Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:26, 4 April 2009

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.

User:Noodle snacks is a page to sell his photographs

• Noodle snacks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This is being used as a marketing tool to sell licenses for his images; violates WP:NOT#WEBHOST. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be deleted. As should his user page User:Noodle snacks/gallery. nominate both pages for deletion.Startstop123 (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think if the first paragraph is deleted, then there's no more problem. Having a central place to store his images, many of which are Featured Images on WP, doesn't strike me as a problem, as long as the promotional piece is removed. The images are used in articles as well, so it's not being used as a webhost per-se. Arakunem 16:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Firstly, a deletion is being completely over the top. The maximum action that needs to be taken would be a modification of text, as Arakunem states. I think that we all agree Misplaced Pages:UP#NOT is really the relevant policy here. Galleries of free images are acceptable according to policy, and are mostly used to keep track of my own images, particularly since there is often identification delay between upload and article placement. I'm guessing that "Please send me an email if you wish to negotiate for higher resolution copies, prints or less restrictive licensing" is the issue here. I don't state anywhere that images are for sale, or otherwise advertise a business. The website linked doesn't sell anything either. I've had pHD students, and a few non-profit or charity organizations contact me for higher resolution images. In all cases I have provided the images for free. Most people send me messages, rather than email me, and in any case user talk content (here and commons) would provide a representative sample of the image requests I am getting. I even explicitly state that commercial use is allowed, though in most cases that I've found, the images (and often article content) are treated as public domain works,. In any case, the removal of one sentence makes the user page compliant, and commons policy explicitly allows advertisement on each individual image if I really wanted to. Compared to User:Orangemike's myspace page, there is a minimal amount of cruft present. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If your intention is to offer the higher resolution photos for free, then the paragraph could easily be made non-commercial by an appropriate change of wording. The phrase 'negotiate for higher resolution' may suggest to the reader that money is involved. If copies are provided free on request, why is there any need for a negotiation? EdJohnston (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I want to retain control over the full resolution copies of my work. If I didn't want that control then I'd just upload the full size copies. I say "negotiation" because I make a choice depending on who is asking, and what the image is wanted for. I'd put sell if that was my specific intention, and I wouldn't shoot myself in the foot by saying that commercial use with the WP image is possible. If I wanted to make an effort to sell stuff, I'd setup my website to do so, and advertise on each image individually (commons allows this). Either way I rather suspect that stock photography would be a more profitable way to go about things. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You've addressed my concerns. I think we can mark this one resolved. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This seems perfectly reasonable. Many users have links to their websites and hundreds have user galleries. If a user wants to have a gallery of the many photos he has uploaded and then notes that he has higher resolution copies avaliable —more for others benefit than his, it would appear—, what is the problem? Icewedge (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• It's worth noting that the uploaded images are of high quality and the versions uploaded aren't exactly postage stamps (but they are CC-BY-SA/GFDL licensed which can be a problem for some uses). I would suggest wording like "If the resolution or licensing is not suitable for your purposes please contact the user". This is something that we could capture in a template that others could use on their user pages and/or image pages - the result being that it would encourage the uploading of works with a free license that would otherwise not appear on Misplaced Pages. -- samj _in 06:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Goodness, one look at all the Featured Pictures that Noodle snacks has provided is enough to tell you that he's here to improve Misplaced Pages. His photos are a treasure trove for all of us at the plants and birds WikiProjects. To say that his userpage "is being used as a marketing tool to sell licenses for his images" is quite an assumption of bad faith. The information on his userpage is both helpful and informative for people wanting to know more about using his photos, and to see his extraordinary body of Misplaced Pages work. Leave him be. Better yet, give him a bunch of barnstars. First Light (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Advice for Updating EERE?

Hello, everyone! Could I ask for some advice? I've been asked to update the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy article here. (Thus why I'm posting here. The story is on my user page.) I'm working on a new EERE draft in my userspace over here.

I've asked for input from the United States Government Wikiproject and the United States Wikiproject and have left a note on the EERE talk page, but response has been limited--one person gave me some advice, added some links and said that after that, in his opinion, the draft was ready for the mainspace. But otherwise I've not heard much.

Is there anything else I can do? Should I get more input? And (if I'm at that point) who could I ask to move the article to the mainspace? Any help and advice is welcome! Elispen (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you find any reliable sources that have commented on EERE? Newspapers, magazines, books? Nearly all the references are to government web sites. This runs the risk of giving only the insider perspective. Most organizations have a tendency to believe that everything they do is the right thing to do. Unlikely to find any criticism or any rating of EERE's performance without going outside. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. Is the article unbalanced right now, then? I could certainly go looking for outside perspectives. Off the top of my head I can think of a couple of things that popped up in the news last year (although I don't know if they were covered by anything but blogs) but I can see what I can find. Elispen (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is well-written, not too promotional, and reasonably brief. But if nobody in the news media has noticed anything this Office has done, what should we conclude :-) EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, thank you! :) I'll see what I can find from outside EERE, then. At the very least, I'll be shocked if no one has had anything to say about the $16 billion the office just got from the Recovery Act. By the way, what should I do once I think it's "done"? Should I come back here? Should I ask somewhere else? I don't think I should really be copying anything into mainspace. Elispen (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not ask any experienced contributor for their opinion on whether the article is ready for prime time. If you are told it's OK, then check in your version to the existing article. (Leave a note on the EERE article's Talk page to explain the situation). Let me know if you need any help with that process. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

• Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - obvious conflict of interest, editor is scrubbing material that is "unpleasant" Anastrophe (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC) or
• CSGV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - self identified as director of communications for CSGV Anastrophe (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 18#Coalition to Stop Gun Violence from 2007, and current ANI discussion.

Beginnning with this edit on March 27. CSGV got into what looks to be an edit war with regular editors. Someone on the other side was reverting 'per WP:COI'. Then User:Bastique objected that COI is only a guideline, and 'per COI' is not a reason for reverting under our policy. It is still fair to notice that this was a violation of WP:3RR. Meanwhile, CSGV got blocked for having a spam user name. The adventures continue. Let's wait and see how the editors at WP:ANI leave the issue and see what remains for us to address here. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The ANI discussion, now archived here, closed with no definite result. EdJohnston (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Xenos Books and all related articles

I've stumbled across quite a collection of articles with a COI problem. These have been on Misplaced Pages for some time. User:Wolfboy21 (User talk:Wolfboy21) created Xenos Books on April 29, 2004 and has been hard at work adding articles for their titles. By his own words on Talk:Addictive_Aversions, there is a COI problem, and possibly just plain spam. ("What is the problem with this article? I am one of the editors at Xenos Books and have used our catalog description for the book. Please advise. Wolfboy21@bolt.com") This editing doesn't seem to have been done in bad faith, but I need help on how to proceed with clearing this up. This editor doesn't appear to be a very active, but I've added a note to his talk page. --Martinship (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the article on Xenos Books lacks any reliable sources, consider nominating it for deletion. Google comes up with little or nothing about this company, which does not appear to meet WP:CORP. If an AfD ends with deletion, then one might follow up with a combined AfD on several of their publications (see most of the blue links in Xenos Books). These articles also lack references, and they are unlikely to meet WP:BK. Misplaced Pages is not a publisher's catalog. EdJohnston (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Does the article Xenos Books specifically fall under CSD A7 and would that be appropriate? --Martinship (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Trying to do away with these articles by speedy deletion would be at least slightly controversial. A PROD is safer, and since Wolfboy21 has not been active recently, if he is the only one who cares about them the PRODs might go through. EdJohnston (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Xeround, Database Virtualization, Intelligent Data Grid

• Xeround (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Database Virtualization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Intelligent Data Grid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  

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

Xeround and Database Virtualization both have serious COI issues in that user:Jtrembley is the main contributor and also the "Vice President of Product Management & Marketing" of Xeround. Should "spam" be added or speedy delete?

I also suspect user:Technologytalk is a sockpuppet being the creator of Intelligent_Data_Grid™ and the only other editor of Xeround. user:Technologytalk has also removed the COI tag I added to Xeround.

What should be done? Thanks. Smartse (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• This is puzzling. Database Virtualization may eventually be notable, and the companies might be serious, but the documentation is well below our standards. I suggest proposing everything for deletion using WP:PROD. I've alerted Technologytalk to this discussion. Maybe somebody will show up here and we can help them revise the articles. (Or, a regular editor might take an interest and contribute). If not, the articles should go, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Rice University residential colleges

List_of_Rice_University_residential_colleges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Following a dispute over the notability of individual articles for residential colleges at Rice University, several editors exhibiting characteristics of WP:OWN and WP:COI have created a Facebook group to rally support to their side rather than engaging in consensus formation such as commenting on the RFC.

List of articles affected:

• Baker College (Rice University)
• Will Rice College
• Hanszen College
• Wiess College
• Jones College (Rice University)
• Brown College (Rice University)
• Lovett College
• Sid Richardson College
• Martel College
• McMurtry College
• Duncan College
• List of Rice University residential colleges

Other editors involved:

• User:Mphornet
• User:AniRaptor2001
• User:Postoak
• User:Georgewebb

Facebook rallying support:

• Facebook group

I'm obviously not opposed to these articles being improved, but I frankly am at wit's end with how to deal with editors who have no interest in having meaningful consensus-formation and view this as a cause. I don't know if page protection is in order until the RFC closes or what, but I need other editors' advice and assistance in dealing with this escalating issue. This was also cross-posted at WP:EAR. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment Why was I listed on this incident report? I don't even have an account on Facebook. Madcoverboy, you have made an accusation with no proof or evidence - a direct violation of WP:NPA. I have participated in the discussion just as you and the other editors there. Please remove me from this incident report. Postoak (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Shivam Parikh

Shivam_Parikh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - It seems that both Shivam Parikh and Keyur Parikh are vanity wikis created by Indiahn. When I began fixing the Shivam Parikh wiki to mirror the more prominent Shivam Parikh (from New Jersey), I got a reversal and was marked as "vandalism" as Indiahn. It doesn't seem that the Shivam Parikh from India is actually prominent at all. Should be marked for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danyeo (talk • contribs) 02:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Your changes at Shivam Parikh have the air of being joke vandalism. Please respect our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 05:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Wayne Ross

Wayne Ross has been appointed attorney general of Alaska, but there is no article about him. As he's my former co-counsel in a brief I filed before the Alaska Supreme Court, it's probably best that I not be the one to do it. Reliable sources can be found at , , and , inter alia. THF (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've started it but it needs work. Not sure if this was the right place to ask btw. Smartse (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"COI affected editors may use this board to get help with proposed article changes." THF (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Power-Plate

This article seems a fighting ground between promoters of the brand and people who have an agenda against it. Not sure whether it should be deleted right out, since it's the name of a brand. However, the brand has become so much a synonym with the industry it spawned, that it would be the right encyclopedic thing to do to improve the article, mentioning just facts, and then referring all details to whole body vibration. I started making some corrections, but it's a project that needs more editors. As a corollary, whole body vibration should be hyphenated to whole-body vibration; it should mention the disease or syndrome connotations as well as the occupational disorders associated with it to be complete. This is a re-posting from the Fringe_theories/Noticeboard. Posted by User:Gciriani

What is the COI on this article? It's not even tagged as such. Smartse (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The article has some POV issues, to be sure, but I can't see an obvious COI... (An editor who works for a manufacturer of these products, for example). Just being a proponent does not constitute a COI. Arakunem 16:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If you take a look at the article before I edited it, you can clearly see that there is a turf war between proponents of PowerPlate (Power-Plate is a piece of exercise equipment common in many gyms.) and people intent on disparaging it (This machine is made of plastic and does not produces a 100% vertical vibration.) Both factions interfere with what an encyclopedic article should be. If either of these facts are true they should be supported by some reference. For this reason I added many citation-needed tags. Another indication of bias is the commercial website listed at the bottom of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gciriani (talk • contribs) 13:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but this still does not seem to involve a COI, unless one of the proponents or critics has a real-world advantage to having the article read one way vs. another. Just being a fan or a critic does not by itself constitute COI, though that often leads to POV-pushing, as you have rightly identified in the article. Removal of the commercial links, leaving the Guardian and Daily Mail articles was quite correct as well. I think the use of so many fact tags might be a little much... usually in that case it is better to tag the article or section as a whole, rather than 2 tags per sentence. I think the {{refimprove}} tag pretty much covers the article as a whole. Arakunem 14:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Article on Kyra Phillips; actions by CNN employee

• Kyra Phillips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Britannica411 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fivhorizon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Kyra Phillips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Over the last month several single-article editors and anons have deleted entire sections of "unfavorable" information about Kyra Phillips from the article and replaced it with the canned bio from CNN's website. The editor or editors do not discuss or take issue with specific details, but rather continually delete entire sections. It is probable that some of these editors (if not all) are one in the same. Two of the editors have been sufficiently warned, but the warnings have gone unheeded. The sections being deleted are well cited by multiple reliable sources, especially the sections regarding on-air mishap and a controversial interview. One of the editors admitted to being a "manager at CNN" (see here). ++Arx Fortis (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the COI, but I have greater BLP concerns about this article as half of it is nothing but criticisms and adverse remarks with loaded words (like "rant"). I have raised notice of this issue at BLP/N since I believe resolving that will resolve any COI as well. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Both Britannica411 and Fivhorizon have received final warnings. Fivhorizon got a {{uw-coi}} notice as well. Britannica411 is the one who has edited most recently. Askari Mark has posted about possible BLP violations in this article over at WP:BLPN though there isn't any new information there yet. Some of the joky or embarrassing moments in Phillips' article seem to be mostly documented from blogs. I'd welcome a more careful study of how each episode was verified. We can't criticize COI-affected editors for removing well-sourced criticism unless it is actually well-sourced. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Fredhutter again

To recap, Fredhutter (talk · contribs) was discussed on this board earlier in the month because he was over-linking his trendlines.ca website and being generally uncivil. He has returned and created a page about himself (Freddy Hutter), as well as attempted to (quite uncivilly) change the very definition of oil depletion to fit with the definition he uses on his website. Help in keeping this user within reasonable check is appreciated. NJGW (talk) 05:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Left a note on the Oil Depletion talk page. The autobio is under AfD discussion as well. Arakunem 16:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• The previous COIN about trendlines.ca is now archived. No decision has yet been reached on what to do about the 37 links to his personal website, trendlines.ca. If editors agree that the links are not appropriate, we could just let him know that and begin the removal. His recent edits at oil depletion are worrisome. From his March 31 edit summaries: As a neophyte, your actions border on vandalism., and Why do we let high school kids edit here? EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Searching for sites that link TO the trendlines.ca site does not return much to suggest that it is covered by the "established expert" exemption to WP:SPS. As such, I am inclined to remove them. I agree that the edit summaries are rather patronizing as well, and fall inline with comments on the Oil Depletion talk. Hopefully my subtle admonishment for civility on that talk page will be taken to heart. We'll see how that particular issue plays out. Arakunem 18:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• I deleted some (rather old!) links to his website from a number of articles where his page had barely even a mention of the articles' topics, let alone substantial information about those topics to supplement the articles. And of course, being self-citing, his pages aren't really third-party WP:reliable sources anyway. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Remaining links:

trendlines.ca: 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

Arakunem 14:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Many of these were added by IP user 207.189.230.222 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Since that user is the creator of the page User:Fredhutter, I think it's fair to assume that they are one and the same person, so it's still a matter of self-promotion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Johan Bäckman

• Johan Bäckman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Petri Krohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 91.152.84.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The IP, who probably has a COI here and is likely to be Bäckman himself, is messing up the aricle, removing sourced content and critical commentaries. In addition, keep in mind that the subject of the article is quite litiguous, according to the sources. The situation is difficult to fix, given the controversies surrounding the subject and the pace of editing by the IP. Please help. Colchicum (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

He has removed a couple of sourced items, though for the most part his edits seem ok. I'll drop him a note to discuss removal of sourced content before doing so. Arakunem 16:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, there is also a COI issue with Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee involving the same editors. Martintg (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Update - This is at AN/I now. With no evidence to suggest that the IP is Bäckman, and ANI addressing the POV and civility issues, I think we can close out the COI report, in the interest of centralized discussion. Arakunem 14:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is the link to the ANI discussion. It makes sense to wait and see if the ANI thread will arrive at a decision. The discussion at Talk:Johan Bäckman is somewhat constructive. See also the second AfD which was closed today with Keep. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Time to close? User:William M. Connolley has semiprotected Bäckman's article. This complaint was opened up with the argument that the IP had a COI. I don't see anything more for us to do here, since the IP can't make further changes. There is an active discussion at Talk:Johan Bäckman that includes some people who know the local languages. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Spring12

User:Spring12 created the article Sheree Silver on 8 Feb 09 and has since made more than 150 edits to the article which have consistently tried to puff up the importance of the subject. All of Spring's edits have almost exclusively been linked to the Sheree Silver article or associated, linked articles. I asked on User:Spring12's talk page whether he/she has a COI and the response was "I've been helped in the field, but I'd rather not disclose a lot of information in regards to Misplaced Pages:OUTING#Posting_of_personal_information." I believe a topic ban is warranted, regardless of the outcome of the article's current AfD (its 2nd). Furthermore, to see the extent Spring12 goes to push pov, he/she has made seven edits to the Afd page. Check it out at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sheree Silver (2nd nomination).Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have remained neutral in the article itself, and have made sure all statements are well sourced, as outlined in WP:COI. For the AFD discussion I've just been trying to explain the disagreement between Kaiwhakahaere and I, which we are engaged in an RfC in, see here: Talk:Sheree_Silver. Whatever the community decides in this specific discussion here, I'll abide by the decision, but I don't think I've violated any rules in this regard. Is there something wrong with editing an article to make it better? Sheree Silver is also not the only one I've participated in, look back through Special:Contributions/Spring12; I'm just trying to find which topic to jump into. Spring12 (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If you see unusual activity, you may suspect an ulterior motive. It's then your job to look for evidence elsewhere for that ulterior motive. But until you find any such evidence, please refrain from alleging such a motive. If you think that an editor is pushing a POV, then tackle that POV-pushing, not the editor. -- Hoary (talk) 10:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:FabulosWorld

User:FabulosWorld is a single-purpose account that is used solely to advance the business of CallWave, Inc. This user has created, updated, and recreated — following several successful AfDs and substantial editorial criticism — the CallWave, Inc. and FUZE Meeting articles. The CallWave page is now in its 5th AfD, having been deleted 4 times before. Its sole external link is to CallWave's commercial website; no notability is asserted or implied in the article.

This user has claimed to have no affiliation with the company (here and here), though his or her narrow actions on Misplaced Pages suggest that this assertion is fallacious. Moreover, User:FabulosWorld elects to question other editors' integrity (here and here) when taken to task about recreating deleted articles or faced with a new PROD or Speedy.

Misplaced Pages's interests might be well-served by some administrator-level attention to this COI issue, lest it never end. Jim Ward 21:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on his contribution history, User:FabulosWorld has at most one degree of separation with User:Vchaudhary. Consequently, some lightweight Google searching raises further doubt about User:FabulosWorld's assertions of no affiliation with CallWave. Jim Ward 23:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• I would also review User:CrazyAboutTech as a possible Sock puppet or Meatpuppet. Joined WP right in the middle of FUZE Meeting deletion discussions, makes a few trivial edits, and then starts editing User:FabulosWorld comments on an article deletion appeal (Hardly a place where someone would begin as an new editor). Now after a COI tag is placed on the FUZE Meeting article, this new user is asserting that tags should be removed, using very similar arguments as User:FabulosWorld. Calltech (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• See also SSP case: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/FabulosWorld. Mfield (Oi!) 21:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• N.B. - the SSP investigation concluded that User:Vchaudhary and User:CrazyAboutTech are likely sock puppets of User:FabulosWorld and was closed; the two former accounts have been deleted and blocked. The COI issue remains. Jim Ward 15:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Not sure why FabulosWorld did not get blocked in the closing. I have blocked indefinitely. Mfield (Oi!) 16:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Polypill and Polycap

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

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

An editor with a username similar to someone's real name in the articles is doing lots of work on both - Polycap is "their" article but Polypill now has a huge midsection on Polycap too: perhaps disproportionately much in my view. I'm out of my depth with this: I have done what I can with templates and (unsuccessful) attempts to communicate with the editor, initially over their use of bold before I appreciated the COI situation. I don't even know if my concerns (other than the bold!) are correct. Can someone please have a look? Thanks DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 07:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's some promotion! The article Polycap was started by User:Alansohn, an experienced editor, and was well balanced in his last version, though it appeared to a first step toward a final article. Subsequent edits are totally over the top. Some of those adding the excessive material are probably not familiar with Misplaced Pages, and they should be patiently reasoned with. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I have semi-protected Polycap due to the activities of a enthusiastic IP editor who reverts changes by other editors but does not participate on Talk. Still hoping to engage in a proper dialog with Drmaseeh (talk · contribs) who seems to be one of the scientists involved in this important study. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

In creating the article, I had hoped to use the available sources to provide a neutral article that would be a decent start towards more-complete coverage of the topic. I apologize for not being more on top of the article, but I agree with both User:DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered and User:EdJohnston that the content added to the article is predominantly inappropriate puffery and that the ID of the editor making the changes raises serious concerns of Conflict of Interest policy violations. While there is some useful material that has been added, it needs to be heavily pruned to put it in proper Misplaced Pages format. Alansohn (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks both of you. I feel much better knowing that wiser heads than mine are looking into this and taking action. It would be nice to get this sorted out. Best wishes, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC) PS we need also to not forget that Polypill has certain similar issues - I wondered if the duplication between it and Polycap should maybe be trimmed out a bit. Certainly it would be great if we (whatever exactly we is here!) were able to communicate with the principal interested editor.

Uncorrected proof SPAs/spammers

• Uncorrected proof (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article was originally created by User:TuscanMeadow at Uncorrected Proof primarily to spend three out of four paragraphs describing (and linking to a site to sell) a book by that title by some unknown author with a publisher called "ElephantEars Press". User:ElephantEars2008 shows up and makes more edits, and then gets spotted when he links the Book article to the Uncorrected proof article. Once that spam got removed, suddenly User:Jamlady showed up to revert changes. The accounts in question have no other edits other than those related to this article n some way (though the ElephantEars one has some inexplicable vandalism of an unrelated editor's page). Now the accounts are trying to establish "true consensus" to return advertisement of this book to the article. I could use some other editors weighing in and responding in whatever ways they find appropriate. DreamGuy (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope I'm not jumping to conclusions, but considering that they're apparently all single purpose accounts, this looks strangely like a sock drawer to me. Has anyone put in a request over at WP:SPI? -Senseless!... says you, says me 20:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Created a case Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/TuscanMeadow feel free to comment if you have any additional information. -Senseless!... says you, says me 20:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

User:SCSRdotorg

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

While the rest of this user's contribs date back to last September, I feel obligated to report here, anyway. Username seems to be operated by the Society for Cincinnati Sports Research (). User created an article just now: East End Park (Cincinnati). While the article is OK, there is a clear COI present. MuZemike 18:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

YourTravelBiz.com and user Copstead

• YourTravelBiz.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• YTB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ytb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User Copstead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Copstead is a single-purpose account with a conflict of interest, as declared a few days ago on Nihiltres' talk page (diff) and today on my talk page (diff). The coi spa's concerns are:

• (1) which page should be the main article (Copstead's preference) and which pages should redirect to it, and
• (2) the content of the main article, which was (version link) referenced to independent sources before Copstead's recent edits.

He was warned earlier this week but nevertheless resumed today. — Athaenara ✉ 01:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

User blocked for 24 hours with explanation that the end of the block is to see no direct editing of the articles they have a COI over. Will watch after block ends. Continued editing of the articles with no engagement in discussion will merit an indef. Mfield (Oi!) 01:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

User:RolandR on Gilad Atzmon article

• RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) RolandR, who admits to being Roland Rance, has organized written and actual protests against Gilad Atzmon speaking engagements and/or musical performances, per this news article and this opinion piece. These facts even were in the article for a while in this version. RolandR's conflict of interest has been mentioned or discussed in Talk:Gilad_Atzmon in these sections: May 2008 and March 2009; and this March 2009 diff.

However, because RolandR largely has supported policy on the talk page and in the article, we have so far not brought this issue here. This week he inserted this attack on the subject of the BLP from the personal blog of an individual, including much of the attack in the footnote, even though this is clearly against Misplaced Pages:BLP#Sources. He put back that text after another editor removed it from the footnote. When I brought this to Reliable Sources Noticeboard, he argued for keeping in this material at the Noticeboard. So now it seems this is something that editors on this article need advice on, before bringing issue to WP:BLPN where perhaps it should have gone in first place. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have never attempted to disguise my personal views on Atzmon, but I do not believe that I have allowed these to colour my objective editing of this article. Like Carol, but unlike most editors on this and other sensitive issues, I edit using my own name. This means that it is possible to discover and "expose" my activities elsewhere, and to argue that this disqualifies me from editing. Carol is well aware of this, having herself been the target of an unwarranted attack on the talk page of the same article, by an editor who trawled her personal website to find something damaging. This puts both of us at a disadvantage, compared to editors who can disguise their identity and pretend to a neutrality that many clearly do not possess.

As Carol accepts, I have edited this article fairly. She objects to my use of a quote from one of the best-known and most widely-read Arab academics in the USA. When she brought this issue to the reliable sources noticeboard, opinion was quite divided, with some editors agreeing that my use of the quote was acceptable, and one even adding more of the quote to the main article. It seems that this exchange has led to a change in the reliable sources guidelines. This alone shows that my edit, though possibly contentious, was in no way outrageous. Nor can I see any reason that I should be disqualified from defending this edit on the noticeboard. RolandR (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with RolandR defending the use of the quote over at WP:RSN, which is a discussion board. Per WP:COI I would advise that Roland not revert disputed material into the Gilad Atzmon article. Stay on the Talk page for controversial points, or follow WP:Dispute resolution if you think no progress can be made. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution