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 12:49, 13 May 2007 view sourceOrsini (talk | contribs)578 edits →{{userlinks|COFS}}: several replies - AldeBaer /EdJohnston /Durova /Smee← Previous edit Revision as of 13:03, 13 May 2007 view source Jehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,283 edits →{{userlinks|COFS}}: multiple warningsNext edit →
Line 393: Line 393:
*I second this '''Block Needed''' comment above by astute user, ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>). For reasons I had further elaborated upon a bit, and posted at ]. ] 08:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC). *I second this '''Block Needed''' comment above by astute user, ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>). For reasons I had further elaborated upon a bit, and posted at ]. ] 08:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
*Comment about blocking - please note the citations at the top of the page, which indicated the meatpuppet was placed on indefinate block, then appealed, then had the block reduced. I have asked ] to look at the discussion here, as Coelacan was the original investigating admin of the x-puppets. Regards, ] 12:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC) *Comment about blocking - please note the citations at the top of the page, which indicated the meatpuppet was placed on indefinate block, then appealed, then had the block reduced. I have asked ] to look at the discussion here, as Coelacan was the original investigating admin of the x-puppets. Regards, ] 12:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
* It has been my habit to issue multiple warnings without waiting for the user to read them when I see a user on a determined campaign to spam or push POV. One bad edit could be a mistake. Two is starting to look fishy. Three is bad faith, and so on. If I am wrong, please let me know and I will adjust those warnings. Since the user has previously been blocked for sock puppetry, and had received a COI warning, I don't think we need to give the full range of warnings anyways. This is an experienced user who knows that they shouldn't be pushing POV on Misplaced Pages and making COI edits. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 13:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


== Sabhlok == == Sabhlok ==

Revision as of 13:03, 13 May 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,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    ShortcutsSections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge)
    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Misplaced Pages to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution procedural policy.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page.
     You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Additional notes:
    • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
    2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
    3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
    • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline.
    Are you in the right place?
    Notes for volunteers
    To close a report
    • Add Template:Resolved at the head of the complaint, with the reason for closing and your signature.
    • Old issues are taken away by the archive bot.
    Other ways to help
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests Talk:260 Collins Talk:Academy of Achievement Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:Aspen Dental Talk:Atlantic Union Bank Talk:AvePoint Talk:Edward J. Balleisen Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:Neil Barofsky Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Edi Birsan Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Bunq Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Pamela Chesters Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Computational topology Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Adela Demetja Talk:Doncaster College Template talk:Editnotices/Page/List of Nintendo franchises Talk:JJ Eldridge Talk:Alan Emrich Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:Richard France (writer) Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Genuine Parts Company Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Group-IB Talk:Hilary Harkness Talk:Hearst Communications Talk:International Motors Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:Scott Kurashige Talk:Andrew Lack (executive) Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Luis Laplace Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:List of PEN literary awards Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health Talk:Anne Sofie Madsen Talk:Laurence D. Marks Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Roland Mertelsmann Talk:Metro AG Talk:Mike Savage (politician) Talk:Modern Meadow Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:Polkadot (blockchain platform) Talk:QuinStreet Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:SolidWorks Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko Talk:Sysco Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Tencent Cloud Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:TKTS Talk:Trendyol Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:Loretta Ucelli Talk:Unique games conjecture Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Alex Wright (author) Talk:Xero (company) Talk:Zions Bancorporation


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

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

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


    Wrigley's Gum campaign

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

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

    Both accounts have been back, making more promotional edits. Neither respond to messages on their talk page. -- Siobhan Hansa 17:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    Back again today. EllieLancaster responded to my level4 warning with a request about how to provide input, but also spammed the link again. I asked her to use the talk pages and refrain from adding the link to articles, she has since created an article - Wrigley's Oral Healthcare Program, which I've tagged fr speedy deletion. 195.216.25.222 promoted the research on the Wrigley's article. Editors opinions are welcomed at a discussion on the talk page there. Other help or advice on how to better handle this would also be appreciated. -- Siobhan Hansa 15:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    I removed the company promotional language and excessive links from the article, and found and added a link for the Brandweek magazine reference. — Athaenara 02:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    I've tagged the users with Template:Uw-coi, and marked the IP as a suspected sock puppet. Jehochman (/contrib) 03:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

    New account today - Ideaslondon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Marked as a suspected sock. -- Siobhan Hansa 03:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    It's the same user. Note this edit posted by Ideaslondon, signed "UserEllielancaster." — Athaenara 10:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    MDS International (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    → See also

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

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

    This case has already generated enough legal threats for one day. It seems that Misplaced Pages is just providing a venue for two contending parties (MDSA and MDSI) to abuse one another. We couldn't use any of the juicy revelations from Talk:MDS International in the encyclopedia, even if they were true, because there are no reliable secondary sources. Now the CEO of one of the entities is furious that an apparent comment by him has been translated into English, and makes him sound bad! (There seems to be a remote chance his account could have been compromised; not serious enough to pursue without further info). Both parties occasionally take a break from abusing each other to abuse Misplaced Pages. Does anyone have a strong objection to nominating both articles for deletion? (MDS America and MDS International)?
    The only alternative is to try to protect two stubbified articles indefinitely, with hardly any secondary sources for anything interesting. I know that the WP:OFFICE occasionally shuts things down if they are just too much trouble. This could be that kind of a case, though there is no hint of any commentary from the office. It's unlikely that either party can be made happy, since we can't print any of their supposed revelations, and meanwhile they keep referring us to their law firms and denouncing the 'vandalism by the admins' (I believe that's their term for our removal of defamatory comments from the articles and talk pages).. EdJohnston 21:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    Sounds like a good idea. There doesn't appear to be much interest from any of the editors to create quality articles, judging by the sudden drop in editing now that one is protected. --Ronz 21:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    If you have an opinion on launching an AfD, please add a comment at Talk:MDS International. EdJohnston 02:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    MDS International has been nominated for deletion here. I decided not to nominate MDS America since, while that article caused trouble for regular editors, it did not lead to any legal threats. EdJohnston 01:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC). Update This AfD closed with Delete on 3 May. EdJohnston 20:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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

    The merge proposal at Talk:MVDDS dispute seems to have stalled, with 2 supporting (but non COI editors) and 2 against (both MDS employees). There certainly needs to be more input for consensus to be reached if any other editors want to dig into this case. Russeasby 19:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    Consider going to Talk:MVDDS dispute#Straw poll on merging MDS America and adding your opinion. If you gave an opinion in the previous AfD of MDS International then you probably have enough background to address this. The debate is not especially confrontational at the moment; it's just a question of whether MDS America has enough information of its own to justify a freestanding article. EdJohnston 20:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    72.19.4.235 - *MDS America Gateway; unsure who is using it.
    83.206.63.250 - *Subnet owned by MDS International
    Jeanclauduc - *Founder of MDS International
    Bhimaji - *MDS America Employee

    A partial list of the COI SPAs swarming those pages. — Athaenara 23:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

    I hope this isn't inappropriate, but I *annotated this list with the information that I am personally aware of. I haven't used any sources other than 'host' and 'whois'. I would like to avoid giving the impression that MDS America people are trying to hide; most of them just have no experience on Misplaced Pages and don't realize how challenging it is to have a discussion with an IP address that changes every day.Bhimaji 00:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks to User:Bhimaji for his recent work, which is that of a normal trustworthy editor. User:Macrhino has been intermittently helpful, though he removed tags from the Kirk Kirkpatrick article in a way that hardly conforms with policy. User:Fabrice10 is one of the managers at MDS America and he has offered to answer questions for us on his User talk. EdJohnston 03:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

    What's the best way to get 83.206.63.250 to stop being so disruptive? --Ronz 17:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

    I proposed a one-week block on grounds of complex vandalism at WP:ANI but did not get any response. It could be more logical to ask for an indefinite block of both this IP and User:Jeanclauduc for making legal threats. I hear that such blocks are usually kept in place until the legal threat is withdrawn. The original legal threats are: , , and User_talk:FayssalF#Gros_Menteur. A brief scan of Talk:MDS America will see a steady stream of ongoing threats by 83.206.63.250, such as Talk:MDS_America#Printed_for_the_Court. EdJohnston 03:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    My AN/I is archived here. Yours is here. Time for another? --Ronz 03:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    Fine with me. EdJohnston 04:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    I hoped for a while that he would be able to voice his opinion coherently, but that has been to no avail. I'll support a block of some sort. nadav 01:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    Arbuthnot family (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    → See also: Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Arbuthnots and circular referencing

    Arbuthnot family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

    I agree that the major COI problem is with editing the articles about himself and his immediate family, and that there shouldn't be a problem with him editing the articles of more distantly-related Arbuthnots. A more minor issue is adding links to his own website and using it as a source, which is also covered in WP:COI and WP:ATT, I believe. Lastly, it would be helpful if he'd add a link to his biography from his user page. -Will Beback · † · 23:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    It is of course permissible to use "insider" sources...
    True. All I mean is that books written by people about their own families tend to 'accentuate the positive'; it's worth cross-checking with the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography where possible. For instance, the section on Sir Robert Arbuthnot, 4th Baronet in Mrs P S-M Arbuthnot's Memories of the Arbuthnots is fine for basic detail, but is a total hagiography in relation to his actions at Jutland. The ODNB concludes that in his naval career, while undoubtedly courageous, he was generally viewed as a martinet whose talents were held back by his obsession with following regulations to the letter, and that the destruction of his ship at Jutland was down to a major error of judgement on his part. This is the kind of bias-by-omission to watch out for. Tearlach 13:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    Agreed that this is something to watch for, but did User:Kittybrewster overlook this point? Also, the present form of the article doesn't quite say it this forcefully, so if this matter is important maybe you should tweak the article some more. And, while this observation is interesting, it doesn't seem like a reason to disqualify Kittybrewster from working on the more remote Arbuthnots. EdJohnston 05:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    HMS Defence (1907) has even less details, and that wasn't written by Kittybrewster. Maybe some of the new info could be included there also. (As an editing point, it would be better if Kittybrewster left out words such as "unfortunately" and let the facts speak.) Tyrenius 07:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. As a person who often adds my opinion on COI/N issues, I have mixed feelings. Obviously, User:Kittybrewster is an experienced editor, with 17,000 edits on Misplaced Pages, and does not seem to be a dangerous ruffian. As we poke around in the details of the edits, it's hard to find a lot to complain about. We seem to left with either (a) accepting User:Will Beback's rather strict interpretation of the COI rules, or (b) letting it go. A third alternative (c) might be to press Kittybrewster on adding more information about his real-life identity to his User page, since he declares it is not a secret, though when other editors look at his edits, they may not be aware of the situation. More comments here? Otherwise it will probably go away with no specific action. The AfD mentioned above ended with No Consensus, though with poor civility, not much credit to either side, and not many useful comments that I could see. (User KB did not vote in the AfD). Other COI commenters, please let me know if you saw anything useful in the AfD comments. EdJohnston 01:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    Can I ask if we now have the full Arbuthnot family, or are more articles going to be created? I still think the existing articles might need a bit of scrutiny to be on the safe side as well. One Night In Hackney303 05:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    Re: EdJohnston's comment above, I don't think I'm proposing a "rather strict interpretation of the COI rules". Editing articles (or participating in the AfDs) about oneself or ones immediate family, and adding links to ones own websites, fall well within the WP:COI and WP:AUTO guidelines. I haven't proposed that the editor refrain from editing articles about distant relatives, which would be an overly strict interpretation. This editor consistently avoids directly mentioning his involvement in or conflict with articles, nor does he identify himself anywhere on his user pages. -Will Beback · † · 18:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    existing articles might need a bit of scrutiny
    Yes. Even with articles relating to distant relatives, there's a faint whiff of promotion. For instance, would the article List of Provosts of Peterhead exist - mayors of towns being the example cited in WP:HOLE - if the first two hadn't been Arbuthnots? Tearlach 16:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    Count Estruc (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Count Estruc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Good Morning:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I am from Spanish Misplaced Pages (my english is poor). The user Estruch in my wikipedia is the author Salvador Sainz. Now is bloked fron one month for SPAM. He write references to his books in all the vampires articles (see here) Blocked for SPAM and Selfpromotion. Then he create other user (Aconito) and try to write again his books, and Aconito is blocked for ever. He atributes itself the partnership of Count Estruch and says that the spanish article use his sources without references (false) Salvador sainz is , very probably, user Estruch in wikipedia Spanish (sure) Catalan(sure) french and English (really probably) Last, sorry again for my poor english.--Britzingen 12:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    Sydney University Liberal Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

    • Roy Gordon Lawrence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    • A recent edit by truedominican (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (and their only and first contribution) who is not a neutral party and is reminiscent of the nonsense that occurred on this article a year ago. The sources quoted on the page seems to not be referenced properly -- could use some cleanup too. I happen to know the people at both churches referenced in this article, so I will avoid edits to the article. References of Conflict of Interest:
      • williamoosterman dotcom /associations.html (scroll to bottom and view higlighted text)
      • williamoosterman dotcom /baptist.html (scroll to bottom and view higlighted text)

    Andyru 15:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

    The European Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

    Accounts:

    COIBot is now monitoring many of these links:

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

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

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

    After almost two weeks of inactivity, user:Fleurstigter added one reference to Serbian culture (diff):

    • The document linked was clearly not used as a reference;
    • The linked page contains documents which are part of the Serbian Culture, but the document does not tell about the Serbian Culture (it tells about specific treasures, it might have been appropriate on articles of the separate treasures).

    I also looked a bit further in other edits, and although they were above described as useful starting points, they appear to be copyvio. E.g. Bernhard Borchert, Fleur Stigter created this document, and after her initial edits (link to version) the document contains two paragraphs with text, and one sentence pointing to the external reference on The European Library. The two paragraphs:

    • "Bernhard Borchert (1863-1945) was a Baltic-German artist who spent the greatest part of his life in Latvia. He has worked in the field of painting and has produced book and magazine illustrations." is a copy of "The author of the Baltijas makslinieku gleznu izstade (Baltic artists’ painting exhibition) is a Baltic-German artist Bernhard Borchert (1863-1945) who the greatest part of his life has spent in Latvia. He has worked in the field of painting and has produced book and magazine illustrations." (first couple of words changed)
    • "He is the author of the "Baltic artists’ painting exhibition" (Baltijas makslinieku gleznu izstade). This represents the German school to which his talent has added the reservedness so characteristic to the mentality of Baltics." First sentence is a rewrite of the first part of the copy of the previous paragraph on European Library, The last sentence is a copy from "The poster represents the German school to which B.Borchert’s talent has added the reservedness so characteristic to the mentality of Baltics."

    A similar comparison can be made for Gospel Book (Ethnike Bibliotheke tes Hellados, Codex 2603) (version after Fleur Stigters creation: link). --Dirk Beetstra 11:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

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

    You say that he "seems like a nice understanding guy". If it is your impression that he has seen the error of his ways and will not continue to edit within his COI, nothing more is really necessary − we're not here to punish the wicked if we can convert them to contributing constructively (or, failing that, at least make them stop editing unconstructively) without punishment. –Henning Makholm 23:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    This appears to me to be a major company within the marketspace, and there exist plenty of reliable sources, so I've created the article as a stub. FCYTravis 23:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    This article was already bagged twice on articles for deletion in June 2006 and August 2006. Very little has changed since that time. This is clearly not the company's first attempt at spamming. If the competitors articles are similarly spammy, they should be AFDed.Montco 00:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    The company has been the subject of significant reporting by independent sources - I've only got two refs as of now but there's plenty more where they came from. DataSynapse appears to meet WP:CORP, and is a substantial player in its market sector. FCYTravis 00:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    On the DataSynapse, Inc. page there are two third-party references. Both of them are passing mentions. One is from 2005 and the other is a ZDnet blog entry. I hope there is more to be said; otherwise another AfD might succeed. The GridServer and FabricServer articles are so thin and unsourced they might qualify for G11 speedy.EdJohnston 03:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

    Gospel Hall (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    The Gospel Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article (about a sort of religious denomination/affiliation) appears to have been written by members of Gospel Hall assemblies. I have attempted to re-write the article since the previous version read like pieces from letters to the editor by members. But I don't have any familiarity with the subject matter and it will probably need correcting. It would be helpful if other editors would add the article to their watch lists so that any changes that are made can be reviewed by several sets of eyes. Thanks. -- Siobhan Hansa 01:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

    Personality psychology (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    For a psychologist, he doesn't seem to understand the value of subtlety very well, does he? All his linkings look like spam to me, and if that user is indeed the author or the publisher, they're totally COI -- albeit unimaginative and non-prolific COI. --Dynaflow 10:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    Added two pertinent linksearches. — Athaenara 23:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    Most of the links seem to have been removed. Is there any way to do a historical linksearch? --Dynaflow 23:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    I added them in aid of checking for re-addition of COI links. I'd like to know the answer to your question, too. — Athaenara 23:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    The bot that used to have that database is already for quite some time down, otherwise people at WP:WPSPAM could have done that (I'll ask when I see the person who programmed the bot). I have for now added the data to user:COIBot, which will record the additions from now. COIBot does not have connections on user:talentsmart for the last couple of weeks, apparently the link was not added lately (I can't detect plain text additions, would be too much a strain on the wikipedia database). Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra 18:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

    Keyence (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    user: Keyence (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam/UserReports/Keyence)

    Articles
    Links

    User pushes his links and information to articles he is related to, with the excuse the pages already contain similar link/information. --Dirk Beetstra 08:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

    219.127.205.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks like a sock puppet. Note that 219.127.205.65 = fw.keyence.co.jp Erik Warmelink 14:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

    Self-promotion of books by Charles Gidley Wheeler?

    In recent days new editor Chgwheeler has inserted the following template into the "References" and "Further Reading" sections of a number of philosophy articles. He has also inserted similar templates, for other books by Charles Gidley Wheeler, in other articles. Is this kosher? -- WikiPedant 16:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

    Wheeler, Charles Gidley (2004). Basic Flying Instruction, a comprehensive introduction to Western philosophy. iUniverse. ISBN 0-595-32160-7.
    No, it doesnt look kosher at all. Even if he didn't have a conflict of interest, he's spamming "references" without any indication that they're actually being used as such. --Ronz 17:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

    vifsm.org

    User vifsm is adding links to vifsm.org, a site of the Virginia Institute for Forensic Science and Medicine to several forensics related articles. Closer examination shows that the link has also been added by an IP that resolves to VITA, Virginia Information Technologies Agency, http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=!VITA&server=whois.arin.net). Link is only marginally related to the subjects (in short, all universities with a forensics department could add a link to their homepage).

    By:

    Additions save one (on Virginia Institute for Forensic Science and Medicine) have been reverted. Blacklisted and monitored by COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra 22:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    Cardiffbayhostmaster

    I am almost afraid I have a COI here myself, I really like this place. But user:Cardiffbayhostmaster is editing many articles about Cardiff Bay, has created some articles that have apparently already been deleted (Cardiff Bay Visitor Centre), and is adding links to websites relating Cardiff Bay.

    User: Cardiffbayhostmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam/UserReports/Cardiffbayhostmaster)

    User keeps on performing disrupting edits (pointing and vandalism). --Dirk Beetstra 23:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    Resolved. Block log says indefinitely blocked as vandalism-only account. Tearlach 03:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    User:COIBot is monitoring some of the links that were added for the moment to catch IPs performing similar edits. --Dirk Beetstra 08:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


    Only now I create the COIBot link report, I see there has been an account user:Cardiffbay active (for two edits), editing Cardiff Bay.
    --Dirk Beetstra 08:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    Closely related (though I am not sure if it is a sock),

    Cmlc

    For the record. User Cmlc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is editing some articles where the user inserts links to cmlc.org.uk (or changes existing links).

    Edits have been reverted.

    COIBot is watching. --Dirk Beetstra 12:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

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

    • Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Stacy_Meyer (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    • COFS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This editor, understood to be one of several meatpuppet accounts involved in editing scientology related articles, which are organized from the same scientology headquarters. Thus this editor cannot be considered to be "acting independently" or with NPOV. This meatpuppet account has voted in the AfD discussion of the Stacy Meyer article. The article discusses the death of the subject, who was a member of the organization and the daughter of the organization's long-standing and current legal counsel. The scientology organization considers the death of their follower while in their care and within their compound unflattering and negative to its PR interests. Please note this editor has been previously cited for uncivil behavior and operating with a COI, and there is an extensive history regarding this meatpuppet account's activities in attempting to remove or suppress reliably sourced material unflattering to scientology.

    Please also see:

    User_talk:Coelacan#COFS_and_CSI_LA
    Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/COFS
    Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Scientology_sock_puppet_ring_found
    Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser#Can_a_confirmed_case_be_re-listed?
    User_talk:205.227.165.244
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive238#COFS_indef_blocked

    As can be seen, this is a complex issue. I request administator intervention and advice. Orsini 07:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    • No violation There is no "undeclared" about it. COFS' username would clearly indicate a connection and the user self-identifies as a Scientologist on his user page. Combined with the use of the Church proxy we can assume that he is a Church staff member (I do not remember if he said that already). As far as voting on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stacy Meyer; COFS is the first user of the Church proxy to vote there so no COI violation. There is no evidence that the Church proxy users are acting in concert and so the "meatpuppet" charge is unwarranted (the proxy is used by Church members worldwide). I will say that any other editors that are Scientology staff members should not now vote there and should only comment to the extent of adding material not yet presented, not to reinforce material already presented. I mention, of course, that AfD is "not a vote" and if another Church proxy user has something new to contribute then they are welcomed. And finally, Orsini, based on your edit-history, I could as much claim that you are a meatpuppet; one of a number of off-wiki critics of Scientology that work together to present a false "consensus". --Justanother 12:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Clear COI violation - Justanother is a scientologist editor who shows pro-scientology bias, and has a history of supporting other pro-scientology editors who have disrupted Misplaced Pages and violated Misplaced Pages policies in the attempted process of purging Misplaced Pages of any unflattering data about scientology, specifically that which is reliably sourced. To reiterate, I believe a clear COI exists by reason of User:COFS either being a staff member of the scientology organization, or using the resources of it, in attempts to whitewash the image of that organization by the removal of reliably sourced unflattering material about scientology. Again, I request an admin examine the citations above. Orsini 16:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: Its COI because he works for CoS? It seems that you are suggesting that no editor can contribute in their field of expertise without having a COI? Interesting concept, but I'm not sure it flies. Misplaced Pages is open to all contributors. This means that anti-CoS experts are there to counter CoS experts. WP:OR & WP:RS prevent either from adding false information or COI opinion. Sorry, your arguement here does not support your claim of clear violation. At least I don't see it. using your logic, wiki articles can only be written by people with no involvement in the subject matter. He may be biased (I hope he would be) but bias does not equate to COI. Lsi john 16:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    Its COI because he works for CoS? asks Lsi john. How much more of a conflict of interest can there be than with a member of scientology staff attempting to suppress negative information about scientology? And no; I am not suggesting expertise in a subject is a conflict of interest. Please review WP:COI, in particular the last sentence of the first paragraph. Orsini 16:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    • We're not voting here. If the account is run by an employee of the organization, and is trying to improve the organization's image, and at least one other reasonable editor is complaining, then this is a COI situation. I am going to issue warnings, and will follow up by requesting a block of the user persists. Jehochman (/contrib) 18:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I know that we are not voting and I apologize if my bolding made it appear that I thought we were. I bolded to highlight that I wanted to address Orsini's over-statement of the case. The Scientology series is rife with conflict-of-interest; most of it by off-wiki critics of Scientology that act in concert here. That said, I have repeatedly said that the Scientology staff members that edit here must be careful to avoid actual conflicts of interest. I do not think it is a conflict of interest for them to edit in articles that are not directly about their employer, the Church of Scientology and its various branches. So I do not see it as a conflict of interest for a Scientology staff member to edit the Stacy Meyer article or to vote in the AfD. Even though I said elsewise previously, I now think that they should be allowed to vote there but should refrain from editing at all in the Church of Scientology article or those of other arms of their employer. They should limit their editing to talk page discussion in those articles. As far as any claim that they whitewash or remove sourced material; such editing would be disruptive and can be addressed on its own merits. And I will refrain from flipping Orsini's last description of me to point it back at him. Just look at his edit history if you want to know the color of that cat. --Justanother 19:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    • As an additional outside view (ignore as appropriate): With regard to expertise vs possible COI, isn't that a reason to try and come to terms with a user? It may be in the best interest to caution users if necessary, but to alienate them with immediate blocks/warnings doesn't seem like the best idea. Mind you that I'm not involved with CoS or in fact any other religious group, but I'm convinced that even if some COI is obvious, such a user may still be an interesting source of expert knowledge we could use very well, if cautious. —AldeBaer 20:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    User:AldeBaer thank you for the outside view. While I agree that some editors and organizations can be an interesting source of expert knowledge, even where a COI exists for that editor or organization, I think each individual case has to be measured on its merits. If the editor or organization can edit or contribute to the project with reliable and NPOV data, I agree their input can be beneficial. However, this particular organization has a well-earned reputation for maliciously harassing its former members and its critics, and has used both legal and extra-legal means to silence them. The quality and accuracy of data from this particular organization has been repeatadly called into question, and the organization's doctrine calls for all of its members to be active in the elimination and destruction of all material which questions or opposes it. My personal view is that I don't believe this organization can be a reliable contributor to this project. Regards, Orsini 12:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Usually what gets posted at this noticeboard would be (a) the name of a user, and (b) an article. Then we often look at the user's pattern of edits on the article to see if there is some evidence of non-neutrality. I'd say that this is an incomplete nomination, at least by what usually occurs on this noticeboard. Merely listing an AfD in which COFS participated doesn't seem sufficient. (COFS did not edit the actual article on Stacy Meyer, the COI has been made evident in the debate for review by the AfD closer, and we know that an AfD is not a vote anyway). Can someone give us a real article that User:COFS has edited in some way that we could examine for COI? Otherwise, I respectfully suggest that there is not yet a well-formed issue for this noticeboard to consider. EdJohnston 22:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    My apologies EdJohnston, for not following the usual patterns on this noticeboard, and now I know better, I will not repeat that mistake. This was a complicated issue and I was uncertain on how to best proceed or list a complex issue like this one on this noticeboard. After noting your concerns, the Kirstie_Alley article was one article which I was going to cite, however Jehochman has cited it and others already. Perhaps an examination also of Youth_for_Human_Rights_International would satisfy that criteria, and by the Misou account. It should be noted these edits took place before the meatpuppet was blocked. Regards, Orsini 12:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Block Needed I've just dealt out the full range of NPOV warnings for these edits:

    Enough already. This user was previously blocked for abusive sockpuppetry. They are obviously here to push POV and defend Scientology from perceived enemies. The enemies should also be shown the door if they persist in adding their spammy, biased references to Misplaced Pages. Jehochman (/contrib) 02:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Inappropriate "warnings" by Jehochman - The "full range of NPOV warnings" is utterly inappropriate. This editor has not edited since 05:26, 12 May 2007 and ALL your warnings were after that. You have issued one warning, please. And on a COI case that was incomplete and not even decided. What are you up to here? Please remove all except your first warning. Thank you. --Justanother 02:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    Obviously there is a conflict of interest. The point of investigation here is to see whether that amounts to a WP:COI violation. People can have actual conflicts of interest while editing within policy: declare the conflict of interest openly, then post suggested changes along with citations to the relevant article talk pages. If an editor has violated WP:SOCK, WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV then warnings are quite appropriate. I hope Jehochman's warnings succeed. If not I'll issue blocks as necessary. Durova 04:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    Durova, I believe the COI violation has occured with the meatpuppet's entry in the AfD process, in attempts to remove unflattering materials about the meatpuppet's employer by this process. The edits cited above in response to EdJohnston would indicate the COI has been ongoing for some time. Regards, Orsini 12:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    Durova, I am not objecting to a warning. I am objecting to four warnings each escalating on the previous before the editor has even had a chance to see the first warning. The apparency is that the editor ignored all the warning and kept on editing when in actual fact he has not edited since the 1st warning and thus has violated none of the warnings, Surely you do not see using escalating warnings in that manner as appropriate? IMO, it amounts to little more than railroading. --Justanother 05:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    Second the Block Needed
    • I second this Block Needed comment above by astute user, Jehochman (/contrib). For reasons I had further elaborated upon a bit, and posted at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS. Smee 08:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
    • Comment about blocking - please note the citations at the top of the page, which indicated the meatpuppet was placed on indefinate block, then appealed, then had the block reduced. I have asked User:Coelacan to look at the discussion here, as Coelacan was the original investigating admin of the x-puppets. Regards, Orsini 12:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It has been my habit to issue multiple warnings without waiting for the user to read them when I see a user on a determined campaign to spam or push POV. One bad edit could be a mistake. Two is starting to look fishy. Three is bad faith, and so on. If I am wrong, please let me know and I will adjust those warnings. Since the user has previously been blocked for sock puppetry, and had received a COI warning, I don't think we need to give the full range of warnings anyways. This is an experienced user who knows that they shouldn't be pushing POV on Misplaced Pages and making COI edits. Jehochman (/contrib) 13:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    Sabhlok

    Sabhlok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing articles related to Liberalism in India. I noticed the edits when COIBot reported a link-addition by the user. In this edit (diff) a disambiguation page is converted to a 'personal' page: "This encyclopaedia entry is a collaborative web page designed to help Biji's family to explore her history, and to write her biography."

    COIBot is keeping an eye on the situation. --Dirk Beetstra 09:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    Question - is there a way to edit out personal referemnces in such a page? Bearian 14:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    I am not sure what you are asking. Do you mean that we could stub it down and wait for other editors to edit the page? --Dirk Beetstra 15:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    Jtalbot@mac.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Jtalbot@mac.com (talk · contribs) seems to have a conflict of interest in regards to Murad, Inc. and related article Dr. Howard Murad. They both seem a little spammy and could use some eyes looking at them. Thanks, Metros232 16:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    "Seems to have"? A "little" spammy? Metros, you are a master of understatement. This is blatant commercial promotion which in effect hijacks the encyclopedia (see "Corporate vanity policy enforcement"). There should be a {{prod}} template tailored for these. I'll look for one and hope another editor finds and uses it first. — Athaenara ✉ 10:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    Speedied the two articles. Murad, Inc. may be notable enough, but when I would stub it down it would only leave one sentence and one link, maybe it is better written from scratch. Dr. Howard Murad is (was?) a spammy bio. --Dirk Beetstra 10:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    Yippee—{{db-spam}} is the one. — Athaenara ✉ 10:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    Biffeche (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    I'm not sure if this comes under COI, but I'd appreciate other opinions. This is a near-SPA devoted to pressing for the inclusion of mostly unverified material about King Ronald I from the website kingdomofbiffeche.net (though not editing the article itself).

    Recent Talk page contributions - Talk:Biffeche#Bethio and Biffeche - have taken a rather dark tone that would be legal threats if, as I suspect, this user has some connection with King Ronald. Are there grounds for asking for a CheckUser? Tearlach 18:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    Keith Henson (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    See also: Keith Henson section in Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive15.

    HTTP File Server (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    HTTP File Server (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Appears that the main editors of the page thus far have been the developers of it. A recent AfD reached no consensus, but the article was quite spammy. I removed most of the spam and left a caution on the talk page, but a few extra eyes wouldn't hurt here. (If someone can translate the German source brought up at the AfD, it wouldn't be a bad idea to get some third-party material into the article either.) Seraphimblade 01:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    Debbie Kasper

    Article created by Kasperdeb3535 (talk · contribs). (Also an ongoing deletion discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Debbie Kasper Sancho 02:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    Latinguides

    For the record. latinguides (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 190.83.2.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are adding external links or adding information to articles with links to latinguides.com.

    latinguides.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com genteelite.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    COIBot is watching. --Dirk Beetstra 11:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions Add topic