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 03:02, 16 May 2007 editJehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,281 edits →{{userlinks|COFS}}: agreeing with Justanother← Previous edit Revision as of 03:03, 16 May 2007 edit undoJehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,281 edits →{{userlinks|COFS}}: warningNext edit →
Line 324: Line 324:
:*Jehochman, thank you for your efforts and for looking into this matter, and I support your actions in dealing with this issue. Kind regards, ] 14:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC) :*Jehochman, thank you for your efforts and for looking into this matter, and I support your actions in dealing with this issue. Kind regards, ] 14:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
:*Jehochman, I was not able to find much in the way of policy related to the proper use of progressive warnings. However, if you feel that a "final warning" is appropriate then I suggest you remove all your warnings and simply use the Level 4 warning with a "first and only" note (since there is no Level 4im for that issue). That way it does not appear that the user ignored a bunch of warnings and that surely unintentional misrepresentation of the situation is what I object most to. I really do want the Scientology staff members that edit here to come over here and hammer out what they can and cannot do; where they can and cannot edit. I also find your previous comment about showing the door to ] and disruptive critics of Scientology very interesting and even-handed. --] 15:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC) :*Jehochman, I was not able to find much in the way of policy related to the proper use of progressive warnings. However, if you feel that a "final warning" is appropriate then I suggest you remove all your warnings and simply use the Level 4 warning with a "first and only" note (since there is no Level 4im for that issue). That way it does not appear that the user ignored a bunch of warnings and that surely unintentional misrepresentation of the situation is what I object most to. I really do want the Scientology staff members that edit here to come over here and hammer out what they can and cannot do; where they can and cannot edit. I also find your previous comment about showing the door to ] and disruptive critics of Scientology very interesting and even-handed. --] 15:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
:: I've agreed with Justanother and left a single block with an explanation. ] <sup>]</sup> / <sub>]</sub> 03:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC) :: I've agreed with Justanother and left a single <s>block</s> warning (:-D) with an explanation. ] <sup>]</sup> / <sub>]</sub> 03:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
*I don't have much experience with COI blocking or when it's appropriate, so I'll defer that decision to any other admin who'd like to make the call. I was asked to give input here so here's what I see: ] has ''not'' made ] of puppets here. The puppet problem exists where multiple users are being used to ''inflate'' consensus. But I do not see ], ], ], or ] participating in the discussion. So there's no red flag with regard to puppetry. As to whether COFS is pushing too much POV, that's a separate question, upon which I'd rather defer judgment. ··]] 18:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC) *I don't have much experience with COI blocking or when it's appropriate, so I'll defer that decision to any other admin who'd like to make the call. I was asked to give input here so here's what I see: ] has ''not'' made ] of puppets here. The puppet problem exists where multiple users are being used to ''inflate'' consensus. But I do not see ], ], ], or ] participating in the discussion. So there's no red flag with regard to puppetry. As to whether COFS is pushing too much POV, that's a separate question, upon which I'd rather defer judgment. ··]] 18:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


Revision as of 03:03, 16 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.
    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:Bashir Al-Hashimi 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:Charles Martin Castleman 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:Earth Journalism Network Talk:Etraveli Group Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire Talk:Group-IB Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Insight Meditation Society Talk:International Motors Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:Reshma Kewalramani Talk:Khalili Foundation Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician) Talk:QuinStreet Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:Louise Showe Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:TheSoul Publishing Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Uppsala Monitoring Centre 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: 2024-12-08 19:57 (UTC)

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


    Wrigley's Gum campaign

    Resolved

    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)

    See this message, which essentially confirms the COI. See also this subsection about the COI at WikiProject:Dentistry. · jersyko talk 19:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

    I've given her a fresh final warning about advertising. Next time she does any promotional editing, I recommend blocking all of these accounts. She's had more than enough chances to wise up. Jehochman (/contrib) 03:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    The editors seem to be complying nicely, so closing this one. Jehochman / ✔ 20:53, 15 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)
    Update. This COI item was opened on 23 April but is still hanging out on the noticeboard. There is quite a bit of progress, but it's mostly at Talk:MDS America, Talk:MVDDS and Talk:MVDDS dispute. In case we do need to ask for any blocks, it may be worth keeping this one open as a COI item for a while longer. Some of the employees of the respective companies have been helpful with the technology we're trying to describe in the articles. We even got some usable info from an IP at the company that's been yelling at us the most. We have tried to get some COI-affected editors to add better sources to the articles themselves but not much has happened yet. EdJohnston 03:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

    Count Estruc (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    → See also: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Count Estruc.

    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)
    Britzingen's post supports what Tearlach stated in the original report: "I have a suspicion that User:Estruch is actor and author Salvador Sáinz and that this Count Estruc exists exclusively in his fiction." — Athaenara 12:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    In catalan Misplaced Pages this article now is being considered for deletion In Spanish wiki is delete.--Britzingen 17:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

    → See also: Library COI dilemma on COI/N talk page

    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)

    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)

    I tagged this COI SPA's Emotional Intelligence Quick Book with {{db-spam}}. — Athaenara ✉ 23:02, 15 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)
    None of them had been used by other editors as references for article content. More than half of these had been removed before I checked through Chgwheeler's contribs and removed the remaining half dozen or so today. I'll leave the section open a little longer. The user's posts on Talk:Charles Gidley Wheeler suggest that he is beginning to understand the policies and guidelines which apply to what he was doing. — Athaenara 22:12, 15 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:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Scientology sock puppet ring found
    Misplaced Pages 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)
    • The proxy is not used worldwide. COFS and CSI LA both live in Los Angeles. It would be pretty weird if the proxy was worldwide yet the two accounts that originally set off suspicion turned out to be in the same city. CSI LA said the proxy is used by approximately 1,000 people. That number would be a subset of Scientology staff members in Los Angeles. It is quite obviously a local proxy. ··coelacan 18:13, 13 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)
    • Jehochman, thank you for your efforts and for looking into this matter, and I support your actions in dealing with this issue. Kind regards, Orsini 14:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Jehochman, I was not able to find much in the way of policy related to the proper use of progressive warnings. However, if you feel that a "final warning" is appropriate then I suggest you remove all your warnings and simply use the Level 4 warning with a "first and only" note (since there is no Level 4im for that issue). That way it does not appear that the user ignored a bunch of warnings and that surely unintentional misrepresentation of the situation is what I object most to. I really do want the Scientology staff members that edit here to come over here and hammer out what they can and cannot do; where they can and cannot edit. I also find your previous comment about showing the door to WP:SPA and disruptive critics of Scientology very interesting and even-handed. --Justanother 15:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    I've agreed with Justanother and left a single block warning (:-D) with an explanation. Jehochman / ✔ 03:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't have much experience with COI blocking or when it's appropriate, so I'll defer that decision to any other admin who'd like to make the call. I was asked to give input here so here's what I see: User:COFS has not made an inappropriate use of puppets here. The puppet problem exists where multiple users are being used to inflate consensus. But I do not see User:CSI LA, User:Grrrilla, User:Makoshack, or User:Misou participating in the discussion. So there's no red flag with regard to puppetry. As to whether COFS is pushing too much POV, that's a separate question, upon which I'd rather defer judgment. ··coelacan 18:07, 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)

    → See also: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Http file server (last year)

    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)

    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)

    Gordon Bell (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Came to my attention through a self-promotional offsite find that included ...and even has his own page on Misplaced Pages!' Not surprisingly, this thinly substantiated Misplaced Pages bio has quite a few edits from Cgordonbell. At User talk:Cgordonbell the account confirms that this is Gordon Bell himself editing. I have left a message for Professor Bell in conjunction with this report. Request urgent attention so that issues may be resolved before his university marketing/PR lecture later this month. Durova 02:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

    I think the notability is there; he may be the most famous computer designer, in a class with Seymour Cray or Ken Olsen. Someone should add the fact that he turned down the original proposal for DEC to build a personal computer, back around 1973, believing people wouldn't want them. Of course he shouldn't edit his own article without discussion. EdJohnston 02:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    I don't contest the article's notability, but the behavior does appear unseemly, especially the weight the announcement of his lecture gives to the Misplaced Pages biography and the fact that he's planning to speak on PR and marketing. It makes me wonder whether he intends to tell the audience to manipulate Misplaced Pages articles. Durova 08:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    He could include it as an example of how not to go about it. Tearlach 09:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

    How about this - we put up a highly visible notice on the article on our non-tolerance of corporate vanity/paid for editing before the time of the lecture and keep it there for several days so as to get our point across.

    I added a {{coi2}} to the article, by the way. MER-C 13:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

    Bausch & Lomb (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Their contributions are both only to this article. It's hard for me to determine that these users have a conflict of interest, but their edits make me think that they do. Sancho 14:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

    Keep watching. The IP seems to relate to SUNY, so that's probably not a corporate COI account. The article is terrible. It's very one sided negative. I can see why somebody would want to try to balance things. Jehochman / ✔ 15:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

    Transnistria (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    → See also: Linksearch for *.tiraspoltimes.com

    Sockpuppeteer User:MarkStreet who is editor of Tiraspol Times, confirmation of identity to Jayig (at that time, the link http://tiraspoltimes.com/aboutus.html mentioned MarkStreet's name with a link back at his Misplaced Pages userpage), known also with the name Mark us street, with known sockpuppets Henco, Esgert, Truli, Buffadren is edit-warring for long time in Transnistria-related articles in Misplaced Pages, one of main activities being to include refference at his webpage "Tiraspol Times" in Misplaced Pages , defending the credibility of "Tiraspol Times" , voting for the inclusion of a link to "Tiraspol Times" and in general promoting in Misplaced Pages the POV of necesity of international recognition of Transnistria's independence like "Tiraspol Times" is doing (note: Tiraspol is the capital of Transnistria). I consider that a conflict of interest exist and MarkStreet/Buffadren and all his sockpuppets should be banned to edit Transnistria-related articles in Misplaced Pages.--MariusM 19:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

    I have put the link on COIBot's monitor list and blacklisted MarkStreet against the link. I guess blacklisting all the sockpuppets against the link is going to be useless. --Dirk Beetstra 12:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    Block as many sockpuppets as you can. Bearian 16:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

    The Hershberg Diet (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    I added a {{db-spam}} and a {{coi}} to it.
    COIBot already saw the additions. --Dirk Beetstra 18:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you. Let me know if I need to do anything else? 207.107.246.140 20:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

    McGhee-Mangrum Inventory of School Adjustment (MISA) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    McGhee-Mangrum Inventory of School Adjustment (MISA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Five Factor Personality Inventory - Children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Token Test for Children - 2nd Edition (TTFC-2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


    RLM2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    The three articles describe recently published psychology tests that all have as an author Ronnie L. McGhee. This person's initials coincide with those of RLM2007. Both RLM2007 and 168.10.112.2 have added multiple links to these tests to psychology, counselling and speech-language articles, for example including the tests as "prominent examples" (a phrase that was there already).. RML2007's edits appear to have a single purpose at present.

    I wrote a note on RLM2007's talkpage inquiring if they were McGhee and pointing to the conflict of interest and spam guidelines. There has been no response and indeed another article was created and the link adding has continued unabated. I note that RLM2007 signed as Carol Phillips School Psychologist, at one point, however. I would be glad of some advice and help at this point. Slp1 21:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

    Gerry Cohen (director) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    This appears to be an autobiography of Theguvnorgc, and I have notified the User of my suspicions. The user's name seems to be a contraction of The-governor-Gerry-Cohen. This may also be the use of a sockpuppet. Bearian 23:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

    Shaun Pizzonia (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    This article appears to have been created and/or edited by its subject, Sting International (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Shaun is also known as Sting International, according to the article. Bearian 23:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

    I've prod'ed the article and left a uw-coi warning for the editor. That's what to do in simple cases like this. If prod fails, then AfD. If the editor persists, an administrator may issue a block. Jehochman / ✔ 03:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    Categories: