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 |
nanoFlowcell
- NanoFlowcell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Alemanis2016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User seems to have edited nothing but that particular page... but something more suspicious happened last October when they completely shortened the article that also happens to remove negative information of the company, which should make anyone suspicious of what they're doing. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 01:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- They've also deleted a post on the company's talk page criticizing the company. Suspicious.... Miracusaurs (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Apparently they're still going at it after being warned for removal of information but with re-spinning of information critical of them, as proven in this edit. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 08:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
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- Adivaleza is removing out-of-date content and all four citations.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)
Joseph DeCarolis
- Joseph DeCarolis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- RobbieIanMorrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Earlier discussions on the matter can be found here:
I will not repeat that material. But just say that I would like guidance, or better still, a determination that I should go ahead and edit — or not — as the case may be. Many thanks in advance. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- @RobbieIanMorrison: What is the coi issue here, exactly? You know him in passing, professionally, your both doing the same job as energy system modellers. I see your in direct contact with DeCarolis. I think that would suggest you have a coi. I think you should use edit requests in the Talk:Joseph DeCarolis, or make suggestions in the talk page from this point forward and not edit the article directly. As you have created a sandbox article. I'm not exactly sure of the process regarding sandbox article, their use and coi. I'll defer. scope_creepTalk 09:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Scope creep: Thanks for your observations. My sandbox edits were simply to get the events straight — I am not familiar with the processes used to appoint senior public officials in the United States and some detective work was needed, especially given that the first nomination expired and needed to be reissued. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- @RobbieIanMorrison: Coolio. I would suggest selecting what sections you need put, create an WP:EDITREQ for that section/para/etc and let an uninvolved admin/editor in good standing, process the edit request accordingly. It might take some time but it will be done. scope_creepTalk 12:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Scope creep: I have decided to err on the side of caution and refrain from direct editing. I also talked to my wife who works with high‑level academics and she thought this the safest too. Thanks for your help. This is not easy territory to navigate. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Also alerting KidAd. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Resolved
- Also alerting KidAd. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Scope creep: I have decided to err on the side of caution and refrain from direct editing. I also talked to my wife who works with high‑level academics and she thought this the safest too. Thanks for your help. This is not easy territory to navigate. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- @RobbieIanMorrison: Coolio. I would suggest selecting what sections you need put, create an WP:EDITREQ for that section/para/etc and let an uninvolved admin/editor in good standing, process the edit request accordingly. It might take some time but it will be done. scope_creepTalk 12:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Scope creep: Thanks for your observations. My sandbox edits were simply to get the events straight — I am not familiar with the processes used to appoint senior public officials in the United States and some detective work was needed, especially given that the first nomination expired and needed to be reissued. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- @RobbieIanMorrison: What is the coi issue here, exactly? You know him in passing, professionally, your both doing the same job as energy system modellers. I see your in direct contact with DeCarolis. I think that would suggest you have a coi. I think you should use edit requests in the Talk:Joseph DeCarolis, or make suggestions in the talk page from this point forward and not edit the article directly. As you have created a sandbox article. I'm not exactly sure of the process regarding sandbox article, their use and coi. I'll defer. scope_creepTalk 09:46, 23 April 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)
Joseph DeCarolis
- Joseph DeCarolis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- RobbieIanMorrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This posting is not intended to relitigate a prior decision on COI editing (two postings above). In which I agreed to withdraw from direct editing. But rather to comment on Wikipedia policy and practice.
My only non‑Wikipedia contact with Joseph DeCarolis was modest, collegial, and historical. And related to an academic paper published in 2018 (doi:10.1016/j.esr.2017.12.010) in which I had sought background about a model that Prof DeCarolis had programmed.
It was my two Wikipedia‑related exchanges that made it look like my relationship with Prof DeCarolis was conflicted. The first was to confirm my edits on the TEMOA model. And the second was to obtain a headshot of Prof DeCarolis for his article [1].
So it seems odd to me that traffic directly related to developing on Wikipedia pushed me into COI territory. That experience indicates that editors should not have professional contact with parties they are writing about. I come from a tradition where talking to affected parties is generally regarded as beneficial and to be encouraged. Thoughts? RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah your case is probably a bit of a grey area. Nothing forbids you from talking to the party it is about, and that in itself is not really a conflict of interest either. The problem arises by the fact you worked together before professionally (from what I understand, correct me if I’m wrong) and that one could argue that highlighting the positives rather than negatives or otherwise editing in a manner unbecoming for an encyclopedia would benefit you substantially more than the average editor on Wikipedia. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 18:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's useful. I will, of course, stay with my earlier decision regarding COI status. The potential for benefit is not conclusively zero and I guess that is what counts. My historical contact and more recent contacts are not, in of themselves, informative, either way. Thanks very much for your response @Amadeus1999:. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 06:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- @RobbieIanMorrison: You're very welcome! ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 18:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's useful. I will, of course, stay with my earlier decision regarding COI status. The potential for benefit is not conclusively zero and I guess that is what counts. My historical contact and more recent contacts are not, in of themselves, informative, either way. Thanks very much for your response @Amadeus1999:. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 06:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
List of DreamWorks Animation productions
- List of DreamWorks Animation productions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- DreamWorks Animation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- How to Train Your Dragon 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Home (2015 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- formerly: Draft:Oriental Dreamworks
- Et alia (and others)
- By user: Sevak Zeinali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Self-admitted undeclared (potentially paid) conflict of interest with self-attribution at the diff here. Sysop User:Girth_Summit notified the user of COI guidelines and expressed concern at this diff but with no response. Contributor kept editing with (to me) obvious promotional and unencyclopedic POV. Problematic edits also violate citation policy for which the user was warned for two times in July 2022 here. The listed pages above are not exhaustive and I would personally consider all of the users' edits that I have checked to potentially be in violation. I conclude my preliminary findings that this user is well-aware of the COI policy due to the prior warnings and notifications by several editors (including admins) but continues to disrupt Wikipedia with this behavior, and ask humbly for your intervention. Kind regards. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 15:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Please notify the user of this discussion per instructions at the top of this page. Thanks, SVTCobra 15:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oh right I was still going to do that! I got distracted as usual browsing WP... My bad. I'll notify them now. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 15:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Notified: User:Sevak Zeinali, User:Girth_Summit. ~~~~
- Notified reported user as is mandatory and notified involved sysop as courtesy and to allow them to weigh in as they see fit.
- @SVTCobra: Thank you for the reminder. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 15:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oh right I was still going to do that! I got distracted as usual browsing WP... My bad. I'll notify them now. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 15:48, 29 April 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, [2], 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 [3]) 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, [4], 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)
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)
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)