Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Do you have questions about Wikipedia or need help?
Yes, I need help
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. See the dashboard for an expanded listing.
General
Articles and content
User conduct
Other
Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connections with article topics. An edit by a COIN-declared COI editor may not meet a requirement of the COI guideline when the edit advances outside interests more than it advances the aims of Wikipedia. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy. Sections older than 7 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Shortcuts:
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.
  • Be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline.
  • 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.
  • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the What is a conflict of interest? list. 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}}.
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, MiszaBot II will automatically archive the thread when it is older than seven 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 does not meet 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:Requested edits is where COI editors have placed the {{Request edit}} template:
Requested edits
Answered requested edits
Declined requested edits
Implemented requested edits
Partially implemented requested edits
  Talk:Chaudhry Abdul Majeed
  Talk:Boise Cascade
  Talk:BP
  Talk:Cape Town International Convention Centre
  Template:COI editnotice/preload
  Talk:Computer Economics
  Talk:Copperpenny
  Talk:Crenshaw High School
  Talk:Edmund de Waal
  Talk:DigiPen Institute of Technology
  Talk:Dow Corning
  Talk:Dubai Tour
  Talk:European Respiratory Society
  User talk:Ferncarlos
  Talk:Jo Frost
  Talk:Tom Graves
  Talk:Hammerschlagen
  Talk:Hill & Knowlton
  Talk:Honda HA-420 HondaJet
  Talk:Marshall Aerospace and Defence Group
  Talk:Metropolitan Borough of Oldham
  User talk:MLopez289
  Talk:Steve Morgan (businessman)
  Talk:Suniti Namjoshi
  Talk:National Report
  Talk:Thomas Peterffy
  Talk:PruHealth
  Wikipedia:Request Edit Wizard/contest/preload
  Wikipedia:Request Edit Wizard/contribute/preload
  Wikipedia:Request Edit Wizard/correction/preload
  Template:Request edit/sandbox
  Template:Request edit/testcases
  Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biographies/Political figures
  Talk:Royal charter
  Talk:University of Southern Queensland
  Talk:Webster University Thailand
  Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid editor help
  Talk:Winecoff Hotel
  Talk:Yukon Blonde

Heartmath Institute[edit]

Resolved: per note below Jytdog (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I work for the Heartmath Institute. I don’t feel our Wikipedia article is fair to us. For example, it says that our tests are “no more than fiction”, but what the source actually says is that there has not been any systematic scientific review. The article relies heavily on what appears to be a group blog for critical claims about us, without balancing this with other perspectives. It doesn’t include mundane information like foundation date, activities, etc.

I spoke to a Wikipedian about how to approach getting a more regular and balanced page and they said we didn’t qualify for a page at all. I provided some press clippings in PDF files about our methods, but they said none of the press provided were sufficient for medical claims and that the current sources weren’t either. Is there something I can do to verify if Wikipedia feels the page should exist? Or something we can do to improve the article if it’s decided to keep it? Person5000g (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Person5000g (talk • contribs) 23:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I checked this and see no COI issues. It is just a content issue. Person5000g thanks for being clear about your COI here. I suggest that you start engaging on the article Talk page, and asking questions about the policies that guide content here at Wikipedia. Please pay special attention to WP:PSCI. Good luck. I'll add a connected contributor tag to the article Talk page, but you should disclose yourself there too, when you start to engage. Please don't edit the article directly, per WP:COI. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Bell Pottinger: proposed edits[edit]

Resolved: being addressed on the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi – I’ve just posted here on the talk page of Bell Pottinger. As I’ve made clear on that page and my user page, my name is James Thomlinson and I work at Bell Pottinger. I have suggested some minor additions on recent developments in the business as well as additions to the list of notable clients. If someone could take a look and get back to me on the article talk page or my talk page that would be great. Thanks. Jthomlinson1 (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

JSerra Catholic High School[edit]

This editor has admitted that (s)he is an employee of the high school in question, moreover that (s)he's part of the marketing department. I have issued two censorship warnings and one COI notice, but no disclosure was made and the editor continued to attempt to censor the page to remove criticism. -Kharkiv07Talk 18:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I've invited the user to discuss the issue on the talk page. I see where removing the material could be warranted under policy; I also see how removing it with an edit summary of "Edited out innaproprite content. I am a marketing employee of JSerra Catholic High School" just screams conflict of interest. I've also tried to model the right behaviour by starting talk page discussions on the issue. —C.Fred (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@C.Fred:Thanks for your input, and not for the sake of making attacks I'm genuinely interested, this wouldn't be considered a promotional username, right? -Kharkiv07Talk 18:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@Kharkiv07: No, IMHO. It's more that they're stating an affiliation, which is allowed per the username. (It also announces their COI.) —C.Fred (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Correct, it is acceptable under what is commonly referred to as the "Bob at Microsoft" exception.--ukexpat (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Izaak Walton League[edit]

Resolved: being handled below as part of larger discussion Jytdog (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Contributor RodNReel48 added incomplete and incorrect information to the page as part of a larger effort to discredit the organization. For more information, please see: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/05/3627572/richard-bermans-incredible-public-relations-machine/ Content added by Dawnmerritt to the page was based on current information on the organization's web site. User is an employee of the Izaak Walton League. Dawnmerritt (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

When you report someone here, you MUST inform them on their user talk. I have done it on your behalf. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Environmental organization articles[edit]


Unknown editor repeatedly changed content of pages to perpetuate a smear campaign against the nonprofit organization, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, and its executive director, Land Tawney. The smear campaign is being levied by a sham public interest group, and the edits to the page cite (among other questionable sources) the sham group's contrived studies as sources cited.

The sham group has a documented history of attempting to undermine the nonprofit and executive director. His/her activities undermine the integrity of Wikipedia. I am the communications director of the nonprofit and monitor online activity associated with the group, social media, and our group's presence on sites such as Wikipedia.

Other nonprofit organizations targeted by this same sham group also have had their Wikipedia pages altered by the same editor, on consecutive days, and with similar edits. I repeatedly removed the editor's changes only to have him restore them, quickly and multiple times over the course of today.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please contact me directly to discuss further. Bhamt (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bhamt, what user do you have a concern about and can you provide a diff showing that they have a conflict of interest? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The Tawney biography looks questionable to me - I've raised it on WP:BLPN [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. That was a next move for me. Wanted to get the information I requested from Bhamt before taking the obvious next steps.... Jytdog (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Good morning. The user I have concerns about is RodNReel48. He/she edited the pages I flagged (along with pages of other nonprofit organizations) to perpetrate a smear campaign being waged against my employer. Please let me know what other information you need. Here are two resources on the front group behind this: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Environmental_Policy_Alliance and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/07/environmental-policy-alliance-berman_n_4913303.html. Thank you for your assistance in resolving this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhamt (talk • contribs) 14:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. So it sounds like you have no evidence from within Wikipedia that RodNReel48 is actually associated with that group. We will need to look into their edits and see what we can do. Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
There is another issue, Bhamt you have disclosed there, that you have a conflict of interest with regard to these articles. You are also a paid editor, and you need to disclose that on the Talk pages of any articles you work on, related to your COI. I am going to tag the articles and provide notice of this, on your Talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much, guys. I apologize for not following protocol. As you might have guessed, I am not familiar with Wikipedia's editing rules/regs; I only got involved in this because my organization is being targeted. As far as evidence of RodNReel48's affiliation with the front group, I will cite that he/she also made similar edits to the pages of two other organizations, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and Izaak Walton League, that have been singled out by the front group and the target of a well-funded smear campaign against all our groups: https://www.greendecoys.com/. On a separate but related issue, I wanted to flag Land Tawney's Wikipedia page. This page appears to have been created with the express purpose of casting doubt onto my boss's bona fides. Land was not aware that he even had a Wikipedia page before this week. Can he be given oversight or have special control over this page? Again, forgive me for not being familiar with SOP here. Appreciate your wise counsel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.153.80.179 (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Bhamt or 63.153.80.179... we have a policy for articles about living people, called and linked at WP:Biographies of living people (we call that policy "BLP" for short). There is an associated notice board for problems with BLP articles, here: WP:BLPN. you can see above, that grumpy andy opened a thread there already. If you post in that thread, you can get people there to help you with issues on Tawney's article. Good luck! I'll be looking at that article from a COI perspective, too. 19:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • note - added other articles that RodNReel48 has been working on, while figure out their deal. Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • note - added more parties and clarified who is who... Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • as of tonight, waiting to hear from RodNReel48. Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Jytdog I can provide the text to support my comments that RodNReel48 edits to Izaak Walton League page were incorrect. Statements that were attributed to IWLA conservation policies were either incomplete or outright inaccurate. I am happy to provide the full text for comparison. Content added to sportsmen group pages by RodNReel48 matches content created via "green decoys" smear campaign efforts on social media channels. Dawnmerritt
thanks for replying Dawnmerritt. I am watching that article, and if you post proposed changes on the article's Talk page, I will have a look. (it would be most helpful if you wrote something there like "replace this content and source (copy-paste it) with this content and source". Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog Problem content by RodNReel48 was eliminated and page reverted back to original content and locked. The question is: What happens on March 15 when it is unlocked again? Dawnmerritt
Hi Dawnmerritt, thanks for letting me know that you are OK with the article as it stands. Still waiting for RodnReel to come and talk here with regard to possible paid editing/COI on their part. With regard to the article, if they edit disruptively, content or behavior-wise, there are other policies and guidelines that will be brought to bear. As I said I am watching the article (and others are too) and we will make sure that our policies and guidelines are upheld there. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I would note though that Wikipedia user "Dawnmerritt" also has a conflict-of-interest in this topic area. Obviously we should not and will not allow these fringe criticisms from user "RodNReel48" to stand in any project article, but at the same time we have to be careful that said articles do not swing too far in the other direction and become sanitized puff pieces. Tarc (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Hi Tarc yes agreed - both Dawnmerrit and Bhamt have disclosed their COIs and are listed as declared connected contributors on the relevant articles, and my sense is that they will abide by COI. Just waiting to hear from RodnReel. Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Nineveh Plain Protection Units[edit]

User: Npuints appears to have some connection to this group, due to the use of the acronym "NPU" in the username and the single-purpose editing. There appears to be a slow-motion edit war going on between Npuints and another editor, as well. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I gave notice for the username issue, the potential COI, and this discussion at the user's Talk page, and tagged the article as well. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Australian National University[edit]

IP address at ANU, per this and has been making promotional edits, doing all the usual things described Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism. Am seeking page protection to end this, also wanted to start a case here to see if we can get them to talk to us and stop this behavior. Have tagged the article and is Talk page and notified the IP editor. Jytdog (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Note, Coffee blocked the IP for 24 hours for disruptive editing. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Peter Mintun[edit]

Wholesale rewrite of the article, with poorly sourced content of promotional tone. 32.216.128.131 (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

yes indeed. worked it over. its ok now; have watchlisted it. also put a COI notice on the page of user. Jytdog (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
This is 32 IP, returning home from work on a train--thank you for meritorious service, Jytdog. I was set to just eviscerate the article tonight or tomorrow. Consider this an informal barnstar. Cheers, 107.77.70.79 (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
thanks! whoever that was, provided some good sources at least. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Looks like we haven't heard the end of it: [2] 32.216.128.131 (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. Jytdog (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Dawoodi Bohra[edit]

As per the various discussions in his initial wikipedia pages he had posted all his personal details which were removed later after the succession controversy.

This shows him in customary attire unique to dawoodi bohra clergy: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rukn950&oldid=602231414#My_Links

I had earlier complained on COIN, and he himself accepted it:

And here he claims to be strongly dawood bohra: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_72#Reply_of_Summichum_allegations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 20:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I checked the archives and found this Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_74#Dawoodi_Bohra where an editing dispute was brought here, with no clear signs of any COI. I don't see any evidence presented here that there is a COI, either. Summichum what is your actual evidence that there is COI? Please keep it short. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Jytdog, -->> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_72#Reply_of_Summichum_allegations please see this link , the user ruqn clearly says he belongs to Dawoodi Bohra , infact he says he is "truly"a dawoodi bohra, which clearly establishes a close connection with the subject. Also see the various talk pages etc, he very strongly biased to support one of the claimant in the succession dispute article , also in DB page he is clearly behaving in a partisan manner.Summichum (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
that would be WP:ADVOCACY, not COI. and i think the same is probably true of you. This is not a matter for COI now, as it was not before. Jytdog (talk) 06:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
It would have been civil if summichum would have given me notice of this WP:COIN.Rukn950 (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I have been an editor for more than eight years. I had to remove my personal details in line with wikipedia policy to the right to my privacy. and I am upset that summichum has been displaying my old archived files at all the discussion and noticeboard. Is it appropriate? Rukn950 (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
the history is the history. if you want something permanently deleted you can request an ovesighter to do that for you. please bring your content dispute elsewhere. I am sorry you guys are so stuck, Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I too am sorry for that.What do you suggest is the course of action and how can this issue be resolved? I have been watching the edits of summichum. which seems consistently to have emphasis on criticism to dawoodi-bohra related articles and its spiritual leaders, on whom these articles are based, simultaneously claiming to be un-involved and yet anyone who doesn't agree with him is dragged either to sock puppet or COI notice boards.Rukn950 (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
everybody should stay calm and use the processes described in WP:Dispute resolution to resolve the content issues. There is no deadline here, just take it slow and work through issues one at a time. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Shout Out UK[edit]

User:MatteoBergamini has been editing the page, removing all content and replacing it with their own unsourced information, see differences in revisions. They claim to be the owner of Shout Out UK-the username is consistent with this claim- however it is clear that they are here to take ownership of the article, and I don't see their edits as beneficial. I wasn't sure how to proceed, hence me posting here. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

 Request withdrawn User:MatteoBergamini has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

note - this posting made me go look at the article, and there were a bunch of socks adding negative content, with some clear COI/Advocacy issue. Also, when I looked at it closely, it became clear to me that Helloskiable, who created the article, has some relationship with the subject of the article. It was ridiculously WP:PROMO. I have added a connected contributor tag and left a notice on that user's page of this discussion. This is one to keep an eye on.Jytdog (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
just checked, all the socks have been blocked by Jac16888 except IsrealADL. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
add what appears to be the latest sock, MarshaThompsonUK Jytdog (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Monitise plc[edit]

Hi there - my name is Hannah Nakano Stewart and I work for Monitise plc (as Group Communications Manager) and have recently posted to the Talk page for Monitise plc's page in order to suggest some topline edits to improve its accuracy, as a great deal of the information is related to company financials and has therefore become out-of-date. I'd very much appreciate if someone would be able to have a look and get back to me. Thank you for your attention.

HannahNStewart (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I put a note on the talk page. Better sources are needed. The article is heavy on financial data because there are reliable sources for such data. John Nagle (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: I have moved the article to Monitise per the naming conventions for companies.--ukexpat (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The Merck Index[edit]

I've made a proposal to update citations of The Merck Index, formerly printed, and which is now published online. This will involve adding web links. The Merck Index is published by the Royal Society of Chemistry, where I am Wikimedian in Residence. Please comment on the proposal's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I would be more in favor of switching them all over to cite web. Special templates for different subjects makes translation much more difficult. We need to go with a solution that does not inhibit translation IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Steelcase history section[edit]

I've been working on behalf of furniture maker Steelcase to find some ways to improve the article about the company, staying strictly hands-off and not editing the article directly. Last month, I proposed a new History section on the Talk page to replace the bulleted list that currently appears in the article. I've posted on several other WikiProjects seeking help, but haven't had much luck in finding interested editors. Although one editor responded, they were a bit hesitant and I don't think they were able to review the draft closely. I'd appreciate it if someone here could take a look at the draft. You can find it here along with some explanation of what I changed and why. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Scholars who appear to be anonymously self-promoting[edit]

Moved from AN/I. Additionally, notified user per requirements of most every noticeboard. Sam Walton (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Action requested Just discussion; if there's a better place (with traffic) please move or tell me.

Issues involved WP:Autobiography, WP:PROMO, WP:COI

General stituation
I frequent science articles, where from time to time I see a registered user just adding what appears to be their own WP:PRIMARY sources, e.g., material about a single researcher, or article edits with refs authored by that researcher. Sometimes the material is obviously problematic, i.e., WP:POV, WP:UNDUE, but sometimes it seems ok in its own right. An example of the latter is User Research83. I have no specific complaints about that user's edits, other than it seems like a stealth COI/PROMO situation. On the other hand, their edits seem decent enough. Before I can decide whether to reach out to Research83 about this, I would like your help deciding what I think about it... after all, we should retain interested experts whenever possible. Note this filing is not seeking admin action on Research83, or I would have pinged them in this filing. Quite the opposite, this filing is about me, and educating me about these issues. When I know more, maybe I will post to their talk page.

Conclusion How do the rest of you view these situations? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) It seems to be a (massive) WP:COI-issue. See here. Author wrote about himself, cited himself. This does not seem to promulgate WP:NPOV. Kleuske (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, thanks for noticing they self-identified, confirming my impression. Aside from the obvious COI, the material seems decent enough had it been added by an uninvolved 3rd party. Do you think COI alone is a reason to beat on them? Or is the project more improved by retaining this expert in those subject areas? And how does one move such an editor from just self-promoting to engaging in their subject expertise overall instead of just material about themselves? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Let me put it this way: How neutral is an article going to be that's largely entirely written by the subject himself? See the write-up here, where the problems are neatly summed up. Kleuske (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Laugh-and-half, you've linked 10-month old criticisms, in reply to which the ed made nearly 500 responsive edits. This is an expert we should retain and foster to work on the overall subject area, instead of biting them because, technically, they are so far engaged in a COI. Do we care about our rules so much that we drive away subject-matter experts who show responsiveness to our feedback? (And some more feedback for him.... the link to his CV should be deleted from his article.) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey... You brought it up. If you want to critisize anyone, apply it to yourself. Kleuske (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Multisystemic therapy[edit]

User has been editing subject article for pay for Lori Cohen the Chief Marketting Officer at MST services, per this. article needs review for NPOV etc. Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I reviewed the article and fixed it for NPOV. no explicit disclosure from user yet. Jytdog (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
new party has joined, per this Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Medtronic[edit]

Recently had a couple of their heads of marketing editing Wikipedia. They however appear to have been busy elsewhere.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

diffs for their roles at medtronic? Jytdog (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
These two are not the prior heads of marketing. Those were on a different page. Evidence is not post-able of course. Concerns that these two are likely paid editors and there marketing department is obviously interested in us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Medtronic CoreValve System was created as the first edit of Sbaltjes (talk · contribs), and reads like a brochure. But all the cites are to medical journals and such. Looking for non-promotional references, I did find this paper [3] which has some reservations about the valve. Not finding anything serious, like a recall or litigation. John Nagle (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This page Medtronic CoreValve System uses a bunch of primary sources. And well not horrible left out the conclusions of this review "However, in patients who are surgically amenable, current publications suggest that TAVI using presently available devices is not competitive to SAVR, with regards to procedural safety and outcome." [4]

I just have a hard time believing that this is a new editor and that this is there first and only edit [5] Expecially with the little TM symbol.

Maybe I am wrong. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

behaviorwise looks mighty paid-editing-y. I will notify and inquire tomorrow. Jytdog (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
tagged, notified, etc. have not done cleanup yet. Jytdog (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Listed articles created or worked on lots by those two users and re-arranged a bit.. worked them over too and did some redirecting as they were piles of PRIMARY sourcing. Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Madura Kulatunga[edit]

Resolved: article was deleted via AfD Jytdog (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC))

The creator and substantive editor of the article on Madura Kulatunga is User:Madura Kulatunga. When the issue has been raised with the editor he has not responded as whether there is a WP:COI - given that the only article that this editor has ever worked on is Madura Kulatunga then it appears highly suspicious that he is actually writing about himself. In the current AfD discussion the editor has also edited while logged out to avoid deceive others into believing that there is more support for your position than actually exists. Dan arndt (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. went through article, tagged Talk page, provided COI notice on his page... looks like the article is going down. If user continues to violate COI we will be able to get a block. Jytdog (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Keegan[edit]

User Ridernyc (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Editor Jdilts1, Since people are objecting even though it appears this user is using his real name I have redone this to remove Jdilts identity, has either under his own user name or using a stream of changing IPs been making POV edits removing sourced content from the article. [6][7][8] He appears to take issue with the use of term "new religion" even though this is the term used in the Vice article that is his preferred source. He also removes any mention of healing crystals and the like even though there are multiple references present which he keeps removing. After playing a game of whack-a-mole trying to warn his various usernames and IPs, one of the IPs finnally spoke up on the talk page signing the comment as J. [9] This morning after leaving several long notes for J on the talk page I discovered the entire conversation had been removed by another IP which has been making POV edits to the article. [10] There have been other attempts made by this group of IPs to bolster Mr Keegans public profile. A section that has poor or little sourcing concerning Mr. Keegans activism has been added by JDilts [11]. His profession has grown from simply actor to "[actor]], producer, and community activist."[12] Some of these changes are minor, some are more troubling. All of the edits occur in the same blocks of time from the same IPs all connected to other edits made by the Jdilts1 account, since one of the IPs has signed using "J" I think we can safetly invoke WP:DUCK and assume they are all JDilts or someone close to JDilts. With the exception noted above none of the IPs or accounts have engaged in any discussion, and have never discussed any changes before making them. Ridernyc (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here. You need to provide notice to people when you post here about them - I did that. And also asked the user to declare if they have any relationship. You may want to cross post at WP:BLPN. Am watching the article. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I did give notice, just wrong page I forgot to mention he has both Jdilts and Jdilts1. I know I posted notice on one of them. It's become impossable to keep up with the various account and IPs editing the article. Ridernyc (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=652068034"