Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:38, 25 July 2011

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Shortcuts WP:COI/N WP:COIN WP:COIBOARD Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge) This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Misplaced Pages to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes: This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice. The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}. Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request: 1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}. 2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed. 3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days. Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline.
Are you in the right place? An editor can be biased without additionally having a COI. Issues involving bias may be more suited to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Issues involving the biographies of living persons policy (BLP) may be more suited to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Commercial usernames should be reported to Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention. Obvious cases of corporate vanity can be tagged with {{db-spam}}. Articles written about a person, group, club or band by such a person, group, club or band with no assertion of notability can be tagged with {{db-bio}} instead. This page is not for reporting simple vandalism, material that can easily be fixed or removed without argument, or non-conflict of interest breaches of the neutral point of view policy. Notes for volunteers To close a report Add Template:Resolved at the head of the complaint, with the reason for closing and your signature. Old issues are taken away by the archive bot. Other ways to help All editors are encouraged to help resolve reports of COI editing. More problematic articles can be found in Category:Misplaced Pages articles with possible conflicts of interest. Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests. Editors who believe they have a conflict of interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should edit the parameter of the {{edit COI}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requester to explain your decision.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Dew Tours

I've run across Dew Tour 2010 which was tagged as a large unwikified new article. I can't find that it's a copyvio but the tone of the articles are on the line between unecyclopedic prose and an advert. The articles are well linked together but all that I have seen only have one included reference to the official website of the event. They even go as far as to make notes about companies not being mentioned at the event but not officially affiliated (e.g. Sony & PlayStation).

Here's where the COI starts:

Companies

• The Dew Tour is put on by a company called Alli Sports which is somehow short for "Alliance of Action Sports".
• The various tours build a park for the tours to use in each city called the AST Dew Tour Park.

Users

• ASTLLC (talk · contribs)
• Alliance 2010 (talk · contribs)
• Alliance of Action Sports (talk · contribs)

Pages edits

• Dew Tour (Previously the AST Dew Tour)
• All related pages such as Dew Tour 2010, Dew Tour 2009, etc.
• Everything in the category Category:Dew Tour and probably more.
• Winter Dew Tour
• Gatorade Free Flow Tour (Dew Tour related)
• Toyota Challenge (Dew Tour related)

I don't even know where to start with this issue. The COI is vast in its reach and I'm not even sure that any of the events are even notable. I haven't touched on that because I'm assuming they are given the sponsorship and even if it's not, the COI needs to be addressed. What do we do here? I was originally going to tag the Dew Tour 2011 article as a G11 until I noticed that it's the tip of the iceberg. I was then going to tag several articles for G11 but noticed that once notified of the possible speedy deletion, anon SPAs pop up and decline the speedy. Even stranger, some of the pages were created by a now retired user (Tv145033 (talk · contribs)) with a seemingly unrelated user name (may mean nothing).

Lastly, I was thinking that a mass AfD nom would be the way to go but I think that may not be the best thing for WP. Whoever is behind the creations knows what they're doing and what hoops to jump through to keep the articles off the radar. Mass prods may work but that wouldn't address the COI and socking issue.

I'm taking all suggestions. If we can't come up with a better way to deal with this issue, I'll probably just do a mass AfD. in a few days. OlYeller 00:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how to handle this user but I've confirmed a conflict of interest. I'll leave it at that to avoid outing them. If I've said too much already, feel free to delete this edit and let me know of my mistake. OlYeller 00:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a big case and needs to be looked into thoroughly, there are a lot of articles involved and multiple editors. I will say though that the usernames seem to be violations of WP:ORGNAME which, when combined with the COI and possible spam issues, would warrant indefinite blocks. I'll have to evaluate this more.

As to the second issue, I don't think you've "said too much", you haven't really said anything at all. ;) Which is something of a problem, I'm not sure that anything is actionable. If we can't even mention the reason for suspecting the COI, we can't really admonish the editor, that's a bit too Kafkaesque for my tastes. We do need to avoid outing anyone, though, that's more important than any COI concerns. -- Atama頭 16:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how much we need to worry about that last user: no edits since 2008 and I've found via OldYeller's info the user's CV, which shows that she stopped working for the company in 2010. P.Oxy.2354 (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

P.Oxy got it right and it's probably nothing to worry about given the ~3 year hiatus. From here, would you like me to create a more thorough list of articles and the accounts that edit them? I can be liberal with the list of editors and include anyone that could possibly be associated with the involved companies (including IPs). OlYeller 06:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If you don't mind. You've already spent a considerable amount of time reviewing this, and it will help ensure that nobody is spending time trying to gather info that you've already gathered. -- Atama頭 16:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I should be able to get it all written out by this weekend. Had a busy week. OlYeller 17:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Almost done. I'll have it up here in an hour or two. OlYeller 20:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's the information I've put together. I made it a subpage of my userspace as it's a rather large report. OlYeller 22:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about not responding right away. I'm not on Misplaced Pages much on the weekends, too much else going on. I'm looking it over. -- Atama頭 18:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I don't think it's an incredibly pressing issue. I posted it over at ANI as well. I hope my report format isn't too eye gouging. OlYeller 18:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Your report is good. I've blocked Alliance 2010 for having a username in violation of WP:ORGNAME and because all they're doing is trying to promote their company. A couple of others could also be blocked for the same reason but they haven't edited for years so I don't see the point. I'm going to review each article and give a quick blurb about each one, below. -- Atama頭 18:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, I deleted Alli, the Alliance of Action Sports as G11. Removing the advertising content would leave the article as a very tiny stub, there were no references at all, and just in case I did a search for coverage and the only coverage I could find outside of press releases were just mentions of the company's name ("Alliance of Action Sports") in passing during coverage of sports events. -- Atama頭 18:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Editors at ANI seems to think they should all just be G11d. I'll go through the articles more carefully and see if there's anything worth saving and tag them as needed unless you have any objections. OlYeller 19:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

All of the pages, the template, and the category have been deleted. I'll come back here in case reps from Alli Sports come back to edit. OlYeller 20:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That's the route I was leaning anyway. I was considering a mass AfD but the route you took is much less of a pain. -- Atama頭 23:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Kayakmusic

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

Created promotional article for their client - relationship noted on their website. Constantly removed COI tags from the article. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me there was a WP:UAA entry on this username a month or so ago... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it, the user account was created 3 days ago. -- Atama頭 16:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You were right. I was thinking of User:Kallistimusic. Lesson: don't rely on memory. Especially at my age. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Two more things... I blocked the editor. Besides the username issue, the paid editing, conflict of interest, and spam, the editor chose to delete notices warning of her misbehavior (if she was more cooperative I would have just discussed things with her). On another note, Mike, there was no need to restore the warnings, per WP:BLANKING she was fully within her rights to do so (deleting a message on your user talk page is considered an acknowledgement of the message). Only a very limited number of user talk page messages can't be deleted by the user. -- Atama頭 16:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Atama, do you want to have another go at that message? It appears to say (1) that the user is absolutely allowed to delete warnings and (2) you blocked her for doing what she's absolutely allowed to do. I'm sure that you didn't mean that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It does if you ignore where I mentioned "the username issue, the paid editing, conflict of interest, and spam". ;) But generally, it wasn't deleting the warnings that was problematic (because yes people can do that), it was ignoring them; not responding to them in any fashion. Doing so isn't likely to make an administrator more lenient. -- Atama頭 18:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Robert William Taylor (baseball)

• Robert William Taylor (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Theoriste2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article was created by User: Theoriste2, who used to use the account User:Theoriste. The name on Theoriste's user page matches that of Robert Taylor's daughter.. Theoriste2's creation of this page and her participation in its AfD appear to violate the conflict of interest guidelines. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A few things. Yes, there is almost surely a COI here. That doesn't make any of Theoriste2's actions incorrect, we caution people against creating or editing articles where they are connected to the subject, but don't disallow it. But your claim of COI seems valid. Another thing, I don't see where anyone has simply asked Theoriste2 whether or not she is who you suspect she is, or let her know about our COI guideline. And finally, I'd like to note that the participation at AfD has been pretty tame, she has made a couple of comments but hasn't even placed a "keep" !vote, so she has been pretty restrained there. I don't see that there is a problem with the COI, but it's worth bringing it up with her. -- Atama頭 18:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Quidco

Hi,

I am the creator of the article quidco. I created the article because there was dearth of information on the phenomena of reward websites on wikipedia other than information from large corporations. Sadly the article has turned from a fairly neutral article into one that's more like an advert. Much of this content seems to have been added by the editor Stuartcoggins. Sadly there's a massive conflict of interest with this user editing the article as he appears to be the marketing manager of quidco. I hope this post isn't seen as outing as the users identify is contained in his username. ] Supposed (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:OUTING, if an editor reveals their identity on Misplaced Pages then it's not outing if you use that information to find their affiliations. By placing his info on linkedin.com he volunteered it, so no worries. And this is a common occurrence. -- Atama頭 20:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this does not count as identifying oneself. There's no proof it's the authors real name. If it's the authors name, there's nothing to tell us that it is the same stuart coggins. As a matter of fact there's a company called Coggins claim services that has an office in Stuart, Florida so we don't even know that it's really a name.BETA 15:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't say you're wrong, Ben, but really? I think WP:DUCK can easily be applied here. I'm all for assuming good faith but that doesn't mean ignoring significant evidence to try and find any reason, no matter how small, to assume a user isn't the person whose name they are using as their username. OlYeller 16:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Was that a joke, Ben? Do you honestly think that it's just a coincidence that an account that matches the name of the marketing manager of Quidco is turning the Quidco article into an advertisement? If you feel a sharp pain, I think you just sat on Occam's razor. :p -- Atama頭 18:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a coincidence, but I can't know that it isn't. It's a slippery slope to go bandying about with things that are unproven. BETA 19:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Quack quack. We don't know that we actually exist but I can see, hear, touch, taste (ew), and smell (ew) myself. You set your bar for facts very high. OlYeller 20:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hrm only when another editors reputation is at stake, ol' boy. (chummy embrace) :o) BETA 22:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think your objections are bizarre and unreasonable. The editor outed themselves, the only way for it to be more clear is for the person to make a definitive declaration of it, which isn't necessary. You should acquaint yourself with WP:REALNAME. Essentially, if this person is not Stuart Coggins, then they should be blocked for impersonation. We're giving them the benefit of the doubt by assuming that the editor is that person. -- Atama頭 23:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't do that either, because in that case you wouldn't know that it isn't Stuart Coggins. But that would be a separate issue from this. BETA 02:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion is against policy, as it states, "If you share a name with a well-known person, you need to make it clear that you are not the well-known person of that name. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution, until proof of identity is provided." As I said, by assuming they are who they portray themselves to be, we're giving the editor the benefit of the doubt. -- Atama頭 03:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

FXUK

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

User has edited recently the FX UK tv channel wikipedia page, from the username they have chosen there may be a conflict of interest. Surly the username violates username policy as wellRuth-2013 (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

As this was a a username violation, I reported the name at UAA and the account has since been blocked. There don't appear to be any blatant COI issues on the article since then by new accounts or anons, either. OlYeller 16:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

discounts

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

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 75.15.150.190 (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC) why do you not give military discounts to the poeple that are giving their lifes for you?

This user has no other edits besides this edit. They either changed IPs or logged out of their account to complain. Regardless, the question posed isn't something that can be solved by editors here. OlYeller 16:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Gihan Sami Soliman

• Gihan Sami Soliman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Doveye71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor (and quite possibly the same as User:dove.eyes) has created an extensive autobiographical article that clearly contains a lot of material that is not NPOV. External links are repeatedly added within the article text to author's own websites. I have asked her repeatedly, in both edit summaries and via talk page messages, to abide by Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines on COI, autobiographies, reliable references, and external links. She continues to undo these changes and add the information and external links back to this and other articles that she is creating/editing that all represent a COI. The article is currently at AfD, but the author has so far chosen to continue these editing behaviors. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 15:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be using multiple accounts - 'dove.eye' is another one. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be getting out of hand. The article was looking good despite not establishing notability until it was rightfully nominated for an AfD. Since then, the subject of the article has been adding in several links to self-published information that wouldn't establish notability. I've asked them on their talk page to discontinue editing so we'll see what happens. They claim to be an English consultant but their English doesn't seem great (that may just be their written English) so I'm not sure how much is getting through to them. OlYeller 20:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The editor has agreed to no longer edit the article. OlYeller 22:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, she resumed editing it again. Hmmmphh. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 21:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to post this here. I asked them to stop, they agreed, and have since ignored my messages here on their talk page. Last night she left a message on the talk page of the article about her. It seemed like she understood the guidelines then immediately started talking about supporting her cause. It's obviously a COI, that she's here with an agenda, and that she isn't going to stop editing the article even when asked to. On one hand, I suggest a block but on the other hand, the article is going to be deleted soon anyway. The real issue is with the related articles that she's editing at Ahmed Abdel Azeem and Port Said American School. I no longer see how a block can be avoided with such a blatant disregard for of WP:COI and the requests of other editors. OlYeller 21:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. She also added more external links to the article today, then claimed "she didn't know better." That is certainly not true. She had been warned MANY times about this, even at the beginning of this AfD. She cannot grasp the COI issues with this article and the others you mentioned. At this point, further disregard for Misplaced Pages policies should be treated like vandalism, IMHO. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 21:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

She's socking the AfD now. She mistakenly replied as another SPA user then tried to remove the comment after sinebot signed for her. I'm going to initiate an SPI. Lots of people have been jumping through hoops to help her with the article and understand WP policies and guidelines and I think this is way out of line. OlYeller 14:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

SPI can be found here. OlYeller 14:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Approach to Bloomberg articles

As is explained on my User Page, I work with the communications department at Bloomberg L.P. I'm familiar with the WP:COI as well as Misplaced Pages's content policies. I've read the prior discussions about Bloomberg on WP:COIN (here in November 2010 and here in July 2010) and I understand that these attempts fell short of appropriately editing articles with a Conflict of Interest. The reason I am here is not to edit Bloomberg-related articles directly, but to go to the Talk pages of these articles and propose edits for discussion. Several of these articles currently fail to meet basic standards, e.g. Dan Doctoroff, which is clearly cut and pasted and is a WP:COPYVIO. I've begun to put together working drafts in my own Sandboxes and I plan on proposing these changes gradually on each of the articles' Talk pages once I feel they are ready for others to consider. I welcome any thoughts about this approach. Thank you. Ordwayen (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This sounds perfectly fine to me, Ordwayen. I'd be glad to help out if you need. I'm especially interested in getting the copyvio removed as soon as possible. OlYeller 14:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I've started a draft of the Doctoroff article to address the WP:COPYVIO on my User Page, and plan to share the draft once its ready for review by others. Will keep you updated with my progress. Cheers, Ordwayen (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

L3C

• L3C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• RobertMLangJr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can I get another set of eyes to take a look at this article? A user who is apparently Robert Lang is deleting references in the article with the claim "Deleted Credit to Lane. Robert Lang stated this in documents and he copied it from Langs information" and similar. The editor has refused to discuss it other than in edit summaries, even though I've invited him to discuss the matter at the article talk page. He's deleted other references and links from the article. There may be other issues with the sources cited; however, the basis of his edits smacks of a conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I asked the user to either identify themselves per WP:REALNAME on their talk page. OlYeller 12:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Things have turned fairly nasty on his talk page. He seems to feel rather attacked ("I have to say I very much resent the implications and insinuations made here.") and feels that he should be able to post what he wants here because its his own voice. He's also mentioned that, "Please call me at if you wish to discuss. I do not have time for a protracted email exchange and if you put me into that space I will merely turn it over to one of our attorneys." Not a legal threat exactly but not exactly a good start. OlYeller 18:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is currently a copyright violation. In an attempt to convince the author and movement/organization creator to talk with us, I've let him know that the article will be deleted soon if the copyright violation is addressed. I gave him a link to WP:DCM. I'm going to wait to see what happens. OlYeller 20:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Miami Vice

• {Miami Vice}
• {srobak}

I have added links to a Miami Vice website that contains valuable information for all fans of the show. (miamiviceonline.com) I am an administrator of this site. My link is repeatedly removed by srobak. srobak was banned from other Miami Vice sites in the past by me and his deletion of my information is clearly an act of revenge against me. I request that my account be unblocked and my links reinstated. I would also request that some type of action be taken against srobak. A look at his user talk page will show his repeated acts of bullying and editing other members. Ferrariman1954 (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Edited EyeSerene 11:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I've not looked at our Miami Vice article, or at the article history - I'll leave it for others to comment on whether srobak has done anything wrong. I will point out however that Misplaced Pages:External links policy, in particular WP:FANSITE, would suggest that your website should not be linked too in our article: we aren't here to provide a directory to other websites. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy's right, and if you want a third (fourth?) opinion on the matter, you might want to post at WP:External links/Noticeboard, which specializes in evaluating links like this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

As you have indicated here that you are the administrator of the fan forum, it appears that by linking to it that you are also violating WP:COI, in addition to WP:FANSITE, WP:ELNO and WP:PROMO. Add to that you have now also violated WP:OUTING for A SECOND TIME. This continued conduct needs to cease. Srobak (talk) 11:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

To further your own COI, you have now initiated a call for coordinated attack of WP at the site. This is a clear violation of WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT and has resulted in other edits being reverted, users being blocked, and now the page being protected from your further coordinated attacks. Your COI is apparent in this instance, as are your continued efforts to invoke disruptive editing at WP to make a point. Srobak (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Has this "call for action" resulted in anything? Ferrariman1954 is on the edge of an indefinite block, from where I'm standing, but since the most recent warning for outing I see no action taken on-wiki. If his off-wiki actions lead to disruption here then I'll block without hesitation. -- Atama頭 16:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I see that it probably has... I'll wait for the protection to go and if it starts up again, then I'm blocking. -- Atama頭 16:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to also take a look at this. Search for "Outing Violation". Srobak (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Disregard, I have now refreshed the original ANI here as he has now OUTed for a 3rd time. Srobak (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

EyeSerene blocked Ferrariman1954 indefinitely, and beat me to it in the process. -- Atama頭 18:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Adam Leitman Bailey

• Adam Leitman Bailey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Internalb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Intern4AG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Earthalf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Midget99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CU1912 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zqew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can someone more experienced look at this for me, an intern user:Internalb is editing the article in a promotional way along with five possible sockpuppets. Teapotgeorge 07:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Every single one of those editors has been blocked as a sockpuppet, the article is currently semi-protected to prevent new sockpuppets or IPs from arriving to continue the disruption, and cleanup of the article has begun, so I think this is resolved. -- Atama頭 18:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Xjrzqung is astroturfing for the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario

• related articles: see user contributions, user talk page
• Xjrzqung (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I came across one his articles on speedy deletion patrol, but I didn't know the problem was that bad. Per previous precedent at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/United States Congress, there obviously should be some consequences for this mass creating articles for non-notable politicians; I suspect the user is an employee of the party. Should a CheckUser investigation be conducted to punish the party involved? Thanks. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 20:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"Astroturfing" is the wrong term here; what we've got is garden-variety promotion and a strong smell of COI. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I only have admin tools; can anything be done to punish the party involved for their actions IRL, starting with CheckUser? This is often the case with many parties or politicians who hire help to correct their image online. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 21:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Has anybody even attempted to discuss this issue with Xjrzqung yet? I've opened discussion on his user talk page. I've also pointed him to WP:COI and advised him of this discussion.

With respect to "punish"ing the party "for their actions IRL", that seems outside the scope of this noticeboard or Misplaced Pages administrators and bureaucrats. I don't think we should be doing anything beyond blocking the user, and even then, only after they've been told why the article creations are problematic and keep creating them in spite of that advice. —C.Fred (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Rebel Wilson

• Rebel Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I added to the Rebel Wilson article the fact that she is endorsing Jenny Craig. This info was removed by an IP who signed their edit summary with the word "MANAGEMENT". I note that this IP has previously edited the page. Also, the fact that Wilson is Christian has been removed by another IP. It appears to me that Rebel Wilson and/or her management are exercising some type of editorial control over her biography. I request that my original edit stay in the article, but there is a more general problem here of conflict-of-interest, censorship and WP:OWN by the subject herself. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to reinsert the material just yet, but I will suggest that the phrase "is overweight" is not necessary to the sentence you've added. If she's endorsing Jenny Craig, I think it's implied. Dayewalker (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too precious about keeping the 'overweight' part - that's just to put the endorsement in context. However, I don't think that anything should be "implied" on Misplaced Pages. We either say it or we don't say it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Dealing with COI IPs is always hard. With registered accounts you can leave a note on the person's talk page, or invite them to discuss matters at the article's talk page, etc. With IPs, you can try to contact the IP directly but if it's dynamic it's like trying to call someone up who keeps changing their phone number on a daily basis. In this case, 76.169.139.43 has held steady for 4 days, but for two months prior they edited as 76.169.137.168. And I'm guessing from an IP geolocation and the nature of their edits, 99.66.155.198 and 198.228.215.124 are also from Rebel Wilson's management. (The other IPs I checked trace back to Australia, not LA as the management IPs do.) You might just have to deal with the IP edits on their own merits. I don't think the frequency of disruption on the user page warrants semi-protection, and the edits from other IPs on the page have been constructive. -- Atama頭 18:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I thought as well. I am frustrated by her management/her having such influence over her biography. Note that she probably has representation both in the US and Australia, and may well be editing herself. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Nationals Park

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

This IP made edits which were basically advertisements about the ballpark tours at Nationals Park . The edit describes the tours as "the best" in Major League Baseball and links to information about tickets. I tried geolocating the IP and it locates to Washington DC (I put the coordinates in Google Earth and it went to the National Christmas Tree, which I somehow don't think is the case, but nonetheless it does go to DC which seems accurate). Seems to me like this is some Washington Nationals employee trying to advertise their tours. One more thing - the Nationals are on the road right now, meaning tours are the only thing going on at the ballpark. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Eh, the COI is probable, but incidental. This is really just a spammer, and attempts to advertise should be reverted. If they had kept going I'd maybe block them briefly to get them to stop, but they only made a few edits over the course of an hour and I doubt we'll see them around again. -- Atama頭 22:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

KAYAK.com

• Kayak.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi. Apologies in advance if this is not the right forum to bring this issue, but do appreciate any guidance you can provide on how to properly address my concerns. I am a KAYAK.com employee and have been monitoring the page and noticed that information on the page needs updating to reflect more accurate information now available in our S1 statement. Many news sources have been using our wiki page and reporting dated information that is no longer accurate. I wanted to be respectful to the community's COI values, so I posted a suggestions of factual updates I would make to the right hand summary info box on the entry's talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Kayak.com). However, there does not seem to be much if any editorial eyeballs on it. Is it possible to draw attention this page or make these changes myself?

I also would like to elaborate on KAYAK.com's revenue model and products in a more organized fashion on the main entry of the page, but wanted to find out the appropriate manner to proceed with all of this. Happy to elaborate or draw out all proposed changes in depth on request. Really appreciate your response and guidance.

Ehoa (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much ! I think it's OK for you to be be bold here and just make the changes, but if you get in a conflict just get administrator attention. Thanks. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 17:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to add a thank you for disclosing your connection to the subject and taking the initiative to bring the matter to this noticeboard. If you do run into conflicts, that will weigh heavily in your favor if anyone objects to the information you want to add. I will second the suggestion that you should feel free to take the bold step yourself to implement the changes, and if anyone does in fact object then invite them to discuss matters on the article's talk page. Either result would be progress. -- Atama頭 18:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Pullman Memorial Universalist Church

• Pullman Memorial Universalist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pmucpastor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Above user admits to being the current pastor of this church. The article in its current form is gigantic, weakly sourced, and full of inappropriate tone, NPOV violations and problematic assertions. I also suspect copyright violations, but haven't done the research yet. Orange Mike | Talk 13:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I left a message for the author on the talk page. It is huge which would usually suggest a copyright violation. Because the author was so forth-coming on the talk page, I'm going to try and help out as much as I can. My help may be misguided but it's refreshing to deal with a person with a COI who isn't combating the problem and seems to genuinely want to improve the product. OlYeller 14:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing in the least misguided in what you're doing! Non-bitey, welcoming, but firm; just the way to do it. The pastor is forthright and straightforward; I just fear he(?) may be a little weak in understanding our rules about NPOV, sourcing and copyright. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The editor's username is also against our policy (WP:ORGNAME) and I will recommend that they change it, but I don't think the matter even comes close to warranting a block in this case. -- Atama頭 18:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

David L. Gray

• David L. Gray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Saudia Mills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Yosesphdaviyd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The aforementioned user created said articles. This blog entry appears on davidlgray.info under "A Commentary on the Spiritual Life with Yoseph Daviyd", and references Saudia Mills as a personal friend. going up a level, the blog top page says "Welcome to my blog on the spiritual life. Feel liberated to post comments and pass along what you like. I update the blog about three times a week and write new articles at my website http://www.davidlgray.info/ about twice a month. Enjoy your visit and please keep me in your prayers! For updates about the blog, articles, and etc., just follow me on Facebook and Twitter. Blessings and Shalom! David L. Gray, Yoseph M. Daviyd". Therefore, the article on Gray is self-authored COI, and the one on Mills is also COI. I have warned the user, but I also believe that prodding the articles for not meeting GNG might lead to recreation. A CSD and SALT, I think, would be in order. MSJapan (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Under what grounds would they be speedied? Neither one is unduly promotional (David L. Gray has some peacock language to clean up but even mentions his 6 year prison sentence), both articles do a credible job of asserting significance enough to avoid A7. We don't yet have speedy criteria for autobiographies or other articles created by people with a COI. If you feel that a proposed deletion will be contested, and still feel that the articles deserve deletion, your best (and probably only) bet is to take them to WP:AFD. At that point, if the discussions result in a decision to delete, recreations can be speedily deleted through G4 and salted if they are repeatedly recreated (though I don't see any reason to think they would be at this point). -- Atama頭 20:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

See, I would say A7 because they don't meet GNG. For example, Gray's article's sources are entirely from books written by Gray (some self-published) and "usage of personal knowledge" from the author, which is not acceptable. I have found a few mentions of Gray in Masonic circles, but he is no more noted than any other Masonic writer, most of whom don't meet GNG either. It's simply the nature of fraternal activities that they do not alone confer notability; otherwise we'd have Grand Masters who served for a year who were simple local businessmen having WP articles, and that just makes no sense.

Mills' one claim to notability might be the show appearance, but according to the show's article, she was eliminated the week she appeared, and was an extra in all the other films listed. So I don't think she makes it, honestly.

So basically, there's a person with personal enough knowledge about these people to be friends with one of them and host a blog on the site of the other, who has professional photos of them he claims as his own work, and is writing articles about people who don't meet the GNG. I'd also note that a Google Books hit basically says one is the other , and I therefore have a serious issue with this user trying to pretend he's not this person and claim that he's writing from an NPOV position. So aside from a deletion item, the COI needs to be dealt with as well. MSJapan (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

A7 has nothing to do with GNG. As it states on the policy page:

"The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines."

The emphasis and wikilink aren't mine, they are in the policy itself. Furthermore, the footnote for the A7 criterion states:

"It is irrelevant whether the claim of notability within the article falls below the notability guidelines. If the claim is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied."

Again, the emphasis and linking are preserved from the policy. Now, the COI is another issue. The editor's actions seem to suggest an intention to promote these people, so they are worth a review. I'll invite the editor to comment at this board, which we normally recommend anyway. -- Atama頭 22:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we're going to get into semantics regarding CSD, so it's probably not an avenue worth pursuing. The below comments have shed some light on what is probably just a "series of unfortunate events", and at least the editor is willing to learn and be guided. I think we can make some headway, though I can't say at this juncture that that headway will lead to an article that meets GNG or the relevant specific notability guidelines. MSJapan (talk) 04:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

+++ I am yosephdaviyd (a chosen handle for this wiki thing I wanted to do - sorry it is associated with my first file. I should have chosen barakobama I guess? How is one suppose to anonymous if their names are challenged?) - I am very new here. Had a discussion with MPJapan about the articles. I am in the process of adding citations right now, and removing what can't be cited in reliable sources. Before I untook my first wiki entries I research the COI and NPV and felt comfortable, even though I know the individuals that I am at the degree of friends with them to create a COI. As a Freemason I know 'Gray' the subject I write about - have read his books, was in his district were he worked, have listened to his lectures, but NOT friends other than facebook, but yes friends is a subjective word - though AGAIN I am comfortable to have a NPV there. Concerning 'Mill's', AGAIN, know of from High School, so I do have to remove the part about working in a factory - how esle would I know that than a Youtube video, but other than facebook, we are not friends as subjective as that word is. That she was on a reality show I thought she was notable. Same with Gray, author, speaker, television, radio, his work is cited by authors up and down that field. In closing, I am not so attached to any of these files that I will miss them, but they are my first and I am learning as I go - I appreciate your patience. This will help me in the future if I think it's worth the bother now. lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosesphdaviyd (talk • contribs) 23:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

+++ Moreover, I can't help who I write about adds an OPENSOURCE bio to their website. Who would do that anyway? Unless they don't care who edits it. I thought that was strange, but the guy must google himself daily. But that is the risk he takes, and it's does rise to the level of collusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosesphdaviyd (talk • contribs) 23:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

+++ Lastly, he is Yoseph M. Daviyd - my handle is yosephdaviyd - NO "M". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosesphdaviyd (talk • contribs) 23:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that you aren't Yoseph Daviyd? That you only picked the person's name because you liked it? If so, you should probably change it, per WP:REALNAME, "Do not register a username that includes the name of an identifiable living person unless it is your real name." -- Atama頭 23:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Correct. I am neither David L. Gray (Yoseph M. Daviyd) or Saudia Mills or any other person I will write about. Joseph David in Hebrew is Yoseph or Yosef Daviyd that's all, and Joseph David is much related to my actual name. Do you recommend that I delete the account and register new?--Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

My username currently is Yosesphdaviyd not yosephdaviyd - it's not the same if you actually look at it - there is 's' BEFORE the 'p'. --Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You know, in my judgement I'd leave it up to you. I don't think it's close enough that you have to change it, you're right that it's not the same (I did miss that extra S as well, you're right). You might want to change it to avoid other people getting confused and assuming you are the same Daviyd mentioned on Gray's web site, but it's also possible that it won't ever come up again. If you really like the name, go ahead and keep it. You might want to consider putting a disclaimer on your user page to state that you aren't Yoseph M. Daviyd, but again I'll just leave it up to you.

To get back to the COI question, if you do know the two people in question (Gray and Mills) you might want to at least have caution when editing articles about them or mentioning them. Mills, in particular, if you know her from high school, you could be considered to possibly have a conflict of interest. All that really means is that you should try to avoid any appearance that you are promoting them, and if anyone has concerns about contributions related to them, give the concerns some due consideration. But we don't forbid your editing about them. There a few subjects I might have a weak COI with, my employer has an article and I've never touched it, and Blaze Starr is a distant relative of mine (she is a cousin of my deceased grandfather) and I choose to avoid such subjects just in case, but that's a personal choice. Anyway, MSJapan was the person who opened this conversation and so I'll wait for any other concerns to be raised. -- Atama頭 00:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

A.K.O.O Clothing

• A.K.O.O Clothing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• David Krochalis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Akoo Clothing Brand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Recently, Akoo Clothing Brand (talk · contribs) made a large addition to the article. I reverted the edit and the user was blocked because of their username. Today, a new account posted the exact same information to the article. It should be obvious but the user has a COI and they're more than just a fan (I can say more but don't want to out them). I'm somewhat busy with some other articles and was wondering if someone can help out. I think the user is earnestly attempting to improve the article and I have seen no reason to think that there will be problems. Their addition also seems to be very well formatted for a first time user so it shouldn't be too difficult to handle if you're new to COIs and want to help out. OlYeller 22:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No time to look into this further right this moment, but I'd like to point out that the creation of a new account is not only allowed, but in this case it is officially encouraged, because the previous block was only for the username and not for any behavioral problems. If the editor needs assistance later I'll see what I can do. -- Atama頭 22:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course. I'm not suggesting that there's a strong COI here; quite the contrary. If I had enough time, I'd help improve the article with the new editor but as I have a finite amount of time to edit and have promised myself to other areas, I don't' think it's responsible for me to promise/dedicate myself to helping in this situation. While the editor hasn't shown that he wants to do anything that's contrary to WP's goals, he works for the company and I think that attention should be paid to the changes made in the article. OlYeller 04:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

COI on astrology pages

• Astrology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Algol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ophiuchus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Robert Currey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Robertcurrey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zachariel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Petersburg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Aquirata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Robertcurrey is an editor who identified himself as being the subject of this article: Robert Currey, see Talk. So off-wiki information can be considered for COI questions. I came across this Facebook page: , where he is asking for "help" and for people who know their way around the WP rules. This suggests a COI, and sounds like a "righting a great wrong" type of mission. Robertcurrey was already mentioned in the context of a previous astrology banning in March: .
When I tagged the Robert Currey article recently, two editors who never worked on the page before came out to remove the tag without addressing the problems on the page. This were Zachariel and Aquirata, an editor who was also involved in the same March bannings. Just see recent history on Robert Currey
Zachariel is making edits which almost invariably bring in references to skyscript.co.uk website. You can try to count them in Dennis_Elwell_(astrologer), a page he edited extensively and is now awaiting peer review. On the Algol page, Robertcurrey and Zachariel took turns to revert my edits that brought the article back to normal format for an astronomy page, even after several other editors pointed out that keeping astrology and astronomy to separate articles is a community concensus. Zachariel refused to put the astrology of Algol in Stars in astrology, and tried to delete that article to further his aim. Same scenario with Ophiuchus, where Zachariel goes on bringing back astrology stuff , even after Ophiuchus (astrology) was voted a Keep (he tried to delete that article as well). Continuing reverts against community concensus, and not responding to common sense questions. See the recent history on Ophiuchus and on the Talk there. And all these edits bring in references to same site. No COI?
Robertcurrey, Zachariel are now very busy on Astrology, where they have been joined by Petersburg, another editor who was involved in the March bannings. It looks like a concerted effort. Can somebody have a look? MakeSense64 (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – I have an interest in astrology (mainly historical), but not a conflict of interest. My subject-knowledge was declared when I started to contribute to the Astrology Talk pages discussions:

“BTW, so you know where I'm coming from - I have an interest in astrology. That interest is mainly in the history and divinatory branches of astrology. The suggestion of astrology being divinatory does not offend my interest in the slightest. But it is incorrect.”

This comment here gives as a clear an explanation as I am able to give as to why I do not have a COI, (for those who have not been able to witness the extent to which my contribution to WP has involved the supply of substantiating references, content with improved reliability, and frequent reminders of the need for consensus on edits based on verifiability through reliable sources).

Makesense64 has failed to inform you that he is the subject of an ongoing complaint on ANI involving, disruptive and tendentious editing, and his COI. The Skyscript site he mentions is notable as a web reservoir of hundreds of authorised articles that have been published in print elsewhere. (With regard to the Dennis Elwell biography, it is the only website which presents his material, including many of his well known articles published in other journals as well as a book-published interview with the subject). It is relevant that Makesense64 commenced his recent WP activity, after a 2-year hiatus, with a suggestion on the notability notice board that the site owner’s biography lacked notability, and that links or references to that site constituted spam. It later transpired this was two days after being banned from the forum of that site, and whilst he was engaging in a web-based hate campaign against the site owner who had banned him. Although presenting himself on WP as a sceptic, it is only western astrology/astrologers that he targets critically, having himself a notable commercial interest in Chinese astrology.

For the details, see the complaint discussed at length in on ANI. The other complaints he raises here have been discussed and answered there. (Robert Currey, incidentally, initiated that complaint saying: “his agenda appears to be to promote his Chinese branch of astrology by discrediting only Western Astrology under the pretence of being a sceptic to disguise his WP:COI (Conflict of Interest). His divisive style seeks to inflame edit war and his frequent editing is disruptive and time-wasting to other editors "

I was unaware of this complaint until just now, and assume the other editors are also uninformed (should they be?). I will make a note about this on the ANI complaint. Zac Δ talk 09:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Raj Reddy and User:Srinimisha

User:Srinimisha admitted that he is employed by Raj Reddy to edit Reddy's Misplaced Pages page. I have warned him multiple times, but he keeps introducing the same promotional, unsourced, material, removing maintenance templates, and refusing to discuss the problem. What should I do? --Muhandes (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Academia

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

This article is a general article about insititutions concerned with acquiring and promulgating knowledge from ancient antiquity to present times. Miradre (talk · contribs) has suggested that, because he suspects Itsmejudith and me of being employed within academia, this creates a conflict of interest in editing this particular article. Was it appropriate for Miradre to raise such objections? Mathsci (talk) 07:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That is an incorrect and false description. I have certainly not stated that academics cannot edit that article. Rather, I asked them to consider if there may be a COI when academics edit (and in particular want to completely delete) material that are criticisms and or otherwise may have negative implications for them as a group (compare COI for organizations) and/or their employer. Such as this well-sourced material User:Miradre/sandbox everything of which they want to exclude. (Obviously, I have no objections regarding academics editing their area of academic expertise.) Anyway, I just raised this point for consideration and discussion, I have not stated that this definitively precludes editing or made any complaint regarding this..Miradre (talk) 08:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Some diffs. Edits of this kind create a toxic editing environment. Mathsci (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, I just raised this point for consideration and discussion, I have not stated that this definitively precludes editing (as I see it not all COI prevents editing) or made any complaint regarding this. I asked if there may be a WP:COI, not that there is one that prevents editing, as well as asked if you are an academic (obviously no issue at all if you are not).Miradre (talk) 08:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What business is it of yours who my employer is? Your questions are obnoxious and prying. Mathsci (talk) 09:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:COI (My bolding): "COI editing is strongly discouraged. COI editors causing disruption may be blocked. Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Misplaced Pages policies and best practices scrupulously. They are also encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages and also on the talk page of the related article they are editing, and to request others' views, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty." Miradre (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom is fully aware who I am because of recent outing problems. You have made an incorrect assumption about me and my employer (if you were reading about my wikipedia account on Stormfront, the information there is wrong). As far as the message above goes, please read WP:DTTR. Mathsci (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I asked if you was an academic since, as I stated at the time, you describe yourself as a "professional pure mathematician". If you are not an academic, then obviously there is no possible COI regarding this for you.Miradre (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution