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 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-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 Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

• Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• FCAC Editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mediafcac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fcac-acfc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fcac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Long-term pattern of COI editing by an agency of the Canadian federal government. Article was created by a COI editor and has been extensively edited over the years by other COI editors with WP:ORGNAME accounts. Copyvios are repeatedly added, and references are all to primary sources. Drm310 (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if we need to escalate this to a SPI and a rangeblock. I'm inclined to stub the article on principle. Mangoe (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any sign that they were cautioned before DRM310 did so yesterday. Collectively the contribs were made in bursts, on one day in 2006, four days in 2010, and five days this year. These editors were likely oblivious to each other. More our failing than theirs, it seems. I think we can AGF and just correct the clumsiness of their approaches. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The proof in such articles is always in the pudding. Are their edits clumsy? That's fixable, and not a violation. Are they copyvios? We can set that straight and warn the editor(s). Are they promotional? Well, it's a government agency: there is no product to sell. In principle it's not out of the question--one could imagine a "promotional" scenario in the US, where various government agencies and even entire departments are under attack from tea parties etc., but that doesn't seem to be the case here (so the "advert" tag was really pointless). In the current version of the article (which is of course not a very good article), I don't see any problems, and I agree with LeadSongDog. As for Scott Bury, I don't understand the charge of "compromised". As long as these editors understand what they can and cannot do I don't see a problem (and they are communicating), and their "outing" is not necessarily a bad thing. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scott Bury

• Scott Bury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A user who made one edit in 2010 to an unrelated article has come back to life and is engaging in the same pattern of edits in destubbing the article, including restoring the old content. I am engaging them on their talk page but I have to suspect that this account has been compromised. Mangoe (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a message on my talk page confirming that this editor and all his predecessors have been employees of the agency. Mangoe (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was protected due to edit warring, however before it was protected a seemingly biased edit was made largely of unsourced content. This is the original edit that caused the trouble. Harlem Baker Hughes recently reverted back to the last known good version, and then an ip user reverted that change, and Someguy1221 then protected the article.

Noone123456 (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original article referred to was not written with WP:NPOV and the largest proportion of the page was written about one contract in a long business career and aims to be derogatory about all other areas. The current version has been written with a view of being neutral as it does cover this topic with all others and brings the page up to date and adds additional information and resources such as a picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GwheeldonWiKi (talk • contribs) 23:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While that particular item appears to have suffered from WP:UNDUE, but WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY still applies. Reliably sourced information, even if you consider it to be negative, is fair game for Wikipedia. I would advise you not to edit the page directly but rather suggest changes on Talk:Gavin Wheeldon. --Drm310 (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This probably explains itself nicely. --Jayron32 02:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Any edit summary that begins "my book is..." spells trouble. Perhaps a note suggesting he raises concerns at talk rather than editing the article? Looks like he's just trying to "right that wrong" rather than make a long-term contribution to the article. Stalwart111 09:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am posting here as a COI editor with a request that I hope someone can help with. As you might guess from my username, I work for BP, and I have been offering resources and drafts to help improve accuracy and depth of information about the company on Wikipedia since last summer. Last week I made a request on the BP article's Talk page to update the infobox with new financial data from the company's Quarter 4 and full year 2012 financial results. As that request has not received a response, I wanted to ask here if anyone could make these simple updates. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and sorry you were kept waiting... no one must have noticed your posting on the talk page. I've made these updates for you. And in case nobody has said so already, thanks for respecting the COI guidelines. Your good conduct is a great example of how COI editors can contribute constructively. Cheers! --Drm310 (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with the edits, Drm310 - and also for the barnstar. (My first!) If you are able to, it would be helpful to also get your feedback on another suggestion I've made on the BP Talk page, for the restructure of the "Environmental record" and "Accidents" sections, to remove duplication and reduce confusion about where incidents should be mentioned. Although others have shown interest in the restructure, the discussion has currently come to a stop. The discussion so far is here and I've placed a draft form of the proposed structure into a sub page of Talk:BP here. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I am a representative of Moody's, and I wish to ask for specific assistance about some recent problematic changes on company-specific articles. This past weekend, one or more individuals based at the IP addresses 24.45.162.83 and 98.14.243.231 (IPs with no prior history) made a series of edits to the three articles about Moody's listed here:

• Moody's Investors Service (MIS)
• Moody's Corporation (MCO)
• Moody's Analytics (MA)

In some cases, verified and useful information about the company's history was deemed "irrelevant" and summarily deleted, and on MIS and MCO warning tags questioning the articles' neutrality were added. However, no comments were added explaining what was in question. I believe these edits are simply mischief and should be reverted by an uninvolved editor, so I wish to ask someone here to consider that now. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the warning tags as I don't think they were appropriate. As far as I can tell, the changes to Moody's Analytics were benign layout changes - is there something I missed? A chunk of recent history (spinoff from Dun & bradstreet) was removed from the MIS, which I have reverted because it seems to be pretty good stuff, sourced, neutral, relevant &c. However, I could understand why somebody might remove text about the history of bond markets from Moody's Investors Service as that are really background rather than being about MIS - does anybody else have any thoughts on that one? bobrayner (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The changes made by IPs '83 and '231 to the MIS article are here. The addition of "{{POV-check|date=February 2013}}" probably is not needed. The IP editors revised the bond market info -- "While the Dutch had created a bond market as early as the 1600s" -- to be related to MIS -- "Moody was forced to sell his business ..." which is fine. Bond market info can be added back in so long as it relates to MIS. I'm not sure why the spin-off information -- "announced it would spin off Moody's Investors Service into a separate" companies -- was deleted. The revisions to the See also section seem more an editorial decision that could be changed back or discussed on the article talk page. In general, the edits do no seem like mischief (also see WP:AGF). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Username report was denied as not blatant, not sure how this was misunderstood...Article made was Minedas (page has been moved), a promotional article, Hence the acronym Minedas Public Relations Info or Mprinfo. Requesting username block as this is a promotion only account Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]