comicbook artist/writer who died recently. At the bottom of his article, there is:

Hayes leaves behind daughter Mary of 14 years. His mother, Sharon, has started a memorial fund in his name to fund his daughter's education. Donations can be sent to:
"Drew Hayes Memorial Fund" Whatcom Educational Credit Union
PO Box 9750
Bellingham WA 98227-9750
You can also contact Haye's colleagues at info@cosmictherapy.com for info about how you can pay your respects to Haye's memory. Cosmic Therapy was Haye's official storefront for his original series, Poison Elves.

I really don't know if this counts as WP:COI or not. Its for a good cause apparently, so I'm hesitant about removing it, but if we make exceptions then who knows what will happen. So I brought it over here and maybe someone better versed can fill me in on what to do.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of a COI or not I removed it because Wikipedia is not a soapbox and it's written in the second person. MER-C 02:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ronn Torossian and 5W Public Relations

Edits by:

The Ip addresses have repeatedly deleted unpleasant edits from the above articles. The first IP address belongs to 5W, so it's an obvious WP:COI. The second is a standard residential ISP, but considering the edits are identical, it's safe to conclude that it's the same person, or at least people associated with each other. The detail that keeps getting deleted refers to a 5W exceutive, (who also happens to be a Wikipedia editor), astroturfing and impersonating a Rabbi on the internet. Mosmof (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Edited to add, looking at the edit history for the article, there have been several edits by single-purpose account, and both articles were initially created by an exec at the firm. --Mosmof (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Emetman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), a SPA editing exclusively Ronn Torossian, 5W Public Relations, articles of their clients and articles pertaining on them, often removing referenced information, which shed unpleasant light on them.--Atavi (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Open business

Open business (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Very large number and volume of edits made to this article since beginning of June 2008 by David gv ray (talk · contribs) and more recently by 84.57.66.42 (talk · contribs). Some editors suspect this is a conflict of interest since the new material is referenced to a book by David G.V. Ray (see talk page). In addition most of the material is written as if it were a textbook or a training course. I have tried to be bold and revert this to the "good" version, but it was immediately reverted back. I've also left a message for the anon IP, but there has been no response yet. Another editor has left a message for DVGR regarding this article, also with (as far as I can tell) no response. What do you suggest is the way forward for this article? -- MightyWarrior (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

COI at Gerald Guterman?

  • Gerald Guterman (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - I strongly suspect a COI by user NetHistoryBuff5 (and previous socks). NHB5 has only one interest on WP and that is keeping the above page safe and nice. Rejects all mention of Guterman's troubles and controversies. Refuses repeated requests to disclose COI. Please help. Smilo Don (talk) 05:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Friends With You

RelentlessRolento (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - The current version of the Friends With You (FWY) article is written in a very flattering style. It has been expanded by RelentlessRolento alone, going back to May. (this [4] was the last version before he began expanding it.) There is some evidence that RelentlessRolento is affiliated with FWY: he has uploaded and seemingly licensed images from FWY, and he has not edited any articles besides the FWY one. I am a pretty inexperienced editor, and I'm not familiar with the subject matter of this article, I just came across it looking through toy articles. It seems some of the material RelentlessRolento added would in and of itself make decent additions, but as it stands right now, the entire article is very POV'd and I don't know how to handle it. Siawase (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Glenn McGee

An anonymous editor who declared himself to have a conflict of interest in a recent AfD has been editing Glenn McGee in a way that minimizes sourced negative information about the subject, with edit summaries that imply that the "keep" outcome of the AfD gives him a license to reshape the article as he wills it. There was also at least one single-purpose account in the AfD who seems to prefer a more negative version of the article, but that isn't the problem right now. It hasn't escalated to the point of being an edit war but it could probably use a few more neutral eyes. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Added it to my watchlist. You appear to be handling the situation nicely. Dppowell (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

COI at MerchantCircle

  • MerchantCircle (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - I suspect a COI by MerchantCircle engaging in removal of factual, sourced but perhaps inconvenient information from its own page. Initially, a user Kleubay joined WP, and has only one purpose- that is removing factual but negative links and entries about MerchantCircle. When this was brought to attention, Kleubay was abandoned and several IP addresses were used to edit the page (208.54.15.125, 68.166.184.187, 12.226.182.113). The effect was the same: removing facts such as Alabama's Better Business Bureau report on MerchantCircle. Advice appreciated. Zsmith721 (talk) 05:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Park West Gallery: our article compared to the New York Times'

Note that some of these artists are likely notable; the articles in some cases appear to have been added as vehicles for links various Park West domains. I also left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment asking for input on the notability of the more marginal subjects.


After reading a long New York Times article yesterdayday, "Art Auctions on Cruise Ships Lead to Anger, Accusations and Lawsuits", I was curious to see if we had an article. In fact we did: a slickly pretty article complete with "refs" and good compliance to our Manual of Style … it was also a blatantly promotional PR piece.

I've made a few changes to the article and tagged it for a conflict of interest; another editor added a small controversy section but it still needs more work. I dug up several other news articles that are listed in the external links and reference sections that could be potentially helpful with this.

One of the accounts, Sorlando, that produced the article has expressed willingness to make the article more acceptable; see our exchange at User talk:A. B.#PWG.


Accounts: I've left {{COI}} warnings for all of these:


A full list of domains is at:

I originally listed this case at WikiProject Spam however after a closer look it probably belongs here. This one is more of an article-spam/conflict of interest issue than a linkspam problem. Also, the spammed articles that have not been deleted are about subjects that are probably notable; they should be reworked rather than deleted.


I'd appreciate any help you could give in getting these articles (especially the main one, Park West Gallery) up to our standards. You guys are much better at this than I am.

Thanks! --A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

A new editor, Truthwithoutbias, just deleted the small controversy section I and an IP added to the article. He also alleges slander, bias and conflict of interest on the part of myself and the other editor. --A. B. (talk • contribs)
Added to my watchlist. Dppowell (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

EdLudbrook

The apparent autobiography has been speedied and I expect it will be deleted soon. I'm talking with the editor. Dppowell (