Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:20, 15 May 2008

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:

Possible autobiographies found by bot

• User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult   This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.

Requested edits

• Category:Requested edits.  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 undo the {{Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requestor to explain your decision.

Guido den Broeder vs. others

There is a lingering dispute between Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs) and GijsvdL (talk · contribs), which has spilt over from the Dutch Misplaced Pages. Guido den Broeder has filed a 3RR report (WP:AN/3RR#User:GijsvdL reported by User:Guido den Broeder (Result: See result) and two Wikiquette alerts (Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts#User:GijsvdL and Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts#nl:Misplaced Pages) on several users, including myself. Mediation by Scarian (talk · contribs) has failed, because the mediator withdrew. This dispute revolves around the allegation that Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs) has violated WP:COI by adding books he's written, published by his own publishing company (Magnana Mu), to articles. The user has also created articles for an organisation he's the treasurer of and for an organisation he founded. Being semi-involved to involved, I will not assess the merits of this allegation. What I'm here for, is to ask the visitors of this Noticeboard to intervene in this dispute and perhaps cut the Gordian knot. Aecis 22:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Aecis. I'd like to add that user:GijsvdL has refused to participate in the mediation for reasons provided at . Furthermore, the vast majority of my edits is on other topics. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There is one other self-reference at Types of unemployment.. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me summarize my take on this.

1. WP:COI applies to these cases, except where the references were reinserted by another user as in Melody Amber chess tournament.
2. WP:COI is a guideline for user actions. It has no bearing on the references or articles themselves. They should simply be neutral, reliable etc. as always.
3. WP:COI does not prohibit the user involved from editing.
4. WP:COI can only be violated by a user, not by an article or a reference.
5. WP:COI is violated if the user involved introduces a bias in the article.
6. The identity of the editors has no bearing on the neutrality of the article.
7. If a violation of WP:COI occurs, the response should be (a) to remove the bias, as always, which does not necessarily imply a revert or deletion, and (b) to check whether the user involved behaves in a disruptive manner.
8. As time passes, especially when the article is edited by other users without undoing the edits by the user involved, COI for these edits diminishes and eventually disappears.
9. If a self-reference is deleted and the reference is reinserted by another user, it is no longer a self-reference.
10. With regard to providing sources, there is no difference in guidance between ordinary references and self-references. Where providing a source is mandatory, it is also mandatory to do so for a user with a COI.
11. Self-referencing does not equal self-promotion, original research, or vandalism. Users claiming that it does, behave in a disruptive manner and should be dealt with accordingly. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Users should not make any major edits to articles of which they are directly/indirectly related to.

By writing books about the Melody Amber chess tournament you have put yourself in a position where you are related to the articles topic. You must've done research on the tournament which thus would have put you in a bias position.

By creating articles about organisations that you are related to you are seemingly trying to promote them. Even if you say otherwise, you should have NOT created those articles. WP:AfC and WP:REQUEST, the former being a section of Misplaced Pages I have vast experience in, are perfect for that. Scarian 08:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:AfC is for unregistered/anonymous users, so your experience relates to a different area. Am I correct to assume that you no longer claim the articles and references themselves to be tainted, and that you are withdrawing your accusation of self-promotion? Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you can submit articles even if you are a registered user on AfC (as, in my vast experience, I've seen it numerous times) :-) - But stop avoiding my point. You should not have created those articles. WP:REQUEST fits perfectly though! And I never actually said that the sources were tainted, you've obviously misread me. There is an obvious conflict of interest here. Any denial of this is, well, just pure denial. Scarian 09:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see appropriate action taken against user:Scarian for falsely accusing me of promotion. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, another user from the same mob at nl:Misplaced Pages has just joined the harassment team here, user:Migdejong. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, I would like to say where I stand on this one. To be blunt, the allegation that Guido has violated WP:COI has some merits. He has referenced himself, he has listed his own books, he has written about organisations he's involved in. But I think that's not the main issue. The main issue is that Guido is so emotionally involved in these subjects that he takes anything that doesn't match how he feels about something, as bad faith, inconstructive cabalism and vandalism. From dickish comments and misleading edit summaries to downright arrogance, there's only one way for Guido, and that's his way. Both here and on the Dutch Misplaced Pages, he has shown himself combative and uncooperative, to the point of becoming disruptive. To summarize, the problem is not the fact that he may have a COI, but the fact that this issue has led him to disrupt two Misplaced Pages projects. Aecis 11:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I find the above comments highly offensive and kindly ask you to withdraw them. I would appreciate an independent admin to step in at this point and see to it that this procedure follows due process. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• LOL, there already has been an indipendent admin involved but he didn't do what you wanted. Aecis just discribed your doings here perfectly and supported by edits even, you are not willing to behave in a normal way and you slander people who do not agree with you. Like I said before, this is not a fit behaviour for a man your age. You are only making it harder for yourself to be taking seriously... Jorrit-H (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Being an admin is no big deal on the English Misplaced Pages. Admins have some tools, but no special rights in content questions. However, wikilawyering aside, "due process" on Misplaced Pages involves an open discussion of the issues at hand. That is exactly what I see here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I am done here. Nobody seems to be the least interested to discuss the merits of this case, so what is the point? Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We were, even I was (still after more than a year) but you ignore comments, you trow mud and you are not open for another opinion. The problem lies within your own borders, do a little selfreflection now and then.. Jorrit-H (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're ready, stop throwing mud and comment on my 11 points above. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now I'm the one trowing? I see it's hard for you to take criticsm but fine I will react on your points above as long as you promise to take my reaction seriously, otherwise it has no use. Jorrit-H (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Any comments on my points will be taken seriously by me, Jorrit. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet when someone does, you find those comments defamatory, offensive and even highly offensive. Aecis 11:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

To my regret, I do, except that these comments are not on my points above. I'm still waiting for Jorrit though. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

External view: I think one problem is that you're trying to engage in a form of discourse that just isn't how things work here. No insult intended, but I've seen it a number of times with editors whose background is in analytical rule-based genres (e.g law, programming, tax, championship-level boardgames, etc). As Misplaced Pages:BUREAUCRACY points out, Misplaced Pages is not a moot court, and this kind of "I put it to you: point A, point B, point C... which implies ... etc" discourse is viewed negatively as wikilawyering, and in any case is pointless because policies/guidelines are interpreted by custom as well as strict wording.

For example, your point 3 - "WP:COI does not prohibit the user involved from editing" - does not have the corollary that such editing can be done with impunity; the custom is that it should be done with serious caution and always deferring to community opinion.

The bottom line is, if a number of independent editors view your edits as self-promotional, they probably are and you should defer to that view. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In my view, the bottom line should always be the quality of Misplaced Pages. We are not a community, we are a project team, and I will weigh other people's opinions in that light. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

{undent}Misplaced Pages can be improved without self-promotion. You can place your books, your websites, your suggestions on talk pages, where they will be reviewed by other editors and if there is merit, they will be added. If there is no merit, if it's just self-promotion, changes, sources and suggestions will be rejected. The template {{request edit}} can gather attention from other editors, as can requesting edits from editors known to you or active on the relevant pages. Though this may be slower than making the edits yourself, there is definite advantage to wikipedia using these methods - there is no taint of COI, and no concern over WP:NPOV violations or self-promotion. Ultimately your suggestions will rest on their merit rather than your perception of their merit and the quality of wikipedia is not improved by adding information you inherently can not be neutral on.

I have had contact with GDB on the CVS and VBI verening pages. My interactions suggest to me that he does not truly grasp the importance or essence of policies and guidelines - I'm not sure if it's deliberate or obtuseness. If it is obtuseness, then it is a very strange blind spot - GDB writes well, his spelling is adequate, his presentation of ideas is generally readable, but he does not seem to grasp what policies are saying and why. See User_talk:WLU/Archive_6#Vereniging_Basisinkomen in my archive, and in particular the curious discussion under the subheading User_talk:WLU/Archive_6#Notability. He seems unable or unwilling to understand which guidelines govern content (RS, NPOV, OR), and which govern article existence (N). Further, the two pages I was involved in were riddled with coatracking. On the VBI page, I removed the coatracking without incident and GDB has not tried to re-add. Which is it, unable or unwilling? I assume unable, which still suggests problems. Bluntly, GDB should not be adding his own work to pages. He has enough experience on wikipedia, and sufficient discussions related to COI that he knows this is problematic behavior. This isn't a matter of 'needs to be warned'. He is well aware of our position of COI and there is no excuse for violating it by adding sources he wrote and published himself. He is also by now aware that he should not be creating pages for organizations he is a major player in. He has sufficient tools available to him that there is no excuse for creating pages or adding information that may be problematic.

I do not doubt his sincerity, I do not think he is a vandal, but I do think his actions in many cases are well beyond questionable. My opinion would be future COI problems, judged by neutral admins, would result in escalating blocks. --WLU (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It is unfortunate, that nobody is interested in discussing my arguments, but all would rather discuss me. But how can you think to understand my motives and ideas, if you do not first try and grasp what I say? If none of you ask me even a single question, but simply keep repeating your own mistaken interpretations?

I know that there are many people who think the same as you, but you are not helping Misplaced Pages, you are killing it. The project is already declining, and its average quality deteriorating. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed your arguments on all the pages we've interacted on. The above is my opinion. My two archives point to issues you've had with a policy and a guideline and the difference between the two. COI is another area - several users have weighed in. WP:COI#Examples has several examples. You've cited yourself (note the statement "When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion."), adding books that you have written and published raises concerns over financial benefit. You've created articles that are of extremely tenuous notability - one has been deleted, the other has been AFD-ed and is on the borderline. Perhaps you might want to consider that other editors have a point and certain contributions should be filtered through uninvolved editors. If your expertise is truly formidable, then demonstrate this by citing sources and suggesting changes rather than editing directly. Text created on talk pages and sub-pages can be reviewed by other editors and if issue-free, pasted wholesale. Other editors find your edits problematic and tinted with COI concerns. So, rather than insisting, use alternative methods to draft sections. That would be my recommendation. WLU (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about a full total of 3 articles here, and a tiny fraction of my edits. None of which were found problematic by anyone until some users, all of them Dutch, had a disagreement with me about ME/CFS. So no, I am not in doubt. In cases where I was in doubt, I did post on the talk page. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am removing this page from my watchlist, so there is no point posting here again. If anyone wants a real discussion, instead of slinging opinions, post on my talk page. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Response seems typical of that being commented upon and disagreeing with a consensus of other editors, in fact worse, he dismisses other views out of hand and with arrogant bold ignore message - all reminisant of his block in December for 3RR violation where I observed "wikipedia is a collaborative process, so repeatedly stating in talk page discussions that various editors are on your ignore list is also disruptive". I support WLU's conclusion "My opinion would be future COI problems, judged by neutral admins, would result in escalating blocks"... David Ruben 13:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's typical - even if GDB doesn't think he's got a COI or conflict problem, others do, and you can't always get what you want (or think is right). Enough people have had problems with GDB's edits that it's arrived here and there's obvious issues with understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines in my mind. WP:SPS says they can be used with caution, and in the areas discussed (obscure chess problems) there may not be an alternative, but if someone else is objecting to you adding your own source, adding it anyway isn't a good idea. The first example in WP:COI is citing oneself, and ends with the sentence "When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion" - yep, I think that applies here. Since GDB isn't watching the page anymore, should a line be dropped on his talk page? In fairness towards his potential expertise, {{request edit}} should probably accompany the message (his original posting would have been timed when the template was a redlink - I've just corrected now). WLU (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

To whit. Revert-warring isn't a good sign, ever. WLU (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that blocking might be considered, in the light of Guido's yet again removing the COI tag from Vereniging Basisinkomen. Does anyone have an opinion on that option? Guido appears to be tone-deaf to the strong concerns expressed by the community. He has even less right to remove the COI tag when he has taken the COI noticeboard off his watchlist. I would warn him on his Talk page before doing so. EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion above applies as a community view & Guido den Broeder can't be excused from it by deciding not to listen. I've therefore posted a WP:Banned notice on his talk page specific to Vereniging Basisinkomen and limiting non-collaborative talk page wikilawyering. Failure to heed community request not to disrupt should be reported to WP:AN/I for an uninvolved admin to block. David Ruben 13:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

{undnet}Lovely, now there's an arbitration case. Sigh (reaches for a nice merlot). WLU (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Context, context2. WLU (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've completed my RFAR statement, but I am unclear whether as an alternative WP:AN/I should have invoked or this COI/N is sufficent admin authority in itself to review partial bans & my own handling of this... Presumably this now needs await ArbCom decission on the RFAR before any alternative actions taken ? David Ruben 00:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I will be very, very surprised if the RARB goes forward - there's a wealth of conflict resolution options that haven't been tapped, Guido didn't seem to understand what arbitration was, and it seems grossly overpowered and complicated for what is really a fairly simple dispute. WLU (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

RFAR been declined, suggesting that WP:AN/I seek further input, which is an appropriate means of reviewing editor actions, admin actions (and to be fair, also how I as an admin approached an issue), lets await views at WP:AN/I#Editor COI and COI/N proposal + review my actions.David Ruben 23:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

AN/I discussion closed & archived after a couple days of no further input to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive408#Editor COI and COI/N proposal + review my actions. No support stated for article ban, and GDB therefore free to resume editing - I note Jossi offered some sensible advice on approach to take in editing where the potential for COI. David Ruben 11:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

After having steered clear of this issue for about a week, I find the way the discussion has ran since I stepped out of it typical of the problem at hand. Our position on COI is very clear: be cautious, and when challenged, be even more cautious. All have acknowledged that Guido has a COI and that his editing is problematic. Guido ignores the concerns, and continues as if nothing has happened. He doesn't appear to be willing to even consider the idea that others might have a point. Every time an independent editor in good standing (Scarian, WLU, me) came to a conclusion Guido didn't appreciate, he assumed bad faith, questioned our impartiality and aptitude, and made vague accusations of cabalism, vandalism and incivility, as I've outlined above. Aecis 22:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Outlining does not make it true, and my own standing is not less than yours. Fortunately, other editors have since arrived to different conclusions. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Who? Where? Provide a diff, please, saying you have no conflict of interest and your editing is problem-free. Please provide a diff, as your depiction of other's statements is generally not accurate. You have been warned repeatedly and most of your conflict of interest problems have been resolved not by your statements but by third-party editors being willing to make a change for you, which is invariably the advice you have received and you would do well to simply follow this advice on all future incidents where you have a conflict of interest - being a member of an organization whose page you are editing and adding a source you have written or published. Diffs are meaningful. WLU (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Your own standing is indeed not less than that of others, but I have never said anything to that extent. What I said (and I will make it more clear this time) is that the editors who have indicated that your editing was problematic are not passers-by who have no idea of how Misplaced Pages works. If so many editors in good standing indicate that your editing is problematic, you should take it seriously, very seriously. They should not be ignored and discarded as you have done. You should listen to them and try to incorporate those suggestions/recommendations. We're not saying this out of a grudge against you, or anyone. If so many people see a problem, please consider the possibility that there really is a problem. Aecis 11:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Both of you: please stop mispresenting my statements and the situation. We just had an RfC where opinions were mixed.

@Aecis: The users that claim my editing to be problematic, are those that themselves do not contribute to the articles. The users that work with me on articles, do not report any problems. I'd rather trust their judgement, instead of that of passers-by, and I find it typical that you dismiss their opinions. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering this situation, some of the links where Guido den Broeder was involved in were added to several wikipedia, and some of these links got meta-blacklisted.

Links (follow the Meta XWiki link to the report):

• globalincome.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• pl.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• basicincome.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• globalincome.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• bepress.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• usbig.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• freiheitstattvollbeschaeftigung.de: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• search.japantimes.co.jp: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• planalto.gov.br: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• urss.ru: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com (spec: urss.ru/cgi-bin/db.pl?cp=&lang=en&blang=en&list=14&page=Book&id=34250)
• yale.edu: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com (spec: yale.edu/sociology/faculty/pages/wallerstein)
• fordham.edu: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com (spec: fordham.edu/halsall/mod/wallerstein.html)
• binghamton.edu: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com (spec: binghamton.edu/fbc/cmpg.htm)
• youtube.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com (spec: youtube.com/watch?v=mO7mSiZaZkg)

Users:

• 92.32.95.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Reports were put together in m:User:SpamReportBot/cw/globalincome.org. --Dirk Beetstra 08:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not involved in these blacklisted links and this has absolutely nothing to do with a COI. I merely encountered the problem when I tried to edit the article, and asked for the basic income links to be delisted since there seems to be no good reason for them to be on the blacklist. My request is still unanswered. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason is clear, there was excessive linking across several wikipedia by an IP in Scandinavia (Sweden?), creating sometimes massive linkfarms (see e.g. diff). I see that that is probably not you, still, since you are also using that link (as can be seen from the linkreports) I think that it is good to see that part of the situation as well. --Dirk Beetstra 11:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see any connection, so I suggest moving this to talk:Basic income. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

GDB asked for my thoughts on link blockage. Given since the time when this COI/N was started in early April, there has been a full and frank discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Guido den Broeder which is now on pause whilst everyone takes a breather and we see how well future article work progresses... I have to agree, going back now 4 weeks to relook at link usage seems probably unnecesary - PS the LinkSummary output is quite incomprehensible :-) I have to agree with GDB that there needs be a time when restating the same past link activity does become historical and irrelevant to the present time, the concerns have been stated and GDB is aware of this (irrespective of whether he agrees the edits were problematic COI or not). He clearly is now aware (its been stated often enough) that COI edits are not permitted if other editors state their is a problem with them. So, unless anyone can show good cause, IMHO this COI/N, like the RfC, probably now needs to pause. What counts now is how GDB works in the future, which links added, manner of interacting with other editors and how he responds to contrary views - if no future problems then COI/N RfC served their respective purpose, otherwise they form basis for AN/I review :-) David Ruben 18:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's all be aware that I am not this Scandinavian anon. I did not know that these links were blacklisted until I found that I could not edit a page that had them. Anyway, they have now been delisted on my request. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Michi-chan & REC Networks

I'm a little concerned about the articles Michi-chan and REC Networks, principally edited by User:Recnet, who identifies herself as Michelle Eyre, the subject of the first article and the principle owner of the business which is the subject of the second. The articles appear to be about notable subjects, but lack citations. Could someone familiar with WP:COI have a look and advise? - Michael J Swassing (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You left a message on Recnet's talk page back in November 2007 about the lack of citations in the articles, though nothing came of it. After looking into the Michi-chan article, I have nominated it for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Michi-chan. The REC Networks article also looks like it might be a candidate for deletion. BlueAzure (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated REC Networks for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/REC Networks. BlueAzure (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible COI edits on the Viktor Rydberg article. Thread #2

The COI reported earlier in the Viktor Rydberg article has never been resolved. The editor who is controlling the article to promote his self-published paperbacks has responded to my request for mediation with an ad-hominem attack on the Talk page, including posting a link to my employer's web page. Is there any action that can be taken to protect the Rydberg article (and other editors) from this guy? He is now posting as "JacktheGiantKiller," instead of using multiple anonymous IPs. Is there another forum I should go to for assistance? Rsradford (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone reviewing this matter should note that both parties allege COI, quite possibly correctly on both parts. Doc Tropics 04:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

As a point of clarification: the editor who has been controlling the Viktor Rydberg article has repeatedly promoted his vanity-press paperbacks in the article, where they are currently listed in the bibliography alongside the real books. OTOH, I have never, at any time, posted a link to my own article on Rydberg, specifically because I recognized it would violate Misplaced Pages's COI policy to do so. (Nor, of course, have I stalked and attacked other editors on the basis of their non-Misplaced Pages, RL employment.) Rsradford (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Rydberg suffers from having few English translations of his work. Reaves' translations of Rydberg are printed by a vanity press, but we are not relying on them for the truth of any matters of fact, so WP:SPS does not bite us here. I have no personal awareness of the quality of the Reaves translations, and some people consider those works of Rydberg on mythology to be silly, but that may be something we can allow our readers to sort out. A number of regular editors including User:Dbachmann have been making steady improvements on the article and they seem to be allowing the Reaves' translations to remain listed in the bibliography. There may no longer be a big problem to solve here. I left a note at User talk:Jack the Giant-Killer urging him to observe WP:CIVIL. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for investigating. Although it seems odd for a Misplaced Pages article to list as references self-published "translations" by a person who can neither read nor write the original language of the texts, that is really a side issue. The problem is, to help convince Misplaced Pages readers to buy his books, Reaves has persistently violated NPOV by excising from the article all references to scholarship critical of Rydberg. This is the core issue, which no one will be able to address so long as Reaves is allowed to use Misplaced Pages for self-promotion. Is it a big problem? Only to those who attach some special value to the historical version of Norse mythology, as opposed to Rydberg's racial-nationalist fantasies. Rsradford (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion that Reaves is attempting to bias the Misplaced Pages article as part of some promotion campaign for his books is completely baseless. The fact of the matter is, that regardless of who printed the books, he has made available in English works of Rydberg that were not available in English before, and inclusion of such works is completely relevant to readers who would like to know more about Rydberg. The substance of your comments suggests that your viewpoints are biased in such a direction that you would rather not have anyone reading such works, based on hand-picked theories about what constitutes "the historical version" of Norse mythology. Reaves' portrayals are balanced and inclusive of criticism, but if he is slanting the editing of articles, perhaps it is to counter another editor who clearly has an agenda, an agenda that has little to do with a fair and balanced portrayal of Rydberg. And once again, "racial-nationalist fantasies" is a charge that has yet to stick, let alone be proven. CarlaO'Harris (talk) 01:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You may be right that the article is unbalanced, since it covers Rydberg's myth work in such positive terms. I'm especially dubious about Ref. 19 of the article, which says that the point of view expressed in Hamlet's Mill is becoming widely accepted. (There was recently a big furor on WP:ANI about poorly-supported theories of Archaeoastronomy). If you can make a focused proposal on Talk that includes reliable sources, which explains how to restore balance about his theory of myths to the article, I would welcome it.

I'm disturbed that there are so many personal attacks on Talk:Viktor Rydberg; this could lead to admin action if it continues. New opinions expressed on that page which contain personal attacks may be removed without further ado. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Kudos with regard to the policy on personal attacks. Enforcing it will be absolutely essential if NPOV is to be restored to the Rydberg article. I am preparing the focused proposal you requested, and will post it for discussion on the Rydberg Talk page when it is completed. Rsradford (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Editors following this COI case may want to go to Talk:Viktor Rydberg and give their opinion in the latest thread. User:Rsradford gave a well-organized proposal and User:Dbachmann has offered support for adding a link to Radford's web site and making some of Radford's changes. I would say Radford's new text is almost ready to put in the article, give or take some copy editing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If there are no further comments on the proposal to restore NPOV on Talk:Viktor Rydberg, I will proceed to implement points I and III. I will leave it to others to deal with the unverified quotes from foreign-language sources, if anyone else finds that issue to be sufficiently troubling. Rsradford (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin action needed? An editor named Jack the Giant-Killer is deleting a newly-added section containing criticism by later scholars. The section was added per the COIN discussion above, in the effort to make the article neutral. Since COI editing can lead to blocks, per WP:COI, please comment here if you see any other course of action than warning User:Jack the Giant-Killer about admin action.Summarizing:

• Jack the Giant-Killer is an enthusiast for one of the English translations of Rydberg's work on mythology, to the point where common sense might indicate he is either the translator or his good friend.
• After adding what are possibly his own books to the reference list, he seems to be reverting out any criticism of Rydberg's myth work. For example, see the reverts here, here and here. He is reverting out what many of us believe to be a neutral version.
• The previous archived COI report has more detail on the authorship of the translations.

Unless anyone objects, I will start leaving warnings of admin action on Jack's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a neutral point of view issue, whether or not there is a conflict of interest. If the editor persists in povpushing after sufficient warnings, they may need to be blocked. Let me know if it comes to that point. Jehochman 03:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Craig Moore (Broadcaster)

Craig Moore (Broadcaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created by CraigMoore2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and edited today (3 edits) by Moorecraig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which could be conflict of interest since the article fails to state sources. User also added a Youtube link to the Prime Television article which was reverted by XLinkBot. Bidgee (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

article speedy deleted as A7, bio no assertion of notability. Done only after google search. Gnangarra 12:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Craig Moore (Broadcaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been readded by Moorecraig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)! Bidgee (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• I added a proposed deletion template to this article. Weathermen are not notable due to mere appearance on television; they need to be covered by reliable sources. Like journalists or creative professionals, they should have an influential body of work to meet the definition of notability. EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• User removed it and I revert it but was then removed by a Admin. How many times can this user keep readding something that state no sources and notability?. How I understand it it's been deleted 3 times and most likely the 4 time and messages have been left and by now should have some idea that there is policies on Wiki. Bidgee (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• I salted the article to prevent its immediate recreation. User can go to WP:DRV or request a full WP:AFD if he wishes. Still no sources provided. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• An admin has allowed recreation of the article, believing that there was at least a claim of notability. WP:PROD has been reinstated. I imagine there will be an AfD before long. EdJohnston (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Robert Lindblad

• Robert Lindblad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Robert Lindblad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Psychic making another crack at his autohagiography, which appears to have been deleted two years ago. It still has no good cites - all blogs and shocker sorts of news. Tagged for speedy. Bearian (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Robert Lindblad. Most of the items offered as references are copyvios, scans of newspapers hosted on his own personal site. I did not find any quotes from the official investigators in any of the cases confirming his value in the investigation. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

U2charist

• U2charist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — repeatedly edited by U2charistTeam, including edits using the first person pronoun and including unverifiable material, such as the thought processes of members of the parish of St. George's in York Harbor. Usually adds links to the website of that parish. Editor may be a member of the "U2charist Team" of St. Georges, York Harbor. Editor MKinman's username is similar to that of Mike Kinman, executive director of Episcopalians for Global Reconciliation, an organization promoted in MKinman's edits.

User:Mind meal

• Mind meal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - has created Kwan Um School of Zen as well as articles on the various teachers (see links in the article). The fact that this person has photos and biographical information on people who are otherwise NN shows that he or she has a direct connection to these individuals. He also nommed the article for GA. I would ask that articles created by this user be reviewed for notability and CSDed where applicable - he has two years worth of articles that are unsourced, and I assume this can be done faster with admin tools than I can by hand. MSJapan (talk) 04:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The article on Kwan Um School of Zen appears to be very well done, and it has many references. It's also well integrated into WP's broader coverage of American Zen Buddhism. This article includes sourced negative information about a scandal that happened at the center, so it is not suppressing criticism. Please try to identify a more specific problem. EdJohnston (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Two years worth of articles that are unsourced? That part truly puzzles me. You may be able to find some of my earlier contributions that had this trouble, as I was still learning how things are done on the site. The photos in the Kwan Um School of Zen article were released by Flickr users (plural), as well as through some email correspondences—they are not mine. This is all verifiable. Do I have a particular interest in the Kwan Um School of Zen? Yes, I do. I have sat with their groups before. Am I an active member of their organization? I am not. I have an interest in Zen Buddhism period. If interest equals conflict of interest by default, I'd be interested to know how you arrived at that conclusion. I'm really at a loss for why you would do this, as I cannot see the logic. Do I have a conflict of interest for starting jazz related articles of musicians I have seen live? (Mind meal (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC))

I'm requesting this be closed. It is a bogus claim, frankly. (Mind meal (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC))

User:Jgoodness

• Jgoodness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Has a conflict of interest on John J. Myers and other articles concerning Archdiocesan institutions. Admits of beeing a coi user on his user page. Is currently trying to censor material from John J. Myers. User Dœ _αT 15:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that it's a highly sensitive topic relating to a living person, it may be appropriate to remove it per WP:BLP. The material Jgoodness removed looks distinctly polemical and WP:SYNTH - building an original hostile argument from various newspaper sources. I recommend running it past Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• A'right. Have put it up at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. User Dœ _αT 20:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

User:DavidBParker

DavidBParker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single purpose account the sole purpose of which seems to be to promote a computer language known as "Flaming thunder". He has made several attempts to insert discussions of this language into various articles: Interval (mathematics) (, ) and Cross compiler (), Literate programming (), and Alphabetical list of programming languages (). The user was also working on an article Flaming thunder which was sandboxed by User:Orangemike to User:DavidBParker/Flaming Thunder. There is little doubt that this author has a conflict of interest, having a financial interest in the commercial product "Flaming thunder". See, for instance, the email address to this post on mathforum. Orangemike and I have both tried to engage this user on User talk:DavidBParker, but he seems to be more interested in splitting hairs about Misplaced Pages policy than in actually following them. Could someone please look into this, and maybe explain to Mr. Parker why his contributions are inappropriate? Thanks, silly rabbit (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

> Orangemike and I have both tried to engage this user on User talk:DavidBParker, but he seems to be more interested in splitting hairs about Misplaced Pages policy than in actually following them.

Orange Mike not only tried to engage me, he (and FCSundae) succeeded. Because they were correct. My original article on Flaming Thunder wasn't up to Misplaced Pages standards. They pointed out why, offered constructive criticism, and then Orange Mike restored the text to a sandbox for me to continue working on. Which I am. And I'm not going to repost it until it meets Misplaced Pages standards -- which means it may sit in my sandbox for a while until there are enough external references about it to make it "notable".

If that's not following Misplaced Pages policy, what is?

> Could someone please look into this, and maybe explain to Mr. Parker why his contributions are inappropriate?

Yes, please do. To start with, why shouldn't Flaming Thunder be in the alphabetical list of programming languages under F? Silly rabbit deleted it.

DavidBParker (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed flaming thunder because: (1) it was a redlink (no encyclopedia article), (2) inserted by someone (you) with an obvious financial interest in the site (a WP:COI), and (3) the language appears to have no independent coverage by reliable sources outside the main website www.flamingthunder.com. silly rabbit (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how any of those affect the verifiable fact that Flaming Thunder starts with "F", but whatever. Two questions: 1) once Flaming Thunder has independent coverage by reliable sources, may I reinsert the link under "F"? 2) if I delete all mentions of Flaming Thunder from the cross compiler article, may I reinsert the information about why cross compilers are so difficult to maintain? The part I added had the only mathematical explanation in the article; the person who wrote the GNU C section referred only to "the huge amount of work it takes to maintain working cross compilers" without explaining why the amount of work can be O(n). DavidBParker (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The material you added about Flaming Thunder in Cross compiler seemed inappropriate to me. There must be many hundreds of cross compilers in the world, and it's hard to justify singling out yours in that article. There was no source provided to show that Flaming Thunder now solves problems that no previous cross compiler had ever solved. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What I asked was: if I remove all references to Flaming Thunder, may I reinsert the information about why cross compilers are so difficult to maintain? That information is applicable to all cross compilers, not just Flaming Thunder. DavidBParker (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You should not re-insert the information unless you have a published source. Your own say-so is not enough. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. If I remove all references to Flaming Thunder, may I reinsert the information about why cross compilers are so difficult to maintain, along with references to reliable independent sources? DavidBParker (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Only if that characterisation of the problems of cross compilers ("inherent weakest-link and version-coherence problems ... the maintenance and debugging problems" etc) is previously published. That is, the idea that cross compilers are problematical must not be a novel argument constructed from sources that don't state this overall conclusion. See WP:SYNTH. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"... the idea that cross compilers are problematical must not be a novel argument constructed from sources that don't state this overall conclusion." It's not novel; the GNU C section in the existing article already states that overall conclusion when it refers to "the huge amount of work it takes to maintain working cross compilers, in many releases some of the cross compilers are broken" in its 3rd sentence. So, if I remove all references to Flaming Thunder, may I reinsert the information about why cross compilers are so difficult to maintain, along with references to reliable independent sources? DavidBParker (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Only if the sources explicitly state the overall conclusion that there are problems with cross compilers. That statement from the GNU C section appears equally unsourced. As User:Silly rabbit says below, if you don't directly add material on Flaming Thunder (or attempt to spin the text on cross compilers to favour it) the COI aspect is dealt with, and it becomes a content issue better dealt with at the associated Talk page. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Overall, with the above provisos, I would say that Mr. Parker's latest proposal sounds reasonable. If it is still problematic, it seems like a potential content dispute more suited to the article talk page at Talk:Cross compiler than here. I would still strongly urge him to avoid making edits that mention Flaming Thunder directly, although I see no reason that he should not be permitted to edit the encyclopedia in other ways. silly rabbit (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that sounds reasonable to me. I'm still a newbie around here and didn't realize that mentioning Flaming Thunder (a cross compiler that supports interval arithmetic, whose philosophy is to leverage literacy, and whose name starts with "F") on the cross compiler, interval arithmetic, literate programming, and programming languages starting with "F" pages would be at all controversial.

I won't make any edits that mention Flaming Thunder without some sort of permission or approval from someone. Which leads to a newbie question: if I feel that Flaming Thunder might be appropriate to mention on a particular topic page, is it okay for me to ask permission on the discussion page or something? I would of course announce that I'm the guy who wrote Flaming Thunder (which should be obvious from my email address: daveparker@flamingthunder.com) so as to be totally transparent regarding COI issues. DavidBParker (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning Flaming Thunder is not controversial: directly adding material on it when you have a conflict of interest is. By all means ask on the Talk pages. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Or should I use the "request edit" mechanism? I just noticed it in section 2 near the top of this page as I was scrolling down. DavidBParker (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Requested edits doesn't seem terribly well-frequented; it's probably better to raise it directly at the associated Talk page(s). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you to everybody for your comments and clarifications. DavidBParker (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Boxmoor

Boxmoor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Noticed user adding references to same author's work to multiple articles, even when it was not directly referenced in article. All of editor's contributions have been either commentary or promotion of work by "Sally Ramage". Through Google searches, "Boxmoor" is a pseudonym of Sally Ramage Dabydeen (SR Dabydeen): http://www.suite 101.com/profile.cfm/boxmoor (second url is blacklisted and can't be linked; added space between suite and 101) Rurik (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

See also 88.111.225.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is also adding only references to Ramage's work, without much regard for how it attaches to the text. I wouldn't have so much of a problem if these were given as actual citations, but in this edit, the references are made to appear as though they are actual citations for statements in the article. I'm going to start removing these references, unless someone wants to give citations. The circumstances are already rather suspicious, and the reference lists are beginning to look like a CV of Ramage's rather than a list of references for the article. silly rabbit (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: 88.111.225.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has admitted to being Sally Ramage. silly rabbit (talk) 01:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

COI on Render unto Caesar...‎

If you check the history on this article, you'll notice 2 edits by Ned Netterville (talk · contribs) in March in which he cites himself as a source. Ned believes that the U.S. income tax is morally wrong and has pushed this opinion on many pages (see any of his contribs for an example). However, since his last edit, there have been several further additions to the page. Anyone have the time to try to extricate the article? Burzmali (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Laserhaas

Laserhaas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is apparently a party in a long-running legal dispute involving eToys.com. He has made POV edits to this page and twice created the attack page Paul Traub of Traub Bonaquist n Fox (now salted) about one of the attorneys also involved in this case. I have attempted to advise him on proper procedures, but he appears intent on continuing his crusade here. Your advice and assistance woulld be appreciated. Thanks. --Finngall 19:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Naked short selling

PatrickByrne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Patrick M. Byrne is the president, CEO and chairman of Overstock.com, an internet retailer. Overstock (OSTK) stock prices have declined in value recently, and Byrne has made accusations and filed lawsuits to support his claim that a number of funds, financial analysts, journalists, etc have colluded to engage in the practice of naked short selling of Overstock shares.

Now, Byrne claims that persistant naked short selling against Overstock, rather any financial issues, artificially depressed the share price of the company. In other words, if you accept Byrne's claims at face value, (his) Overstock stock is worth more than its market value. It seems inappropriate that an individual with possibly the most major interest possible (bar, say, Richard Altomare) in the controversy regarding the importance of naked short selling is editing our article to push his fork as a replacement for our main article, despite a number of issues that have been pointed out by editors with more financial chops than me and a distinct lack of glaring conflicts of interest. John Nevard (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Returning to the real world for a moment... My changes were simply to rearrange the sections of the article, which are so scattershot as to be unreadable, into a cohesive structure. All the NSS-apologist arguments that were there before are still there, and in fact, are featured more prominently than ever. They are just not scattered with apparent randomness through the article. PatrickByrne (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As the article still includes obvious misquotes and uncited editorial comments that were there before you forked it, even this is untrue. John Nevard (talk) 08:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Despite the possibility that your edits were warranted and don't constitute a conflict of interest, it might be best, Patrick, to leave editing of this particular article to others, in the interest of alleviating such concerns. If you have suggestions for the article you should express them on the talk page instead. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Adil Najam - seems deletion is part of a culture war

(originally I called this section Adil Najab by mistake. Corrected. Pashute (talk)

I was not aware of Professor Adil Najab until reading about negotiation. Found the page was deleted twice, but the reasons given were "Self advocacy". In Misplaced Pages there are several articles which cannot be done without him. I looked up the person on the web: Thousands of entries in various media outlets, quotes from books that he wrote, articles and quotations, and wrote a very short entry with some links. 5 minutes later, when coming to add something I found the article deleted. Looking further I found some controversial sayings of his. I have no personal or other interest in this person, but it seems the people deleting him do. Pashute (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any deletion log for that specific spelling. Could you double-check and make sure you've typed the name correctly? Equazcion •✗/C • 10:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I found the article you're referring to - it was Adil Najam. The article was originally deleted as a result of this discussion, and was deleted again recently because the new article was apparently a recreation of the material that was originally deleted. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So in conclusion, you could begin a new article on this person if you like. Just make sure it's well-sourced, establishes notability, and isn't a mere recreation of the deleted article. It might also be a good idea to inform Ragib, the deleting admin, that you intend to re-create the article from scratch. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, meant Adil Najam. I cannot start a new article. Rajib seems to be claiming I'm only recreating an old article. Please see my answer to Rajib below.

I do take offense at the comment by Pashute above. This article is in my watchlist since I had prodded it as NN bio in the past (the article was deleted following an AFD a year before that, and was re-deleted due to the NN content/G4). I did look into the "new" content Pashute is claiming there, and it is simply a rehash of the old content with no update on the notability of the subject (with a few new Youtube or blog links). So, this falls under CSD:G4. Apart from nominating the article based on the NN of the subject, I have no idea / interest etc. about the subject. So, I find Pashute's suggestion of any hidden agenda quite objectionable. Any other admin is free to look into the deleted content again and decide for him/herself. By the way, Pashute first recreated Adil Najam, then following deletion, created Adil najam. I deleted both under CSD:G4. --Ragib (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not mean to offend, please forgive me, but on my talk page you left a message that there was no place to discuss this. I don't understand how my article can be a reproduction, when I never heard of the man before, until reading about Negotiation on wikipedia, and created it from scratch from the first 100 or so google posts that I found about him, and included good sources to each of the five or six points that I wrote! I felt its a cultural war to eliminate this person, since my post was very short, and well sourced, with media of all sorts and locations showing credibility to the person AND notability. Still don't understand how it can be NN. In your talk page, and above I wrote the full scope of notability I found. (about the Adil najam: without capital I created the page as Adil najam FIRST, then saw it had a small leter in it, and thought that if I post the capital, the small letter would change. Thats good you deleted it. So you are claiming that it was NN the SECOND time. I did not see that, and would like to. According to Equazcion above the second was deleted because it was a reproduction! My short entry CANNOT be a recreation of the first entry. A few minutes after entering it, it was deleted. I then started searching to understand if there is any controvercy around him or his sayings. I found that there definitely is, but could not bring any of it to Misplaced Pages, because you erased the entry altogether. Rajib, maybe you could put up a page with what you think IS relevant, or tell me which points to remove/change/add. But the remaining question to you Ragib is: Do you still think the man is non notable?! Pashute (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have already instructed you to take deletion related requests to deletion review page. The article has been AFD'd as non-notable ... and if you want any review regarding the AFD, Deletion review is the proper place. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

IvanAnywhere

• IvanAnywhere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Gpaulley (talk · contribs)
• Quietn (talk · contribs)

This article has a number of single-purpose and near-single-purpose accounts adding unsourced and distinctly promotional material . Particularly, it's notable that a Glenn Paulley, Director of Engineering at Sybase iAnywhere, is one of the prime movers of the IvanAnywhere project. 82.25.236.14 (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Boston Children's Museum

Boston Children's Museum

Mkendrab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Admitted her job/COI here, which I noticed after she dropped me an e-mail to ask if I'd remove the {{primarysources}} tag I placed in March. Article appears much improved, but I haven't gone through it with a fine tooth comb. Might benefit from another set of eyes. I haven't warned her because she contacted me and I don't want to seem bitey in response _{TravellingCari} 20:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Greater Grace International School

Article: Greater Grace International School Pirgeri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 'first official edition' consisted of PR speak. Has been revered on the talk and the prior version restored on the article. _{TravellingCari} 04:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

and again going to be one to watch _{TravellingCari} 04:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

and AGAIN!. I final warned, it's a little insane. Going offline, it's 1AM EST _{TravellingCari} 05:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Best Friends Animal Society

• Best Friends Animal Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• CatDogLover (talk · contribs)
• Layla2008 (talk · contribs)

and

• Jpolis (talk · contribs)

This has also been raised at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts#User:Layla2008. It's largely a content dispute that needs a general cluebat on both sides, but the COI angle is that Layla2008 asserts that CatDogLover is a Cathy Scott, who's a staff writer for the organisation ; and CatDogLover asserts that Layla2008 is Ms Jade, a columnist at The Dog Press who has a history of hostile editorial on the topic. So apparent COI on both sides. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

To note, I am not Ms Jade, nor am I associated with the Dog Press. I have posted the references, all verifiable, reliable, published newspapers, magazines, and books to the discussion page to back up my post. Pls also note that CatDogLover made a veiled threat with a comment about "libelous" information. Layla2008 (talk) 06:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Are COI claims immune from WP:OUTING? --Dodo bird (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Partially - it depends if there's evidence (e.g. self-admission, strong evidence from IP address or user name, etc). If that can be shown in relation to biased editing of an article where they have an interest, I think it counts as a valid reason for outing, merely to ask that they declare their interest and work within WP:COI guidelines. I wasn't sure of the rightness of mentioning these claims explicitly. But as each has made the claim about the other - CatDogLover keeps repeating it in edit summaries - it's well on the table and needs dealing with, if only to warn one or both to stop if they can't show evidence. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Apart from recognizing her writing style, CatDogLover's contributions show edits to the William Scott and Cathy Scott pages, as well as numerous Ocean Beach pages, which is the area in which I believe she lives. Certainly she is not denying it, whereas I have stated many times now I am not Ms Jade. As a note, the materials she is posting on the wiki page mirror promotional and 501c materials from Best Friends as well. Which creates a copyright issue in itself, but it does seem to indicate that CatDogLover is definitely on the Best Friends payroll. Another poster on this site, JPolis, also appears to be an employee. Layla2008 (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the contribution pattern looks strong evidence; and I agree about Jpolis, who has self-identified as a John Polis . Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Bob Thompson (musician)

• Bob Thompson (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• BobThompsonMusic (talk · contribs)

The subject of the article does seem notable. However, the referenced user's contribution to the article are mixed, and seem to have both a Non-NPV and a mildly spammy feel. --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 05:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh, this article needs cleanup, but it looks notable enough and should be okay if there a copyeditor with some free time. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

User:64.230.71.197

User:64.230.71.197 is making dozens of edits on tenuously connected articles, all with very similar text promoting a new book. The Wednesday Island (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This IP is promoting books by Opal Carew. The article about the author looks non-notable and has already been prodded. I believe that the May 8 edits by this account are all promotional and should be rolled back. I invited this editor to join the discussion here. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Colonel Warden

I posted this earlier on a wrong page, so I'm just cutting and pasting everything including the replies: A user named Colonel Warden(talk), while usually not a vandal per se, seemingly took my earlier unrelated merging proposal too personally and now repeatedly reverts my edits of the page with no regard to the provided arguments. I don't know how exactly the process works, but I would like to ask an intervention by somebody who has the authority to make resultant the edit war stop. My earlier arguments about the inappropriateness of the use of "several" can both be seen either on Talk:Multiplayer_game and on the history page of Multiplayer_game. Again, since Colonel Warden, who quite obviously has no visible background in video gaming, contradicts his own proposed definition of the term and and doesn't provide any explanation for his actions, I can only threat this as an act of vandalism. Thank you. Rankiri (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• "Whilst Colonel Warden can have his moments, in this case I think he's right. A proposed merger of Multiplayer video game and PC Multiplayer is fine (and even necessary), but Multiplayer game has nothing to do with either of these articles, bar the fact that the video game element could be mentioned in that article. Regardless, this is a content dispute, which is on the third door down on the left." QUOTE:Black Kite 23:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• It's not the merger, it's the use of the word "several" in the opening definition of the term ("A multiplayer game is a game which is played by several players.") that is not correct. "Several", according to the very same Oxford dictionary quoted by the user in question is "more than two but not many". Multiplayer game is a more than one player game, period (both from dictionary definitions and common usage of the term). That is, a 100-player game and even a 100,000-player game would still be called multiplayer. The problem is that the user consciously reverts this edit with no regard to the dictionary references and other arguments, and I see this form of tendentious editing as a personal act that has nothing to do with facts or objectivity. Rankiri (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you read WP:COI? this is the noticeboard relating to people writing about stuff they have a personal connection with. The Dominator_Edits 02:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I went with "such as disputes with tendentious editors and cases where editors are repeatedly adding problematic material over a longer period of time". If it's not tendentious editing and it doesn't count as vandalism at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, where do I have to go and should it really take me an hour to ask for a third opinion about replacing a word according to its direct dictionary definition? I'll just have to do that tomorrow... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rankiri (talk • contribs) 03:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Though this isn't a COI question, I can't resist adding my opinion anyway. The dictionary indicates that 'several' implies more than two. The actual usage of 'multiplayer game' that you can find on the web does include two players as a frequent case. This question should probably be moved over to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games where you can find people with the proper expertise. EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Lotte Motz Entry

• Lotte Motz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A single editor, RSRdford has taken de facto ownership of the entry "Lotte Motz" in Misplaced Pages. To date, he has thwarted all attempts to edit the article, immediately reverting to his original version, and verbally abusing his fellow editors. He has falsely claimed that my efforts to edit the article are racist and anti-semetic in nature. On one hand, he says that my edits are plagarized and on the other says they are unverifiable. Obviously, this behavior is irrational. I have cited my sources, and all information I have included is verifiable. I would like a moderator to intervene, if possible, to protect the article as necessary. Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless you can point to any particular close relationship to the topic of the article, this looks like a two-handed edit war over a content dispute, not a COI issue. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

So are there moderators for such things? or shall I continue to attempt to edit the article in question and take the abuse of this editor?

Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone'll notice, or you could try WP:ANI - but they'll tell both of you to stop the edit warring. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who checks the Talk page can confirm that I have repeatedly asked Jack the Giant-Killer for citations to any published scholarship in support of his anti-Semitic opinions concerning Prof. Motz's work. He has made no atempt to provide such documentation, but nevertheless insists on inserting his personal views and "original" insights into the article. I have also explained to him that cutting and pasting large blocks of text from published work into an article is plagiarism, but to no effect. When confronted with a rogue user like Jack, whose sole motivation is to inject anti-Semitic bias into an article, and who refuses to participate in dialogue toward a consensus, what mechanism exists to protect an article from continued attacks? Rsradford (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Rsradford, please avoid personal attacks on this noticeboard. I suggest you withdraw the phrase 'rogue user.' You may describe content any way you wish, but not users. Please find a replacement for saying 'his anti-Semitic opinions' as well. It is surprisingly common for both participants in a hot dispute to wind up getting sanctioned. Since I sympathize with the content you have added, I hope this doesn't happen to you. EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Reiner Hartenstein autobiography and COI edits

It appears this person created and/or heavily edited an article on himself and created/edited a large number of other articles that seem to have COI problems. I can't tell if he satisfies the notability requirement. He has previously been found to have used the following user IDs: RainierH, RainierHa, Rainier3 and Rwdh, although they don't seem to be used for the purpose of sockpuppeting because of their obviousness. He may also have edited under the user IDs of Karl-tech and Huebner.

He has also created resume-like articles on Wolfgang Nebel, Karl Steinbuch, Helmut Metzner and Nick Tredennick. Notability does not seem established for at least the first 3.

My biggest concern is the long list of articles he created for what are essentially technology terms, many of which mention him directly or his concepts. Several are redundant with each other and most would be orphans if it weren't for the fact they link to each other though wikilinks. There are also articles on organizations with undocumented notability. Questionable articles include: Structured VLSI design, Structured hardware design, Morphware, Configware, Flowware, A Block diagram Language, Anti machine, Domino notation, Auto-sequencing memory, Super systolic array, KressArray, Configware Compiler, Data counter, Generic Address Generator, Auto-sequencing memory, Reconfigurable datapath array, Data path unit, Von Neumann syndrome, EUROMICRO, CSELT, Weikersheim Think Tank and Lernmatrix. He has deleted PRODs on his articles, but at least two have been deleted: KARL and Xputer.

I suggest that most of his terminology articles be merged into the Reconfigurable computing terminology, which is a glossary article. Unfortunately I'm not knowlegeable enough to know which terms are truly industry jargon. OccamzRazor (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• I checked the first three bio articles that were questioned for notability. In my view, they do pass the threshold for keeping, though the articles need a lot of work and more references. I took the liberty of removing notability tags from those three articles. Others are welcome to review my changes.
• Reiner Hartenstein looks notable, though the article might be improved.
• The creator of all these articles, who we must assume is Reiner Hartenstein due to the many clues from the user names, may be hard to reach since none of his accounts have edited for many months. Somebody might check the German Misplaced Pages to see if he is still active there. It can't hurt to add to our coverage of German computer scientists.
• The topic articles seem weaker to me and I bet some of them might be deleted. Computer scientist editors are invited to look them over and give their opinion. If I get some time, I may go through them eventually. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

While new to COI, I agree with EdJohnston review above, and I will look more into the terms myself tomorrow or later this evening. I'll also go to work on the bio's as well. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

76.190.176.65

• Tom Kent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• TKO Radio Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• contributions

IP address whose contributions have been entirely to the Tom Kent and TKO Radio Network articles. In the Tom Kent article, user wrote a rather peacock-like biography, while also removing links to the TKO Radio Network. On the TKO Radio Network article, the user has repeatedly removed any reference to Kent (who founded the network but later left). Strong suspicion that this address is Kent himself or one of his close associates (edited). J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Even though this is COIN, we must be careful of WP:OUTING, lets just assume that the address has a strong COI in our discussion, rather than assign a RL identity. MBisanz 16:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

DJ Sassy

• DJ Sassy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article, once nominated for deletion for promotional and notability concerns, has for the past few weeks been subject to changes from various IP editors which seem to originate from the subject or an affiliate (see edit summary). After I addressed the COI issue with that IP editor, here, a newly registered user appeared to make the same changes. I've tagged the article with {{COI2}} since I'm quite sure at this point that the article is not promotional (or white-washed), and I've reiterated some of the points to the newly registered editor, here, but I would be very grateful for additional eyes on this. As my revision of the article to provide sourcing and eliminate bias was cited as one of the reasons it was not deleted, I feel a responsibility to prevent its being used for misrepresentation, but as I revised the article I do not wish to give the appearance of ownership issues. Uninvolved feedback and/or reinforcement here as necessary would be very much appreciated. I am very accustomed to dealing with BLP issues, but am far less familiar with COI conflict. --Moonriddengirl 15:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, one more point: Please also note that the edit summaries may be somewhat misleading. Note that the most recent indicates "Removal of inaccurate references", among other concerns, but of the references altered, one has not been removed, only relocated. The others are this article in the Manchester Evening News and an external link to a review in The Mirror. (That EL, frankly, doesn't add much to the article and was only included to help substantiate widespread coverage of the individual. The fact that it is critical of the subject, though, as is the Manchester Evening News link, makes its removal somewhat suspect.) --Moonriddengirl 15:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Your actions seem correct to me. There is certainly a recent blaze of activity on this article since May 1st. You left the appropriate queries for the editors who were removing information. If there is any genuine BLP concern they should be able to explain what it is. If we can't get anything coherent out of the reverting editors, another AfD is something to consider. When COI-affected editors continue to revert without discussion we can propose admin action, but we usually wait to see if we can get their attention first. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. The individual is now discussing his concerns with me, and it may be that this thread has helped him to realize my purpose better. Hopefully, we'll be able to reach a compromise that will make everyone happy. :) --Moonriddengirl 16:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Chad Thibodeaux

• Chad Thibodeaux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Subject of this article appears to be the creator and primary contributor of the article. Rtphokie (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Article is currently PROD and has a COI warning on it as well, the author has also been notified. While I could cleanup the article, the primary problem at the moment appears to be notability, more than COI. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

MaxButterchuck

MaxButterchuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This account's only contributions consist of adding mention of the book The Midnight Show: Late Night Cable-TV "guy-flicks" of the 80's to the article of every movie that was reviwed therein. Mike R (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I left a polite notice for this editor. He's on thin ice at this point, but reform is always possible, and is certainly to be hoped for. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

He undid his edits on request. Can we close this? EdJohnston (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Samanthabox0817

Possible conflict of interest with this User's contributions - http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Samanthabox0817. The User has created several articles about photographers, all related to contactpressimages.com, with no sourcing other than links to the photographers' works at that website. I'm concerned about notability for a number of these people, as well as the user's conflict in creating them. Corvus cornix_talk 22:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Status update: Most of the articles have disappeared, the only one that remains is Olivier Rebbot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MER-C 07:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That one looks reasonable. Corvus cornix_talk 16:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

User is blocked for 1 week, and remanding contrib looks okay, and was created by another editor (however that article was previously flagged for COI). Tiggerjay (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

User:BuffFans/iModerate (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:BuffFans/iModerate (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

22

I DIDN'T SIGN THE BOTTOM OF THE PREVIOUS POSTING WITH A TIME AND DATE...THIS ONE IS, SORRY ABOUT THAT.

Editors,

I have been working to put a page on Misplaced Pages for iModerate Research Technologies. I have written an article that if possible, I would like previewed by you to make sure that I can submit this page to put on a main page and not a sub page. I want to make it clear, yes I do work for iModerate, but in no way am I trying to advertise or exploit this encyclopedia. I want to put up this page for people to read and be able to learn from. An encyclopedia is a book, or in this case a website, that educates people of all ages, and by putting the sub page that I have created up, I feel that I will give people the opportunity to learn more.

I am asking for the editors help because I want to make sure that you feel the same way about this page as I do. If you would please give me feedback on things that you would like see changed, added, or the go ahead to make it a main page. Please respond on my talk page.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to seeing what you have to say.

BuffFans (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I just did a quick review and it appears too much like advertising and spam, while it does appear to have 3rd party sources. I just performed a quick cleanup of the reference links so they appear normal - however they are still not completely proper. My viewpoint is this is not yet ready for mainspace as it is and will be PROD for spam. However, I'd be happy to try and copyedit the article tomorrow for you. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I just performed an initial copyedit and it looks much better, however I discovered that the company is far less notable than it first appeared. This will need to be address first, please see the article talk page. Input from other editors would also be appreciated. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Da Costa's syndrome take #2

• Da Costa's syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Posturewriter (talk · contribs)

Can we revisit this one, as it seems unresolved?

The previous discussion is archived here: Posturewriter self-identified as MA Banfield, an author with a known strong interest in a particular "postural compression" theory relating to this and similar conditions. He argued then that we should put this information "back in the box" because he was forced to disclose it during an AFD; I'm not sure this washes, and in any case he has since repeated the disclosure in all but name .

The problem is his refusal to act by COI guidelines and his continuing SPA activity on Da Costa's syndrome with edits that, although not explicitly naming his theory, have an ongoing focus on the respiration and chest issues central to this theory. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The respiratory issues seem central to the disorder, and IMHO their mere mention in no way hints at his personal theory for explaining them. In fact, from the information provided in the article, I'd rather expect particles from gunfire to be a probable cause. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The respiratory issues seem central to the disorder

They may well be; but having a known involvement in advocacy relating to those issues means that COI guidelines should apply: editing with caution and deferring to consensus. I'm not seeing that.

I'd rather expect particles from gunfire to be a probable cause

WP:NOR please. (None of the many studies came to this conclusion, and it was common in civilian life too). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Reading is hard. And no, this is a postwar syndrome. The fact that similar medical problems (e.g. from pesticides or chronic infections) also occur in other situations, does not change that. Meanwhile, I strongly suggest that if you think due caution was not exercised, you provide the diffs to back that up. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Compare the text of Da Costa's syndrome with that at Banfield's website References which were used in the development of The Posture Theory, and which are useful in assessing it. For instance:

Banfield site:

"In 1951 the fourth edition of his book "Heart Disease" contained a chapter on "Neurocirculatory Asthenia", because, as he explains, the symptoms are similar to heart disease, but are not the same, and he adds, that they are also similar to, but can occur in the absence of anxiety, and therefore need to be discussed separately".

Misplaced Pages article:

"In 1951 the fourth edition of Paul Dudley White’s book “Heart Disease” contained a chapter on “Neurocirculatory Asthenia”, because, as he explains, the symptoms are similar to heart disease, but are not the same, and he adds, that they are also similar to, but can occur in the absence of anxiety, and therefore need to be discussed separately".

Problem sufficiently demonstrated? With diffs such as these he's adding large verbatim dumps of material from his own website: not neutral stuff, but summaries of papers selectively collated and commented to support Posture Theory. He's turning the Misplaced Pages article into an annexe of his own references section, and it needs to stop. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The added material does, however, not support his theory at all (note that if it did the theory should rightly be mentioned in the article, COI or not). I don't think that there exists a reliable source that does, so there is no danger here. Using the same words to refer to a publication as on his own website is by itself permitted (we can't, but he can). That said, the article, while IMHO neutral enough, could profit from some tidying-up. Some of the references are not fully on-topic, others not very significant, and they are discussed in I think too much detail for Misplaced Pages purposes. I therefore suggest that you try and improve the article first. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I never thought of that...

But seriously: it's been tried, and he keeps adding the stuff back in. I'd appreciate more opinions: I'm not sure I agree with you that it's no problem for someone with a COI to add material predominantly duplicating their own website. That they appear in this context is reason to have concerns about the neutrality of selection. Is the syndrome largely about respiration and breathlessness (as opposed to, say, pseudo-cardiac symptoms such as chest pain and palpitations) - or does it appear that way because the references are cherry-picked to focus on those aspects? The thing was, after all, called "Soldier's Heart", not "Soldier's Chest".

But I agree with you whoeleheartedly about the excess of detail, hence the current tag. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Chest pains and palpitations are the consequences of many respiratory disorders. However, if these references are cherry-picked, it should be easy to find others that say different. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If you look at where Da Costa's Syndrome wound up in ICD-10, it is labelled F45.30. That is part of a section called F40 - F48 NEUROTIC, STRESS-RELATED AND SOMATOFORM DISORDERS. So what exactly is a Somatoform disorder? Our article says

Somatoform disorder (also known as Briquet's syndrome) is characterized by physical symptoms that mimic disease or injury for which there is no identifiable physical cause...

So ICD-10 has bracketed this possible ailment, Da Costa's Syndrome, as what sounds like (to me, a non-doctor) a psychosomatic problem. If you read the diagnostic criteria (from ICD-10) that drills you down to F45.30, it takes you through a bunch of symptoms that are reported by the patient. So this is a far cry from the original American Civil War ailment, and it still appears to be a catch-all for stuff that is not well understood. So there is apparently no pill to take for Da Costa's Syndrome. Our current article, I think, makes it sound too much like a real, tangible disease. I think the view of the disease in Paul Dudley White's 1951 book is extremely dated. That material should either be taken out or labelled historical. The lead of our current Da Costa's syndrome article I think needs to be rewritten to present this as more of a historical item. At a minimum it should track the ICD-10 understanding of the phenomenon more directly. The rules of WP:MEDRS should be applied to the sourcing of this article. I hope when the article is finished most of its references will be post-1980. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

A Misplaced Pages article is never finished. :)

As I understand it, this diagnosis is not used anymore, it has been replaced with one that on first sight seems to be close: 'neurocirculatory asthenia', a diagnosis that is not restricted to post-war. That diagnosis presently also falls under F45.3. However, the basis for this classification as well as for the replacement is very thin. It is, by its definition, not possible to prove that someone suffers from a somatoform disorder (or even that such disorders really exist), and there is a long and expanding range of known physical causes of the exact same symptoms. Now, one logically expects that diagnoses will be reclassified away from somatoform disorders as knowledge progresses and causes are found. For a dead diagnosis this will of course not happen, but it is a good reason not to see the classification as absolute, and rather focus on what research has found. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) I've been off Wiki for a few days, and didn't realize that this discussion had started when I made major changes to the history section on Da Costa's syndrome yesterday. You can find the contested version at this link.

Yes, I believe that User:Posturewriter's primary, if not sole, interest in Misplaced Pages is for the opportunity to promote his pet theory about how the body works (or doesn't work). He finds a parallel to his idea in Da Costa syndrome and hangs his idea on that peg. This is his hobby; he doubtless believes his ideas are accurate; he wants to help sufferers around the world by sharing his knowledge. That's all very noble, but completely inappropriate for Misplaced Pages: it is definitely original research.

I think it is particularly important to note that Posturewriter's first edits to Da Costa's syndrome were six days after The posture theory, which is his actual theory, was deleted through AfD for being non-notable (e.g., "promulgated by one author in one book. Not recognised by health scientists in general"). Over the last six months, he's tried to turn Da Costa's syndrome into a dumping ground for the non-notable original research that was originally stuck in The posture theory and deleted after the AfD discussion. (The author is the only editor who opposed the deletion.)

Since then, I and other editors have repeatedly discussed our concerns on the article's talk page. Three editors have left five separate requests on his talk page that he not use Misplaced Pages as a platform for promoting his own ideas. We have asked for help in removing his original research, or to stop adding information that tends to promote his personal ideas, but he has generally declined, opposed, or ignored these requests. We have removed sections, only to have them reappear, or to be replaced with even longer lists of tangentially connected publications.

Just about any publication that has similar keywords, BTW, and doesn't directly contradict his idea is likely to be included as support. N.B. that PubMed lists only 12 papers since 1951 that actually mention "Da Costa's syndrome" by name -- and some of those merely mention it in passing (e.g., PMID 15274499), or only to claim that it is really some other disease (e.g., PMID 3395533 for hyperventilation) -- so available evidence for any side of this story is rather thin. As for cherry-picking: he lists a BMJ (Heart) paper that discusses the history of the syndrome, but skips the letter published in response that says it's all a bunch of garbage. The general belief among those who "believe in" DCS is that it's a familial/genetic tendency, probably anxiety-oriented, with no physical/mechanical/postural/cardiac component at all. If you will read the last paragraph of this paper (by a "true believer" in DCS, although not someone who believes that there is any postural component), and ask yourself what sighing respiration indicates, you will probably have an excellent understanding of the actual condition.

I'm pretty much at the "give up" level with this editor. I do not think that Posturewriter has an interest in contributing anything to Misplaced Pages other than his original research. I've even given up on him figuring out simple things, such as the fact that I removed his favorite bold text formatting from the article (a direct violation of the Manual of Style) purposefully, instead of accidentally.

Overall, I think the practical solution is to settle on a version of the article that basically works for all of the other editors, and then steadily revert any addition of original research by Posturewriter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards