Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:29, 26 March 2015

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

Environmental organization articles

• Backcountry Hunters & Anglers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Land Tawney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Izaak Walton League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• with regard to all - RodNReel48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• with regard to Backcountry Hunters & Anglers and Land Tawney -- COI declared here -- Bhamt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• with regard to Izaak Walton League - COI declared here -- Dawnmerritt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• associated posting at WP:BLPN is here: Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Land_Tawney

Unknown editor repeatedly changed content of pages to perpetuate a smear campaign against the nonprofit organization, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, and its executive director, Land Tawney. The smear campaign is being levied by a sham public interest group, and the edits to the page cite (among other questionable sources) the sham group's contrived studies as sources cited.

The sham group has a documented history of attempting to undermine the nonprofit and executive director. His/her activities undermine the integrity of Misplaced Pages. I am the communications director of the nonprofit and monitor online activity associated with the group, social media, and our group's presence on sites such as Misplaced Pages.

Other nonprofit organizations targeted by this same sham group also have had their Misplaced Pages pages altered by the same editor, on consecutive days, and with similar edits. I repeatedly removed the editor's changes only to have him restore them, quickly and multiple times over the course of today.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please contact me directly to discuss further. Bhamt (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bhamt, what user do you have a concern about and can you provide a diff showing that they have a conflict of interest? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The Tawney biography looks questionable to me - I've raised it on WP:BLPN AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That was a next move for me. Wanted to get the information I requested from Bhamt before taking the obvious next steps.... Jytdog (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Good morning. The user I have concerns about is RodNReel48. He/she edited the pages I flagged (along with pages of other nonprofit organizations) to perpetrate a smear campaign being waged against my employer. Please let me know what other information you need. Here are two resources on the front group behind this: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Environmental_Policy_Alliance and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/07/environmental-policy-alliance-berman_n_4913303.html. Thank you for your assistance in resolving this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhamt (talk • contribs) 14:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. So it sounds like you have no evidence from within Misplaced Pages that RodNReel48 is actually associated with that group. We will need to look into their edits and see what we can do. Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

There is another issue, Bhamt you have disclosed there, that you have a conflict of interest with regard to these articles. You are also a paid editor, and you need to disclose that on the Talk pages of any articles you work on, related to your COI. I am going to tag the articles and provide notice of this, on your Talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much, guys. I apologize for not following protocol. As you might have guessed, I am not familiar with Misplaced Pages's editing rules/regs; I only got involved in this because my organization is being targeted. As far as evidence of RodNReel48's affiliation with the front group, I will cite that he/she also made similar edits to the pages of two other organizations, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and Izaak Walton League, that have been singled out by the front group and the target of a well-funded smear campaign against all our groups: https://www.greendecoys.com/. On a separate but related issue, I wanted to flag Land Tawney's Misplaced Pages page. This page appears to have been created with the express purpose of casting doubt onto my boss's bona fides. Land was not aware that he even had a Misplaced Pages page before this week. Can he be given oversight or have special control over this page? Again, forgive me for not being familiar with SOP here. Appreciate your wise counsel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.153.80.179 (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Bhamt or 63.153.80.179... we have a policy for articles about living people, called and linked at WP:Biographies of living people (we call that policy "BLP" for short). There is an associated notice board for problems with BLP articles, here: WP:BLPN. you can see above, that grumpy andy opened a thread there already. If you post in that thread, you can get people there to help you with issues on Tawney's article. Good luck! I'll be looking at that article from a COI perspective, too. 19:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• note - added other articles that RodNReel48 has been working on, while figure out their deal. Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• note - added more parties and clarified who is who... Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• as of tonight, waiting to hear from RodNReel48. Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Jytdog I can provide the text to support my comments that RodNReel48 edits to Izaak Walton League page were incorrect. Statements that were attributed to IWLA conservation policies were either incomplete or outright inaccurate. I am happy to provide the full text for comparison. Content added to sportsmen group pages by RodNReel48 matches content created via "green decoys" smear campaign efforts on social media channels. Dawnmerritt

thanks for replying Dawnmerritt. I am watching that article, and if you post proposed changes on the article's Talk page, I will have a look. (it would be most helpful if you wrote something there like "replace this content and source (copy-paste it) with this content and source". Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog Problem content by RodNReel48 was eliminated and page reverted back to original content and locked. The question is: What happens on March 15 when it is unlocked again? Dawnmerritt

Hi Dawnmerritt, thanks for letting me know that you are OK with the article as it stands. Still waiting for RodnReel to come and talk here with regard to possible paid editing/COI on their part. With regard to the article, if they edit disruptively, content or behavior-wise, there are other policies and guidelines that will be brought to bear. As I said I am watching the article (and others are too) and we will make sure that our policies and guidelines are upheld there. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I would note though that Misplaced Pages user "Dawnmerritt" also has a conflict-of-interest in this topic area. Obviously we should not and will not allow these fringe criticisms from user "RodNReel48" to stand in any project article, but at the same time we have to be careful that said articles do not swing too far in the other direction and become sanitized puff pieces. Tarc (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tarc yes agreed - both Dawnmerrit and Bhamt have disclosed their COIs and are listed as declared connected contributors on the relevant articles, and my sense is that they will abide by COI. Just waiting to hear from RodnReel. Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Note - I went through the Roosevelt article which no one had done yet; removed POV-adversial ick (really bad sourcing to make "they are federal government loving bastards" kinds of claims. RodNReel has not resurfaced. Was probabaly just a SPA ] created just for this. Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Dawoodi Bohra

• Dawoodi Bohra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rukn950 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As per the various discussions in his initial wikipedia pages he had posted all his personal details which were removed later after the succession controversy.

This shows him in customary attire unique to dawoodi bohra clergy: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Rukn950&oldid=602231414#My_Links

I had earlier complained on COIN, and he himself accepted it:

And here he claims to be strongly dawood bohra: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_72#Reply_of_Summichum_allegations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 20:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I checked the archives and found this Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_74#Dawoodi_Bohra where an editing dispute was brought here, with no clear signs of any COI. I don't see any evidence presented here that there is a COI, either. Summichum what is your actual evidence that there is COI? Please keep it short. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jytdog, -->> https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_72#Reply_of_Summichum_allegations please see this link , the user ruqn clearly says he belongs to Dawoodi Bohra , infact he says he is "truly"a dawoodi bohra, which clearly establishes a close connection with the subject. Also see the various talk pages etc, he very strongly biased to support one of the claimant in the succession dispute article , also in DB page he is clearly behaving in a partisan manner.Summichum (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

that would be WP:ADVOCACY, not COI. and i think the same is probably true of you. This is not a matter for COI now, as it was not before. Jytdog (talk) 06:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It would have been civil if summichum would have given me notice of this WP:COIN.Rukn950 (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I have been an editor for more than eight years. I had to remove my personal details in line with wikipedia policy to the right to my privacy. and I am upset that summichum has been displaying my old archived files at all the discussion and noticeboard. Is it appropriate? Rukn950 (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

the history is the history. if you want something permanently deleted you can request an ovesighter to do that for you. please bring your content dispute elsewhere. I am sorry you guys are so stuck, Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I too am sorry for that.What do you suggest is the course of action and how can this issue be resolved? I have been watching the edits of summichum. which seems consistently to have emphasis on criticism to dawoodi-bohra related articles and its spiritual leaders, on whom these articles are based, simultaneously claiming to be un-involved and yet anyone who doesn't agree with him is dragged either to sock puppet or COI notice boards.Rukn950 (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

everybody should stay calm and use the processes described in WP:Dispute resolution to resolve the content issues. There is no deadline here, just take it slow and work through issues one at a time. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Shout Out UK

• Shout Out UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• sock adding unsourced negative content MatteoBergamini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• sock adding unsourced negative contentJewishguyisreal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• sock adding unsourced negative contentAnonymousallover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• sock adding unsourced negative contentShoutOutUKisrightwing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• sock adding unsourced negative contentInvestigator2015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• sock adding unsourced negative contentAnti-DefamationLeagueUSA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• sock adding unsourced negative contentIsrealADL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• probable sock trying dox Helloskiable MarshaThompsonUK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• creator Helloskiable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:MatteoBergamini has been editing the page, removing all content and replacing it with their own unsourced information, see differences in revisions. They claim to be the owner of Shout Out UK-the username is consistent with this claim- however it is clear that they are here to take ownership of the article, and I don't see their edits as beneficial. I wasn't sure how to proceed, hence me posting here. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

 Request withdrawn User:MatteoBergamini has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

note - this posting made me go look at the article, and there were a bunch of socks adding negative content, with some clear COI/Advocacy issue. Also, when I looked at it closely, it became clear to me that Helloskiable, who created the article, has some relationship with the subject of the article. It was ridiculously WP:PROMO. I have added a connected contributor tag and left a notice on that user's page of this discussion. This is one to keep an eye on.Jytdog (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

just checked, all the socks have been blocked by Jac16888 except IsrealADL. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

add what appears to be the latest sock, MarshaThompsonUK Jytdog (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• note there are 3 sockpuppet cases on these folks:
  • Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Nucleargeek
  • Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Anti-DefamationLeagueUSA
  • Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/IsrealADL Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Scholars who appear to be anonymously self-promoting

Moved from AN/I. Additionally, notified user per requirements of most every noticeboard. Sam Walton (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Research83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• World population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Green gross domestic product (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Economic growth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Degrowth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Human overpopulation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ecological footprint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Action requested Just discussion; if there's a better place (with traffic) please move or tell me.

Issues involved WP:Autobiography, WP:PROMO, WP:COI

General stituation
I frequent science articles, where from time to time I see a registered user just adding what appears to be their own WP:PRIMARY sources, e.g., material about a single researcher, or article edits with refs authored by that researcher. Sometimes the material is obviously problematic, i.e., WP:POV, WP:UNDUE, but sometimes it seems ok in its own right. An example of the latter is User Research83. I have no specific complaints about that user's edits, other than it seems like a stealth COI/PROMO situation. On the other hand, their edits seem decent enough. Before I can decide whether to reach out to Research83 about this, I would like your help deciding what I think about it... after all, we should retain interested experts whenever possible. Note this filing is not seeking admin action on Research83, or I would have pinged them in this filing. Quite the opposite, this filing is about me, and educating me about these issues. When I know more, maybe I will post to their talk page.

Conclusion How do the rest of you view these situations? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It seems to be a (massive) WP:COI-issue. See here. Author wrote about himself, cited himself. This does not seem to promulgate WP:NPOV. Kleuske (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for noticing they self-identified, confirming my impression. Aside from the obvious COI, the material seems decent enough had it been added by an uninvolved 3rd party. Do you think COI alone is a reason to beat on them? Or is the project more improved by retaining this expert in those subject areas? And how does one move such an editor from just self-promoting to engaging in their subject expertise overall instead of just material about themselves? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: How neutral is an article going to be that's largely entirely written by the subject himself? See the write-up here, where the problems are neatly summed up. Kleuske (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Laugh-and-half, you've linked 10-month old criticisms, in reply to which the ed made nearly 500 responsive edits. This is an expert we should retain and foster to work on the overall subject area, instead of biting them because, technically, they are so far engaged in a COI. Do we care about our rules so much that we drive away subject-matter experts who show responsiveness to our feedback? (And some more feedback for him.... the link to his CV should be deleted from his article.) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey... You brought it up. If you want to critisize anyone, apply it to yourself. Kleuske (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

my goodness! OK, I added the usual links above. I also tagged the relevant articles with COI and added connected contributor tags to the article Talk pages. The behavior is completely out of line and violates WP:COI - he is the major contributor to the article about himself and adding citations to his own work is clear violation of WP:SELFCITE. Oy. he will get topic banned if he doesn't stop. We do love subject matter experts, heck we need them, but not when they love themselves more than the encyclopedia. If he is here for self-promotion then he is not here to build an encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

status: i worked over all the articles and removed the WP:SELFCITE WP:PROMO content. Conflicted editor has engaged a little at Talk:Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, in a non-promising manner. I have the articles watchlisted.. we'll see if he gets it, or not. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I’ve been thinking about your various comments above. And they give me the feeling that you underestimate the problem. Labeling text as COI or self-promotion is simplifying the issue and denying the complex situation in which scientists find themselves when writing in Misplaced Pages (WP) on topics on which they also undertake academic research. I am not denying that scientists may sometimes try to promote their works (don’t also forget that the modern university is continuously stimulating them to reach out to society to explain their research findings). Nevertheless, one should keep in mind that they write the best about topics they have worked on much. And if a scientist is asked to write a review article or handbook chapter, then no handling editor will be surprised or irritated to see him/her refer to own (relevant) work.

To take my case: believe it or not, my intention was not to promote my work; I just looked at the topics I am most connected with (stimulated by an Orphan tag on the JCJM van den Bergh article) and found that some of my most relevant (and some much cited) work related to a few topics was missing, while adding it could provide relevant content. Perhaps the tone of what I wrote was imperfect, but that’s why others in an open Misplaced Pages process can adapt, and this in fact happened. I have more than 160 journal articles, and just added text related to four of these in some very closely related WP articles. Another thing would be to try to promote work that is far-fetched, which I saw one of you noted to not be the case here.

To illustrate, I contributed a paragraph to the “Degrowth” WP article. Being a known critic of this idea, I couldn’t help noticing that its section on “Criticisms” was dealing with very implicit, vague, far-fetched issues. This immediately explains the tag in the article saying adequate references are lacking. I would add that the few references mentioned are not specifically focused on degrowth criticisms, but more (and too) general. If I was a “handling editor” of this article, I would say: delete all of its text on criticism and rewrite it, focusing on specific criticism that has been explicitly stated somewhere (published), with adequate references. I was in Barcelona when the degrowth movement accelerated there, and was asked to give a keynote speech at their conference as they knew my earlier work, notably on “the GDP paradox” (not mentioned anywhere in Misplaced Pages - and the mention I added was deleted). As a result, I wrote a very critical article on degrowth (published, and much cited now). One main promotor of degrowth (Giorgos Kallis) wrote a reply to my article in the same journal (also much cited). But neither of these are mentioned in the degrowth WP article. So somehow Misplaced Pages is not working well – because as far as I know these two articles represent the most explicit and elaborate criticism and defense of degrowth. Perhaps it is because the WP degrowth article was dominated by activists and degrowth promotors.

To summarize, the problem as I see it is that if scientists write in WP about topics that they find important and know something about, their texts will often be motivated by, and overlap in content with, their earlier academic publications. As a consequence, it will be very difficult to not refer to these (as they could be criticized for not referencing adequately, which would even contradict acceptable standards of academic practice). If they would write their text based on years of research without any reference to their work you might conclude “excellent piece” but when a reference to own work would be added (and justified) the conclusion might be “alarm, COI”.

Please note this communication is not to convince you that I didn’t make mistakes (in hindsight, I would have done things differently), but to clarify that combining science and Misplaced Pages is not as easy as it may seem from a distance by non-scientists. I expect (hope) I am not the first to note this. In view of this, I would recommend not throwing around so quickly strong accusations of COI, but instead try to respond more constructively and moderately, especially to not completely demotivate newcomers from contributing to WP. Research83 (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Every single edit you have made in WP - every single edit - and they are all here to see - has been about you. That is not "complex" that is raw self-promotion. If you cannot see that... whew. Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You miss the intention of my post, and you don't have to repeat your opinions all the time. You made your point already too many times. I indeed haven't been writing on topics about which I don't work, and I haven't tried to write articles unrelated to my work. And I don't apologize for it.Research83 (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

it is entirely possible to write about topics on which you work, and cite other economists. most of most editors' work is improving existing articles, which is what you have done outside of working on the article about you. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You don’t seem to understand that if I talk about a topic like Degrowth, I can only repeat my earlier expressed criticism. Misplaced Pages is not for reporting new research, right. I would be dishonest if I would have added the information about degrowth as I did without referring to my earlier journal article, because that’s where it was based on. There is no way of attributing this information to anybody else. So stop the generalities, and tell me exactly how in this Degrowth article I could have done it otherwise, because I just don’t see it.Research83 (talk) 08:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I would finally like to add a procedural remark, namely that I don’t deserve to be discussed at this page, for two reasons: (1) The title of this section is “Scholars who appear to be anonymously self-promoting” but I was not anonymous at the time this was posted. In fact, it was very clear for everyone interacting with me who I was, since the beginning of the communications about the article on JCJM van den Bergh, and I even undersigned one talk communication with my full name. The ones who are anonymous here are all of you – I am not (and I get the feeling neither are many other scientists writing on WP). (2) At the top of this page one guideline for a topic to be addressed here states: “This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue”. But I was never informed on my personal talk page about COI issues related to my edits on the articles World population, Green gross domestic product, Economic growth, Degrowth, Human overpopulation and Ecological footprint. The first thing that happened is that on 14:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC) I received a notification from someone that “there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident” (a message which I saw only 6 days later). So in this case it is not true that “ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted” before this COI Noticeboard page was involved. This doesn’t reflect a moderate approach in dealing with a newcomer who already showed constructive behavior in responding to suggestions by editors. I admit that I had to learn to use talk pages, this was new to me, and I was even confused for a while about multiple talk pages (for the first article and for me as a person). Now I have that at least clear, and I look at all talk pages. Research83 (talk) 08:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

From what I can see, the first time the selfdisclosure was noted was 17 March. Is there an earlier one that I've missed? In any case wp:COI is not the only issue here. There is also wp:NOTMYSPACE, wp:EXPERT, wp:ACADEME, wp:SELFCITE, and just plain wp:Notability. Everyone engaged here seems to have missed one or more basic points, so perhaps some review is worth while. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Multisystemic therapy

• Multisystemic therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Melges450 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sandraleestuart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nehocirol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has been editing subject article for pay for Lori Cohen the Chief Marketting Officer at MST services, per this. article needs review for NPOV etc. Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I reviewed the article and fixed it for NPOV. no explicit disclosure from user yet. Jytdog (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

new party has joined, per this Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Medtronic

• Medtronic CoreValve System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Edwards SAPIEN heart valve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• PARTNER trial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• (cleaned of this COI but needs work) Hybrid cardiac surgery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Aortic valve replacement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Percutaneous aortic valve replacement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MedtronicDave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Euroarti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sbaltjes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Recently had a couple of their heads of marketing editing Misplaced Pages. They however appear to have been busy elsewhere.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

diffs for their roles at medtronic? Jytdog (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

These two are not the prior heads of marketing. Those were on a different page. Evidence is not post-able of course. Concerns that these two are likely paid editors and there marketing department is obviously interested in us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Medtronic CoreValve System was created as the first edit of Sbaltjes (talk · contribs), and reads like a brochure. But all the cites are to medical journals and such. Looking for non-promotional references, I did find this paper which has some reservations about the valve. Not finding anything serious, like a recall or litigation. John Nagle (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This page Medtronic CoreValve System uses a bunch of primary sources. And well not horrible left out the conclusions of this review "However, in patients who are surgically amenable, current publications suggest that TAVI using presently available devices is not competitive to SAVR, with regards to procedural safety and outcome."

I just have a hard time believing that this is a new editor and that this is there first and only edit Expecially with the little TM symbol.

Maybe I am wrong. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

behaviorwise looks mighty paid-editing-y. I will notify and inquire tomorrow. Jytdog (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

tagged, notified, etc. have not done cleanup yet. Jytdog (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Listed articles created or worked on lots by those two users and re-arranged a bit.. worked them over too and did some redirecting as they were piles of PRIMARY sourcing. Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Madura Kulatunga

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

The creator and substantive editor of the article on Madura Kulatunga is User:Madura Kulatunga. When the issue has been raised with the editor he has not responded as whether there is a WP:COI - given that the only article that this editor has ever worked on is Madura Kulatunga then it appears highly suspicious that he is actually writing about himself. In the current AfD discussion the editor has also edited while logged out to avoid deceive others into believing that there is more support for your position than actually exists. Dan arndt (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. went through article, tagged Talk page, provided COI notice on his page... looks like the article is going down. If user continues to violate COI we will be able to get a block. Jytdog (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Keegan

• Andrew Keegan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jdilts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jdilts1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Ridernyc (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Editor Jdilts1, Since people are objecting even though it appears this user is using his real name I have redone this to remove Jdilts identity, has either under his own user name or using a stream of changing IPs been making POV edits removing sourced content from the article. He appears to take issue with the use of term "new religion" even though this is the term used in the Vice article that is his preferred source. He also removes any mention of healing crystals and the like even though there are multiple references present which he keeps removing. After playing a game of whack-a-mole trying to warn his various usernames and IPs, one of the IPs finnally spoke up on the talk page signing the comment as J. This morning after leaving several long notes for J on the talk page I discovered the entire conversation had been removed by another IP which has been making POV edits to the article. There have been other attempts made by this group of IPs to bolster Mr Keegans public profile. A section that has poor or little sourcing concerning Mr. Keegans activism has been added by JDilts . His profession has grown from simply actor to "], producer, and community activist." Some of these changes are minor, some are more troubling. All of the edits occur in the same blocks of time from the same IPs all connected to other edits made by the Jdilts1 account, since one of the IPs has signed using "J" I think we can safetly invoke WP:DUCK and assume they are all JDilts or someone close to JDilts. With the exception noted above none of the IPs or accounts have engaged in any discussion, and have never discussed any changes before making them. Ridernyc (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here. You need to provide notice to people when you post here about them - I did that. And also asked the user to declare if they have any relationship. You may want to cross post at WP:BLPN. Am watching the article. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I did give notice, just wrong page I forgot to mention he has both Jdilts and Jdilts1. I know I posted notice on one of them. It's become impossable to keep up with the various account and IPs editing the article. Ridernyc (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Perfection Cosmetics and others - possible undisclosed paid editing

• Perfection Cosmetics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Just Rich Gates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• ScholarGeek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Can Akkaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Balaji E.M (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor appears to be editing for pay without disclosing it, per Logical Cowboy's comments here and here. I have notfied the editor. Jytdog (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Balaji E.M please state whether or not you have engaged in paid editing. Please note that paid editing is allowed in Misplaced Pages, but you must disclose the employer, client, and affiliation,and you must follow the WP:COI guidelines. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Balaji E.M posted a note on my Talk page, saying "Hello Jytdog, Yes I am a paid editor, may I know how to disclose the employer, client, and affiliation?" The answer to that question, is that you should disclose the the employer, client, and affiliation on your User page - here for each article on which you have done paid edits. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Laurence David Gaz

• Laurence David Gaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Katiebade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Jytdog (talk) 04:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Per this note, Logical Cowboy pointed out that the article was listed on a paid-editing website. Katiebade created the article that is now deleted.

Katiebade please state whether or not you have engaged in paid editing. Please note that paid editing is allowed in Misplaced Pages, but you must disclose the employer, client, and affiliation,and you must follow the WP:COI guidelines. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Why was the article deleted? It is not the same article as copy right infringement said before. This is new article. If some one can undelete the article then it is use for me discussing it. What is the point other wise. --Katiebade (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The point is that undisclosed paid editing violates the Terms of Use of Misplaced Pages and is a serious issue. Jytdog (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Please also note the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2015 March 20. Lankiveil 11:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC).

The other issues is that User:Katiebade is not a new user which is obvious per there edits

They have submitted a deletion review here

SPI posted here

Interesting that they know that the article on David Gaz was deleted for copyright infringement before.

The new version is still closely paraphrased from and the refs are the same aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Logical cowboy told me on talkpage that old version was copy right infringement. Stop accusing just like that . --Katiebade (talk) 05:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Scott Schneider

• Scott Schneider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• In30sms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The edit summary of this edit says "I am editing some personal information and updating my legislative record." So this user is claiming to be Scott Schneider, and they have removed all sourced content. I was unsure how to proceed, as people are allowed to request removal of content on biographies about themselves, however the article is now unreferenced (and so I felt obliged to put it up for WP:BLPPROD). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• More edits:

That article needs work. There's good press coverage of the subject. It's now down to a stub, and needs to be built up again from reliable sources, which are available. John Nagle (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Waldorf education

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

Hi! I stumbled upon the Waldorf Education article a few weeks ago, and began making edits recently to bring it to a NPOV. Previously, the article read almost entirely as a promotion for Waldorf-style education, and had been cited many times previously for NPOV. I started to add references to criticisms from WP:RS, but ran into a dispute with a semi-single purpose editor there, User:Hgilbert, and I'm looking for more third party input. Basically, the dispute revolves around the article's possible lack of NPOV, ADVERT like statements, and above all, excessive detail and puffery, in my opinion. User:Hgilbert, before I showed up, was the only substantial contributor to the article, and has been cited previously as having a COI in relation to the page, as he's a Waldorf educator and has written extensively about Waldorf in academic settings and on other websites. Please just drop by the article's talk page, or check out the article itself, and lend a hand!--Shibbolethink 16:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's the relevant diff. He reverted a number of edits I had made over several days to fix NPOV, etc., all the way back to a revision before I had ever done anything to the article. I reverted his TW rollback, but I'm basically asking you guys, is this a violation of Hgilbert's COI? Is there anything else I can do about it, besides keep bold editing? Am I wrong in reverting this? --Shibbolethink 16:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/26/nyregion/different-teaching-method-attracts-parents.html
2. http://www.theguardian.com/education/2005/may/18/schools.uk2
3. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/is-this-grade-school-a-cult-and-do-parents-care/265620/
4. http://www.salon.com/2004/05/27/waldorf/
5. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40700572

Shibbolethink's contribution history shows that over 90% of his recent edits, and something like 3/4 of all his (something over 500) edits have been exclusively on Waldorf education. My own editing is much broader. If there's a single-purpose editor here, it is the complainant above, who has made something like 375 edits on this one article in four days, and is a likely sockpuppet for the banned User:Pete K, who has repeatedly returned under various guises (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pete_K/Archive and linked investigations). HGilbert (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

According to the ArbCom decision, sources published by anthroposophists are considered self-published and thus unreliable as independent, objective descriptions of Anthroposophy and Waldorf schools. They may only be used with attribution, in order to render the anthroposophical POV as POV, not as neutral descriptions of objective reality. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

We have held to this standard for the last 10 years. This has nothing to do with the current conflict. HGilbert (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I created this account to start recording edits I had made for years on various other IPs belonging to the University of Chicago, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, and at home. Several months ago, someone else called me a single purpose account here: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Cool_Freaks'_Wikipedia_Club. The article creators there also called me a sock puppet for other users, and said I was biased against the group because I thought it wasn't notable. I've also been called a deletionist!

Are you noticing a pattern? It's not possible for a user to be a single purpose account with more than one purpose! I simply go from project to project, finding one that piques my interest, and then delve in. I am not a sock puppet. I'm an autoconfirmed user, and I'm even willing to reveal my identity to admins or even other users privately, to PROVE that I'm not Pete K. Pete K revealed his name elsewhere on other websites, and if you google around my username, the stuff I've said I've done on my user page, etc. you'll see it's completely different, and Pete K and I have zero relation.

We probably even both have incredibly bacon numbers from separate links! All of Hgilbert's supposed evidence is based on the fact that both Pete K and I think there are problems with the Waldorf article, and "appeal to COI." Well, there is third party admin verification of Hgilbert's COI, which is probably why I also referred to it! I have edited MANY other articles. This is my second of two projects, and so I'm focusing much of my editing in this article. I have many purposes. AGH. To me, this entire sockpuppet accusation seems like an effort to protect the Waldorf education page, so that Hgilbert may continue to reinforce an Anthroposophist POV.--Shibbolethink 18:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Mississippi Department of Marine Resources

• Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pab.mdmr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user is claiming ownership of the article, with edit summary here, and semi-protection request WP:RPP#Mississippi Department of Marine Resources. Their username also clearly suggests affiliation with MDMR. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice and information. I am a member of the office of Public Affairs with the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources. This page was created in Nov. of 2010 and has not been developed. I have been, without bias, simply doing that. If this is a conflict-of-interest, help me understand then who is supposed to develop, monitor, update and maintain this wiki page? And what if it is vandalized? We are a state agency and wish to ensure there will not be a lack of information or misinformation about us. Pab.mdmr (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

My issue was that it appears to me like you are trying to claim sole ownership of the article, which is against the Misplaced Pages policy of everyone being allowed to contribute. This edit summary implies that the Department should be allowed to do what it wants, and your request for protection (text was " This page was generated by a wiki user in 2010 and is now being claimed and developed by the Public Affairs Bureau of the topic state agency. If possible, the MS Dept. of Marine Resources would like to retain the ability to edit the page, but protect information contained therein from well meaning editors and vandals alike.") also implies that the Department wants to take complete ownership of the article. Misplaced Pages says that no individual or organisation can claim sole ownership to an article, see WP:OWN, and everyone should be able to contribute.

The updates themselves seem okay to me right now, but my concern was the possible ownership of the article issue. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I brought up Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing issues with the editor and was replying to them when the RFPP and COIN discussions started. The Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (MDMR) WP page, especially recent additions were a close paraphrase of pages on the MDMR ‎website. The editor, who admits to being new to WP, does not yet understand the what WP is about. 220 of 17:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Added section about director of agency being convicted of corruption in 2014 and sent to prison for five years. John Nagle (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Yaniv Rokah

• Yaniv Rokah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Queen Mimi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Yaniv Rokach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jurgrn Van Deleur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Yarivrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has previously received a warning on their talk page for writing the latter article due to COI from having directed it (and that article was also flagged as a copy-paste of a Vimeo page by CorenSearchBot). The former article is probably about the user and contains numerous unsubstantiated and unreferenced claims which, if removed, make the article basically "Yaniv Rokah is an Israeli-American actor-director who directed Queen Mimi". Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 04:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

He has a WP:Single purpose account. Doubtful that he is here to improve the encyclopedia. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

it appears we have a sock now too. added it above, and have opened a case at SPI here Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Yaniv_Rokach. Jytdog (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

have also added connected contributor tags, if these usernames match the people in the real world. we don't know at this point. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

New one - Yarivrock. Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Sleep Country USA

• Sleep Country USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sleep Train (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Gdavis2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I warned Gdavis2012 in 2012 that there was an appearance of COI and single-purpose editing over her involvement in this article. Then again in 2013 when the editor continued single-purpose editing here . After the 2013 warning, which was acknowledged by Gdavis2012 , she continued her single-purpose editing, including this 2014 laudatory inclusion of the company's corporate contributions , introduced with the blatantly promotional phrase "Giving back is at the core of Sleep Country’s company culture." Similarly promotional additions to article on parent company, Sleep Train e.g.

Gdavis2012 is continuing SPA behavior in 2015 by editing this article last week and this week and has not substantially diversified editing behavior as requested.

There is additional off-wiki evidence that Gdavis2012 is not only a single-purpose account but actually an undisclosed paid editor in the employ of Sleep Train's marketing department, in violations of the Terms of Use. I'd be happy to provide this if requested via email. — Brianhe (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Sleep Country USA and The Sleep Train have both been acquired by Mattress Firm, which is now the biggest mattress dealer in the US. So I put merge tags on the subsidiaries for merger into the parent company. The parent company article now needs to be built up. John Nagle (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

i reviewed both articles and removed puffery and unsourced content. for pete's sake the guy used the exact same puffery in both articles. Jytdog (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's an argument for merging them all into the parent company's article. John Nagle (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I noticed the supposition of "undisclosed paid editor" above and JTYdog's edit at User_talk:Gdavis2012#Please_clarify - a direct question on the same topic. I asked some direct questions) at Talk:Naveen Jain this weekend and got a fairly negative reply from a 4th party. So I guess my question here is "what's wrong with asking a direct question? Are there any best practices here?"

I've always believed that asking a direct question (without an accusation) is better than assuming something, or having everybody think something that might actually turn out not to be true. Direct questions might in some cases be embarrassing, but in the long run it is the polite thing to do. Of course people are not required to answer direct questions, but if they choose not to clear things up then I'm free to make sense of the facts as best I can.

I guess part of the negative reaction by the 4th party was that I asked both the possible-COI editor (1st party) and the editor who brought up the possibility (2nd party) whether they had a COI or were being paid. I commonly ask the 2nd party because a reverse accusation where the 1st party later accuses the 2nd party, is common (and it happened this time) and just to clear up everything in a fair way. In any case an observer accused me of aggravating the situation.

Seeing something similar here, I thought I'd ask about best-practices in this situation. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see that anyone had put the direct question to this editor, and I did so. I also think that hammering away on someone is bad form. If they give a clear and on-point answer, it should be over. If there is dodgy-ness, then I think it is appropriate to ask further until a clear answer is given. Then it should stop. That is my perspective. In the Talk page you point to, CorporateM said that the editor had been asked many times already. I don't see that the Naveen Jain case was ever brought here; it is useful to centralize these things. Jytdog (talk) 05:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Bank of Maldives

• Bank of Maldives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• BMLsocialmedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It's pretty obvious from the user's username (BML social media) that they have a conflict of interest. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, looks like User:The Fifth Horseman has removed the promotional content, and I've added some citations for some things. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

also a username violation. that account needs to declare with COI and follow WP:COI. I have the article watchlisted. Jytdog (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Bernie Finn

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

User Pmesiti (single purpose account with edits to only a single page) has declared on User talk:Dsprc that "Please leave my editing of Bernie Finn's page along. As his media adviser, it is my job. I will continue to delete your views and if I am banned I will take it further" User also appears to be making legal threats. -- Aronzak (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this. Diff mentioned above is here. I have tagged the article, and added the connected connected contributor tag to its Talk page, and have also watchlisted it. We'll see if we can get that user to declare COI as they should and to follow WP:COI. Thanks for posting. Jytdog (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue I have is that given that it's an WP:SPA, failure to disclose a close connection, and a refusal to discuss changes to the page or make their edits in line with Misplaced Pages policies or discuss on the talk page and repeated blanking after multiple warnings in my opinion, should be grounds for an indef block. There are plenty of accounts that make contributions to areas where they don't have a conflict, then declare the conflict and cease editing certain areas. Topic blocking a single purpose account is no different to an indef block. -- Aronzak (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Further the user's comment about deletion would meet WP:NOTHERE, no? -- Aronzak (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :There is an ongoing discussion about sourcing at BLPN here: Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Bernie_Finn which grew from an ANI posting here Jytdog (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I hear you. This board is for dealing with COI issues. Now that they have been notified of the ToU and of the COI guideline, if they disclose and refrain from editing the articles dealing with Finn directly going forward, the purpose of this board will have been served. If they fail to do either we can seek a topic ban, yes.Jytdog (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

A bit odd they singled out my talk (I'm honored, really. ;-)) but, they've been asked to clarify "taking it further"; will see how/if they respond. Does feel like a legal threat. -- dsprc  14:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

i don't take it necessarily as a legal threat either (as there are things like BLPN etc here) but it was certainly an aggressive stance to take. unwise newbie. Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Nathanjames

• Nathanjames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• QEDG Music Management (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article's subject (a singer) is stated in the article to be signed to "QEDG Management". Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

account is blocked and article is deleted. that was short-lived. Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Table-lookup synthesis

• Table-lookup_synthesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Clusternote (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A tag for WP:SPEEDY deletion was placed on this article that is clearly an invention of User:Clusternote and is, at best, a WP:CONTENTFORK. The user has immediately removed the deletion tag as if his judgment is all that is needed to end the discussion. 65.183.156.110 (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: Now I'm consulting to administrator for this banned user's continuous stalking for over two years. --Clusternote (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

65.183.156.110 you haven't presented anything showing a COI. when you say Clusternote "invented" the article, you mean that he/she created it? That is true, but that is not a COI. Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The article represents only Clusternote's spin of the terminology and meaning of terms in the field. The COI is evident that he removes the speedy delete tag from the article, rather than submit it to discussion. Clusternote does not get to solely determine whether or not his POV can be canonized into Misplaced Pages by content forking. He doesn't like the content in Sample-based synthesis or Wavetable synthesis (and there has been some controversy, about 2 decades ago, regarding the usage and conflation of the two terms), so he creates his own WP:content fork. That is contrary to Misplaced Pages policy. It is WP:OR and WP:neologism. He is trying to create his own terminology and prop it up in an invented Misplaced Pages article.

Please google "table-lookup synthesis" and see what Google finds for you. And please refer to the talk page of the article nominated for deletion (but with the deletion tag removed, unilaterally, by the editor with a conflict of interest). That's what this is about. 65.183.156.110 (talk) 01:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• 65.183.156.110 listen carefully - please read WP:COI - it is a serious thing, and not something you throw around in a content dispute. You have brought no evidence of a conflict of interest. Please go solve your content dispute using normal means, per WP:DR. If you continue to make charges of COI without actual evidence of a COI, you yourself can be sanctioned. So knock it off. Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Jt, I have read it. This is about an "incompatibility between the aim of Misplaced Pages, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor", particularly User:Clusternote. I would not have posted here if it was not that Clusternote has summarily dismissed the discussion about the worthiness of the article he invented and the POV regarding terminology he is trying to establish as common use rather than merely his own OR. It is a conflict of interest. I am not hassling him. I put the tag on the article and properly notified his talk page, just as the guidelines require. 65.183.156.110 (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Clusternote if you think the IP is a sockpuppet, WP:SPI is thataway. Sorry you are being hassled here. (The IP may be right about the content - I have no idea and that is not what we do at this board) Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Natalie Morales

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

As the username suggests, the user is editing their own page. They are repeatedly adding a career summary which duplicates the infobox, and is unsourced, and is claiming ownership of the article, see here, here, here. This ownership behaviour is clearly inappropriate, and they are clearly ignoring my COI notice given here. Another claim of ownership here. Joseph2302 (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I am Natalie Morales from the Today Show and I should be allowed to edits my own page as I wish. I want a career timeline as many pages do. I know I don't own it but I should be allowed to edit or add what I want as it is a article on me. NatalieLMorales (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution