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 07:02, 4 May 2007 view sourceBeetstra (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators172,031 edits →[] {{coi-links|The European Library}}: Answer← Previous edit Revision as of 16:12, 4 May 2007 view source EdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,226 edits →[]: Do librarians use the European Library? Examples of specific use?Next edit →
Line 529: Line 529:
::But in both respects, I would go a little slower and more carefully than has been the case so far.''']''' 05:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC) ::But in both respects, I would go a little slower and more carefully than has been the case so far.''']''' 05:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
:There is indeed nothing wrong with knowing that the documents are available. I am not questioning if the European Library would be a valuable resource, or that whe should link to the European Library, it is and we should. I am questioning if a librarian should add links to his own library to articles him/herself (especially if the edits all are mainly or exclusively adding the links, or edits to facilitate links). Making us aware of that can be done via the talkpages, or via wikiprojects. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 07:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC) :There is indeed nothing wrong with knowing that the documents are available. I am not questioning if the European Library would be a valuable resource, or that whe should link to the European Library, it is and we should. I am questioning if a librarian should add links to his own library to articles him/herself (especially if the edits all are mainly or exclusively adding the links, or edits to facilitate links). Making us aware of that can be done via the talkpages, or via wikiprojects. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 07:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
::Since I believe that ] and ] are librarians, and they have joined this discussion, can I ask if you have had occasion to use the European Library in your own work, and if so what you use it for? ] 16:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


== ] {{coi-links|DataSynapse, Inc.}} == == ] {{coi-links|DataSynapse, Inc.}} ==

Revision as of 16:12, 4 May 2007

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.
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:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:American Speech–Language–Hearing Association Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:Aspen Dental Talk:Atlantic Union Bank Talk:AvePoint Talk:Edward J. Balleisen Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Edi Birsan Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Bunq Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Connie Chan (politician) Talk:Chyanne Chen Talk:Pamela Chesters Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Adela Demetja Talk:Doncaster College Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:Richard France (writer) Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire Talk:Group-IB Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Insight Meditation Society Talk:International Motors Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali 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:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician) Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:QuinStreet Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:SolidWorks Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko Talk:Sysco Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Tencent Cloud Talk:Tiger Global Management Talk:Trendyol Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Scott Wiener Talk:Alex Wright (author) Talk:Xero (company) Talk:Zions Bancorporation


    This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.

    Rules | Match log | Results page (for watching) | Last updated: 2025-01-02 20:26 (UTC)

    Note: The list display can now be customized by each user. See List display personalization for details.

    Anchor (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    → See also: Talk:Anchor#Request for Comment and Requests for comment/Badmonkey

    Anchor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) User:Badmonkey is likely a representative of an anchor manufacturer (Ronca Anchors), is attempting to include favorable biased information of his anchor in article and reporting removal attemps of biased information as vandalism. Russeasby 14:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

    Defense: Refer to incident report at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR concerning violation of 3RR by User:Russeasby and also request for page protection at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_page_protection (article now fully protected). Russeasby has been repeatedly deleting a section of Anchor which he is calling spam. The content in question is sourced and perfectly NPOV. Third party opinions in Talk:Anchor are against this deletion, e.g. that from Hoof Hearted, and advice from one other solicited third party (Shell Kinney) warned cessation of these edits. This "conflict of interest" notice seems a revenge act for these reports by myself. Lastly, attempts at identification, especially for purposes of discrediting another editor, is contrary to Misplaced Pages's right to anonymity. Badmonkey 14:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    Nm.: Russeasby has been blocked for 3RR violation. Badmonkey 15:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    (Edit conflict. Addressing 14:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC) post) Not "revenge act": See the description of this noticeboard's purpose at the top of this page.
    After several days of disruptive and tendentious editing, much of it by single purpose account user Badmonkey, the article has been protected. — Athænara ✉ 15:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

    NPOV editors: Research summary posted 20:37, March 30 2007 (UTC) by Hoof Hearted. Article protection is scheduled to expire tomorrow. — Æ. ✉ 02:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

    Good style, link to your favored diff of the talk page! Try Talk:Anchor instead. bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 03:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

    Note User:Badmonkey is back at it, reverting removal of link spam (4 out of 5 links on the Anchor page link to POV and COI rocna.com website. He has also removed breif mention of competitor anchors. Russeasby 02:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

    For goodness sake what is there is not link spam! They are two magazine articles, one Coastguard handbook article, and an essay by an anchor designer - all of which have been published by independent parties. It's interesting that there used to be a dozen or so links there, but someone went through and cleaned them all up - leaving all the ones that happen to be hosted on the Rocna website, plus only one other... Perhaps you could contribute to some content instead of campaigning against that which you don't like!
    Regarding other anchors, see the talk page. Brands should not be mentioned unless they are unique and noteworthy. The simple mention of those three implictly demands the mention of hundreds of others, which is neither worthwhile nor, probably, possible.
    bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 02:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

    Article is now listed for WP:RFC, it had previously gone through a third party opinion. See Talk:Anchor#Request_for_Comment. Russeasby 03:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

    • See my suggestion in the RFC that we should de-commercialize the article. This would cause very little loss of content that is actually useful. If you look at an external link to a paper on anchoring problems that's already in the article, you'll get perspective on the big issues (e.g. total loss of badly-anchored boats in a storm due to a lack of common sense) that will make you less worried about whether you should buy a 32-pound or 22-pound anchor from a small but aggressively-promoted maker of anchors in New Zealand. If you agree that de-commercialization should be considered, please add a comment on Talk:Anchor. EdJohnston 19:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

    User Badmonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    → See also: Misplaced Pages:Third opinion request in late March 2007.

    • And again at 08:51, April 16, 2007 (UTC).
    Update: The copyright complaint for this photo is in the file Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2007 April 26/Images. EdJohnston 22:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    There are two images uploaded by User:Badmonkey credited to C. Smith, not to Ronca. Craig Smith is the name of a Rocna employee, it would seem a far stretch for this C. Smith to be a different one(especially since one photo is of.. a Rocna!). Would the same copyright violations apply? Or did User:Badmonkey manage to be vague enough to get by with this? Russeasby 21:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    You could report these photos if you want. The only catch is that they don't appear on line anywhere, and the usual {{imagevio}}} template requires you to state where the original appears on the web. EdJohnston 22:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

    See also:

    According to his userpage, the user operates the above website. Over a period of time, the user has apparently added numerous links to his own website in citations and links for several articles. 1. diff 2. diff 3. diff 4. diff 5. diff 6. diff 7. diff 8. diff 9. diff 10. diff 11. diff 12. diff

    I could add many more examples, but I think the above is enough to make my point, along with the fact that this is still continuing today - diff.

    I'll also file a report at WT:WPSPAM but cleanup will be difficult as many of the link additions are embedded in material citations. I'm not even going to get into the WP:SPS problems here. RJASE1 19:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

    FYI, this is a Wikipedian with an article - Dennis King. RJASE1 19:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    This user seems to have done quite a bit of editing as User:208.222.71.17. Jehochman (/Contrib) 20:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    Here's another severely conflicted editor getting in on the action at Independence Party of New York. Seems like there are problems on both sides of this controversy. Jehochman (/Contrib) 20:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

    The WT:WPSPAM report is here. I know this is duplication to some extent but this needs to be looked at from a couple of different angles. RJASE1 21:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

    This user apparently never answers his talk page posts. Still editing, but none of the links have been self-reverted nor have the concerns been addressed. What do you recommend we do here? RJASE1 04:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

    Linksearch on this guy's website shows twenty nine at the moment. Only eleven are talk pages: the other eighteen are articles. I'm thinking get them out of the articles. If their use is valid in any case, NPOV editors can replace them. The site owner should not. — Athænara ✉ 04:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

    Down to nineteen now. Tedious. — Æ. ✉ 08:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    The list of so-called spam links to my site includes at least three links on talk pages placed there by people other than myself; in two cases they were talk pages for articles I had never visited much less posted on. I believe there are more. If I have placed links on talk pages to articles on my web site, it has been as part of an ongoing discussion with other editors in order to provide them with access to pertinent information re the issues being discussed. As to links within the articles themselves, my web site is not a commercial site; I do not sell products and I do not employ bots to build traffic. It is an archival site that contains copies of published material by myself and others that I have used to properly cite statements in articles relating to two political cult leaders that I am an acknowledged expert on. There have been disputes and edit wars on these articles, and admins have upheld my right to cite my own writings. I find it ironic that after a long fight on one of these articles to prevent the edit warriors from removing links to outside web sites critical of them, including mine, the deletion is now being accomplished on spam grounds. To give two other examples: On the article "Jewish Defense Organization" not only was the link to my website deleted but also the entire sentence it referenced, including the properly sourced bibliographical print info, was removed. In the article "U.S. Labor Party" the link to two articles archived on my web site was also deleted although these articles are probably the only published source of detailed information about the electoral record of this defunct and rather obscure organization. If there is a time that I was placing many links it was during a dispute regarding the article "Lyndon LaRouche" a couple of months ago. Followers of Mr. LaRouche placed in the article a description of my book on their leader which seriously misrepresented the contents of the book; I placed links in the article to various chapters of my book to refute their claims. This is now moot since the entire section of the article has been removed from the article (along with the people who started an edit war over it, who have been banned from Wiki indefinitely). I don't know a lot about Wiki rules, but after reading over the policy on spam I frankly find the actions that are being taken somewhat puzzling.--Dking 22:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

    Mr. King, we've been trying to contact you on your talk page for a week - the problem is not so much spam as that you have a conflict of interest in linking to your own website. Adding these links to talk pages for the consideration of others is fine, but you shouldn't be adding these links to the articles themselves. I left a link to the conflict of interest guideline on your talk page when I expressed my initial concern. RJASE1 22:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

    For many months the followers of Lyndon LaRouche and Fred Newman, leaders of groups widely regarded as political cults, have engaged in edit wars and filed interminable admin complaints (including one on this page in February) saying that I and Chip Berlet, authors who specialize in political cults, should not be allowed to edit on the subject, that links to our web sites should not be allowed, etc. There is a whole body of editorial consensus building and admin decisions in which their claims were rejected. In particular, the problem of LaRouche followers on Misplaced Pages dates back to 2004 and I invite you to look at the archives of these discussions and to note that several of the LaRouche editors have been banned indefinitely from Misplaced Pages. To say the issue is "conflict of interest" is to raise an issue that has already been decided although I supposed any Wikipedian can raise it again at any time about any other Wikipedian. Conflict of interest as I understand from the guidelines involves legal antagonism (there is none--the last time LaRouche sued me was 23 years ago and he lost); financial interest (again none, I do not sell products on my web site but rather offer my book on LaRouche and other writings for free in electronic form), and self-promotion (no one has spelled out precisely how I am promoting myself as opposed to trying to present truthful information to warn people about the danger of getting involved with these Nehemiah Scudder-type outfits--would you please specify exactly what evidence you have of self-promotion). I must say that your citing conflict of interest is surprising since the links to my website are being removed with the explanation that this is "spam" removal. And why, if the concern is self-promotion but there are no specific charges, are links to published articles and book chapters archived on my web site being systematically removed in a summary fashion? You say you'd been trying to reach me for a week, but a week is a short time as these matters go--why the sudden haste?--Dking 23:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    I don't see a problem with links to Dennis King's book and published articles being included as references so long as they are clearly relevant. General links to the website may be more problematic, but it would depend on the context. King is certainly a "a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field," within the meaning of WP:V, and so he may be used as a source, even when his material is self-published. Dennis, perhaps you could be careful in future only to include links to your website where the material is clearly needed as source material, but not as a general reference. Misplaced Pages does discourage self-citation, using the argument that, if the material is worth citing, someone else will do it eventually, so it's best to keep it to a minimum. SlimVirgin 00:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

    Can we agree that Mr. King should not insert links to his own website in articles, but rather place them on the article's talk page, with a description, so that more neutral editors can decide if they should be used? This would seem to satisfy WP:COI guidelines. (By the way, I liked the Robert A. Heinlein reference in Dking's last post.) RJASE1 00:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

    Hi there :) I've been trying to overhaul the Fred Newman article, recently, which has meant giving myself a crash course in political fringe groups and becoming pretty familiar with Mr. King's stuff (and contributions here)... So I figured I'd plop down my $0.02.
    Re: consensus on Mr. King's citations on talk pages--I'm not sure that would be a functional solution, alas. If you review the talk pages for the articles Fred Newman and Lyndon LaRouche, among others, it's pretty clear that these are some very hotly contested topics--and there are editors, while I wish to AGF, who would fillibuster the inclusion of any content by Mr. King into obsolesence. Such a requirement would, in effect, block him from editing.
    I understand the concerns about potential COI--I'm not sure there's a "good" answer to that one--but I submit that, as per SlimVirgin, Mr. King's published articles and books are relevant and notable source material. It appears to me from the sampling of links submitted here that his refernces are rather scrupulously relevant, all to published material, some of which (like newspaper articles from the 80s) would be extremely hard to find if not archived on his site. Only three out of the 19 links presented link to the general dennisking.org mainpage: one from the Misplaced Pages article about him, one from his User page, and one from an article's talk page.
    If there's evidence that there are links to the general main dennisking.org site "masquerading" as source citations, then I'd consider there might be spam or self-promotion afoot. However--not to paint the man a saint or anything--self-promotion doesn't seem to be his bag. Take a look at the main page of the website in question. Then scroll alllllllll the way down to the bottom. One link to a book on amazon.com. The other one's a PDF scan (free) of a work he would still be making money off of, otherwise. And there's a link to his blog, as well--which it looks like he keeps rather scrupulously separate from his research/published source material on dennisking.org (i.e., dude knows the difference between his own opinions, strong though they appear to be, and what's relevant). At least, that's how it all looks to me.
    Best regards, Wysdom 03:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

    The point: Users should not add their own site links to articles but are encouraged to discuss them on the articles' talk pages. Very simple, and not worth any diatribes long harangues. — Athænara ✉ 09:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

    I fail to detect any "diatribe" OR "harangue" above. But while we're at it, why did you not only remove site links but also bibliographical references to the print articles and even the sentences in which the links were placed?--Dking 22:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    With respect, Athænara, I've reviewed WP:COI, and it doesn't appear to say quite that. Rather, it states:

    You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Misplaced Pages. Be careful about excessive citation of your own work, to avoid the appearance of self-promotion. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page whether your citation is appropriate, and defer to the community's opinion.

    "When in doubt" would appear to be a suggestion that defers to the editor's own judgment as to whether their self-cite should be offered up for community approval on the talk page. Best regards, Wysdom 06:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    The counterpoint: was absolutely and unequivocally neither composed, nor delivered, in a spirit of bitterness or even contentiousness, least of all with the aim of attacking anyone. I regret--and must confess some degree of bafflement--that it was received so. I sincerely hope the following won't be taken as confrontational--it's meant, sincerely, as an honest question with no sub-text of critique. I'm not "new", per se, by my join date, but I've only recently become active in the community, so I'm still not entirely up to speed on how everything functions; however, I'd gotten the impression from similar exchanges of ideas in the AfD forums that when a discussion has something close to consensus (or it's clear no consensus can be achieved) an administrator closes the matter and clears (or archives?) the submittal. Is there a time frame (three days, a week?) after which a still-open discussions are considered closed, by default? It seems to me (and if I'm speaking from ignorance of policy, forgive me) that removing links/material submitted for COI discussion before any actual discussion has taken place defeats the purpose of having this forum. Respectfully, Wysdom 04:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    Amendment: Please allow me to clarify so that my assertion of "sans critique" doesn't undermine my sincerity or heighten any unintended offense. I obviously feel an item open for discussion should remain open and be acted upon appropriately pending the decision reached by the community--but I don't mean that as a crticism directed at anyone, an indictment of anyone's character, nor as an assumption of ill intent. One of the things I like best about Misplaced Pages is the assumption of good faith... I don't want to be mistaken for doing otherwise. That being said, I asked the above and professed my opinion because: 1) I honestly have those deficiencies in my Wiki-lore and would like to correct that; and 2) Because, whatever the answer to the questions, I feel the discussion/clarification of best-practices regarding edits made to COI-discussion-in-progress items is important and beneficial to the process. Best Wishes, Wysdom 04:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

    User Dking again linked his website, embedding it in text added the Jewish Defense Organization article. ." 23:03, April 22, 2007 (UTC)] (n.b. "in pp. 243-251" does not indicate which of ten or more PDF files on the linked webpage contains the material offered.)

    This sort of thing may legitimately be posted on an article talk page, where other editors, from a neutral POV rather than from a COI POV, may consider the encyclopedic merits, if any, of the proposed text, its description of the contents of the webpage the user with a COI wishes to link, and whether or not the link itself should be included in the article. — Athænara ✉ 05:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

    I imagine he did this, Athaenara, because there's no consensus on whether your interpretation of the COI guideline is law? As stated above, the guideline de facto seems to indicate that the decision to submit to committee the inclusion of relevant material is left to the judgment of the editor in question. Yet you seem to be insisting (repeatedly) that the guideline be followed as you interpret it. Furthermore, describing a legitimate citation to a published work ("You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Misplaced Pages") as "linkspam" (as you did here ) doesn't assume good faith. At the risk of going on too long, here's more from WP:COI:
    The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles. Were you familiar with this part of the guideline on April 12 when you began purging articles not only of citation links but of their associated content? Wysdom 08:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    To be more constructive--could you please clarify your actions and assertions where they seem to be in conflict with WP:COI? There's a gap between what I'm reading (or perhaps what I'm comprehending) and what I'm seeing you say/do. The gap is just as likely my understanding, so if you could please address the points raised, specifically. Many thanks, Wysdom 09:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

    Linksearch for gsociology.icaap.org

    Has been adding links to his own website (above), apparently since April 2004. RJASE1 21:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

    Social change (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    I incorporated the more recent Social change report into this preexisting section about a linkspamming user who has (so far) used at least four userIPs. — Athænara ✉ 07:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

    User:Dvandeventer contributions are primarily adding references to own books

    See for example , and of course the user contributions page. There are many; while they do not appear to be "bad" references on their own, the self-promotional aspect is clear.--Gregalton 04:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

    I left a talk page message requesting self-revert, needs follow-up. RJASE1 01:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    No edits from this account since the cautions were posted. Follow up if problems resume. Durova 04:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    Unregistered IP address has made a flurry of edits that have the same books and references (although some useful text edits as well). and .--Gregalton 00:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    Now appears to be sockpuppeting as User:Diazfrancisca. Flagged as such.--Gregalton 00:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    I removed a large number of these references and other contributions as spam (promotion). Now that the coi is clear, I'll wait for the editor to respond. --Ronz 03:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

    There have been no edits from user Dvandeventer since April 14, and none from users Diazfrancisca and 67.53.52.98 since April 16. Have other userIPs been used for the same task or has this ceased? — Athænara ✉ 22:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

    Christopher L. Hodapp (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    I've full protected the biography article for a month. Recommend other editors follow up with a COI message to the user talk page. Durova 04:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

    I don't know if it will make any difference, but I left a message for user Frumious Bander a few hours ago to suggest that he participate in this noticeboard discussion. — Æ. ✉ 02:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

    Abdulaziz Sager (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    see also:Gulf Research Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Araa Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    FloGRC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Articles associated with the Gulf Research Centre, its publication and founder. For some reason, they updated, then blanked, the organizational page. The magazine page was obvious spam and flagged as such. I'm unsure of the founder's notability. Articles tagged, user advised of COI concern. RJASE1 05:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

    Note this COI SPA's first edit ("UPDATED OUR OWN DESCRIPTION") to Gulf Research Centre.

    Note also this edit which added the same content to Gulf Research Center and removed the {{orphan}} tag. The user may have thought blanking the "Centre" page (twice: first second) would ensure one article only—the two articles are technically distinct.

    A google news search which yielded eight articles in the past month (Edmonton Journal, Gulf News, Gulf Daily News, Financial Times, Arabian Business Newsletter, Dubai City Guide, etc.) indicates that the GRC is notable. Whichever article remains, however, the lengthy content which was copied wholesale from GRC website should be removed from both articles. — Athænara ✉ 00:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

    Update: "Center" is the GRC's own spelling, so I made "Centre" (a stub with duplicate content) a redirect to the main article, cleared out most of the GRC website copypaste content, wikified, etc. I haven't looked at the Sager and Araa articles yet. — Æ. ✉ 01:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

    71.197.70.177 (talk · contribs) - Tim Riley

    Accountancy is very difficult to learn. (I know because I'm in school now trying.) Moreover, my research using Google and Misplaced Pages has not been at all helpful. Only when I realized that accountancy should be taught like a math class did I realize the academic deficiency. However, since no accountancy math book exists, I'm writing one. And for every chapter that applies to a Misplaced Pages article, I think other Misplaced Pages users would also benefit from my research. I resent the "blunderbuss approach" statement. Every Misplaced Pages article linked from was chosen because it contained the exact subject of the book (GAAP) or a chapter. Previously, the links went to accountancymodel.org, which is a page on my commercial site introducing the two-book-set -- the math book and the corresponding examples. However, I have since moved all of the links to the math book itself. The reader will then read the prefix to see that the corresponding examples is also available and where to go to get it. Still in limbo is the Misplaced Pages article on the Statement of Cash Flows. Would someone who understands the difficulty of producing this statement please visit the talk page and decide the external link would be valuable? 71.197.70.177 08:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Tim Riley
    Please read WP:SPAM. MER-C 08:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, Mr. Riley, your book does not yet qualify as a WP:Reliable source because it is not yet published. And it does not meet the inclusion criteria of WP:External links because it is a personal website. I appreciate your eagerness to add specialized knowledge and information, but because we are striving to become a reliable encyclopedia we cannot link to such information. Please read WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research.
    If you manage to get the book published at some point, I'm sure other, unbiased editors will cite to it where appropriate. -- Satori Son 00:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    Best would be to simply add (referenced, sourced) text to the body of the main article.--Gregalton 01:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

    Timhowardriley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left the following message on my user talk page:

    "I have "undone" your removal of the links to "The Accountancy Model" because Misplaced Pages users were selecting this link seeking the type of information contained in the book. Whereas all Misplaced Pages editors appreciate the efforts to keep the "External Links" sections clear of commercial links, "The Accountancy Model" is not a commercial link. Instead, it is a link to copyrighted information useful to accountants. So please, consider not undoing my "undo"s. Timhowardriley 08:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)"

    I forwarded it here because this is where the discussion is. The user seems not to understand the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline. Athaenara 08:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

    Benjamin Speed (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    The above was created, and contiually edited by what appears to be a vanispamcruftisement-only account: Mrspeed (talk · contribs). MER-C 03:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

    User Maria Vargas

    Are these employees, students, or just fans? Bearian 17:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    If they are fans, they are extremely single-minded ones. As far as I can make out, their sole contributions to Misplaced Pages have been to develop the articles on Dr Floridi and the two subjects he is supposed to have invented (Information ethics, Philosophy of information), and to create links in other articles to Dr Floridi and these two subjects. They must be very close to Dr Floridi, to have such extremely detailed knowledge of his life and works. RichardVeryard 00:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

    Wrigley's Gum campaign

    There appears to be a campaign by Wrigley's gum to promote chewing sugar free gum as an oral health care practice. Two accounts I have found so far:

    Addition of link to http://www.betteroralhealth.info, but also (and more worrying to me) additions to articles , , , , , (among others) promoting use of sugar free gum. -- Siobhan Hansa 13:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

    Both accounts have been back, making more promotional edits. Neither respond to messages on their talk page. -- Siobhan Hansa 17:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    Back again today. EllieLancaster responded to my level4 warning with a request about how to provide input, but also spammed the link again. I asked her to use the talk pages and refrain from adding the link to articles, she has since created an article - Wrigley's Oral Healthcare Program, which I've tagged fr speedy deletion. 195.216.25.222 promoted the research on the Wrigley's article. Editors opinions are welcomed at a discussion on the talk page there. Other help or advice on how to better handle this would also be appreciated. -- Siobhan Hansa 15:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    Freedom Press (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Seems like a co-ordintated campaign. DES 21:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

    Altimit OS (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Bizarre. I'm staying out of this one. Bearian 01:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    Yeah, I took it to ANI first because I'm not sure that it is a conflict of interest, more of a... conflict with reality. But they directed me here. Nique talk 01:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    This is sort of like Dagobah, but less notable, and unreferenced. I've tagged Altimit Corporation with prod, and suggested merging Altimit OS into .hack. There's no need to have so many articles about a minor fantasy world (one less notable than Star Wars, in any event). I don't see any WP:COI issue at all. Jehochman (/contrib) 06:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

    Standard Design (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    I agree. Bearian 18:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

    Daily Afghanistan (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    This is obviously autobiographical, COI, POV material. Is it real? Is it notable? Bearian 22:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC) They appear to be real, but are in Arabic. Bearian 22:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

    Fairly obvious corporate vanity, tagged as such. MER-C 03:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

    David Doyle (producer) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    IEntry Inc (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    I am familiar with this space. The company is almost certain to pass WP:N so I've changed the tag to unreferenced, and warned User:RichardOrd about WP:COI. IEntry own several websites that qualify as reliable sources. These sites are being cited by other media, so it shouldn't be difficult to find ample references. Jehochman (/contrib) 05:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

    Trax FM (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    I have done a WHOIS trace on the IP address, and it is registered to the Lincs FM Group (Source). I have left a message on the anon editors talk page. --tgheretford (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

    Swayd (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Article was created by User:Swayd, about all of the content was created by that user and several anonymous IPs that only added to that article, making me suspect it's a conflict of interest autobiography. I added tags to the article for references, resume style writing and spam for now. Dissolve 02:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

    An anonymous IP (the creator of the article?) removed my tags and a couple users prods with no edit summary. Anyone feel this needs an Afd? Dissolve 23:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

    Added userlinks for some (not all) of the SPAs. — Athænara ✉ 05:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

    MDS International (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    → See also: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/MDS International (2nd nomination).
    → See also: Talk:MVDDS dispute.

    --Ronz 20:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

    Update: MDS International is now fully protected due to the edit warrring. It looks like many of the other editors involved in the edit warring are WP:SPAs, probably with their own conflicts of interest. I've started an AN/I because of the legal threats. Now that we have someone fluent in French involved, hopefully we'll get a better understanding of Jeanclauduc's perspective. --Ronz 17:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

    This case has already generated enough legal threats for one day. It seems that Misplaced Pages is just providing a venue for two contending parties (MDSA and MDSI) to abuse one another. We couldn't use any of the juicy revelations from Talk:MDS International in the encyclopedia, even if they were true, because there are no reliable secondary sources. Now the CEO of one of the entities is furious that an apparent comment by him has been translated into English, and makes him sound bad! (There seems to be a remote chance his account could have been compromised; not serious enough to pursue without further info). Both parties occasionally take a break from abusing each other to abuse Misplaced Pages. Does anyone have a strong objection to nominating both articles for deletion? (MDS America and MDS International)?
    The only alternative is to try to protect two stubbified articles indefinitely, with hardly any secondary sources for anything interesting. I know that the WP:OFFICE occasionally shuts things down if they are just too much trouble. This could be that kind of a case, though there is no hint of any commentary from the office. It's unlikely that either party can be made happy, since we can't print any of their supposed revelations, and meanwhile they keep referring us to their law firms and denouncing the 'vandalism by the admins' (I believe that's their term for our removal of defamatory comments from the articles and talk pages).. EdJohnston 21:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    Sounds like a good idea. There doesn't appear to be much interest from any of the editors to create quality articles, judging by the sudden drop in editing now that one is protected. --Ronz 21:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    If you have an opinion on launching an AfD, please add a comment at Talk:MDS International. EdJohnston 02:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    MDS International has been nominated for deletion here. I decided not to nominate MDS America since, while that article caused trouble for regular editors, it did not lead to any legal threats. EdJohnston 01:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

    Update MDS International has been deleted and recreated as a redirect to MVDDS dispute. I have proposed a merge of MDS America as well, and a strawpoll has been created at Talk:MVDDS dispute. However, representatives of MDS America are naturally against the merge, and I am not sure how to take their opinion into consideration. nadav 22:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    Edelman (firm) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    so i've been watching out Edelman (firm) for some time now. recently i saw User:Gohomedying make his first edit by making some pretty detailed family information in the article here. The next the user makes this edit which made me double take. Reverted. The next three edits User:Gohomedying makes to Edelman (firm) not only dumps 25 news articles from the archives of O'Dwyers Daily, PR Watch and PR week into the article, but also erases the 'Controversies' section, adds a client list and puts detailed contact information for the firm's NY branch.

    this all happened in two days and screams COI possibilities, and I wanted to know what to do. i was thinking check user and and some sort of 2nd opinion. how should i proceed? JoeSmack 20:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

    Moved from WP:ANI. MER-C 03:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    The creator of the article admits COI, which is good, and which allows us to assume good motivations, as we should. I'm going to take a crack at editing the very poor writing. The topic appears to be Notable and sourced, but can be improved. (I am legal writing instructor, and it pains me to see so many errors.) Bearian 15:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    Alright, but I'm putting back the controversies section. It also seems like the creator and the current COI account that is editing are two different people. JoeSmack 15:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    "Seems like"? User JoeSmack created the stub in October 2006. — Athænara ✉ 03:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

    Julian Voss-Andreae's art

    Julianva (talk · contribs) and AdrianaW (talk · contribs) are adding images, references, and "In fine art" sections about sculptures by Julian Voss-Andreae (married to Adriana Voss-Andreae), to articles such as Fullerenes in popular culture, Collagen, Green fluorescent protein, Alpha helix. Someone more eloquent than I may want to talk to them about neutrality, notability, self-promotion, and COI. Thanks! Femto 12:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

    Arbuthnot family (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This editor is a member of the Arbuthnot family, specifically Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet. The editor has made a large amount of edits to the article about himself or his family members, and also included a link to his own website - www.kittybrewster.com on a significant number of articles. One Night In Hackney303 12:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

    Number of edits, rather than amount. Broadly true, including a number of article creations. The links are relevant to the articles. My reaction is, so what - it is a field I know about. - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    I think you'll find amount is correct. One Night In Hackney303 14:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    Amount of sugar. Number of edits. You weigh the first and count the second. - Kittybrewster (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    Amount - the sum total of two or more quantities or sums. I have created a page here detailed some of pages about his own family Kittybrewster has created, articles such as Robert Arbuthnot (auditor) need a good look at in my opinion. One Night In Hackney303 15:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    Is the editor familiar with WP:AUTO and WP:COI? Is there a reason they wouldn't apply to these articles? -Will Beback · † · 23:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    The editor has been editing for a long time so I'd expect so, but I'm sure he can answer that for himself. One Night In Hackney303 23:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    Yes. Both are guidelines not policy. At least three are wholly unrelated as far as we know; they are all notable. The articles are not biased but factual and verified. - Kittybrewster (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    Most of those articles seem to qualify for speedy deletion, even if nominated for AFD they dont seem like they would come out alive. Now I have not looked at all of them (wow there is a lot) maybe there is a couple notable ones in there, but none that I saw so far. Some of them are rather old too, suprising they have lasted this long. Seems this editor thinks WP is an appropriate place for his family tree. Russeasby 23:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    That was my train of thought as well. However my problem is that I'm involved in a sort of dispute with this editor over another matter, so nominating a significant number of articles wouldn't be looked on in a positive light. If you look at the ongoing AfD there are bad faith accusations flying left, right and centre, and I'd like to avoid more of the same which is really why I've brought it here so someone else can give their opinion and see what needs to be done. One Night In Hackney303 23:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    Well considering the ongoing AFD I would wait to see the results there before touching the other articles. If this article fails then the rest could probably be deleted with a single RFD. But since this debate is so heated I wouldnt touch the other articles just yet, that could make a mess even messier very quickly. Russeasby 00:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet does appear related to the editor. The editor appears to have started the article and continued to edit it. Is there a reason that WP:AUTO and WP:COI don't apply? Even though guidelines, there should be a reason for ignoring them. It would be better if editors didn't work on articles about themsleves or closely-related individuals. -Will Beback · † · 00:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    The editor is Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet. If you look at User:Kittybrewster/Home/About me it clearly states the editor is a baronet. Also not included on my COI page is information I found in this AfD, that states other Arbuthnot pages were created by the same editor when IP editors could create pages. There are a couple of articles that weren't created by the editor and/or are notable enough for inclusion (for example James Arbuthnot). One Night In Hackney303 00:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    True. And why is there a perceived COI re John Arbuthnot, Mariot Arbuthnot, May Hill Arbuthnot, James Arbuthnot, Charles Arbuthnot, etc? They are supported by numerous RS. - Kittybrewster (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    I'll just take one of those, as an example, and assuming you mean John Alves Arbuthnot? The sources are your website (not independent), a book by Mrs P S-M Arbuthnot (not independent) and a peerage website, which according to the entry also includes information supplied from an email address at your website (so questionable independence). One Night In Hackney303 00:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    I'd assume he means Sir John Arbuthnot, 1st Baronet (his father?), who is of course notable as a Member of Parliament. JavaTenor 00:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    Ah yes, there's that many it's difficult at times. There's no dispute there are some, if not many, notable members of the Arbuthnot family, it's just that the wheat needs sorting from the chaff in my opinion. One Night In Hackney303 00:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    No. I meant John Arbuthnot. - Kittybrewster (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    Kittybrewster , aside from the unrelated Arbuthnots, what is your plan going forward for edting articles abuot yourself or your close relations? Are you asserting that WP:AUTO and WP:COI don't apply or don't matter? Are you willing to stop directly editing those articles? Have there been any problems with defamation or POV that requires your involvement? -Will Beback · † · 00:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    Good questions. My policy would be to create articles for Arbuthnots who in my opinion are sufficiently notable to survive afd. And for those who puzzle me (eg Arbuthnot Road where I wanted to know after whom it was named and discovered as a result of the entry - which survived afd). Second example is Robert Arbuthnot (auditor) where I know little about his job and nothing about his relations. I have posted questions on the WikiProject:Scotland and on the Humanities Board and hope someone will help me/us. There was a discussion about what I am up to on that board on 15 April 2007. Given the comprehensive survival of Sir Keith Arbuthnot, 8th Baronet (afd), I thought WRA, 2nd Baronet was just a bad faith nomination immediately consequential on a heated discussion between me and ONIH and VintageKits on the Village Pump (murder vs. killing). This has happened before where VK particularly waded in with numerous "nn" tags relating to Baronets and Arbuthnots following his failure to stay on topic in other legitimate debates. There is no requirement to WP:AGF where bad faith is shown. My contention is that WP:COI is very important where relevant -e.g. this present afd for WA, 2nd Bt. So I don't vote. But I read the page with great interest. I see no COI in editing my brother's entry because I know the facts better than most. As for WP:AUTO I think it should apply except where the subject is not notable. That is why I impelled VK towards AFD rather than debating my own notability (which would have been COI). I thought it best that others determine the matter. I had no problem correcting the dates of a directorship I had renounced.
    There have been no problems whatever with POV or defamation re my WikiArticles. I don't state opinions - just sourced facts. Factually I have said derogatory things about two Arbuthnots (both long dead and both fully sourced). My policy is to paint things as they are or were without imposing my own judgment. I have been accused of POV by Vintagekits re Irish Republicans and Mountbatten, etc. He refers to him as Mountsplatten and "Dandruff" which are phenomenally poor taste "jokes" if not breaches of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. He also reduced the image size on WRA 2nd Bt without reference to MoS on Image sizes (which he knows). - Kittybrewster (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    This discussion here is not about VK. It's about your editing with a conflict of interest. With all due respect you don't seem to have read the guidelines in question. There's nontihng WP:AUTO that says it only applies to non-notable people. WP:COI specifically warns against participating in AfD discussions on articles about oneself. You are quite active in the AfD discussion on your autobiography, and have engaged in revert wars over it too. Nothing in those guidelines say it's proper to edit autobiogrphies so long as only sourced facts are added. I strongly urge you to stop editing these articles in topics closely related to yourself in violation of our clear guidelines. You are a valued member of the community but that doesn't mean these standards don't apply to you. On the contrary, you should set an example for others. -Will Beback · † · 02:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    I'm also concerned that other conflicts of interest are not being revealed. You proposed a change in our Manual of style that would affect your brother's article without divulging the connection. Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes No.2 I think there's a problem here. -Will Beback · † · 04:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    I appreciate it is not about VK. I was seeking to respond fully on the POV point. That is the only case where I remember POV being raised although I think I was NPOV. On the Rt Hon thing, maybe I am aware that PC as a postfix is jut plain wrong where others are not. but I have never hidden my ID or that relationship both of which are fully in the public domain and stated on wikipedia. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    I don't see where you identify yourself. Not on your user page, not on your "about me" page, and not when you've been actively engaged in discussing topics related to your conflicts. I had no idea as a participant in the "Rt Hon" matter that the proposal would affect the proposer's brother's article. Does everybody reading your comments on the AfD on your autobiuography know that you're the subject? As I review your contributions I see that a large percentage of them are devoted to recording the history of the Arbuthnot family. While the information may be factual, Misplaced Pages is not a genealogical encyclopedia. I again ask you to stop editing articles about yourself and your family, per our long-standing policies on autobiograohy and conflicts of interest. There's no demonstrated reason why you need to be editing them. If these topics are notable then other editors will take care of them. Your defenses of your actions do not convince me that there's any reason you should be ignoring WP:AUTO and WP:COI. -Will Beback · † · 09:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    "That is why I impelled VK towards AFD rather than debating my own notability (which would have been COI). I thought it best that others determine the matter" - can you please post that on the AfD, to stop the endless "bad faith" arguments so it's possible just to focus on the article? One Night In Hackney303 01:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    Done. - Kittybrewster (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks. I've had a look at a few articles, and I've found some good examples of what happens if you have a conflict of interest. Please note I'm not suggesting you did this deliberately, its probably happened to everyone that's writing about a subject that they're close to.
    • Felicity Arbuthnot - is a journalist, writer and political activist, renowned for her articles
    I don't endorse her political perspective but there is no doubt she has been consistent, controversial and in the public eye. I have never met her. - Kittybrewster (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    Well she was famous for her friendship with Wellington. Some people wrongly thought her his mistress. She was a society hostess. Also for her Diaries. She is probably far better known than her husband, a diplomat and MP. - Kittybrewster (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    She is hardly known in UK But is extremely well known in USA as an educator and specialist in children's books. Try putting "May Hill Arbuthnot" as a search on ebay ..... - Kittybrewster (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    They use weasel or peacock wording in my opinion. One Night In Hackney303 01:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    Do you want to have a look at WP:PEACOCK please? One Night In Hackney303 01:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    I've found some good examples of what happens if you have a conflict of interest
    This is about the fourth time I've seen conflicts with editors writing about their own ancestors, and the problems are always the same (and I'm sure unconscious). It's not just about aristocracy; you get exactly the same with, say, American family historians writing about their pioneering ancestors. * Lack of objectivity about notability. * Hype (upping what notability exists): "famed" is, say, Lady Hamilton being mistress of Lord Nelson. Harriet Arbuthnot's friendship with the DoW is not remotely in that league. * Iffy sourcing in insider-written histories (with all the risk of bias that implies). I'd view it as sufficiently a problem to merit application of WP:COI. Tearlach 02:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    A guide acting the part of Harriett takes you round Apsley House. Nevertheless I welcome all improvements to articles. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

    As a point of information Kittybrewster has been identified as Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet on the article talk page since 20 May 2006. It is of course permissible to use "insider" sources per Wp:v#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_in_articles_about_themselves. The peacock terms in themselves, I think are more a matter of minor departures from strict wikipedia editing style than any COI puff, and not in themselves unjustified e.g. Harriet Arbuthnot. Kittybrewster is generally a restrained editor, not given to the excesses that normally accompany COI. Though COI exists on the article about himself, his brother and immediate family, it seems counterproductive that it should be seen as applying to anyone with the same name, especially historical figures, when it is acknowledged by all that worthwhile articles have been created by him. This would deprive the encyclopedia of such articles. I am sure he has already taken all of these comments on board. It should also be noted that the COI guidelines have come into force in their present form during his editing time here. Some of the issues here are not limited to his edits, but are generally unresolved about the use of certain sources such as Debretts and the notability or otherwise of e.g. Baronets. Tyrenius 23:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

    I agree that the major COI problem is with editing the articles about himself and his immediate family, and that there shouldn't be a problem with him editing the articles of more distantly-related Arbuthnots. A more minor issue is adding links to his own website and using it as a source, which is also covered in WP:COI and WP:ATT, I believe. Lastly, it would be helpful if he'd add a link to his biography from his user page. -Will Beback · † · 23:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    It is of course permissible to use "insider" sources...
    True. All I mean is that books written by people about their own families tend to 'accentuate the positive'; it's worth cross-checking with the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography where possible. For instance, the section on Sir Robert Arbuthnot, 4th Baronet in Mrs P S-M Arbuthnot's Memories of the Arbuthnots is fine for basic detail, but is a total hagiography in relation to his actions at Jutland. The ODNB concludes that in his naval career, while undoubtedly courageous, he was generally viewed as a martinet whose talents were held back by his obsession with following regulations to the letter, and that the destruction of his ship at Jutland was down to a major error of judgement on his part. This is the kind of bias-by-omission to watch out for. Tearlach 13:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    Agreed that this is something to watch for, but did User:Kittybrewster overlook this point? Also, the present form of the article doesn't quite say it this forcefully, so if this matter is important maybe you should tweak the article some more. And, while this observation is interesting, it doesn't seem like a reason to disqualify Kittybrewster from working on the more remote Arbuthnots. EdJohnston 05:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    HMS Defence (1907) has even less details, and that wasn't written by Kittybrewster. Maybe some of the new info could be included there also. (As an editing point, it would be better if Kittybrewster left out words such as "unfortunately" and let the facts speak.) Tyrenius 07:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. As a person who often adds my opinion on COI/N issues, I have mixed feelings. Obviously, User:Kittybrewster is an experienced editor, with 17,000 edits on Misplaced Pages, and does not seem to be a dangerous ruffian. As we poke around in the details of the edits, it's hard to find a lot to complain about. We seem to left with either (a) accepting User:Will Beback's rather strict interpretation of the COI rules, or (b) letting it go. A third alternative (c) might be to press Kittybrewster on adding more information about his real-life identity to his User page, since he declares it is not a secret, though when other editors look at his edits, they may not be aware of the situation. More comments here? Otherwise it will probably go away with no specific action. The AfD mentioned above ended with No Consensus, though with poor civility, not much credit to either side, and not many useful comments that I could see. (User KB did not vote in the AfD). Other COI commenters, please let me know if you saw anything useful in the AfD comments. EdJohnston 01:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    Can I ask if we now have the full Arbuthnot family, or are more articles going to be created? I still think the existing articles might need a bit of scrutiny to be on the safe side as well. One Night In Hackney303 05:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

    Count Estruc (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Estruch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This looks a difficult one: possible sources are in Spanish and Catalan, and main editor's English isn't so great so it's going to be a PITA to explain policies. I have a suspicion that User:Estruch is actor and author Salvador Sáinz and that this Count Estruc exists exclusively in his fiction. See his Estruch page and also the Spanish, Catalan and French Wikipedias. Tearlach 20:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

    I can speak Catalan pretty well, and as far as I can see there is no mention of this 'legend' anywhere on the Catalan language internet except for these articles. Self-promotion. Kijog 17:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks very much (I also posted for help at Talk:Catalan language). It appears I'm probably wrong in assuming User:Estruch to be Sáinz, but given the popularity of vampire topics on the Internet, I'm deeply suspicious that I can find no references to this Count Estruch (under whatever spelling) outside these Wiki articles and the works of Sáinz. Tearlach 17:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

    Guifred Estruch and Alfonso lived in the king's time II of Aragon (the Chaste one), and it would have been very well considered in the Court of Barcelona from Ramón's times Berenguer IV as winner against the Moorish king from Valencia, and decisive collaborator in the taking of Tortosa in 1148, and those of Lérida and Fraga in 1149.

    Another tradition oral Catalan picks up the existence of the vampire in the district of the Ampurdán. He/she would have been the count Strucc, a nobleman of German origin of the court of Pedro II king of the Crown of Aragon that had stood out in the battle of The Dales of Tolosa. Already old man, correspondent went to the Pirineo to pursue witches and pagans, in his castle of the High Ampurdán and there, for the action of dark malicious forces, he would become a pacifier of blood.

    Regrettably, most of the relative historical documentation to this gentleman got lost during the Spanish Guerra Civilian: the town of Llers, where he/she was, it was destroyed by the aviation franquista. The legend enjoys two versions.

    This legend seems to be derived of some previous facts, happened in the year 1173, the king's time Alfonso II. This faced problems of religious normalization in their territory: he/she feared that the followers of the paganism, even common among people that lived in the Pirineo, can cooperate with the Muslims of the south to defeat the Christian gentlemen. In collaboration with the Bishop from Barcelona, Guillem Torroja, requested the Count Guifred Estruch that throws a campaign of residents' non Christian persecution in the district of the Ampurdán, for what gave him the castle of Llers. This Guifred Estruch was very well considered in the Court of Barcelona from Ramón's times Berenguer IV, because it had triumphed against the Moorish king from Valencia, and collaborated decisively in the taking of Tortosa in 1148, and those of Lérida and Fraga in 1149. The betrayal of the captain of their army Benach who poisoned him for spite of Nuria, daughter of Estruch, it was continued in turn by the murder of several accused people of witchcraft. In the process, the murdered count would have become a no-dead.

    The historical documentation on the Count's adventures Estruch shines for its absence, and it is not even possible knowledge if it was the hero of the Dales of Tolosa or the winner of Tortosa, and there are fifty years of difference among the two events. The annihilation of Llers made him to be only the oral tradition that he/she speaks of vampires and figures demoníacas strolling for the Sierra of But Career during several centuries. Even until the present time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estruch (talk • contribs) 06:01, April 28, 2007 (UTC)

    Good Morning:

    The text in Spanish about this legend is: moved for conciseness to Talk:Count Estruc.

    My Englsih is very bad for translated this, sorry. --Estruch 08:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

    The historical documentation on the Count's adventures Estruch shines for its absence
    El perro comió mi preparación!
    It may be an oral tradition, but we need some reliable non-oral confirmation (not web forum posts) that it existed before the works of Sáinz. Tearlach 12:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

    I wanted old books for send material .--Estruch 16:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

    I regret that the documentation 'shines for its absence', but we can't really keep an article in the encyclopedia without it. Trying to surmount the language barrier, I went and looked at the other versions of this article. The best version of this material, probably by the same author, is in the Catalan Misplaced Pages and it's at . Unfortunately even that one is not properly referenced. If we just decided to go ahead and translate the version from the Spanish Misplaced Pages, we could get one in good English, but lacking sources. So regrettably I think that AfD is the best course, or maybe 'prod' if we can persuade the author that this is not a win. EdJohnston 05:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

    Exist references before Sáinz in books about Catalan Legends. --Estruch 08:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC) You can write to author from Estruch, he have web . He work in the movies. "Estruch" (the novel fiction is a cinema project). The problem is the Spanish references copied the article from Sainz book and not mentionnet your references. --Estruch 08:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

    Janko Prunk (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Prunk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the author and main contributor. Article survived an AfD (based on notability concerns) about a year ago, but the article seems to have expanded into a resume since. RJASE1 13:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

    I had to laugh at this - he removed the 'unreferenced' tag and left a citation that he, personally, was the reference. RJASE1 12:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    This page looks like an autobiography to me because of what I've seen here:
    Anynobody 09:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    Not literally an autobiography, because User:Prunk is the son of the article's subject, Janko Prunk. See the son's blog. The father does have a claim to notability; he was a minister in the Slovenian government in 1992. Plus, if there are any notable historians in Slovenia by WP standards, he must surely be one of them. I suggest that the article needs drastic shortening. The author has some books in English that can be found in Worldcat, but strangely, none of them are listed in the bibliography! Misplaced Pages is not a directory, so we don't need the list of his publications in Slovenian. The first step is probably to discuss the issue with User:Prunk and see if he agrees. EdJohnston 15:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

    There were no improvements since I tagged it {{likeresume}} a week ago (April 19), so I removed the massive résumé material today (April 26). Is there anything else which should be done with it on this noticeboard? — Athænara ✉ 05:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


    → After I archived this section, the following message was sent to my user talk page:

    "Hello ! I saw that you removed* 80% of the article about Janko Prunk, together with his published books. I asked around on wikipedia's channels, and they told me it's not against the wikipedia's policy to publish authors books. So I am asking you, if you could review the article and maybe delete only the COBISS link entries out from the books, if they are being un-appropriate for publishing. Kind regards, Prunk 12:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)"

    Note: The edit to which User:Prunk refers* removed long lists of Slovenian language radio and television appearances, journal articles, discussion papers and books, and commented out a dysfunctional link. No other content was removed. — Athænara ✉ 20:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

    In this conversation at User_talk:Prunk#Janko_Prunk_2 I tried to engage Jan Prunk in a project to improve the referencing of his father's work in the English language, or in any third-party commentary on it, but he didn't seem eager to take this on. I think we'll need to insist that a lengthy bibliography of works in Slovenian is not appropriate. Jan Prunk actually lives in Ljubljana, so he has the ability to add to our articles on Slovenia, and his father is a noted historian, who unfortunately (from en.wiki's point of view) seems to write 99% of the time in Slovenian, so there's not much that we can use. He is the author of a work called 'A Brief History of Slovenia,' published in English, but Amazon doesn't have it for sale. There is a copy at the Library of Congress, so it's not *totally* unavailable, just very hard to find. EdJohnston 20:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    I followed that amazon tip, found it listed, added ISBNS etc. to the article. — Æ. ✉ 04:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    Hello ! I saw that you were fixing the article about Janko Prunk. The book on Amazon.com is not listed correct. My father never published a book with Mihelač publishing house, "A brief history of Slovenia" was published by Založba Grad back in 1996 and then again in 2000. If you look up the previous listings made by me, you will find it's ISBN and other info. It was also the only book published into English language, and then translated into Finnish language. The book "Slowenien - ein Abriss seiner Geschichte" was translated into German language in 1996 and "Die rationalistische Zivilisation" from 2003. All his other books were released in Slovene language. Prunk 06:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    Založba Grad comes under this COI discussion too. Tearlach 14:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

    GoConnect (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    The author of the article, Gcnacc01 (talk · contribs) seems to have a conflict of interest in regards to this article. I'd like some more eyes on this article to see if it meets Misplaced Pages's guidelines for COI and CORP. Thanks, Metros232 03:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

    The author claims to have made edits to make a NPOV, but I still can't tell what they've done. It reads like an ad, and a poorly written onbe at that. It might be notable. Bearian 14:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    The creator of this article has already contested a prod. I suggest an AfD nomination. The same person has already *twice* created ToKillFor.com, which has been speedy-deleted both times! At this rate, he is looking for a block at AIV as a spam-only account. The GoConnect company seems to be an ISP based in Australia that had revenue of about $600,000 US in the last complete year, according to its own web site. EdJohnston 03:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

    Rapleaf (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    The article has been edited multiple times by founders Manish Shah (Manish.shah (talk · contribs)) and Auren Hoffman (Mlkhamilton (talk · contribs) - see article). Both users' contrib histories seem to be self serving. Tagged with possible COI. 71.198.183.39 08:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

    The sum effect of the edits by the two users was to include Shah as a founding member, and to include a reference to a project they had worked on together before they started Rapleaf. It doesn't seem too bad. (Mlkhamilton has only edited once.) Shah a note on his/her talk page though. Sancho (Review me) 11:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    It doesn't look bad to me. Bearian 14:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    It looks like the conflict of interest tag is removed by the original poster. I'm one of the (non-conflcited) editors, and as a newbie I posted some stuff about this everywhere but here. Thanks for the attention and I'll update the page's discussion section to refer to this. Wikidemo 04:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    Roo'ra – Deleted (a7) – 08:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

    Roo'ra (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.


    Dance Party USA (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Dancepartyusa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User has been warned about COI guideline, but persists in replacing article content with their own POV version. Whpq 10:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

    Block that user. I can't, as I'm not an administrator. Bearian 15:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

    LibStu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Libstu who originally created the entry, is none other than the Communications Director of the club in question. The text of the original entry http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sydney_University_Liberal_Club&diff=prev&oldid=100654203 is identical in text to page 7 of this http://www.alsf.org.au/alsf/docs/230435.pdf written by none other than Ben Potts. User denies he is this identity, now denies he is even a member of the club. DCNeutraliser Carleton Sheets (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    →See also: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Professional Education Institute

    Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Professional Education Institute

    Roy Gordon Lawrence (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    The European Library (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    This item has been discussed with the user, and has also been discussed on village pump (policy) (here archived). In both cases no real answer came out of the discussion so I am posting it here on COI/N as, to me, the issue is not satisfactory solved and the edits continue. User:Fleurstigter is the Marketing and Communications representative of the European Library (see their aboutus). The European Library is relatively new, and already for some time, she is adding links. I first reverted her because of spamming (wikipedia definition), and asked her to contribute in a positive way, adding contents and references, or by seeking consensus on talkpages before adding the links (or letting others add the link). She is still adding mainly external links to documents where they are of arguable value (see e.g. diff and diff, some are a bit better (see the three consequtive edits: diff, diff and diff where she tried to add a reference. The link may be appropriate, but she did not use the links as a reference to actually write (parts of) the document).

    Secondly, she creates documents where I think that they are hardly stubs, and need some wikification before they become notable. Examples: Archimandrite Kyprianos, Bernhard Borchert. Note that these articles are about the person, but that the only reference is to a artwork/document of the person (which also explains something about the person).

    All of these additions seem so that there can be a link to the European Library inserted into the document (and if it does not fit, it goes into the external links section). For some of the links I would argue that the link could better be to the original site, or even, original documents without a link to a specific library. Lately she is discussing the linkadditions on the talkpage (see e.g. diff, but that is 2 minutes after diff)

    Accounts:

    COIBot is now monitoring many of these links:

    I am reluctant to run WP:AWB again on all her additions to clean the external links she added, or to clean most of the references, though I think that this should be stopped. I know she is adding the links in good faith to help wikipedia, but I don't think that this is the proper way. It all has more the appearance of spam (as in 'promotional addition of links') than of contributing, even for the few links that do appear valid. I would be surprised if there are significantly more than 15 of the 57 links in mainspace (current count) that have not been added by either Fleurstigter or IPs from KB.nl (COIBot is only recording this since a couple of days).

    I'd like to hear more on this subject, and whether librarians do have a COI when their main edits are to link to their library. Cheers. --Dirk Beetstra 18:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC) I notified User:Fleurstigter that this issue has been filed. Anyone looking into this item might also see the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Library COI dilemma EdJohnston 20:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

    Comment: I'm afraid this is a problem. I only spent a few minutes looking at this editor's contribution history and already I have a list of articles that I think should go to AfD:
    Archimandrite Kyprianos, Khitrovo Gospel, Brussels Coin Cabinet, Oktoikh
    An AfD nomination of this set of four articles would be good because we could get a variety of opinions on the logic behind creating these articles.
    I checked two link insertions, and I think both should be reverted: and .
    In my brief survey I only found one link that seems like it should remain, in Peresopnytsia Gospels. This is because the article is a genuine WP article about an art work and the link points to information about that work. EdJohnston 17:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    OK, so an AWB (semi-automated script) run on removing all her additions of external links/references would be difficult, though I could ignore that article. I might then accidentally clean an addition that would be appropriate, but I would not mind then being reverted by an established editor.
    For that article, could the link be used as a true reference (as per WP:FOOT?). --Dirk Beetstra 18:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    I've never used AWB, but doesn't it need manual confirmation of each change? Couldn't you compare each change against an 'exception list'? Editors here might help to create an exception list, i.e. a list of articles where the links are appropriate. Even in that one exception that I found, there may be a slight copyright problem, because some of the article text appears to be word-for-word the same as in the summary paragraph found in the European Library item. EdJohnston
    AWB indeed needs conformation of every edit (unless it is run from a bot account). What I can do with it is load a users contributions list, and clean every occurance of a link in documents edited by the account. What I generally do is clean the whole line where the link is in, and use it to remove links from external links sections. Since most additions here are single-line I think that this would be typically something I could do with AWB.
    I think in this case it would be appropriate to clean all the occurances she added (per WP:SPAM "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed."), and, again, ask her to first discuss the addition on a talkpage, wait until consensus is reached, and then let an uninvolved editor add the link. That means indeed that some (and I expect it to be only one or two) appropriate external links are removed, but Fleur Stigter is then free to reach consensus on the talkpages for these cases before they get added (or another editor must decide to add it earlier). --Dirk Beetstra 20:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Fwiw, I don't think that adding a link to an online text, image, or other useful information on a library website is "promoting" the library itself. I know the European Library is not itself a library, but just an interface/portal to libraries in Europe. It doesn't make any money from people clicking through to it; it doesn't host advertisements; it's a search interface. Reminds me of WorldCat, actually. I can't speak to the user's actions in creating the AfD'd articles, but I would not consider a link to any nonprofit library organization "advertising" or linkspam. I also don't think it's a conflict of interest for the same reason - the user does not gain from people visiting the site. Just my 2¢. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC) (librarian)
    Still, many non-profit organisations do get judged by the efficiency of their work. In other words, for online data the amount of money they get may be related to the page-hits a site gets. Why would governments put money in a large organisation that provides online information when there are no visitors? So in that view also mass addition of links to non-profit organisations, even without any advertisement, can be promotional, and therefore people who add the links to get people tunnelled to their website do have a conflict of interest. --Dirk Beetstra 21:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    I have to rephrase/expand this a bit. Librarians have in first instance not a COI when they would 'pull a book out of their library' and edit an article, improve it, and add a reference to an online version of the book on their site (though a general link would be better, e.g. the ISBN, but lets assume that we are talking about a unique or very rare book). The situation changes when a librarian is going through pages on wikipedia, and (almost exclusively) adds links to documents on their site to the documents where they could possibly fit. As has been stated often, I and many others will not have a big problem with the former (improving a document, and providing a reference to the online version on a site one is affiliated with; although WP:COI states 'Avoid or exercise great caution writing or editing articles ..."), but the latter does at the very least suggest that the addition of links is to promote the site (in whichever way, being it for money, to gain hits or to make the site more known to the public), and when that is the case, I would describe that as a conflict of interest. --Dirk Beetstra 22:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    To the extent that the site they are adding is important and central to the purposes of WP, there is no problem. Each page has to be taken on its merits. If the items are worth the description, there is justification. some of the articles mentioned on individual manuscripts are worth the description--there are several WP eds. around who would be interested in using the stubs provided as a starting point & I will check if they know about the articles. There is nothing necessarily wrong upon knowing that one has some unique documents available, to see if they can be used. But if I did that for new articles, i would try to write more complete ones.
    To the extent that the EL does become a search interface, then, a Her Pegship says, we will all use it. There's nothing wrong with making us aware of it.
    But in both respects, I would go a little slower and more carefully than has been the case so far.DGG 05:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    There is indeed nothing wrong with knowing that the documents are available. I am not questioning if the European Library would be a valuable resource, or that whe should link to the European Library, it is and we should. I am questioning if a librarian should add links to his own library to articles him/herself (especially if the edits all are mainly or exclusively adding the links, or edits to facilitate links). Making us aware of that can be done via the talkpages, or via wikiprojects. --Dirk Beetstra 07:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    Since I believe that User:DGG and User:Pegship are librarians, and they have joined this discussion, can I ask if you have had occasion to use the European Library in your own work, and if so what you use it for? EdJohnston 16:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

    DataSynapse, Inc. (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    You say that he "seems like a nice understanding guy". If it is your impression that he has seen the error of his ways and will not continue to edit within his COI, nothing more is really necessary − we're not here to punish the wicked if we can convert them to contributing constructively (or, failing that, at least make them stop editing unconstructively) without punishment. –Henning Makholm 23:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    This appears to me to be a major company within the marketspace, and there exist plenty of reliable sources, so I've created the article as a stub. FCYTravis 23:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    This article was already bagged twice on articles for deletion in June 2006 and August 2006. Very little has changed since that time. This is clearly not the company's first attempt at spamming. If the competitors articles are similarly spammy, they should be AFDed.Montco 00:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    The company has been the subject of significant reporting by independent sources - I've only got two refs as of now but there's plenty more where they came from. DataSynapse appears to meet WP:CORP, and is a substantial player in its market sector. FCYTravis 00:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    Natalee Holloway (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Holly'smum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Seems to be the mother of the subject of the article, due to both her username and contributions, which revolve completely around removing undesirable information from the article. CA387 10:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    While I appreciate the sentiment, I assure you this is not Natalee Holloway's mother. No need for concern here. - auburnpilot talk 03:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    Andy Reis – Deleted (a7) – 09:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

    Andy Reis (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

    Geoffrey Engelbrecht‎ (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    →See also: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Geoffrey Engelbrecht

    Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn – MA'AT, Hogd2007, Mp474ret, Tatenen, and Leviathan6 blocked indefinitely – 23:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

    The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • MA'AT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Hogd2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Mp474ret (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Tatenen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Leviathan6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    • Three Four Five single purpose accounts show up almost simultaneously to "correct bias" in articles related to the Golden Dawn. They seem to be members of one group foucused on editing the article of a competing group to that group's disadvantage. GlassFET EdJohnston 17:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    Here are a few. Note the tone of the edit comments. , , , and for the Inc. article: , , . GlassFET 17:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, the tone of the edit summaries is very alarming. Since the abuse here seems flagrant, it should not be hard to get help from administrators.
    • Your first diff shows User:MA'AT removing a line with a reference and replacing it by a very confident, but unreferenced, contradiction of that statement.
    • Your second diff shows User:Hogd2007, spouting policy talk, revert User:Fuzzypeg's carefully referenced statement, using the words 'vandalism' and 'spam'
    • Your third diff shows User:Mp474re replacing the previous neutral-sounding version with WP:PEACOCK language about 'the single greatest twentieth century influence on 20th century occultism', and while doing so use the word 'spam' in the edit summary,
    • Your fourth diff shows User:Tatenen reinstating the WP:PEACOCK language after you had removed it, complaining about improper reverts by you and User:IPSOS.
    I suggest that this behavior deserves a stern warning by an administrator on the article's Talk page. If no improvement results, then I think raising the issue at WP:AN/I is fully justified. This stuff is so blatant, those editors won't get much sympathy. I'm glad to see that some experienced editors are helping you out on the Golden Dawn page. Anyone with experience will sense a whiff of sockpuppetry about such flagrant edits, but I have no details. I notice that User:Tariqabjotu semi-protected the page for you. He may be willing to do what's needed. EdJohnston 22:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.


    Simon Higgs (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Simon Higgs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I discovered this article when putting a speedydelete tag on a slapdash article for Mr Higgs's book (The Guide To Selling Your Music In The iTunes Music Store). I found that the only editor of note for that article was also the only editor of note for this article on Mr Higgs; an article for a Michelle Higgs, whom I presume is a relatve and whose music has been produced by Mr Higgs; the only editor for Healing Rooms, an album by Michelle Higgs and produced by Mr Higgs; and the main editor for an article on a David Ruis, another Higgs-produced musician. The editor also claims to be the copyright holder of Image:Healing-rooms-cover.jpg.

    The editor, Particle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), became extremely evasive when asked if he had a conflict of interest on the book's talk page (now deleted), Michelle Higgs's talk page (also now deleted), and his own userpage (which, though not lengthy at all, has been suspiciously archived by a bot, possibly so as to conceal the conflict of interest). Also note that, after this rigamarole, the user immediately blanked his userpage, which had previously linked to the Simon Higgs article with the text "Higgs' Law" , and transcluded a UBX for WikiProject Contemporary Christian music, essentially scrambling to don a halo. User has also removed my spam tag from the Simon Higgs article while keeping in links intended to sell Mr Higgs's products.

    This requires a more thorough investigation than I, a non-admin, can do (accessing deleted talk pages, etc.), but it is my belief this article and the actions of its principal editor constitute a clear COI. Should I just put a speedydelete tag on this article, or should I go through and root out all the satellite articles, the categories editor Particle has created for those articles, the entries on lists articles, image files, etc.? Guidance from a sysop or other grizzled veteran would be appreciated. --Dynaflow 20:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    The Conner Brothers (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    • This article seems to be an autobiographical, resume, with obvious COI, for possibly non-notable persons, with a POV. Bearian 23:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Filmwave appears to be a single-use account to create this article and related articles based on two guys who make short movies. Bearian 23:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    Categories: