Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:19, 27 June 2013

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Shortcuts WP:COI/N WP:COIN WP:COIBOARD Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. 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-wpwikipedia.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 Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline.
Are you in the right place? An editor can be biased without additionally having a COI. Issues involving bias may be more suited to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Issues involving the biographies of living persons policy (BLP) may be more suited to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Commercial usernames should be reported to Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention. Obvious cases of corporate vanity can be tagged with {{db-spam}}. Articles written about a person, group, club or band by such a person, group, club or band with no assertion of notability can be tagged with {{db-bio}} instead. This page is not for reporting simple vandalism, material that can easily be fixed or removed without argument, or non-conflict of interest breaches of the neutral point of view policy. Notes for volunteers To close a report Add Template:Resolved at the head of the complaint, with the reason for closing and your signature. Old issues are taken away by the archive bot. Other ways to help All editors are encouraged to help resolve reports of COI editing. More problematic articles can be found in Category:Misplaced Pages articles with possible conflicts of interest. Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests. 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 edit the parameter of the {{edit COI}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requester to explain your decision.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Princess Ghida

• Princess Ghida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.200.228.113 (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2013

Fairleigh Dickinson University

• Fairleigh Dickinson University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mfuzia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

First let me say that I'm not a fan of the noticeboards; I consider administrative action as a last resort.

I've made sporadic edits to NFIB v. Sebelius and recently was subjected to activity by User:Mfuzia that may have constituted WP:EDITWARRING. See the discussion here. The edits in question were Mfuzia's addition of material touching on research done by faculty of Fairleigh Dickinson University (FDU). The dispute was resolved there but then moved to PPACA, where Mfuzia engaged in more edit-warring to add the same material. I warned him that his behavior may be sanctionable here.

Meanwhile, I did some research and determined, through publicly available offsite information, that Mfuzia is an employee of FDU and is specifically tasked with working with its public relations department to maintain the FDU's Misplaced Pages article. His edit history confirms this, as his account is clearly an WP:SPA focused on FDU and I can't find any edits critical of his employer. His edits tend to be quite well-written but, in my opinion, cumulatively give the article a promotional, "puff-piece" feeling overall. I've never delved into university articles but there are sections that seem to be unduly descriptive and perhaps geared toward attracting prospective students. What's worse, his edits in other articles (listed above) appear geared to raise FDU's visibility by promoting the work of its faculty in violation of both WP:UNDUE and WP:PROMOTION. And, as I started pushing back on some of his edits a few days ago he began engaging in edit-warring behavior that might be sanctionable as WP:DE.

I initiated a discussion with Mfuzia over his COI that started here and continued here. He seems to have dug into a defensive posture despite my polite requests that he comply with Misplaced Pages policy. I added a {{Connected contributor}} tag to FDU's talk page. I did warn him that if he refused to acknowledge his COI I would refer him to the noticeboards. I think I have ample grounds to go to WP:ANI but I'd prefer to go the low-key route.

Mfuzia has repeatedly asked me for evidence of his COI, but for me to produce it I'd have to reveal his identity, which could be seen as WP:OUTING. If you go back through his edit history you'll see that he has already outed himself, but still, I'd prefer not to take this step unless it's absolutely necessary. I do wish he would just declare his affiliation and we would be done with this nasty mess. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe that your new found obsession with me and my edits is far over the top, and also, you are incorrect on many counts. I did not partake in edit warring with you (I re-added something you deleted before knowing your justification, and upon it being justified I left it alone, for that I was mistaken); your requests have not been polite, and I can provide evidence of your threatening and condescending attitude. Also, I am not an employee of Fairleigh Dickinson University, and the pretentious air with which you write makes clear you do not contain the ability to accept a mistake on your part. I have retained a very polite nature in our conversation, however, your aggressive, obsessive attitude has made me quite uncomfortable, and I would appreciate if you would cease your actions that put me at the center of your attention. I am a student at Fairleigh Dickinson University, but I am not a school employee; I am the equivalent of a football fan writing on his favorite teams page. If you could be so kind as to leave me alone and stop searching for my personal information, however public it may be, I would greatly appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfuzia (talk • contribs) 19:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)(edit conflict) I encourage both of you to keep cool heads about this situation. Is there specific content over which you two disagree? If so, you can request a third opinion or RFC. Nstrauss, remember that tone is important, and messages like this one do not assume good faith. Mfuzia, I'm glad that you are enthusiastic about your alma mater (as I am about mine), but some of the content that you have added to pages strikes a promotional tone and focuses too much on details. Would you be willing to discuss large changes to FDU's Misplaced Pages article on its talk page before implementing them? That would be a temporary measure to help you better understand writing in encyclopedic tone.Andrew 20:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Andrewman327, I'm not sure how the edit you point to violates WP:AGF. It was meant as a constructive suggestion to someone who appeared to be starting an edit war shortly after I had explained to him (quite politely) how WP:BRD works. I had also just accused him of the COI and I was afraid he was behaving in reaction to that. But, no matter. I think I've handled this appropriately so far -- and if I haven't, I certainly apologize.

In addition I don't think this dispute can be resolved through WP:DR (on the talk page or elsewhere) because it's not a content dispute, it's a COI dispute. COI editing, and particularly WP:NOPAY editing, is very strongly discouraged. COI editors (and especially NOPAY editors) should disclose their COIs even if all of their edits are perfectly acceptable. This allows other editors to apply an appropriate level of scrutiny to their work. --Nstrauss (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to your tone, not the warning itself. I propose that the editor in question should suggest changes to the Misplaced Pages page for which you propose he has a COI, and I believe that that should be extended to all of the pages you name. It would be a voluntary solution that would settle the potential COI problems without having to out anybody. Andrew 01:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

That would be necessary but not sufficient. Mfuzia's COI must be prominently disclosed on both his user page and on the FDU talk page. --Nstrauss (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

And I believe a {{COI}} tag on the FDU article page is appropriate as well. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

To uphold the WP:OUTING policy, I see little choice but that you privately contact a Misplaced Pages administrator. --Drm310 (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Mfuzia, please stop the personal attacks. Please read WP:NPA. I never attacked you personally and in fact I even complimented your writing style -- twice. If something I wrote came off as condescending, it wasn't my intention. --Nstrauss (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• COI is judged by the results. The additions of reference to the university's PublicMind survey research center at was done inappropriately. The study was published by 2 individual authors in a non-FDU journal, and the authority is derived from the journal, not the center. (If the center is notable, it can best be shown by trying to write a WP article about it--this is a practical way to establish any source.) The name of the center is highlighted, complete with a ™ symbol. One of the authors is linked to his home p., in a manner that might imply he is notable enough for a WP article, but there is no such article. The entire section is added in the wrong place, under "academic commentary" -- but it is not academic commentary about the decision, but a report of public views about it. I have not yet examined the other examples. DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

At , a similar section is added. It is added as abov e, except in a new subsection "Public opinion summary" , which is appropriate, but it should not be the only such summary used--and that subsection is still put in "Academic Commentary" where it does not belong.

In similarly, except special emphasis is given to the fact that the people are at FDU, including a book one of them has written and the center is mentioned in the edit summary.

At , the section was added a year ago by User:Crcorrea, in exactly the same wording and manner as the other sections. that editor also has almost exclusively worked on FDU, and in adding almost identically organized sections to other articles on a range of subjects of public interest: , , ,, , , , , , , . I assume this is the same editor, so besides COI, we have sockpuppettry.

There's also some minor edit warring over style, such as using capitalized words in headings, which is not our usual style, and revert the removal of capitals.

This reminds me of situations involving other universities, where obviously and blatantly promotional editors insisted they were only alumni or students. In all cases, they may be right, but it doesn't matter. Most of our material on colleges is added by students or alumni, as is to be expected --I have added material myself to the ones I have attended. Some of it is good, some of it is inappropriate. When it is inappropriate, we can call it COI, but the real problem is the inappropriateness. (there's no point in even declaring the COI, because about 95% of content on these subjects is added by people with some degree of COI--there are a few editors such as myself interested in university articles generally, but most people very reasonably edit on the ones they know.) When it is a paid staff member, then we assume the COI is so great as to make it likely that the material is inappropriate, and that is almost always the case.

I am prepared to block both editors for an extended period, and review critically the material. (Much of it can be used, though all of it needs to be reworded to decrease the promotional emphasis) I shall do so unless some other admin objects. DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Mfuzia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Crcorrea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Issuing blocks sounds reasonable, but it is best if you will first explain on their talk pages what the concern is. Then if you get no appropriate response, go ahead with the blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

DGG, thank you very much for your diligent response. Wow, I had no idea about Crcorrea, great find. I have two conflicting reactions to your proposal, however:

1. Even if Mfuzia's edits were appropriate, I don't think one can explain them away as those made by an enthusiastic student. That's certainly the position Mfuzia is taking in this dispute, but there's pretty conclusive offsite evidence that he's working for FDU's public relations department and not just a student. As such WP:NOPAY certainly applies.
2. If your decision for a long-term block is based on sockpuppetry, this seems like possible overreach to me. If I had to guess I'd say Mfuzia probably took over Crcorrea's rule on FDU's public relations team. That doesn't seem like sockpuppetry. On the other hand the similarity in the PublicMind language suggests that the true strings are being pulled by their boss, who probably supplied them both with the same language. I don't know if that violates any rules. Is there anything wrong with teams of editors working together? If not then a public declaration of both editors' COI seems like the remedy that best fits the policy. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

My own guess is that if they are two people, that one simply copied the other. But if they are different people, it's meatpupettry, which we deal with the same way as sockpuppettry. (If their boss is the master, we can't block him unless he tries to edit here.) But I wouldn't be blocking chiefly for that, but for primarily promotional editing. I was thinking of 6 months; if it were purely promotional editing, we usually block indefinitely. And in general, I continue to think with respect to COI that our proper concern is the editing, not the person doing it. DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I've wondered what meatpuppetry was. Thanks for illuminating. --Nstrauss (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I would just like to start by saying that although Nstrauss seems certain that I am an employee of my schools public relations department, I am not. I have no desire to release any more information about myself that Nstrauss seems determined to acquire as his obsessive nature about this matter has made me quite uncomfortable. I have already apologized for my "edit warring"; I am not extremely well versed in Misplaced Pages relations so I just assumed that my posts were being removed without just cause, and upon it being made clear to me that their was reason for their deletion, I ceased posting them. I understand that things I posted may have been a off-topic or not relevant, and if I am mistaken in posting I can accept that. I have no desire to be a part of a Wiki conflict, I just want to continue expanding information and my own knowledge. If it is completely vital, in the future I will make use of the talk page on Fairleigh Dickinson University before making major edits, to avoid any conflicts of interest. I appreciate the opportunity to express myself, and if their are any further questions I will continue to answer them honestly as I have been this entire time. Matthew Fuzia (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Warner Norton Grubb III

• Warner Norton Grubb III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• GRUBBXDN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Would appreciate further opinion; account may have COI issues, as suggested by name and some of the content of this most recent article. On balance this appears to be a good contributor, but I'm wondering if proximity to the subject is a concern. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It's always a concern, but I think the good (in this case, a good start to an article) significantly outweighs the bad (lack of truly good citations; that the individual isn't notable enough for someone else to have written the article). I've done some article cleanup, and encouraged the editor to add more (reliable) sources, even if only on the article talk page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not tied to the COI template I added to the article--if it seems excessive or unwarranted please remove it. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 04:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I think, given my edits and the current tone of the article, that it does seem right to take down the template, so I've done that. But I still remain concerned about the sources, so I've left that top template as is, in the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Lyle Goodhue

• Lyle Goodhue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jackson Goodhue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In a new article on Lyle Goodhue, the article was created by User:Jackson Goodhue, and almost all of the edits to the article were made by Jackson Goodhue. It's fairly obvious that Jackson Goodhue is a relative of Lyle Goodhue. It violates Misplaced Pages's conflict of interest policy to write an article about a relative. 64.149.37.177 (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• No, it doesn't. In a perfect world it might be better if someone else had written the article, and the article could use some editing for consistency with our content guidelines, but there are very few things the COI policy forbids, and writing a biographical piece about an ancestor is not one of them, especially not when it includes 30+ sources. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I do wish that he had not (implicitly) denied writing the article. Or that he was something other than an SPA with almost 200 edits. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

TaylorLikesDogs93 and Ironshorepost

• Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Ironshore (2) (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Ironshore (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• TaylorLikesDogs93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ironshorepost (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Users' only purpose is to push for the creation of a promotional Ironshore article. Appears to be an individual user using differently-named accounts as a thin disguise of COI nature. LukeSurl 14:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi! awkward... but just trying to create a post... my other account got messed up so i tried to delete it and it didn't work. No one at wikipedia is helping me so i made a new account... can anyone help me? i'm not tech savvy and i don't get this website at all. help. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.219.244 (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The company (Ironshore) is notable - it's a big company. Misplaced Pages should have an article about that company, and I think we should try to help get this submission (post) to be acceptable.

So, some advice: (1) Edit the first attempt, not the second (anyone can edit either; I've done a fair amount of cleanup on first, and editors at AFC have said that they will ignore the second. (2) Take a look at Misplaced Pages:Starting an article; it's got some good advice. (3) Fix the footnotes/references (per Help:Referencing for beginners), but before you do, look at the type of sources that are strongly preferred. The better your sources (and the fewer the sources that are essentially press releases), the more likely the article will be accepted; (4) Be aware that per WP:NOT, Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We're an encyclopedia, which means articles should be overviews. The more the article reads like an article in the New York Times or Forbes magazine, and not like like a collection of only somewhat related sentences, the better. (So, if there are more generalist sources, use those. (5) Get rid of duplicate sources (keep the best) that support the same sentence. There are four sources to support "Ironshore named Kevin Kelley as CEO in December of 2008." If they all say the same thing, drop three of them. If one has different information about Ironshore, then add that information to the article (unless it's overly detailed), and move the citation so it supports what you just added. (6) See WP:LEAD for what the initial section should be like. In particular, make sure it includes information that clearly shows why the company is notable, as required by WP:CORP. (7) Look at similar articles to get ideas - in particular, look at pages at Category:Reinsurance companies. (Some of those won't be very good; generally the more footnotes, the better, and the longer, the better, but there are exceptions.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

QRpedia

• QRpedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing) lists himself as a "team member" of QRpedia on his LinkedIn page. He also undertakes paid contract work on QRpedia projects. He has been asked to stop directly editing QRpedia, but persists. What can be done in such a case? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

This series of edits seems problematical. . They're removal of well-sourced and pertinent critical stuff. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The first was not in the cited source; when it was restored with the correct source, I left it there. The other three included claims not in the sources given, mostly also being BLP violations, each discussed on the talk page. In the comment here which you recently self-reverted you asked "Is he misrepresenting sources, biasing the article, WP:OWNing, or breaking any other policies or guidelines?". The answer is "no". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you about 1. 2, though, was what the source said, and pertinent. Your claim that COATRACK or BLP applied was wrong. Three was 2 again with the added wrong claim that the trustee resigned over the ownership of QRpedia. Again, reverting the claim contained in 2 was not warranted, however you were right to revert the resignation claim. 4, on reflection, is well-justified by you on the talk page, and I've proposed wording for that on the talk page. So, my only problem is the Bamkin content you reverted on BLP and COATRACK grounds. I don't think that's egregious. That you were over-cautious on a BLP issue isn't a problem IMO.

So, what's the problem DC? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

In February, Mabbett deleted a sourced statement with the edit summary of "Not in cited source; WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP". None of these was true. The material removed accurately reflected the source and was not a violation of WP:BLP in any way (Mabbett appears not to understand what WP:COATRACK means). Mabbett was asked by another user to avoid editing the article and take any issues to ANI. He has ignored this advice. The most recent revert follows the same pattern. Removing what he probably sees as negative information he removed a statement which accurately recounted what a source said. I still have not been able to understand what part of the statement he dislikes, but it is not clear why he did not reword it instead of removing it. I have had little success getting sense out of Mabbett in the past, so I would prefer to hand this off to someone with more experience in dealing with tendentious COI editors. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I addressed your first link above - my third link . I agree the Bamkin stuff was not COATRACK or BLP, but I'm always willing to grant a lot of slack to people who have BLP concerns. The second part of that edit was factually wrong. The source did not say the dispute over ownership of QRpedia led to the resignation of Joscelyn Upendrian.

Andy had DUE concerns with regard to your second diff, (my fourth diff). Since it became clear on the talk page that consensus supported mention of the separate company, he's respected that consensus - just making a minor accuracy tweak that I suggested. I agree with his wish to include WMUK's sanguine attitude toward the prospect of litigation, and have modified the entry accordingly. So far, GC, I don't see a problem. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Proactiv Solution

I've helped Proactiv put together some content for consideration by Misplaced Pages's editors at: Talk:Proactiv_Solution#Second_draft, which implements some feedback SmartSE had on the first draft in February. Smart is now busy IRL, so I thought I would advertise the request here.

The proposed article would change an 8-cite, 3 paragraph stub into a 40+ cite article that may be getting close to a GA, including expanding and adding several controversies and criticisms. I appreciate your time in advance in considering our content. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 21:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution