[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MissOrgum1996 (talk | contribs) at 10:01, 21 August 2008 (new conflict of interest). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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:Australian Maritime College
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Creative Planning
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Empire (magazine)
    Talk:Globe Life
    Talk:Jacob Helberg
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Moroccanoil
    Talk:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation
    Talk:Ornge
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Lester Sill
    Talk:Roger Steare
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Thandeka (minister)
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Xsolla
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    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

    Emi (Native American singer) and User:Em Naswood

    Resolved
     – Deleted and salted. MER-C 10:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Em Naswood has created the article Emi (Native American singer) about himself, with no citations, written in a biased way, containing superfluous non-notable content like this. I've tried to remove unencyclopaedic content, tagged the article with coi, neutral and unverified tags, and contacted the user on his talk page and the article's talk page with regard to the issues, but no reply. The user keeps removing the tags from the page; I don't want to edit war, so I thought you guys could take a look! Cheers - Toon05 23:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As a side note to the above - I couldn't find any reliable sources to back up any of the claims to notability made so have nominated that article and Em (EP) for deletion at Afd (an IP also tried to remove the Afd tag) -Hunting dog (talk) 07:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mgover77

    Mgover77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - created his own article about himself, Michael Governale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and created two articles on computer products, Flopsy The Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Giggles Computer Funtime for Baby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), both in which he has been involved in making. MuZemike (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Governale. MER-C 10:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Flopsy The Dog and Giggles Computer Funtime for Baby have both been tagged for speedy deletion (G11 - blatant advertising/spam). MuZemike (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Both have been G11'd. MuZemike (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alphabiotics and User:Trisfb

    As suggested at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)#Alphabiotics I'm referring this article and user here.

    Alphabiotics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Trisfb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The users contributions include signing his preferred version of article Developmental Alphabioticist Tristram Forrest-Brown wrote this wikipedia page entry. Visit his page at www.alphabiotics.co.uk [1] all of the users edits are to this article, and he has not engaged in dialogue with other editors as requested on his talk page -Hunting dog (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    after talking with trisfb, and helping him improve the article, i think that this is no longer a problem as such, the article is on its way to being much more neutral and balanced--Jac16888 (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The application of COI in Vandal Reversion / Warnings

    Resolved
     – Warning someone who has vandalized your user page does not violate WP:COI. EdJohnston (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll make this short and sweet. I revert vandalism here at en.wp, and I wanted to ask a quick question: If a user vandalises your personal userpage, can it be seen as a Conflict of Interest if the user whose page was vandalised issues vandal warnings against the perpetrator? Should another user be asked to do this? Thanks. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I see no problem with that. That type of COI is not the type that the Wikipedia guideline discusses, where an editor stands to gain financially or similarly based on the content of an article. So no worries. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    request for article review

    Hi, I have written a draft of an article about Allsport GPS. I was wondering if someone here could help me get this article ready to be published on Wikipedia. I am worried about the article having a biased tone, since I am affiliated with the parent company. Any help in cleaning it up would be greatly appreciated. Wikipedia's Business FAQ suggested that I first get assistance to publish an article, since I have a conflict of interest. My draft is currently residing here: User:Ek_elwing/myarticle Thank you! --Emma K (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Commented there. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alwyn Scott and Conflict of Interest

    I believe this article violates conflict of interest. It is autobiographical and its subject / author has chosen to eliminate factual edits that are true but may undermine his ability to use the page to promote himself. Example: I add that he was involved in a costly divorce, which is true. He undoes it.

    Bookseven (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Funchords and NebuAd

    Disclosure and Summary

    I am the Director of Marketing at NebuAd. Given Wikipedia’s standards and conflict of interest guidelines, we were wondering if an editor would be willing to delete Funchords’ edits to the NebuAd article.

    Background

    Funchords is Robb Topolski. Mr. Topolski is a consultant for two Washington DC-based lobbying groups: Free Press and Public Knowledge.

    On behalf of these two lobbying groups, Mr. Topolski wrote a report on NebuAd.

    Conflict of Interest Concerns

    Regardless of whether he is biased, Mr. Topolski’s 114 edits of the NebuAd article constitute a conflict of interest based on the following COI examples:

    • Financial benefit: As a consultant to the aforementioned lobbyists on matters related to NebuAd, Mr. Topolski may “derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being the owner, officer or other stakeholder of a company or other organisation about which you are writing.”
    • Close relationships: Mr. Topolski’s relationships with the aforementioned lobbyists on matters related to NebuAd may “involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.”

    Request

    Based on these conflicts and the editorial guidance in Wikipedia:FAQ/Business, we request that an editor consider deleting the 114 edits made by Funchords.

    Edgar Waingortin (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please read WP:OUTING. Corvus cornixtalk 06:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Does not seem to be an outing issue. Funchords provides his full name on his userpage, and the above links are easily found via googling his name. -- Ned Scott 07:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, Funchords makes this possible COI known on his userpage. He's one step ahead of Edgar here. -- Ned Scott 07:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking into this a little more, I'm not seeing any issue with Funchords. From his own talk page I even see him working with other editors about the article NebuAd. He's well involved with other editors, asking them for help and such, and the edits themselves seem fine. -- Ned Scott 07:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see any policy violations in the current article, except that the table showing which staff members from Claria are now employed at NebuAd may violate WP:Synthesis. I've already expressed an opinion to that effect on the article Talk. (I believe it violates SYN but not BLP). Edgar Waingortin of the NebuAd company has been carefully respecting the WP:COI guideline thus far. In fact, he previously posted at this noticeboard to explain his own role and his concerns about the article. Basically, he asked us to follow our own policy. Funchords is an editor who in real life opposes NebuAd's approach to modifying internet traffic, but most of the time he has been careful to stay within Wikipedia policy. I'd be happier if the abovementioned table were removed, but except for that, I think we are OK. I encourage the readers of this report to add NebuAd to their watchlist. It would also help to ensure the article's neutrality if we had more regular editors who are not COI-affected working on it. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Texas Tech University Press is advertising on Wikipedia

    User:TTUP - User:TTUP is going around to random pages and adding bibliographic entries to Texas Tech University Press publications: [[2]]. The entries are in some cases relevant, and in other cases only tangentially relevant. This user's editing appears to be a form of advertising by this press.Verklempt (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • In no way were we trying to simply advertise our books. We felt that Wikipedia would be a good place to list reliable references for anybody interested in a particular field. However, we will be more careful about this in the future. Sorry. TTUP (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your excuse seems disingenuous to me, given the fact that you're only adding references to your own employer's product line. This is evidence enough of spam advertising. If your employer's books turn out to be useful, they will be added in due course by other editors without your efforts.Verklempt (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fredfickle and Brad Mehldau

    Resolved
     – Blocked, indefinitely. MER-C 10:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fredfickle (talk · contribs) keeps removing sourced, wikified information on the Brad Mehldau article and replacing it with unsourced text dump. I requested that he not do so, but he has repeated it twice now, the third time the edit summary said he is doing it for Brad Mehldau. I have given him a uw-v3 warning and reverted yet again, and pointed him to WP:COI. Corvus cornixtalk 06:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just issued Fredfickle a uw-v4 warning. Corvus cornixtalk 19:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Returned as Hthrkrns (talk · contribs), all sockpuppets blocked indef. See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredfickle. MER-C 10:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    promotion efforts at d'Alembert's paradox and "related" articles

    Affected articles:

    (there are very long discussion on all these pages...)

    Last year, the first article started being edited extensively by User:Visitor22 (see also User:Visitor222). This account admitted to being one of the authors of a paper by Hoffman and Johnson (Hoffman in particular), which featured heavily in these edits. This paper in its current form (as it is not yet published, see below) proposes a resolution to the paradox that is at odds with the mainstream view. There are not yet any citations or references to this paper except by the authors who are also including it in a book manuscript.

    These edits were questioned by one editor who pointed out some issues with them. Later, another editor removed them and explained his problem with the edits on the talk page. Thus a dialogue was started between Visitor22 (Hoffman) and this last editor. While the discussion got somewhat technical on the merits of the paper, the resulting conclusion of this editor was that the work did not satisfy Wikipedia's policies requiring reliable sources that would demonstrate this is a significant view or one even deserving of a little mention. At this point, User:Egbertus appeared, who argued for inclusion of this material. Other editors were asked to comment, so I (and something like 4 other editors) made our comments. We agreed that the sourcing was not adequate. In fact, the paper does not appear to have even passed through a final acceptance yet, and the initial acceptance letter from the editor states that the language must be made less pompous and the claims should be weakened so that only a possible resolution to the paradox is proposed. I know this because the senior author has made this material availabe on his website (see Talk:Navier–Stokes_existence_and_smoothness#Removed_section_.22Proposed_resolutions.22). At this point, Egbertus has traveled to several other Wikipedia pages, trying to insert mentions of this work.

    Currently d'Alembert's paradox does not mention the work (as its inclusion was reverted by me and others), but Egbertus has been carefully crafting it to cast doubt on the mainstream view. It is clear from comments from other knowledagble editors in the subject and indeed the referee reports on the senior author's website, that there is virtually no doubt of the mainstream view in the fluid mechanics community. Nonetheless Egbertus refuses to acknowledge Wikipedia policy, stating that he believes Wikipedia needs to discuss frontier knowledge rather than relying on second-hand information.

    Egbertus has been challenged several times to clarify his relation to the authors. Indeed, when I commented that I wondered if Hoffman knew what was going on here, Visitor22 showed up very quickly to make a comment. Egbertus has refused to answer or deny charges of COI. It is obvious s/he has a lot invested in promoting this work. Egbertus has been notified of the COI policy (but again, I doubt careful attention was paid to it). Can someone with some official standing here, e.g. an admin, warn this user to stop pushing this work on Wikipedia? I have better things to do than keep an eye on this person. --C S (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have put forward my arguments at length on the talk pages, and do not repeat them here. I understand now that WP is not for scientists with first hand expertize, but for some other competence, maybe expert competence on the rules of WP as exercised by CS.
    I am very surprised and certainly view WP very differently now than before. The d'Alembert article was a complete mess before Visitor22 entered, and I suppose the article will now be reverted to mess again. I understand that some people do not like the present version, even without any ref to HJ, because it tells a truth which is not so impressive. Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I have learned something.Egbertus (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When I pointed Egbertus towards the possibilities of a conflict of interest for the first time, Egbertus initial response was in terms of "our interests", see this diff. Which response was altered shortly afterwards. -- Crowsnest (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Crowsnest has rewritten the article opening to the new resolution proposed by HJ, without any reference to HJ. This is not science but just corrupt politics. Is there nobody on WP who does not like things like this? The various versions of the WP article are presented on the book web page [3] and show the coordinated effort by a group of wiki editors including CS and Crowsnest to suppress information and delete HJ from the WP world. It seems they have succeeded, but there are other worlds.Egbertus (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand this is an admittance that you are intimately related to Hoffman & Johnson, and that you have a conflict of interest.
    You are of course free to believe that Wikipedia and the fluid mechanics community are conspiracing against you. But perhaps it is more effective — if you want to get your research published and discover new routes to the resolution of scientific problems — to consider the given critique and remarks with an open mind: there may be something of help and value in it. -- Crowsnest (talk) 08:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I note with satisfaction that you are tilting towards the new resolution, and expect that you put in the proper references to the work by HJ. Yes, I try to have an open mind and hope that you have that as well. I think we share a common interest in advancing science and the way science is presented to a general audience, although I will choose other channels than WP. Best Egbertus (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    It is of interest that the German Wikipedia's article on d'Alembert's paradox continues to celebrate the wonderful success of Hoffman and Johnson in solving the problem. On March 8, 2007 an IP editor added an external link to their article with the title, "Finally: resolution of d'Alembert's Paradox". (That was the only edit on de.wiki by this IP). Unfortunately that article's Talk page is blank. I wonder if the German wiki has their own conflict of interest noticeboard? EdJohnston (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course you have an obligation to delete HJ completely from WP, including the German version. Go ahead EdJohnston. Crowsnest raises the possibility of a conspiracy against HJ behind the complete deletion of any ref. to their work, but does not deny that this is actually what goes on. Well, well.Egbertus (talk) 06:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    promotion efforts International House of Reiki

    Resolved
     – Speedied as a redirect to a deleted article by Tanthalas39. EdJohnston (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    International House of Reiki is a new created article. The main intention appears to be advertisement and promotion of Reiki services of one company. I consider this unfair use of Wikipedia and vote for deletion. --Aaxxll (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vincebethel and Vince Palamara

    User:Vincebethel has been the primary editor for Vince Palamara; in fact, Vincebethel even claims to be Vince (see the comments for his user contribitions). This is getting a bit out of hand. Should he be allowed to edit his own biography in this manner? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I was amused to see the section on his guitar playing. It seems to be mostly unverifiable (personal correspondence between the subject and others) and non-notable, e.g. playing guitar on cable access or YouTube is worth mentioning? --C S (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Much of his biography is unverifiable. He's not even a published author (unless you count his ebooks.) Is this something that would fall under "vanity"? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is now at AfD. Regardless of the COI issues as such, I don't believe the subject is suitable for a Wikipedia article. --MCB (talk) 06:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rajeev Masand and User:Shyambhagat

    User:Shyambhagat was the creator and (except for minor editors) the maintainer of the entry on Rajeev Masand. As his user talk page admits, he is in fact Rajeev. The bio article is mainly a vanity piece. That being said, unlike Vince Palamara, Masand is a movie review critic for CNN-IBN, a television channel in India, so I don't think notability is an issue. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Esther Hicks webmaster edit warring on Esther Hicks biography

    Esther Hicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:Ahnalira is the webmaster for Esther's web site. They have been edit warring and removing anything other than Esther's official biography from the article. There are also about four newbie editors with a minimal grasp of WP policy. All joined very recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhimaji (talk • contribs) 20:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I added article and user links to the above header. The three users I listed are new editors who started work since 1 August, and whose edit history seems entirely devoted to Hicks-related topics. A complex edit war is taking place, where some editors seem eager to show that Hicks played a role in the creation of The Secret (2006 film), while others (mostly the new ones who may have a COI) wanting to remove all mention of it. Even more surprising is that some editors are removing information taken directly from Esther Hicks' own web site. (It's hard to believe that anyone can be defamed by their own statements).
    The behavior of the COI-affected editors is so aggressive that I fear some admin action may have to be taken, if we can't persuade them to comply with the WP:COI guideline. Even if everyone were carefully observing the COI rules, there would still be the job of creating a neutral article. But I'm sure that's a doable task. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to call particular attention to this diff link where one of the editors says "Added the first name where only Hicks was written and clarified definition of what she does slightly. As webmaster of Abraham-Hicks Publications, these changes were requested of me by Esther Hicks." It appears to me that Esther Hicks is behind this recent activity acting using one or more surrogates. My problem is not that they are editing but that 1) they are gutting the article beyond what makes any sense, and 2) have flat out said on the talk page that they do not have to discuss anything. Ninety percent of the edit warring going on at the article could be resolved if the parties would agree to discuss in good faith on the article talk page. Which is beginning to happen, slowly. So I hold out hope. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Per this report all the editors listed above have been blocked for sockpuppetry by User:AGK. There was also an ANI discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have watched the events for the past few days from an outsider standpoint. I also enjoyed looking at everyones talk pages - some really interesting ones. After reading the last talk page, which was Ahnalira, it looks as if Bhmaji, Tmtoulouse, and Dayewalker are gloating and fringing on harassment. [4] I look forward to a spirited and non biased solution to this page.--70.197.94.180 (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This IP editor above has no edits prior to tonight, as admitted in their first post here [5]. It should be noted this anon IP user is making the exact same edits as blocked sockmaster Ahnalira, as seen here [6]. Dayewalker (talk) 06:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As a person coming into this as purely coincidence, and a person who like anonymity and unbiased takes, I take offense to this. I merely stated that you three should also be looked at because of the tirade on Ahnalira. Quit the game playing and lets get down to a perfect page. Not looking to make friends, just a pure page we can all agree with.--70.196.44.49 (talk) 06:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One mans tirade is another mans good advice. Which is what the information on the talk page was. If you are interested in helping with the article there are several outstanding points just waiting for feedback. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Kicking someone while they are down is not good advice.. Its a cheap shot and cowardly. Lets keep it clean. As I said on the other page, one day academia will look at wiki as a reliable source and not a laughing stock.--70.196.44.49 (talk) 06:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (OD)IP, This is not the place for your accusations. This is the noticeboard for a user with a clear conflict of interest who was blocked coincidentally just before you showed up. If you'd like to discuss the article, take it to the talk page. If you'd like to discuss anything else, I'd suggest you get a wikipedia ID so you'll have a talk page, as your IP has changed since the beginning of your discussions. Dayewalker (talk) 06:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Neiln4 adding own news reports as references

    I've looked at this editor's contribution list, and it's disconcerting. I suggest that we remove *all* the links to Emporis.com that he added unless they are being used as references for actual statements in the article text. The Emporis pages are clogged with advertising and slow to load, so these links will not be a great loss. I'd welcome opinions from other editors. You can get the general idea if you just look at one or two of the Emporis pages. For example, open the last external link on M-Towers. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed all the links not already removed by Ahunt. That's basically all of Neiln4's edits this year; only his original Dec. 2007 edits were constructive. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indian Society for Trenchless Technology

    The creator and principal editor of this article, Niranjanswarup (read his user page - I'm tempted to create a "Best CV masquerading as a Wikipedia User page Award"), states that he is the Executive Director of the subject of the article. The article was once prodded, and the {{prod}} removed by this editor. It may well be that the subject is notable enough, but this kind of behaviour should not be tolerated. Philip Trueman (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If a COI-affected editor creates an article that is informative, neutral and well-sourced we usually don't mind. The problem is that such an editor is more likely to write a promotional and unbalanced article. That's what seems to have happened here. I suggest that you nominate this article for WP:AFD. We already have an article on Trenchless technology that seems worthwhile, but this Indian Society does not seem to have inspired any full-length articles in any reliable sources. It's notability can't be shown. When I Googled I only saw a few passing mentions, and one press release. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Willie Colón and User:waccolon

    Waccolon has stated on my talk page that he is the subject of the article Willie Colón. He has been adding unsourced additions, as well as some peacock terms. He openly admits that he doesnt understand the full procedures re: wikipedia entries, but he states that the article is "his resume"... which might cause an issue. Just an FYI. I'll let him know about this post. Qb | your 2 cents 14:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Teancum and Star wars battlefront conversion pack

    Teancum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has an apparent conflict of interest in the article Star wars battlefront conversion pack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The lead of the article reads as follows: "It is being created by a team from the Gametoast community, led by Teancum." (diff) MuZemike (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The article doesn't show that this conversion pack has much notability, and unofficial conversions rarely are, have you considered simply afd'ing it? I can't see it surviving one--Jac16888 (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Article has been prodded. If it's contested, (my guess is that it will be) then I will take it to AfD. MuZemike (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Brent Littlefield

    Terry Fugate-Wilcox

    A group of accounts with very similar edit summary style, some which have self-identified as Terry Fulgate-Wilcox. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Terrorism Advocation on Summer 2012 Olympics Page

    PLEASE READ THE DISCUSSION PAGE TO GO WITH THIS. There is some very suspicious (and racist) behavior by one (perhaps socketpuppetry) or two editors advocating terrorism of the July 2005 Bombings on this page. The admin has blocked content change. Please help. I am new to wiki and dont know how to fight them Do not let the terrorists win--MissOrgum1996 (talk) 10:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=233293449"