Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. | ||||
{{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. | ||||
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
| ||||
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Search the COI noticeboard archives |
Help answer requested edits |
no pages or subcategories |
Bitag
- Bitag (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Adivaleza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- BITAGKATE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Adivaleza left evidence for their COI with this edit summary This is Adi, an employee of BMUI we change the history thru Mr. Ben Tulfo itself. BMUI is BITAG Media Unlimited Inc per the first sentence added with that edit. BITAGKATE's COI status is assumed by their username. I added a COI notice to both editors' talk pages. Adivaleza has not disclosed their COI despite the notice and a second request here
- Adivaleza is removing out-of-date content and all four citations. It is being replaced with overtly promotional content with no citations.
- Adivaleza added an edit request to their talk page (not talk:Bitag where it should have been placed). It was declined. No further edit requests were made. Adivaleza simply engaged in an edit war.
- BITAGKATE has only made a single edit, removing an external link which does link to an apparently functional Bitag Media website: bitagmedia.com
- After Adivaleza's fourth revert (at this time), I added an edit warning notice to their talk page.
- Adivaleza then left a message on their talk page asking if the article could be deleted here.
I wouldn't mind helping them update the article, but there is little communication. I personally have no interest in this article nor the company and would like to clear it from my watchlist. Adakiko (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Note: PP added to Bitag expires 04:15, 26 April 2022 Adakiko (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've let a message about WP:OWN on their talk page, and collapsed the improperly placed edit requests in
{{hidden}}
sections. Hopefully these messages will make them a little more cooperative. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)- A user - a new user - who places edit requests on their talk page is not being uncooperative, and our response should not be to hide those requests. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Gömböc
- Gömböc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Gdomokos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The Gömböc is a mathematical shape invented by Gábor Domokos, sold in a series of individually numbered sculptures by Domokos. On our Gömböc article, User:Gdomokos (who has not publicly self-identified or made the required declaration of a conflict of interest, although I have offline identifying information) has been a heavy contributor and has recently been edit-warring to include a huge and badly-sourced table of the ownership details of each numbered copy, after removal by User:Murata and later me. I think this is spam. Other opinions and assistance editing would be welcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- (a) Almost all Gömböc models sold are non-numbered (serial) models. (b) The table in question contains individually numbered models which have not been sold to, rather DONATED to institutions. Almost all of the listed models are on public display, and this might be the only source where the list of these exhibits can be found. So if anyone wants to see a Gömböc (without paying money), this table is likely the best chance to do so. (c) The table contains publicly available information which has been collected over the years to serve the purpose described before. Sincerely, Gabor Domokos Gdomokos (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Content on this encyclopedia has to meet certain criteria: wp:ROC, wp:REL. If you want to compile a list of donations/projects you are free to do so, but WP is wp:NOT the place to publish it. Some individual pieces may present encyclopedic value, but probably rather to the person or institution owning or displaying it and not the mathematical body, that is the scope of this article. They should be therefore mentioned in the persons/institutions article.
- (a), (b) and (c) seem to be correct but the mentioned purpose is not one for a WP article. Additional thought for User:Gdomokos: If the author has conflicts of interest even their correct information may be discredited and not meet standards. --Murata (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am aware of wp:ROC, wp:REL and I think that the contents of this table meet those standards. If you can say specifically why not, please do so. Similarly, you may think that these donations probably represent value only to the institutions. I think differently: in my view the goal of wikipedia is to provide knowledge to the public and if anyone wants to learn about the Gömböc the best way is to see one. Also, the Gömböc is not just a geometric shape, it has cultural aspects and people interested in the Gömböc may want to learn about those aspects too. So it is clear that we have different views on the value of this table as part of Wikipedia and there may be people who share your views. I certainly know that there are people who share mine and there are several among them who would be happy to compile this table. Would that change the situation? Is there any rule of Wikipedia which would be violated? Gdomokos (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, if you recruit others to make edits on your behalf that would not change the situation, and it would violate rules. Wikipedia isn't a webhost or an indiscriminate collection of information and that table simply doesn't belong here. You also have an obvious conflict of interest and you have been in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use as described in WP:PAID. - MrOllie (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am aware of wp:ROC, wp:REL and I think that the contents of this table meet those standards. If you can say specifically why not, please do so. Similarly, you may think that these donations probably represent value only to the institutions. I think differently: in my view the goal of wikipedia is to provide knowledge to the public and if anyone wants to learn about the Gömböc the best way is to see one. Also, the Gömböc is not just a geometric shape, it has cultural aspects and people interested in the Gömböc may want to learn about those aspects too. So it is clear that we have different views on the value of this table as part of Wikipedia and there may be people who share your views. I certainly know that there are people who share mine and there are several among them who would be happy to compile this table. Would that change the situation? Is there any rule of Wikipedia which would be violated? Gdomokos (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Leaving a comment here to notify everyone about my request for increased protection over at WP:RFP#Gömböc due to the edit warring and controversial nature of many of the edits and the alleged conflict of interest. Feel free to comment or contribute over there to leave your thoughts. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 19:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- The issue of CoI and EW aside, the table of examples looks like the sort of content we should be including. It is most certainly not spam. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Emilio Sempris
- Emilio Sempris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Gudisoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
New editor User:Gudisoc has what I believe to be an undeclared conflict of interest at this article. Nearly all their edits so far are on this article, and most of the files they've uploaded to Commons, e.g. c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gudisoc, are what appear to be scans of original documents belonging to Sempris, uploaded as "own work" by User:Gudisoc. They've steadfastly denied any connection with Sempris, [1], but I've done image searches on Google and Tineye, and can only find the images at "public files in websites and social networks" for File:Reconocimiento de la NASA 2007 para Emilio Sempris.jpg (as pointed out by Gudisoc [2]) and File:Emilio Sempris dando discurso inaugural de SERVIR en 2003.jpg: they haven't yet explained where they found the rest. It looks like either paid editing or an undeclared close connection with Sempris, in order to get these files for scan and upload. The first two days' edits were full of unsourced and detailed claims about Sempris' life and family, [3], most of which I've since whittled out. Storchy (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- I see no evidence of CoI. The explanation given is plausible and the "personal" images are apparently from publicly available sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: two are apparently from publicly available sources. For the rest, they've all been uploaded as "own work", and as noted above I can't find them online, and the new editor has still not yet explained where they got the images, so until then, we should take them at their word that the images are their own work, implying that they scanned the original sources from Emilio Sempris. Storchy (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
"I upladed the files I downloaded from servir.net, and twitter, facebook or linkedin. I undertand they are public files."
[sic], per this edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)- Just a handwaving statement like that is sufficient? We don't need URLs to verify that they're publicly available?
- And what about the detailed and unsourced knowledge of Sempris' life and family added by the single-purpose account? Storchy (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: two are apparently from publicly available sources. For the rest, they've all been uploaded as "own work", and as noted above I can't find them online, and the new editor has still not yet explained where they got the images, so until then, we should take them at their word that the images are their own work, implying that they scanned the original sources from Emilio Sempris. Storchy (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Mark Wilde
- Mark Wilde (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- GroenewoldsGain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Self-promotion and no secondary source references. 138.100.10.224 (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like an autobiography. Have trimmed it somewhat, but lack the academic expertise to go any further. Edwardx (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Unusual edits on Limitless Win
There have been strange edits to the article for British game show Limitless Win, where users have wholesale replaced the reception section numerous times in the same way. The edits were first done via IP user 82.22.94.19 (talk · contribs), replacing cited reviews from a writer for The Guardian with a different piece from a writer in the Daily Telegraph. While I decided to, with proper citations, include my own prose based on the Telegraph review alongside the existing Guardian review, the edits to remove the Guardian review continued via a new account, Oracle987654321 (talk · contribs). I find these editing patterns to be unusual and concerning, and possibly indicative of some sort of PR operation. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- I requested semi-protection because of the edit warring and that's now in place for a period of two weeks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
AnyDesk
- AnyDesk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- BattleSpace736 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- AndAmpersand187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 24.173.153.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This software is mostly notable for its use in Technical support scams. Lately we've had an uptick in single purpose accounts attempting to suppress information about this - which is fairly noncontroversial. A few years ago, in an interview about these scams, the company COO stated that the fraud is 'very common'. I guess the message strategy has changed. Situation could use more eyes, please. MrOllie (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- These are my accounts. I lost the login information for AndAmpersand187 so I made another. It's pretty apparent you don't understand how a lede works, or how to properly use sources. Judging by your edit history it's also apparent that you're just reverting edits to rack up the number of contributions you make, and not actually to contribute anything useful to the wiki. If you would like to re-phrase your edit in the lede to make more sense contextually, by all means do so. But reverting your bad line of text with improper citations over and over again is not actually contributing to the article. And claiming I have a COI because I corrected one sentence from a lede is nonsensical. Take it to the talk page of the article instead of resorting to petty disputes like this. BattleSpace736 (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Partially blocked BattleSpace736 and AndAmpersand187 from AnyDesk for breaking the 3 revert rule. This shouldn't and does not resolve the issue at heart, but my action is because the 3 revert rule was broken by this user. CU does not suggest any connections to other accounts, and supports the assertions made by BattleSpace736 with regards to their accounts (including about loosing a password). This block is not for any abuse of multiple accounts as the change in account was made in good faith. Any administrator is free to extend my partial block to a full block or longer partial block as they see fit, but would prefer if I was pinged if removal is desired. As I have run CU, I make no comment with regards to whether or not the IP address is related and will leave it to another admin to review. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Dreamy Jazz, MrOllie did not bring his issue with me to my attention on my Talk page. As per the Conflict of Interest guide, users are to "raise the issue in a civil manner on the editor's talk page, which is the first step in resolving user-conduct issues, per the DR policy, citing this guideline." It was not brought to my attention that MrOllie believed I had a COI so I could discuss this with them in a civil manner. Instead, I was promptly tagged here after he engaged in an edit war with me. It's my belief that he also violated the 3RR.
- While I understand MrOllie enjoys contributing vastly to the project, I don't think he should be running around acting as a moderator. BattleSpace736 (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- @BattleSpace736 while editors are encouraged to use the talk page of the editor(s) concerned, the next sentence says that
If for some reason that is not advisable ... the next step is to open a discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard (COIN)
. While discussion at your talk page may have resolved the COI concerns raised by MrOllie, from my perspective this discussion is also asking for other editors to keep an eye on AnyDesk for any single purpose accounts which is best done at this or other noticeboards. - With regards to 3RR, MrOllie has not from my perspective broken the 3 revert rule because they made only three reverts over a 24-hour period (their fourth edit in that 24 hour period was not a revert and added content). If I am mistaken, and you see 4 reverts on the same page in 24 hours then please detail which edits these are (either by providing the diffs or the timestamp of the edits you are talking about). Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 16:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Dreamy Jazz while I understand he may be bringing up the point of single use accounts, there was no need for him to call me out publicly before reaching out to me on my talk page. If you look at the edit history, I even encouraged him to reach out to the talk page of the Article to discuss before he randomly posted on here in what feels like a petty attempt to end a dispute without a discussion. BattleSpace736 (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- @BattleSpace736 while editors are encouraged to use the talk page of the editor(s) concerned, the next sentence says that
- Partially blocked BattleSpace736 and AndAmpersand187 from AnyDesk for breaking the 3 revert rule. This shouldn't and does not resolve the issue at heart, but my action is because the 3 revert rule was broken by this user. CU does not suggest any connections to other accounts, and supports the assertions made by BattleSpace736 with regards to their accounts (including about loosing a password). This block is not for any abuse of multiple accounts as the change in account was made in good faith. Any administrator is free to extend my partial block to a full block or longer partial block as they see fit, but would prefer if I was pinged if removal is desired. As I have run CU, I make no comment with regards to whether or not the IP address is related and will leave it to another admin to review. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment This is the software that allows the screen to be switched on, on the "marks" computer, while your transferring the marks money out their bank, making it particularly dangerous. I will add it to my watchlist. scope_creepTalk 21:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Josegutierrezcarlos
Hi, Please check Josegutierrezcarlos (talk · contribs) writing an article about his employer: Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation. See also c:File:RCBC PTG.jpg. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Yann please leave the required notice for Josegutierrezcarlos as described at the top of this page. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 13:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Ontario Party
- Ontario Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- TrickieDickie1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This is a SPA which first edited March 31st, making WP:PROMO edits to a minor fringe party involved in an upcoming election. User reverted me in order to restore the unsourced party platform, with no introduction of secondary sources and ignored the CoI template I placed on their talk page. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 12:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- The primary sources used in the article are without question verifiable, without reasonable doubt. I will add secondary sources as they become more available. To provide the party's platform is not promotion, considering the content is included without bias. TrickieDickie1 (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- An unrelated point, but much of the content added to Ontario Party was copied directly from https://www.ontarioparty.ca/our_platform_en, a website that does not license its content for use on Wikipedia. That makes the additions a violation of our copyright policies. I will leave some reading material about Wikipedia and copyright on your user talk page, TrickieDickie1. No comment on the CoI question (it's not my field). /wiae /tlk 21:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
User:AnkurSainiYT
- User:AnkurSainiYT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- AnkurSainiYT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User repeatedly recreates their userpage which is used only to advertise their Youtube channel. They have been told not to do so on their talk page already and have ignored their talk page messages. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- User has been blocked by Deb. Before I had a chance to inform them of this discussion (would've done so after but didn't realize I had to until after they got blocked). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Blaze Wolf: WP:AIV can also handle any repeat-offender promotional accounts who show no intention of listening to repeated warnings. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
User:DavidPinedaOCSA
- DavidPinedaOCSA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user has been editing Orange County School of the Arts, and apparently now with another account on that page (although it could be someone else). Ovinus (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Chris Barrett
- Draft:Chris Barrett (interior designer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- IntDesign (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
There is a case pending at DRV concerning a promotional draft. The draft was speedy-deleted as G11, and that is being appealed, and the G11 is being endorsed. So far, so good. User:Acroterion and User:Stifle have both asked the author whether they have a conflict of interest, and there has been one reply that is a non-answer. Can we assume that failure to answer indicates Undisclosed Paid Editing? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company
- Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- UTM.DD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Single-purpose account repeatedly adding promotional material and marketing language to this article since 2019. The "UTM" in the username makes it even more obvious. --Sable232 (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Ggux conflicted about polyphenol research
- Flavan-3-ol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Ggux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I have been advised by User:Zefr to report here to have my conflict of interest assessed. I have been editing flavan-3-ol and other polyphenol related pages and have in some aspects a very different opinion. Since I have been working in the field of polyphenol research for more than two decades, I am clearly biased regarding the importance of the field (and welcome advise on what is encyclopaedically important), but I believe I do have some subject knowledge. Please advise. Ggux (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- See the COI notice on the Ggux user page. The editing history of this novice user (about 210 edits) is in two timelines, the most recent and majority of which, since March 2022, is 1) to push for acceptance of the COSMOS study, possibly involving work by Ggux, an employer or funding agent (Mars, Inc.) of the professional research by Ggux; and 2) the user is also pushing an unconventional concept not in mainstream science that phytochemicals, whose properties are poorly known and not recommended in diets by any regulatory authority, are nutrients. This appears to be a POV supported by the user's research and/or colleagues, emphasizing the issue of COI. The Ggux editing history also shows potential conflict with the article Jeremy P. E. Spencer (a nutrition scientist, created in 2018) and Department of Food and Nutritional Sciences, University of Reading {failed article, Nov 2019) whose members (possiby including Ggux) publish in the disputed article topic, flavan-3-ol, and so may be an employer of Ggux. The user appears to be a WP:SPA to push for unaccepted concepts in diet and nutrition. We should know more about the COI background. I have encouraged Ggux to widen their interests, let the dust settle on flavan-3-ol, and enjoy editing elsewhere in the project. Zefr (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- I do not push for the COSMOS study, I believe that within the context of flavan-3-ols, it is a study of significant size and importance to merit a mention as outlined in WP:MEDPRI. Zefr has objected to this based on assumptions that are factually wrong (sample size) or are not relevant according to WP:MEDASSESS (i.e. funding).
- I am involved in flavan-3-ol research (as I have mentioned more than once) and thus intended to contribute my knowledge. I do not think I have sufficient expertise to contribute to other articles. University of Reading had one of the leading Departments in this field in the UK
- I fail to understand what unconventional concept I am accused of pushing. Polyphenols as bioactives (non-nutrient compounds in foods) is not new and has been discussed for more than a decade. The physiological effect of some of these compounds has been established (resulting e.g. in health claims, but also shown in Cochrane reviews - see e.g. Flavan-3-ols - and numerous discussion paper, including by members of the US DRI committee (cited in the relevant sections), state this.
- I have suggested that it would be appropriate to have a RfC or 3rd opinion, but Zefr has ignored this in the past and reverted edits ([[4]]) on a different topic and has ignored that other editors in the flavan-3-ol RfC did not share their opinion.
- If the contents of flavan-3-ol would be scientifically accurate, I would not mind - but unfortunately they are wrong and partly outdated. Ggux (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)