Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:26, 23 September 2008

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

Possible autobiographies found by bot

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

Requested edits

• Category:Requested edits.  Editors who believe they have a Conflict of Interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should undo the {{Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requestor to explain your decision.

Jonathan Bishop

The subject of the article and a bunch of obvious sock/meetpuppets are edit warring to spin this thing out of control. At the moment they want a succession box for his "office" as a community council member. For those who don't know, community councillors are normally elected unopposed and are the political equivalent of the PTA. Further, who he succeeded as community councillor is unverifiable. This is the latest in a succession of COI edits and spin. The article is being owned for promotional reasons.--Troikoalogo (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Still edit waring for preferred style on his own biography. Despite talk page consensus against him .--Troikoalogo (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• The article states that someone with a conflict of interest may of edited it. I don't disguise my identity, so people can clearly see which edits have been made by me - my interest in the article has been declared through the notable Wikipedian tag. What they can't see is the conflicts of interests of the other editors, who are of a different political persuasion to me, who are trying to discredit me, by deleting the article about me a piece at time. If you check the edit histories of the people that have edited the talk page, many of them have only edited the article about me, and many of them only started when an online community consisting mainly of Liberal Democrats (I'm Labour & Co-op) asked its members to vandalise the page about me. Of course I have an interest in ensuring the article about me is accurate, as others to in discrediting, defaming and diluting me --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The tag is there to alert other editors to a problem; the tag is not the solution to the problem. The solution to the problem is that you stop editing the article. No one would object if you limited your edits to removing false or insulting statements. But you are adding material that many editors think exaggerates your accomplishments. It gives the appearance that you are using Misplaced Pages as a way of promoting yourself. It's best to back off, avoid adding anything, and limit yourself to edits that remove objectionable material.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the history and Talk, I think the whole article needs a spot of independent attention, as there are a number of other single- and narrow-purpose accounts involved...

• ColonelBuendia99 (talk · contribs)
• Pontyboy (talk · contribs)
• Cardydwen (talk · contribs)
• Politicool (talk · contribs)
• Pontyslapper (talk · contribs)

... who all appear to have some political affiliation/antagonism perhaps close enough to be COI. It'd go a lot more smoothly if they all backed off and left it to editors who don't feel hot about the topic. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have done a short survey of the articles about other University of Glamorgan Alumni articles. The Sue Bale article does not have her employer referenced. The Kevin Brennan (politician) article does not have his education and career referenced, nor does the article about Lorna Dunkley reference her early biography. Mention is made of referencing my Circle of Friends invention, whereas there is no citation of the claimed greatest novel of Dan Rhodes. The Darren Morris article doesn't have any references at all, nor does Catherine Thomas, which also has a succession box. It seems to me that the article about me is undergoing some unfair level of scrutiny. People are removing content from this article, while similar content remains on others. I believe there needs to be action taken by administrators to ensure that notable living people, and not deleted, diluted or defamed by editors not acting in the best interest of Misplaced Pages's readers. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Rubbish. There has been no "defamation" here. Merely people removing unverifiable assertions and general puffery designed to make you look good. There's nothing negative in this article, and no-one suggesting there should be, it's just that we want it to be neutral and not over-egg the cake, as it were. CV are for spinning every achievement to make it look like a noble peace prize, wikipedia articles are not. (Oh and I suspect sock/meet puppetry here, but I could be wrong).--Troikoalogo (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just toned down the lead, removing 'influential' and 'noted' (replaced that with 'known'). After all, Kevan Brennan isn't called influential in the lead. :-)Doug Weller (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Almost immediately after I removed 'influential', JB posted to my talk page, and a few minutes later it was back. Doug Weller (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And I've never seen a signature before with a link to the editor's web page. Can I do that too? :-) Doug Weller (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, please don't. I've requested that he remove the link from his signature. --Versageek 18:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, should have put in a smiley. Doug Weller (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is problematic - all the sources seem self-authored or self-published. Past claims that Bishop is an important figure in the evolution of various fields of the Internet seem unsupported (and a search for sources came up fruitless). As now written the article is plausible in saying Bishop is a respected IT professional, but that is only borderline as far as suggesting notability. It seems to go awfully deep into resume-type items. Were the article to evolve on its own vie edits from disinterested editors (assuming people had the urge to do so) the tone and focus would probably be a lot more like a typical Misplaced Pages biographical article. Wikidemon (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've spent some time looking at this, and am convinced that the claim to have developed a core technology for organizing online communities (the circle of friends claim) is another example of puffery. Apparently, circle of friends was a feature of a website that Bishop developed in 1999; it is similar to features in later websites such as Friendster. This similarity is used to make claims that these later websites used Bishop's technology (see the third sentence in the Friendster article). The two sources for this claim are written after the claim first appeared in Misplaced Pages, and it seems likely the WP article served as the source for these sources. My view is that the Circle of Friends (social network) article should be deleted, since it appears to have already created some mischief. Any thoughts?--Anthon.Eff (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite likely. It should go. Doug Weller (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination is here: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Circle_of_Friends_(social_network).--Anthon.Eff (talk) 22:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The article Jonathan Bishop most likely should also be deleted. Mr. Bishop seems to be a good, intelligent, and productive person, but he just doesn't seem to meet the threshold for a WP article. I can't find anything that makes him more exceptional than the many good, intelligent, and productive people that I interact with every day, none of whom have a WP article. The article has been nominated for deletion twice, but in the previous nominations it was not clear the extent to which the article had served as a vehicle for advancing Mr. Bishop's own career, and the extent to which Mr. Bishop and SPAs had edited it. Is there any support for deletion?--Anthon.Eff (talk) 10:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The following claim (in the Jonathan Bishop article) to have invented a technology known as 'Circle of Friends' is what bothers me:

A graduate of Cardiff School of Art & Design (1998) Bishop established early presence in online communities, through his employment at Trefforest-based Broadway Studios, where he was managed by professional photographer Steve Powderhill when he developed the Circle of Friends technique for social networking during 1999, applying it to websites that preceded the existence of Friendster.

If there were a way to get this claim removed (or properly sourced to knowledgable outsiders who recognize his claim, which seems unlikely to occur) then the article might deserve to be kept. The underlying problem was well stated by Anthon.Eff in his AfD nomination of Circle of Friends (social network). EdJohnston (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Watching from the sidelines for a bit, I'll agree that there is some inherent feel of notability missing from this article. I can't place my finger on it, but somehow it just doesn't feel right. MBisanz 14:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at edit histories, the article, its Talk page and both previous AFDs look deeply compromised by multiple SPAs. Troikalogo just asked me if there are sufficient grounds for asking for CheckUser. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is that after the Circle of Friends claim has been disposed of, the PARLE e-learning system is left as Mr. Bishop's sole possible claim to notability. But the system is not widely implemented--in fact, there is no evidence that it is implemented at all. For all we know, it could be purely conceptual, or a piece of software in a very imperfect alpha stage. These concerns have been raised before. It seems more than likely that puffery is at work here, just as it was with Circle of Friends.

As for CheckUser--several editors have already voiced suspicions about sock/meatpuppets, so it seems it would be appropriate to run the check. There is a related case here.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the AfD. It's here: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Bishop_(3rd_nomination). --Anthon.Eff (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Missouri State High School Activities Association

MSHSAA (talk · contribs) - Removed criticism from article. The username is the initials of the association, making an obvious conflict of interest. Crossman33 (talk) 03:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A discussion on the editor's Talk page as well as a uw-coi warning, might help. Corvus cornix_talk 21:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering the removal of the criticism was done back in feb(and has been reverted), and MSHSAA has not edited since then, i think that its safe to say no action needed here--Jac16888 (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Proven COI editor inserting promotion into d'Alembert's paradox

• Article under issue: D'Alembert's paradox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Main user with COI: Egbertus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_26#promotion_efforts_at_d.27Alembert.27s_paradox_and_.22related.22_articles for the clear evidence and admission of COI.

Despite claiming to know better than to pursue COI edits to this article, Egbertus has just re-inserted a link to his Knol page after already having been told this was against Misplaced Pages practice. He seems to think that the Google ranking of his Google Knol page (#3 according to him, although I cannot be replicate this even if it were relevant) makes it OK for him to do so.

He has already been warned countless times that this is not allowed and been warned about repercussions. I left a warning in the edit summary of my reversion also. It's time for some admin to step in and leave an actual stern warning on his user page. And it's time that someone actually did something here instead of continuing this to go on. This editor should have been blocked a long time ago. --C S (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Since this editor has been warned several times since August 5th about spamming his own work to Misplaced Pages, and has previously been blocked for 3RR, and has kept on going regardless, I have blocked him for one week. I invite review of the block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

See also this, where Johnson admits that Visitor22 (c.q. Visitor222) is Hoffman and Egbertus is Johnson, the authors of the inserted COI material. -- Crowsnest (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Johnson does not seem to be very satisfied with Misplaced Pages. The above Knol is titled: "Misplaced Pages Inquisition". -- Crowsnest (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps one day Knol will notice that sole-author articles aren't necessarily credible, if they don't have to undergo any community scrutiny. They have no referees, they have no community input, it's what you would end up with if all academic authors could submit their papers into journals with no review whatever. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the link that is the issue - in the knol, he claims that what he inserted _was_ a reference to a publication in a refereed journal, this contradicts your "they have no referees" and I'd like to know just what is going on. --Random832 (contribs) 18:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

They are claiming to have solved an historic problem in mathematical physics (D'Alembert's Paradox). So far, they are the only ones who see their work as a solution. They were arguing that it was enough that their paper was accepted for publication, and that this proves the point. Regular editors asked to see any third-party confirmation that they had solved the famous problem. (So far nothing has been offered). References to their paper were being repeatedly spammed on Misplaced Pages, against talk page consensus. There is more background on this in the previous COI report linked above, at WT:WPM, and at Talk:D'Alembert's paradox. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sylvester Braithwaite

--Jac16888 (talk) 00:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sylvester Braithwaite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - written almost exclusively by Nonameplayer (talk · contribs) who the author link on Image:Sylvester Braithwaite.jpg and other publicly available sources suggest is related to the subject. McWomble (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonameplayer has admitted the relationship to the subject and has expressed intent to stay within guidelines. I don't think anything further is needed. Arakunem 20:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

George Reece and User:Imogen Stile

• George Reece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) User:Imogen Stile is determined to create and maintain the article about this obscure UK singer/songwriter. His private recording label is: Imogen Records! I can find no evidence that there is a person by that name, but it's not quite blatant enough for UAA reporting, I fear. Orange Mike | Talk 15:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Roberttheman2008 and The SNES Game Maker

Roberttheman2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has inadvertently admitted to having taken some major involvement in a software article The SNES Game Maker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) at the article's AfD discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The SNES Game Maker, which is having known the person who is creating the software. MuZemike (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Note — A request for comment for user conduct has been initiated for said user. MuZemike (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Teabonesix and Super Mario for MegaZeux

Teabonesix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created the video game Super Mario for MegaZeux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), in which he/she is also editing the article. The article has many problems and was just nominated for deletion after a contested PROD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Super Mario for MegaZeux. MuZemike (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Tlaverty and Tom Laverty

Tlaverty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), presumably the musician himself, created and has made over half of the edits to his biography. In addition, notability is questionable. Non-affiliated sources are thin and are not what the article is based on. Stealthound (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think notability questionable, AfD is the place to get it decided. No opinion on whether or not it is--I have not the least knowledge about this type of subject. DGG (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have never initiated an AFD, how is that done? Stealthound (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:AfD footer has the instructions. MER-C 13:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tom Laverty. MER-C 05:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

