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 04:43, 3 January 2008 editInder315 (talk | contribs)169 edits Added ==User:ReluctantPhilosopher is dominating the articleSonia Gandhi==← Previous edit Revision as of 04:53, 3 January 2008 edit undoSomeguy1221 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators41,264 edits →User:ReluctantPhilosopher is dominating the articleSonia GandhiNext edit →
Line 490: Line 490:
I am really scared of this uncilility. I am really scared of this uncilility.
] (]) 04:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC) ] (]) 04:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

:This is a content dispute, and you need to follow ]. The best thing you can do if you can't discuss this out with him is to file an ], remember that ], and wait for interested users to show up and comment. Please note that these noticeboards are not to be used for ]; so unless you have any evidence this user is editing with a ] (aside from that he's removing critisisms), this report is really unfounded. Please understand that I'm not trying to critisize you, and I know how frustrating editing Misplaced Pages can be, but "asking the other parent" is not the way to handle disputes here. (I guess you could consider dispute resolution to be "asking your peers.") ] (]) 04:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:53, 3 January 2008

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 and 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.
    You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. 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:Pamela Anderson Talk:AvePoint Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Edi Birsan Talk:Adam Boehler Talk:Bunq Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Casualty Actuarial Society Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Commvault Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:DEGIRO Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Michael Dell Talk:Etraveli Group Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire Talk:Group-IB Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Andrew Hoffman Talk:Insight Meditation Society Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:Khalili Foundation Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Home Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:V Pappas Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician) Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:Louise Showe Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Uppsala Monitoring Centre Talk:Zions Bancorporation


    Possible autobiographies found by bot

    • User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult   This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.


    MetaphorEnt



    LMA2007 seems to be connected Metaphor Entertainment/ Breakdown express. All the contributor’s edits have been in relation to actors, most of who have been metioned on Metaphor Entertainment’s Myspace.com Blog (blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=102544542). Cassandra Braden‘s resume and Erika Ringor’s resume list Metaphor Entertainment as their management. These comments made by the LMA2007 indicate that they are representing Erika Ringor:

    LMA2007 was blocked from editing for a month for photo copyright violations, the similarly named SJR2008 edited during that time and reuploaded two of the images that LMA2007 had previously uploaded.

    HollywoodFan1 was created a day after SJR2008. They edited the same group of articles and created the Mimi Fuenzalida article. Mimi’s management is listed as Metaphor Entertainment.

    The IP Address 64.30.201.109 also edited the same set of articles. A number of other IP addresses also only edited these articles, but none of them made a significant number of edits.

    MetaphorEnt, which is probably short for Metaphor Entertainment, created the Elle Travis article.

    Pr.Girl created the Lindsay MacFarland article, Lindsay ‘s management is listed as Metaphor Entertainment. Linzmac78 is likely Lindsay MacFarland. BlueAzure (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


    Please Clarify - Above Gordonofcartoon quotes "generally, it doesn't wash to argue conflict of interest on grounds of membership of a large group, even if there's some known partiality. WP:COI tends not to come into play unless the connection is closer than that." I would like to make the same argument for the articles I have contributed to. I do not know any of the people in the articles I edited. I took an interest in this group of talent through one Actress that I am a fan of her work. From there and myspace I have followed the people she's working with. Being an avid blogger, I though it would be interesting to slowly get involved with Misplaced Pages. From my understanding everyone's contributions are welcome as long as they are impartial. If that is not the case, please explain. (HollywoodFan1 (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC))
    Beyond the evidence I previously provided, I noticed a number other items that give the appearance of a conflict of interest. First, you uploaded and indicated that you are the copyright holder for and . At the very least they indicate that you have met multiple actors managed by Metaphor Entertainment on two occasions. Second, you created the Mimi Fuenzalida article, it includes fairly detailed information that I could not find online. I’m curious as to where you found the information? Third, your edits have occurred on the same day and within the same hour as edits by 64.30.201.109. 64.30.201.109 has been editing this set of articles starting back in November of 2006 and has continued since you joined wikipedia. Finally, when I searched your username on google, most the results were from imdb.com. Most of the imdb.com pages were for the actors listed above. A hollywoodfan1-1 had posted on the message boards of these pages. The only other posters appeared to be the above listed actors and their Metaphor Entertainment manager Sharon Weintraub. If you are not directly involved with Metaphor Entertainment, you have a relationship that I believe is at least close to a conflict of interest.
    I have also added two more accounts to the list above:
    In addition to the username, MetaphorPR’s only editing was to one the articles in question.
    Zip100 created the article for Marta McGonagle and only edited that article, Marta’s management is list as Metaphor Entertainment. BlueAzure (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    I am not MetaphorPR, nor am I Zip100. My relationship with Metaphor has been through myspace. Isn't is a blessing that multiple users have contributed to a group of articles. Shouldn't that suggest that there is diversified interest. Isn't that what WP is founded on? Do you have issues with the articles content or is there something I contributed that you object to? I've only written one article, and most of my edits have been minor. I openly admitted to meeting one of the actresses once at a premiere. That photo was indeed placed on this site. I contacted you directly for a solution and didn't hear back. What else do you suggest? Please clarify what your solution is.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 08:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    BlueAzure, please review WP:DBN and return with some constructive suggestions. I am truly open to that. HollywoodFan1 (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    I did not say you were MetaphorPR or Zip100. In my previous message I was simply indicating that I was adding those accounts to the list above and providing my reason for doing so. I don’t know why you say that you “didn't hear back”, as I responded here and replied to your message on my talk page. If you have a conflict of interest, as I believe you do, you need to follow Conflict of interest guidelines. I am unable to provide further assistance in doing that, as I am not well versed in how a COI editor should handle the situation. Hopefully, someone else that is can assist you. BlueAzure (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    In my research, I found you did not follow the proper procedure under "How to handle conflicts of interest" WP:COI prior to adding the Template:COI. Please review WP:COI and if you have concrete suggestions for change in accordance with the examples on that page, I'm sure the editors will comply as long as you follow the required "The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline".HollywoodFan1 (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    Under WP:AGF, editors get to ask only one question: "Please review the conflict of interest policy; do you have a conflict of interest on this article?" If the answer is "No," that should be the end of the inquiry. I found no issues in accordance with Conflict of interest guidelines in the article I have written.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    In my research, I have found that all of the articles in question abide by WP:NPOV. Placing COIs on well written articles because the subjects have common threads without verifiable evidence of COI isn't in accordance with WP:FIVE or WP:AGF.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    I'm reverting the closure of this issue by HollywoodFan1, who is one of the editors named in the above complaint. Let's have opinions from others whether this case has been adequately addressed. In particular, it would be good to have the views of BlueAzure who made the initial report. EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


    Looking over several of the articles in question, NPOV seems to be adhered to quite well by the named editors. I didn't see any things like "This talent is represented by Metaphor Entertainment" or any Peacock Words of similar purpose. The articles seem factual and very neutral in tone. While BlueAzure was correct to bring a suspected COI issue here for evaluation, WP:COI does not necessarily prohibit editing by someone with a potential conflict, so long as those articles remain neutral and factual. Therefore I feel this can be closed with no particular action required beyond just the usual keeping an eye on things, which we all do anyway. Arakunem 03:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    At a quick glance, I think some of the articles created above may not meet the notability criteria for entertainers, found at WP:BIO:
    Entertainers: actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:
    • With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.
    • Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
    • Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
    A notable actor should usually have appeared in notable films. We should have WP articles on the films. As I went through the Elle Travis article, I found the article was linked to many unrelated topics with coinciding names. For example, our articles on Never Give Up, Broken, First Watch and The Tipping Point are not about any films (with those names) in which Elle Travis appeared. Those films she did appear in seem in the cases I studied not to have WP articles. It may turn out that this and other articles should be sent to AfD. Since there are so many articles listed here, it would be good to have others help to review them for notability per WP:BIO. EdJohnston (talk) 06:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you User:EdJohnson for noticing the unrelated links. I have corrected my article on Elle Travis and will hear any other changes you want to suggest. Should you have any question to Elle Travis as a viable talent, you can find many links to her work and celebrity on imdb.com, google.com, gettyimages.com & wireimage.com. User:BlueAzure has pointed out, we do openly represent several of the talent listed, yet we did not write all of the articles. The few articles we have contributed to have, by our belief, adhered to both the WP:BIO and the WP:NPOV. Having written one article and made minor changes to two articles only, in good faith we request that the topic of this complaint be changed. The topic as our company name could prove to be defamatory and being that there are no articles written about our company on Wiki, nor are we are mentioned in any article to our knowledge, it was unnecessary and suspect on the part of User:BlueAzure to name this complaint after the company name.Metaphor Ent (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    I changed the title of this complaint to MetaphorEnt since it seems equally good to me. Nonetheless, I suggest that you strike through or remove your above comment about libel, because otherwise you risk being blocked due to our policy of Misplaced Pages:No legal threats. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    Done. Thank you.Metaphor Ent (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    I came across Lindsay MacFarland’s article a few months ago, and noticed the same connection between her, Metaphor Entertainment, and the other actor’s listed. I was going to bring this up for WP:COI discussion myself, but in doing some research, I found that it was unnecessary. Metaphor, itself, is never mentioned in any of the articles, and they are all clearly written in a neutral tone and without bias. The notability of actors is my forte in both my work in the PR field, as well as my work as a Wikipedian. In researching each of these actors listed, I have found that they all clearly meet the guidelines for WP:BIO, have high ratings on IMDB Pro, and also have outside sources crediting their notability.TGreenburgPR (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    To set the record straight we do not represent Joshua Feinman. Unless you can find another link beyond management representation that validates WP:COI, I would recommend that User:BlueAzure remove him from their list.Metaphor Ent (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    The Joshua Feinman article was created by LMA2007 and was edited by the same set of accounts as the other articles. According to the Elle Travis article, Elle Travis is dating Joshua Feinman. This is enough for me to continue to include it in the filing. BlueAzure (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    Some articles proposed for deletion. Under WP:PROD I have nominated three of the above articles for deletion: Marta McGonagle, Elle Travis and Mimi Fuenzalida. If anyone believes they should be kept, please try to find evidence that any of these actresses has received credit for a major role in a notable film. You should be able to provide a URL showing screen credit. See Misplaced Pages:Generally notable people for the criteria for entertainers. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

    Marta McGonagle

    These are only a few of almost 8,000 sites with Marta McGonagle listed.

    Elle Travis

    "Palisadian Post" (USA) 24 July 2003, pg. 11 (Front Cover of the Lifestyle Section), by: Laurel Busby, "In Loving Memory"

    "L.A. Times" (USA) 11 April 2002, pg. F. 39, by: Daryl H. Miller, "Fun and Games in a First Family; The well-dressed Kennedys play to win in a biting musical satire on the life of 'Jack.'"

    "The Play Review" (USA) February 2002, pg. 10-11, by: Jose Ruiz, "Camelot? That's Jack!"

    "Digital Post Production" (USA) 27 March 2001, pg. 1, by: DMN Newswire, "Look! Effects Creates 3D Intergalactic Journey for Indie Feature First Watch"

    "Cannes Market News" (France) 18 May 2002, Vol. 3, pg. 1, by: Chantal Julien, "Cannes In Pictures Day Three"

    "KTLA Morning News" .... Herself (1 episode, 2007) ... aka KTLA Morning Show (USA) 

       - Episode dated 13 November 2007 (2007)  TV episode .... Herself

    "Starz the Hollywood Reporter" .... Herself (1 episode, 2007) 

       - Dan in Real Life (2007)  TV episode .... Herself

    "The Oprah Winfrey Show" .... Herself (1 episode, 2003) ... aka Oprah (USA: short title) 

       - Episode dated 17 July 2003 (2003)  TV episode .... Herself

    "National Public Radio" ....Herself (10-05-1999) (interviewed about Broken, Stella Adler & growing up in Hollywood) 

    —Preceding unsigned comment added by MetaphorEnt (talk • contribs) 05:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

    These are only a few of over 300,000 sites with Elle Travis listed

    Mimi Fuenzalida

    I thought this was a forum for COI. How did it turn into a forum for deletion? Will an editor who knows more about tagging references please help with these three articles? I have provided links but don't know how to properly place them.Metaphor Ent (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

    Thank you to the editor who helped with the tags on the Elle Travis article. Can someone please volunteer to help with the Marta McGonagle article and the Mimi Fuenzalida article User:EdJohnston, did you contact the creators of these articles to give them a chance to make the changes you are requesting? I have to say it's such a relief to find people who are willing to help rather than WP:Bite. Thank you again. Metaphor Ent (talk) 07:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    A friendly editor helped to clean up my article on Mimi Fuenzalida. Another editor contacted me and gave me some tips on how to make references. All of this help has been great. Thanks to User:MetaphorEnt for requesting the much needed help and giving us links to start. I could try to help with the Marta McGonagle article if it's not a conflict. This whole thing has made my head spin and I'm not sure what I'm allowed to do or not do anymore. Does anyone have any suggestions?HollywoodFan1 (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    Anything more to do here? Thanks to all who helped to improve the articles. I am not happy with the creation of these articles by COI-affected editors, but unless someone wants to follow up on any more of the articles listed above, we may have to close this thread. It would be good to get comments from anyone else who often monitors this noticeboard as to whether the problem is fixed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    EdJohnston, I would like to thank you for taking a look at this. If the articles can be reviewed for notability and sent to AFD if they don’t appear to be notable, that would resolve the situation for me. I would like to thank the editors who helped to improve the three articles you proded. After reviewing the articles, I still feel they do not meet notability per WP:BIO. Elle Travis’s only film that wikipedia have article for she is listed as playing “screaming hottie”, in the TV shows wikipedia has articles for she is listed as having been a voice. Mimi Fuenzalida only role that wikipedia has a listing for is the TV show 10-8: Officers on Duty, according to IMDB she appeared in an uncredited role in one episode. In Marta McGonagle’s case, the The Spot that she appeared in is different than the one that has a wikipedia article. I would nominate these for deletions, but I am concerned if that is appropriate. One of the involved editors has claimed that I have violated WP:FIVE, WP:AGF, and WP:BITE. I am not sure what actions I am and am not allowed to take in relation to this situtation. I have speedied Dennis W. Hall as it is a recreation of Dennis Wayne Hall which was deleted per a AFD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueAzure (talk • contribs) 03:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

    Section break

    I made a new sub-section for ease of editing. Responding now to BlueAzure who opened this complaint, I see no problem taking those three articles to AfD, if you wish to nominate them. If you do so, it should be OK to announce that fact here and anyone following this debate can decide if they want to participate. If any editor from this debate chooses to comment in an AfD, please mention whether you have an affiliation with any of the firms named in this report. If you are COI-affected, you can leave a comment without formally voting Keep or Delete and your argument will still be listened to. EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

    EdJohnston, when I file the AFD’s should I mention that the article in question is part of this case? I have a filed two suspected sock puppetry cases involving accounts included in this case, Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/LMA2007 and Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/64.30.201.109. BlueAzure (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, you can mention it in the AfD. In answer to your other point, we expect no sockpuppets will join in the AfDs. Participate under your real account. If anyone in this discussion is concerned they might have run afoul of WP:SOCK, explaining that now will help to avoid any criticism. EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    I have nominated three of the articles for deletion:
    I am going to continue to review the rest of the articles. After reviewing LMA2007’s talk page and the images uploaded by these accounts, I think we need to get someone familiar with Misplaced Pages photo licensing polices to review the images. LMA2007 uploaded headshot photos Image:Cassandra.jpg and Image:Erika_Ringor.jpg claiming to be the copyright holder. From the info on the talk page it appears that the actor would be the copyright holder, not the publicist. These images could be kept on the Misplaced Pages if the licensing was properly handled. Of more concern is Image:LindsayMacFarlandRC.jpg, it was uploaded by Linzmac78 who claimed to be the copyright holder. The metadata on the image lists the copyright holder as “2007 Jean-Paul Aussenard” and I found the photo on . BlueAzure (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    HollywoodFan1 has filed a Request for arbitration against me at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#BlueAzure. Until that is resolved, I will not take any action regarding these articles. Per Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/LMA2007, LMA2007 and SJR2008 have been indef blocked for Long term copyvio issues and socking. I think it would be good to get a check user done on all of the accounts to make sure there are not any other issues. BlueAzure (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    I am proposing that this CoI inquiry be closed. The issue was basically settled on December 19th, at which time the original issue of conflict of interest had begun to wind down. Other editors, including myself, jumped in and worked on articles under question and it appeared that the original persons involved, save one (HollywoodFan1), had backed out of editing those articles. None of the other issues which have been raised in the meanwhile, following the response just prior to the section break on December 20, are issues related to this board. Whether it is the intention or not, it certainly appears on the surface to be a matter of throwing everything but the kitchen sink into the debate, including sock puppet charges, notability questions, AfDs, and copyright questions. They may, or may not, be legitimate issues, but they are not issues pertinent to the specific question of CoI, or keeping this inquiry open on this board. If, in fact, HollywoodFan1 is not related to Metaphor Entertainment, then I could certainly understand why one would feel under attack, whether that is the intention or not. Since the sock puppet issue regarding that editor was determined to be unfounded, we still must assume good faith on her/his part. Meanwhile, the CoI issue certainly appears to be essentially closed. Just my opinion on this issue as it stands tonight. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    I have requested a checkuser at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/LMA2007. BlueAzure (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

    Articles related to Sun Myung Moon/Unification Church

    Resolved – The nominator is satisfied with Steve Dufour's response and will not insist on him recusing from these articles. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    User Steve Dufour has been consistently watering down articles related to Sun Myung Moon/Unification Church, an organization of which he is a member (see his user page and this website (look for Dufour)). Articles include Jeffrey T. Kuhner, which he is pushing for deletion and from which he has repeatedly removed relevant information to make it appear less notable, as well as Insight (magazine), which he has been monitoring and watering down. His m.o. seems to be to slowly remove information in an effort to prevent the appearance of controversy, or reduce notability, in an effort ultimately delete sections or articles. It is more difficult with a larger article like Insight, but much easier for a stub like Kuhner's. The possible COI may be in the fact that Insight is owned by Sun Myung Moon, leader of the Unification Church, and Kuhner is editor in chief of Insight. Dufour seems to have an interest in these articles because of his affiliation with the church. He has also consistently removed mentions of the Unification Church and Moon when it appears in the Insight and Kuhner articles. Athene cunicularia (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    I strongly object to any "watering down" which conceals the existence of a controversy. I glance at my user page shows that my main focus at Misplaced Pages is identifying controversies - not concealing them. Insight is owned by the same holding corporation which owns the Washington Times, so the two are clearly affiliated. And Rev. Moon is the founder (but not literally the owner) of the Times. He has pumped well over a billion dollars of church funds into it,
    I'd like to see the linkage between Insight and the Unification Church clarified. (Oh, and in case anyone has forgotten, Jimbo and Lee Crocker and Maveric knew I was a follower of Sun Myung Moon six years ago when I was helping out with the database, the mailing list, and was made a sysop. The only POV I push is that we should HIGHLIGHT the existence of controversy! ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    This appears to be a genuine COI problem with User:Steve Dufour on Unification Church-related topics. I've run into this with him and another editor, both UC members, at articles of other UC members, notably Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) in the past. I've not edited any of the articles mentioned here so I'm uninvolved enough to have a word with Steve but if he ignores my advice I'm leaving it for another admin to take any additional steps to avoid any concerns over my past run ins with him. It would be even better if Ed, being friend and fellow UC member, were to get Steve to step back and find something else to edit. Want to help Ed? FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    I have tried to be fair in my edits and have never tried to restrict the right of anyone else to edit here. If I am to be kicked off WP for editing articles about my church then I think the same standard should apply to political parties and other organizations. Hmmm....that might be a good idea. ;-) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    BTW Jonathan Wells's article is unreadably badly written. I have tried to help with that but have never removed any information about his church membership. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for responding Steve. As I've said in my email to you I've found you to be a a reasonable chap in our previous run-ins and we've somehow managed to work things out, so I'm sure you'll be reasonable now. I'm signing off for the night but will check back tomorrow. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    (Wrote this at the same time as FeloniousMonk) That's why people recuse themselves--because although they may sincerely "try to be fair," they can't. I would probably agree, too--if someone expresses an affiliation to an organization that they're supposed to objectively portray, they should recuse themselves. Unfortunately, you have disclosed that you are a religious follower of the owner of Insight magazine, which is controversial, and thus, I think that you should recuse yourself from editing these related articles. I would not ask that you be kicked off wikipedia. I think that your intentions are good; in this case, though, I believe that you have a COI.Athene cunicularia (talk) 06:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    It is generally accepted that Christians can edit the article Christianity and that they do not have a COI per se, but I admit that User:Athene cunicularian has a point. A committed adherent may not have a COI, but may have such a strong POV that they are unable to be fair even if they sincerely try, indistinguishable in effect of having a COI. Andries (talk) 10:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    What matters isn't the presence of a conflict, it's how that conflict is handleed. When people come to Misplaced Pages to act as editors it's expected that they will put the welfare of this project ahead of other interests. Nobody is neutral on everytihng, but people who participate in Misplaced Pages must make neutral edits. Christians, Muslims, Zoroastrians, atheists, or Unificationists can all edit articles on those topics so long as they do so neutrally. If they can't they can still participate by commenting on talk pages. If there is concrete evidence of an editor making non-neutral edits regularly then that may be a cause for concern. However I don't see that here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks everyone. I will try to be more aware of these issues. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    I think that it would be okay to close this. Steve has not recused himself, which would be preferable, but it seems like he has stepped away from his persistent efforts to portray these articles in accordance with his vision. I will keep an eye on these issues and post a new complaint again, if necessary. Thanks to everyone for your input and assistance.Athene cunicularia (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    Starwood Festival, Jeff Rosenbaum, et al

    It is reasonably certain that Rosencomet (talk · contribs) is Jeff Rosenbaum (see Arbcom finding here), the Executive Director of the Association for Consciousness Exploration, LLC (ACE). Despite an Arbcom caution (here), he has extensively edited these articles (please see the histories of the articles.) I interpret these extensive revisions as "aggressive" editing as well as an autobio violation on the Jeff Rosenbaum article. Additionally, his editing and lack of posting of a COI notice on his user page mean that many more articles besides these four are affected. See this version of his userpage for a sizable (but possibly incomplete) listing. If any doubt exists about his COI, see this book excerpt with Mr. Rosenbaum's photo and compare it to this ACE CyberCatalog page. Note the caption saying he sells the items personally. (As an aside, I found the Rosencomet Classic Thong offered on Starwood's Cafe Press store to be very attractive. And comfortable too.) As to why this hasn't been brought here before: This noticeboard didn't exist when I first brought the Arbcom case against Rosencomet in Dec. 2006 and I was burned out in the aftermath of the relatively toothless "caution" of Rosencomet by Arbcom in March, 2007. These issues have been discussed with Rosencomet extensively over the last 16 months. Read his talk page for a sampling of efforts. Links to other discussions and RfCs can be supplied here if desired. Questions? Cheers, Pigman☿ 05:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

    Let's keep the discussion in one piece. Further discussion to WP:AE#Rosencomet and Starwood related articles, thanks. MER-C 12:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    Nope. That discussion has been closed. We'll have to handle it here and/or on WP:AN - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    If the Arbcom decision in March, 2007 is considered the final word on Rosencomet's COI actions, sure, by all means keep discussion there. However, since User:Thatcher131 who clerked that arbitration has said in that discussion that the Arbcom decision is basically unenforceable due to it being a "caution" rather than a specific and well-delineated course of action. That seems (to me) to shut down that path and discussion. This is why I brought it here. I believe the COI case is clearly strong enough to stand on its own. Still, why don't I copy the info I put above over to that discussion and see how that's recieved. Cheers, Pigman☿ 18:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    All statements coming from ArbCom right now, with those who handled this case ending their terms and not working on cases now, and the new members not yet installed, indicate this is something the community has to handle. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

    After being warned about his COI issues many times in the past (during the RfCs, Mediations and Arbitration), and three times in the past few days about his COI on the articles for people he hires for the Starwood festival (and whose tapes he then sells on the rosencomet.com website), Rosencomet has today gone back to work on his COI articles, adding yet more mentions of Starwood and himself (as well as reverting other editors removal of Starwood mentions): . I think he has been warned sufficiently and has still crossed the line. But since he's screaming about me on his talk page, I'd prefer another admin handle the block. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    My solution

    It has been suggested to me in other places that User:Rosencomet be treated just like any other editor and his COI edits the same way. To wit: apply the same policies and guidelines to him as well as his editorial contributions that are applicable to all editors on Misplaced Pages. While this may seem like an obvious working solution, given the long history of this problem and the host of sockpuppets exacerbating the situation early on, it was not my first thought. I'm sensitive to accusations of harassment given my past history of conflict and arbitration with Rosencomet but that very sensitivity has kept me from making edits to some of these articles for many months. If he or anyone else wants to take issue with appropriateness of any of my edits in articles loosely related to this matter, I'd be more than happy to explain and justify the edits in whatever forum: talk pages, noticeboard, RfC, etc. I'm putting this note here because I want it to be clear and public exactly what I'm doing. I forsee most of this work will entail correcting WP:V and undue weight problems I see in many of these articles. If anyone wants to monitor my actions or give me feedback, again, I'd welcome it. Cheers, Pigman☿ 18:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    Consider opening up a separate COI complaint that names the articles. List the editors you believe to be COI-affected using {{userlinks|Name}}, and use {{la|Article name}} for each article you want to draw to our attention. For each article, indicate what specific problems you think need fixing. Notify each named editor and invite them to join the discussion here. If you believe it's a large problem, start with one article that you think has the worst issues. Editors from this noticeboard may try to fix the article. Censuring of COI-affected editors usually doesn't happen unless they try to obstruct the improvements. You already gave us some data above, but a more focussed complaint might be easier to get started on. EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you for the suggestion. The main problem is/was my own reluctance to take direct action because of my past conflicts on WP with Rosencomet. At this point, I think my record on WP can speak for me, my judgment, and my ability to edit fairly. I don't intend to open a separate COI complaint on particular articles unless Rosencomet makes that necessary. As I said, I'll just edit them with the normal WP criteria in mind. If he disputes my basis for changes, then I'll probably consider starting either an RfC or a COI on the issue and/or particular articles. I believe this is an effective local solution with the option of wider community involvement if necessary. To tell the truth, gathering together a list of the affected articles would probably take more time than just doing the editing myself. And, of course, if Rosencomet has a legitimate concern with what I'm doing, he has the same options that I do: AN, AN/I, RfC, etc. With a 16 month history on WP, he isn't a new editor. Pigman☿ 20:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103/Patrick Haseldine

    User



    Articles

    This editor has been highly disruptive, and was warned in Jan 2007 about using Wiki for promotional purposes. Please ban these aliases ASAP so other editors can get started with fixing all the POV created under them. Socrates2008 (Talk) 15:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

    I've blocked the IP address, but I'm hesitant to do more without more evidence. Please request a check-user for sockpuppetry. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    The diff is pretty good evidence of sockpuppetry. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    Please go to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets. Bearian (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

    I'd really appreciate some input from an editor here as there's now an edit war starting over this on the Patrick Haseldine talk page. I will not be making an further edits or taking any other actions until an Admin intervenes. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

    • Thanks, these allegations are unproven right now and especially given the article was started by an anon IP. And I dont believe sockpuppetry will prove the COI allegations either as one finds plenty of sockjs apart from COI matters. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
      PJHaseldine = Phase4, as per the response to a warning in January on the PJHaseldine talk page using the wrong alias (corrected 5 mins later). Once this piece of information had been established, a very interesting and intricate web starts to unfold that illustrates how POV the Haseldine-related articles are. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
      Socrates, I would say please edit the article in an NPOV way if you feel this is not what is happening right now, I do feel that this is the best approach, I am certainly not editing in favour of Haseldine. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
      I believe I was doing that by flagging the Patrick Haseldine page, where the majority of content has been added by his aliases, as an autobiography when you started an edit war with me over that. So have you changed you mind then? Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

    I would really appreciate the input of an Administrator here please. The evidence that user:Phase4=user:PJHaseldine is pretty damning. What else needs to be proven before action is taken to stop the continuing POV edits by Mr Haseldine under the Phase4 alias? Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 02:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    Bearian is an admin as I am and I can only suggest you take his advice Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser.--Sandahl 02:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    I've put a checkuser in as suggested, however Bearian banned only his IP and none of his accounts for some reason, making the ban completely ineffective against the primary POV account reported here, namely Phase4.

    Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    user:PJHaseldine is still making edits about himself on the Patrick Haseldine page. Please can an Administrator intervene and stop this nonsense.

    Thank you Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    An effective ban is now in place - thank you kindly to all concerned. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    PJHaseldine's first edit following the expiration of his ban above has been yet another CIO edit to his own biography. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

    I left a message for User:PJHaseldine telling him about this discussion, and also notified User:Squeakbox, who left a comment above. If the story in this report is a complete one then it may be time for longer blocks, since PJH is ignoring our rule to be extremely cautious in editing information about yourself. (There are some reverts and heated exchanges between PJH and Socrates2008 but they don't justify breaking the COI rules). The checkuser report shows use of multiple accounts to avoid a block by User:Bearian on one of the IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    The edit of itself didn't look too bad and wasn't the kind of massive revert of edits made to his article after he was blocked that would warrant further blocki9ng, Haseldine at least appears to try to be constructive and COI is not of itself a reason to block, and especially the given the BLP issues, that would be exacerbated by a longer block. Socrates and Haseldine appear to have issues with each other and I would like to see them bioth try to resolve these issues, through dispute resolution if appropriate. In the meantime I would like to see bioth editors agree nott op make edits without seeking talk page resolution first and that locking the page could be a l;ast resort. I will certainly keep an eye ont he page and both users re the page. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for these helpful comments. I have issues with both South African editors Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn. It is clear that neither of the two wants any mention of apartheid South Africa in relation to the Lockerbie bombing. That's why they continue to try to block my edits. I'm happy to have an objective discussion of the issues: are they?PJHaseldine (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    It is not up to this noticeboard to examine who is right, between you and those other editors. People bring COI complaints here. If you are willing to abide by the COI rules then the complaint can be closed. It appears to me that SqueakBox is willing to help in negotiating some of the underlying issues with you and your colleagues. That calls for a Talk page discussion, where you offer the sources and the arguments, and others who are not COI-affected go ahead and change any information that concerns your real-world activities. You should not be making those article changes yourself regardless of who is correct. If you will agree to avoid editing those articles directly, then our work here is done. EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    Ed, thanks for your input. You are spot on in stating that the complaint can be closed if he abides by the COI rules. However I believe the root issue here is denial of COI, as per the discussion on the talk page ("There is no conflict of interest here"). i.e. He does not believe the COI rules apply to him, even regarding his own biography. Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    My "denial of COI" relates specifically to the UK Indymedia article "South Africa blamed for Lockerbie" http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/12/387992.html that I edited yesterday into the Patrick Haseldine#Third e-petition section. Socrates2008 immediately reverted the edit because he abhors the idea that apartheid South Africa could have been behind the death of UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, on Pan Am Flight 103 (see Talk:Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103#Concerted attack on this article (and others linked to it)).
    As suggested by EdJohnston, I agree that Socrates' COI complaint about me should be resolved through discussion on Talk:Patrick Haseldine, to where this comment is being copied.PJHaseldine (talk) 12:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

    Klaus Ebner

    Bart Hendrikx

    Category:Cuban contemporary artists

    ArleArt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has single-handedly populated Category:Cuban contemporary artists with unsourced, poorly written articles, all of which contain a single EL to http://www.cubancontemporaryart.com/modules/news/ ... that site requires registration to use, and nothing on the linked webpage mentions the article's subject by name ... even assuming good faith, there is the strong appearance that this editor is pushing an agenda that may not be in the best interests of Misplaced Pages, and they seem oblivious to the WP:BIO notability guidelines, as well as ignoring Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (biographies) ... just look at a few random articles in this category ... most of them begin with a section heading that says, The Artist, and then the subject's name is wikilinked in italics ... —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 15:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    In my use of AWB I've noticed a staggering number of minor bios with this source, presumably by this individual. Can someone with access to this site verify its not a copyvio? Where should mass contributions from a single source like this be discussed? Mbisanz (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    http://spam.cubancontemporaryart.com

    Pages

    See 147 pages on en.wiki and 98 pages on es.wiki.

    Accounts

    Pfft. Anything that requires registration is likely spam (this is). The pages seem to be generated from a template, which makes them even more suspect. I'm not wasting Christmas on this guy. I'll call the admins in. MER-C 13:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    Anyone with AWB or a bot that can help us out? This link is on 158 pages... Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 16:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    Okay, I asked Betacommand, and he used AWB to get rid of the links. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    Well, the linkspam has been removed, but now there are over 150 articles of questionable WP:BIO notability, written in a very unencyclopedic tone, in broken English, and none of them have any reliable source citations for verifiability ... maybe a bot can put {{Prod}} or {{Db-bio}} tags on them? —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 21:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    Consider manually putting WP:PRODs on the first ten articles and list their names here. It's not like the encyclopedia is over-stuffed with information on Cuban painters. I Googled for the names of a couple of these painters and I think some of these articles could be saved. As a first cut, maybe we could prod all the articles where nothing useful about the subject can be found on Google. Anything that was kept under this policy would need to have the style fixed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    Shareaza

    This user keeps on editing the Shareaza article by deleting the sourceforge address and claims shareaza.com is the real one. However, shareaza.com has been stolen by a scamming site. The real GPL project has been moved too Shareaza.sourceforge.com . It seems like the person is hired by that scamming company to edit that wikipedia channel, whoever changes it. Still, I change it back, for free, to the SF address. Misplaced Pages users should be directed to the real site, and not being confronted with scammers.

    The correct address is shareaza.sourceforge.net . This guy is being a real pain in the arse! he has also deleted other links such as links to the forum and www.shareazasecurity.be - the site that hosts blocklists for the program, the sourceforge project page, and links to beta/nightly releases. Please lock in the following external links:
    http://shareaza.sourceforge.org/ - The Official Site
    http://wwww.shareazasecurity.be/forums - The Official Forums
    http://sourceforge.net/projects/shareaza/ - Shareaza Project Page
    http://www.shareazasecurity.be/ - Security Filters for Shareaza
    http://shareaza.sourceforge.net/help/?wiki - Shareaza Wiki
    http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?appId=1447 - Shareaza on Wine
    http://shareaza.sourceforge.net/help/?release - Shareaza Latest Release
    http://shareaza.sourceforge.net/help/?beta - Shareaza Latest Beta
    http://shareaza.sourceforge.net/help/?alpha - Shareaza Nightly Builds
    http://g2.trillinux.org/ - Gnutella2 specs
    Cyko 01 (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    69.204.242.206 (talk · contribs) warned. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation

    If this involves Naked short selling, as it appears to, that raises a red flag. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    Recruitment ads for spam article writers

    What's the procedure for dealing with companies posting classified ads seeking Misplaced Pages spam article writers for hire? (I'm reluctant to post the link here because they don't need more publicity, but will so so if people think it would be appropriate. The ad doesn't name the company, anyway.)--Pharos (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Yes, it's publicity but its the sort corporations tend to avoid. Post it anyway. Even though the company is not explicitly identifiable, there might be clues. Also, the ad might name the spammerservice provider, so when they show up we can banhammer them on sight. MER-C 12:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Da Costa's syndrome

    Article on historical medical syndrome. User identified as Max Banfield is using the article to promote against consensus his minority and poorly-sourced Posture Theory about the syndrome. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    Gkleinman edits

    See also: WP:AN#Issue with user Blowdart and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/XCritic.

    User Gkleinman has been adding numerous links to his own web site, XCritic (see also XCritic current subject of AFD). Relevancy of links added is disputable (eg the first ref in AVN Adult Entertainment Expo does not appear to support the claim that it's the largest show in any factual way) in a lot of cases, and spammish in more. Rather than get into a revert war (and he's already claiming WP:Bite), could someone else take a look and give an opinion? --Blowdart | 20:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    comment I feel the issue between Blowdart and I is an editor to editor issue. I've called for a WP:TRUCE but he's skoffed at it. In terms of the citation he's disputing, here's a direct quote from that artilce "The event that draws me there is the Adult Entertainment Exposition (AEE); clearly the biggest collection of porn stars, production companies, and those involved in the industry you will find in North America (and arguably as good as any show elsewhere, including Berlin)." This is from a writer who is considered to be one of the experts in the field Notablility as expert confirmed by Investor's Business Daily Report User_talk:Blowdart#XCritic.Gkleinman (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    That does not excuse your use of Misplaced Pages as a means for self-promotion. Notability is irrelevant here, there is bound to be an equivalent citation. Instead, the question is whether you are spamming your own site. Some link info follows. MER-C 11:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    Which i am not. Gkleinman (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

    Jointhefamily.net and Jointhefamily

    Marloth2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Created the above 2 pages which were speedy deleted (A7). However in this edit he claims to be Morten Andersen, and if you look at http://www.jointhefamily.net/web/profile/aboutjtf you will see the Jointhefamily website is developed, managed and owned by Lars Andersen, Morten Andersen and WebmindIT in equal parts. Just something to look out for in case the articles are ever re-created. Jackaranga (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

    Odessa Numismatics Museum

    It appears that this user is associated with this so-called "museum" and is currently adding links throughout Wiki to the museum's website. He is voraciously editing the museum's article which I had to clean up substantially. --Strothra (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

    There are a total of 67 links to this museum in the English Misplaced Pages, most of them in mainspace. This seems like way too many. If editors find that this web site is useful, it might be linked at most from a few articles that are specific to history or archaeology, in places where other museums with online info would normally be linked. EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    It even extends to multiple links in the same article, e.g. Olbia, Ukraine. DGG (talk) 04:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    If there is a consensus that all but one or two of the articles shouldn't have the link, I can probably use AWB to pull them all out pretty easily. Which would the one or two useful ones be? MBisanz 06:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    I don't think the links are useful for any articles other than the museum article. Note that the individual has resumed editing without contributing to this discussion even though he was asked to comment here. --Strothra (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    We should accept User:Mbisanz's offer to remove all the external links to http://museum.com.ua from main space, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    I agree, he's still adding the links without discussing anything here. --Strothra (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

    Removed from all but main article and Peter Loboda‎ as he's the founder and Odessa its home city. MBisanz 15:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

    Nice work! Thanks so much. --Strothra (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

    Naveen Jain


    A new user recently converted this BLP article from a pure fluff piece into a somewhat negative but sourced article. The sources given are from reliable publications, though I haven't gone through them in detail yet to verify the rewriting. Anyway, the new user informed me that Naveen Jain (or one of his employees?) edits the article himself, and lo and behold an IP appeared about a day after to convert the article back into a fluff piece, removing all negative material. I don't have the time at the moment to read through these sources, and in any event, I would appreciate more opinions on this. Thank you. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

    Along with this, WHOIS shows the IP that made the reversion to be owned by Naveen Jain. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    Wow! There's a great deal going on here, and it's a shame no one caught this sooner. I've given 63.231.16.57 a detailed COI warning, pointing out some spam concerns and this discussion. I added a number of other articles above where the ip has been editing, all against this obvious coi. Hopefully, we'll get a reply from this ip.
    I also identified a few links that this ip has added. More investigation is needed, and a spam report might be necessary. --Ronz (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    I've added Expert3007 as someone that has been editing the exact same set of articles. I'll investigate further as it might just be a coincidence. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    I've added 70.103.74.5 and 12.104.234.193 for similar reasons. There's a great deal of spamming and edit-warring going on, though it may not be against a coi. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    I've started a separate spam report here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Help_with_Naveen_Jain-related_spam.3F, asking for help separating out and identifying the spam issues. --Ronz (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

    SarathanRecords

    User

    Article

    Seems to be someone working for, lets, see, Sarathan Records. Creates articles on bands in label, edits music pages to promote said bands. -Carados (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

    To clarify, there is also an article about the label entitled Sarathan Records, not to be confused with the editor with a similar name (but lacking the space), but this particular editor has not touched the article about the record label. Both Two loons for tea and Sarathan Records appear to lack reliable sources. I wonder if the COI-affected editor could give us any help finding sources. EdJohnston (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


    Royal Dutch Shell

    User

    Articles

    See also

    I think someone (probably not me, as I used to work for Shell) needs to keep an eye on the edits of John Donovan to Royal Dutch Shell and related articles. This user owns http://royaldutchshellplc.com which is a Shell attack site (fair enough) but has restarted added links to it despite occasional reminders not to and also tends to add an undue weight of links to news articles which mention his website, and perhaps an undue amount of "gossipy" content. Shell is a massive economic entity (turnover is about the size of Belgium's GDP) so quality in the articles matter. Any volunteers?--BozMo talk 17:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

    I suggest that editors who frequently visit COIN may add Royal Dutch Shell to their watch lists. Although BozMo is a former employee of the company and should not edit the article, he is welcome to add his comments to the article's Talk page whenever he sees problems there. I notice that John Donovan has been active this morning adding material to the article. Regular participants in anti-Shell protests, such as Donovan, should also obey the COI rules and confine themselves to the Talk page. Donovan appears to be the co-owner, with Alfred Donovan, of http://shellnews.net, a site which hosts commentary about the company and seems to have a strong POV. Legal cases against Shell are mentioned in which both Donovans were parties. Due to the history of litigation, and the increased weight of the libel issue in British courts, we should be sure that what we put in the article is referenced to reliable sources. Self-published activist web sites should never be used as verification for facts. Comments on this issue are welcome. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    We also have an article on one of Donovan's websites, Royaldutchshellplc.com. User:Johnadonovan has been the creator and main editor of this article. It survived an AfD debate on 4 February 2007. One of the commenters said that it needed a rewrite and more sources. I added more articles to the header above. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    I have added two sections today to the Royal Dutch Shell article. The first relates to the race to become the next CEO of Shell. This seemed to me to be a subject of likely interest to people visiting the Misplaced Pages article about Shell. There is no reference to royaldutchshellplc.com or to me. There are no article links to royaldutchshellplc.com. The other insertion is at the foot of the Whistleblower section. There are no links to articles authored by me. They are all to articles authored entirely by reputable publishers such as the Financial Times. If there is a subscription charge involved or if the publisher only keeps the article on display for a short period, I republish the article on royaldutchshellplc.com and make it available free of charge. Otherwise, as is the case with The Guardian, The Mail, Daily Express and The Independent, I insert links direct to their websites. With regard to royaldutchshellplc.com and other websites owned by me and my father, it is an entirely non-commercial operation. There are no charges for anything, no donations are solicited or accepted. We do not even have any advertising. We are not in litigation with Shell nor do we have a close relationship with Dr Huong, the former Shell employee being sued by Shell in relation to information published on royaldutchshellplc.com. We have never met him. The last court action we had with Shell was a decade ago. In 2005 Shell issued proceedings against my father in respect of three domain names including royaldutchshellplc.com. Shell lost the case on a unanimous verdict. We have operated Shell related websites for over a decade. All have been entirely non-commercial. We have never offered or sold any domain names. I am a long term Shell shareholder. I do not accept the description of being an attack site. We entirely support Shell’s Statement of General Business Principles which includes the core principles of honesty, integrity and transparency. When we take issue with Shell on our website from time to time, it is in relation to matters where we have ample evidence to confirm an allegation that Shell management is in breach of its own ethical code. I make no such allegations within Misplaced Pages articles and always provide information sourced from reputable independent publishers such as The Wall Street Journal and always supply verification links. I have been upfront from the outset on Misplaced Pages about my background and have never used a pseudonym. To summarise my input to Misplaced Pages has always been properly sourced and impartial. If anyone can provide evidence to the contrary, I trust that this will be done before imposing restrictions on me which are not based on my conduct on Misplaced Pages. That would unfair. I hope this information is of assistance. I will answer any questions anyone wishes to raise. Johnadonovan (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    It would be hard to review your websites and get the idea that the legal antagonism between you and the Shell company is over and done with, and that now you are good friends with them. WP:COI provides If you are involved in a court case, or close to one of the litigants, you would find it very hard to demonstrate that what you wrote about a party or a law firm associated with the case, or a related area of law, was entirely objective. I believe that the ongoing struggle in all the different forums, legal or not, is evidence that you have a Conflict of Interest under Misplaced Pages's policies. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    We certainly do not always agree, but our relationship with Shell is not as fraught as some might expect. Shell has on occasion asked us not to publish an article because of sensitivities and we have respected the request. When supplied with confidential Shell internal documents, we always check with Shell to establish authenticity before publication. Shell has a standing invitation to supply for unedited rebuttal comments on any articles authored by us and has taken up this offer from time to time, most recently only days ago. In pre-Christmas email correspondence with Michiel Brandjes, the Company Secretary and General Counsel Corporate of Royal Dutch Shell Plc, we exchanged Christmas/New Greetings. As we have publicly stated, Mr Brandjes has always treated us fairly and decently and I believe we have always reciprocated in kind. Shell has acknowledged in writing our right to use our website to criticise the company. I have not however used Misplaced Pages for that purpose. If anyone would be willing to check the history of my contributions on the Misplaced Pages article about Royal Dutch Shell, you will be able to confirm that I was the originating author of entirely positive sections about Shell e.g. Shell LiveWIRE and The Shell Foundation. Johnadonovan (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    If anyone does check the discussion page for the article they will see that I volunteered to originate an article about Shell covering all positive aspects of the company. My offer was not taken up. Johnadonovan (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    John, I do not wish to imply you are being unfair. I also have a lot of respect for you and your view (although I think WP:UNDUE is an issue). However there is a policy issue, and an issue about Misplaced Pages's neutrality. As far as I can see you should not edit Royaldutchshellplc.com as it is an article about your own website, the rules on that are clear. That article has virtually been entirely written by you, and you keep editing it. You should only add content to the talk page. Also adding links in any article to your own website is not allowed. Adding internal links to the wikipedia article on your website is also not allowed. However, I think that the description of your website in the Misplaced Pages article on it makes a good basis for concluding that as owner of the website you are "involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area" in that the website engages in anti-Shell Advocacy. It deliberately publishes/republishes material critical of Shell management etc (which is advocacy). This raises a good question on which someone neutral and credible needs to decide; there is a subjective call. Someone neutral needs to turn around look at the edits and and either rule "stop" editing the relevant pages (you can still appeal) or say "no issue". I am not the right person to do that, I'd like some people who deal with COI all the time to give an opinion. Hence the note here. --BozMo talk 22:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

    Review of My COI

    Could an outside user please review my COI declaration here User:Mbisanz/COI another user has questioned them twice , , and while I'm willing to defend my declaration, I'd like an unbiased view of them and if I need to add more context. MBisanz 17:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

    Overkill. I'd do away with User:Mbisanz/COI. These conflicts seem like small potatoes. The time to announce a COI is when you start editing in a situation where it makes a difference. Unless you're someone who is highly visible on the web, like User:Jehochman. EdJohnston (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    Agreed: it's all too generic to worry about. WP:COI is for more specific situations such as, say, the CEO of Acme Widgets Inc editing the Acme Widgets article. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

    Association of Asia Pacific Airlines

    Obvious: the creator's name matches the article's title very closely. The User's name is a self-referenced acronym (AAPAirlines). Bearian (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

    No doubt your right that its prob a conflict of interest, but is the user being biased or POV-pushing in their edits? I took a quick glance and while their not being critical of AAPA, they also don't seem to be saying its the best, or infallible, or special. MBisanz 19:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

    User:ReluctantPhilosopher is dominating the articleSonia Gandhi

    User User:ReluctantPhilosopher is removing a huge chunk of information from page Sonia Gandhi in "Critism" section especially, by giving different reasons every time. He is also taking decisions on its own whether the content in notable. Earlier he did not even bother to discuss it before deleting. Reasons he is giving. e.g "removed unstructured, very poorly written portion" 

        "political commentry"
    "Please don't reinsert it again and again as its not notable"

    Everytime there is a new execuse for deleting. We have various times requested him to structure it or write it nicely. But he simply removes it. I am afraid he is doing it because he does not like those facts. When I tried to raise it in wikialerts against his uncilivity, he again started saying the same thing after interference of senior editors including admins. He also started to call me sockpuppet just because I have added only to 2 pages. After lot of discussion he said he will stay cool for few days, but in 2-3 days he has now put it in discussion that he has intentions to remove it. I would request the senior editors to help me out in handling this issue. I am really scared of this uncilility. Inder315 (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

    This is a content dispute, and you need to follow dispute resolution. The best thing you can do if you can't discuss this out with him is to file an request for comment, remember that there is no deadline, and wait for interested users to show up and comment. Please note that these noticeboards are not to be used for forum shopping; so unless you have any evidence this user is editing with a conflict of interest (aside from that he's removing critisisms), this report is really unfounded. Please understand that I'm not trying to critisize you, and I know how frustrating editing Misplaced Pages can be, but "asking the other parent" is not the way to handle disputes here. (I guess you could consider dispute resolution to be "asking your peers.") Someguy1221 (talk) 04:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    Category: