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
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs)
259,776 edits
COMPFUNK2 (talk | contribs)
17,960 edits
m entry
Line 229: Line 229:


[[User:Janisian]] has (occasionally) edited [[Janis Ian]], in one case removing the adjective "allegedly" attached to allegations that Janis Ian made in her autobiography. I've templated the user (uw-auto); what further should be done? --[[User:Orangemike|<font color="darkorange">Orange Mike</font>]] &#x007C; [[User talk:Orangemike|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] 22:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
[[User:Janisian]] has (occasionally) edited [[Janis Ian]], in one case removing the adjective "allegedly" attached to allegations that Janis Ian made in her autobiography. I've templated the user (uw-auto); what further should be done? --[[User:Orangemike|<font color="darkorange">Orange Mike</font>]] &#x007C; [[User talk:Orangemike|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] 22:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

==[[User:Kirk Lewellen]]==
*This user has created (and majorly edited) the articles [[Monterey Boats]] and [[Atlanta Marine]], both companies he is affiliated with. [http://www.kirklewellen.com/] [http://kirklewellen.blogspot.com/2009/06/atlanta-marine-at-aqualand-marina.html] [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4DKUS_enUS293US293&q=%22atlanta+marine%22+monterey+lewellen&aq=f&oq=&aqi=] '''[[User:COMPFUNK2|THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL]]''' 20:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:39, 11 December 2009

    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:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Fundbox
    Talk:Globe Life
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Kevin Hartz
    Talk:Human Appeal
    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

    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.

    Novelos

    Resolved
     – The articles are deleted and Bixbyte, as an IP, declared at the AfD that he would "contribute [his] scientific knowledge elsewhere". -- Atama頭 17:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User

    Articles

    These instances of soapboxing are also troubling.[1], [2], [3]  7  00:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Although the editor has denied affiliation with the company, I find it hard to believe considering the wealth of evidence you've presented. I can't imagine any reason why an unaffiliated person would carry on such a campaign to advocate this company. -- Atama頭 01:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    More COI evidence here. I find no independent source to establish notability for the company or the products but don't want to appear to be stalking the user (they just keep coming back to my talk page!). Would hope that if the COI is confirmed we can take the appropriate measures on the articles. Smells kind of like paid editing to me.  7  03:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yeah. "I'm not affiliated with the company, but if you want I can have the CEO of the company back me up..." My biggest concern is the copyright infringement, however. That is far more serious than any COI allegations. Looking at the most recently deleted version of the Novelos Therapeutics article, I see that it is a word-for-word copy of the current version. Which means that if one can be deleted as a copyvio, the current one should be. My problem is that I can't find what is a copyvio aside from "Approved for use in Russia and administered to over 10,000 patients" which is lifted from this, but that alone isn't enough to delete the whole article. If yourself or Will Beback can remember the basis for the previous copyvio deletion, then this can be deleted or at least blanked pending Bixbyte's claim that the rights to the material can be donated. If that can't be provided, and copyright infringement is proven, I'd recommend blocking him until he agrees to no longer violate WP:COPYVIO. -- Atama頭 04:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (←) I tagged it back in May - and when Dank deleted fortunately he included what I had tagged it with [4]. Not sure if that was the same for the Oct deletion. However now the articles are so short that they may be close paraphrases but I'm unable to find any exact long-string copyvios.  7  07:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok - the Novelos main article may not be copyvio, but the other two sure have problems. I've tagged both, but would appreciate if someone can take a look. Both of the were partly (not completely) copied from non-free sites which I have tagged, and one of them was also beefed-up with cut/paste from Inosine and an experimental drug definition apparently to make it look longer.  7  07:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This guy has even spammed the health blogs of the N.Y. Times with Novelos promotion. I've blocked him as a SOA block. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have tagged Novelos Therapeutics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for A7 speedy deletion - many companies own drug rights, but that alone does not make them notable. – ukexpat (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I support Orange Mike's block, and was leaning toward that myself anyway. I don't think those articles have any place in Wikipedia, as they're clearly promotional, at least in intent, and certainly have copyright issues. I'll delete the copyvios but I'll hold off and let another admin decide on the A7. -- Atama頭 18:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Clear case of Advertisement masquerading as articles.
    Support block--Hu12 (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks all for cleaning up his mess.  7  05:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The A7 tag was removed from Novelos Therapeutics by another editor, as I thought it might be. I myself was unsure whether it met the criteria which was why I let it be. You might want to propose it for deletion, I doubt anyone would object to it at this point. -- Atama頭 16:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Still don't understand why it was declined. In any event it's at Afd here - might as well get some consensus on the ultimate deletion. – ukexpat (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Craightever: likely paid editing

    Resolved
     – Craightever and socks deleted, pages nuked. Brandon (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviewing some requests for paid editing from elance dot com has led me to Craightever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has recently created some articles coinciding with elance job offers. The first article synchs up with the paid editing request at this link, which was posted by a user called Nitel with the description "Need someone to post a wikipedia page for our company. Content will be provided. Individual must understand wiki markup and understand disambiguation procedures."

    The last two articles were likely a result of this job offer. The job offer was rewarded to the same Elance account that the Nitel posting was awarded to, and the offer was in the field of sports betting. All of the articles appeared slightly after the job bidding ended so I doubt this is a coincidence.

    I sent the last two articles to a batch AfD (here), yet I'm not sure what to do about the first since notability is borderline. So far I have tagged it with a COI tag but have not nominated it for deletion. I'm posting here to advertise the situation and ask if there's anything else that should be done. ThemFromSpace 22:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've tagged the 2nd and 3rd for speedy deletion as they don't make any assertion of notability, AfD seems pretty unnecessary. I agree that it does seem likely that your assumptions about paid editing are probably true. Smartse (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With regards to the first whether they are notable or not depends on whether the awards they've received constitute "significant coverage" as required by WP:CORP. Personally I would say that they don't - looking at the references they don't really say any other than that the company exists, this is the most significant coverage but it looks suspicously like a press release to me. I'd say that this one probably does need to go to AfD though. Smartse (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to point out that while paid editing is certainly in opposition to our COI guidelines, there is no consensus to blatantly forbid it (though there are proposals for such policy). I've put a proposed deletion tag on the Nitel article, it asserts notability so it's ineligible for A7, but since it doesn't prove it (and I can't find coverage that does it) I'm proposing it for deletion. -- Atama頭 23:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I forgot to add, I did delete the others, they're classic A7 candidates as they don't even try to say why the companies are notable. -- Atama頭 23:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's our "friend" Tayzen again... see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Desiphral/Archive. MER-C 09:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sports Agents Promoting Themselves and Their Clients

    There are a series of editors and pages which may pose an undisclosed COI involving some sports agents/attorneys and their cleints. The involved SPA editors are:

    The recreated Don West, Jr., and the new articles Sean A. Pittman and William David Cornwell all read like advertisements and I have nominated them for deletion on December 1. There are also associated redirect pages. Please help. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    All three articles were deleted through AfDs on December 9. Racepacket (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The COIs seem to be there, but these look like mostly drive-by editors. The best course of action is to clean up their messes.
    • As mentioned, the Don West, Sean Pittman, and William Cornwell articles are all deleted now as non-notable promotional articles.
    • I've looked over the Garrett Johnson article and fixed a small formatting error as well as removing information about Don West (which was completely inappropriate to include). The article itself seems to merit inclusion though, as the athlete won the 2006 NCAA Indoor and Outdoor Shot Put Championship.
    • The Shaun Cody article has already had the mention of Don West removed.
    • The Warrick Dunn Foundation article is now a redirect to a more notable article.
    • Cedrick Hardman played for the NFL for 13 years and certainly merits inclusion per WP:ATHLETE so that article is fine.
    I think that everything has been taken care of, for now, with this issue. -- Atama頭 17:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Surge control

    While the article itself may have value (with a rewrite), it is single authored by an engineering group who included a link for solving this problem on the page. I came across this while on a new page patrol. I have deleted the link, but I don't know how to handle the page itself.

    Vulture19 (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So far so good on catching it and with any corporate nonsense on it completely gone it's not going to harm anyone. COI troubles gone! Victory! *Poof* Unfortunately, we both know that's not quite enough to keep it in the encyclopedia.

    It seems the resident help machine Atama picked up on this and had at it a bit already. This message board can only help you to a certain degree since the focus in the conflict of interest is the focus, but we can work on point of view as well to go a bit more. The more it looks like a really glorified and extended definition of pretty normal things we all know of, and again this probably comes from the corporate aspect. What's happened is that the name of the article and its contents are two different things. The names wants an event described, but the body is scrambled things. Since you can't say "Surge control typical applications" without attempting to flood someone, this has to go. Other things like a definition aren't bad though. Plenty of freedom. The sections being named what they are were part of the company's sales pitch, basically, so they're the POV problem. Fixed and you're probably out of our scope here. Good and bad! ...General ideas after? Same as any other article:

    • Just edit it? With the title and components split and impossible to make an article off of, you could just start over and only talk about the idea of water surging.
    • Rename after adjustments? The current article name was bent around their company product I think, so "hydraulic surge" or "water surge" might be better? Making this priority would require making this specific method of water control particularly notable versus... I don't know. Not my field. If this name is alright, Surge control (water) might be needed since there are other types.
    • Merge it? Surge tank looks particularly appealing and this could be a second section of it that has the more modern technologies. Some of what's already here might be able to go straight there since a tank is a physical object just like the things here.
    • Redirect? Water control could (big maybe, though) work, but it's a redirect to Flood control currently, which doesn't relate to this per say, but it could be un-redirected. This wold be the easy way out.
    • Deletion process? Noooo! You were right at the start; with this to start with that would be a waste to try something that hopefully should be declined anyway.

    Up to you, you know this! No ownership of articles of course, but if there hasn't been an attempt at a major revamp or direction show or mentioned on the talk page, so it's free game for now, hm? Attack the point of sections, add or remove as you think you need, or just have one and make it a stub? Really tons of options here. The idea of a surge of water is actually pretty broad and it seems this has accidentally been handed to you in case you want to express yourself(?). :) Good luck. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I was a bit at a loss also with this, I did some really simple cleanup in the article but that was just a start. I agree that throwing it out completely would be a shame but I don't know if it has much of a chance as an article. A Google search indicates that "surge control" applies to water pressure and electricity, in fact surgecontrol.com is a web site for electronic surge suppressors, so even the idea of the article seems flawed. Of the ideas proposed by Datheisen, I think merging to surge tank has the most promise as it would improve an already existing article.
    Just an FYI, as to the original COI complaints, A little insignificant left a very helpful note about COI on Youngengineering's talk page. I've been debating whether or not their user page should be deleted per G11, but it's borderline so I left it alone. All of their problematic edits outside of their user page have been reverted in one way or another (including this deleted article) so I don't think much needs to be done about the editor unless they start making more promotional edits (in which case they should probably be blocked). -- Atama頭 23:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was somewhat... irked about the user page as well but did nothing, since everything time I do or do not CSD a userpage for gross violations if moved to the mainspace I seem to get scolded... for marking or not marking. Yet another reason why "userspace immunity" really needs to be decided at some point, or did I miss the memo? Agree that the user account itself is fine as long as they don't try anything like this again or put their company link on any related page, at which point a soft block for username might come up too, I'd think? If the company proper has no article and edits are normal and constructive it's not a direct attempt at promotion, I suppose. ...And yeah, the article just needs some kind of focus or angle of attack. There's nothing harmful of it with the corporate tidbits taken off, as the poster wisely did. Hey, the user might even fill in what I thought was an unusually low amount of content on flood control articles! ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note that any details on controlling electrical surges should be added to the Surge arrestor page. Surge control can be used for flood prevention measures (though a disambiguation hat note might be good). filceolaire (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-complicated, with different terms used either way, and then you engineering people have to come and confuse me with "arrestor"? *sobs* ...But fair enough, if this space is "free". Oh, industrial level, hmm... alright, I see you logic on this. Surge protection currently redirects to Surge protector, covering the sissy home versions that arrestors eat for breakfast, but perhaps turn 'protection' to a disambiguation to any of the three? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    AGF but certainly looks like COI

    See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernoulli%27s_principle&action=historysubmit&diff=329627043&oldid=329458733 where a used called chansonh has just added a whole load of material on the work of and linking to publications by H Chanson. Not got time to sort through now. --BozMo talk 09:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That may or may not be a problem. The guidelines have a specific provision for experts who cite themselves in articles. If not done excessively, this isn't a problem. In fact, it can be incredibly helpful, because who knows better how and when to appropriately cite information on a topic than an expert on that topic. That doesn't mean that the conflict of interest should be ignored, because it's possible that the person is trying to use Wikipedia for self-promotion, but you have to weigh that against the benefit of the material being added.
    Having said that, I do have some concerns. This person has claimed to be Chanson himself, so I'm not concerned about outing as he's already identified himself. This editor has made hundreds of edits to Wikipedia, for more than 2 years, but I have trouble seeing any edits that don't in some way promote his work outside of Wikipedia. I have to say that definitely makes me uneasy, but since these additions do seem to improve Wikipedia and there are no examples of actual disruption, I think that we should consider his editing a net positive until it does cause more of a problem. -- Atama頭 00:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    John Baumann and similar

    Spam for John Baumann as a motivational speaker, maybe just a vanity article if we AGF, regardless this looks like a single purpose account. 2 says you, says two 20:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Matter of "userspace immunity" yet to be seen I guess. It's per admin to decide what to do, so by all means, someone have at it! I'd put a noindex on it as a most generic form of hiding it harmlessly in a way the user would probably never even see would probably do, but I'm really, really not going to edit in another's userspace like that, nor should anyone sans admins. Actually noindex would theoretically be my pick so it can rest in peace safe from any wandering souls from the outside. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have notified Jbahama of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it's a single-purpose account, which isn't always a bad thing. In this case it hasn't been all that helpful, and only seems to be promoting this one person (who may or may not be the editor also) but the articles are deleted and all that's left is a relatively same page in user subspace. I'd say leave it alone unless the editor tries to recreate the article without addressing the original complaints of promotion. -- Atama頭 17:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Marketing director of Waldron Mercy Academy

    I have sent the article to Afd. Grade schools are generally not notable and I don't think that one award is sufficient here. The notable alumni don't impart their notability to the school either. – ukexpat (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's very likely that the AfD is going to close as a keep, and if so I would suggest that someone help Trish out with the article. Wikipedia is wary of editors with conflicts of interest, and Trish is a marketing person which sets off extra alarm bells, but since she seems to be sincere and has been open about her COI, I would recommend extending her some courtesy and a good faith assumption unless given reason not to. (Engaging in edit wars to maintain copyright violations, promotional material, or not responding to requests for discussion would be examples of misbehavior that might ban her to the talk page.) -- Atama頭 01:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Pegasus Publishing

    Resolved
     – User blocked for username violation, AfD closed as delete Netalarmtalk 07:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has been deleted and I have reported the user name to WP:UAA. – ukexpat (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:OpenAccessforScience

    Creating articles about E-Century Publishing Corporation, a company dedicated to, guess what, "open access for science". Creates spamlinks to e-Century and its publications, articles about its publications, etc. Can't quite block the name as a spamusename, but close. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This might be the same person as E-century. That editor was blocked only for username issues, and it was a softblock, so there's no sockpuppetry involved if they're the same (and the template on their talk page actually asked them to make a new account). The article for the publishing company doesn't seem to be notable, and I almost speedily-deleted it for lacking any claims to notability but thought twice about it. I can't find any credible coverage of it and might just propose it for deletion. It was deleted in the past for being unambiguous advertising, but this version of the article isn't as promotional. The articles about its journals are also questionable. -- Atama頭 20:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indie Movies

    The one common thread I see here is that every film was released on DVD by Maverick Entertainment Group and has an external link to that company's web site. I'm guessing that the editor is promoting them. -- Atama頭 00:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I also note that there may be copyvios on some of these articles. I'll review that later and I might delete some per G11 speedy. -- Atama頭 00:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    More likely paid editing: User:Lamoxlamae

    User

    Articles

    It looks like I've found another case of paid editing. The creation of these related articles synchs up with this posting on getafreelancer dot com, contracted from an account "wisdomgame" to an account "lamoxlamae" on 11/20. The articles appeared 6-10 days later in a manner very similiar to that described in the posting. Since paid editing is a touchy subject I think it's worthwhile to bring it up here for discussion and to log the case in the record books.

    I've only tagged the articles for coi, but none of the articles appear notable so I think AfD is the next place to head, unless there is significant objection to that here or a better idea on how to handle the situation. ThemFromSpace 01:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Terrific ... I just added them to my watch list. Johnuniq (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I went ahead and put these up in separate AfDs. ThemFromSpace 04:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Recyclingforhealth

    User:MolexConnectors

    Users:

    User:MolexConnectors is making press release caliber edits to Molex connector and Molex. These have been reverted by other editors and User:MolexConnectors keeps restoring them. Identical edits were previously made by 63.87.3.6 , an IP address at Molex Incorporated. Compare these edits: [9] and [10].

    This user is also removing any mention of competing products.[11]

    I left a message on User talk:MolexConnectors.

    -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nihonjoe sliced like a ninja and blocked the editor before I had a chance to. This is probably resolved unless they start socking in which case that should be reported either here or at sockpuppet investigations. -- Atama頭 17:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI: HERMIONE project. Please AGF.

    Abigail / Hermione p (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) came up front to WP:ANI and said:

    I am new to Wikipedia and am trying to post an article about HERMIONE - an EU-funded deep-sea research project, which is looking at "hotspots" (submarine canyons, cold-water coral reefs, seamounts, mud volcanoes etc., which have higher than "background" levels of biodiversity) around the seas of Europe. We have a website (www.eu-hermione.net), and what we would like to post on Wikipedia is more information about these ecosystems, and what research is being carried out.

    Because the name "HERMIONE" was on an auto-blacklist, she could not create an article so titled; but it now exists at "Hotspot Ecosystem Research and Man's Impact On European Seas", and has redirects like "HERMIONE project". It appears straightforward, is of legitimate scientific interest, and offers no financial opportunities; and, as you see, the author has not concealed her own participation. Is this still a COI problem? Or just a case of our getting a well-informed editor? The article is currently tagged {{COI}}; is this necessary? Will it always be? Or can we have a "full disclosure" on the talkpage and leave the article header unmarred? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There are still COI concerns because of the editors involvement with the topic of the article. However, you can suggest that they post thoughts and suggestions for the article on the article's talk page. As long as reliable sources can be found to show the notability of the project, there shouldn't be any problem keeping the article. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note that the COI tag, like most tags, is used to indicate that there is a problem to be fixed or a dispute to be resolved. It's not meant to serve as a permanent mark on the article. Such a tag should be accompanied by a specific complaint on the talk page of the article. Also note that the tag itself says that some cleanup might be necessary in the article due to COI edits. If such cleanup is unnecessary then the tag is also unnecessary.
    I've always suggested tolerance for people who have a COI who otherwise show no signs of disruption. WP:COI discourages all COI editing, but doesn't suggest taking action until "editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and notability". If the editor wants to avoid any appearance of impropriety, however, following Nihonjoe's advice would be a very good way to do so. -- Atama頭 22:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I'm the editor who added the COI tag. I added it because it appeared that one of the primary authors of the article was intimately involved in the project. However, given the disclosure given on the talk page, and the suggestion that the editor in question refrain from editing the article directly, I would have no objection to the tag being removed. RadManCF (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Events overtook us: Burpelson AFB was bold. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    School District Editing

    Hjuhsdwebmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have added some peacock language to Hanford Joint Union High School District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Possible COI. Tckma (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Janisian

    User:Janisian has (occasionally) edited Janis Ian, in one case removing the adjective "allegedly" attached to allegations that Janis Ian made in her autobiography. I've templated the user (uw-auto); what further should be done? --Orange Mike | Talk 22:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kirk Lewellen

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=331147455"