User:CLinden

CLinden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continually editing the article Charles Linden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), in which they are also heavily advertising a product sold by a company owned the person in question. I would ask for assistance in this matter, as this is not the first time the user has been warned about COI. Thankyou. 90.213.123.55 (talk) 11:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I was signed out. Colliver55 (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)I would also like to add that the article is based on citations from the actual company, and contains no impartial citations. It is seriously flawed. Colliver55 (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

AFD would seem the proper first step for dealing with this article. if kept, we can then consider the content. DGG (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi I have placed the deletion tag on the article. If anyone objects (which I am certain they will), we can take it from there. Thankyou. Colliver55 (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, your AfD nomination is incomplete. It will likely be procedurally de-listed unless the process is completed (following the steps as shown in the Deletion notice). Arakunem 16:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've created the necessary pages. Colliver55, if you go to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Charles Linden (2nd nomination) you can fill in the reason you propose deletion; I've moved your comment there from the first Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Charles Linden, which is now closed.

PS: I also removed a large chunk of copyvio from the Birmingham Post. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

COI problem with Daniel Garlitsky

It appears that the article Daniel Garlitsky is being written by the subject, User talk: Garlitsky. The article is overflowing with peacock words as well. I've added the COI and pressrelease tags only to have them deleted (without comment or discussion) by the editor. I've tried to explain why I added the tags and why they should be left until the problem is addressed. Rob Banzai (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Problem resolved. Editor made improvements. Rob Banzai (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

COI with Rjm7730

Rjm7730 recently edited Tucker Max to add original research (unsourced commentary about a lawsuit), Max's lawyers' names, and a link to Richard J Mockler's biography, one of the lawyers. Since the username in question is 'Rjm' and the lawyer is named Richard J Mockler, I assume there is a COI for him to add original research and his name to the article (contribs: ] Theserialcomma (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there's certainly a COI since he has essentially admitted the connection. But COI or not, original research is a big no-no in a BLP anyway. Also, I would ask you to keep WP:BITE in mind... I'm sure a lawyer who's not a regular editor would be quite puzzled that cited court documents may not meet the standards of WP:RS and WP:V, and RJM does appear to be trying to adhere to the policies once explained to him. Beyond that, things seem to be proceeding as they should for a COI issue. You may want to bring it up on WP:BLPN if you've not already done so. Arakunem 15:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, it seems that the reporting editor violated WP:OUTING, as seen in this dif. McJeff (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Eric Craig

Ericcraigis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inoneearandoutyourmother (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
67.155.98.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
76.90.121.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor Ericcraigis says he is Eric Craig (see summary). This person was a guitar player for The Cunninghams and is Director of A&R for Lakeshore Records. He started articles on these three subjects and is the major contributor to all three. The account Ericcraigis appears to have stopped editing and Inoneearandoutyourmother started soon after, doing the same sort of edits as Ericcraigis. After Eric Craig was deleted it was twice recreated by Inoneearandoutyourmother. Editor repeatedly removes tags from these articles without giving any reasons and was repeatedly readding incorect information about Queens of the Stone Age (Talk:Lakeshore Records). Duffbeerforme (talk)

User:GodsAndMortals and Gods And Mortals MMORPG

• GodsAndMortals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gods And Mortals MMORPG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is an obvious COI here. User has been notified and article tagged. MuZemike (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Also see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gods And Mortals MMORPG. MuZemike (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, no question of the COI. Watching the AfD now, but it seems to be headed to a predictable result. Arakunem 20:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Tin House

Though not an egregious case of COI, I thought I would make note of:

• ESUOHNIT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tintern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and

• Justanintern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who are adding content and articles on the authors who are published by Tin House Books. Katr67 (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles created by these accounts:

• Keith Lee Morris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Adam Braver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lucy Corin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Win McCormack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jim Krusoe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lucia Nevai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not sure about the notability of these but it's best to wait for a little while for some are still {{underconstruction}}. MER-C 07:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a couple of those would pass notability if more sources were found, and the users are not overtly making the articles sound like advertisements. However since I noticed that most of these authors have only had book-length work published by Tin House Books, which itself may not be notable (Tin House is notable, is their publishing arm?), I am bit suspicious. Other sources obviously need to found. Katr67 (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Justanintern, ESUOHNIT and 76.105.140.131 are continuing to edit. I've attempted to communicate with him/her and s/he has been informed of this discussion. Katr67 (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Leonardollockett and So Was It Worth The Price That He Paid?

• Leonardollockett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• So Was It Worth The Price That He Paid? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User is the author of the book described in the article. Article is currently up for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/So Was It Worth The Price That He Paid?. However, it is believed that this user trying to game the system by moving the page multiple times in an attempt to shirk the deletion process (see , . , ). MuZemike (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

All deleted, user warned. TravellingCari 21:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

BoA

Recently, Whotheman2006 has been removing sourced content from the BoA article. The content in question is BoA's influences, among whom are Britney Spears and Janet Jackson (and this is according to her official online website). Whotheman2006 keeps removing Britney Spears and Janet Jackson from the list of BoA's influences because (he says) it will lead to BoA's being compared with "that skank". (See his side of the conversation on my talk page.) As far as I know, there is no good reason to remove that content from the article. Ink Runner (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really a COI, unless Whotheman2006 has some relation to BoA. He's got some strong opinions on her article, to be sure, but this is mainly a content dispute. In addition, I've left him a message regarding some rather uncivil comments. I recommend discussing on the article's talk page, which is a better place than on individual user talk pages, as it gets more eyes on the issue and helps to build a consensus. If you are unable to resolve the dispute there, the next steps can be found here. Arakunem 18:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. BTW - civility issues and motives aside - Whotheman2006 appears to be correct. The official site doesn't explicitly list these artists as influences. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

User: EMIClassics

This user keeps editing articles on musicians who have CDs or are about to have CDs relased on the EMIClassics label (example: Joyce DiDonato). The content added is mostly copy pasted press releases from the either Artist Management websites or the EMI website. i have warned this user on the talk page but they continue with these edits.Nrswanson (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Douglas Romayne - COI

This article appears to be a COI under the Misplaced Pages standard, as it appears to be an autobiography that has been posted by user Bleu Jean Management and a user with the IP addrss 216.86.198.37. Bleu Jean Management is this persons management company, and writing an article about someone you are in bussiness with is a direct violation of the Misplaced Pages COI rules.

Also the section on "Albums" is a blatent attempt for self promotion, because it send people to iTunes, MovieScore Media and CD Baby where the CD can be purchased. The quotes provided are also the type of quotes that would be used in a promotional package, not a enyclopedia.

Harbhajan Singh Yogi

• Harbhajan Singh Yogi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk · contribs)

Distinctly rose-tinted article about Yogi Bhajan, which underwent a major expansion early this year and continuing edits since, via a SPA editor who appears to be a close disciple - see Who is Guru Fatha Singh? ("Guru Fatha Singh met Yogi Bhajan, master of Kundalini Yoga and spiritual director of the 3HO Foundation, later that year. Soon after, he received from him his new spiritual name and began his decades-long tutelage under the master's expert eye"). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa has replied , and there's definite cause for concern: "I wrote the article and happen to be the best authority on the life of Yogi Bhajan, as I am currently writing his biography". Which makes him ideal for identifying sources, except he doesn't currently "get" the problem with original research ("I have personally spoken with the former High Commissioner and found that he held Yogi Bhajan in high regard"). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

List of a-ha awards

Regarding site: http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_a-ha_awards

Regarding dispute with: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Be_Black_Hole_Sun

|a-ha awards}} - Hi. Regarding the dispute I have with " Be Black Hole Sun " on the a-ha awards page. I have tried to explain to him or her my view on the issue, however " Be Black Hole Sun " keeps reverting my edits and is not willing to accept my view. This person only wants to include what he / she calls notable awards, while i want to inlcude all known awards a-ha has won. My problem with this is that I can't see how this person can dictate what a notable awards is and what is not. In my view, a won award is an award and i can't see how it can be a problem to include the awards on the list. I can't see how it can bother anyone. In my view, the article can only become better, including as much relevant information as possible. I have tried to explain to "Be Black Hole Sun " my view, but the person does not tolerate a different view. An adittional probblem to this is that " Be Black Hole Sun " reverts back to an even older version and the info on the page gets messed up ( numbers of total awards in the grid window etc ) I would appreciate your input on how to solve this. Mortyman (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi there, i'd like to become an admin, however user:Gogo Dodo strongly opposes.........If i nominate myself, id like assurances that there will be no backlashes from him or his fellow admins. . . .--Iva*Siwela (talk) 05:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate board. Please read the explanation at the top. WP:ANI is probably more appropriate, though even then... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

SPA account GCA-Info (talk) spewing non-notable bios

See his talk page for AfD'd bios he produced. VasileGaburici (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles created by this user:

• Games Convention Asis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Maxime Villandre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) → Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Maxime Villandre
• Dan Scott (Game developer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) → Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dan Scott (Game developer)
• Ole Thongsrinoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) → Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ole Thongsrinoon
• Jon Niermann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) → deleted A7

There's a very likely COI here as GCA stands for "Games Convention Asis". MER-C 13:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Left a COI notice on his talk page. Notability issues aside, the article he wrote don't seem excessively promotional, though a couple of peacock words would need to be excised. We'll see what happens at the AfD's and can tweak those that survive. Arakunem 14:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

User left a message for me in response to the COI temp. He says he now understands the rules better and will make changes accordingly. He has in fact made a few changes to the Ad-tagged articles and has asked for feedback on the respective talk pages. I feel good-faith from this editor and invite feedback on his contributions (as he has requested as well). Arakunem 14:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Los Angeles County Museum of Art

• Los Angeles County Museum of Art
• 66.218.40.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sunkyokim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LACMAadmin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

please see this note to my talk page explaining exactly what they're doing. I'm going to try and explain it again but another voice may help. TravellingCari 19:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

See specifically, this edit:

Hello

The press office at LACMA will be making multiple updates to the wiki page. Please do not delete these edits. Our team here at the museum will be overseeing the page on a daily basis.

Best, Karla, Marketing and Press Coordinator, LACMA, kbraun@lacma.org

Ouch! Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Subtle, isn't it. Just added another account. Going off line so can't play whack a mole. Will be back in the evening to help if you all haven't managed to resolve it. I think it's in good hands though. Thanks! TravellingCari 20:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems to stink of WP:OWN. MuZemike (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• See also Contemporary Projects (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and now deleted Contemporary Projects more copyvio spam. It's going to take forever to find all the spam I think. TravellingCari 03:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

ERG Group

• ERG Group
• Special:Contributions/203.23.27.1
• Special:Contributions/Deepfraught

A lot of text has recently been dumped into this article by an IP address belonging to the company itself, and by User:Deepfraught who has no other edits and I think is the same as 203.23.27.1.

The text certainly has the tone of something lifted from a corporate document and so may be a copyvio in addition to being too detailed and the wrong tone for WP.

ERG has recently been in the news because of an acrimonious contract dispute with CityRail. Providing more context about other aspects of ERG is fair but this is too much.

I'm not sure how to approach what may be well-intentioned edits and would appreciate guidance. I have no connection to ERG myself. Subsolar (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

CyberLink Corp.

• CyberLink Corp. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• YouCam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• CyberLink Media Server (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• CyberLink SoftDMA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• PowerDirector (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• PowerDVD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editors

• Menschenfressender Riese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nick Saunders (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Stubydo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

CyberLink and it's products are being spammed into wikipedia. Product articles are taking the form of datasheets (listing specifications and features) that are used to advertise products. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted those articles, and a few more related ones, that were blatant advertising (CSD G11). If anybody disagrees, except for the COI editors above, please let me know and I will recreate them for you. Meanwhile, I think the above three accounts may be sock puppets because their editing fits together chronologically and they are indistringuishable from one another. All appear to be single purpose COI accounts. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nick Saunders. Jehochman 11:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

A bunch of socks were found and indef blocked. I think this matter is now resolved. Thank you, Duffbeerforme, for your work on this case! Jehochman 23:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Greenplum

User:Luke Lonergan is chief tech officer and co-founder of the above corporation. He wrote an article with no assertions of notability, somebody else nominated it as a nn corp, I deleted it. His only edits have been to abuse me for deleting it, to say that if I think he has a COI then he'll instruct somebody else to make his arguments for him, and to insert references to Greenplum and Greenplum products into other articles. He doesn't seem to take the concept of COI very seriously. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Limmy

Limmy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - New user Dlimond has made repeated edits which, depending on how they are viewed, would seem to be vandalism, contravene either WP:COI, WP:BLP and probably all three. The edits focus not on the subject of the article, but a relative, and are not very complementary. juux ☠ 11:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's patent defamation and must stay out of the article. Bump an admin if it happens again. MER-C 14:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to tell anyway what's going on. Could be plain vandalism. Could be Limmy himself trying to generate Wikidrama by trolling with a fictional persona (since his podcasts involve playing with different personas). Easiest just to treat as plain WP:BLP breach until more information, if any, is forthcoming. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I left a 3RR warning for Dlimond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but there is precedent for giving such an account an indef block as a vandal-only account. Let's see if he reverts again. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Simple Plan

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

I would like to know if this constitutes a COI. At the Simple Plan article there is an editor who knows the band in real life, his relationship is thus that he gets free passes to the band's shows. This relationship seems to be effecting his willingness to allow NPOV statements to be included the article. An archive of his talk page shows that he previously quit the WikiProject centering around this band in order to avoid COI concerns. There also comments at another user's talk page detailing his relationship with the band. I have tried discussing the issue with the editor but no progress has been made. Aurum ore (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I filled in the header with the article name and the user names. This band is so famous they have their own Wikiproject, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Simple Plan. I have notified User:Wehwalt that he's being discussed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the band. I edit the Simple Plan article because of my liking of the band. If this is a COI concern please ignore this comment. However, I know that editors tend to edit articles with subject matters that interest them; I know that most editors can edit without bias. Wehwalt is one such editor that is acting without a bias. Your fixation, Aurum one, with adding the 'Emo' genre into the article is the reason for this report. I would like to remind you that your two (very flimsy) sources are in an extreme minority. Faced with hundreds of articles reporting the band to be pop punk, your opinion can not be included in the article. Sorry. Please stop acting childish. -- Poe Joe (Talk) 18:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Poe Joe sums it up well. I am a fan of the band who has become a "friend of the band", I see them at the shows, I rarely to never see them away from the venue, and who they put on the guest list. I should add that I can well afford to pay for a ticket, and that my travel expenses (which I pay) to get to the shows are many times the cost of a ticket. I can't imagine that for a $30 ticket, I have bought a COI. All this is disclosed on SP's talk page, and I believe on my talk page archives. Any conflict (I don't think there is) has been adequately disclosed. Aurum ore's theory, if he has one, is simply nuts. I'm not even clear on how he is saying there is a COI, unless he says I can be bought so cheaply. I am a fan, and take an interest in the band, and as Poe Joe says, people edit what they are interested in.

Editors are free to look through my edits to the SP and related articles; they are uniformly NPOV and aimed at improving the articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wehwalt and Poe Joe, I know your feelings on the matter, and I know my feelings on the matter. I have come here to get an outside opinion. I should have notified you that you were being discussed here, and for that I apologize. Aurum ore (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

From your discussion here, and an admittedly brief look over the article an its talk page, i don't think that this can be classed as a COI, rathers its simply an edit conflict about whether to call them emo or pop punk, and you need to stop changing it, leave it as it is until your debate is resolved. If i can be so bold as to make a suggestion for a solution to this conflict though, why not a compromise. On the talk page you say there are sources for either, why not put change the header to something like "Simple Plan is a French Canadian pop punk<ref>/Emo<ref> band. If you are willing to make such a compromise, it would solve all the drama, and save you all from a lot of tension--Jac16888 (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I personally never meant to imply that I wanted "pop punk" to be removed. I'd be perfectly happy to have them both listed since there are references for each. Aurum ore (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE. Again, your flimsy sources are in an extremely small minority when faced with the hundreds of reliable sources calling them pop punk. 'Emo' must not be included as a genre. -- Poe Joe (talk) 02:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) First of all, this is not the place for you to be having this discussion, and secondly, if you're not willing to compromise over something so trivial, this is likely to get dragged on for a long time--Jac16888 (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Poe Joe, again I am already aware of your stance. This is not the place to discuss our personal views on the subject, that's what the talk page is for. I am here solely for other editor's opinions as to whether Wehwalt's previous comments constitute a COI. Aurum ore (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Not so. In view of the fact that Aurum ore began this discussion by alleging that I was not willing to "allow NPOV edits", Poe Joe is certainly within his rights to acquaint other editors as to what the matter in dispute is. And Jac16888, you made a proposal on this page relevant to the content; certainly Poe Joe is within his rights to respond.

Aurum ore has acknowledged that I have disclosed on talk page, which is the proper way of handling such things. I very much question the way that Aurum ore has gone about this. Deep in a content dispute in which he has failed to convince any other editor, either myself or Poe Joe (who certainly has no COI), he makes an issue of this disclosed matter. Aurum ore, incidently, has used this techniques of invoking questionable reviews as RS to add "emo" to the genre of at least one other band, New Found Glory through tendentious edits. And aside from the current content dispute, in which no regular editor of the page has agreed with him, he cannot point to a single edit made by me which is inconsistent with WP policies.

WP:COI says that "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban." There is no there there in Aurum ore's arguments, who appears to be in full flown retreat since now he is saying that he just wants a second opinion. Dragging the name of another WP editor through this board is not acceptable without a solid basis for doing so, and he doesn't have any basis--other than the possibility that I can be bought for a thirty dollar concert ticket. That's not a sustainable position. But any stick works to beat a dog.

I'd really like an uninvolved admin to look at this, and see if Aurum ore should be topic blocked on the subject of music for misuse of this page. I also note that he did not notify me of the allegations he was making against me, another editor had to do that. While I like to AGF, the assumption can be worn away, and given Aurum ore's words and conduct, it is hard to AGF with him/her anymore.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wewhalt, the COI guideline suggests first approaching the editor directly on the matter, which I have at Simple Plan's talk page. It then suggests bringing the matter either here or to WP:DR. I am not trying to gain an upper hand in a content dispute. Simple Plan is not linked to WP:NPOVD, which is what content dispute redirects to on the COI article. I am perfectly willing to discuss the matter with other editors such as Poe Joe, and have even continued to discuss the matter with you at the Talk Page after bringing the matter here. Aurum ore (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's unorthodox to discuss music genres here on this page. But it's not the first time this problem has come up on Misplaced Pages. Can you tell us, briefly, how you think music genre disputes ought to be settled? Do you know of any successful examples where you think a genre issue was correctly laid to rest using reliable sources? (If this discussion gets too verbose we can move it elsewhere, but I personally would like to know the answer). EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I asked Aurum ore to get some news articles in which Simple Plan is called emo. I think that there has to be a threshold showing of news coverage (or articles on the band, not opinion reviews in other words) in which the band is called by the second genre. I would say that if he can come up with a significant number of such articles, or, since band genres and also terminology shift over time, a smaller number from a discrete period of time, then I'd tend to accede to a second genre, with the location of the mention within the article to be negotiated. I'm thinking that if 20 percent of news articles/feature articles on the band mention the proposed genre, that would be good enough. But reviews are opinions, necessarily so, and I can't give them weight. Unhappily, Aurum ore chose to stand on the review articles he posited, and did not respond to my request. If it's less than 20 percent (I'd even make it 15), then I think it falls under WP:UNDUE. I can't give you an example of genre disputes that were resolved, because I mostly don't follow such things. It was Aurum ore's assertions that emo should be listed coequally with pop punk when I follow the news coverage of SP reasonably closely and I know that news articles always call them pop punk that brought me into this.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

One thing we might want to do is move the question of whether CD reviews are considered RS over to the RS noticeboard.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wehwalt and Poe Joe, I have tired to be very courteous to you throughout our discussions. I have never insulted you or your viewpoints, so please do not continue to insult mine. You never requested that I find additional references to back up my statement (the closest you got was asking: where are all the newspaper reports that call SP emo? You never indicated that offering more references would have any effect on your opinion. A statement you made on Poe Joe's talk page when you asked him to join the discussion indicated that you intended on prolonging the dispute until I went away rather than engaging in meaningful discussion.

Typically they get discouraged or else bored and go away after a while.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Aurum ore (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is not only false, it is demonstrably false. Here are some quotes from our discussion:

". In a nutshell--you have a couple of reviews that call them emo, which may or may not be RS, it doesn't matter. But I'm looking at the news stories on the recent tour, and news article after news article calls them pop punk and doesn't call them emo.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)"

"According to WP:UNDUE, small minority views (which you seem to admit yours is, they are the views of individual reviewers, you have two of them, and one refers to the music on the first two CDs) are not to be given space on WP. Reviews are close to personal opinion, which are not to be used for WP:RS except under limited conditions that don't apply here, where are all the newspaper reports that call SP emo? Here's a few of the recent ones that call them pop punk! I'm in a hurry or I'd put in more. (there are many more, and news articles are far more reliable than reviews) I would hesitate to call your UK source a "major component of the mainstream media", leaving a brief Rolling Stone review. Whereas newspapers routinely refer to SP as a pop punk band. WP:UNDUE is a subset of WP:NPOV. Those who call SP emo are not a significant minority, therefore we do not put them in. And to paraphrase Poe Joe, that pretty much says it all!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)"

"You've given a couple of opinion pieces about music, reviews in other words. You haven't shown a single news piece. If this is a significant minority view, and not just "flat earth", you should be able to show that there are many news reports that refer to them as an emo band. Two reviewers are "flat earth", not a significant minority. You know, the sort of coverage they get when they play a city. Not just the opinion of two reviewers, but offhand references in serious news reports.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)"

Thus, your claim that I never asked you for more sources, or more RS, is not true. I find it amazing that you choose to link directly to matters you feel support your claims, but if you don't, you just make an offhand characterization (although clearly untrue). I would expect you to be both civil and truthful when bringing matters to this page. I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

In order to make the discussion more accessable to outside editors, I am detailing my reasons for initiating this discussion with links for each instance: I am aware that Wehwalt previously commented on his relationship with the band on the article's talk page. However the statement is not current and does not include all the details of his relationship. The statement was posted on 9 February 2007. He did not remove his name from the WikiProject until December 2007, indicating that his relationship with the band had changed, to the extent that he now feared COI concenrns in regards to his continued participation. When questioned by Poe Joe about his departure he stated:

"Uh, given that I get a pass now from the band, I feared WP:COI concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC) "

He has also made statements indicating that he knows the band well enough to receive favors or perks for his friends:

I haven´t forgotten (though I will probably have to remind them) but don´t expect it soon. I´ve seen the schedule, nothing your way anytime soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

One of his edit summaries indicates that he speaks to the band outside of shows, and has spoken with them on the phone:

Well, call it OR if you want, but i got a call

When I made a good faith edit with several reliable sources, he reverted it without discussion. No previous discussions had adressed the sources in question. He has a history of reverting genre edits to the article without discussing them at the talk page, or in some cases doing so without even explaining what he was reverting in the edit summary. In a few instances he has said this was due to previous conensus at the talk page, however none of the discussions in question appear to have arrived at any form of consensus.He has also removed article headers without discussing them and has even taken it upon himself to correct statements backed by the band's official site, replacing it with his personal knowledge.

I trust the opinions of the editors at this article and will gladly abide by their decision regarding Wehwalt. Although, I have tried to keep relatively level headed and assume good faith throughout the discussion, I admit that my temper has risen and as such will take a few days' leave from this discussion in order to cool off. Aurum ore (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Woah, woah, woah. Why did you, Aurum ore, add my name on there? How in the Sam Hill do I have a conflict of interest?! Now, it is beyond obvious that you are reporting us only to gain an advantage in this content dispute. I strongly urge you to drop this COI case, so that we can continue this discussion civilly on the Simple Plan talk page. -- Poe Joe (talk)

I didn't add your name to the discussion header, one of the other editors did. I assume it's because Wewhalt made comments regarding his relationship with the band on your talk page. I'm not accusing you at all of having a COI. Aurum ore (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually rather shocked at the uncivil tone taken by Aurum ore, whether or not he is here to read it, and the misleading and incorrect characterizations he has given. I think we know that Aurum ore spent a considerable amount of time last night looking for anything he could use against me, and in most cases did not content himself with the link, but posted his own (wrong) conclusions based on them. This is uncivil and he has failed to WP:AGF. For example, is a reversal of vandalism. Take a look at the previous edit, it puts some kid's name in as the producer. I do not get calls from the band, or release non public info on the band (not that I ever have any), so there goes that right now. There is a consensus, stated after discussion on the talk page, that SP is pop punk, and unsourced changes to that get reverted as a matter of course. Usually they come from IP addresses. Too bad I didn't post detailed edit summaries, but on a page which receives a lot of vandalism, you get into a habit of being rather summary. And yes, most disruptive editors, whether or not you fall into that category, do get bored and go away after a while.

Moving on to other items in the kitchen sink he has thrown at me, . Of course I removed the unencyclopedic tag; the editor failed to state any specific concerns and what were we supposed to do, guess? The tag says "please discuss on talk page"; the editor did not start a talk page discussion. Other tags, properly applied, have remained on the articles concerning the band (double tag, inserted December 2007 and remained ever since). , the call was from the Foundation, and they were supposed to modify their web page, which they never did, unfortunately. That was after I applied for a ticket, and was called back to be told it was sold out. Um, given that I didn't go, that hardly makes Aurum ore's case! I thought it would be helpful to put the information it was sold out on WP pending the official announcement, which unfortunately never came. Aurum ore is mistaking tongue in cheek edit summaries because he is hoping to see violations of WP policy. common courtesy to let another fan know if SP is coming their way, jeez. And when I did let Poe Joe know, I backed it up with a link. Something wrong with that?

Concerning my edit about COI concerns, I felt that in a wikiproject, I might get more deference than I deserved, and thus resigned from the wikiproject. That is a matter of my personal ethics, and not of WP COI standards. I'm still not clear on what basis Aurum ore is even contending there is a COI (other than his kitchen sink approach to dispute resolution). Is he still saying a thirty dollar concert ticket buys a Misplaced Pages shill? If so, he hasn't shown it. At the worst, all he's shown is carelessness in editing in an article which makes no pretentions to be a FA. And his attempt, and general incivilities, very much leaves his own ability to properly engage on this article open to question. I note he has said he won't engage with me any more, just with Poe Joe. Guess what. Even if I did have a COI, which I do not, I'd still be able to participate on talk page. Aurum ore's "I won't talk with you but I will talk with him" displays a rather childish attitute (to borrow Poe Joe's phrasing).

You did not post with reliable sources; you posted with opinion reviews. When you persisted, I told you that. Your editing is tendentious, to say the least, and now you are throwing in the kitchen sink in an effort to gain your ends. This is uncivil and wrong. Perhaps an opinion review is good enough for this list, whereby one mention in any music review of "emo" makes you emo, but we've asked, repeatedly, repeatedly, Aurum ore to post news articles, feature articles which refer to SP as emo. He won't even reply. The regular editors of the Simple Plan article properly refused Aurum ore's attempts to insert the "emo" genre under WP:UNDUE (if he can't find news or feature articles . . . ) and told him of the need to find pieces which were more than someone's personal opinion. Unfortunately, his responses have been to come here and try to get me thrown off the article, without good cause. I have refrained from going back and looking at Aurum ore's edits, forcing him to defend everything he has done against a hostile editor, like he has done for me.

Poe Joe has stated that Aurum ore is engaging in this discussion to get an advantage in a content dispute. I agree, it is proved beyond doubt. I've quoted from what WP:COI has said are the consequences of that, and unlike Aurum ore, see no need to repeat myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Automated wearable artificial kidney User:Limjason

Automated wearable artificial kidney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

I'm concerned that the contributor has a COI with this article. I have reverted the seemingly spam like links to this page from kidney related pages. I believe the motivation was to push for the company that was externally linked from this article until I removed it.

There was however, one thing stopping me from tagging this as a csd: this is actually somewhat relevant medicine. It is upcoming and new, but there are a couple publications out about it. It will be rapidly evolving and it may likely be a commercial technology at one point. I'm not sure if it warrants its own article, but at the very least, I would rather not lose all the information presented there until editors have a chance to sort through it and perhaps merge it into the relevant articles (or even improve it so it can stand on its own). I am not certain what to do with the COI and the article, so I am appealing here for help. Chaldor (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, i would to clarify that i do not have a COI with the article, as explained in my talk page discussion with Chaldor. Thank you so much for the help. Limjason (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

the eXile user:Dsol

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

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

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

91.77.57.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and

Asstrafficcontroller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has been blocked

the eXile - formerly a giveaway paper - has ceased publishing and moved to a blog format. Dsol and his related IP addresses have continued to spam for the blog in the article. The article itself is essentially fancruft and spam.

Another user has removed some of the eXile spam in a different article and warned user 91.77.57.180 not to reinsert the spam/advertising. see User talk:91.77.57.180

Dsol (who has mostly given up using his username) has a problem with ownership on the eXile article and is essentially a s.p.a. with all his contributions related to the eXile and its fancruft.

24.127.162.147 (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I take offense to this for multiple reasons. First, I have no connection to that IP. I would agree to an IP check by an Admin. Second, all my contributions do not relate to the eXile. Third, it is not appropriate to complain in this way about me at a noticeboard without making any good faith effort to engage in discussion on the relevant pages or to contact me, or letting me know in any way shape or form that someone has a problem with my edits.

I should add that a number of anonymous IPs and accounts have (unlike mine) been repeatedly blocked and banned for attempting to remove information from the eXile, disparaging it and the editors who have worked on its article, and refusing to engage in discussion. I think the facts of this case are clear but if there is any doubt I would encourage those interested to read the talk pages of the eXile and to ask me if there are any questions. Dsol (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Dsol saying "I have no connection to that IP" is transparently false Proof. Repeating transparent falsehoods does not make them true.

24.127.162.147 (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That fact that I mistakenly thought I was reverting to an edit by me, when I was actually reverting to an IPs edits, is not "proof" that the IP is me. As noted above, I would encourage any interested admin to run an IP check. That would be "proof." What has been done here is calling me a liar with less than zero evidence. Dsol (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Quentin Elias

Quentin Elias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)- After checking the article, I noticed some diffs that may need to be checked . Given the nature of the edits I think A WP:COI may be present, but since this is a biography of a living person the edits may have merit. But I still think they should be checked. NanohaA'sYuri 02:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Article is provided directly by the artist "Quentin Elias" by electro boy inc records. His current managment and record label. All that has been put in the article are facts and are documented so by links directing there integrity and documentation.

If the person needs to talk to his representation feel free to without deleting the truth.

flash electro boy inc records electroboyinc@aol.com

or

Quentin Elias qnyc@mac.com

User:Lapsed Pacifist

Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - LP has been making contributions to various Shell to Sea (a group against a controversial Irish oil pipeline) related articles. Many of these articles are overflowing with POV, weasel words, etc. I set about cleaning them up over the weekend, noticed LP was heavily involved, and saw he admitted to a WP:COI here (being involved with the campaign). I warned (first edit was a mistake) him, and he replied this morning he wouldn't make controversial edits, but then he reverted all of my NPOV edits (all the edits, not just sections) I made over the weekend. Thanks! Fin©™ 09:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, Falcon9x5's "cleaning" has involved blanking, whitewashing, deletion of references, and peppering articles with weasel words. I haven't blindly reverted all his edits, and have added requested sources where practical (i.e. where it didn't necessitate wading through an ocean of weaseling in order to save the source requests). Falcon's assertion that my edits are controversial doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I freely admit being involved with the campaign. Nothing I see in WP:COI would indicate that this precludes me from editing related articles. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 09:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist has been blatantly violating the WP:COI for years. None so blind as those who cannot or will not see. Snappy56 (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please quote the part of WP:COI you believe I am violating.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"COI editing involves contributing to Misplaced Pages in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where an editor must forgo advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages in order to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Also, "...editing articles related to...your organization..." - something that should be avoided, or have great caution exercised, neither of which you've done. Thanks! Fin©™ 12:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, I believe I have exercised caution. Unlike your wholesale blanking of links to newspaper articles that don't tally with your point of view, insertion of nauseating weasel words (insinuating that the crippling of old men is somehow not violent) etc. etc. There's no need to keep thanking me, I'm happy to set you straight.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: It really seems that neither of these editors are blameless and could both moderate their editing style especially on Shell to Sea. Much of Falcon9x5's editing has been removal of apparently justifiable text and looks like extreme whitewashing to make the article seem there is little opposition or resistance. On the other hand Lapsed Pacifist's edits are perhaps somewhat tainted by his interest in the controversy but not to the extent that Falcon suggests. However if there are verifiable sources that text should not be removed without discussion. ww2censor (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Having looked through the my changes in the Shell to Sea article, I'm not really sure what could be considered extreme whitewashing. As I see it, all of my contributions were legitimate, removing WP:POV, a huge number of WP:WEASEL words - I don't think I removed any verifiable sources. I removed some indymedia.ie ones, but it can not be considered WP:V. Also, I don't think any of this excuses the fact that LP has a conflict of interest. Thanks! Fin©™ 14:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Both editors have breached 3RR and as appropriate I have left them both a warning. ww2censor (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I'm well aware of 3RR and have not breached it - at least not on the article you linked to (and no others that I'm aware of - I try to be careful about it). Thanks! Fin©™ 15:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should review this history of Corrib gas project one of the related articles associated with the same topic above. Clearly looks like 3RR to me. ww2censor (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed it - Corrib gas project history: R1, R2, R3 (no breach). Shell to Sea history: R1, R2 (no breach). I haven't broken 3RR. Thanks! Fin©™ 16:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Important Policy update

I have added the following paragraph to WP:COI to reflect the actual state of matters. Please familiarize yourself with this, and feel free to discuss if you think this does not reflect actual practice.

When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to out other editors. Misplaced Pages's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline. COI situations are usually revealed when the editor themselves discloses a relationship to the subject that they are editing. In case the editor does not identity themselves or their affiliation, reference to the neutral point of view policy may help counteract biased editing.

Thank you for you help, and thank you to User:FayssalF for reviewing this edit. Jehochman 18:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution