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 11:49, 11 March 2007 edit203.109.240.93 (talk) →[] {{coi-links|The River Company}}← Previous edit Revision as of 12:28, 11 March 2007 edit undoTearlach (talk | contribs)6,734 edits →[] {{coi-links|Barbara Schwarz}}Next edit →
Line 259: Line 259:
Guys, could we please keep on topic here - try not to overspill disputes which may be somehow distantly related to the article but certainly do not seem to have much to do with conflicts of interest. Steve Dufour has declared his own COI, which is all well and fine, but I'm not quite sure what the request for this noticeboard actually is. Just "checking out" the article for other conflicts is awfully vague, especially when nothing is said about why Steve suspects that somebody else may have a COI and what it would be. –] 08:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Guys, could we please keep on topic here - try not to overspill disputes which may be somehow distantly related to the article but certainly do not seem to have much to do with conflicts of interest. Steve Dufour has declared his own COI, which is all well and fine, but I'm not quite sure what the request for this noticeboard actually is. Just "checking out" the article for other conflicts is awfully vague, especially when nothing is said about why Steve suspects that somebody else may have a COI and what it would be. –] 08:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


Forgive me if this sounds blunt, it is only meant to be clear on what I thought the reason for having a COI guideline was. People with a COI will have difficulty making neutral decisions about Notability/saliency, and have "...no rights as an advocate. You may even be cautioned or, in extreme cases, told to stay away from certain topics." per ]. An editor shouldn't be able to nominate an article for deletion if he/she has a COI regarding that article. If they are allowed to, it's easy to imagine religions, corporations, and groups of people deleting content they find personally disagreeable. ] 08:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Forgive me if this sounds blunt, it is only meant to be clear on what I thought the reason for having a COI guideline was. People with a COI will have difficulty making neutral decisions about Notability/saliency, and have "...no rights as an advocate. You may even be cautioned or, in extreme cases, told to stay away from certain topics." per ]. An editor shouldn't be able to nominate an article for deletion if he/she has a COI regarding that article. If they are allowed to, it's easy to imagine religions, corporations, and groups of people deleting content they find personally disagreeable. ] 08:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

:I see your point, but ] wasn't intended to cover 'all' situations of biased editors - only ones where there's a close and specfic personal/business relationship. Out of sheer practicality, you can't weed out everyone with a strong view by WP:COI, such as (say) stopping ] editing articles about the ]. If there's no specific COI, you just have to invoke consensus, NPOV, civility, WP:3RR and all the other kinds of policies that heavily biased editors tend to breach. ] 12:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


== ] {{coi-links|The River Company}} == == ] {{coi-links|The River Company}} ==

Revision as of 12:28, 11 March 2007

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:Edouard Bugnion 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:Group14 Technologies Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Insight Meditation Society Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:Khalili Foundation Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Mitre Corporation Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician) Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:Sharp Memorial Hospital Talk:Louise Showe Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Uppsala Monitoring Centre Talk:Zions Bancorporation


    Suhayl Saadi (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Suhayl Saadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I found this page while looking through WP:DEAD. The page history reveals a red-flag conflict of interest, i.e. the most active writer of the article is also the subject of the article. Normally I nominate such things on Afd, but I think he's notable enough to survive Afd. One possibility is to revert to the situation before he got involved, but that's really not as good: . I would appreciate notification on my talk page to any comment made here. // YechielMan 04:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

    Though this article appears largely written by its subject, it is not such a terrible article, and his work appears notable, judging from the prizes. The next step might be for someone to carefully look through all the online references to see if they appear correctly cited and to be sure he deserves his apparent reputation. The article itself has no critical comment, but it refrains from the advertising and promotional language that is sometimes seen when the subject is the author. EdJohnston 00:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

    RateItAll (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Could I get a third, or fourth, or etc pair of eyes on this. I've been keeping an eye best I can on this article RateItAll which is going through some serious clean up as there are some PoV issues, and reliable source issues that need cleaned up. In my process of checking sources, I found this mentioned in the official blog of the site Blog Entry where the person who's been heavily working on the article says "Go for it. Sign up with Misplaced Pages and sing the praises of the RIA!" and yet claimed on the articles talk page he was the most neutral person around. Anyway, some additional feedback would be appreciated as I'm keeping an eye on a lot of articles right now.--Crossmr 05:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

    We may still need more eyes on this. The main editor has again been shown to be encouraged by and recognized by the creator of the site, and he's failed to not only respond to questions about that, but fails to respond to any questions and just plugs ahead with edits, which include re-adding material which was removed for failing several policies.--Crossmr 06:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    Actually we definitely need some additional eyes on this. Even when presented with the evidence of his being too close, self promoting and having a financial stake in it, he flat out denies any of it is "evidence". Talk:RateItAll#Conflict_of_Interest.--Crossmr 04:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    Here is the original posting at www2.blogger.com that was used to encourage editing of this WP article:

    Guys, GenghisTheHun is starting an entry for RateItAll in Misplaced Pages. Anybody who wants to contribute can do so here. I'm going to stay out of it, as I am so clearly biased, but anybody needing historical or factual data can feel free to ask me. Please be aware of Misplaced Pages's guidelines, and be respectful of the site's volunteers.

    This was posted by a member of that site named lawrence who might be the Lawrence Coburn who is the founder and CEO of the site.The wording of this announcement doesn't sound too bad, and I note that the recent edits by User:GenghisTheHun appear to be reasonable. Anyone who wishes may put in a word or two on Talk:RateItAll, since GenghisTheHun specifically asked how COI is interpreted on Misplaced Pages. Note that this article survived an AfD on 15 February. While the article could be better, it does have some reliable sources, and there were a number of additional sources found during the AfD that have not yet been added to the article. The recent edit history of the article seems fairly collegial, and the nominator of this COI, Crossmr (talk · contribs), removed two of the maintenance tags from the article on 2 March, suggesting that some of his concerns are being addressed. But Crossmr has argued (above) that GenghisTheHun is restoring material to the article that's contrary to our policies. I didn't look closely enough to have an opinion on that. EdJohnston 20:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    That material has since been removed and I think its staying out this time. The problem is if you look at that same blog post, we have an issue with GenghisTheHun misrepresenting himself. On the Rateitall talk page he says and I am about as neutral as one may get. However in response to the Blog post which the creator made, Genghisthehun says Sign up with Misplaced Pages and sing the praises of the RIA!. I'll admit I've only been here a year, but I'm pretty sure I've seen people more neutral than that. In addition to that his profile was added to the article at one point, by an IP which he's admitted as himself. I'd have been willing to let it go as an honest mistake if he hadn't just made about a dozen edits to the article under his username, then signed out and added his profile to the article as his IP. These are only minor warning signs on their own, but I feel the situation has been exacerbated by the fact that the creator of the website chose to participate in the AfD after stating he wasn't going to get involved, and Genghis has been shown to be a top ranked user of the site, and the creator has subsequently recognized him again for the work he's doing on the article. To me this puts him in a position of closeness to the site. This is only further worsened by the fact that the site does revenue sharing with its members based on their contributions and other factors. Any of these individually might not be that bad, but all coming from one person it bothers me.--Crossmr 20:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    Since the COI rules are not 100% precise, I'd be willing to accept GenhisTheHun's contributions if the end result is a good article that our readers find informative. At present there doesn't seem to be any criticism included in the article. I wonder if anyone knows of any negative information that could be fairly included. If Genghis were removing negative information that would be a red flag. EdJohnston 22:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    They're not precise no. However I think we need to realize that he is closer to the subject than probably any other editor outside of the creator of the website. At least from our point of view and what evidence we have. He's not even willing to acknowledge that all of those things put together could even be reasonably construed as the possibility of a conflict of interest. As far as criticism goes, it was placed in the article but I removed it simply because it was unsourced opinion, and seemed to consist mostly of original research. What arose was that I removed that content with explanation and during a several edit session he restored it without a single comment as to why (it was actually restored during the addition of other material). He seems to avoid communication unless it serves him at that moment. When the npov tag was put on the article he made the claim he was completely neutral, I countered that, and 2 weeks later another individual countered it as well with new evidence, but he wouldn't respond to either comment, until now because I raised it again in response to his wanting the maintenance tags removed from the article. Since this was first raised on February 10th and only now he responds to it with complete and utter denial that it might even be a possibility. I question the above with an editor who seems willing to just edit away with no real response to communication. He once again only communicated once it was nominated for AfD. Its a whole bunch of little things which are all piling up.--Crossmr 00:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

    Just as when the article was in trouble and up for AfD, when Genghisthehun is in trouble for a possible conflict of interest issue, the creator comes running to his aid . To me this clearly demonstrates a closeness beyond what is normal to the subject.--Crossmr 14:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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

    Bumped into this user's contributions via Laetare Sunday, and noticed that all their edits consist of adding links to things on http://www.raisingkids.co.uk - maybe I'm making 2+2 = 5, but I reckon rkeditor = Raising Kids editor. I think this is being done with good intentions, never-the-less I've left a gentle warning (and a welcome message) on their talkpage, suggesting that in future they might first add the links on article talkpages to allow neutral editors to assess them. A few more pairs of eyes watching thier future contributions wouldn't go amiss. David Underdown 13:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

    Keep an eye on this. {{spam3}} would be the next stop, as this is obvious spamming. MER-C 08:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

    This editor made a delayed but cooperative response to MER-C's message, and does seem to be taking it to heart. They asked on Talk:Autism whether they could add their link at Autism. I replied there that their proposed link goes to a discussion forum, therefore is disapproved by WP:EL. EdJohnston 02:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

    I removed the link to raisingkids.co.uk placed in the Fulla article (redundant); left in place the linked interview at Tanya Byron which seemed worthwhile. EdJohnston 01:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

    Adam Jones (Canadian scholar) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I'm fairly sure the single purpose editor Adam63 (talk · contribs) is the subject. I don't know enough about the subject to really check it someone else might want to go through and see if its okay.--Crossmr Iamunknown 06:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • And even though I directed the editor to the conflict of interest page he's continued to edit the article. Its clearly a single purpose account solely used for editing that article and the related article of gendercide, which points to a very high probability of it being the subject.--Crossmr 00:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

    Farm Sanctuary and Gene Baur

    Articles
    Users involved

    * MichaelBrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Explanation

    This is a sock/meat puppet army organized by the organization Farm Sanctuary.

    GingerGins's involvement is someone else's hunch that was sent to me in private e-mail. I do not necessarily include her but she is a mostly single purpose account on the same issues and she appeared under suspicious timing. It is entirely reasonable on circumstantial evidence that she may be editing independent of the FarmSanctuary socks, but still has her own socks and is doing the same edits the Farm Sanctuary socks.

    Two of the IP addresses are directly related to GingerGin: 70.109.119.191, 66.74.212.163. These accounts made fairly silly edits to her talk page, then went on to repeat a revert performed by GingerGin (who admits to revert counting to game 3RR).

    user:FarmSanctuary used to have a user page stating they worked for Farm Sanctuary. user:Brooklyn5 used {{Db-owner}} on the user pages for the FarmSanctuary user and admitted it was a role account for the organization. While having their userpages deleted, they asked to have their username changed, so they were intent on returning.

    This morning user:Winchester1962, user:Sieveking, and user:Vladivostock showed up to edit the Farm Sanctuary/Gene Baur pages. SieveKing created a userpage and claims to have been a Misplaced Pages editor since 2005, with the first contribution as this morning. Similarly, Vladivostock removed a Welcome template from the talk page insisting he has been here for three years, first edit this morning. All three of the accounts engaged in the same edits: removing SOURCED negative information from the Gene Baur/Farm Sanctuary articles.

    The rest of the IP addresses are simply doing the same exact edits as User:FarmSanctuary, etc. Removing sourced negative information, often within minutes of the named users.

    An older account, User:ApisMeli, was probably a young intern/volunteer at the organization several months ago and isn't involved in the latest edit war. It would be interesting if it shows up again.

    SchmuckyTheCat 23:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    I can verify a unique editing habit of User:Winchester1962 and User:Sieveking that proves it is the same as User:FarmSanctuary SchmuckyTheCat 00:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    Have you considered filing a request for checkuser at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser? --Iamunknown 05:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    Yes. Though the circumstantial evidence here is overwhelming. It is legit that User:FarmSanctuary needed a new name, but to morph into two is not. SchmuckyTheCat 15:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    Update: User:SchmuckyTheCat posted this issue at WP:ANI. He's using the list of sockpuppets displayed here as a reference for that report. In response, User:Isotope23 protected both Farm Sanctuary and Gene Baur here and indicated that a full review would occur. I assume he's taking charge of that, and that all we need to do on this noticeboard is to keep the issue open until the list of socks no longer needs to be displayed. See SchuckyTheCat's Checkuser request.EdJohnston 16:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    Checkuser still pending... MER-C 10:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

    Hello! I take issue with Schmukythecat's accusations that I am a sockpuppet and a meatpuppet. I am one user and am not employed by any of the organizations that I take interest in editing. I can explain the peculiarities I am accused of. The funny little notes and whatnot that were added by an IP address onto my homepage were me trying to explore how Misplaced Pages works. Since I am NOT a sock puppet, I wanted to see how I am notified when another user leaves me a message, so I left myself a message without logging in. Also, I one time made an edit but forgot to sign in, and that's why there is an edit with an IP that was removed by me and then the same edit was returned with my username.

    On the other hand, Schmuckythecat has admitted on his personal web page that he is against all things related to PETA and animal rights, and that he would rather support the group Center for Consumer Freedom than an animal rights group. He also has pictures taken directly from CCF's website that disparages animal groups posted on his webpage. He is believed to be paid by this group to continually monitor anything related to animal rights and to add negative publicity and defamation. He actually may be getting served with a lawsuit in the near future. It is he, therefore, that is biased and has an agenda. He certainly puts a lot of energy into trying to get rid of anyone who takes issue with any of the biased edits that he makes; it is unnatural. Why would aperson be doing this unless they had a hidden agenda? I suggest that he be permanently blocked from editing cites such as Foie Gras, Farm Sanctuary, PETA, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and anything else that the Center for Consumer Freedom has an active campaign agains. GingerGin 23:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

    Campusj (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Campusj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - article created by Steveniweiss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whose name is the same as the editor-in-chief of the CampusJ website/newspaper. ju66l3r 23:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    Obvious corporate vanity, so tagged. MER-C 04:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

    Lennie Lee (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Lennie Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a South African artist, is openly autobiographical. I have run into it accidentally while doing disambiguation and do not have the time right now to check it for notability and verifiability. Sam Blacketer 12:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

    Its history looks fine until recent anon edits by 80.41.10.175 converting it all to first-person. I've reverted it to the previous version. Tearlach 14:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    Searches for the "Rich and Famous Gallery" + London + "Lennie Lee" (the article claims he founded it) yielded only wikipedia and wikipedia echoes. — Athænara ✉ 08:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

    Andy Miah (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    I have just re-edited the article, removing a great deal of puffery. I have also explained to the ed. the need for 3rd party sources. DGG 02:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

    Peniel Pentecostal Church (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

     Confirmed. Absolutely. As for Tell The Thruth (talk · contribs), we need a checkuser for that and we're not likely to get one yet. MER-C 04:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

    However, the article could do with some references, so tagged. MER-C 04:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    Article now fairly comprehensively referenced (two references still required). Tag removed. Mauls 18:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

    There is a lot of spin going on here because I fixed the article after it was marked for speedy deletion do to the fact that much of the content was removed for being overly critical and now the opposite is true with all the critical links being removed and replaced with pro-Reid sites.--JEF 18:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

    82.153.51.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (ie Peniel Church) just reverted again, twice, adding promo and removing ref'd criticism. Reported to WP:ANI. Tearlach 18:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    And blocked for 24 hours. I hope this clue-by-four works. MER-C 07:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    Tell The Thruth (talk · contribs) seems set on removing critical material, 09:05 UTC 6 March 2007, 10:08 UTC 6 March 2007, 10:12 UTC 6 March 2007, and again blanking the talk page 10:13 UTC 6 March 2007. Given that this involves living people in the shape of Bishop Reid, is this really the right venue? Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    Maybe WP:BLP is more the place for it. It's a bit Catch-22: unreferenced is unnacceptable, but the hostile tone of UK press coverage makes supplying references, even citation for uncontroversial background, look like a hatchet job. OTOH repeated page-blanking isn't acceptable conduct. Cluebat time anyhow: User:Tell The Thruth just hit three reverts today. Tearlach 13:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    And there's the fourth. I wouldn't bother with 3RR yet, as I have issued a final warning and we can get the block with less bureaucracy. MER-C 11:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    Blocked again for cause. — Athænara ✉ 21:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    Cofftea – Deleted – 07:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

    Cofftea (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    3 things...

    1. Cofftea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is made-up rubbish.
    2. The Cofftea section in Yuanyang (drink) shouldn't be there, as I explained at Talk:Yuanyang (drink)
    3. Am I being overly paranoid to think WP:COI prevents me deleting Cofftea?

    Angela. 03:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

    1) I don't know if it is entirely made-up rubbish, but it certainly looks like something that would snowball through an AfD for lack of sourceable notability. 3) Which conflict of interest do you have? None is obvious, even after skimming your user page. If you have nothing specific to disclose, I'd be more worried about the lack of an unambiguously applicable CSD; why not just prod it? –Henning Makholm 03:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    My possible COI is explained here. The article is on Wikia, as a semi-parody, so it could come across that I want it deleted here so people can only read it at Wikia, but I don't regard things people make up about Cofftea as encyclopedic. Everyone who ever mixed coffee and tea thinks they invented it, which is exactly what the author of Misplaced Pages's cofftea article is claiming. Angela. 07:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    You can't prod internet memes, unfortunately, as the tag won't stick. MER-C 03:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    Cofftea isn't an internet meme. Angela. 07:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    I can at least try (so done). For a freshly created page I agree that it would be futile, but this one is a month old, and its creator has no contributions since then. –Henning Makholm 04:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    Yes. Make it disappear, as it is practically speediable. MER-C 03:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    The article should be deleted. BTW I have tried dunking a tea bag in a cup of coffee. I don't recommend it. :-) Steve Dufour 21:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.


    Clouds Blur the Rainbow (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    • Clouds Blur the Rainbow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is being edited by BabyDweezil, an uncritical supporter of the individuals and groups criticized in this report, which I wrote. The same user, BabyDweezil, has a long history of personal attacks and repeated POV edits that demonstrate a clear conflict of interest. Some of the material being added is simply false, and based on the marginal and frequently distorted writings by members of a political cult similar to (and at one point connected to) the Lyndon LaRouche cult. Among the other pages subject to this type of editing by BabyDweezil are Fred Newman, Lenora Fulani, New Alliance Party, Social Therapy, International Workers Party. I understand that it is appropriate that critical opinions about the report Clouds Blur the Rainbow be included on its entry page, but what is happening here is wildly POV, unbalanced, and sometimes just false. It is time to consider banning BabyDweezil from editing any pages related to this cult, just as some pro-LaRouche editors have been banned for being unbable to abide by basic Misplaced Pages guidelines.--Cberlet 03:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Chip, basic Wikicourtesy would dictate that you notify me of this noticeboard posting rather than (or at least in addition to) obliquely canvassing surefire supporters of the action.
    That said, I challenge Cberlet or anyone else to point to anything in the above articles that is "wildly POV, unbalanced, or false." The fact is, these often contentious articles have been collaborative efforts between editors with different viewpoints, and the results have been a relative semblance of balance. It seems, historically, that Cberlet files protests such as this one precisely at those moments when his own demonstrably minority POV on the above subjects ceases to dominate. I won't waste the space here to document the reality of his POV being decidedly a minority one (not to mention likewise demonstrably riddled with bias and unprofessional research methodology) but would be happy to if needed. Nor do the claims of someone who consistently refers to editors with a different opinion than his own minority one as "cult apologists" "totalitarians" and "Orwellian sanitizers" and worse need a response re: "personal attacks."
    The irony of Cberlet's posting this cannot go uncommented upon. Chip Berlet has been for a quarter century a paid propagandist for Political Research Associates, a thoroughly partisan organization that largely devotes itself to issuing attack reports against groups that do not fit its particular view of of the world, be they on the right or in some instances, as with those above, on the left. PRA specializes in labeling and guilt by association (as evidenced above by Berlet's Larouche-baiting, based on a brief relationship Newman had with the long since noxious Larouche 30 years ago). The notion that a paid partisan like Chip Berlet should remain able to run roughshod over countless articles with which he has a true conflict of interest AND attempt to ban(!!) points of view contrary to his own is simply too absurd to comment on beyond simply stating it. Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with Chip, or Dennis King or others with clear COI's from being involved, in fact I welcome their input and--them being long-time spooks and all--value the resources they have filed away. Over and out-- BabyDweezil 23:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    User:BabyDweezil has been indefinitely blocked. Tearlach 19:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

    Transcendental Meditation (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Transcendental Meditation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) et alia (Maharishi Vedic Science, Maharishi Ayurveda, Maharishi Sthapatya Veda, TM-Sidhi program, John Hagelin, Natural Law Party, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, ...) - These articles are being dominated by editors with various connections to the TM organization. Nearly any attempts at NPOVing result in reversion, and critical sources are being relegated to minor articles on specific subtopics so that the main articles are free from criticism. TimidGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), one of the major editors, admitted on the TM talk page that he is paid faculty of the "Maharishi University of Management", Sparaig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) admitted to being a TM practitioner of over 30 years, and has previously removed information in the article that "interferes with the normal business practices of the TMO ", and many of the other editors seem like they may have COI problems. Of course, they are all very polite, but that doesn't mean that they aren't simply reverting critical edits with "let's discuss this on the talk page" (where they can then overwhelm us, or delay us indefinitely), or that they aren't gradually removing all critical information, making the critical information so convoluted as to be unreadable, and moving much of the criticism to minor articles on small subtopics. // Philosophus 00:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC) I've looked around a bit more, and found that Littleolive oil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is or was also paid faculty at the Maharishi University of Management, and Roseapple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another identified TM practitioner. --Philosophus 00:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

    In an ideal situation both members and people with a grudge against the group would be excluded from editing this type of article. However, these seem to be the only people interested, in most cases, in an article on a religious group. Steve Dufour 20:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

    George Deutsch (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Labrador retriever (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Early today, another user, 7raptor7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) tried to delete the info and add back the false information. Sarrandúin 17:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    And again today, also reverted. — Athænara ✉ 07:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

    161.253.31.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 161.253.25.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are continually adding a section advertising the GW College Dems. In one case they used "we" to describe the group, and the only edits both have made are to that page. The section has been removed numerous times by different editors AW Taborah (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    This one was in bad shape: a myspace.com link (!) in the first two words (the name of the subject), http instead of wikipedia article links, and no references—zip. I cleaned up the obvious and removed the wikify tag. Notability and tone tags remain as they should. If it comes up for deletion again I'll support that in the absence of reliable sources which establish notability. — Athænara ✉ 11:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

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

    I asked this editor to disclose any coi's he might have with some of the external links he's used , but now that I see he's been doing this since October, 2004 , I feel I'm in over my head.

    Possible coi because:

    • poweroid.com redirects to www.bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk/poweroid/
    • poweroid.co.uk redirects to www.bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk/
    • bestpricecomputers.co.uk is the same company
    • experienced-people.co.uk appears to be run by the same admin

    I've removed links from the following articles, all added by Poweroid's:

    External links to bestpricecomputers:

    External links to experienced-people:

    I'm guessing there are many more considering how long he's been editing. --Ronz 05:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

    You're wrong, surprisingly. See Special:Linksearch/bestpricecomputers.co.uk, Special:Linksearch/experienced-people.co.uk, Special:Linksearch/poweroid.com and Special:Linksearch/poweroid.co.uk. MER-C 09:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    Those searches don't appear to work. I just found another bestpricecomputers link in Intranet. --Ronz 17:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    Whoa! Whoa! I'm in the middle of something but give me a few seconds and I'll comment in full. Poweroid 13:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    OK, first, on the user name: It's not a random word, it's a word that's clearly associated with Best Price Computers Ltd, at bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk. In fact, there are thousands of pages in a Google search for that word ALL of which would lead you back to that company site. Poweroid is the only brand that company sells. And nobody can mistake that I'm associated with that company/do work for it. I intentionally use that user name here and I openly log in with that Poweroid name to edit. Have been doing it for years. I don't believe I've ever added a link to bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk.
    I have edited, proofed or otherwise worked on over 50 sites in the last few years some of which are/were owned by that company or by other companies. Those sites include pcnineoneone.com (which has plenty of links from Wikipeddia, many from before I ever joined), graphic.org etc., etc. (I'll try and compile a full list if anyone's interested). I've often taken content from a site I'm familiar with and added it to a Misplaced Pages article with due acknowledgement to the source - whether I ever worked on that source site or not.
    I believe I made a useful contribution yesterday to Web site, with a note in the Talk page prior to attempting further improvements. I notice that Ronz has removed a reference link to the experienced-people site on the article. Whatever s/he believes about the authority of the experienced-people site Yahoo claims that there are almost 3,000 other places that link to it, so obviously there are some, like abcnews.com who link to a particular article there, who think it's worth linking to. I notice also that the content from that source site is still on Web site though the reference was removed. Just as with VoIP. VoIP happens to use an image and content from one of the source sites. I notice that the image is still in use here though the link to the site was removed.
    I've edited probably thousands of articles in Misplaced Pages ranging from hundreds on Indian cities to articles ranging from pregnancy/medical to business management to foodstuffs/recipes, most of which I've found no reason to add links on. I admit I may not have read every single word of the rules here but if it is forbidden to ever quote from a site I've worked on in the past it will reduce my output considerably (as it would cut out a large chunk of topics I am familiar with) but I'm happy to comply. Poweroid 14:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, so far I've only removed the links, because they don't meet WP:SOURCE or WP:EL, and some come across as WP:SPAM. I've kept the other content, assuming it can be verified from other sources if necessary. As for the potential coi issues, I'm deferring to this noticeboard. --Ronz 16:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    i am observer and i don't understand : who is Ronz , i have look the ronz's contribution to WIKIPEDIA and (always removed) please can you say me what he has realy build? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.11.145.92 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    If you have problems with my edits, take them to the appropriate venue. This discussion concerns the conflict of interest issues with Poweroid's edits. --Ronz 16:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    A glance at Yahoo's Site Explorer for incoming links to www.experienced-people.co.uk doesn't suggest much merit. Looks to me like one of those non-sites that provide token content, but primarily exist as vehicle for Google ads and affiliate schemes. Tearlach 17:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    There are about 2,700 links to that site according to your Yahoo listing. I haven't examined them all but the first page itself shows links from sites I'm familiar with, like problogger, and about.com.

    Barbara Schwarz (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Please check this article out for possible CoI problems. I am one of the problem people since I am a friend of Barbara. Thanks. Steve Dufour 17:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

    It seems that the article will soon be nominated for deletion. Steve Dufour 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    Did you notice the above posting (which I have merged into this one)? MER-C 10:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    I did notice, and sent a message to Steve_Dufour. Since Steve_Dufour is who I came here to discuss, I felt it would be rude to edit or change the request he made. Just so I know in the future, what should I have done? (I don't mean that to sound like a smart-ass answer, I really want to know what the protocol is for this situation.)Anynobody 01:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

    I would be more inclined to listen to Anynobody's advice if he gave the same advice to people who have a personal dislike for Barbara, or who have interests in the article which have nothing to do with her or to Misplaced Pages. Steve Dufour 16:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

    Steve Dufour If any of them wanted to put information in that was both embarrassing and irrelevant I would certainly oppose it. Anynobody 01:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

    Justanother (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - WP:COI#Close relationships, WP:COI#Campaigning. Justanother has a highly sensitive POV regarding what he finds offensive or negative regarding the CoS, and he spends a large percentage of his time editing articles related to Scientology. Barbara Schwarz is a Scientologist ejected from the organization. She appears to suffer the type of mental illness that the CoS says either doesn't exist or they can cure. This issue is not addressed in the article itself, however and I believe the mere possibility of anyone making such a connection motivates his desire to delete the article, which has been nominated 3 times already. As proof of his tendency to allow his POV to affect his editing here I submit this: User_talk:Justanother#WikiProject_updates showing his view of the erupting volcano depicted on the cover of Dianetics as offensive. Please note, I have no preference about the userbox in question at the link I've provided. In this case the editors involved found a compromise. I am pointing it out as an example of how inflexible he is about issues pertaining to the CoS, even going so far as to avoid explaining WHY he is offended by an image Scientology embraces as a Scientologist. Anynobody 06:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

    You are misrepresenting the truth again, Anynobody. Like you did here. I explained to Smee (and you, you were there and posted) my objection to the volcano and he knew exactly why I objected. See User talk:Justanother#WikiProject updates. That is all I have to say. The COI is a figment of your imagination not borne out by my article edits. This is not a personal attack. This is not uncivil. This is the truth for any other editor to check for themselves. --Justanother 06:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

    Guys, could we please keep on topic here - try not to overspill disputes which may be somehow distantly related to the article but certainly do not seem to have much to do with conflicts of interest. Steve Dufour has declared his own COI, which is all well and fine, but I'm not quite sure what the request for this noticeboard actually is. Just "checking out" the article for other conflicts is awfully vague, especially when nothing is said about why Steve suspects that somebody else may have a COI and what it would be. –Henning Makholm 08:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

    Forgive me if this sounds blunt, it is only meant to be clear on what I thought the reason for having a COI guideline was. People with a COI will have difficulty making neutral decisions about Notability/saliency, and have "...no rights as an advocate. You may even be cautioned or, in extreme cases, told to stay away from certain topics." per WP:COI. An editor shouldn't be able to nominate an article for deletion if he/she has a COI regarding that article. If they are allowed to, it's easy to imagine religions, corporations, and groups of people deleting content they find personally disagreeable. Anynobody 08:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

    I see your point, but WP:COI wasn't intended to cover 'all' situations of biased editors - only ones where there's a close and specfic personal/business relationship. Out of sheer practicality, you can't weed out everyone with a strong view by WP:COI, such as (say) stopping Orangemen editing articles about the Pope. If there's no specific COI, you just have to invoke consensus, NPOV, civility, WP:3RR and all the other kinds of policies that heavily biased editors tend to breach. Tearlach 12:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

    The River Company (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Appears to have been primarily created by two or three editors.

    I originally felt the band was not noteable, no longer so sure. But someone should advise these people to consider COI & if they still feel it is okay to edit the article, at least declare any potential COI in any voting. Probably be best if this comes from someone besides me, in case either of them read my earlier message. N.B. Michael.m.winters did mention his potential COI in the first vote Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The River Company

    203.109.240.93 11:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


    User:Vintagekits – Cross-posted, wrong spot – 01:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

    User:Vintagekits (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    • User:Vintagekits is engaged in spamming by placing PRODs on everything related to the British peerage or Honours recipients as "non-notable" or "nn?" or "nn??". This is abusive mass spamming on a massive scale, and it is directly related to the user's pro-PIRA bias.
    See below a partial list:
    • 19:14, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Sir William Arbuthnot, 3rd Baronet
    • 19:13, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Sir William Arbuthnot-Lane, 2nd Baronet
    • 19:12, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Frederick Arthur
    • 19:11, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) John Lubbock, 3rd Baron Avebury
    • 19:09, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) John Lubbock, 2nd Baron Avebury
    • 19:08, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Bernard Waley-Cohen
    • 19:07, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Ian Frank Bowater
    • 19:05, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) David Brewer
    • 19:02, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Sir David Baird, 3rd Baronet
    • 19:02, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Sir Alexander Baird, 1st Baronet
    • 19:01, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Sir William Barber, 1st Baronet
    • 18:59, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Gilbert Barling
    • 18:58, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Thomas Erasmus Barlow
    • 18:57, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Sir Thomas Barrett-Lennard, 2nd Baronet
    • 18:54, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Henry Benyon
    • 18:31, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Gladys Hartman
    • 18:30, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Maureen Brennan
    • 18:29, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Gillian Pugh
    • 18:27, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Daphne Purves
    • 18:26, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Una Pope-Hennessy

    O'Donoghue 23:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

    While bad-faith prodding is indeed disruptive, I find it difficult to see what it can have to do with a real-world CoI in this case. If you're sure that this is the correct noticeboard, could you explain more? –Henning Makholm 00:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    Indeed, this is a cross post from WP:ANI#User:Vintagekits.27s bad faith PRODing .26 spamming. Let's discuss it over there. MER-C 01:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.
    Category: