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:

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

Please see the previous discussion that occurred on this same noticeboard just ten days ago. User @Speededdie: is the cofounder of TV Tropes and continues to make inappropriate COI edits to the article, such as this one. This particular diff used an extremely misleading edit summary in order to remove maintenance tags; something user attempted several times before [1] [2] and which resulted in the original report. He obviously did not take the previous discussion seriously and seemed to simply think he could wait for a few days and make the offending edits again without notice. What should the course of action for this issue be now? Artichoker^[talk] 03:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: Judging by his contributions, User:Speededdie appears to be a SPA, having for all intents and purposes only edited the TV Tropes article, an article he obviously has a vested and conflicted interested in. Artichoker^[talk] 03:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I'm the chief administrator of the All The Tropes wiki (the "competition" to TV Tropes, though I prefer to think of it as an alternative), so my word may be considered biased, but since my attempt to privately contact the Wikipedia administration via email seems not to have gone through concerning evidence regarding this matter (I wanted to avoid conflicts with this editor nor start a disruption here), I am posting this information here in the interest of preventing further COI incidents. User:Speededdie has sockpuppeted numerous times under IP addresses as well under his own handle, repeatedly trying to remove information he did not like from the TV Tropes article, specifically as this IP and this IP. I have also seen evidence of his actions in doing similar editing offsite such as on WikiIndex and his IP has been used by Speededdie AKA Fast Eddie as seen here(68.190.131.24) and here(96.2.93.35). Again, as I run a site which this editor has expressed open contempt of (as well as myself), I am not the most neutral source in the world concerning this information, so I ask it be verified independently and appropriate action be taken by the appropriate parties if warranted. GethN7 (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your potential bias, sockpuppets are not allowed. I'll file the SPI when I get home. Tutelary (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small update; I didn't file one as some of the accounts have one edit, and some have their last edits as 2-4 months ago. I don't see any current sockpuppets, nor disruptive activities. Tutelary (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I categorically deny making any edit to the article involving a fact which has not been backed up by a linked reference or of in any way concealing my affiliation with the subject wiki. Or of using a sockpuppet here or anywhere else. Please do not accept a link to GethN7's wiki (which copies TV Trope's data and adds ads to it) as evidence of anything. It is a highly suspect source. In any case, GethN7 is a person who clearly has a real conflict of interest.Speededdie (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I categorically deny that All The Tropes has advertisement. This is a matter of wiki policy there; your statement only exists to spread misinformation. GethN7 and my biases are obvious and self-declared, but then we're not editing the main pages on tropes wikis -- we're only providing information to the community on talk pages. BrentLaabs (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello! I work in the health sector and have a personal interest in health news. Earlier this year I learned about a court case mentioning Charles Denham and edited the article about the person, as the case was interesting to me. In my mind this did not relate to my employment directly, even though iit is in my professional field. The subject of the article, Denham himself, came to Wikipedia some time ago and has been interacting on the article page and an AfD. I have developed both his biography and the AfD discussion more than anyone else. Today he tells me that he sells a product which competes with one provided by my employer, and that I have a conflict of interest. That might be the case, and I proposed to leave all discussion entirely. I deny knowing that my employer and he were marketplace competitors as he suggests. Beyond my abandoning interaction with any Wikipedia articles related to Denham or anything close to him, I commit to be more conscious of avoiding COI in the future. I am posting here because as a new user, Denham should have access to someone who can give him relief for his concerns about COI, whatever that may mean, and I thought it would be best that since he made a COI claim against me that I come here and commit to stay out of this from here on and ask that someone else please help him address his needs. I am very sorry for the negative experience he is having. One problem which he raised was that he wished to know that I am employed by an entity which he says has competing business interests, and while I try to be open about this, the way that I put this information on my userpage was not sufficient to meet his needs and I regret this. I believed that I was acting independently of my employer, but regardless, I would am excusing myself from involvement there now. I am around otherwise if anyone asks for me. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I was attracted to this page after seeing Bluerasberry, who I know reasonably well, on the BLP noticeboard. I don't think this string is necessary, because the page will most likely be removed soon. There is no strong consensus to keep the article and the BLP has requested deletion. The COI accusation is a symptom of the AfD dragging on long enough to make editors with competing views become irritable by the discussion.

Having witnessed the presentation Consumer Reports did at Wikimania a couple years ago, I could see how Blue's work there could give him a strong opinion on the subject, though not actually a COI. This string represents an over-reaction to the kinds of COI accusations that get thrown around routinely, often against editors that may have some bias for another reason. CorporateM (Talk) 00:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What's missing from this discussion (and those parts of the discussion which have been conducted in the corresponding AFD) is WP:AGF. It makes sense that BlueRasberry would naturally have an interest in something he has an understanding of. It would seem (from the edits in question) that BR's aim was to expand those parts of the biography where sources were available but information hadn't been included. Having a "controversy" section is perfectly acceptable and fairly common. That doesn't mean it's nice but nice and neutral are not necessarily the same thing and WP strives to be the latter. I suppose it's possible for BR to have discovered the link between the subject's work and the work of his employer (though I don't think there's even been confirmation that BR works in a related area) had he done more research. But having had it drawn to his attention, he has now committed to not editing that article. That's about as good faith an effort as we can ask from an editor who has amorally stumbled into a conflicted situation. Like CorporateM, I'm not actually convinced that paid employment with Coke gives you an automatic conflict of interest with regard to Pepsi. Even less so with regard to employees of the other organisation. Charles Denham you seem like a smart guy. You've made your point and achieved what you set out to achieve. Like CM, I think the article will probably be deleted. Lets all go about our business, shall we? St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Just one more thought: As I pointed out at the AfD, Dr. Denham should hardly be the one to complain about possible COI, since the article about him was originally written, later edited, and strongly defended at the AfD by users who are admittedly affiliated with his foundation. As you say, it's moot now because the article is likely to be deleted, but I felt the accusation against Bluerasberry (whom I don't know at all) was unjustified and was a case of the pot calling the kettle black. --MelanieN (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Jeff Davidson (speaker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Seankellywiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Camforest2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Reidconnor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Davidcallum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Editor684765 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Editor8365 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Editor38657023 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• EditorBrosepho8y (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• C3po2398 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• R2D29826398 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All of the above editors are single-use accounts that keep adding promotional language to this article which requires cleanup. I seems to me that the editors probably have a close link to the article subject, the way they are being used looked somewhat like sockpuppetry. The quality of some of the publications mentioned looks a bit think, and I think the whole article could do with a review by someone with more expertise than me. Shritwod (talk) 08:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the edits that have been made by moderators has not been to correct neutral tone issues, but rather the mass cutting of information. I understand perfectly fine if there are issues with neutrality, however I have sought to substantiate all of the claims on the article with some sort of citation or another. Many hours have been put into researching the necessary citations, and I would appreciate if the concerned moderators would not remove the properly cited information. It will not ultimately serve Wikipedia or the common user if the proper information is removed. C3po2398 (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

C3po2398, can I ask what you relationship with the subject is? And also, are those other editor accounts also under your control? Shritwod (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shritwod, Jeff has given a presentation at the University I attend, and I took interest in some of his work. I don't believe that should constitute conflict of interest, and regardless to that issue anyway, I have sought professionalism and neutral tone in the information I have added to the page, citing as much as I have been able. So my request is that the information that I have dug up be there, and you can correct whatever neutral tone issues you believe there are. And to answer your other question, I have no relation to the other editor accounts. C3po2398 (talk) 8:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

C3po2398, is it just then a coincidence that there is also an editor R2D29826398? Shritwod (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, a number of editors have been hired to create biographies for speakers who are part of the National Speakers Association. The client has been hiring more than one editor per article. My guess is that this is the case here, although I'd expect that to only account for two or three of the editors. I'd propose that there were a couple of editors hired, one of whom has been creating multiple accounts. - Bilby (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seankellywiki checkuser results should probably be here for reference. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the sockpuppet investigation indicates that these editors ARE sockpuppets, then I am afraid that I have to conclude that all the other claims by the socks of Seankellywiki / C3po2398 are suspect too. However, the article is not beyond salvation, I think it needs some pruning though. Shritwod (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Metamodernism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Festal82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The metamodernism page is being held to ransom by Festal82, who is making threats and using bullying tactics to force an entirely subjective list of 'Notable metamodernists' onto the page, which other editors agree is divisive and inappropriate. There appears to be a clear conflict of interest at play here, and a possible attempt at self-positioning. This user has repeatedly ignored my requests to stop this behaviour, and has instead harassed me on the talk page, making wild and outlandish accusations, and making threats to delete the whole content of the page if they don't get their own way. The user also repeatedly accuses me of being somebody that I am not, every time I make an edit they have not sanctioned, despite there being consensus among other editors, and has sought to undermine my attempts to maintain the factual integrity of the article. (The user also seems to accuse me of penning the entirety of the article, which the edit history shows is clearly not the case.) Rather than respond to my requests in a reasonable manner, the user has instead offered a bizarre ultimatum, that effectively says they will not vandalize the rest of the page if they can keep adding to their list, and seems intent on instigating an edit war. Esmeme (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to have anyone who wants take look at the Talk page for metamodernism and see what has really happened there. My last posted message on that page summarizes exactly the sort of behavior Esmeme has exhibited there for weeks now, including (as anyone who reads the History can see) accusing me repeatedly of being "Seth Abramson" and editing with an aim of "self-positioning" and then coming here to complain that I've made such accusations against him/her. Most appalling (besides outlandish representations, like a supposed "threat to delete the whole content of the page") is that this user has been flagged for violating WP:NOT and WP:RS for weeks now, leading to a "warning" tag being put atop the metamodernism page, and is now, incredibly, making accusations that in fact s/he has only been "attempting to maintain the factual integrity of the article." I do hope an editor will step in hold Esmeme to the WP:NOT and WP:RS and WP:OR standards s/he has been violating with impunity for over a month. I previously attempted to secure an administrator's intervention, but was told this was a content dispute; I then offered Esmeme two separate dispute resolutions to try to tamp down the conflict--both of which were ignored. All of this can be confirmed by looking at the Talk and History pages for metamodernism. Festal82 (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page and edit history will show the above claims to be grossly misleading and untrue. Esmeme (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Festal82: @Esmeme: - Both of you are making claims about each other's off-wiki interests and activities. Keeping in mind WP:OUTING, are either of you basing this on an admission of the other or are they just accusations? --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  19:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, Rhododendrites (talk)--you are right that both the OP and I have skirted this line more than once. My base claim has nothing to do with any of that, though; it's that Esmeme has shown persistent bias in favor of a non-WP:NOT, non-WP:RS website, while deleting all links relating to WP:NOT, WP:RS media outlets like The Guardian, Indiewire, et cetera. Esmeme has justified these deletions by assumptions of bad faith (thereby violating WP:AGF) and accusations that are either violations of WP:OUTING or WP:NOR. In responding to this bias and these allegations, I did the same thing Esmeme had been doing--make accusations regarding the likely identity of another editor, based upon what I perceived to be consistent biases. I know, for my part, that those allegations are in no way important to my concerns, finally--as again, the issue is the OP's persistent selection of non-WP:NOT, non-WP:RS websites over WP:NOT, WP:RS media outlets, based upon allegations which, as you note, violate WP:OUTING (in addition to being baseless). In fact, Esmeme has never provided any grounds whatsoever for deleting WP:NOT, WP:RS media outlet links other than claims based entirely on WP:OUTING and WP:NOR violations. A review of the article history and talk page reveals these are the _only_ grounds ever provided by the OP for his/her edits, while my grounds have consistently been as stated above. Festal82 (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through the edit history of the page and made some comments on the talk page here: Talk:Metamodernism#Outsider's point of view. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  22:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have an editor who is a Wikipedian in Residence (see WP:WikiProject Consumer Reports) who has drafted a userspace version of articles here which he wishes to use for his own internal use. Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bluerasberry/cr as I'm not sure of what to do. I suggest that the contents be merged into the current article but it seems like the user does not want to for additional months or years due to the current COI policies. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented there. I see no harm whatsoever in keeping material by a trustworthy editor such as Blue that may be of some use, but I am quitepuzzled aboutwhy he might whant not to use it. If the WIR program acts to discourage high quality work from appearing in WP, it's being used perversely. DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC) .[reply]

Related articles and user

• IEX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Brad Katsuyama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• KristinaChi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Summary

• KristinaChi is in violation with Wikipedia's editor policies on impersonation, harassment and personal attacks.

• Based on his/her edit patterns, KristinaChi appears to be acting as an agent for the IEX and Brad Katsuyama, and therefore has a conflict of interest with respect to these articles.

• KristinaChi's accusative tone towards "HFT", and his/her repeated attempts to censor and suppress all content that is critical of IEX while keeping only content that appears to hurt the image of "HFT" fully intact, provides grounds to believe that the user cannot be trusted to maintain a neutral, objective and encyclopedic view towards the editing of these specific articles.

Detailed description

KristinaChi appears to have a significant conflict of interest with the editing of the IEX article:

1. Immediately after the account KristinaChi was created, its first action was to undo all of the contributions made by me to the Brad Katsuyama and IEX articles. Moreover, the user's contribution history shows that he/she is solely dedicated to changing the articles on Brad Katsuyama and IEX to improve the image of Katsuyama and IEX. Furthermore, the user mounts extremely lengthy defenses of IEX on the IEX Talk page, which border on wikilawyering. This type of activity is unusual for new accounts and suggests that KristinaChi has a substantial conflict of interest: either a personal agenda against me, or personal connection with Brad Katsuyama and IEX.

2. *** is the real name of my colleague from MIT. If you look-up my IP address from the revision history of Brad Katsuyama, anyone from the public can find the name of our group and *** is the only person whose name can be connected with our group from a Google search. It is clear that the account name KristinaChi was picked deliberately to resemble, harass and personally attack a person associated with me. This choice of username directly violates several of Wikipedia's editor policies on impersonation, harassment and personal attacks. I feel that a user with this level of maturity should not be trusted to maintain an encyclopedic and objective view of the articles at hand.

2. KristinaChi's persecutory tone in the IEX Talk page further reveals that he/she is not editing the articles from a neutral or objective perspective:

Another editor, MrBill3, has come forward to point out the possibility that there exists a conflict of interest in the editing process of the article:

While I have fully disclosed my position, KristinaChi appears to be evading the topic of his/her conflict of interest:

I learned about IEX and Brad Katsuyama originally through a CNBC interview between BATS Global Markets's CEO and Katsuyama.^[1] As such, a citation referencing this interview was my first contribution to the article on Brad Katsuyama. As a member of the financial industry that is unassociated to Katsuyama, BATS and the "HFT" topic at hand, I found the topic interesting and carried out my own research to weigh the pros and cons. Seeing that the articles on IEX and Brad Katsuyama were lacking in neutrality because most of the content had come from either IEXCommunications (IEX themselves) or a single book, Flash Boys, that promotes IEX, I hoped to add a few references to balance the views in both articles.

My contributions seem to be rational, as MrBill3 has pointed out:

Thanks for your kind attention to this issue! Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 08:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

Comment: someone used a ref tag above for some reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not notifed by Sophie.grothendieck about this discussion. I would like to clarify that I have nothing to do with either IEX or Brad Katsuyama, who happen to be prominent and public critics of HFT. For this very reason it is Sophie.grothendieck who has substantial conflict of interest, since he is involved in his own HFT firm and has lied about his HFT involvement in the very same dialoge he pointed out above. Also MrBill3 was taking about Sophie.grothendieck in the comment of 08:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC) and raised the issue on Sophie.grothendieck's talk page (diff), not on mine. KristinaChi (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact that I was willing to lift the veil of anonymity to declare no conflict of interest is a very strong testament of my integrity. In contrast, the fact that you're using "HFT" in the negative connotation in the above sentence shows that you're not approaching this topic with a neutral point of view. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My username is an alias and does not resemble a living person. I have never claimed otherwise. My initials are completely different to the initials of the person it was claimed I would impersonate and the last names share just one character, the "i" at the end. As a sign of good faith however I am willing to have my username changed if community consensus arises to do so. KristinaChi (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KristinaChi and *** are evidently homophones. The fact that you showed no hesitation to namedrop non-fictitious entities (e.g. my group) further strengthens the premise that you were deliberately namedropping a non-fictitious person (e.g. ***), and shows your intent to harass us. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted)

Your accusation is defamatory. The tag "high-frequency trading" was added to the page because of our research interest in high-frequency trading, not because we practice high-frequency trading. I know a whole variety of domain experts at high-frequency trading (e.g. the SEC, the CFTC, Andrei Kirilenko) who nevertheless do not practice it - we don't consider them "high-frequency traders" simply because they stated high-frequency trading as a research interest. I replaced the name of our group with asterisks for security reasons, I think your blatant disregard for our confidentiality is disrespectful and uncivil, and in breach of Wikipedia policies. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before today, essentially all his edits were directed at prominent critics of high-frequency trading, such as Bradley Katsuyama and Katsuyama's firm IEX. KristinaChi (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, all of your edits are directed at censoring criticisms of Brad Katsuyama and IEX and it seems you have spent an inordinate amount of effort (word count of your talk page arguments) arguing just to remove the criticisms rather than adding any new content. I've also added factual content to MIT's page during those edits.

As you say it yourself, Katsuyama and IEX have been making criticisms. Why is it that their points get preferential treatment in your editing efforts while you:

1. call Scott Locklin's views a "smear",

2. denounce the views of CEO of BATS Global Markets, a multi-billion dollar company by private market valuation, as "contentious"?

The CEO of BATS and Scott Locklin has been held in great regard by buy-side investors like me even before Katsuyama's name became public. The huge contrast in creditworthiness is quantifiable: A Google search of "William O'Brien BATS" yields nearly 100x the number of results, and "Scott Locklin" yields nearly 10x the number of results, as compared to a Google search on Brad Katsuyama. I don't see a fair reason why references to their statements have to be silenced. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie.grothendieck operated the following user names and IP addresses to advance the very same points/ make the same edits with the same oddities like forgetting to sign comments, among other oddities:

198.0.163.1 starting 00:20, 12 May 2014

Sophie.grothendieck starting 00:27, 12 May 2014

Twosigmainvestments starting 04:41, 2 June 2014

207.181.197.4 starting 04:57, 2 June 2014

64.150.44.98 starting 18:50, 5 June 2014

KristinaChi (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This accusation is patently false.

- 198.0.163.1 appears to be my current IP, which makes sense because I registered my account Sophie.grothendieck right afterwards.

- 207.181.197.4 appears to have begun contributing on 23 January 2014 on List of Baby Daddy episodes, long before I started editing the IEX article. This is a static IP registered by RCN originating near Kansas City.

- 64.150.44.98 appears to be a static IP registered by Illinois Century Network originating from Chicago.

- Twosigmainvestments I have no CheckUser privileges but I think checking his/her IP will immediately clear me of your accusation.

It is not plausible that I registered 3 other static IPs on different networks, under different organization names, based in different cities, and seemingly edited the article across every hour of the day. Static IPs cost substantial time and money to own and register, more so than it costs to run IEX's website. The more likely explanation is that these editors showed up because I emailed a buy-side mailing list about the IEX article to invite editors with a more objective view to take part in the editing of the article. This would be consistent with the fact that their origin cities appear to be financial hubs. Given that IEX was designed to help [buy-side]] investors like me and probably those 3 other editors, our personal views should actually be biased in favor of IEX - and the fact that all of us seem to have converged on the editing efforts on the criticisms of IEX goes to show that we were able to practice full neutrality. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two other, experienced editors objected content Sophie.grothendieck added to IEX. Among other grave breaches of policies, at least a handful of times Sophie.grothendieck re-inserted a wordpress blog link into this article, it is currently in the IEX article as reference

9. ^ "Michael Lewis: shilling for the buyside". April 4, 2014. Retrieved 2014-05-30.

that was identified to read and look like a smear and was also objected by another editor. KristinaChi (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree to remove Scott Locklin's wordpress reference and I was about to do so. But I was unable to carry on my editing efforts on the article because you have been repeatedly and nondiscretionarily undoing changes from 5-7 different editors in bulk, including improvements to parts of the article unassociated to the section that I wrote - which is why I had to bring your destructive efforts and conflict of interest to the attention of this noticeboard.

I was not notified by you that you think I have been in grave [breach] of policies. Also as a sign of good faith, I am willing to resolve your concerns if community consensus arises to do so.

Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at this, there seems to be a contradiction: Sophie.grothendieck has claimed to be both a disinterested researcher, and a buy-side investor ("buy-side investors like me"). I suppose it is possible to be both at the same time, but nonetheless I think that editor is too much involved with this topic to edit the article on HFT or any of the companies or other organizations involved in it. Even neutral edits can exhibit OWNership. I consider that . KristinaChi is similarly too involved--tho I understand that editor to be currently & I think rightly blocked for outing. I am prepared to issue corresponding topic bans, but I ask for comments. DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Banc De Binary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I know a discussion on this article has already been archived, but I would like to renew it here. I find it suspicious that a marginally notable company article (which was previously deleted for not passing WP:CORP) has a large number of intensely interested editors that are persistent about using low-quality sources like press releases, court records, Investopedia, etc.

Some circumstantial events suggest that the article has become a battle-ground for competing financial interests, whereas some are paid a small fee to use their accounts to add negative content, and the other has used a paid editing firm probably (if the accusations of socks, etc. are true), offered a bounty to anyone who can control the article and so on.

Since a COI can never be proven anywhere and we have no way to obtain evidence one way or another, I'm just left with my paranoia and suspicious circumstances regarding online ads for paid edits. So I'm not sure anything can be done about it, except to focus on content and high-quality sources. However, knowing that there is most likely so much COI going on, with competing interests, it's probably impossible to develop a consensus that is not astroturfed. CorporateM (Talk) 01:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Deepak_Chopra#RfC: Move criticism up lede?

Should we move criticism of Dr Chopra up the lede? Right now it's in the second half of the final para.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Philip Nevill Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pngreen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has a declared COI as an assistant of Mr Green who has instructed him to write a page. I have advised him, since he is not Mr Green, to request a change of username.

The article is accordingly plastered with maintenance templates, and the user has asked for help. As chairman and chief executive of major companies, Mr Green is clearly notable, and the article as it stands is not unduly promotional. Uninvolved editors are requested to have a look at it, and clean and check it to the point where the maintenance templates can be cleared. There is a related autobiographical user page at User:Philip Nevill Green, which I have nominated at MfD. JohnCD (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Genpact (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would someone who has time please take a look at this PR mess? Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• AndyUWSP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Andy himself admits, "I represent UW-Stevens Point as its online content coordinator" and thinks this means he's the best guy to edit this article! I have not yet actually blocked him, but he's skating on thin ice with some of his recent whitewashing edits. Orange Mike | Talk 23:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, if this truly is your policy, please delete my account immediately. I have no interest in editing any other Wikipedia pages. You may repost the information about Bunnell if you feel that it's vital. It is factual information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.241.159.193 (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Belo Horizonte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Maceió (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• A dozen other sites involving towns and cities of Brazil
• Zanabelles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 12.226.211.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 12.226.211.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been solely preoccupied with inserting links to Canback & Company, a proprietary pay-to-access data site, for data that is otherwise available publicly from the IMF. They have refused discussion on their talk page, initiated by Anna Frodesiak. They have inserted identical material in both named and IP accounts. The IP address had formerly been concerned with adding material about Boston bus stops in the area around the corporate headquarters of Canback & Company. This is a mass and repeated addition of link spam. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty egregious spamming. The user needs to be blocked, and I'm not sure this is the best place to request such action. AN/I may be better. Coretheapple (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need, done. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I work for an agency that supports LinkedIn's communications team, so I am not NPOV on the topic, but we are hoping to see a short subsection added to the article. I've shared a fully sourced draft of the proposed addition on the article's talk page, and subsequently marked it with the request-edit template, but have yet to receive a response. If anyone would be willing to look over the draft, work with me on any changes to make it best suited to improving the page's value, and then make the update on my behalf, I'd be extremely grateful. MaryGaulke (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've recently noticed that ManagerTGE forces professionally taken photos (in a promotional manner) into Krysten Ritter, Dee Roscioli and Monica Raymund articles. This is user claims that the subjects are "his/her clients" ([3], [4], [5]) and has edited only on this purpose. Considering the edits, I think this is obviously a COI case. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hotel Polonia Palace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• John Polonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As the username indicates, John Polonia speaks on behalf of Hotel Polonia. Normally, I would not bother filing a complaint if it wasn't for his reverts of reasonable edits along the lines of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy/guideline. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 15:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue. Please move to Talk:Sony_Entertainment_Network

 – Retartist (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Moved to Talk:Sony Entertainment Network

 – Relocated as suggested - thank you! --ChrisThilk (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:SAS81 said "I am an employee of Dr. Deepak Chopra and represent his direct interests on Wikipedia and elsewhere."

More recently this user has attempted to obfuscate his/her financial relationship with Dr Chopra, claiming that "We don't argue for the sources being true or not, we just store them and present them and make sure they are being presented without bias. We do not advocate, endorse, refute, or promote. We're more like a library."

They have been promoting their employer, Dr Chopra, at great length on Talk:Deepak Chopra, and have recently been the subject of an arbitration enforcement request (not made by me).

They have now left a nastygram on my talk page, ("I look at this as a personal attack on my professional integrity"), in reply to me pointing out on Talk:Deepak Chopra that their representation of themselves as an independent researcher/librarian is inconsistent with their being an employee of Dr Chopra.

I request the user be topic-banned from pages relating to Deepak Chopra.

Thanks.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, nice to see everyone again. I'm unsure of the claim here but I am here to answer anyone's questions. My COI declaration is here. I've also participated in a previous COIN here.

I think BM is claiming that I am not really apart of an archive and repository and that I am somehow using that as a cover for something nefarious. I'm here to clear up any confusion but I must say, these continual personal attacks (I'm dishonest, etc) are not warranted and are especially without evidence. I requested BM and I have a side bar chat on his talk page to see what we could resolve. This COIN is his response.

There was an AE that was filed against me, and the admins who weighed in agreed with SlimVirgin's assessment that I was not the problem, but rather personal attacks and hostile editing environment was. I also see that my presence is causing plenty of drama which makes me feel uncomfortable so I am reaching out to a few editors who have some pretty harsh words to say about me and see if they can be addressed in user talk pages instead of the article talk page which is causing a distraction to the editors there who are getting worked up into a frenzy over my presence. I plan on laying for low other than that. I'm actually happy with the level of progress the article has and it really speaks well to the Wikipedia community seeing it evolve to the NPOV I was requesting. SAS81 (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've read you are an archivist, or sort of librarian I guess, working for a document archive operated by a group at least partially funded by Chopra, who sits on the board of directors. Have I got that right? Also, from what I understand, the archive tends to include documents of a type which relate to the type of activities in which Chopra has engaged himself.

If I'm right in all of that, then I can see no reason to have any reservations about you, any more than I would have reservations about any of those who I have had contact over the years who work at some libraries of Catholic or Luthern or other theological schools in my area. In fact, I would be overjoyed myself if someone from one or more of those schools were an active editor here, as it would make it that much more likely that the content relevant to those areas would be brought to a high level of quality. Good to have you here. John Carter (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter I know User:SAS81 talks about how he is part of an independent archival group. However on numerous occasions he has also mentioned that he "represent his direct interests" on Wikipedia"[6]. "'I've been requested by Dr. Chopra to directly represent his interests on Wikipedia"[7] I am not sure how someone who is representing his direct interests on Wikipedia and elsewhere can be an independent archivist. In addition in SAS' first user page he said "Hello. I am a representative from Chopra Media. We have genuine concerns about this article." [8] It does not seem like a true independent archivist would be from ChopraMedia. In addition SAS mentioned "Currently, our only active editor is me, SAS81. We will be adding more in the near future and our goal is to build the archive using experienced Wikipedia editors as our primary research team." This sounds a bit scary too me. This seems like a slippery slope. Someone or an organization who has a lot of money could hire a lot of people who can then spend all day looking up Wiki Policies, to browbeat talk pages. I They do not need to even edit the actual page, because they will be the consensus.

I appreciate the idea of Chopra having a archive that is open and handled by a number of professionals whose stated goals are to provide neutral information, and I appreciate SAS81 and Dr. Chopra in providing pictures and information. I believe SAS81's strong COI being the Direct Representative of Chopra on Wikipedia should limit his involvement to providing this information and not deciding through the talk page how Dr. Chopra's article should be written.

I propose limiting SAS81 to providing sources, pictures and the like, if he is willing, but not being able to propose how these sources etc. are used. I am worried that if we permit SAS81 to continuing editing without formal restrictions, other people from his organization will also join and be able to create a false consensus. It may not be this particular archival group that will do this, but if we don't set boundaries who is to say we might not be dealing with this same situation in a week or two with an anti-global-climate change group.VViking_TalkEdits 03:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is my perception that when Balaenoptera M. says that the "archive" (ISHAR) that SAS81 claims to work for is a smokescreen that is because SAS81 has constantly represented this archive as being entirely neutral and nonbiased and not connected to Deepak Chopra at all -except for funding. SAS81 has definitely hidden the nature of this archive which appears more and more- as the details come out- to be a New Age compendium and co-ordinating locus for a pseudoscientific assault on wikipedia. None of this matters in regards to good editors following good policy. But things are far from that simple. As VViking points out coordinated "researchers" could source flood Wikipedia fringe articles to "correct" them. Just yesterday a YouTube video was released where Deepak Chopra speaking about his current efforts to influence Wikipedia said: "I am definitely going to pursue this correction of behavior of some very bigoted, prejudiced people on Wikipedia who seem to have an agenda, who are skeptics, but they're not even skeptics." - "They're cynical angry people who have an agenda and I don't think they should be getting away with it." "If this is not resolvable Wikipedia should not exist."

So Dr. Chopra vowing to correct Wikipedia has hired a representative to sit on the Deepak Chopra article and they have formed a team that is creating this anti Wikipedia Trojan Horse "archive". It is not so much the new age topics that are off key. They are fine when seen as new age products and hobbies but not so good as the latest revolutionary life saving alternative medical and science breakthrough that you must have to be complete. If you know what I mean. I have asked SAS81 about this and SAS has refused to simply reply briefly and contribute any clarification. All aspects of this part of Deepak and SAS81's plan to "correct" Wikipedia is kept below the surface. Which is not showing good intent imo. SAS81 has had no trouble over the last few months claiming that the archive was wholly unbiased. I believe this is the suspected smoke screen -of ISHAR- that Balaenoptera has complained about. To my way of thinking people can set up what they want. The issue here is that SAS81 has not been forthright in this issue while painting himself as totally forthright. Balaenoptera is trying to point that out. I am sure that it is at least in part out of real concern for keeping Wikipedia free of organized stalking and big money interests. A concern that I also share. Big money is becoming a more common way to influence information to the liking and benefit of the "big money" holders. Another thing. When SAS81 says that the "admins who weighed in agreed with SlimVirgin's assessment that I (SAS81) was not the problem" but "personal attacks and (a)hostile editing environment was" Slimvirgin may have made this assessment but hers is certainly not the only opinion about what has been the problem. And not a single admin said that they agreed that SAS81 was not the problem,and that personal attacks and a hostile editing environment was. This is twisting of the real situation and it is a good example of SAS81's manipulating the narrative for outcome based reasons.. which I have seen a lot of and it usually comes surrounded with a ton of syrup words. What I saw instead of admins giving SAS81 a pass and approbation was Ed Johnston saying OK no action for now but- "My guess is that future problems may lead to a quick reevaluation." I was opposed to a ban because I just hate to see anyone be restricted. But I have to consider something like the limitations VViking proposed as being a possible wholesome solution to the disruption and continuing troubles that SAS81 claims is making him uncomfortable. The disruption is making a lot of people feel uncomfortable. It is not like the quality of the Chopra page lives or dies by having a paid COI sitting on it every day. I think as a model for the future of this and other Wikipedia articles it is not a healthy way to go and sooner or later it will have to be dealt with.Ptarmigander (talk) 05:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Anand Veeravagu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Policy5690expert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So, after being tipped off on an IP edit for the White House Fellows page, I found that the User:Policy5690expert is actually Anand himself. These two edits are proof where he says the deleted image is himself and he changed his username from his actual name to the policyexpert one above. Nearly all the edits on that article are from this user. Nasa-verve (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]