Misplaced Pages

:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:57, 1 January 2013 editAnuhek (talk | contribs)92 edits →Kehuna.org and User:Kehuna, now Anuhek← Previous edit Revision as of 22:38, 1 January 2013 edit undoMeasureIT (talk | contribs)257 edits →General question about how to handle a situation: new sectionNext edit →
Line 172: Line 172:
::The problem is that it does not appear that the link you attempting to insert meets the guidelines at ], and so it appears as ]. Even though you are well meaning, and wanting to contribute valuable information, on the surface it doesn't appear that website meets the guidelines. If you are associated with the website you are attempting to add, I would highly discourage it. ] (]) 07:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC) ::The problem is that it does not appear that the link you attempting to insert meets the guidelines at ], and so it appears as ]. Even though you are well meaning, and wanting to contribute valuable information, on the surface it doesn't appear that website meets the guidelines. If you are associated with the website you are attempting to add, I would highly discourage it. ] (]) 07:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
:::I dont see why ] would exclude this link in the ] article, especially since ] guidelines actually promote such linking, to quote: "It may be appropriate to have a link to a non-English-language site..when the link is to the subject's text in its original language" in this case the said link contains information of the listing in its source language of Hebrew.--] (]) 21:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC) :::I dont see why ] would exclude this link in the ] article, especially since ] guidelines actually promote such linking, to quote: "It may be appropriate to have a link to a non-English-language site..when the link is to the subject's text in its original language" in this case the said link contains information of the listing in its source language of Hebrew.--] (]) 21:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

== General question about how to handle a situation ==

<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* No particular article
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
If I were fairly convinced that I have uncovered evidence that shows that another Misplaced Pages editor was using Misplaced Pages for activities that were promotional or propagandistic and that they were editing articles to reflect the goals of outside campaigns and were basically editing as a means of advocacy in the same area, but I know that if I confronted that editor or exposed the evidence that I would inevitably reveal the real life identity of that editor, how should I proceed please? ] (]) 22:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:38, 1 January 2013

Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    ShortcutsSections 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-wp@wikipedia.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?
    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
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests Talk:260 Collins Talk:Academy of Achievement Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:Aspen Dental Talk:Atlantic Union Bank Talk:AvePoint Talk:Edward J. Balleisen Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:Neil Barofsky Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Bell Bank Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Pamela Chesters Talk:Cloudinary Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dell Technologies Template talk:Editnotices/Page/List of Nintendo franchises Talk:Alan Emrich Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:Richard France (writer) Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Genuine Parts Company Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Group-IB Talk:Hearst Communications Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:Scott Kurashige Talk:Andrew Lack (executive) Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:List of PEN literary awards Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health Talk:Anne Sofie Madsen Talk:Laurence D. Marks Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Modern Meadow Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:Philly Shipyard Talk:Polkadot (blockchain platform) Talk:QuinStreet Talk:Prabhakar Raghavan Talk:Michael Savage (politician) Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:SolidWorks Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko Talk:Sysco Talk:Tamba-Sasayama Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Tencent Cloud Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:TKTS Talk:Trendyol Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:Loretta Ucelli Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Laurie Williams (software engineer) Talk:Alex Wright (author) Talk:Xero (company) Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Jack Royerton

    Resolved – user inactive for 2 months, reopen if problems return

    As I pointed out here, there is an IP editor () who geolocates to Flagler College in Florida and keeps adding unsourced claims regarding a certain Jack Royerton to a wide selection of articles ranging from folk and rock music to theological topics. Apparently there is a Jack Royerton on the college's staff, raising the possibility of a conflict of interest (i. e., that the IP is either Royerton or one of his students). Most of these claims seem to be almost impossible to verify, since there is almost nothing about Royerton on the internet and a Google search for him consists almost entirely of sites that mirror Misplaced Pages. Perhaps someone should consider contacting him (or whomever is editing on his behalf), if there is a way of doing so, and asking him to provide reliable sources backing up the claim about him. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

    I added a more detailed notification to the IP user's talk page. If he's still using that IP, hopefully he'll notice it and respond. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    This IP hasn't edited in two months, so I'm not sure there is much discussion to have over an inactive editor. I would suggest keeping an eye on this user, and reporting again should they become disruptive again. Tiggerjay (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

    Hank Harrison editing his own article and removing negative material

    Stone Savant has been removing negative material from this article and added a link to an anonymous polygraph test on Harrison's site with text saying "In 2011 he took and passed a series of Polygraph tests proving he is not racist or anti - semetic and did not give his daughter drugs at any time." which I removed as clearly not a WP:RS, containing material not in the source and also claiming a polygraph test can prove something. I found a talk page in which he said he had uploaded an image of Hank Harrison and that it was copyright to Hank Harrison and assumed a close relationship and COI. He posted to my talk page saying " I do not have a close relationship with Hank Harrison. I Just took a snap and assumed I would be able to post it." So I assumed good faith and withdrew the COI allegations I made at BLPN over his continued removal of negative material (he is now at 3RR). Another editor noted that he is signing as zendogg@gmail.com which is Harrison's contact address.. shows that this is Harrison himself. See also User:Stone Savant Dougweller (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

    Stone Savant's posts at Talk:Hank Harrison now claim he is Hank Harrison. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

    How to deal with COI

    I was recently investigating a source that kept popping up in one or two articles and seemed somewhat dodgy. One user was responsible for adding the source. While investigating, I found that one of the people behind the source bears an uncanny resemblance to the user's self-description on his/her userpage. (Being any more specific than this would come very close to outing.)

    How do I deal with this?

    elvenscout742 (talk) 06:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

    Do consider a simple, polite question to the editor: "Are you aware of our guideline WP:COI?" And possibly a followup "Do you have a conflict of interest of the type that WP:COI encourages you to disclose?" If, after a polite discusion with that editor, you have suspicions that he has an undeclared COI and is making problematic edits, post the problem here. Don't reveal the suspected name. Do realize that it's almost impossible to know who somebody is simply by his/her edits. Make sure that you are meeting the standards you're asking him or her to meet - e.g. have you declared any COI? Don't edit war. A little transparency can go a long way. Smallbones(smalltalk) 10:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

    Columbia International College

    This article keeps getting additional pictures and videos, to the point where it's as much a recruiting website as an article. Orange Mike | Talk 16:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

    74.112.41.242 (talk · contribs)which is the school is reverting tags. I removed some promotional images and videos, and one of them was supposedly 'own work' by Higherhigherhigher and was a video of a staff member. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    And they restored the videos, this may be higherhigherhigher. Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    The good news is that since both users have been notified on their talk pages, they haven't edited those pages. Hopefully that will do the trick. :) Let's keep an eye on this one. Tiggerjay (talk) 07:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

    Marshall Strabala

    Previous participants

    Current participants

    Previous discussions

    I'm walking out the door but need to start this report. Several SPA-COI editors are attempting to remove information regarding a lawsuit against the subject of the article essentially because it was settled out of court. I can present more information later unless Novaseminary beats me to it. The COI editors include one IP with a declared COI and Jon Strabala. I'm bringing this here because the number of COI editors is increasing and one is now making accusations of libel. Sorry I couldn't provide more information right now but the talk page should be enough to bring anyone up to speed. Later, I'll continue to present more info. OlYeller21 19:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

    Sorry for the delay. Here's information that should bring others up-to-speed and show evidence that several COI editors (possibly WP:MEAT puppets, I don't see a reason to think they're WP:SOCKs) are letting their COI get in the way of what's best for Misplaced Pages.
    Previously on the article about Marshall Strabala, 108.75.223.67 was found to be Jon Strabala, a relative of the subject of the article (obviously a close connection). Jon was good enough to declare his COI. While he was initially very close to making legal threats and regularly arguing with others on talk pages (see short contrib lists of "Previous participants" section), in my opinion, he has since been a more constructive participant on the talk page of the article but there are still issues with his editing. As an example, he presents his opinion and facts with references when he would like something to be changed about the article (see here and here for examples) but as you can see here, he added the information about the lawsuit being settled (I'll get to that below) but made the article show that the judge had dismissed the case with prejudice as opposed to that the plaintiff requested this action due to a settlement being reached. While his entry was technically true, it was hardly showing the whole story and in my opinion, misrepresented the facts. In short, the previous COIN discussion outlines Jon's bad behavior which has turned around but still shows some issues.
    The problem stems from a legal case involving Marshall Strabala where he was being sued because his firm "publicly misrepresented his role in several projects while 'intentionally minimizing or entirely omitting the nature of Gensler's contribution.'". Editors have since attempted to wax the page, making the lawsuit look less negative. They did so by reiterating that the accused are innocent until proven guilty. Recently, 24.148.81.208 tried to alter the text to show that Strabala alone created a design as opposed to helped design - the very issue that got Strabala sued (see here).
    Recently, the case has been dismissed with prejudice at the request of the plaintiff after a settlement conference (see here). In case you're not familiar with these terms, a settlement was reached and part of that settlement required that the plaintiff request that the case be dismissed with prejudice so that it could never be reinstated.
    Since then, the talk page has been filled with attempts by RobertJoeIllinois, 67.120.51.46, and 24.148.81.208 to have any mention of the lawsuit removed from the lead, which other editors (Novaseminary and me) agreed to but now they want it removed entirely from the article. I suspect puppetry because all of these accounts link policy as external links, they believe that Novaseminary is some sort of master overseer of the article (he didn't egg this on, they came up with this themselves), and all keep citing "http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:BLPCRIME#BLPCRIM" specifically which is a redirect of Misplaced Pages:BLP#BLPCRIME that seems too specific for all to have accidentally found and linked in the same way on their own. They also have the same opinions which obviously doesn't prove that they're socks of any sort but is important to note.
    76.175.49.35 has one edit to WP - the talk page of this article - and supports the three users listed in the last paragraph. They understand internal links and may be another person entirely.
    Regarding the COIs, 67.120.51.46 outed himself as Jon Strabala (also edits under 108.75.223.67). 24.148.81.208 declared that he has a COI here. RobertJoeIllinois hasn't specifically outed themselves but mentioned here that they made a comment "last week" and the only editor that isn't Novaseminary or me that has edited the page in the last week is 76.175.49.35, the WP:SPA that clearly has a different editing pattern than RobertJoeIllinois but shares his feelings. From this, I think that we can assume that he's either Jon Strabala or 24.148.81.208 who declared that they have a COI. I won't assume but it's possible that this is Marshall's attorney and brother, Joe Strabala (I don't know where the "Robert" comes from). The "Illinois" most likely comes from the fact that the case was transferred to Illinois.
    As for the argument taking place, right now, it seems to be hinging on the belief that any mention of the settled lawsuit in the article should be removed per Misplaced Pages:BLP#BLPCRIME and RobertJoeIllinois believes that if it is kept in the article, it is libel. He emailed WMF per WP:LIBEL but I'm not sure how or if WMF will participate. He was warned by Orangemike about legal threats as apparently both of us feel that he was close to making a legal threat but had no yet made one.
    I feel that Novaseminary and can monitor the article itself and make sure that it's adhering to policy but more participants won't hurt. I'd also like to get this information down somewhere in case it pops back up in the future. We may need to start an WP:SPI or meatpupperty investigation before long. OlYeller21 20:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
    I agree entirely with OlYeller21's report. I would just reiterate that the article really could use some more watchers (so could many others, I know). Other than in spurts there is not much to review so I hope it wouldn't be a big drain. As discussed in the prior COIN report, the article early on had been largely the product of a PR individual who claimed to personally represent Strabala (and subsequntly made legal threats and was blocked). My early work on the article was to remove the self-serving, POV fluff and make the article NPOV. As for the material the IP and others want removed (Marshall Strabala#Lawsuits), I find it to be a straightforward (even boring) recounting of the facts as reported in RSs of a series of events clearly related to Strabala's career (the reason he passes BIO in the first place). It makes quite clear who alleged what about Starbala and through what means, nothing more. Novaseminary (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
    Ah. I didn't see that Mykjoseph was indefinitely blocked for making legal threats. It may be worth starting an SPI with that being the case. OlYeller21 22:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
    The COI/SPA/IP eds seem to have stopped for the time being. If they start up again, I agree it would be time for SPI per WP:QUACK. Novaseminary (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

    Young Liberals (Australia)

    Single purpose editor has been pushing very strongly for changes at the young liberal Australia article. this account has only edited this article although he claims to have previously edited under an anon IP. he believes the Young Liberals articles is the "worst" article and offers very long winded arguments on the article's talk page. in my long experience on WP, the style of pushing indicates to me a connection to the article subject. Veritas80 denies being a member of the group and just claims to be a "political science student". I've tried to engage him and request what other articles he has worked on and how he drew the conclusion of this from his "audit" of political articles. lastly he shows no interest in my request to edit or look at other similar articles in his determination to push through his changes. it's fine to check WP for bias but to say only one article is the number one and absolute highest priority for "correction". he has probably spent an hour arguing with no attempt to edit other articles. I ask the broader community to look into this. LibStar (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

    Being an ordinary member of a political party wouldn't in itself be a COI. COI would normally require that he held some position, was paid in some capacity, had close relationships with those who were, or was campaigning in real life for something he was editing about onwiki. I can see he's making arguably POV edits (removing well-sourced material, though I'm saying that without looking at the context), but that's a separate issue from COI. SlimVirgin 20:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
    young liberals is not a political party but the youth arm. COI is relevant here as the motivation for editing as " highest priority". also it's COI to go about soley removing criticusm sections of something you are connected with. We see this time and time on wp, companies/ organizations trying to remove negative material on their wp article. LibStar (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
    I would like to bring the community's attention to the Talk page of the article in question, specifically the section titled 27/12/12 Discussion: 'Criticism' Editing'. Nothing highlights LibStar's disingenuous attempts at editing this article than his refusal to acknowledge my extensive effort in attempting to engage in discussion about the legitimacy of some pieces of information in the article. As is easily visible, upon making edits and having them undone immediately with no counterargument or reasoning aside from accusations of bias, I spent considerable time outlining in the talk page why I believe the information does not comply with Misplaced Pages's guidelines. In response, three times, LibStar has not contributed even one word into this discussion and has instead accused me of having a conflict of interest. As was pointed out by SlimVirgin, conflict of interest is a specific thing defined by Misplaced Pages guidelines as 'editing Misplaced Pages to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers.' I have attempted to engage in a discussion about the content in good faith before editing and have extensively outlined my concerns, highlighting the fact that I am not intending to promote any interest other than that of not having this article remain a hotbed for political knife-wielding. I ask anyone seeking an explanation of my editing practices to see said Talk discussion and contribute their opinion. Despite making it clear that I am not involved with the young liberals and giving full reasoning for my choice of edits LibStar is continuing under the assumption that I am affiliated. It is therefore their assertion that seeking to edit this article as 'highest priority' is a COI. I believe it to be firmly against Misplaced Pages's spirit;; that an article needing serious attention a should be left as is in fear of appearing biased. I have asked several times for a discussion of the issue but LibStar has refused, as evidenced by the talk page. Veritas80 (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

    if this is merely a pov issue, then why isn't the editor looking at other articles for pov? Rather than relentlessly arguing that this article is highest priority. Highest priority in comparison to what other article, please list them. Veritas constant refusal to even look at other articles demonstrates a single focus here. LibStar (talk) 03:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

    As made clear in the talk page of the article in question, when deeming this article as in highest need of attention, I have compared it to every other Australian political party/interest group page as part of an academic exercise for a course and then subsequently as a self audit. This account was created 2-3 days ago. I had intended to do significantly more editing at this point and indeed as mentioned in the talk discussion of the article, I was set to move my immediate attention to another article until my edits were undone without any counter-argument or reasoning by LibStar, I take exception to such activities and will not be bullied out of removing political knife-wielding from an encylopedia article. It is for this reason that the article will remain my highest priority until these issues are resolved; I note that you have put forward no effort whatsoever to assist in resolving these issues and instead are turning this COI board into your personal attack channel, as you did 3 times now to the article's talk page.
    Might I also remind you for your future encounters with editors that Misplaced Pages requires care to be taken when questioning the editing of single purpose accounts and that well-intentioned, niche editing is welcomed where the aim is not to promote/advocate for an unsuitable agenda. Veritas80 (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

    which university course is this? And can you give me examples of negative bias found on labor and green party related articles. Do you intend to edit other articles? LibStar (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

    Political Science as a discipline involves many courses examining political behaviour and the effect of bias. An example of a negative bias elsewhere, also high on my list of importance, is the relationship portion of the Australian Greens article, particularly the subsection The Coalition. I have stated several times that I intend to edit other articles and indeed would have by now if I hadn't faced such baseless opposition to my edits. You will note I do not ask whether you have a COI or ask about your personal details because the only thing important to me is the content of the article, Julia Gillard (Prime Minister on opposite side of politics to the Young Liberals) herself could edit this article and I wouldn't complain as long as in doing so she ensured the article was neutral, encyclopedic and did not promote/advocate her personal views.Veritas80 (talk) 03:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
    at which university has a subject asking to review wikipedia articles? last year we had a UTS lecturer asking students to create Misplaced Pages articles. I have absolutely zero conflict of interest, check my edit history, I edit a wide range of articles and am not singularly focused on one article. one topic eg politics is fine but you have not shown any interest in actually editing other articles despite spending hours arguing your case. sometimes a simple edit take 2 minutes, so you could easily edit 3 or 4 articles in 10 mins. LibStar (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

    Susan Essien Etok

    This article appears to have been written by someone with a close connection to the subject, and it also extensively self-cites. I believe that the author is attempting to establish notability where no such notability exists.

    I believe that the key issue here is that the subject claims to be a long-time friend of Michael Jackson, although the only citation for that appears to be the subject's own blog, plus several unverified claims made through the media. There is no independent verification that Ms Etok was a long-time friend of Jackson's and none of the other claims seem to be verifiable.

    The author claims on my talk page to have no connection to the subject - User_talk:Shritwod#Susan_Etok_page, and yet they unloaded a copyrighted studio photograph (File:Dr_Susan_Essien_Etok.jpg) and then assigned usage rights under Creative Commons. The author then claims (in an apparent contradiction) that they downloaded the picture from the subject's web site, and then afterwards that it was a picture taken by their employee instead. These claims are inconsistent.

    Furthermore, editor Respect77 has *only* worked on this one article, and at one point appears to accidentally reveal their IP address of 86.13.229.160, which is an IP address in Bedfordshire, UK, where the subject lives. I believe that this editor is either the subject themselves, or someone closely related to them, on the basis of the unusual editing history, matching IP address and uploaded photograph. Shritwod (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

    I am respect77 and yes I do live in Bedfordshire UK. I am not Susan Etok and neither have I ever met. I believe Shritwood is launching a hate campaign against me as a user and the subject of my article for an unknown resaon. There is no strange editing history at all. Please look at your editing history and realise that for the last 48 hours, you have done nothing but tried to get my article killed. This is absolutely shocking and I am fightling my case purely because I put so much effort into the article and do not want to see it killed because Shritwood does not like the subject of the article. I am also going to write two more articles relating to people.
    Shritwood is a michael jackson fan celarly and is mounting this campaign on off the back of the pressure from other Michael Jackson fans to kill this article. It surprises me that it bothers you that Dr Etok claims that she was Michael Jackson's friend. Whether she was or not does not affect the fact of the case.
    I do not appreciate you twisting my words Shritwood and trying to claim picture fraud. As I said to you before, it is very easy to verify.
    I feel that I am being bullied and harassed by Shritwood and will escalate this matter to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Respect77 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
    I sent the copyright holder (Paul William photography) a message about the picture, but I haven't received a reply so far. Can your check you email, Respect77? You did identify yourself as that photographer. Shritwod (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    For your information Shritwood there are NO QUOTES relating to the person in the articles blog whatsoever. You have gone through the article REMOVING CREDIBLE SOURCES and then launching complaints to try and get the article killed. This is very underhand behaviour. Why are you doing this. You have threatened me, called me a fraud and liar. Why? All because I wrote an article about someone who said something about Michael Jackson that you did not like?Respect77 17:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Respect77 (talk • contribs)
    The majority of the comments here by both Shritwod and Respect77 are irrelevant to any potential COI problem, and they should both moderate their tone. It's quite possible for a diligent fan to dig up all the information which Respect77 used in creating the article, and it's also credible that Shritwod believes that Susan Etok is not notable on her own merits.

    To my mind, the primary COI question to be answered is this: if Respect77 has to connection to Susan Etok, then how did she come to be the copyright holder on the image used in the article, a studio portrait which would normally be owned by either the subject or the photographer, and certianly not by an uninvolved third party. There are really only two answers: either Respect77 is not connected with Etok and misrepresented her ownership of the image (in which case it should be deleted), or Respect77 owns the photo and misrepresents her independence from Etok.

    I have previously advised Respect77 that if she does have a connection with Susan Etok, it would be best to admit to it rather than continue to mislead the community, and I repeat that now. On the other hand, if she misunderstood the rules concerning ownership of the image, and does not have the legal right to upload the photo, she needs to make that clear. Beyond My Ken (talk)

    --

    In summary (because the discussion is spread over several pages), Respect77 claims to have no connection to the subject, but they also claim the copyright to a studio quality photograph of the subject (as discussed). The account is a single-purpose account used only for this subject and no other edits, but the article was technically very competent which might suggest sockpuppetry (or alternatively just plain hard work). We can tell too from looking at the edit history, that Respect77 lives very close to the subject (in Bedfordshire, UK) because they revealed their IP address of 86.13.229.160. It is perhaps circumstantial that if you Google Respect77 you find a prominent poster to a Michael Jackson forum, despite Respect77 asserting that they have no interest in Michael Jackson at all. I note that 1977 is the year of the subject's birth and also forms part of their username, but that is circumstantial too.

    The article as originally published on 25th December did present several unverified claims as verified facts, indicating bias towards the subject. The article has been significantly cleaned up by other editors, but it may well be deleted for non-notability. I think that it is extremely unlikely that this article was written by anybody other than a close associate of the subject.

    Some references where a discussion has taken place:

    Shritwod (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

    One additional item of potential interest. The central point that would make the subject notable is most likely their claimed long-term friendship with Michael Jackson. But when Respect77 (as user 86.13.229.160) linked in some other pages to that of the subject, they did NOT link from any Michael Jackson topic pages (see http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/86.13.229.160), instead concentrating on several other types of page (for example, locality pages). I suspect that this action was deliberate, because the author knew that the subject's page would be challenged by editors who knowledgeable about this field. Shritwod (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

    Greenpois0n

    Resolved

    A bit more than a week ago, I added a request edit template to Talk:Greenpois0n with a proposed rewrite, and I haven't seen any comments since then, so I'm just posting a note here to invite some extra eyes on the project. The current article is poorly-sourced with overly specific technical details, and the revision is well-sourced and hopefully more readable, so I hope this seems like a sensible rewrite. Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 06:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

    This really isn't an issue for COI unless you believe you or someone else has a direct conflict of interest in this article. I see this page has already has a AfD request, and it is actively being discussed. If it survives that, then consider WP:RFC instead. Marking as resolved since COIN appears to be mispalced for this article. Tiggerjay (talk) 07:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
    I work for the company that produces software installed by the tools discussed in the article, so I believe I have to follow COI guidelines and ask for external opinions before making changes to it. I was hoping that this rewrite could present a better version of the article to people discussing whether it should be deleted. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

    Kehuna.org and User:Kehuna, now Anuhek

    This has been here before when adverts for website retailing silver trumpets were placed, which ended with speedy deletion nomination of Mitzvah to kohanim to sound silver trumpets. The urls are being added to articles again. I've deleted two additions of the urls, but given that I've also had concerns with this user about undiscussed moves of articles to titles/names with no support in English sources I'm "involved". Can someone else please adjudicate on the addition of kehuna.org. User says its a non-profit website, I'm not aware whether that makes a difference. I need to go the gym so will be offline. latest diff. User has just been notified I intend to pass the buck to here. Cheers and many thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

    Hello Gentlemen. The disagreement here is regarding a purely encyclopedic article on biblical research I've inserted into the levite article. The regarded website is informational, even encyclopedic, in nature and is entirely not profit-seeking. Thank-You--Anuhek (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
    The problem is that it does not appear that the link you attempting to insert meets the guidelines at WP:EL, and so it appears as WP:SPAM. Even though you are well meaning, and wanting to contribute valuable information, on the surface it doesn't appear that website meets the guidelines. If you are associated with the website you are attempting to add, I would highly discourage it. Tiggerjay (talk) 07:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
    I dont see why WP:EL would exclude this link in the levite article, especially since WP:EL guidelines actually promote such linking, to quote: "It may be appropriate to have a link to a non-English-language site..when the link is to the subject's text in its original language" in this case the said link contains information of the listing in its source language of Hebrew.--Anuhek (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

    General question about how to handle a situation

    • No particular article

    If I were fairly convinced that I have uncovered evidence that shows that another Misplaced Pages editor was using Misplaced Pages for activities that were promotional or propagandistic and that they were editing articles to reflect the goals of outside campaigns and were basically editing as a means of advocacy in the same area, but I know that if I confronted that editor or exposed the evidence that I would inevitably reveal the real life identity of that editor, how should I proceed please? MeasureIT (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions Add topic