Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→CarolMooreDC: Addition, not striking, is not fine. Please don't do that sort of thing
→CarolMooreDC: CarolMooreDC has not yet satisfactorily addressed the question as to whether or not she believes that she has a COI.
Line 306: Line 306:


::::It seems to me that creating [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (editors)]] would be rather duplicative of AN/I. Editors are allowed to have strong points of view, but need to follow community policies related to how or if they incorporate that view into articles and discussions. If an editor is able to conduct themselves appropriately in this regard, there's nothing to discuss on a noticeboard. If they cannot, we have an established system to engage the user in discussion and consensus, ranging from warnings to talk pages to informal and formal dispute resolution. If that fails, it's an incident that violates policies other than NPOV (e.g. 3RR), and so it belongs on AN/I or another noticeboard. In other words, what does a new noticeboard add? [[User:Zachlipton|Zachlipton]] ([[User talk:Zachlipton|talk]]) 04:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
::::It seems to me that creating [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (editors)]] would be rather duplicative of AN/I. Editors are allowed to have strong points of view, but need to follow community policies related to how or if they incorporate that view into articles and discussions. If an editor is able to conduct themselves appropriately in this regard, there's nothing to discuss on a noticeboard. If they cannot, we have an established system to engage the user in discussion and consensus, ranging from warnings to talk pages to informal and formal dispute resolution. If that fails, it's an incident that violates policies other than NPOV (e.g. 3RR), and so it belongs on AN/I or another noticeboard. In other words, what does a new noticeboard add? [[User:Zachlipton|Zachlipton]] ([[User talk:Zachlipton|talk]]) 04:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

* It seems that CarolMooreDC has not yet satisfactorily addressed the question as to whether or not she believes that she has a COI. I have asked this twice: the first response was "I don't get any financial or benefit from editing on this topic" and the second was "I don't know or am involved with any person, company or group - except wikipedia - that will benefit from calling "Jewish control of media" a "myth" or "a conspiracy theory" ''as well as a canard.''" Why such very careful statements, restricted in the first case to he personal benefit on the broad topic and then to associated groups on a highly specific point? Is it possible that she has a COI by association, in the topic broadly considered? She needs to consider for herself whether or not there is a possibility of COI in this area and I hope that she will then share the results of her deliberations frankly with the rest of us. [[User:Kenilworth Terrace|Kenilworth Terrace]] ([[User talk:Kenilworth Terrace|talk]]) 07:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


== Jeff Goodby ==
== Jeff Goodby ==

Revision as of 07:31, 19 January 2011

    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using 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.
    You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
    Additional notes:
    • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
    2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
    3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
    • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
    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:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:Bill Ackman
    Talk:Asia Society
    Talk:Australian Maritime College
    Talk:Carbfix
    Talk:Cofra Holding
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Creative Planning
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Fundbox
    Talk:Globe Life
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Gregmark Records
    Template talk:Hearst
    Talk:Hearst Communications
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Scott Kurashige
    Talk:List of assets owned by Hearst Communications
    Talk:List of sequence alignment software
    Talk:Moroccanoil
    Talk:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation
    Talk:Oneok
    Talk:Ornge
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Pod Point
    Talk:Runner's World
    Talk:Lester Sill
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Thandeka (minister)
    Talk:Lorraine Twohill
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Xsolla
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation


    Ciplex

    • Disclaimer - This user has stated a possible COI with me and Vector Marketing in which we are in a editing dispute. I'll be happy to participate in any discussion on this board on that matter. However, I request that any such discussion be a separate COI report.

    Per information I have presented on the AN/I board and recommendation to proceed here, I would to report a possible Conflict of Interest between AkankshaG and Ciplex. There is also other articles affected, however Ciplex is the main issue. During an editing dispute, A photograph [1] uploaded for Vector Marketing revealed a name for someone as an account executive at Ciplex, which leads me to believe that AkankshaG is an associate for Ciplex. I like to note that her editing behavior suggests that she might be being paid to create Puff Articles, and in one such article she had edited extensively, she participated in sockpuppeting Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AkankshaG/Archive at that article's AfD [2] with other meatpuppets. Other editors and involved Admins have also voiced concerns of WP:PUFF.

    An important note, Ciplex advertises not only website creation and hosting, but marketing services as well. Marketers often attempt to use Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX (aware or unaware of policy), which its established its clearly wp:not.

    This is yet another attempt to intimidate me because of an editing dispute with User:Cutno/User:Phearson at Vector Marketing and attempted WP:OUTING

    I have been editing here since 2006, and have edited over 1,000 articles. I have no history of blocks or bans.

    What User:Phearson has failed to disclose here is that he and I are in an editing dispute over at Vector Marketing, which is owned by Cutco Cutlery. If you click on User:Cutno, it resolves to User:Phearson. See this diff where he states: “Hello, I'm Phearson, I originally came to Wikipedia to patrol a very disputed article relating to the Cutco Corporation (formally Alcas) and its Marketing arm "Vector Marketing". Needless to say, if you understand what Multi-level marketing is, and what Scientology is. You probably will know what I'm talking about.” Phearson/Cutno provides in this diff: “I disagree, Vector marketing when I worked for them told me not to say that I worked for them and that I was an "independent contractor." User:Cutno|Cutno (User talk:Cutno|talk) 19:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)”

    Phearson/Cutno has apparently been locked in a fierce and protracted battle with the forces of evil over the Vector article, where one side wants a decidedly positive piece, and the other side apparently wants a decidedly negative piece. The primary contention seems to be the characterization of the company as a direct sales company vs. a characterization of them as a multi-level marketing company, and questions about whether the representatives are employees or contractors.

    I’ve been watching the article for awhile, and left a message on the talk page Dec 11th indicating that I thought the article was unbalanced, and needed to look more like a regular company article does on Wikipedia, citing the Apple, Inc. article as one that contains historical, organizational, marketing, outside activities and critical information about the company. I didn’t get any response from Phearson/Cutno, so on December 27th I uploaded a new version of the article, which included a controversy and criticism section. I didn’t include the materials from the SAVE site or the Consumeraffairs sites, as that material is from the Anti-Cutco SAVE organization, which isn’t WP:RS. Rather than any discussion at all, Phearson/Cutno immediately reverted back to his version. On Dec 27th I asked Phearson/Cutno to revert to the draft plus add back the entire controversy and criticism section that he authored, which I again asked him to add back his version of the controversy & criticism section, and again. Rather than respond to these requests and include his version of the controversy and criticism section, he reverted everything back to his previous negative version of the article. As I said in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vector_Marketing&diff=next&oldid=404417728 this comment, I think a complete article needs to have a controversy and criticism section, it just shouldn’t be the whole article. My last correspondence on the talk page was a request to Phearson to wait until the New Year’s weekend to allow me to address his issues, as I needed to do actual work work during the week and nut be futzing around with Wikipedia. Rather than trying to work through the editing issues with me and waiting for the weekend as I requested, Phearson/Cutno launched a series of attacks on me and articles I’ve edited, apparently believing that the best way to maintain his version of the article is to crush any editor who challenges it. And now we’re here.

    User:Phearson/User:Cutno didn't get the result he wanted in one ANI, then another ANI, and a sockpuppet investigation, and now he's WP:Forum shopping and trying to get a different result here. He's also tried to OUT me, which he was cautioned against by an WP:OVERSIGHT administrator. Not satisfied with that, User:Phearson/User:Cutno has tried to intimidate me from editing the Vector article by going around and nominating my work for deletion.

    I don’t work for mywikibiz, viziworks, ciplex, scientology, vector, or cutco (all theories offered by Phearson/Cutno at one time or another). I do work in the video game industry, beyond that, I’m not willing to say more, as I’m greatly concerned that there are some editors in our community who have lots of time on their hands and would take that information and track me down in RL. Our WP:OUTING policies are here for a reason, and that is to discourage intimidation tactics, and I hope you all will respect that and remove any theorized ruminations about my RL identity.

    Lastly, I’ll say this. Wikipedia has been mostly a happy and safe place for me over the years, someplace I can relax to and have fun with. Bizarre as it may seem to an outsider, I enjoy taking a craptastic article like Vector and completely redrafting it, tracking down every last little bit of information I can find and turning it into something worthy of an encyclopedia. Disagree with my approach to drafting or my edits, fine, let’s work it out on the talk page, but going after me personally both on Wikipedia and off-Wikipedia: That’s just not cool. AkankshaG (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Response

    I replied to most of these accusations already in the ANI. It was suggested that I take my concerns here. For the record, I stated that I would work with Akanksha on Vector Marketing should she not be blocked. But she is not going to her POV way either, and repeating the large wall of text of allegations of intimidation here and other pages are not helpful. I'm sorry you feel offended, but I'm not happy doing this either. And if nothing comes of this, I will stop here. But I think that there is clear COI regarding Ciplex. I also have never accused you of working for Scientology, or Viziworks. And I have placed a disclaimer stating your concern about me, and you have ignored my request to begin a separate COI notice. Phearson (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What I want is for you to stop stalking me and attempting to WP:OUT me in some effort to prevent me from editing your favorite article Vector Marketing. All of your faux politeness does not cover your dozen attempts to chase me away from your precious article. And you have no right to edit my comments here either. AkankshaG (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not just me objecting to your changes to the article, user:Ryulong has also raised an objection to your insertion of blatantly promotional material on the article's talk page. As for the stalking charge, I have acted within the law of Florida and other jurisdictions when I connected the author of the photograph with someone listed as an account executive at Ciplex. You have effectively outed yourself via the license of that photograph, and you have been called out on it. Nothing unlawful occurred here. And I did not edit your comments here, other then to put them in a box like user:tedder did at Ciplex's AfD. Phearson (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    the main argument here seems to be over the decidedly negative tone of the article regarding vector marketing. i would like to point out this is the case because literally all of the WP:RS used in the article are discussing the company in a negative light. if you read the sources, even the sources used to reference neutral parts of the article talk about the company negatively. if the sources used to reference the vector marketing article all discuss the company in a negative light, this is what the wikipedia article should reflect. WookieInHeat (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This COI is not specific to that article in which a dispute has occurred. Ciplex in particular was edited heavily by AkankshaG who as I keep pointing out, has ties to Ciplex. I've already gone ahead and AfD it awhile back, if its not deleted, a heavy review of its sources is needed, including articles connected to Von Dutch who was also edited heavily by AkankshaG. Phearson (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    While I am also concern with the edits on other articles, I went and tagged a few that were loosely connected to Von Dutch. AkankshaG is claiming further that I am stalking her and is reverting tags I have placed on them here & here. Phearson (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Guy Bavli

    I have removed the {{coi}} tag from the BLP article Guy Bavli, and replaced it with an {{underconstruction}} tag. Some improvements have already been made (See the previous COIN notice) I am in contact with the subject of the article, and they have expressed interest in helping in a wikipedia-friendly manner. Thanks.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)     20:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The coi tag was put back today. I left a short note on the talk page of the editor. If there are any disagreements regarding this article, then a coi tag may be appropriate. However I'm not aware of any disagreements. Thanks.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)     17:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The COI tag is not solely for disagreements. In this case it marks an article edited with a conflict of interest that requires clean up. I think it is entirely appropriate. --Leivick (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, large sections of the article are unreferenced and presumably based on OR by the paid editors and I'm not exactly sure we need the level of detail regarding the TV program either. SmartSE (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Pierre-Louis Parant

    While searching Google to try to find more sources for this article, I noticed that on what is currently hit #9 here, although the Twitter link does not actually work, the title matches the name of this article and the username in the URL matches the author of the article. This suggests to me the possibility that the article may be written by the subject himself. I'm a newbie here, so I'm not sure how to proceed in this situation. Any advice? jcgoble3 (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The lack of secondary sources - reliable third-party coverage - places doubts on the notability anyway, making the COI irrelevant. 217.44.19.143 (talk) 11:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks. I've taken the article to AFD. jcgoble3 (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't remember basic procedure

    I've recently discovered that my church has received significant attention in multiple independent reliable sources as a historic site, so at some point down the line, I'm planning on writing an NPOV and properly-sourced article about it. As a longtime editor, I'm well aware of WP:COI and wish to be as transparent as possible, but I'm not generally aware of the procedures that are best to follow. Would it be considered appropriate to write the article in userspace and leave a note here asking an unrelated party to review the article and move it into mainspace if warranted? Nyttend (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If you've declared your potential conflict (which you mostly did here), then userspace draft seems like a good idea. For an unrelated party review, better places might be Wikipedia:Requests for feedback or Wikipedia:Articles for creation.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)     10:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In your position I don't think making a userspace draft is necessary as you don't have anything to gain from writing an article about your church and (I assume) would be writing it with the primary aim of improving the project. To me this is the crux of the COI policy, regardless of possible links between the editor and the article. From what I see at DYK, most historic churches are notable, so as long as you make sure everything is sourced and not based on your experience then it should be fine. You can disclose that it is your church, but I don't think there is any need to and you may not want to, to maintain your privacy. SmartSE (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gjshisha

    The actions of Gjshisha (talk · contribs) seem to be directed at promoting someone G.J.Szekely. In particular, this user on several occasions have edited other articles by adding references to Szekely's works, even when such references are either non-notable or even irrelevant. Examples: [3], [4], [5], [6], etc.  // stpasha »  06:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The Library is on Fire

    Clearly and openly editing on behalf of her client and his projects. "Can this be fixed so I can restore it to my client's page?" Orange Mike | Talk 22:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul Vitale

    The original author is single purpose and COI. This is all promotional as I see it. I note that the photo was uploaded by the article subject (PAVitale) but can't find history of that user. I will notify user of this posting so they have an opportunity to explain.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see a COI. Making a judgement on this author (Griffey35jsb) simply because he/she has not made a sizeable contribution to other articles could be an unfair assessment. There is nothing here that leans me toward favoring this person/subject simply by nature of reading this, which in my opinion is a qualification of "promotional content." As an encyclopedia is meant to do, this article educated me on someone I had heard of previously, I researched on Wikipedia and learned more about. I have since added content to this page based on my further research online. I am not a full-time contributor, nor have I personally added considerable content to Wikipedia due to time constraints and other obligations (thus making me a bit more understanding of the author). In my opinion, he is both notable and as stated, I see no COI. Bozepc1 (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have opened a sockpuppetry case on Bozepc1. It can be found here.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Jamaica Kincaid

    The IP is repeatedly removing criticisms of Ms. Kincaid from her article. The IP resolves to Claremont, California, which is where Ms. Kincaid teaches. Corvus cornixtalk 02:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed the controversy section because I felt it was WP:UNDUE and in particular, I couldn't see where it was being classified as a controversy. Unfortunately no one tried to speak to the IP and they ended up getting blocked. The article is severely lacking in sources, so it is possible that the IP was legitimately removing incorrect material from the early life section per WP:AUTO#IFEXIST "you should feel free to remove mistaken or unreferenced out-of-date facts about yourself". I'll drop them a note to try and get them discussing it, rather than just editing. SmartSE (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Rolling Paper

    We have all been through this before. I had to re-report it as they're back at it again. There are various accounts used by Bambu Brand promoters on Wiki. This is because they use Wiki for advertising and even link their own website http://www.bambu.com/history.php to our List of oldest companies. Admins have warned them not to re-post the 1764 year without verifiable references but they can't resist. It's imperative to their branding and thus here we are again. The now-blanked talk pages of Lostsociety and ArnaudMS are filled with warnings relating to Bambu, including 6 bambu images that were taken down for improper licensing and many other types of promotional text warnings, have a look. They were asked not to insert the 1764 year again without verifiable references, however they couldn't resist and went right back at it again.

    I don't think there could be stronger language of warnings on their talk pages from various Admins. At this point I think we all need to move up to the next level. They are VERY good at writing long finger pointing posts whever anyone complains about them (one should be coming below shortly) so please don't beleive anything I have written here. Instead have a quick look at their actions and warnings and decide for yourself what you think. Have a great weekend and happy Wiki'ing! Nahome (sinebotH8R) (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This situation is not as simple as Nahome (talk · contribs) is portraying it. He recently requested page protection at Bambu rolling papers to stop IPs and new accounts from removing criticism he was adding. I checked the article and found he was adding material that was either not in the sources he provided, or the sources weren't policy compliant. I have a concern that he's Mrtobacco (talk · contribs), an account found to have a COI who stopped editing in 2009. They share exactly the same interests, the same writing style, and both have telephoned stores that other users said they worked in, to find out whether they really did work there. Here's Mrtobacco doing it in 2006. [7] Here's Nahome doing it in 2011, [8] and EdJohston warning him about it. [9] It appeared that Mrtobacco worked for one of Bambu's competitors.
    I've added full protection to the article, have reduced it to a stub, and have asked Nahome to re-build it using only good sources and sticking to them very closely. See Talk:Bambu rolling papers#The need for good sources. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    SlimVirgin I don't want to rebuild that article by myself, I think I have already dedicated enough time to this. I appreciate your involvement and am kind of asking you and other editors to do it. The more I post the more I get called names, and now you think I'm someone who I really am not. The reason I called that store was because I was asked to. I admit that I did not read the link above to see if that was the same situation for Mrtobacco, but likely that was the cause. If we are both dealing with the same sockpuppets asking us to call them and hitting us in a similar manner, you can expect there to be similar responses. I really would prefer if you and other editors get involved and edit the articles to your (not my) standards. That way you can't say I'm a competitor or anything else. I asked you many times in the talk page to please do this - I hope you will look back and see this. Then, maybe you could consider getting involved enough to write the article YOUR way (not mine). Then, in a few weeks when you've been fully attacked by the Bambu Sockpuppets someone else will be up here saying they think you are Mrtobacco and me :) If that happens I will really laugh a good belly one. Anyway again please - edit it your way and keep the sockpuppets off that article. I won't edit it - but am asking you to - your way - so there is no way - you can say - it was done my way :) Nahome (sinebotH8R) (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no interest in rebuilding it; I'm there only as an admin. But I'm glad to hear you're taking time away from the article, and I hope you'll extend that to related articles so the situation is allowed to calm down. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I want to let it go but I kind of need you to confirm that you'll pick up the watching/protecting of the 3 articles in question which all related to that 1764 promotional year. Will you do that and oversee them to normal wiki standards? Please say yes so I can remove them from my watchlist. Nahome (sinebotH8R) (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have the three pages on my watchlist, yes. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, I feel the weight removed! Now I need to do some Ohms and enjoy my newfound freedom. Please talkpage me if you need anything and thank you again for the blessed release. "Free at last, free at last" Nahome (sinebotH8R) (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to update people, as several admins are involved now. I requested a CU. ArnaudMS (talk · contribs) and Lostsociety (talk · contribs) are the same. I've blocked the former for 24 hours, and the latter indefinitely.

    Nahome (talk · contribs) is also linked to another account, but it involves a real name, so I won't post it. That real name is linked on the Web to a tobacco company. I'm going to ask him which account he wants to edit with, and block the other indefinitely; if it's the real-name account that needs to be blocked, I'll ask another admin to do it so I don't out him.

    I'm thinking that both these users have a COI, so we should topic ban them from all tobacco-related articles. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Nahome chose the real-name account to use from now on, so I've blocked the Nahome account indefinitely; see his talk page. If we agree a topic ban, I'll let the other account know by email. I'll also email the name of that account to the other admins dealing with this, so I'm not the only one keeping an eye on him. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a non-admin who had a bit of inconsequential copyediting to Bambu rolling papers overwritten during the recent war, I think a topic ban is a good idea. IMO, the stubbed state of the article right now is sufficient coverage of the subject. --CliffC (talk)
    Whew! Late start for this American today, but I agree with all that's been said so far. The longer this went, the louder the little bell in my head was tingling that there was way too much interest in these articles for _both_ parties. Sometimes, I AGF too much. Thanks, everybody! :-) KrakatoaKatie 22:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with a topic ban for Nahome and ArnaudMS from Bambu rolling papers and from any Bambu-related edits anywhere, for instance at List of oldest companies. Whoever closes the ban discussion should specify whether it includes talk pages. Nahome's other account should also be banned; I'm not sure how to manage that without disclosing which it is. Evidently all admins who may be able to enforce the ban should be told by email which account it is. Since it's not usually practical to topic ban an IP, and since some IPs have also caused a problem about Bambu, I suggest at least two months of semiprotection on Bambu rolling papers to keep COI-affected IPs from editing. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ageing - author promoting own works

    Promotion of the author F. J. Ninivaggi. User received the standard COI warning on 18 October but has since dropped six more mentions of Ninivaggi works into Wikipedia articles. With the exception of two edits to Wilfred Bion, user's edits all seem to promote Ninivaggi works, and a search finds about a dozen mentions. User identifies himself as Ninivaggi here. --CliffC (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Politics of the Maldives

    Niall Cook openly admits on his user page to be director of marketing technology for the PR firm Hill & Knowlton. The company is best known for making up the story of "Nurse Nayirah" who lied to the Congressional Human Rights Caucus that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers killing Kuwaiti babies by taking them out of incubators that were then transported to Iraq. This was done in order to gain support for the war against Iraq. Niall Cook keeps contributing to wikipedia. As this edit reveals, he sometimes uses an IP that can be tracked back to Hill & Knowlton. On top of obscene vandalism, they were found to use wikipedia for whitewashing the government of the Maldives that had hired the firm for improving its reputation that had been harmed by human rights violations. Although it was reported on several websites, [10] [11] [12] [13] apparently no one has ever reacted to it at wikipedia.
    The Hill & Knowlton article is not frequented by many editors but seems to be on the watchlist of a guy who proudly writes on his user page that he had a conflict with Micheal Moore over wikipedia articles. Checking the IPs that contributed to the article about WPP Group that Hill & Knowlton belongs to one can see that several belong to companies that belong to the group or have other professional interests. Not so surprising for an article about a big media company. But how can we deal with such things? Is there a tool to check all IPs that contributed to articles where they are from so that one can check if anything worrying was done? Can IPs that are known to belong to companies be blocked from editing articles related to them so that even if they log in with a user name they cannot edit? Knopffabrik (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no way as far as I know to block an IP in a way that prevents new accounts being made, although if an article was semiprotected new accounts would not be able to edit it for 4 days which may put them off. Have you tried reinserting the apparently removed criticism with sources etc.? If they are really just censoring, the information will be put in somewhere along the Dispute resolution process. I'll have a closer look later, but in the mean time go through normal editing, present a discussion on the talk page describing your edits (empty talk page). Additionally, if there's enough evidence it may be worth submitting a checkuser between the user and IP. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of these edits are ancient, and while I agree that they some are problematic there is not really anything to do at the moment. The diff you gave about the Maldives isn't really problematic (and is from >5 years ago!) as it was removing unsourced controversial information e.g. "President Gayoom routinely uses torture, propaganda, and censorship as a means to cling on to political power." which should obviously have been sourced. From what I can tell Niall Cook is following our COI guideline to the book, by disclosing who they are and only commenting on the talk page. Is there anything that actually needs attention? SmartSE (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the diff link is old and I have not yet revealed anything urgent. I don't agree that the diff link I gave isn't problematic. Changing unsourced "Political parties in Maldives was not allowed, though the constitution allowed it, until June 2005." into unsourced "In June 2005, as part of an ongoing programme of democratic reform, new regulations were promulgated to formally recognise political parties within the framework of the electoral system." while being paid by the government is about as much a conflict of interest as you can get. Given that several websites reported about it, it is not surprising that the same IP was not used again to edit articles related to the Maldives. (And more surprising that someone who reveals himself to be marketing director of a PR firm continues to use it for obscene vandalism and for comments signed with his real name.) What I am worried about is that obviously professionals use wikipedia to improve their or their clients' reputation. They will have learned from experiences like the one with the Maldives and do it in a way more difficult to detect. If they edit articles that have not so many editors - like politicians from developing countries or about PR firms - it will often remain unnoticed. And if they log in we cannot detect the origin. So at least a tool would be handy that shows where IPs come from in articles suspected to have been influenced. And in striking cases like the one above in my opinion we should at least think about checking which other edits were made from the same IP ranges, logged in or not. Knopffabrik (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because an IP address belongs to a company, that does not mean that one individual user using that IP address has made all the edits assigned to it. We have hundreds of employees who - just like many other companies - broadcast the same IP address on the public internet. Any edits that I have made have been made using my username (unless I've sometimes forgotten to log in, which I have then quickly rectified) and in line with Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guidelines. If you have evidence to prove otherwise, then please present it here, otherwise withdraw your allegations. Your accusations that I have personally made anonymous edits is nothing short of WP:Harassment. Niall Cook (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't claim that all edits by that IP were made by you. By signing several edits made by that IP you just showed that those were made by you. The IP can be tracked back to belong to your company, so for the conflict of interest issue it doesn't matter if it was you or anyone else. I don't know you personally and don't care. As a professional you should know that it does not shed a very positive light on you if clear POV and obscene edits are made by an IP that you use and that can be tracked back to your company. As a director you also have responsibility for your team. As I had already written, your reaction is not unexpected to me, but instead of counter attacking I insist you should apologize on behalf of your company and change your behaviour in the future. Knopffabrik (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Knopffabrik, I completely agree that this is a potential problem and one that is hard/imposssible to deal with. However Niall Cook has not done anything wrong as far as I can tell and there are no current problems that need dealing with. If you wish to propose a way in which we could detect such edits in general, then maybe post at the village pump but this thread is not going to achieve anything. SmartSE (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter which person it was, and I am not after anyone personally, but there was wikipedia manipulation by a PR firm paid by a dictator. As I don't know much about Maldivian politics, I feel unable to deal with those content issues and would be very grateful if others could take a look at them.
    For the more general question of how to deal with IPs and users that may have a conflict of interest, thank you very much for the link to the village pump, I guess that helps. There's already a page "Tracking attempts to spin wikipedia" at sourcewatch.org and the tool that was used to detect the Hill & Knowlton spin on the politics of the Maldives was Wikiscanner - which doesn't seem to work right now because of an update. Knopffabrik (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you feel there is an issue with a statement in the article that is unsourced, slap a [citation needed] on it. That would at the same time alert possible POV, but also encourage those working on the article to find a source for it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, that is a good starting point. Both articles that were found by wikiscanner already had a note that they lack sources when I first looked at them. However, in the case I saw the problem was more deleted information than unsourced information that was added, so difficult to leave a tag there. Furthermore, as I know practically nothing about Maldivian politics I don't know which other articles may be involved. I already left a note on the talk page of the articles I found. Knopffabrik (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe we should keep a close eye on the Hill & Knowlton article for any COI issues, but the present form of the article seems neutral. It includes some well-sourced negative information. Regarding the IP range: if you view the last 50 anonymous contributions from Hill & Knowlton's range, I see no problem with recent edits. There was some funny stuff about the Maldives from June 2005 as Knopffabrik noted, but edits since 2006 look OK to me. If the 2005 editing pattern were to recur, blocks should be considered. User:Niallcook clearly discloses he works for Hill & Knowlton, even in his signature above, and is attempting to follow our COI policy. I am not aware of any current problems with the article on Ahmed Shafeeq Ibrahim Moosa. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh thanks, that was exactly the kind of tool I was looking for. So let's hope it's not just that they have learned from the revelation and do all the evil things while logged in now. And I'll try and see if wikiscanner2 gives new information once it starts working. I'd appreciate if someone who feels able to do it could take a look at Politics of the Maldives and check whether the problems caused by partisan editing still exist. Knopffabrik (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Xenia Tchoumitcheva

    Can someone please review this situation. Cioccolatina (talk · contribs) appears to be a WP:SPA with a WP:COI relating to the subject of the article. The user may be the subject, a friend or relative of the subject, or an associated of the subject's modelling agency. There is a history of adding promotional material to the article. There is a verified history of the subject's birth date being altered for professional reasons. Apparently, someone provided OTRS with convincing bt false information. This user was involved in adding the false birth year to the article. The user now wants to remove the known birth year.
    My questions are:

    • Should the user be banned from directly editing the article?
    • Should the subject's birth date be included in the article?
    • Should the article point to the conflicting sourced birth dates? Note the reference on the talk page showing that this has been subjected to public interest. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This was bought up before in August but nothing much happened. This isn't the place to request a topic ban and COI doesn't prohibit someone editing an article, so it is best to treat their edits at face value, i.e. by warning against removal of sourced content etc. If, as is discussed on the talk page there are reliable independent sources for her DOB being in '87 then I see no reason not to include it. Similarly if the sources discuss how she says she is a different age, then this too should be included. SmartSE (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Nicole Miller

    User has all sorts of warning templates on the user talk page -- ample warning, repeated edits to the Nicole Miller page. Banaticus (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User indeffed as a spam only account. SmartSE (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Jack Said

    Smiddly is a WP:SPA; most recent edit with the appearance of COI was diff which had the edit summary "removing dead links." This removed low ratings and quotes critical of Jack Said along with links to three RS, in fact only one of which was dead and that one had in fact only migrated while remaining on the same website. Smiddly has twice before removed critical reviews (diff and diff).


    Robinsrevenge is an SPA as well. This editor's most recent edit with the appearance of COI was diff which removed a low rating and critical quote and a working link to a RS without an edit summary and characterized this edit as minor.


    From the editors here, I would appreciate feedback as to whether the messages I left to Smiddly diff and Robinsrevenge diff are adequate, or if there is anything else that should be done. (I do still have to restore the content and links that were removed back to the article and will include links to archives for the webpages as well.) The article would also benefit from additional people watching or contributing to it. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Kathleen Zelman

    The article Kathleen Zelman has been created and exclusively edited by User:Dana.zelman, who obviously appears to be related. I gave the standard COI warning to no result. The article is surprisingly well sourced and the subject is arguably notable, but there definitely appears to be a conflict of interest here, so I wanted to bring it to the attention of this noticeboard. Zachlipton (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    CarolMooreDC

    CarolmoorDC, a self-described political activist in the I-P dispute among other topics, has been heavily involved in editing articles on anti-semitism, Israel, and Judaism. She has apparently imported real life battles into Wikipedia. I am involved in these discussions, acting in the capacity of an ordinary editor, not as an administrator. Please see:

    All editors should be reminded that it is not outing when an editor disclosed that they edit under their own name, and self-discloses their off-wiki activities. Every editor should be aware of what topics they have problems writing neutrally about, and stay away from them. They should especially avoid disputed editing of those topics, actively having a conflict of interest, or creating the appearance of a conflict of interest. Such editing damages the reputation of Wikipedia. When an editor fails to self-regulate, there is nothing wrong with pointing out the problem.

    The above was posted elsewhere. Editors suggested bringing the matter here for full review. Jehochman Talk 20:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The contemporareous evidence can be viewed at Talk:Allegations of Jewish control of the media. A user simply needs to read that page to see the style of CarolMooreDC's editing. As for article space, contributions are often tendentious, repeatedly attempting to legitimize the false and anti-semitic slander that Jews control the media.[14][15][16] Moreover, CarolMooreDC never retracted her 2003 remarks which call into question the neutrality of her editing. Once an editors says something bigoted, they own that position until they renounce it. Given the alignment between her stated position and current editing, I am very concerned for WP:NPOV. Jehochman Talk 20:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Random noticeboard discussion appears to be given more than a few chances lately...I really think that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Carolmooredc might be the next step at this point instead of yet another discussion that likely won't do anything but go stale with back and forth arguments from the same people. --Onorem♠Dil 20:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to spend the next month watching over an RFC that draws in the usual I-P combatants and generates a stalemate. My hope is that a few uninvolved editors will look into matters and provide feedback on the merits. Every time I post concerns people say "go here, go there" but nobody wants to help resolve the dispute by saying "yes" or "no" the editing is good or bad. Why would RFC be any different? Jehochman Talk 20:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    /shrug. Fair enough I guess. I just don't see much happening from one of the toothless boards. --Onorem♠Dil 21:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For now I'd be very happy to get an opinion from one of the regulars here. Would somebody be willing to dig through the contribution history, article edit history, and article talk page and tell me whether they see a problem, and if so what should be done about it? This all started when I naively page moved Allegations of Jewish control of the media, and Carolmooredc came down on me[17] like a ton of bricks alleging all manner of malfeasance and ADMINABUSE.[18] Something felt very wrong about that response, and when I dug into the matter, I did not like the editing pattern I saw. Then various people started emailing me evidence of long term abuse, and telling me stories about how Carolmooredc had driven off other editors with endless arguing and wikilawyering. This is a situation that needs to be investigated and resolved. As a first step I'd like that outside opinion please. I don't want to go off causing more trouble if somehow I've misunderstood the situation. Jehochman Talk 21:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    ((outdent))

    *Of course, User:Jehochman actually includes on his User Page a link to his LinkedIn page focusing on his internet marketing expertise, which some might consider blatant self-promotion of his business interests. At this diff he wrote: I do not have any conflict of interest in this area. I am not employed or obligated to anybody regarding this topic. I've got nothing to gain or lose in the outcome. COI is a difficult question because there's no easy way to know where to draw the line. Nevertheless I have to wonder, is he using it to recruit clients through his wikipedia edits or is he editing for his clients? (Notice he provides no evidence of any such financial interests or motivations on my part.) So I think it is more likely User:Jehochman has some conflict of interest problems than that I do.
    • Other wise my main mention of my off-wikipedia activities is to reply to repeated attacks from a variety of individuals using a link to the one email I wrote 7.5 years ago in 2003 when I was upset because I was getting death threats from a pro-Iraq war/pro-Israel supporter. (As his failed ANI showed, editors did not feel this was a significant issue.)
    • User:Jehochman resorts to repeated incendiary (and terrifying to many editors) allegations of antisemitism to cover up the fact that his preferred characterization of Allegations of Jewish control of the media as a "Canard" actually is not popular with a number of editors and is not supported by WP:RS as the only or most prominent description. See this NPOV discussion where many agreed canard should be taken out of the title. Nevertheless Jehochman went and changed the title back, without consulting the talk page, which I did find annoying. Jehochman then requested move to change the name of the article to include “canard” and that also was roundly rejected. In both cases a number of editors rejected canard as the primary description of the allegations. Nevertheless, Jehochman moved out of the lead evidence that myth and conspiracy theory are used as or more frequently and by more academic and journalistic WP:RS than canard is. This is the subject of this talk page thread where another editor agrees with me. Jehochman did not respond to either of us with wiki policy arguments but continued personal attacks on me on the talk page and now here.
    • This is reprehensible behavior and I have to wonder if it has something to do with Jehochman's financial interests in editing wikipedia in a certain way. Frankly I think he should be blocked from editing this article at all. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have a specific reason to suggest that an editor has a financial interest in editing an article then feel free to bring forward a definite and verifiable request at a separate case on this board. Otherwise please do not fling around unsubstantiated allegations and innuendo. This is about CarolMooreDC. Do you feel that you have a conflict of interest or not? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, if that's all that is necessary to say is: No. I don't get any financial or benefit from editing on this topic. I have a POV but I don't feel it is any stronger than User:Jehochmans. And I try hard to follow the rules about expressing it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Conflict of interest is much wider than financial benefit: as you can see at the top of this page, COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Does any of that apply to you?
    Oh, and please do not make significant modifications to your posts after someone else has replied to them. It makes the discussion almost impossible to follow. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed the previous discussion here about CarolMooreDC and in particular Atama's comment. Has anything changed since then to demonstrate why CarolMooreDC has a COI? I imagine campaigning would be the only possible conflict, but the links provided really don't make it clear how this is possible and it looks to me, as if this is still more of a POV, rather than COI issue. SmartSE (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To User:Kenilworth Terrace: I don't know or am involved with any person, company or group - except wikipedia - that will benefit from calling "Jewish control of media" a "myth" or "a conspiracy theory" as well as a canard. (And that is the only specific issue that Jehochman has been exercised about. I have tripled the history section and cleaned up BLP issues with nary a complaint from him. He hasn't mentioned anything else that I can remember.)
    It is acceptable to strike statements, isn't it, if one is in error? The content still can be read. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking is fine. Jehochman Talk 22:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But this is an addition, not striking, and is not fine. Please don't do that sort of thing. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We need to resolve the problem, even if it doesn't neatly fit into one of the pre-assigned noticeboard categories. Carolmooredc says she received death threats from a pro-Israeli supporter. That's horrible and I'm very sorry it happened. My concern is that her neutrality may have been compromised by this very unfortunate situation. Wikipedia is not a place for resolving nor for playing out real world disputes. WP:COI advises editors involved in litigation not to edit articles about the other party or the topic of dispute. I believe receiving a death threat is even more severely prejudicial than receiving a lawsuit. I am not sure whether Carolmooredc needs to be told not to edit this topic, or if she just needs to be more cautious about getting feedback from other editors. Her real life involvement in issue advocacy also raises a concern if she edits those same topics. Where is the line between loyalty to Wikipedia the project, and advocacy projects? WP:COI is exactly about how to resolve situations where an editor's various interests come into conflict. It's a hard, hard question. I'm not sure I have the answer, but this needs to be resolved. Jehochman Talk 22:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is getting absurd. As I document at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#WP:Harassment_by_User:Jehochman, Jehochman has brought up this email about an old forgotten incident a number of times, forcing me to explain it. And now he claims that I have a POV because of an incident I’d forgotten?
    As it happens I haven't been very politically active since 2007 and have focused on editing wikipedia. I do drift towards articles where there are ridiculous POV assertions and/or BLP violations supported by constant bullying of editors - and there are a lot of those related to the Israel issue. I think bullies should be banned from editing any articles where they repeatedly engage in bullying, whatever their reason. Bullying is certainly evidence of POV and COI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This (I agree with Smartse) seems more about POV disagrements then COI. If Carol has nothing to gain by her edits then I fail to see how COI can be invoked.Slatersteven (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    {To Jehochman} Are you serious? Over the last 7 years I've received so many threats on and off Wikipedia because I've been willing to take on nationalists, activists, and other POV pushers of all kinds of stripes. I actually have no idea or opinion about Carolmooredc, but the opinion that being threatened creates a COI is preposterous and antithetical to free editing. It is an idea that should be dismissed out of hand as every POV pusher will create a threatening sock and push their opponent out of the discussion. Anyone who stands up to POV pushers should be applauded. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
    Thank you for the applause. *bows* The problem is deciding who "stands up to POV pushers" and who's the POV pusher. Without editors willing to dig into the facts of the matter, it is very easy to confuse the two. How to sort that out? Jehochman Talk 00:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. COI involves placing the interests of another person, group, or ideology—with whom or which they have a relationship—over the interests of Wikipedia. We usually need payment or a role within an interested organization to trigger suspicion of COI. If we were to topic ban everyone with strong views, we'd have no one left to edit in lots of topic areas.
    We have Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard for articles, but not for users. What might be helpful is the creation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (editors). People could make reports there of users who consistently edit aggressively from only one perspective in contentious areas. It would give us a step before a user RfC for persistent POV pushing. I can foresee problems with it (increase in the number of noticeboards we're expected to watch; and people complaining that they rightly edit from one perspective because it's the majority POV), so I'm just floating this as an idea for discussion. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Slim, is this http://www.carolmoore.net/biography/ the sort of COI you are talking about? Placing loyalty to an ideology and a group (or groups) ahead of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy? Carol has founded a variety of groups and served as officer of several. She's been editing a lot of those same topics on Wikipedia. I have received numerous emails from editors complaining that she runs people off if they disagree with her points of view. At what point does editing about topics one knows cross the line into issue advocacy on Wikipedia, which is forbidden? Jehochman Talk 00:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    {Insert here} It also would be relevant to CAMERA's email mentioning Slim Virgin, under your view point. (See this wikipedia article section for context.) Note that Slim Virgin had such a proposal a couple years ago that went no where, including for reasons listed below. I could not understand why she would push such a thing, given the CAMERA email. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to SlimVirgin's thoughts about creation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (editors), I'll offer these thoughts:
    • I agree that the logistics of having another board could be a problem
    • More importantly, assuming the purpose of the board would be to "post questions here about whether users are editing articles in compliance with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy" (or perhaps "Report users that are not editing articles in compliance with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy"), I believe there the existing noticeboards provide venues for such questions/reports already.
    • I'll state my belief that every editor has a point of view about something. This only is an issue if an editor edits in violation of NPOV. For example, I have an extremely strong point of view regarding the efficacy of Pemetrexed following the the administration of Taxanes, said point of view being in the minority amongst those with opinions in such matters. As long as I refrain from editing articles to push that POV (and others I may have, some equally arcane, some not), I should be OK.
    • To state the obvious, the issue at hand (here and at least two other noticeboards) is whether one editor's edits are in violation of WP:NPOV such that they require action (from chastisement to ban). I've started to look at the edit history, and, as a complete outsider to the topic, I can't tell, as of yet. Note that my use of the term "yet" doesn't mean I'm trying to find such a violation. Rather, there's so many edits and reverts over time in the history, and so much discussion on the Talk page, that it is not something I can quickly discern. Other editors may fare better in that regard.
    Cheers to all, JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I'd really appreciate an outside opinion. As an involved editor my perceptions may not be sufficiently objective. I don't want to waste time with RFC or RFAR if such steps are unnecessary. Jehochman Talk 00:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that creating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (editors) would be rather duplicative of AN/I. Editors are allowed to have strong points of view, but need to follow community policies related to how or if they incorporate that view into articles and discussions. If an editor is able to conduct themselves appropriately in this regard, there's nothing to discuss on a noticeboard. If they cannot, we have an established system to engage the user in discussion and consensus, ranging from warnings to talk pages to informal and formal dispute resolution. If that fails, it's an incident that violates policies other than NPOV (e.g. 3RR), and so it belongs on AN/I or another noticeboard. In other words, what does a new noticeboard add? Zachlipton (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems that CarolMooreDC has not yet satisfactorily addressed the question as to whether or not she believes that she has a COI. I have asked this twice: the first response was "I don't get any financial or benefit from editing on this topic" and the second was "I don't know or am involved with any person, company or group - except wikipedia - that will benefit from calling "Jewish control of media" a "myth" or "a conspiracy theory" as well as a canard." Why such very careful statements, restricted in the first case to he personal benefit on the broad topic and then to associated groups on a highly specific point? Is it possible that she has a COI by association, in the topic broadly considered? She needs to consider for herself whether or not there is a possibility of COI in this area and I hope that she will then share the results of her deliberations frankly with the rest of us. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeff Goodby

    I don't want to violate WP:OUTING, though I have no personal knowledge of this situation, so I'm being somewhat vague. By all means tell me if I've crossed a line or if you have advice on how exactly to report these types of situations.

    Briefly, Rich Silverstein was created last July by User:GoodbySilverstein, a role account representing Mr. Silverstein's firm, Goodby, Silverstein & Partners (in fact, the first attempt was a blatant copy/paste of his biography off the firm's website). That account was promptly blocked and the article received little attention beyond the addition of a reference to fend off a BLP prod. The user did receive information on the COI policy. Last week, User:Meaganc.phillips joined and made extensive edits to Rich Silverstein. Subsequently, she created Jeff Goodby, again a blatant copy of his official corporate biography. The article has now reemerged with many sections of close paraphrasing from that copyrighted web page. This editor's only edits are to these two articles. She has not disclosed a COI that I am aware of, but while googling for potential copyright infringement, I found evidence to suggest such a conflict. The articles aren't bad and the subjects are quite likely notable, but Rich Silverstein was definitely created by a purported representative of his agency, and there appears to be substantial evidence that both articles were extensively edited by a different user account with an undisclosed conflict of interest. Zachlipton (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Zach, WP:MEAT says "For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has decided that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as a single user". So, perhaps a WP:SPI would be appropriate, based on editing patterns? JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I see a SPI as particularly relevant because User:GoodbySilverstein was blocked because its username represented a corporation. Users blocked for this purpose are free to create a new account, but still need to comply with the COI policies. This is explained in Template:uw-coi-username, though User:GoodbySilverstein never received that particular warning template. If we went through the SPI process and found that User:Meaganc.phillips is User:GoodbySilverstein, what would we do then? How would that be different than concluding that User:Meaganc.phillips has a corporate COI on this topic based on the evidence already available on and off wiki? Thanks for responding. Zachlipton (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=408745610"