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 06:38, 10 September 2009 editMiszaBot II (talk | contribs)259,776 editsm Archiving 5 thread(s) (older than 7d) to Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 36.← Previous edit Revision as of 12:19, 10 September 2009 edit undoBenjiboi (talk | contribs)50,496 edits →Benjiboi COI - how do we move forward: cNext edit →
Line 484: Line 484:
***So you're saying "I think this guy has a COI, please look at everything he's ever done with a fine-toothed comb". Generally noticeboards don't work that way, COI or others. You provide diffs or give some other evidence to make your case. If you're asking for help you're doing a pretty poor job of it with the tone you've taken. -- ''']'''] 01:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC) ***So you're saying "I think this guy has a COI, please look at everything he's ever done with a fine-toothed comb". Generally noticeboards don't work that way, COI or others. You provide diffs or give some other evidence to make your case. If you're asking for help you're doing a pretty poor job of it with the tone you've taken. -- ''']'''] 01:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
****Actually, containing notices for general attention ''is'' how ''noticeboards'' often work. If you want something specific to get your teeth into, then start by reviewing the discussion ''in the archives of this very noticeboard'', at ], in light of the ''independent'' assertions of a conflict of interest that have now been made, and that cannot be summarily dismissed as the activity of a "stalker" as was the case before.<p>And when you're done with that, try looking at ] where you'll find completely overlooked by the regular editors of the article (q.v.) and talk page (q.v.) a note that ''most of the content of the article is copied verbatim from a press release''. ] (]) 03:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC) ****Actually, containing notices for general attention ''is'' how ''noticeboards'' often work. If you want something specific to get your teeth into, then start by reviewing the discussion ''in the archives of this very noticeboard'', at ], in light of the ''independent'' assertions of a conflict of interest that have now been made, and that cannot be summarily dismissed as the activity of a "stalker" as was the case before.<p>And when you're done with that, try looking at ] where you'll find completely overlooked by the regular editors of the article (q.v.) and talk page (q.v.) a note that ''most of the content of the article is copied verbatim from a press release''. ] (]) 03:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
* '''Comment''', first off, when starting threads about another editor on an admin board you should notify them. Secondly, you're assuming you know my identity and this seems to be entirely based on a ] posting deliberately intended to reveal my identity - they just might have their facts wrong but based on this drama I'll likely change my username to help ease the drama. Third, thank you Uncle G, unfortunetly that blows my cover for neither confirming nor denying if I'm a paid editor but, oh well, it does show a pattern of harassment against me and; in that case other editors cleaned up, I think, one reference in the R Family Vacations article. That same IP had harassed me on the ] article which several of us essentially rewrote from scratch to ed the drama. I think they went on to harass another editor at ]; I believe they were targeting her article more than me but we may never know. The current case might be targeting the Sister Kitty article rather than me as well but I really don't care. As for the press release bits on the Hot House article? You'll likely find but . I think this is Atama's point and if not consider it my point. Please demonstrate what content is actually COI-affected rather than generalizing user x is bad. ] 12:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


== Copied from ] == == Copied from ] ==

Revision as of 12:19, 10 September 2009

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:Alex Wright (author) Talk:Xero (company) Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    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:DrewSchofield

    This user is editing a page which is about himself Andrew Schofield. For various real world reasons I do not want to deal with him. The only bone of contention I have is wether or not Kirkby is in Liverpool. Technically it never has been.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    He made a single edit to the page, which only reverted the change you made, he declared who he was (even said "I was born in Kirkby"), and hasn't done anything since. He's sticking pretty close to the WP:COI guidelines. It sounds to me like if your only concern is the discussion of where Kirkby is, that's a content dispute. Forum shopping isn't going to help you. -- Atama頭 17:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    Kirkby was in Kirkby Urban District not Liverpool and never has been keeping the geographic description of place consistent is important. Misplaced Pages has a definition of Liverpool both current and in the past Misplaced Pages will be far more acceptable if it maintains consistency across all articles. Mr Schofield may feel his allegiance is to Liverpool and that perhaps should be in the article whoever on a strict geographic basis he is not from anywhere that actually was in Liverpool. I also draw you attention to Misplaced Pages:Autobiography which strongly discourages editing articles about yourself.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    Again this is not the place to debate the content of the article. Andrew made a minor edit once and never made another edit. He would certainly have a conflict of interest regarding his own biographical article but it has been almost a week since his edit and I don't think there's anything to be concerned about. He hasn't objected to your removal of the Liverpool category that was done since his sole edit. He's been warned about conflicts of interest and editing his own biography, so what else needs to be done? -- Atama頭 20:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    Nothing else needs to be done but as I said. I have a real world problem for not dealing with him. So if I monitor it then I will have a conflict of interest. I just making sure people know the situation.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    So you're declaring your own potential COI, well that's very conscientious of you to do so. If you like I'll keep it on my watchlist so that there's another pair of eyes on the article if that helps. -- Atama頭 19:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

    Jean Matter Mandler


    Aside from this article looking like it was copied and pasted from another source, the user above appears to have a possible conflict of interest here, considering the similarity between his/her name and the article's subject (and speaking of that, the notability of the subject herself is debatable). Other editors and I have brought the possible COI issue to the editor's attention, and s/he responded by saying s/he doesn't have a conflict of interest but I wonder if s/he really understands exactly what a conflict of interest entails. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

    I think you'd have a lot of trouble debating notability on this one, per WP:PROF she very clearly meets Misplaced Pages's inclusion standards for an academic professional.
    As for the COI, I think this is pretty telling. Not trying to out anyone of course, but choosing an account name like that is pretty much broadcasting his identity. Notice on history of the George Mandler article, there is an editor named Mandler. Coincidence? Although it's possible that these professors have fans (or admiring students) who have chosen usernames in their honor. -- Atama頭 22:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
    Oh and by the way, if this editor really is the distinguished Professor Mandler I would hope that these questions about conflict of interest don't scare him off. An expert with his credentials editing the encyclopedia would be fantastic. -- Atama頭 22:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
    Side note: I changed your wikilink to WP:OUTING because WP:OUT means something totally different. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 00:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    Haha, that it does. Thanks for the correction! -- Atama頭 02:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

    Re: Conflict of interest - I am her husband, but in conformity with instructions I have been very careful to be objective. The material is not copied from anything else. And if she better be classified as an academic rather than a notable, that is perfectly reasonable. George Mandler —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmandler (talk • contribs) 08:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

    She'd fly past WP:PROF so no problems there - I'm snowed under or I'd have a go at the article - if there are still problems, someone ask me in October and I'll take it under my wing. :-) --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Anyone have any issues, or object to me closing this and removing the COI tag from the article? It's not supposed to be a "scarlet letter" to remain forever, if the potential COI editor is staying in-bounds, which he seems to be in this case... Arakunem 15:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    Well, let's see what the tag says. "A major contributor to this article appears to have a conflict of interest with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Misplaced Pages's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page." To dissect this... First, the tag declares that a person might have a conflict of interest and yes in this case that could be said. Then it says it may require cleanup, but looking at that article there is nothing that should be cleaned up, certainly nothing violating WP:NPOV. Finally, it says to discuss this on the talk page of the article but it looks like the discussion on the talk page is settled aside from the identity of Gmandler (which has now been cleared up). So I don't see any reason to continue using that tag. -- Atama頭 17:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

    Editor being sent material by subject to add to article

    Resolved – Deleted. Arakunem 22:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

    You can see that at User talk:Megaeclipse the editor Megaeclipse, blocked for a notional 12 hours by me for copyvio after being warned, is asking for an unblock because "actually the author himself told me to us the material,but he latter realised that it was copyrighted and sent me the original material,so please unblock me as this is a matter of great impotrance, and i have to upload the material". This is to do with the Wayne Herschel article which has attracked some of Herschel's fans. What's the COI position here if this editor is acting as a proxy for the subject, which appears to be the situation? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

    I think we treat them as a meatpuppet and as having a conflict of interest when they use words like "this is a matter of great impotrance and I have to upload the material". --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

    Agreed, there's a COI any time the editor's concerns are split between writing a good article, and any other real-world concern as appears here to be the case. Copyvios aside though, the previous text was massively POV, which is its own problem beyond the motivations of the editor. Watchlisting this to see how it fares after the block expires, or if other fans follow suit. Arakunem 17:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks. I've had email from two of his fans today!. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

    User:JeanDelaporte

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

    The above user created an account on 31 August. His edit history shows that he has exclusively edited two articles: Farouk Hosny and UNESCO. For those who don't know, Farouk Hosny is Egypt's Minister of Culture, and is the leading candidate for the post of UNESCO Director-General. User:JeanDelaporte is actively engaged outside Misplaced Pages in a campaign to oppose Hosny's election. See here and here. He even has an entire website devoted to this cause. All of this user's edits have consisted in adding extremely negative statements about Hosny, to the point where the "Controversy" section now represents two thirds of the article's content. Several issues are at stake here, namely WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP. The aim of the user is thus to influence in some way the outcome of the UNESCO elections, which are due to take place this month, by using Misplaced Pages to portray Hosny in an extremely negative light. It is impossible to assume good faith here. --BomBom (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

    Particularly when he adds defamatory material not in the source to a quote. I've just reverted all his last edits because of that and warned him. Dougweller (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    There also seems to be a lot of undue weight being given to the Controvery section on the Hosny article. The "Achievements" section is 1 paragraph of rattling off a comma-seperated list, while the Controversies section is 4 paragraphs full of POV and speculation... Arakunem 18:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

    Wayne Herschel

    Resolved – Article deleted at AfD. Arakunem 22:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

    As this is a slightly different issue I'm raising it in a separate section. This article keeps getting new users on its talk page saying how great he is. Now I've found this on Dan Brown's facebook page, a comment from Herschel:

    "WIKIPEDIA WARS DAY 2 - AUTHOR AND SOLOMON KEY TO BE DELETED

    If there are any wiki subscribers out there we need numbers... some have tried to help already but the manipulators there will not allow two important uploads complete the page to be an accep...table author page.

    I have just been talking to Nirman... and he tried uploading my bio and periodical references as the wikipedia page requests and some malicious group is deleting them.

    1)The two periodical references are on record here: http://www.thehiddenrecords.com/press_release.htm

    2)Biography text http://www.wayneherschel.com

    There is a full barage there of people (discussion page) manipulating the uploads that wiki are saying they need... any wiki members out there please can you intervene if possible. I am so tied up trying to save my book as well... I am not managing at all with this crazy stuff.

    HERE IS THE CRAZY DISCUSSION PAGE... WHO CAN FIGURE A WAY TO FIX IT? http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Wayne_Herschel"

    Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

    • Not good.... I put some words of wisdom on the talk page. If any of the facebook users can improve the article within the 5 Pillars, then great. I tried to paraphrase what it takes to do so... hope I wasn't too blunt. Arakunem 19:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    If they can't contribute positively and don't cooperate, it might be best to go to WP:RFPP and request semi-protection. These off-wiki "calls for help" usually lead to chaos in my experience so my hopes aren't high but it's best to give them a chance. -- Atama頭 19:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    Absolutely. We give them a chance, explaining exactly how to contribute productively. If it doesn't go well, then Semi-prot is definitely called for. Arakunem 19:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    I was just about to report this situation. Looks like I got beat to the punch. I am concerned that Mr. Herschel has said on his talk page he has no intention of learning how to contribute effectively to Misplaced Pages.Simonm223 (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    This is a quote from his talk page. It is unsigned but it is Herschel speaking:
    "It is you that are implying the issue. If it does not meet up with regulations will you please present a case for it be changed. It is a user name. I am author and not a computer programmer and do not intend trying to learn the ropes here, I am simply getting the page right and doing what is fair. I will proceed with caution and see that the said page follows all requirements. I am getting the feeling the deletion group involved so far with my work has a hidden agenda and I will need to follow up on any false information or malicious unverified deletions of important text is followed up and questioned as you question me, but with media that will be here on this site of the 15th September."
    Bold for emphasis is mine.Simonm223 (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    More from Wayne Herschel:
    This little gem was just posted by Mr. Herschel on the AfD page:
    "The page has just been Reverted to next to nothing... the false claim by Ove von Spaeth is back and it is not true.
    there is somthing drastically unbalanced here and it is about to go online on where others can see the manipulation is rife here!
    I will give moderators here an hour to provide a solution to this then i have no other choice other than taking astand against the moderators names who claim all is fair here. I have a full page put together that will upload in an hour... if I have already been blocked it will come from another party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AstronomerPHD (talk • contribs) 12:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)"
    This matter is getting somewhat out of hand. There is a clear CoI on the AstronomerPHD profile.Simonm223 (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

    From the Dan Brown facebook page,

    "I ask please all those other wiki folks out there to contact me because i have found a way to beat this nonesense. We are being watched by the destructive group here so I cant discuss the plan. Please write to me at XXXXXXXXX and I will share the solution" --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

    And yet we are accused of being a cabal. LOL Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    I'm afraid it's the usual pattern of behaviour that we expect to see in those sorts of cases 1) if I explain it to the administrators, they will ban the people removing my article, 2) if I keep reposting it, eventually it will stick, 3) if I get people to say I'm nice or interesting, it will stick. I really don't understand what is that difficult to understand about verification or the use of reliable sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    The disconnect is that Mr. Herschel wants to use Misplaced Pages as part of the platform for his book. As the book is a self-published book on a fringe subject it has not garnered attention aside from local newspapers saying "gee whiz, this local has some odd ideas that he put into a book". And so he doesn't have any verification and there aren't reliable sources according to Misplaced Pages criteria. Because Mr. Herschel is not familliar with Misplaced Pages (as he has said) and because (also he has said) he has no interest in becoming familliar with Misplaced Pages he is not playing out of the same playbook. It seems to me that he just wants free publicity.Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    I've removed the von Spaeth thing as it wasn't properly sourced - ironically it was put there by the article's creator who may support Herschel. As an aside, this article is a recreation of a speedied article in 2007 if I recall correctly. I'm bothered by the username Herschel has chosen, as he is not an astronomer with a PhD - in fact he's neither. Dougweller (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    Which is not actually a requirement of our username system is it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    He could call himself Ramses II in his username if he wanted. It doesn't make him an ancient pharoah. I do think it's a little bit gauche that he is trying to present himself as if he had an academic credential that he doesn't but I'm more concerned with the off-site activism, the CoI edits and the lack of constructive conversation on the AfD and talk pages affected than I am with his username.Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    The username isn't a problem. Calling himself a PhD isn't a big deal, all our username requirements state is that you can't falsely claim to have authority in Misplaced Pages, and a PhD, real or not, gives you no more authority in this project than anyone else. It's tacky but that's about the worst of it. In any case it looks like the AfD is heading toward a snowball deletion so this will probably all blow over soon. -- Atama頭 17:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    I agree, it's tacky but not forbidden. I was mainly hoping he'd explain it which is why I asked about it - if I'd had serious doubts about it I would have sent it to UAA. Bad idea of his I think as it doesn't make him look good. Dougweller (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an explanation. He's made a whole career around wild claims, why stop with a username? Look how he has asserted on his user talk page that he has contacted "top people" about the deletion of his biography, when it's clear he doesn't know much about Misplaced Pages itself, let alone how to pull imaginary strings. (He frequently refers to non-existent "moderators".) -- Atama頭 00:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

    The lastest from facebook

    Hi Nirman... wrote to top exec at wikipedia UK... investigating page and will report back shortly with a possibility of a full upload of the page how it should be, which I prepared yesterday with 20 references. Also chance of locking the page if the listed instigators are verified and identified :) Verified and identified? --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

    Won't be too hard to identify me. I am rather open about my real life identity.Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    And even later latest from Facebook:
    After making contact with Wikimedia authorities in the UK, an over seeing moderator has now offered to upload the wikipedia full page and references to the real finding and will verify that I am the author, perhaps checking out the periodicals I use for references. Having said this it will be still be open to discussion and the page hopefully frozen for a short period of time during its evaluation. The previous 'delete frenzy' editors in question there also tried to remove my copyrights on the carefully redrawn detail of the Hebrew pictogram cipher puzzle, for the (Key of Solomon), claiming they had the right to make it free. The old listing of my work there has almost no meaning and the listing will be there for a day or too before starting from scratch. I just wanted to say special thanks for support in this matter as the inquiry there was seen in better light and not just me versus a group of biased editors.
    Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    Article deleted so I imagine that should resolve Mr. Herschel's (odd) concerns over free use of his diagram. I still think that the page needs to be salted as this quote suggests Mr. Herschel intends to re-post the article in a few days. As an note, I don't know much about South African copyright law but I do know that in Canada you can't claim copyright on a public domain symbol just by re-drawing it. You could claim fair use on a copyright for a piece derived from a public domain symbol if you could demonstrate a substantive change to the underlying meaning of the symbol in some way but the original symbol would remain in the public domain and if it was unchanged your redrawn copy would likewise be public domain.Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    What diagram is he referring to? I don't see any upload from the one known account. Arakunem 20:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    I think he may be referring to the picture of the "solomons key" (actually a plate of a circle diagram from within the book) that was removed from the page a few days before the AfD was concluded. The removal was on the grounds that a) the picture was doctored and b) the picture likely violated free use criteria. As seems de-rigeur for Mr. Herschel he got things bass-ackwards and thought we were trying to claim he didn't have copyright when, in fact, the opposite was being proposed - that the picutre should not be up because we did not hold a copyright for it. This is only a guess.Simonm223 (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    Latest from Herschel on Dan Brown's Facebook:
    Wayne Herschel
    WIKIPEDIA UK AUTHORITY DEMAND REMOVAL OF AUTHOR AND SOLOMON KEY FINDING
    I have been told by the UK Misplaced Pages authority <name redacted by SimonM due to WP:OUTING> Re:Ticket#2009090210032671 that I must be removed. Other authors with less status than my own have the right to be on ...wikipedia but due to the material concerned, I have absolutely no right to be there. All that is left there is the image that I rendered on a separate page... and even my copyrights as the artist have been removed too for the Solomon Key cipher now to be public property. They are out right lying that it has expired. (it was only there two months and copyright text on it now removed) I am releasing all documentation to the media for next week with the other attacks to try and stop my book project that are underway right now. I presented all the third party references they asked for, TV coverage, Coast to Coast radio, many newspapers covering my findings as discoveries, not just an author, two periodicals on the Solomon key and more.
    Authors like David Ike that self published, had no media covered historical discoveries, and claims the Queen of England is an alien has a full page spread.
    Here is the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wayne_Herschel
    Here is my image:http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Hebrew-solomon-key-parchment-pictogram-cipher-puzzle-clavicula-salomonis-wayne-herschel.jpg
    Now this strikes me as just about the worst case of WP:CANVAS I have ever seen. Furthermore Mr. Herschel still is making bizarre copyright claims. I can't actually make heads or tails of his reasoning... it seems like he thinks that because he is the copyright holder we can't delete his picture... or something. But that would be the same as suggesting that a janitor who uses a high-pressure water spray to blast the graffiti off a public wall was breaking the copyright of the tagger. Anyway, still hoping we can get this article salted to avoid future flareups. How do we go about seeing to that?Simonm223 (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
    • LOL- BHA : wow, apparently wikipedia is held in high regard among these people as this seems to have become a big deal to them. I would offer, in his defense, one explanation for his comments that sound similar to some of my own in many contexts. He has an agenda or set of objectives that may or may not match wikipedias, the benefit of free assembly of course is that lacking in mutual desire to associate everyone can part ways and you need not learn what everyone is doing, just determine if there is an empirical match where everyone says "ok". Presumably this is what he would prefer to learning the ways of wikipedia. An encyclopedia or other objective is not for everyone. Sorry I don't have much to contribute beyond that but this is a humorous story. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

    User Leveque

    Levenque is a WP:SPA. As Loulou 50 and through his initial edits as Levenque , he sought to incorporate published articles written by Alain Leveque into Misplaced Pages articles and use Misplaced Pages as a soapbox for his beliefs. After discussions (Talk:Rodrigues#Soapbox, User_talk:Leveque#History_of_Rodrigues, User_talk:Leveque#Mauritius) he changed his approach to spamming links to his articles instead, and was warned User_talk:Leveque#About_external_links. During this time, he also had discussions about his conflict of interest in Talk:Mauritius#Possible_conflict_of_interest and User_talk:Leveque#Original_Research.
    All of that happened over two years ago. Since then he has continued to spam his article links, making accusations of vandalism when his links are removed.
    My recommendations:
    --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    Forget the conflict of interest. He's a self-promotional spam-only editor. You've offered a final warning, one more violation and report to WP:AIV. Be sure to link to his former account to have it blocked (so he doesn't use it for socking) and a link to this COI noticeboard report would be helpful too. I'd wait until his next violation before reporting, though, just to be sure, but I'm pretty confident that he'd be facing an indefinite block. -- Atama頭 00:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    I've reported him to AIV, mentioning that he's been adding these self-promotional links for years (at least as far back as 2007), mentioned his other account, and this COI noticeboard report. -- Atama頭 05:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    I'll discuss this with the editor. Remember that AIV is only for simple, clear vandalism. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 08:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    You're right. WP:ANI would probably have been a better venue. Thank you for looking into this. -- Atama頭 17:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    He's added the link back three times since he was given a final warning. He's ignoring this report and the comments by Master of Puppets. Based upon this, I've reported him to AIV. If he's not blocked there, I'll post to ANI. --Ronz (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    Blocked for one day. Would be appropriate for blocks to increase dramatically if this continues. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    I agree with Cirt on this one, seeing that he outright ignored my attempt at conversation. Notify us if you see any socks being used to evade the block. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 01:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    His response to the block:
    "Block all you like. But no spiteful zealot will EVER stop me from adding a link about Rodrigues history to an entry about Rodrigues. To let you do that is to acknowledge that Misplaced Pages belongs to zealots like you."
    It doesn't look like he used any sockpuppets during the block (I checked the articles he has edited before). -- Atama頭 20:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
    He's back and immediately restored links to his articles. I've requested another block at AIV. --Ronz (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    He has pretty much promised to sock in the future. "We'll see how many people and how many computers you can block in the years ahead." -- Atama頭 18:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    User:Enigmaman has renewed the block of Leveque through 14 September. I have not noticed any sock accounts evading this new block at either Mauritius or Rodrigues. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

    New Chronology (Rohl)

    Occasional problems here but probably ignorable until this edit by David Rohl (talk · contribs) - it would be useful if someone who hasn't been involved stepped in to help. He has had a lot of advice about COI issues and I don't think he should have made this major edit himself. He is heavily involved in editing this page and David Rohl, usually just on the talk page however. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

    Perhaps he shouldn't, but I don't see any problems introduced, and Rohl had (per my suggestion) drafted the edit at User:David Rohl/NCdraft, and posted the link on the talk page, which produced no objections to the content. Rd232 08:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    I've been trying to stay out of it myself, but this was too much. I hadn't been following the talk page closely and hadn't noticed that he was drafting something in userspace. The edit appears to me to be one of Rohl arguing his case for his chronology which is completely inappropriate and original research. Dougweller (talk) 10:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    Doug, while I agree that this material could be better sourced, and that Rohl shouldn't have made the edit himself, I doubt that it is original research - as far as I can tell, it is mostly a summary of arguments Rohl has made in his published work. Rohl's published work is obviously a reliable source for what the New Chronology says, so I think the issue here is that we need to be more detailed in our sourcing, not that this is verboten OR. The language could probably also stand some editing for POV, and we might put more input from dissenting voices, if we can, but I think that, overall, it's not so bad, and is an okay starting point. john k (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    I really would as I said like someone uninvolved to comment. Rohl has now accused me of malice and of having a COI myself - his response was just a personal attack but he did say that it wasn't "theoretical OR, but 'implications' - although this aspect should perhaps be taken to the NOR (but would that be forumshopping?). As I wrote on the talk page, we have the phrase 'indirectly challenges' with no source, and then two new paragraphs where the sources don't discuss the New Chronology and then more about Rohl's ideas. Ok, I missed the fact that it was on a userpage (I wasn't blaming anyone for that), but it should have been on the talk page and someone else should have added it (or not, as I don't think a lot of it is appropriate). And what do you think Rohl's response will be to me if I start editing the article and add cn templates or remove stuff I think is OR? I really don't want the hassle which is why I've stayed away, it's just unpleasant. Rohl should not be editing the article. Dougweller (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    Well I just spent an hour or two reading the entire talk page, & the discussion there could be far worse. While I admit I am not totally uninvolved, I do have enough distance to see that progress appears to be made on improving this article & I think the three of you all deserve praise for that. Especially since this is a hard task -- it concerns an esoteric aspect of a technical issue (i.e. ancient Egyptian chronology) & this article easily could have led to an ArbCom case or OTRS issue. I believe the chief challenge has been -- & still is -- this subject is David Rohl's baby, & he can't help but react to any criticism as if his baby is being knifed. However, he has been trying to be objective, & I feel he has provided some useful input into the article. If a way could be found to keep him a bit further removed from the article -- not unable to participate, but to give the rest of the people a little more space to work in -- this might allow the article to improve at a quicker pace. -- llywrch (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    Ideally, he should confine his editing to the the talk page of the article, and everyone involved should get together there and discuss each change incrementally before making any changes to the article. Since, as you rightly said, any change or criticism, however small, is likely to be controversial in his eyes, the changes should proceed slowly and incrementally, with discussion to a consensus:
    "I propose we change paragraph 3 to read <x>"
    <discussion back and forth>
    <Consensus!>
    <Change made>
    <Move to paragraph 4....>
    It may seem like it is progressing slowly, but this way it is sure to be something everyone can agree on. And as this methodology proceeds, it will likely get quicker as the parties get to know each other. Arakunem 18:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    You are right about that, but it appears that (1) he was concerned that none of the errors he felt in the article were being fixed, so (2) on the advice of one of the people involved, he wrote his own version of the article in his own userspace, then (3) asked if he should move his text to the article, & when no one spoke up (4) did so. It has happened elsewhere that people with a COI asks for a change in an article, but no one responds; what should that person then do? David Rohl, right or wrong, for lack of a better option decided to be bold (as in WP:BRD). Following that model, the next step should then be for someone -- say Doug Weller, who obviously objects to this change -- to revert & then discuss. -- llywrch (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    Yep, his discussing on the talk page is only half of the equation. Any/all editors who have differing opinions also need to participate as well, otherwise "silence equals acquiescence" is not an unreasonable assumption for him to make in this case. Arakunem 18:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    I agree it would have been a good thing if I'd participated more. My hand operation has been holding me back since the 27th which seems to be when this all started, and I didn't notice the mention that it was being worked on off the talk page. What I think I'd like now is for someone to raise the OR issues I've raised at NOR - if I raise them I'll also raise Rohl's ire I think. It needs to be cleared up how much the sources need to actually mention Rohl's NC. Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    I'm a somewhat uninvolved editor (I've never edited that article to my knowledge or gotten involved in any discussion regarding its content). But this is the 3rd time I've seen David Rohl appear on the COI noticeboard in the last month or so and I've looked at his participation at the New Chronology article, and for the most part he's pretty good about discussing things on the talk page rather than editing the article itself. -- Atama頭 19:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    Which is more or less what I was trying to say at the start of this. He definitely started off on the wrong foot though edit warring like mad, but except for his tendency to take things personally and insult others he disagrees with, he could be worse. But I still think he should have waited to let someone else post it, there is no deadline. Dougweller (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

    User:Transilluminate

    They are either the artist himself or a very dedicated fan (maybe PR person?). An avalanche of edits in the first day of the account, and all of them either editing the artist's page or adding info to other pages about the artist. I would say give them a chance to communicate, if they do, but if they don't they may be looking at a block sometime in the future. In the meantime we shouldn't treat them too harshly. -- Atama頭 22:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    Have you had a look at the user's talk page? There have been multiple attempts to communicate, all ignored... thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    They are also most likely a brand-new user on a mistaken flurry of editing. The account was created earlier today and edited for about 7 hours and stopped. I don't know if they have ever looked at their user talk page. They've never made an edit outside of article space. That is why myself and NeilN urge a bit of caution per WP:BITE, there's no evidence so far of ill-intent. -- Atama頭 23:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    I've done some cleanup on the article and removed some spammy links. I also tagged it for copypaste since some of it seems to be lifted from other websites. Might be the individuals standard bio. Probably worth keeping an eye on but nothing showing signs of intentional abuse or gross negligence. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    From this they have admitted to being "official employees" of Brian Clarke and asked for page protection to be established on Brian Clarke (artist) so that only they can edit it in the future. That request is the one and only time they've made any kind of communication with someone on Misplaced Pages that I can see. I think that WP:AGF has been stretched too far, plus they are violating WP:NOSHARE already by sharing the account so they're due for an indef block. I wonder if a WP:ANI report is necessary now. -- Atama頭 18:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

    Islamic marketing

    I am in doubt what to do about this. It appeared as an announcement of "Islamic marketing, a new social science founded by Dr. Baker Ahmad Alserhan" and of a journal he plans to publish next year. Dr Alserhan clearly thought, quite innocently, that Misplaced Pages was the right notice-board to publicise his new journal. So far, so spammy; but I thought not quite blatant enough for db-spam, and instead PRODded it as original research. The PROD has been removed and the article further edited by a number of IPs (probably Dr Alserhan editing without logging in). There is now some discussion of the subject as well as the journal, and references to several books, which suggest that, rather than "a new social science founded by Dr. Alserhan", "Islamic marketing" may be an already-existing subject worthy of an article. So do we:

    • send this article to AfD as self-promotion and original research, or
    • cut out the promotional bit about the "new social science" and the yet-to-be-published journal, and leave a stub in the hope that it can be an expanded to an article - which could, in due course, refer to Dr Alserhan's journal when that is published. Dr Alserhan himself might very likely be able to develop such an article - what guidance should he be given about how far he is allowed to mention himself and his forthcoming journal?

    JohnCD (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

    Looking at the article and after googling "islamic marketing" I've decided to send it to AfD here. Smartse (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

    User:Tonye Irims and Dual SIM

    Resolved – Indef blocked as a spammer. -- Atama頭 00:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    User has been indef blocked by User:Blueboy96. Smartse (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

    User:Ombudswiki

    Ombudswiki is currently expanding on an edit about an autobiographical book "Love is My Form". His edits contain little direct biographic information on the subject, Sathya Sai Baba, yet the paragraph continues to grow with facts about the book. I have tried to add the informational to another section so it can be expanded on but he reverts it back to its previous edit and continues to elaborate. It seems suspicious to me and "does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article."

    Editor Onopearls states "I must agree that many of Ombudswiki's replies are somewhat condescending" Radiantenergy has already brought this issue for arbitration
    Ombudswiki states his name as Brian Steel. Research on Google finds an anti Sai Baba writer named "Brian Steel" with many web pages http://www.briansteel.net/index.html
    http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/storiesclaims08.htm

    Both persons share an interest in Sathya Sai Baba, Spanish and share a similar online name ( his wiki name is Ombudswiki and the email address for Anti Sai Baba Brian steel is ompukalani@) Thank you.
    J929 (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

    I notified the user and they wrote back on my talk page: Smartse (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    "Hello! Is this where I respond to your invitation for a comment?
    In a complex series of tiring exchanges on the (endless) Sathya Sai Baba Discussion pages (14 Archives already), I have been trying to establish my right to be judged by what I publish on Misplaced Pages. On my User Page I choose voluntarily to offer my real name for anyone who wishes to check up on me.

    Please ask the complainant (who has recently retracted unfounded charges of vandalism against me) to show, coherently and specifically, which of my postings on this Misplaced Pages article show clear evidence of COI.Ombudswiki (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)"

    More background:

    Recently, on the Discussion page and in the article, I presented information about an important 600 page biography of the early years of Sathya Sai Baba (published in 2001), which, although far more detailed than the first volume of the standard hagiography by N. Kasturi, has (inexplicably) not been considered for this article. When “challenged” by J929, I gave full publishing details and explained that this was part 1 of a planned series, researched by a team of devotees or sympathisers, headed by R.Padmanaban (SSB’s former photographer), which was intended to be the first of a long series on SSB’s life. When further challenged by J929 on who the researchers were, I posted the long list of researchers and collaborators and the (relevent) Acknowledgements from the book itself (on the SSB Discussion page). Instead of welcoming the new source of valuable information, J929 has continued to try to limit the coverage of this book to the Beliefs Section (rather than the Biography one, which is the logical place for it). To give an idea of the discussion exchanges between us, in a recent post I responded to his/her protests with the following:

    J929: Can you please present more coherent points for consideration?

    What are we to make of thoughts like the following? "the rest of the paragraph covers the number of proposed books and description such as "600 page volume", etc and who the published was. This doesnt seem like it is of a biography of Sathya Sai Baba." (Later you contradict yourself on this issue: "Love is My Form is a biography, i think we are in agreement on that."

    And what does this mean?

    "the paragraph as it is, discusses more on the "book" rather than the "biography". i dont think you have adressed this issue, as more alight to that the book is a biography." Have you had a look at a copy yet? Ombudswiki (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

    I suggest that a reading of the SSB Discussion page will confirm that J929’s contributions to this article (and another connected with SSB) include continual evasive, aggressive – and I think, unhelpful - replies and ploys on this and other topics). I suggest that J929 must now present a list of specific accusations of COI infringements which he has found in my Misplaced Pages contributions. Ombudswiki (talk) 07:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

    I'm not convinced that there is a conflict of interest here. There is possibly a bias, but has Ombudswiki tried to link to his own web sites or anything he has published himself? Otherwise this just seems like a content dispute. -- Atama頭 18:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


    The issues raised are in concern for the Sathya Sai Baba article.

    In relation to my statement quoted in the discussion page, "This doesnt seem like it is of a biography of Sathya Sai Baba." The information Ombudswiki keeps expanding on ie. information on the 'Love is My Form' book, ie facts about where it was published, and as can be seen now on the Sai Baba page, several references to fact it is 600 pages long etc... ARE NOT A BIOGRAPHY. Facts about the subject, Sathya Sai Baba constitue biographical information. The book (although it is itself a biography) when elaborated on is NOT A BIOGRAPHY. this is what i meant in the provided quote, " this (information on the Love is My Form book) does not seem like a biography of Sai Baba"

    i have tried to help Ombudswiki with edits and on good faith made changes requested by him (which were dictated by his opinion and no wikipedia body) only to be met with more complaints and patronising comments... Myself and other editors have been met with such comments as

    • " I applaud your willingness to cooperate in this matter "
    • "The extraordinary ad hominem allegations against the BBC by J929 and Sbs108 "
    • " ... offer here the necessarily lengthy answer to put his mind at rest "
    • "Perhaps the last three contributors (who seem to be both energetic and hasty)"
    • and more recently " continual evasive, aggressive "

    Editor Onopearls states "I must agree that many of Ombudswiki's replies are somewhat condescending"

    In reference to changes i made to his edits, they were to allow the subject (Love is My Form) to be expanded on in a different context. He made two points (about records and local knowledge about Shirdi Sai Baba) that directly linked to the biography section of the page. The rest is just information on the book itself. Based on his writings it seemed that there was alot of effort put into this book so i moved it to the "Beliefs and pratcises of Devotees" section and presented it as a form of devotion as the author himself wrote the book was his meditation, penance and prayer... Ombudswiki complained that the paragraph was "hijacked" and rewrote the paragraph and continued to write more. (and at the same time deleted my paragraph concerning the book, although my edits did not need his work to remain.)

    Again he states, "Have you had a look at a copy yet?" Why all the refernce to one book. Read it, get the relevant information and write those findings in the biography section on the Sathya Sai Baba page. This is why i wrote, "It seems suspicious to me and "does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article."" No content has been added from the book. You can't go to a restaurant and eat the menu. (well, maybe you can...)

    My concerns were further raised when research into his name found many anti Sai Baba writings, blogs and websites associated with the person "Brian Steel". Ombudswiki's name is also Brian Steel. Is this a coincidence? If Ombudswiki is the same Anti Sai Baba writer, Brian Steel, then a concern arises for his neutrality on the edits he provides.

    His edits (and behavior) "does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article."

    As per his request...

    • Misplaced Pages states.. "COI editing involves contributing to Misplaced Pages in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Brian Steel belongs to a group of anti Sai Baba writers and Ex-devotees, ie Robert Priddy etc... see web apges for links to each other. This group has an agenda and it is clear. How can they then profess to write in a "neutral tone" for the Sai Baba page.
    • Please also note the dischord on the Sathya Sai Baba discussion pages, it seems a reflection of these 'agendas'. This is also in conflict with wikipedia policy "When editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Misplaced Pages is not, and notability, accounts may be blocked." This can be seen now in the current state of editing on the Sathya Sai Baba page. Is erasing my contribution on 'Love is My Form' as a devotional work a "disruption"?
    • " Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested" Ombudswiki has stated his name, but not his interets. ie does he host several anti Sai Baba websites? if yes, then a Conflict of Interest becomes clear. as seen with his writing, attitude (as editor Onopearls states "I must agree that many of Ombudswiki's replies are somewhat condescending") and, as wikipedia states, "interests."

    i started on wikipedia only a few monthes ago as i saw what shame the Sathya Sai Baba page was. I knew no other editors and added to the page based on avaiable resources. Any 'relations' developed were from a desire to improve the article, not make it a ground for my opinions and agenda. The Misplaced Pages Sathya Sai Baba page is a 'Biography Of Living Persons' the respect of/to the subject should be maintained, not the interests "of other individuals, companies, or groups."

    "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." as Misplaced Pages states, "We must get the article right."

    I hope i have adressed all the relevant concerns...

    J929 (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

    I am an uninvolved editor. I have not (as I recall) ever edited the Sathya Sai Baba page and have no vested interest. If I may venture an opinion I see J929 (talk · contribs) who appears to be a Sathya Sai Baba WP:SPA account upset over potentially controversial edits made by Ombudswiki (talk · contribs), who appears to edit a broad variety of subjects. Looking over the edit history I wouldn't necessarily have made the same edits as Ombudswiki but I see no compelling evidence of a COI.Simonm223 (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    "Brian Steel belongs to a group of anti Sai Baba writers and Ex-devotees, ie Robert Priddy etc... see web apges for links to each other. This group has an agenda and it is clear." Again, is Ombudswiki linking to his own sites? If not, I don't see what the COI is here. COI does not mean having a bias. Is Ombudswiki directly promoting a particular group that he belongs to? That is what the portion of WP:COI that you quoted above refers to. Or do you suspect there is such a group in existence because he shares the views of other editors? It looks to me like you've confused WP:COI and WP:NPOV which is a common mistake to make. The purpose of identifying a COI is to show that there is a reason to doubt that an editor is trying to get some sort of personal gain out of editing Misplaced Pages, whether that be through financial gain or general promotion. But everyone has biases and we don't take the time to note every single bias every editor has. I played World of Warcraft for a long time, and I'm a fan of the game, do I have a conflict of interest regarding the edits I've made to that article? I would hope not. If I were to mention my former guild in the article or try to link to their web site, that would be a COI.
    If you feel that Brian is trying to insert bias into the article, then that is a violation of Misplaced Pages policies and should be reported to the POV noticeboard. But as long as he's not promoting himself or some other "group" in the article I don't see the COI. -- Atama頭 21:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


    Thank you again for the clarification. i will look into the POVN noticeboard... i do have a question... Misplaced Pages states "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested" If Ombudswiki is the same Brian Steel; who holds multiple websites with Anti Sai Baba views, and does as Misplaced Pages asks and declares who he is, (on his user page and the Sathya Sai Baba discussion page) with relation to his websites) then will a COL exist? to what extent can an editor be asked to "declare their interests"? If Ombudswiki says he operates the anti Sai Baba sites, then is that a COL by affiliation or does he have to actually state his own website on his user page?

    J929 (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

    "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested." You are asking if Brian says that he owns and operates anti-sai websites that he has not attempted to promote in any way on any of the Sai articles, that will make him have a Conflict of Interest? No. "COI editing involves contributing to Misplaced Pages in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Can you offer any proof where Brian has attempted to advance an outside interest? I don't believe so. His edits to the article are, from what I have seen, adequately neutral. His edits on the talk page, while condescending, are not proof of a CoI either. Without any actual proof, I would be inclined to agree with the other editors in that Brian Steel, aka Ombudswiki, does not have a Conflict of Interest on this article. That being said, if you believe he is editing without a NPOV, I would take it up with the NPOV noticeboard. Thanks, Onopearls 23:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

    "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested." i'm saying if he runs the anti Sai Baba sites, does he have to "declare ..his.. interests" ie that he is already associated to Sathya Sai Baba by running an entire website with Sathya Sai Baba as the subject and he himself having written several books on Sai Baba. (it seems safe to say he has made some money off Sai Baba with book sales)
    Three names seem to be linked with the anti Sai Baba sites, Brian Steel, Robert Priddy and Barry Pittard. Does that constitue a "group" with "interests". Personally i would say 'yes'.
    They are linked as seen in ProEdits latest contribution, citing http://www.rfjvds.dds.nl/ex-baba/engels/shortnews/bbcbroadcastsecretswami.html as a source. Closer inspection finds that the site is authored by Barry Pittard. Essentially one of them can author a page and the other can site it as a source to write in wikipedia. That seems like a 'group' with an 'interest' or 'agenda'. (and a means to propogate their views.
    So with that as an example 'groups with interests can edit --without declaring their interests--a Misplaced Pages article'
    The fact that 2 of these 3 writers are known to be active on the Sathya Sai Baba page seems like "promote(ing) your own interests."
    "When editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view..." i agree Ombudswiki does not cause the disruption ProEdits does (ie rewriting the BBc paragraph although it has already been deemed a BLP violation), but patronising words do not induce harmony. Both are linked outside of Misplaced Pages and together use Sai Baba as a subject to promote their own interests.
    As Brian Steel states in his blog, "This only leaves me, and you, ... alongside those millions who have preceded us and already tried to stake their claim for public attention. Others can remain aloof for a while longer if they wish, but I have finally decided, after dragging my feet for a year or more ...that I may as well keep up with the cyberJoneses by joining in this colossal competition for attention." A competition for attention seems like an agenda and his user page does say, "waste decent contributors' time and energy on unnecessary edit wars... sometimes in the cause of propaganda - or just for fun"
    i dont feel the Sathya Sai Baba site should be a forum for 'attention seeking' editors, in whatever medium they strive for it ie. comments about other editors, "hasty, agressive"..., as a individual or a group.

    J929 (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

    Can you offer any proof that the three men mentioned above have had any contact with each other outside of Misplaced Pages, or that they have some sort of elaborate system in which they cite the websites of the others in Misplaced Pages in some sort of scheme to discredit Sathya Sai Baba? I highly doubt that. Misplaced Pages is not in the business of jumping to conclusions when there is no evidence.
    "The fact that 2 of these 3 writers are known to be active on the Sathya Sai Baba page seems like 'promote(ing) your own interests.'" The mere fact that they are active in editing the articles is inconsequential. "Both are linked outside of Misplaced Pages and together use Sai Baba as a subject to promote their own interests." And the key word there? outside Misplaced Pages.
    "joining in this colossal competition for attention." A competition for attention seems like an agenda" I did not see any mention of using :Misplaced Pages to seek attention. I seek attention outside of Misplaced Pages on occasion. Does that make me have an agenda? I don't think so.
    It appears that you are attempting to get an editor that has done nothing wrong punished and/or banned from editing the SSB article because you disagree with his work outside of Misplaced Pages. This is not how Misplaced Pages works, and bringing up false accusations (as I have become convinced that this is) to do so constitutes WP:Harassment, and is not tolerated. I would also remind you that this CoI section is about Ombudswiki (Brian Steel), Not ProEdits (Robert Priddy). So please stick to offering some evidence other than speculation that proves that he does indeed have a CoI. Thanks, Onopearls 22:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

    User:Mcarter13, Artery Foundation and their clients

    This user has input Artery Foundation, described as an artist management label, and a list of their clients, and now appears, despite a COI warning, to be steadily adding articles about their, mostly non-notable, clients. JohnCD (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

    These are spam as far as I can tell. I tagged them and their list for speedy. Rees11 (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    User was given a level 4 warning yesterday and has not edited since. Once the last two articles are deleted, maybe problem over. JohnCD (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    Just a note, I don't think the two remaining articles are likely to be speedied. List of Artery Foundation artists doesn't seem to fit G11 because it's nothing but a list of artists, there's nothing overtly promotional about it. In The Color Morale they claim to be in an upcoming national tour, so they would be ineligible for deletion per A7. I expect you'll need to either prod or AfD those articles. -- Atama頭 19:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    There's an unsourced claim that they will be part of someone else's tour as a supporting act; that doesn't meet WP:BAND #4 - I suppose it might lift them out of A7 - we'll see what an admin thinks. JohnCD (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    Guess you're right, Atama: I have PRODded one and AfD-ed the other. JohnCD (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

    User:ProEdits

    User ProEdits states on his user page, "I am the webmaster for the following site:" http://robertpriddy.com and also http://www.saibaba-x.org.uk/ and the blog robertpriddy.wordpress.com Anyone interested can view the Wiki biographical page http://en.wikipedia.org/Robert_Priddy" Robert Priddy is well known (and vocal) about his anti Sai Baba views. (as stated in the web sites) He edits for the Sathya Sai Baba page. With such a negative opinion how can edits be considered "neutral"? (as seen in his latest edits. Adding material about the BBC, after it had been deemed a BLP violation and removing information from a source, which he says "is a pro-Sai site full of massive attacks on critics" yet if he is a critic then there is an "agenda") Using information from his website has been banned. Why then is he allowed to directly write for the Misplaced Pages Sathya Sai Baba page? The concern is his "agenda", and does that conflict with the goals/interests of Misplaced Pages?

    J929 (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

    J929, it seems you understand little about neutrality. A person can be neutral on many issues but biased on others. There is something knowm as freedom of speech, which also has relevance for Misplaced Pages no less, when that freedom is exercised with full grounding and source references, as I have done. You exercise your freedom of speech to show you are very clearly biased against me and other reasonable and measured critics of Sathya Sai Baba such as Andries and Ombudswiki. Your bias is witnessed by your massive pro-Sai baba editing and removals of ad much critical material as you presumably think will stand. I think the Sathya Sai baba page is far, far worse in its adulatory attitude than it ever was, and it will hardly ever be accepted as 'objhective' when you have added links to so many subjective pro-Sai websites.ProEdits (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

    the fact information from your own site is not allowed on the Sathya Sai Baba page and then removing sources with critical views on critics consistitues an agenda. The sources you removed were not deemed inappropriate by any wikipedia body. so it is your opinion at work and we all know what that is. how is that neutral? please explain...
    which pro Sai Baba websites are you refering to? i rewrote any edits of mine that refered directly to those sites. any content you removed was not from me.

    J929 (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

    "You exercise your freedom of speech to show you are very clearly biased against me" may i point out you run an entire website to crticising Sathya Sai Baba, a living person...

    J929 (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

    This isn't so much a COI issue as POV. I suggest you both stop the personal attacks and concentrate on the article. Stick to reliable secondary sources, no blogs or web sites that are not owned by mainstream news organizations. Remember, everyone has a POV, and that's ok. The problem arises when POV sneaks in to the article. Rees11 (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


    ProEdits is continuing to rebuild a segment of the article that has already be deemed a BLP violation... http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=304058770&oldid=304057209#Question At what point does a POV become a COI?
    Thanks for your time...
    J929 (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    Comments by Radiantenergy:
    • User:ProEdits is no one other than Robert Priddy. His contributions and his userpage serves as evidence to this fact.
    • Next question is Who is Robert Priddy?
    • Robert Priddy owns negative defamatory attack websites on Sathya Sai Baba in the web and he is ex-follower of Sathya Sai Baba.
    • Robert Priddy websites were banned by Second arbitration commitee. They stated the following

    Arbitration commitee stated that "Priddy maintains several web sites: http://home.no.net/rrpriddy/Nos/index.html is a conventional author's web site with links to many of Priddy's works. http://home.chello.no/~reirob/ titled SATHYA SAI BABA stories, myths and deceits http://home.no.net/anir/Sai/ and http://home.no.net/abacusa/ are attack sites containing large amounts of opinion and what appears to be personal experience and unverifiable original research.". http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Robert_Priddy

    • The same 'Robert Priddy' whose websites were banned by second arbitration commitee is edit-warring and causing disruption to the article. His WP:COI with the subject 'Sathya Sai Baba' is well-known. Why is he allowed to edit the Sathya Sai Baba article?.
    • The following evidence to show his disruption to the article several times in the last 2 weeks trying to push his negative agenda on Sathya Sai Baba into the article.
    ,
    ,
    ,
    .
    • Robert Priddy has been edit-warring and trying to add more and more defamatory material from old 2004 BBC documentary inspite of the WP:RS board here - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=304058770&oldid=304057209#Question declaring the BBC material should be removed as its a clear BLP violation to the subject - Sathya Sai Baba.
    • As per the WP:RS recommendation I removed unneccessary gossip and presented BBC material in neutral tones but Priddy has been adding back more and more defamatory material from the BBC and there by clearly and repeatedly violating WP:RS decision again and again.
    • Robert Priddy editing is definitely detrimental to this article due to his strong WP:COI with the subject Sathya Sai Baba. Please also note that this article already went through 2 arbitrations and may likely go into third arbitration if his edit-warring and disruption don't stop.

    Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

    I'd like to answer this question, "At what point does a POV become a COI?" The answer is, never. While WP:COI and WP:NPOV are related they are distinctly different. Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy relates to editing an article to insert bias, either negative or positive, and applies to the actions of any editor. The COI policy relates to an editor who is editing in a manner that provides a conflict of interest because of their relation to the article subject or their edits. A conflict of interest is just a way of identifying when an editor might possibly be editing Misplaced Pages with ulterior motives because they might get some personal gain out of it (generally of either a financial or promotional nature). Often a person with a COI does have a particular POV when they edit, but there is no point that a POV "becomes" a COI. There seems to be some assumption that a COI is just a strong POV but that's not the case, in fact while a COI can often be harmless, editing to promote a POV is always negative. There is a noticeboard for NPOV violations that is separate from this one.
    Also, if this editor has been editing in violation of ArbCom restrictions, WP:AE is the place to report those violations. In this case, if Proedits is Robert Priddy then there is a COI because he is adding links to his own writings which could be seen as self-promotion. But I would recommend arbitration enforcement instead of reporting it here, because I believe that violating ArbCom restrictions is a more serious problem. -- Atama頭 19:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

    Thank you for your time, effort and advice...


    J929 (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


    i'd like to offer the latest edit from PoEdits citing the source http://www.rfjvds.dds.nl/ex-baba/engels/shortnews/bbcbroadcastsecretswami.html for validity. Please note ex-baba in the title...
    Misplaced Pages policy states to "produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia"
    If edits with such sources that state "Don’t miss the chance to see it and, above all, to record it!!!" are allowed (from a Misplaced Pages editor with ties to anti Sai Baba websites) can Misplaced Pages policy be upheld?

    J929 (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

    If the reference is that the BBC is airing a documentary called "the Secret Swami" that would be a RS. There was certainly nothing particularly pro or anti-sai baba on that website.Simonm223 (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


    please reduce the website address and something begins to become apparent...
    http://www.rfjvds.dds.nl/ex-baba/engels/shortnews/

    it says...

    Barry Pittard
     Related
    http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/shortnews/foetus.html http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/80bdayanand.htm
    the article is by Barry Pittard , another known anti Sai Baba writer... (At Call For Media and Government Investigation of Sathya Sai Baba. http://barrypittard.wordpress.com )
    the page is further linked to another anti Sai Baba site (under Brian Steel)

    further more the entire page is from http://www.rfjvds.dds.nl/ex-baba/ an anti Sai Baba site...
    this was all added by Robert Priddy who holds his own anti Sai Baba websites, which are linked to Brian Steel and Barry Pittard. Misplaced Pages BLP "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives"
    is this edit using wikipedia as the "primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives"? how can the source be reliable if one anti Sai Baba writer (Robert Priddy) simply quotes another 'friends' anti Sai Baba website?
    what about this 'editing' does wikipedia policy adhere to? J929 (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

    COI issue

    moved from Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#COI_issue

    User:Parellic acknowledges he is Michael Smith, also posting to Usenet as Mike Smith with the email address "parellic@". Most of his edits relate to John Alexander Symonds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He appears to have RL connections with the subject (both spying and interest in police corruption, see here for example). I have looked over the Symonds article and removed anything which dod not seem to me to be directly supported by the sources. Guy (Help!) 07:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

    Benjiboi COI - how do we move forward

    Without rehashing the whole debate again - It is clear that user Benjiboi has a clear conflict of interest on a number of articles and has been using wikipedia in a promotional manner - two of which are going to be deleted via AFD and do not need to be discussed further. There are also problems with Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence which needs eyes and checking to ensure that the material is not promotional and the sources are good. Indeed, Benjiboi's first edits were promotional/COI as they relate to promoting themselves and this was back in 2006 - so eyes are need to check articles they have contributed to significantly and ensure that they are COI free. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

    • What problems are there with Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence regarding a COI? I don't think a person's edits that are over 3 years old are relevant to the noticeboard. Alleging a COI and not providing any support for it isn't all that helpful. And yes, I'm personally aware of who Benjiboi is, I doubt too many regular editors wouldn't be, but I'm wondering what the specific complaints are. If you don't want to "rehash the whole debate" why post here? -- Atama頭 21:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
      • That the article references his activity in his Sister personia, has photos of him stuck all over it (that he uploaded), has a sister talkpage where when the conflict of interest was raised and quickly removed by him, under an edit summary of formatting - I dunno I guess it's all in my head and it's not even worth checking to see if there are problems with the article or his other edits. Naw, let's just assume with two promotional articles about to be deleted that he was acting like the driven snow on the third. Let's not bother seeing what else he was upto in the last three years when his first edits here were promotional - I'm sure it's all fine and not worth looking into. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
        • So you're saying "I think this guy has a COI, please look at everything he's ever done with a fine-toothed comb". Generally noticeboards don't work that way, COI or others. You provide diffs or give some other evidence to make your case. If you're asking for help you're doing a pretty poor job of it with the tone you've taken. -- Atama頭 01:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment, first off, when starting threads about another editor on an admin board you should notify them. Secondly, you're assuming you know my identity and this seems to be entirely based on a Misplaced Pages Review posting deliberately intended to reveal my identity - they just might have their facts wrong but based on this drama I'll likely change my username to help ease the drama. Third, thank you Uncle G, unfortunetly that blows my cover for neither confirming nor denying if I'm a paid editor but, oh well, it does show a pattern of harassment against me and; in that case other editors cleaned up, I think, one reference in the R Family Vacations article. That same IP had harassed me on the Sister Roma article which several of us essentially rewrote from scratch to ed the drama. I think they went on to harass another editor at Michael Lucas; I believe they were targeting her article more than me but we may never know. The current case might be targeting the Sister Kitty article rather than me as well but I really don't care. As for the press release bits on the Hot House article? You'll likely find I didn't add those but did try to fix them. I think this is Atama's point and if not consider it my point. Please demonstrate what content is actually COI-affected rather than generalizing user x is bad. -- Banjeboi 12:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

    Copied from WT:COI

    I write for a music review site called Roughstock. While the reputability of the site has never been questioned, I've been a bit afraid of citing my own single and album reviews in articles. The closest I've come so far to adding my own review is in Joey (song), where someone else added my review and I trimmed a little so that it didn't look like my review was receiving undue weight. WP:COI says "Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies." The site seems to conform to the policies — it has a somewhat bloglike format like The 9513, which was also declared reputable by various other editors; in addition, main Roughstock editor Matt Bjorke has reviewed for other publications such as About.com, and guest editor Michael Sudhalter also writes for Country Standard Time magazine. I think that the use of my review on "Joey" is neutrally worded. Would it be acceptable to cite my own reviews on song and album articles in a similarly neutral fashion? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 20:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

    Conflict of Interest with the Peaberry Coffee article

    I have been editing the Peaberry Coffee article tirelessly over the past several days. Peaberry Coffee, Inc. closed its doors. You can see the Denver Post article Denver's Peaberry Coffee chain closes shop. A user named javalover100 keeps undoing the changes which make reference to Peaberry closing. I have commented on javalover100's page, and have gotten no response. I believe there is a definite conflict of interest here, as my information is factual and straight from the cited article. I believe Misplaced Pages should be factual and up to date, not biased and false.

    To add insult to injury, javalover100 doesn't use links correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N290 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

    It's certainly possible that there's a COI (probable even) but regardless of the COI or not, this person is clearly attempting to own the article. I'm leaving them a 3RR warning and will watch the page and revert, if they revert again it's getting reported to the noticeboard. Thanks for bringing this up. -- Atama頭 15:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
    Sure enough, they reverted again, so I went ahead and made a report at WP:AN3. -- Atama頭 16:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
    Javalover100 has been blocked for 24 hours, which is the standard for a person who has been reported for edit-warring for the first time. I'm hoping that either they will start talking about their edits on the talk page of the article or will give up what they're doing. I'm keeping the article on my watchlist (and I've also made some major edits to the article just because I thought they were needed). -- Atama頭 18:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
    New update, the article has been reverted twice by a brand new user, so I've started up a sockpuppet report here. -- Atama頭 23:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
    The article was reverted once again, by a new user. I reverted to the changes made by Atama. When would it become appropriate to lock the article from all edits? N290 (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
    I wouldn't request page protection at all, and I don't think it would be granted if asked. Page protection is usually for an article being abused by numerous anonymous or brand new accounts (semi-protection) or for an article that is being heatedly warred over by established editors (full protection). When an article is being abused by a single editor over and over, you block that editor. In this case the editor appears to be using sockpuppets to avoid the block, but I'm hoping the sockpuppet investigation report will take care of that. I'm keeping an eye on the page, and while I won't revert the new editors (I don't want to violate WP:3RR myself even though it could be argued that these reverts are vandalism) I'll continue to add any new puppets to the report if needed. I'll say this editor is making the job easy, all they are doing is making the same revert over and over again, so it's blatantly obvious who they are. -- Atama頭 01:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
    To elaborate on why the article shouldn't be protected, look at the history of the article and look at all of the positive edits made, often by anonymous editors. I'd like to think that my edits to the article helped it somewhat also. Protecting the page might stop the abuse but it will also stop good editors from making it even better, so it's something that's only done as a last resort if nothing else will help. -- Atama頭 01:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

    User talk:22wingheritageoffice and CFB North Bay

    The user at User talk:22wingheritageoffice may have a conflict of interest at CFB North Bay, which appears to be the only article this account actively edits. From the username, it can be interpreted that this account is being used by an office of an establishment, possibly for promoting purposes. User is frequently adding unverifiable and unreferenced material, and cites himself as a reference, in direct violation with WP:OR. User also has no intent on proper use of WikiSyntax and correct template usage, and much of the text appears to be copied off an essay from another website, and is written in a oddly subjective manner. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

    User talk:Mensa1960 and Quizbowl

    The user at User talk:Mensa 1960 has a conflict of interest at Quizbowl. User is Cheryl Claypoole Beall, the ex-wife of the proprietor of a particular quizbowl tournament, who still owns a financial stake in said tournament. After her attempts at washing the National Academic Championship page of all critical information led to that page's deletion, she has now moved on to the general quizbowl page. This user has an unavoidable ideological and financial COI in articles related to high school quizbowl. Bullofconfusion (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

    • Note: The user had self-identifed here:. I can't see the edits from the National Academic Championship article, but the edits on Quizbowl so far have been her removing uncited and WP:WEASELly phrases from the article. (e.g. "Most" player consider buzzer-beaters bad, "Most" question companies omit those questions, HS tournaments "tend to attract stronger teams", that sort of thing). The user may very well have a COI in this area (though it could also be argued that she is a Subject Matter Expert), but as long as her edits are neutral and do not promote the entity she is affiliated with, nor are adverse to her competitors, then she is allowed to edit these types of articles, per the COI guidelines. As I said, I did not see the NAC article edits, but whitewashing criticism is certainly not allowed. In the case of the quizbowl article however, her edits all seem to be tempering some rather leading sentences that by all rights could have been deleted entirely as unsupported. Arakunem 15:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

    ARRTAF

    I first reported this user at WP:UAA, but the report was denied due to the admin not seeing a connection between the username and the content the user was creating, so the admin suggested I bring the issue here. I feel this user is using WP for promoting an entity. ArcAngel (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

    I've added links for the user and the only article that they have edited so far. I've removed a speedy deletion tag as I think that the article does assert notability onto the person. I can't quite see the COI issue either. Can you explain why there is one?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartse (talk • contribs)
    (ec) I agree with whoever denied the UAA report. I can't find anything that "ARRTAF" would be representing. There is an organization called ARRT but I don't see any relation between that organization and the edits that ARRTAF has made. What entity are they supposedly promoting? I see that their contributions (at least undeleted ones) are to the Ralph Petty article, but do you have any evidence or reason to suspect that this editor is personally connected to Mr. Petty aside from being a single purpose account? -- Atama頭 18:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
    I do not have any further evidence, no. Like I stated above, I felt AARTAF was promoting someone. I also don't see many third-party sources on the article page that establish notability. I initially thought he was part of the famed Petty racing clan. I also have not found any reliable sources as far as coverage goes for his artwork - maybe I am misinterpreting something? ArcAngel (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
    Generally the COI noticeboard is for editors who have an obvious connection to whatever their edits are about, such as someone confirmed to be an employee of a company whose article they have removed criticism from, or a person who created an article about a person whose name matches their username (just a couple of examples). There should be some clear connection, not a suspicion (and I'm not even sure why you'd suspect, the article isn't overly promotional). If you think that someone is editing Misplaced Pages only for promotional purposes but you aren't sure, your best bet is to assume good faith until you have reason not to.
    If you have specific concerns with the article itself, those concerns are best taken care of on the article's talk page. I see that you have a lot of experience in fighting vandals (awesome) so you should be able to recognize what is real vandalism and what isn't, and if this editor crosses the line into actual spam give the proper warnings and report to WP:ANI if necessary. -- Atama頭 18:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
    Yea, I can pretty well recognize vandalism on the spot, but some isn't so obvious.  :) But as I said, another admin recommended coming here for this issue as he didn't see the same thing I did, so I thank you for your response. ArcAngel (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

    Tate Publishing & Enterprises

    Davedolphin (talk · contribs), a single-purpose account, has been attempting to remove the claim that Tate Publishing & Enterprises is a vanity press from the article . I believe that this claim is both well-attested by two reliable secondary sources (in my preferred version of the article) and factually supported by the publisher's own web site (a vanity press is a press that asks authors to pay for or "invest" in their own books rather than paying authors for the privilege of publishing their books; Tate's web page states that they ask for such investments; therefore despite their denials they are a vanity press). I'm coming here because it seems likely that this account's non-neutral edits are due to a conflict of interest — whether it's as someone associated directly with the press or an author in denial seems irrelevant. Anyway, more eyes would be appreciated. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

    PS I just did a little more research. Tate's "meet the staff" page lists Dave Dolphin as Director of Book Production. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba
    2. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=307807198
    3. http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Ombudswiki
    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions Add topic