Misplaced Pages

:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:52, 14 January 2010 editCla68 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers48,127 edits →William M. Connolley re Climategate article: typo← Previous edit Revision as of 05:59, 14 January 2010 edit undoSMC (talk | contribs)Rollbackers13,585 edits →User:Petertripp & WCLX: replyNext edit →
Line 373: Line 373:


:::He hasn't even been informed that this discussion is taking place. When you open a report on a noticeboard for someone, you ''should'' let them know (some boards like ] and ] require it), so I'll leave him a note. A page ban should be done by opening a discussion in a public forum and open a discussion to see who would support such a ban, or see if there's a consensus for some other remedy. But before we go that far I'd like him to have a chance to discuss this himself, so we'll see if he follows the notice to this board. -- ''']'''] 18:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC) :::He hasn't even been informed that this discussion is taking place. When you open a report on a noticeboard for someone, you ''should'' let them know (some boards like ] and ] require it), so I'll leave him a note. A page ban should be done by opening a discussion in a public forum and open a discussion to see who would support such a ban, or see if there's a consensus for some other remedy. But before we go that far I'd like him to have a chance to discuss this himself, so we'll see if he follows the notice to this board. -- ''']'''] 18:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

:::: I actually did notify him , but my placement of that notice mightn't have been very clear (beneath the COI template). ] (]) 05:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


== Requesting block for user GameFanatics with CoI == == Requesting block for user GameFanatics with CoI ==

Revision as of 05:59, 14 January 2010

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:James Acho 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:Cloudinary Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Commvault Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:DEGIRO Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Michael Dell 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:Dafna Lemish Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health Talk:LPL Financial Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Luis Montaner 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:Lorraine Twohill Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Uppsala Monitoring Centre Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Vandalisation of Demonology and Demonologist

    few months ago he/she already had waenings, now and again

    Revision history of Demonology:

    (cur) (prev) 04:05, 9 January 2010 Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) (21,632 bytes) (Getting rid of redirecting link.) (undo)
    (cur) (prev) 03:07, 9 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) (21,706 bytes) (now it is not a redidirect!) (undo)
    (cur) (prev) 16:31, 8 January 2010 Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) (21,632 bytes) (Removing a link that redirects here.) (undo)
    (cur) (prev) 08:55, 8 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) m (21,706 bytes) (orpho) (undo)
    (cur) (prev) 08:53, 8 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) (21,705 bytes) (agree) (undo)
    (cur) (prev) 04:46, 7 January 2010 Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) (21,632 bytes) (This article isn't about the demonologist class in some games.) (undo)
    (cur) (prev) 03:35, 7 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) (21,663 bytes) (Undid revision 336140734 by Gordon Ecker (talk)) (undo)

    (cur) (prev) 04:28, 6 January 2010 Gordon Ecker (talk | contribs) m (21,632 bytes) (removing from the character classes category) (undo)

    the sitation is following:
    1. the Demonologist is a character class in D&D
    2. Ian.thomson removes any info abot that fact from Demonology and Demonologist articles
    which is a kind of vandalizm (Idot (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC))

    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.

    Jim Bell

    An editor claiming to be the subject of this article has posted allegations of judicial misconduct in his legal case and his own theory on climate change, none of which were sourced. I removed the content per WP:BLP violations regarding the judicial misconduct and WP:OR for the climate change item. Unfortunately, it appears that he feels that there is a conspiracy regarding the removal of such content and that I am a part of it. See his comments on the article talk page my my user talk page. I would like to request some assistance in educating this editor on Misplaced Pages's policies as I believe that he has not and will not pay attention to my notes to him. Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

    I have linked the relevant sections for his perusal. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 00:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
    As can be seen on his talk page, a number of people have attempted to reason with him. I'm worried this might be a lost cause. This editor seems to be assuming bad faith from everyone involved and is unwilling to be collegial, this will probably result either in his leaving Misplaced Pages in disgust due to what he perceives as abuse, or a block. This ANI report doesn't give me any more hope either. -- Atama頭 20:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

    User:Wifione and The Indian Institute of Planning and Management

    The Indian Institute of Planning and Management has been mired in content disputes for years now, primarily because of editors ostensibly sympathetic to the institute looking to remove any negative information, and embellish positive information. Wifione's editing of The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management is tendentious and aimed at whitewashing negative information about the institute, in a manner that strongly suggests some sort of affiliation and therefore COI. The user's editing also goes against Misplaced Pages:NOTADVOCATE#ADVOCATE. The user is not an SPA at first glance of his/her edit logs, but a careful perusal indicates that most of the edits have to do with IIPM or related entities, and are aimed at putting a positive spin on the article, and removing any negative information, by twisting wikipolicy, take this as an example or this or this or this edit which does not do what the editsummary says. The edits always seem like a PR exercise, to minimize the institute's criticism and to add questionable positive info.

    Whenever the user has been asked about any affiliation with IIPM, he/she has evaded the question. To be fair, user is not being a vandal or revert-warring. But given the obvious pro-IIPM bias, and in tune with COI guidelines, it would be nice if the user clarifies any COI situation, either confirming or denying it. Makrandjoshi (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    Makrandjoshi, sorry for replying late. Let me assure you, there is no CoI. There is surely a content dispute on the pages in question - a look at the talk pages of the articles in question would be beneficial. When an article (like you have mentioned) contains too many negative issues, then attempting to reach an NPOV state by adding a balancing positive pov appears to be CoI. Just for information, when you were warned with a future block by an administrator for harassing me last month, the same point was told to you by the administrator here . You were also warned by administrator here how I am not a CoI case. The administrator also informed you how he is ready to give you more evidence of the same --- you did not take the same up.

    However, given this new CoI template, I'll respond to the exact diffs you have given.

    1. Your first diff shows the talk page discussions.

    I would wish to understand what part of the discussions did you find CoI? (You were absent from the discussions here, till two days back) I do believe discussions are the basis for making NPOV changes. Don't you?

    2. Your second diff leaves out four intermediate edits. I'll focus on the biggest change on that for benefit, which is, reducing a major part of the controversy section.

    It'll be good if you look at discussions here which occurred from 22nd Dec 2009 till 25th Dec 2009 (you were absent throughout the discussions) where, before undertaking the change, I even placed the paragraphs for other editors' comment.

    3. Your third diff shows me removing M.Peri's statement from the article as I have claimed it is a self published source. Your request at the Reliability noticeboard here is clear evidence of the fact the source was not an open shut case.

    4. Your fourth diff shows how I removed information about IMI. Please see discussions here to understand how that was done after discussions (you were absent again).

    I'll request you in the future to treat content disputes the way they should be treated - like content disputes. Please don't harass a fellow editor continuously and so flagrantly. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ 10:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

    Wifione, how does asking someone to clarify their COI harrassment? You have evaded the question in the past. Now that you have answered it, I'll take your word for it in good faith. And we can move on. Now about the links I provided and your responses to them. My first link was an example of your misinterpreting wiki policy. The discussions there show that apart from you, no one else thinks that using the word controversy is against policy. The second diff, all the intermediate edits were by you too, FYI. The difference speaks for itself in terms of how validly cited information critical of the institute has been removed in the course of "summarizing". About my third diff, if you read the RSN request, each and every person responding agreed that the article is WP:RS. And yet, you were removing it repeatedly despite other editors on the IIPM page asking you not to. The fourth diff, your edit summary said "moving to footnotes" or something, whereas you did no such thing. All these edits and numerous other edits by you at the IIPM page have been towards removing any information that is critical of the institute. You mention NPOV. Remember that when there is an NPOV dispute, the suggested path is adding VALIDLY CITED information about both points of view. Removing information under the name of NPOV is not right. I hope you will learn from your mistakes in the past and not remove validly cited information on questionable grounds. And finally, a very happy new year to you. :) Makrandjoshi (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    WP:OUTING is the harassment policy. Asking someone if they are affiliated with an article subject shouldn't constitute outing, per se; it's a perfectly reasonable question to ask and doesn't necessarily reveal undue personal information (a person can be affiliated with a company without being an employee, for example). Nobody is compelled to answer such a question, though, and repeatedly insisting on it could be considered harassment. Since Wifione denies having a conflict of interest it can be reasonable to assume that they are unaffiliated with IIPM. -- Atama頭 23:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
    I, not Makrandjoshi, am the person who has asked Wifione more than once about possible association with IIPM. Wifione evaded the question, on three different talk pages, saying essentially "don't ask me that question" in each instance.
    Such evasion strongly suggested a conflict of interest, especially after Wifione spent weeks of relentless and disruptive wikilawyering to remove each and every source containing negative information from the article, as well as inserting positive spin. Evasion, campaigning to remove negative information, and adding promotional information, paint a fairly clear profile of a person with a conflict of interest.
    I will accept Wifione's denial of COI, but I also want to see a cessation of Wikilawyering on Wifione's part. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
    Given that this is a CoI forum, and given that both Makrandjoshi (yes, happy new year to you too :)) and Amatulic have accepted their parts in moving on with this CoI, I'll let sleeping dogs lie and move on myself. Thanks. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ 17:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

    User:Klar sagen

    This user seems to be unusually keen on inserting references to the textbook

    and other books by Gabor Herman into a variety of articles, without making any other substantive changes (aside from correcting the odd typo). Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

    I'm a little confused... Is "Klar Sagen" affiliated with the book in any way? Are they listed as a contributor to it, or affiliated with the publisher? If not, there shouldn't be any COI; having an interest in a subject is completely different than a conflict of interest. If this person is spamming, that's certainly a problem but this isn't the place to address that. -- Atama頭 19:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

    Leca67 and Leca

    Leca67 (talk · contribs) was blocked last month on the 19th for having a promotional username. They requested an unblock in order to change their username, this was granted and the change made . However, no edits have been made under the new username and the editor continues to edit Leca where he/she seems to have a clear COI. There are also some copyright issues reported to this editor's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

    A small correction; the request was made to change the username to Exclay67, but this request was put on hold because Dweller asked for a confirmation that the editor understood the COI guidelines (a reasonable request in my opinion).
    A second block occurred, and an unblock request was declined by Daniel Case. After this, Juliancolton noted on the CHU page that Leca67 had been blocked since the request, leading Avraham to deny the username change request.
    However, Daniel Case has recently accepted an ublock request, and told the editor to not edit again until the username change had occurred. Juliancolton has noted this on the CHU page.
    That's where things stand now with this editor. They are admittedly having difficulties figuring out how to use Misplaced Pages, this includes creating and editing articles (the LECA article has been deleted twice), uploading images (almost 20 uploaded images have either been deleted or are pending a deletion discussion), and of course username changes. My impression is that this is an editor with good intentions but who keeps making one mistake after another. There could very well be a COI here on top of all of this. I'm not sure how things will end up. -- Atama頭 20:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

    Ogo

    Thrill Girl (talk · contribs): edits to Ogo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Zorbing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) suggest a connection to this company . Has been adding information to Ogo, which is a disambiguation page. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

    I apologize that no one has gotten back to you here. I see User:Thrill Girl hasn't attempted to put the information back in since you posted this so I hope this might be over. Under no circumstances would that be considered appropriate especially given we have an article on a somewhat similar topic already. If it does happen again, could refer them to Sphereing though I'm weary of that since it'd be seemingly just advert info additions anyway. You've been in the right to revert her attempts to have it included, and your warnings to their talk page seem 100% justified to me, including the patience to use Uw-advert1 through 3. Checking your edit history quickly it seems we have very similar habits so I'm not at all surprised we're in agreement :) Thanks for the post, and again sorry on the timing. On a level 4 it's made pretty clear reporting to an incident board is next, so for all intents and purposes they're on an accidental but indefinite 1RR for any article their promo cruft is added to. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
    Seems she hasn't given up yet. Is this justification for a block? The content has been toned down a bit but it's still promotional. (I'd only give a warning saying "you will be blocked next time" if that is what would happen!) Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
    I've already given such a warning. If she tries to promote Ogo again after this warning there's sufficient cause for at least a short block. Note that Thrill Girl isn't the first to try to promote this business, see Outdoor Gravity. -- Atama頭 21:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

    Natasha Wheat

    This BLP of a US-based fine artist was created 13 October 2009, likely by a close associate of the artist. The creator has no user history prior to creating the BLP̦ and all subsequent contributions were either to edit and unflag the article, or to defend it on talk pages 1 2.

    This webpage, linked to by the article's creator, shows that as the creator, SandyPortland, shares names with a coworker and workplace location of the subject. If the subject of the article and the article creator are in fact coworkers and artistic collaborators, this would seem to be a clear conflict of interest.

    The artist Natasha Wheat may meet WP:NOTE, but the circumstances of this biography's introduction into Misplaced Pages represent a likely controversion of WP:CONFLICT and a potential threat to WP:NPOV. —Infoporfin (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

    The article doesn't establish notability but the notability tag keeps getting removed. This is being discussed on the article talk page. Rees11 (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

    I've nominated the article for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Natasha Wheat (3rd nomination). I am not convinced the editor has a COI. Rees11 (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    I don't see that the coincidence of a first name indicates a COI, and pointing it out comes close to violating WP:OUTING. If both the first and last name matched, then yes, I'd say that's a solid indicator. But regardless, the article itself should be deleted (I've said as much at the AfD) and if the discussion concludes as it looks like it will this will all likely be a moot point. -- Atama頭 18:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    User:Snowded and Spiral Dynamics

    User:Snowded has been insisting at great length, and against talk page consensus, that Category:New Age be placed on the Spiral Dynamics article. Spiral Dynamics is a business management book and course series. User:Snowded has cited no sources for the addition.

    User:Snowded's user page links to his website. At his website, he sells a series of courses on business management techniques. He appears to be a potential competitor with Spiral Dynamics. It is possible that User:Snowded wants to paint his competitors in a certain light, and that s/he is using Misplaced Pages to do so. — goethean ॐ 22:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

    I note without much surprise that user Goethean did not see fit to notify me of this posting.
    • The Spiral Dynamics article has been characterised as "New Age" for over a year and I was not involved in that original decision
    • On two occasions in six months Goethean has managed to get one other editor (in each case) to agree with his position that the category is inappropriate and on this basis he claims consensus and has edited warned in defiance of WP:BRD
    • I have said on both occasions that I do not think that the original Spiral Dynamics book and course series are new age, but that the assimilation by the Integral Movement is. More recently I have proposed changes to the article to reflect this which would allow the category to be removed and Goethean has refused to engage with any attempt at a compromise here
    • The only thing I have been doing at great length is to get Goethean to abide by WP:BRD and WP:AGF
    • My company is involved in the application of natural science to social systems and does not compete as far as I know in any way with Spiral Dynamics. Or if it does then any academic in Management Sciences (about 50% of my time) or any Management Consultant should not be allowed to edit Misplaced Pages.
    • I have always believed in transparency on WIkipedia so my page indicates my political and other beliefs along with a link to my company's web page, if I was playing the game suggested by Goethean then I would not have done this.
    • There appears to be a movement among supporters of the Integral Movement to remove any reference to New Age across a series of articles. This matches the doctrine of Ken WIlber that Integral has transcended New Age (a mean green meme to quote). This is a matter I am starting to look into, especially as pages on Integral tend to have a small number of editors who are part of that movement.
    Goethean remains (I think) upset that I reversed his move of Integral Movement to Integral (philosophy). We had a similar position there, three editors heavily involved in the Integral Movement (some of them who publish books) making a decision that has NPOV aspects. I am pleased to say that the other editors on that page have taken a more open attitude and an a discussion is proceeding which will improve the article overall.
    I think this is pre-emptive strike as I told him yesterday (the transparency principle again) that I was considering raising an ANI report about his refusal to engage in discussion. He would be better engaged in finding ways to resolve problems rather than insisting that 2 or 3 editors taking a position against 1 constitutes "consensus" without the need for discussion --Snowded 05:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
    I note without much surprise that user Goethean did not see fit to notify me of this posting.
    Yes, well I knew that you were following my contributions rather enthusiastically. — goethean ॐ 13:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
    I'll make some comments as an outside observer (I don't really know either of you, nor have I had anything to do with the article in question).
    • It seems that Goethean was the one who removed the New Age category back in May, and the category has been around since August 2006. So Snowded does have a point (a technical one) about the fact that removing the category is a change that generally should be justified if anyone objects against it. Having said that, if there truly was a consensus reached that suggested that the category be removed, it should be removed. I don't see that there was a true "consensus", two people against one isn't much of a consensus. But the argument that there should be a source supporting the "New Age" claim is a valid one, and absent such a source I'd personally favor removing the category from the article.
    • All of that is immaterial to the COI complaint. Even if it was determined that Snowded has enough of a COI that editing the article should be discouraged, the guidelines specifically permit an editor with a COI to participate in the talk page of the article. That means that Snowded is free to argue for including the New Age category regardless, or to make any other argument on the talk page of the article.
    • I don't see that a COI actually exists. Possibly being a potential competitor is a far cry from actually being a competitor. It would be ludicrous to say that Snowded is not allowed to participate on any article where the subject creates business management books. That's like saying that a novelist can't edit articles about other novelists. I'm not saying there isn't a potential for a COI here, but it seems like a weak case for one.
    • Being open about your affiliations is commendable. It makes it much easier to assume good faith in an editor, and I'm glad that Snowded is candid about the web site. If Snowded edits an article about his company (I don't see that there is one) or starts linking to his web site in articles (as an external link or a reference, for example), at that point I'd be concerned about COI issues.
    These are my opinions. Again, I do support Goethian's side on the New Age category issue (based on what I've read on the article's talk page) but I don't support the COI concerns. -- Atama頭 20:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
    Seems a little unnecessary to be arguing about a category tag, when the entire article is so dubious; I wonder more about notability, and promotionalism. Perhaps the simplest solution is an AfD . DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
    Just starting with Google, looking at News, Books, and Scholar, I see that the term is widely-used in published sources. Wading through all that glut to see if it's relevant to the actual article subject is work, but there seems to be an indication that the subject is notable. Personally I wish it could be deleted away, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't very good justification. :) -- Atama頭 23:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
    It might have been clearer if the article had actually had such sources, rather than be an expostulation of theory backed by very general references. DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    User:Roland Sparkes

    Roland Sparkes (talk · contribs) has displayed a clear conflict of interest in writing a glorifying resume and then arguing for retention of "his article" Roland Sparkes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Roland_Sparkes. breach of WP:OWN, WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO applies here. inclusion of a Twitter comment as a reference to himself as excellent just shows the extent of this blatant conflict of interest. inclusion of editing of other WP pages as somehow worthy of inclusion of content demonstrates this also. LibStar (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

    I thought WP:AUTOBIO only applied if the person created the article? ArcAngel (talk) (review) 18:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
    Only one section of the guideline is about actually creating autobiographies, the rest of guideline involves participating in a biographical article about yourself (whether you created it or not). -- Atama頭 19:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
    given that Mr Sparkes built up the article into a glowing self testimonial, it really is an autobiography. the article creator may have a connection to Mr Sparkers. LibStar (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
    Agreed. Belmont, Sutton is worth a look too: excessive hype for his book and website. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

    yes given that his book was just released on 21 December 2009 and a flurry of editing to direct people to his own WP site and excessive text on Belmont article sourced from his book...you have to wonder if this is too much of a coincidence or blatant new book promotion. LibStar (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

    Anthony Adams (politician)

    User has made several deletions of sourced information from his article. I have reverted, welcomed him and pointed him to WP:COI, WP:BESTCOI and WP:BLP/H, but I have to go offline now and some more eyes on the article might be useful. JohnCD (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

    The name of this SPA is also suggestive of COI. Rees11 (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    I've blocked the Caassembly account for username violations (role account representing the California State Assembly) but it's only a softblock, they can create a new account or edit anonymously. I haven't looked at the original complaint yet. -- Atama頭 01:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Another SPA suggestive of COI. Rees11 (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Blocked that one too, for the same reason, under the same conditions. It's almost the same username. -- Atama頭 18:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Iscream666

    Editor blocked by Daniel Case.
    Resolved – Editor blocked by Daniel Case. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 22:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Iscream666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user has a name that is similar to the article I Scream Records. A {{uw1-coi}} warning was given, and I am also reporting the user here as it is a blatant COI instance. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 03:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    The user has only made minor edits, according to the edit history. Rees11 (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
    Nevertheless, I believe it's still a COI. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 05:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
    They are marked as minor in the log, but are actually major edits. I just made an edit myself and was quickly reverted by this user in spite of the COI warning you left, which he has not responded to. I think we need stronger efforts to engage this user. Rees11 (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
    I can look this over personally later, when I have more time, but other than marking major edits as minor and the COI/username issue, has there been actual disruption (like spam or edit wars)? I'm tempted to leave them a non-templated, personal message asking them to change their username (which is a clear violation of WP:ORGNAME) and if that is ignored, issue a softblock. But if they're disruptive I'm more inclined to do a hardblock (meaning that they can't just create a new account with an appropriate name, or edit anonymously). -- Atama頭 19:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
    I don't see any warring in the edit log. Let's hold off on the hardblock and see if he'll engage on either his or the article's talk page. I've got the article watchlisted and will report here if it seems more action is needed. Meanwhile the article does need work if anyone feels inclined. Rees11 (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
    I have reported the user name to WP:UAA as a spamname. – ukexpat (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    LTSally

    This editor reflects a strong anti-Jehovah's Witness bias in both his editing, his "undo" edits, and in his talk page. His talk page has what might be consider "hate speech" towards the Jehovah's Witness organization. I had asked a few times that it might be edited. But the user is pretty adamant about keeping it as it is.

    "the senseless parroting of stock phrases and ideas and the smugness of Witnesses about their own religion and their arrogant, derisive dismissal of the lifestyles and life choices of non-Witnesses.

    I became sickened by the mindless acceptance and sometimes ecstatic reception of empty and.."

    "...I realised after some time that within their closed community — a claustrophobic, sycophantic, incestuous community they describe as a “spiritual paradise” — gossip and backbiting are the norm. One is always watched by other Witnesses, who are always waiting to judge, criticise and condemn the people they call their "brothers and sisters".

    And so, after enduring much unhappiness, frustration and silent anger as a Jehovah’s Witness — for one cannot voice these criticisms, even to one’s closest friends, for fear they will report you to elders as an apostate and a murmurer — I chose to cease associating with the Witnesses."

    He writes strongly about Jehovah's Witness "apostates" and uses them frequently as sources, fights attempts to remove negative comments about Jehovah's Witnesses. The result it, it becomes very difficult to bring a neutral point of view to the Misplaced Pages article. LTSally fights it every step of the way, and knows the system better than most, so he has undone, deleted about all of the comments that I and others have made to try to balance the article out.

    He states on his page regarding the Jehovah's Witneses, "But such is the power — an intrusive, insidious, malevolent power — of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society."

    His views are not balanced, they are biased, have an extreme point of view, not just a point of view, but his view is extreme, by any standards, and his editing reflects that extreme style.

    The Misplaced Pages article as a result is negative, and strongly biased. I've read parts of many books, articles and websites on Jehovah's Witnesses such as Andrew Holden's 2002, where he presents what might be termed the positive and controversial, from the perspective of an outsider, but the wording and accusations in the Misplaced Pages article are extreme in their view of Jehovah's Witnesses, in many areas, because of the bias by this particular editor in large part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturalpsychology (talk • contribs) 15:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Judging from your talk page, you may have a COI yourself. Plus, you have not proposed any changes nor answered my questions at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses#Attempt_to_restore_Neutral_Point_of_View_in_this_Wikipedia_article --NeilN 16:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
    You brought this up about two months ago on this same board Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_37#Conflict_of_Interest_-_Jehovah.27s_Witnesses_page. What's changed? --NeilN 16:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


    In answer to the above question, about bringing it up 2 months ago. LTSally stated that he deleted my comments from the pages where they were posted. I didn't know the system them, didn't know how to work with the Misplaced Pages, and at that time it was too much for me to deal with, so I opted out of the editing for the past 2 months. So, now my schedule is a little better where I can spend some time to understand the Misplaced Pages system.
    I had thought to request that the LTSally talk page be deleted. I asked him a few times to modify it to take off the hatespeech, and so on, but he was pretty firm in keeping it.
    I feel that in addition to a strong or extreme POV on the subject of Jehovah's Witnesses, he also has a measure of COI, which he openly states, and doesn't want to modify. If he was receptive to modifying his page, I wouldn't have posted this, but he pretty much refused to make any changes to his editing, and keeps on blocking my attempts to try to balance out the article. There are two on the current editing that are pretty much anti-Jehovah's Witness in their POV, LTSally and one other.--Natural (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
    Just as before, there's no COI here. Bias, yes, possibly some problems maintaining a neutral POV, but no conflict of interest. And NeilN is spot on when he says that any potential COI would equally apply to yourself. -- Atama頭 17:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
    I had alreay modified my Talk page to take away any potential COI, and plainly stated the purpose of my editing is to promote a neutral point of view, not a pro-Witness point of view. I'm not opposed to criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, as long as it is fair and from reliable sources, and truthful. Statements about 1914,1925,1975 I'm not opposed to that on the page, even though it is revealing errors of the Witnesses. That type of thing is factual and well-documented, the issue I'm bringing up is a clear anti-Witness editing bias, and in openly stating the oppostion and conflict of interest on the talk page. That's not appropriate for an encyclopedia discussion group or editing group and leads to problems among the editing team.
    This is the second complaint at this noticeboard by that user against me. On neither occasion has he advised me of the complaint to enable me to defend myself. I have strong opinions about Jehovah's Witnesses, which I discuss on my user page in the context of explaining my motives for editing JW articles. User:Naturalpsychology also has strong opinions about the religion. I don't believe either of us have a COI. We are both interested in the religion, but for different reasons. I strive to ensure that all material I add to the page is accurate, fair, neutral and based on reliable published sources. I remove material from articles that fails to be neutral or based on reliable sources. I have asked this user at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses to identify material that breaches of WP:NPOV and am happy to discuss those. LTSally (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
    I published 2 notices last week on LTSally's talk page about plans to post a complaint. LTSally deleted both notices. I don't fully know the system yet, so any help with procedure is helpful also to me. Some of the other editors have been helping along with that.--Natural (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
    There's no official procedure, some noticeboards like WP:ANI have a template that you can post to a person's talk page but this one doesn't. Basically, after you open the report leave a message on the person's talk page that you have created a report about them on this board (linking WP:COIN is helpful). That's really all that's needed. -- Atama頭 19:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
    I feel that there is a conflict of interest, because LTSally is personally "hiding" from Jehovah's Witness elders in his congregation, stating, that if they found out what he was doing on Misplaced Pages he would be disfellowshipped, and he states in his talk page that he doesn't want to be disfellowshipped, because then he would not be able to associate with his old friends. So, I feel that he is partially using comments on the Misplaced Pages article about disfellowshipping, and trying to promote anti-Jehovah's Witness books and apostate literature, partly to cover his own tracks.

    Before looking at the comments here, I changed my user page, so that my motives in editing are clearly stated. It's not my purpose to at all promote Jehovah's Witnesses, and I'm not adverse to criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, but rather to present factual information on the Wiki article which supports a neutral point of view, rather than a hyper-critical or negative point of view, or an extreme point of view. In other words, part of the editing by LTSally purposely is worded in such a way as to present Jehovah's Witnesses as being overly-authoritarian, and extreme. The editing style is purposely blunt. I added it to the COI page for the above reason, at the advice of one of the other editors. I didn't think of doing that until advised by one editor about that.--Natural (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    • Please note that the user making the complaint against me has, in his usual blundering style, inserted some unsigned comments immediately before my response, creating the impression that some of his comments were made by me. They were not. LTSally (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    User:GivensMarineSurvival

    Resolved – Indef blocked for spamming and username violations. -- Atama頭 20:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Kyle.Lindsay COI

    Resolved – Drive-by promotional editor, article and all links to it are deleted. -- Atama頭 18:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    The big problem is spamming, really, since permission for using the material was given to OTRS, but the article was deleted as are all references to it, and the editor hasn't edited since November (in fact, his entire edit history took place on one day) so this seems resolved. -- Atama頭 18:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Wangobango

    I think these are the articles. The first is up for deletion. Rees11 (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    This user name is suggestive of COI. Rees11 (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    I'm removed the proposed deletion tag from The Daddy. It was already deleted once through prod and restored, it is ineligible for proposed deletion now. I'm opening an AfD for all three articles instead. -- Atama頭 19:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
    I've opened the AfD here. An AfD will be good because at least one editor has been tendentiously resisting deletion of one of the articles; removing speedy templates despite being the author of the page, and having it restored after prod. An AfD will allow the articles to be speedily deleted on recreation unless the authors address the problems raised in the AfD discussion (assuming it closes with a delete result). -- Atama頭 19:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
    Note that the edits by this editor were regarding a completely different band named Moke to the one that the article was originally, and is currently about.--Michig (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    I'm not sure why this editor was notified about the AFD of The Daddy as they don't appear to have ever edited it. The only contributions from this account were in July 2009, for which they received a warning and stopped.--Michig (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Maybe a moot point now, but the Moke article was created by this editor whose name is also suggestive of a COI. -- Atama頭 20:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    This certainly isn't a classic case of COI self-promotion and there appear to be quite a lot of refs out there. We might be better off trying to advise the COI editors how they can comply with guidelines as it looks as though at least two of the bands are notable. 86.7.19.159 (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC) (Smartse)
    The Moke (band) article hasn't been edited from this account since April 2008, so I don't see that this is going anywhere.--Michig (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Adrienne Cullen

    and wrote a userspace draft User:Rebecca Van Buren/Peter cluskey of Adrienne Cullen's article about her husband. JohnCD (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    Guennadi Kalinine

    Resolved – COI is likely, but article deleted, no other contributions made. -- Atama頭 18:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Matthew Le Merle and Alison Davis

    Both are blatant COI violations. Evaluating the Alison Davis article, I think it doesn't merit our inclusion standards, and it has some severe POV problems, including unsupported claims about being named one of the most influential women in business for 4 years and being an "outstanding student". The other article on the other hand probably does merit inclusion based on a news search I've made, but even that is a bit iffy. -- Atama頭 18:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    User:CubeSpawn

    • User-multi error: "CubeSpawn" is not a valid project or language code (help).

    This editors edits appear promotional to me, along with this edit which I reverted as spammy, but was then reverted by another editor who didn't agree. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 04:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Spammy, yes, actual spam, I wouldn't go that far. Is there a COI with an editor named CubeSpawn creating an article called CubeSpawn? Possibly. The username itself is problematic, as it might be a violation of WP:ORGNAME. Since raw linking of external web sites is discouraged, I've converted the link to a reference. I'd like to know what relation the editor has to the project, and it would be a good thing if they were to choose a different username (one that represents them as an individual, not the project).
    My other concern is that I see zero notability for the project itself. I know that the editor who reverted you had expressed that he likes the CubeSpawn concept, but that doesn't mean we ignore WP:N. For now, I don't oppose mentioning it in the open source article (that's why I went through the trouble of cleaning up the link) but I don't see any potential for a stand-alone article. -- Atama頭 19:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    Is this notable yet? Probably not (Incidentally, I'm the editor who initially reverted ArcAngel). Looks like a case of a highly interesting project, but it's still too early for WP coverage, according to WP:RS. However, my concern isn't with deleting the article (which, let's remember, didn't even exist yet outside userspace!) but with deleting the user through a heavy-handed WP:BITEY welcome. MFD isn't for flogging well-meaning newbies who don't yet underside groupname policies, it's for wiping out real problems. What does it feel like for a new editor to start out in a fairly discrete manner with a clearly GF creation, then have the whole weight of the wikicops descend upon them? Congratulations mission accomplished. We've driven that editor away 8-(. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Ourwalks

    Resolved – Editor indef blocked, article deleted. -- Atama頭 20:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Kripalu Center

    Kripalu Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Calamitybrook (talk · contribs)

    Previous discussion of COI here and editor behaviour here, and many warnings and cautions on the editor talk page.

    Calamitybrook continues to remove article tags for sourcing, POV, COI, and has repeatedly restored a google search to support weasel-wording the intro. The article is very oddly slanted, as I see it.- Sinneed 18:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    I will place a note about this on the article talk page. I will not notify the editor, editor has asked I not post on editor talk page.- Sinneed 18:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    As you say, this has been discussed here before. Calamitybrook denies any COI, so in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I don't think this is a subject for COI/N. It may be appropriate for some other noticeboard but I'm not sure which. Rees11 (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

    Leo airline

    The conflict of interest is evident, however the article has been deleted and I've removed the "notable residents" entry made to Bovingdon. I've also given a welcoming template that discusses our COI guideline and informed them of this noticeboard report. -- Atama頭 02:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    User:Petertripp & WCLX

    • Petertripp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Petertripp claims to own the radio station in question (WCLX). After the article was vandalised the article repeatedly, a constructive part of the article (which described the bulk of the station's history) that the vandal had added was removed by Petertripp, due presumably to his dispute with the two radio hosts during that ten-year run. I re-added a small part of it that could be referenced by a newspaper article and he reverted me . All throughout the edit history of WCLX edit summaries of "Station owner <action done>" can be found . Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated. SMC (talk) 08:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
    My biggest concern is that the person who owns the radio station is acting like he owns the article; he doesn't. He's also incorrectly accusing people of vandalism, and attacking people in edit summaries. At this point, seeing the recent history of the article, I wouldn't be opposed to a topic ban from the article for the editor, unless he promises to no longer act as aggressive in his edits and edit summaries. His contributions haven't been exclusively to the WCLX article, he has edited other radio station articles, though admittedly his edits at those articles have also been somewhat disruptive. -- Atama頭 19:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    What's the procedure for initiating such action? Of course, if Petertripp were to leave the article (or at the very least, that part) free of his POV I'd be fine without him having any restrictions, but I don't think it's likely that he will just give in. SMC (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
    He hasn't even been informed that this discussion is taking place. When you open a report on a noticeboard for someone, you should let them know (some boards like WP:ANI and WP:AN3 require it), so I'll leave him a note. A page ban should be done by opening a discussion in a public forum and open a discussion to see who would support such a ban, or see if there's a consensus for some other remedy. But before we go that far I'd like him to have a chance to discuss this himself, so we'll see if he follows the notice to this board. -- Atama頭 18:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
    I actually did notify him here, but my placement of that notice mightn't have been very clear (beneath the COI template). SMC (talk) 05:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Requesting block for user GameFanatics with CoI

    Resolved – I've blocked the editor for username violations and spamming. -- Atama頭 02:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    GameFanatics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User's first and only action was adding a spam link to theGameFanatics.com on Heavy Rain - Suggest indef block as I suspect the user has conflict of interest. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 09:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

    Oxjam

    I'd like to get some more eyes on the Oxjam article. It appears to have been heavily influenced in the past by staff of Oxfam editing under the usernames:

    Additionally, at least one IP editor:

    directly resolves to an Oxfam GB host (grail1.oxfam.org.uk). I have refactored the article to a better form, and I believe the subject of the article should be included. However, the form that these three users keep changing it to is completely unacceptable, which is basically a press release. The page has been protected for now, but it would be nice if a few folks could watchlist it in the future to keep an eye out for abuse. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Also, the contributions of the above users, especially the IP, looks like it should be reviewed for additional abuse. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    I support the block, and the COI is pretty clear. I'll keep the article on my watchlist in case more trouble comes up. -- Atama頭 18:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Iniva

    I'd like to get some more eyes on the Iniva article. It appears to have been heavily influenced in the past by staff of Iniva editing under the username:

    Additionally, at least one IP editor:

    directly resolves to an Iniva host (mail.iniva.org). It would be nice if a few folks could work on it a bit and watchlist it in the future to keep an eye out for abuse. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    The user is definitely an WP:SPA, and is now blocked, and the IP User has not edited since the block. I also tagged the article for notability since the links are all to directory based websites, and not to any real notable third-party source. If additional disruptive edits occur, a semi-protect may be a good idea. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    William M. Connolley re Climategate article

    This user is named in the emails at the heart of this controversy and has a documented close association with the scientists implicated. Request he be topic banned from this article and its talk, and not involve himself in editing disputes and allegations of article probation violations as he has done numerous times, always on one side of the debate.JPatterson (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Do you have any examples of inappropriate behavior by William M. Connolley regarding the Climategate article? Unless he's actively causing trouble, there should be no need for a topic ban. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 17:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    See here,here,here, here for some examples of one-sided and disruptive editing (under the terms of article probationh, we're supposed to reach consensus before changes are made although that doesn't seem to apply to everyone). He also inserted himself into my case and in my view, unfairly recruited friendly admins that resulted in my being banned. (see discussion here. JPatterson (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    One of the links you posted, the third, is not an edit by William M. Connolley, but a revert of one of his edits (which happens to be the 4th link you list) by another editor. Two other links, the second and fourth, are both over a month old. The only recent edit, the first, was made during a content dispute between a variety of editors and was resolved when consensus was reached on the talk page, which is now archived at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/Archive 19#Tree ring data is rubbish but so what?. None of these things indicate a problem with William M. Connolley's editing pattern, let alone one strong enough to justify some sort of topic ban. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 18:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    This looks related to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Jpat34721 Topic Ban. Dougweller (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    Yes, it does, and I have posted a note there linking to this discussion. Also notified William M. Connolley directly about this discussion. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 17:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    I've asked Jpat34721 what he hopes to achieve by forum shopping like this: to clarify, he has attacked the person who reported his conduct problems and both admins who discussed the report and topic banned him. --TS 17:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    I hope to achieve increased fairness in the process and improvement WP by promoting WP:NPOV JPatterson (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    You've listed some diffs above which you think show William M. Connolley engaging in disruptive conduct. Why not file a case on the probation enforcement page? It's Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement‎. --TS 17:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    Because the larger issue in my view is his clear conflict of interest here. Given the history of this user and this topic, and given that he's in the emails at the heart of the controversy, don't you agree that WP should avoid the appearance of impropriety at this point? How can you defend a person whose involved in a scandal, being allowed to spin the article on the scandal?? JPatterson (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    William M. Connolley has barely been participating in the article at all, and is more active on the talk page where many of the "issues" you have raised with his edits have been resolved through the achievement of consensus. He's not made any edits that lead me to believe that he is expressing any sort of control over the content, which is what you seem to be trying to convince everyone of. Unless you can come up with something substantive in its own right, continuing this pursuit could be viewed as harassment. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 18:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    Why are we even talking about his contribs. There's nothing in that says it's to be ignored if the user's edits meet with your approval. He's in the emails that are the subject of the article and has Close relationships with those implicated. How can that not be viewed as a conflict of interest? JPatterson (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    We're talking about his contribs because that's what you're trying to use as evidence of improper behavior. Please keep in mind that WP:COI is a guideline and not a policy. Furthermore, the guideline only advises editors to exercise great caution when editing in a COI topic area; it does not forbid them from doing so. Now, I'm not saying that Dr. Connolley does not have a conflict of interest, I'm saying that he has done nothing to show that his conflict of interest has negatively impacted the encyclopedia. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 18:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    Oh whatever. It's clear the wagons are circled and the fix is in. I'll disengage at this point JPatterson (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    (ec)"There's nothing in that says it's to be ignored if the user's edits meet with your approval" - no, but it's also a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. It's not a ban from pages, it's a recommendation. And behaviour is very relevant - if you can write the perfect NPOV article about yourself, WP:COI doesn't forbid you to do so. It just advises (strongly) against it. This noticeboard has a role not because there's a COI per se, but rather, "for conflict of interest issues that require outside intervention". Guettarda (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    I noticed I mis-spelled the users name in the email search link above. Here is mentioned in more emails than I thought. JPatterson (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    COI issues notwithstanding, I find nothing particularly disruptive in William M. Connolley's edits you linked above. Could you be more precise? --Cyclopia 18:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    Why COI aside, that's supposed to be the topic here. But to address your question, I'm glad you see nothing wrong with his edits because they are exactly what has gotten other users topic banned, editing without consensus. Given your view, perhaps you'll go to bat for me and get my ban reversed. JPatterson (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    That is patently false. Other users have been topic banned for continued controversial editing without achieving consensus. Three edits in the course of a month, none of which were related, is not at all the same thing. Furthermore, as I have said before, William M. Connolley has been more active on the talk page in that time than in the article. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 18:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    This is not about Global Warming, nor am I proposing a topic ban on that subject. This is about Climategate only and I'm only asking that he be prevented from contributing on that topic. Jpat34721|JPatterson]] (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    And you have, at this point, failed to produce a substantive reason for us to do so. What you are very successfully doing is making this look like a personal vendetta, though. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 18:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    May I suggest to User:Jpat34721 that if you continue the way you are that you won't have to worry about one article ban because you are boxing administrators into a corner to have you blocked completely from editing. I would strongly suggest you just ride out the banned page and resume editing elsewhere. You are only hurting yourself with this continuing battle. Just a suggestion, --CrohnieGal 18:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    On what grounds? Attempting to use the process that's been laid out? There's a clear conflict of interest here and this is the proper place to report such concerns. Threats and intimidation for doing so seems a bit ham handed, wouldn't you agree? JPatterson (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    On the grounds of WP:DE, WP:HA, and WP:AGF to name a few. You have forum shopped this issue, have been unable to provide substantive evidence of improper editing on the part of William M. Connolley, and continue to make what are looking more and more like bad-faith claims against him. Get back to your original point and show something that necessitates intervention or drop it. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 18:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    The diffs provided fail to show disruption, and this whole report seems like retribution to me. I'm not going to say that there is no potential COI with WMC participating at the Climategate article, but even acknowledging that, you would have to show that his editing the article is actually causing a problem before anyone would be tempted to take action on it. I don't think you've done this. -- Atama頭 18:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    I don't see any evidence of a conflict of interest presented. Being copied or mentioned in some harmless emails from years ago isn't a conflict. Hipocrite (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    From the closing of one the the emails:

    Thanks,

    Gavin Schmidt

    on behalf of the RealClimate.org team: - Gavin Schmidt - Mike Mann - Eric Steig - William Connolley - Stefan Rahmstorf - Ray Bradley - Amy Clement - Rasmus Benestad - William Connolley - Caspar Ammann

    Nope, nothing to see here , move along.JPatterson (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    If you were discussing his COI on Realclimate that would be different, but that's not what you're discussing. Hipocrite (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    I agree, the COI with the Climategate scandal is weak at best, and would only be related to anything regarding Realclimate itself. -- Atama頭 19:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    At the risk of being tendentious, it should be pointed out for the benefit of the uninformed that RealClimate.org is a notable part of the controversy as is the email I referenced above. Without passing judgment on their merits, notable allegations have been made that the email shows that RC was initiated as a means of spinning Global Warming in order to sway public opinion and that Dr. Connolley's role was to use Misplaced Pages to the same ends. JPatterson (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    The above is neither well sourced, nor accurate. Stop digging. Hipocrite (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    The only connection RealClimate has to the hacking is that someone also hacked RealClimate and tried to lock the regular users out and use the site to dispense the stolen emails and other documents. --TS 20:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    I suggest that we now close the thread as the thread starter is now abusing Misplaced Pages in order to propagate a conspiracy theory. --TS 20:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    I'm not trying to propagate anything. I was asked to provide further evidence of a COI. That evidence was discounted, so I explained why it is relevant.JPatterson (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    I have been requested under threat of blockage to provide sources that support my assertions re notability above. Keeping in mind, that I have no opinion on their veracity, and that my only point here is that RC and Dr. Connolley are a notable part of the controversy, in a quick google search I found this and of course the allegations made here have received a lot of attention. Lest I be accused of escalating this, I would point out again that I offer these sources under threat of blockage. JPatterson (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    If you've no opinion of the veracity of these very serious allegations, why are you propagating them? --TS 20:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    Because I was threatened with blockage if I didn't. The question isn't veracity, it's notability. JPatterson (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    Ahh, so you know the allegations that he has done what those pieces say he has done are provable, obvious lies, then, correct? Why then are you pushing allegations that he has a conflict of interest based on articles you know to be dishonest? Hipocrite (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    No opinion means no opinion. My opinion is irrelevant anyway. There's no getting around the fact that these references prove notability.JPatterson (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    You don't alledge that he's notable, you alledge he has a conflict of interest with respect to Climategate. To do this, apparently, you use two provably dishonest works. This seems somewhat odd to me. Hipocrite (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) I did impress upon him to, TS, and thank you for doing so, JPatterson. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To claim that others have said William M. Connolly was involved in a sort-of conspiracy without referencing said others is tantamount to claiming a conspiracy yourself, which I would view as a personal attack. The merits of the pieces are unimportant, but the content is, in this light. Indeed someone has made the claim, which was JPatterson's point. It is not, however, relevant to the on-wiki evidence presented here by JPatterson. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Can people please settle down? Looking over these two pieces -- I have no idea of their reliability -- I do not actually see any claim that Connolley's editing was discussed in the emails. They seem quite noticeably vague on this point: talking about what is in the emails, and then jumping to a much more general statement about what he was up to with his editing on Misplaced Pages (where, obviously, there are differing interpretations). It seems to me there is still only the connection to RealClimate. In this regard there seems to be a recognized conflict, and people seem to be saying that as long as the editing is not disruptive then it is not an issue. So, how about we talk about disruptive editing or we close the discussion? I don't see anything else coming out of this. Mackan79 (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    There are other ways to damage the encyclopedia besides disruptive editing. The bar for concerns such as I've raised here should be WP:NPOV. Dr. Connolley clearly has a vested interest in Climategate being downplayed, precisely the theme of most of his edits and talk page comments on the subject. He is demonstrably not POV neutral on this issue. Equally disturbing (and equally effective in POV pushing) is his chiming in at every opportunity to silence editors with whom he disagrees. In his recruitment message to the two admins WMC notes "Things are starting to back up at Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement". True that, because one of his strong supporters brought sanction requests against 4 editors in one day. In my case, WMC's request that I be made an example of ("User:Jpat34721 is misbehaving here and needs sanctionning to remind him (and indeed others) that the rules really do exist and have teeth") was granted. I get a month, one other editor gets a day for the same offense, the other two closed as unactionable. Allegations of COI should be taken more seriously than has been demonstrated here where the overriding concern seems to be how best to shoot the messenger. JPatterson (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
    No. No there isn't. If the encyclopedia is being damaged by any editing, that editing is by definition disruptive, whether it's straight vandalism, NPOV violations, or anything else that's harmful to an article. Again, diffs have been requested that might demonstrate this behavior. Otherwise we just have to take your word for it, and clearly you have a bias against the editor due to past conflicts. -- Atama頭 21:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
    Here is WMC edit warring over the term Climategate, a term which he objects to because of its implication of scandal. Here he's reverting a well-sourced reference to a critical analysis of an CRU email with the edit summary "attempt to side-step the controversy by removing the second half entirely". Here he reverts a RS, setting himself up as the judge of what is "accurate and relevant". More edit warring here and here. Another revert of contrarian views here.With this rv he's pushing "the scandal is the hack" meme when clearly by that time, this aspect of the scandal was being all but ignored by the media. I could go on, but it's getting tedious. Dr. Connolley is always on one side of the issue, invariably tries to minimize the scandal, and almost exclusively reverts the work of others rather than contributing to the article himself. None of these edits goes beyond what happens there all the time. But the pattern shows a POV which given his COI should disqualify him from commenting further on this article. JPatterson (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
    Do you have anything more recent than over a month ago? It looks like WMC voluntarily disengaged from editing that article long before you filed this COIN request; if he's not currently editing the article, what would any sanctions accomplish? I am generally not active in the whole climate change mess, but glancing through the article history of the article in question, I can't see where WMC has done anything wrong in the past month that would cause this thread to be started. Yeah, a month ago there was some questionable stuff. But he's stopped, so what now? I tried to figure out how to work with you at your ANI request, but at this point its beginning to look like you are grasping at straws; its beginning to look vexatious and I would highly recommend that you disengage from WMC for a bit, lest you get yourself blocked for being disruptive. You're the sole person who is finding a problem here. --Jayron32 22:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
    They have disengaged, by way of an indefinite block that I've just placed on their account after reading this thread and researching the relevant contribution history. Jehochman 22:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    I guess I'm swimming against the tide here, but I agree that Mr. Connolley should have been banned from the Climategate article for COI. He has a vested interest in mitigating the fallout from that event and has edit warred in the past about it. That being said, since the climate change probation was enacted, he has been careful to toe the line. I suggest, therefore, that he be given a formal warning to be careful to keep his COI from interfering with consensus-development on the Climategate's talk page and leave it a that for now. Cla68 (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Dawood Group

    This seems to be a classic case of Misplaced Pages's Law of Unintended Consequences. Last May, Kashifpisces created Dawood Group about a Pakistani group of companies; he is an SPA editing only Dawood-related articles. Other users have since added sourced material unfavourable to the company, and Kashifpisces has been edit-warring to try to remove it; he was finally blocked for 31 hours, when Kashi786 appeared and carried on, finally requesting deletion WP:CSD#G7, which I declined; he is on a 24-hour block. It is likely that one or both, or others, will be back; a report to WP:SPI may be necessary. JohnCD (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    A sock puppet investigation case has been submitted already. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Kashifpisces. -- Whpq (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
    It may be worth semi-protecting the page if the user attempts to circumvent the block again. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
    Categories: