Misplaced Pages

:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KJS77 (talk | contribs) at 03:56, 16 August 2011 (→Craig Mitnick: addition). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:56, 16 August 2011 by KJS77 (talk | contribs) (→Craig Mitnick: addition)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    ShortcutsSections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge)
    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Misplaced Pages to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
    You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
    Additional notes:
    • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
    2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
    3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
    • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline.
    Are you in the right place?
    Notes for volunteers
    To close a report
    • Add Template:Resolved at the head of the complaint, with the reason for closing and your signature.
    • Old issues are taken away by the archive bot.
    Other ways to help
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests Talk:260 Collins Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:AvePoint Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Edi Birsan Talk:Adam Boehler Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Bunq Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Casualty Actuarial Society Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Commvault Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:DEGIRO Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Michael Dell Talk:Etraveli Group Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire Talk:Group-IB Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Insight Meditation Society Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:Khalili Foundation Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Home Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician) Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:Louise Showe Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Uppsala Monitoring Centre Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    The Horticultural Channel

    Looks an inappropriate username. Has also edited Sean James Cameron, while the article on the TV channel (executive producer and director Sean James Cameron) was started by User:Seanjamescameron. PamD (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

    This is a belated response, but the editor was blocked for the username violation. The best place for such reports is WP:UAA. -- Atama頭 19:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

    Harbottle & Lewis

    This article was created in December 2009 by JuliaWeiss and many additions were made to it after that by the same user.

    In July, 2011, the law firm came to the public attention because they had been given emails by News International relating to the phone hacking scandal, and wrote a letter which appeared to support NI's position that only one rogue reporter was involved, but when the emails were subsequently looked at by Lord McDonald, foerm head of the PPS, he said it was obvious to him within minutes that there was evidence of criminal activity. This information was then reported widely in the media.

    In early July, an unregistered user added a sentence about their relationship with NI, and a link to Robert Peston's "smoking gun" article. I created a separate sub-section, added further information, and also included a link to the Misplaced Pages 'News International Phone Hacking scandal' Misplaced Pages article.

    On the 29th July, JuliaWeiss added a 'slant' tag.

    I contested this,and also pointed out that the current marketing executive of H&L is called Julia Weiss. Rd232 reduced the content of the NI section, removed the 'slant' tag and agreed that there was poeeibly a COI (conflict of interest) case.

    Yesterday, JuliaWeiss added the 'slant' tag again, and also a 'POV' tage. He/she removed the tags two minutes later. He/she then removed all references to him/her on the discussion page.

    I undid the changes on the 'Talk' page, as I believe it is relevant that the person making these changes may be an employee of H&L.

    She deleted them again, saying "I have deleted references to myself (again) because there is no reason to have my name, and links to my professional profile plastered all over this post. It adds nothing. JuliaWeiss", thereby confirming that she is, indeed, a marketing executive for H&L.

    Sometime later today, all the editings originally ascribed to JuliaWeiss have changed to Hanskew.

    I suggest that anyone searching Misplaced Pages for information about "Harbottle and Lewis" would expect to see a reference to their relationship to NI. The information given is all supported by reliable references, and obviously, H&L are free to add anything whihc might contradict this. To suggest that including such information is biased, slanted, or non-neutral is nonsense and is an attempt by H&L to prevent the public from finding out about the matter. Epzcaw (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

    Just a note, Julia changed her username to Hanskew, probably for reasons of privacy. The COI is pretty evident, however, and a warning was left on her user talk page. She has not edited Misplaced Pages since, so we'll have to deal with this further if and when disruption begins again. -- Atama頭 20:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

    User:Sinclairindex spamming material related to Deborah Winters

    Deborah Winters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) see this reversion before the BLPN posting Intercontinental Releasing Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Sinclairindex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user SPA devoted to promoting Deborah Winters and Intercontinental Releasing Corporation. These often incredibility crufty and spamish. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

    Not 100% an SPA but close enough (this and this don't seem to promote either subject, for example). I've looked over this editor's contributions, and many are questionable but most aren't that bad. I'm not 100% sure we're dealing with a COI, for example where a person has been paid to promote these entities, this could just be a really dedicated fan. Overall, I don't see that their edits are disruptive, I'd say they're more helpful than anything else. Maybe some specific examples of problematic behavior would help. -- Atama頭 17:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

    Setcom

    User apparently affiliated with topic of article, inserting non-WP:NPOV material that turns the article into a marketing vehicle. User has been warned at least twice regarding the material being inserted, and once regarding the possible WP:COI. Username may also run afoul of WP:UN, but that's a topic for a different noticeboard. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

    • Not only aren't they not a strong violation, they're often encouraged, because they simultaneously reveal an editor's affiliations and yet reinforce the idea that the account represents a person, not an individual. I've seen on multiple occasions where other editors actually suggest a username change along the lines of "Company-Bob" rather than just "Company". As to the behavior itself, I'll take a look, if this falls too far into WP:SPAM territory then warnings or a block might be warranted. -- Atama頭 17:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    Hmm, so it looks like the article was basically created by, and maintained by people affiliated with the company (probably employees). It has zero references, the only external link is the company's web site. Is it actually notable? Maybe it's worth discussing deletion. -- Atama頭 18:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

    BLPN

    There's a discussion at BLPN that might benefit from the views of a couple of people who have actually read the COI guideline before. The situation is this:

    An editor who is a professor of psychology, corrected several significant and verifiable errors in a BLP, at the direct request of the subject, who is a professor of psychology at another university. An admin reverted to the error-filled version and is claiming that the editor may never edit the articles of anyone in the same professional field, because a "conflict of interest" prohibits him from editing—even to correct serious errors—any articles about people he knows professionally.

    The discussion, which identifies several separate issues, including false claims by an activist about the nature of the edits and whether individual admins can impose topic bans in defiance of the banning policy, is here, and to avoid fragmenting it, I'd really appreciate it if any comments were posted there rather than on this page. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

    I greatly reduced your post per WP:CANVASS; you presented a biased viewpoint, advocating for a desired outcome. Binksternet (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
    ...And I just greatly unreduced it. It's one thing to warn someone about canvassing, it's yet another to refactor their comments (see WP:TPO which doesn't mention canvassing as a viable reason to edit another person's comments) and it's yet very much another matter to gut their comment to the extent that it's no longer useful (for example, deleting the link to the particular discussion, which I restored). -- Atama頭 21:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
    My apologies to Whatamidoing for my violation of the integrity of the post, against TPO practice. I won't do that again! For the record, I examined the linked thread at BLP and determined that I agreed fully with Whatamidoing's position even though the original note with canvassing overtones prejudiced me the other direction. Binksternet (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
    That's the thing about a place like COIN: you get used to being able to trust that in the end your fellow editors will evaluate disputes on their merits, rather on the tone of the original posting. I think that my faith is justified.
    Basically, I posted like I did because I didn't want you to look at that discussion without knowing that there were multiple issues in addition to COI (so much of the complicated discussion could be ignored, if you wanted to comment only on COI issues), and that I have strong views on the matter (which you would have been entirely free to disagree with, of course). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

    Non-notable name in article again plus original research

    New User:Ebenezercore continues to insert the name of a child into a description of the Kinetic sculpture race started by the child's father, Hobart Brown. As a former Kinetic race organizer, I do not wish to correct this individual. At the time the race began, the child was of age to ride a tricycle and not old enough to be in school. The child, now adult, meets no notability criteria for wiki. The alleged middle name given is not listed in the citation, therefore meets original research criteria. The user was cautioned on 1st or 2nd of August 2011 and returned with a citation supporting only part of his edit. Googling the name inserted into the article and the username making the changes suggests it is the same individual, or one posing as the same, making the changes. Being too close to the situation myself, I request help from the wiki-community. Thank you. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

    It looks like an unregistered user removed it, so all seems to be well at the moment. You might consider explaining your concerns on the article's talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

    COI additions restored by another user

    After Single purpose account User:Erinscime began spamming material she'd written to several articles, I reverted all instances and warned her. User:Andy Dingley restored the deleted comment, with the summary re-add Scime ref. Yes, I don't like the namechecking tone in this article and it's surely against WP:MOS - however it's already pervasive through the article, so re-work the whole lot together, if wished.) (Which reads to me as "the article already has COI, so let's continue to allow more COI additions.") I removed it again and cited WP:COI, which User:Andy Dingley promptly reverted again, suggesting I take it to ANI. I brought it here instead, as I don't see it as an ANI issue. Second opinions? OhNoitsJamie 21:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

    Jamie needs to lay off the WP:BITE and particularly the attacks on other editors. There are several problems with his actions here:
    This "SPA account" is actually a new editor. An editor with a traceable real-world profile, one that indicates they're a worker in the field of these articles. This is exactly the sort of editor we should be encouraging, not driving away with this kind of reception.
    Secondly, they didn't "spam" this link (read their contribs history, it's short). What they actually did was just what we ask such editors to do, to reduce the risk of COI issues - they noted the link on a relevant talk page first and asked another editor to consider adding this. I saw this (it's a field of professional interest to myself), read the link and considered it well worth adding, so I did so. This is how it's supposed to work. This is a valued addition by someone knowledgeable in the field, it's not spam.
    I also added a note saying that their long-ish article might be relevant to other citations, which I hadn't had time to add myself. Unfortunately I worded this poorly - I should have clarified that I meant in this article, not other articles (I'd be happy to add it to other articles myself, but it does bring up the COI issue afresh, and that's best avoided). My fault here, if the editor saw my comment as an invitation to add it to other articles themself - to clarify, that's a good action on their part, but it's not an obviously good action.
    This is the crux of why Jamie is reacting wrongly here - not everything added by an editor from outside the cabal is an attack to be resisted.
    Couple of other points: the style of content strategy sucks. It sucked already, and it wants fixing. It name checks ref authors and it inlines quotes. This is just against WP:MOS and our usual conventions. It wants fixing when someone has time (that's not being wasted on Serious Admin Bizniz like this). However for a new editor adding a link to follow the page's current and obvious style is no crime. Nor do I think it was unreasonable to restore the new ref with much the same style, hence my comment.
    Finally, I consider this to be a good ref to add. If anyone questions that (and that's a clearly GF issue of content matters), then that's a separate issue from this. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
    Erin Scime is a real world expert on the topic, and should be encouraged to participate. Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
    If the article is already doing a lot of name-checking, then the new editor probably thought that was the house style and ought to be emulated.
    As a general rule, I think it's most helpful when people to WP:PRESERVE and expand content, rather than reverting simply because the "wrong" person added it to the article. It's more work than hitting the WP:UNDO button, but if we only allowed "perfect" additions to be made, then we'd never get anything done. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

    Request for assistance

    I'm posting this message here seeking a fair-minded editor to review the current article about DCI Group, a consulting firm based in Washington, DC, and on whose behalf I'm writing. I have made no direct edits to the live article (nor has any editor since 2010, nor has any real person since 2009) and have instead spent a few months researching and writing what I think would be a suitable replacement article that's both more accurate and complete and, to the best of my knowledge, faithfully adheres to Misplaced Pages content guidelines. I have posted this draft in my user space, specifically here: User:Willemite/DCI_Group.

    Last week I posted a longer explanation about it on the article's discussion page, and today I added the article to two relevant WikiProjects, Companies and United States/District of Columbia. Explanations of content changes are there, and I would be more than happy to discuss the article and work toward seeing the current version replaced by something much closer to the one I've prepared.

    Thank you, Willemite (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

    It certainly looks to be an improvement - I will double check some facts and then update the article if the draft is accurate. If anyone else can take a look it would be helpful however. SmartSE (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

    User:Madduck/Martin Krafft

    While searching for a WP policy, I stumbled upon this webpage where a person has blogged about an article that was created for them and their experience with WP (summary: he was unsatisfied with his article being deleted/redirected). The article, Martin Krafft, was first moved by the subject to his userspace and then was deleted after a short merge for deletion discussion which wasn't very thorough in my opinion, was submitted by the subject of the article, and never once mentions a single WP policy or guideline. Madduck hasn't edited the page for over two years and I would normally mark the page for deletion per WP:USERBIO, WP:STALEDRAFT, and/or point 2 of Misplaced Pages:Userfication#What_cannot_be_userfied but I think there should be a little more attention paid than normally would be. I can't find any discussion about the deletion of the article other than that is was PRODed.

    I believe that the userpage either needs to be moved to mainspace or deleted. I bring this here because I believe that it might cause an issue on and off of WP with someone who describes themselves as a hacker. In the next few hours, I'm going to attempt to assess whether or not the subject is notable then move from there. If you are free now or would like to help verify notability, I'd be grateful for the help. OlYeller 14:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

    Eh, I'm not that worried, I'm sure that many regular editors of Misplaced Pages can be considered "hackers" of one kind of another (I myself could be considered a hacker or at least could have been when I was younger). I'd just treat it like anything else, if it's not notable it probably can be deleted. It has sat on that user subpage untouched for more than 2 years, and user space isn't a place to permanently park articles about non-viable subjects. -- Atama頭 18:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    It was deleted yesterday after I basically made up a CSD description because apparently PRODs can't be used on user pages. It was deleted as a G7 which doesn't really apply. I guess I don't care since the goal was achieved. OlYeller 12:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

    Swarcliffe

    Follow-up from Talk:Swarcliffe and User talk:Harkey Lodger. Waterfox 14:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

    Can you please explain the COI? It's not very clear at the moment. All I see is that you're accusing a well established editor of a COI, produced no real evidence, and failed to notify them of this report (which I will now do). OlYeller 14:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    Adapted from User talk:Harkey Lodger: User:Andreasegde has added a link on the Swarcliffe page to the page Andrew Edge, an article to which he has made an inordinate number of contributions. When checking the refs by googling, Harkey found that the Utube account for "andreasegde" is the realm of Andrew Edge. Some refs on the Andrew Edge article point to his own blog and homepage. Harkey has only checked a few of the other refs but none, so far, prove his connections with the people he mentions, just that these people exist: of which I had no doubt anyway. Putting "Andrew Edge" into Misplaced Pages the search box reveals an unusual number of links in other articles. Harkey thinks this may be a case of an editor being in breach of WP:COI. He has edited his own biography without declaring his interest. — Waterfox 15:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    The same editor has also made a lot of contributions to Drumsing, Savage Progress and Uropa Lula without declaring an interest.--Harkey (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    The important thing to remember about WP:COI is that not only is declaring a close link to the subject(s) whose article's you're editing not required, unless you show that your goals are directly conflicting with the goals of WP, there is no COI (only the possibility of a COI). You've certainly shown an apparent close relationship but I still don't see any breach of WP:COI but I don't have an intimate knowledge of the edits like I'd bet you do. Some diffs that show how the user is directly promoting their own goals over WP would certainly make things clearer. OlYeller 16:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    I don't see a problem with the mention of Edge in the Swarcliffe article: if you search Misplaced Pages for "Swarcliffe", he is the only person whose article is included in the 25 hits, so if that article passes notability it is reasonable for any editor to add a mention of him as a notable resident. There may be a COI with other articles. PamD (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    The problem is not with the Swarcliffe article in particular. I took this " Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest." to mean what it says. Creating articles about a group/band/artist promotes their visibility instantly because of the way Misplaced Pages is used across the internet as a free source of content. I do not have an intimate knowledge of the user's edits. I came across this by coincidence, when I was checking an article that he had linked to a page I was editing. I think it shows the subjects of the articles in a bad light if they are seen to be in need of free publicity. However, so be it. --Harkey (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    I mentioned Swarcliffe because that's the title of this COIN section, possibly inappropriately! I agree there may well be a lot of COI in other articles - and Chzz's research below is certainly very interesting, in terms of articles created etc. I'm not familiar enough with WP:RS in music to know whether those articles are well sourced, or pass notability. PamD (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
    I have had a quick look, and I see a serious concern here. I checked just some of the links on Misplaced Pages to "Andrew Edge", and discovered that this user;
    • Created Savage Progress Andrew Edge (drums/background vocals)
    • Added to Thompson Twins, Andrew Edge joined them on drums for about one year, but left because of the internal tension
    • Created Drumsing, a duo of musicians featuring Andrew Edge
    • Created Uropa Lula , a British pop group, consisting of David Lloyd (vocals and guitar), Allan Dias (bass guitar), Pete Fromm (keyboards), Andrew Edge (drums/percussion)
    • Added to Tom Bailey (musician), Andrew Edge played drums with them for one year before Chris Bell joined
    • Added to Linz, Living in Linz: Andrew Edge (born in Leeds, England, 1956) musician.
    I'm sure there's lots more; I only checked a few. I don't know if I have the time to trawl through all of this. It's going to be a bit messy, I'm afraid. :-(  Chzz  ►  19:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    While editing under a conflict of interest certainly creates the appearance of impropriety, what is the substance of his additions to this articles? First of all, I don't think he's really hiding his real identity (Andreas Edge vs. Andrew Edge? Really? Does it take a rocket scientist to put THAT together?). Secondly, WP:COI doesn't outright ban editing articles, just that the additions need to be neutrally worded and otherwise obey Misplaced Pages policy. While I do note that the andreasedge account has hardly been a model citizen to this point, I think the WP:COI evidence provided above doesn't raise to the level of being damning in terms of an issue. I have minor concerns about a person who belonged to a band adding themselves to that article. It's a mild bit of vanity compared to the really eggregious WP:COI stuff we see all the time. Again, the COI is there, but I don't think this rises to the level of a bannable offense yet. Definately something to keep an eye on, but I'm not sure that (for this behavior) sanctions are in order. I would continue to encourage the Andreasedge account to be careful to avoid problems, but I still think we're in the "warn and watch" phase of this. I think we can go and clean up any unreliable sources, remove the worst of the fluff, and caution him to avoid edit warring over this. If edit warring over clean-up to these articles or WP:OWN becomes a major issue, sanctions can be considered. --Jayron32 13:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

    Caruso Affiliated

    Can someone help a new editor out? Especially, note this edit. tedder (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

    I've pointed the editor to some affiliated policies/guidelines. I haven't looked at any of the edits other than to see that you've removed everything they've added. Have their edits constituted a COI? There's obviously a possibility of a COI but I haven't seen concrete evidence that there is a COI. I do sense the possibility of a copyvio, though. OlYeller 15:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    Between the first version (that I reverted) and the subsequent pastes, I'm invoking WP:DUCK for a COI. And yes, POV issues. I smelled a copyvio but didn't find one by googling. Which means the author likely wrote all of that, which gives more weight to it being a COI. tedder (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    They've aknowledged the message I left on their talk page and said they're going to read through the pages. I'd like to assume good faith that the issue will be dealt with but it will probably take more work than that (something an admin will have to attend to). OlYeller 16:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    I have just chopped out a bunch of spammy stuff about "Mr Caruso" and his political aspirations as it is clearly spammy and inappropriate for this article. – ukexpat (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    And the spamming continues, this time by new user User:Jackaroe1. Page protection requested. – ukexpat (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
    I put a 3 day semiprotection on the article. -- Atama頭 16:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

    User:ICJIA/Illinois criminal justice information authority

    Currently userfied, possibly future article. Possibly a conflict of interest due to the username being an initialism for the userfied article. Tckma (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

    Username reported to WP:UAA. – ukexpat (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

    Michele Wallace Campanelli

    Autobiographical article - massive problems with sourcing and referencing. Author continues to remove maintenance tags on the article without addressing the problems, even after warnings. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

    I've added Black Widow (American band) because the same problems exist: Campanelli (née Wallace) was a member of the band, is the primary contributor to the article, and continues to remove maintenance templates. —C.Fred (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    I've opened a sock puppet investigation - after the article was deleted (tagged by another editor), brand new account Firecracker461 appeared and recreated the article word for word. An amazing coincidence, donchathink? :) MikeWazowski (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    It quacked and has been blocked. – ukexpat (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

    Arent Fox

    This user (which may be a commercian account of the law firm itself) appears to be removing material about an ongoing legal case against the law firm. Eastlaw  ⁄ contribs 11:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

    The source they are trying to remove is a blog, it's not as far as I can see a RS. Have reliable sources talked about this court case? if not, the information should be removed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
    Not that I think this will solve the problem but the user is going to end up being blocked via UAA for a username violation. I'm guessing they'll pop back up under another name which might make the COI more difficult to spot. OlYeller 12:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
    The username has been blocked but they're attempting to ask for an unblock and help with the article. Cameron and Eastlaw, you might want to address the removal of content with them so they understand why it was removed. They seem to want what's best for everyone (WP and their company). OlYeller 13:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
    Two things; Arentfox is blocked for the username, and only the username, they are allowed (encouraged even) to create a new account with a username that follows WP:UNP if they wish to continue editing (or they can request an unblock with a username change request). Secondly, the editor has claimed to be satisfied with the article in its current state and has indicated that they are fine with staying blocked. -- Atama頭 08:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

    chadwin patch, i just want to talk to my family

    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 24.18.90.217 (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

    Claude E. Gagna

    Can I get some fresh, independent eyes to look at this article? Back in May 2010, some students of Gagna were assigned to create an article about this college instructor. Over the past day or so, there's been a flurry of activity by an account that apparently is Gagna himself editing the article.

    The current text is ill-formatted and reads a lot closer to a résumé than an encyclopedia article. I think it could benefit by some extra eyes looking at it—and possibly some extra voices expressing the need to bring it in line with Misplaced Pages standards. —C.Fred (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

    I see really bad formatting (it makes me feel ill just looking at it) but is there actually a conflict of interest or just the danger of one? It looks like there's a lot included that really doesn't need to be (a line for a patent and then another line for the Japanese version) but I don't see any weasely language in a skim through. At this point, we made need to find an expert to help determine what should/shouldn't be included for sections like this. We should be able to figure out what awards and group memberships should/shouldn't be included on our own but help from an expert would help. Perhaps most importantly, has notability been established? I would guess so from the awards but as of right now, WP:GNG and WP:PROF don't appear to be satisfied. OlYeller 13:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
    Article speedily deleted as an advertisement. It was basically a resumé and advertising is what resumés do. – ukexpat (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

    User:Mathsci is accusing another editor for having a COI in an arbitration enforcement case. This would seem to be a case of a subject-matter expert voicing an opinion. There are subject-matter experts from the opposite side also involved in the dispute (anthropologists). This accusation and note to "uninvolved administrators" would seem to be a case of "accusing another editor of having a conflict of interest in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited and may result in sanctions against you." Miradre (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

    Another frivolous request by Miradre. Memills has made it quite clear on wikipedia that he is an evolutionary psychologist. Evolutionary psychology is a controversial subject, so acting as an advocate for the subject would probably be considered a WP:COI. Miradre seems to be playing his favourite game of forum-shopping yet again. Groan. Mathsci (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
    This is just as incorrect as it would be to accuse the anthropologists supporting Mathsci of having a COI. Miradre (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
    (ce) Anthropology is not a controversial subject: it is a mainstream academic subject. No other person on wikipedia has ever suggested that either Slrubenstein or Maunus, both administrators and professional anthropologists, have any conflict of interest in editing articles like anthropology. On the other hand there have been previous discussions involving Memills on wikipedia noticeboards, e.g. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive693#Evolutionary Psychology, just to give a recent example. Mathsci (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
    Are you guys going to come to COIN and start an enormous thread every time you have a dispute over content? OlYeller 13:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
    This report is not about content-editing; it concerns a request at WP:AE. Miradre is yet again disrupting wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. Another frivolous attempt to waste everbody's time. Groan. Mathsci (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
    Again, this is just as frivolous as it would be to accuse the anthropologists supporting Mathsci of having a COI. A clear case of attempting to gain the upper in hand in a dispute by COI accusations. Miradre (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
    Miradre you are misusing this noticeboard and the arguments you are presenting are like those of a small child. Please could you stop this? Thanks Mathsci (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
    Personal attacks do not strengthen your case. Miradre (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
    They don't do much for yours either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
    Ah. One of the involved editors in the AE case turn up. Of course, I have made no personal attack. Miradre (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
    Diffs: (for example). Evidently you can accuse others of pushing a POV, or of 'ideological bias', but that isn't a personal attack, eh? Yeah, right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
    Arguing that someone has POV on a subject is not the same as comparing someone to "a small child". Miradre (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
    The comment applied to your edits, which here hit an all-time low. Mathsci (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
    How about if someone suggests that you are behaving like a small child for ideological reasons, Miradre? ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
    See WP:Civility: "belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts". This certainly applies. Miradre (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

    (←) So the implied question, if you ignore the useless and time-wasting bickering, seems to be, "Is Mathsci correct in accusing someone of having a COI for editing in matters related to their profession?" The answer is no. Can we end the thread then? Nothing else that anyone has brought up is relevant to this board. -- Atama頭 08:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

    Equality Ride

    I made several edits to the article to remove promotional material and improve neutrality. After I did so, Flowingfire (talk · contribs), whose edits are almost exclusively to the Equality Ride and consist of heavily promotional material, referred to the article as "our article" on the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Equality_Ride&diff=prev&oldid=444515939 here]:

    I approve of the revert that undid the damage done to this page by the user known as NYYankees. Over time, there has been a great deal of vandalism, and manufactured controversy that has caused people to attack the Equality Ride Misplaced Pages page. It has now been nominated for deletion twice, the page has been "blanked" several times over the years... And now, vandalism has been done by removing relevant content.

    I expect this might be an ongoing problem for this page, but I just decided to fix it, replace some photos that were nominated for unjust deletion, and then comment here.

    Quit vandalizing our page for political reasons. You may not like the gay rights movement or the young people showing up at your doorstep to call you out for your hateful practices, but leave the Misplaced Pages page alone.

    Seems like a pretty clear conflict of interest - the user is an employee or otherwise affiliated with Soulforce or Equality Ride. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

    Looks like you are right. I will put the article on my watchlist to ride herd on NPOV which is the crux of COI. Binksternet (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


    Response and Further Complaint: I am filing an official Conflict of Interest report against NYYahkees51, who I believe to be politically motivated to minimize the Equality Ride's Misplaced Pages page however he can. From all appearances, this user is reducing the quality of the Equality Ride page by removing relevant content, and would like to see it gone for political reasons.

    Because he's a self-proclaimed creationist, pro-life Christian on his profile, NYYankees51 may have political issues with a gay rights group that visits & confronts anti-gay Christian institutions. I think this motivation is exemplified by his attempt to get the Equality Ride page deleted for almost no reason-- right after removing content.

    I am not interested in seeing edits that reduce the quality of content. I'm not interested when someone says a well-written article isn't "neutral," because it's not accounting for the point of view of an anti-gay born-again Christian. Guess what? If all material about minorities had to be "neutral" against the leanings of people who hate them, then the KKK would be able to edit the articles on Judaism and say the holocaust was "questionable," because some say it never happened. This is ridiculous, and the Equality Ride article was written in a VERY neutral voice, given a neutrally-accepting perspective on LGBT rights. It has also been edited by many, many people over time.

    Who wouldn't see it as neutral? Somebody who despises the gay rights movement, and demands gay people be referred to in a certain minimized or pejorative light. Sometimes a little "conflict of interest" is necessary to keep minority turf from being invaded by barbarians. If people with vested interest in diminishing the gay rights movement can freely edit articles about gay people, then I might as well go to all the minority pages and change them to fit the white perspective. That would be neutral right? No. Actually, it wouldn't be.

    This issue MUST be dealt with by gay, lesbian, bi, and transgender people alone. Nobody else.

    I request review by a specifically gay, lesbian, bi, or trans moderator who can resolve this conflict. Flowingfire (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

    ^I rest my case. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

    Enforcing "neutrality" from a hateful majority perspective against a minority isn't neutrality; it's imperialism. Have you ever read 20th century writings (like Feminism) about objectivity simply being a codified majority opinion? This is a gay rights activism page. It's going to be coming from that perspective, just as all articles will generally come from a perspective. You HAVE to take that community's experiences into account, and not incorporate majority bias as part of a "neutrality" argument. No neutrality exists, ever, because the person writing something always brings their attitude to the table. That said, the article was in good "neutral-voice" for what it was. Flowingfire (talk) 03:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

    An observation here. I see no reason to talk of "a hateful majority perspective". Being heterosexual doesn't equate with being homophobic. Regarding the article itself, I'll not comment, since I haven't read it as yet: maybe NYyankee51 is being 'imperialistic' (whatever that means in this context), or maybe not - that is no reason to assume that everyone who isn't LGBT is part of some oppressive regime. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

    Heterosexual people are not what I'm talking about. Truly, most are in fact good, and not homophobic. I'm saying this particular person is not neutral on this matter, likely due to religious and political affiliations. He will not understand the gay experience, or be able to accurately gauge neutrality. In the same way, I, being white, will never understand the "black" experience and would be a little silly to try to claim neutrality arguments against an Afro-centric page from a (potentially racist) white perspective. Flowingfire (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

    Yes, but sadly, one can apply the same logic to say that only Ku Klux Klan members understand the 'Klan' experience, so only Klan members should edit articles about the Klan (I believe that someone actually tried to argue this once on Misplaced Pages). If you have specific concerns about NYyankee, then fine, tell us what they are. You are right of course that true 'neutrality' is impossible to achieve, but that is no reason to abandon the principle that by discussion and debate, it is possible to move towards it - this is one of the principles that Misplaced Pages is founded on - the belief that we can agree with people who are different than ourselves. It may be hopelessly idealistic (indeed, it probably is), but our efforts seem to result in something passably useful while we fail to achieve this utopian ideal. I'd say, having looked at the article in question, that I've seen far worse, and that it doesn't look like a hatchet-job cooked up by Christian Fundamentalists to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

    I agree that moving toward agreement through dialogue is a good goal, and I hope we can do that overall. It's hard when the people presenting the most challenges to a minority group's page are very much invested in minimizing us. Remember: minimization is a form of oppression. You're right-- it's not a hatchet job as is... But, half the content has just been flagged for removal, and it would be a hatchet-job without tireless effort to keep it afloat. Yes, I agree that dialogue and discussion can always move toward a greater ideal of some form of neutrality, even if true philosophical neutrality is not possible.Flowingfire (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

    Ok, we seem to be getting somewhere here. Regarding the content 'flagged for removal' this seems (at least on the face of it) to be because there are no citations provided, indicating where the content is derived from: Misplaced Pages isn't a provider of free space for pressure groups, regardless of the justness of their cause - instead it is an online encyclopaedia, with a commitment to writing articles based on externally-verifiable third-party reliable sources. I am quite sure that your particular cause has attracted enough attention for it to be possible to find this - and if it isn't, then sadly, the problem is with the world at large, and not with Misplaced Pages, and you are unlikely to change much by arguing here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

    Most of the potential sources are on copyrighted documentaries or were on television or print media. (Like The Advocate, Washington Post, ABC News, etc, etc, etc.) "History" is rarely written about current-events. Over time, "current" news sources from print media become archived for pay or unavailable. That said, removing 3/4 of the page will do no good. Also... please respect the role of a civil rights organization instead of calling it a "pressure group?" That's pejorative. I suppose you could call King's march a "pressure group" too though... Flowingfire (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

    I emphasize, and also re-iterate my very, very serious request for specific review by LGBT moderators. I might not be neutral, but neither is the primary bringer of this COI notice. Somebody neutral should just go around and look for relevant sources rather than letting the whole page be deleted. Most of them are pretty well archived in pay webs, if you know where you're looking. Flowingfire (talk) 04:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

    A reply to your first comment: If the potential sources are on print media, then they are exactly what we need - and being difficult to access is no reason to prevent them being cited. If they exist, and can be verified, they can be cited. As for the difference between a 'pressure group' and a 'civil rights organization', I personally believe that 'civil rights' only come about through 'group pressure' and changing economic circumstances, though I may be in a minority on this. And can you drop the endless martyrdom references please. I've heard them all before, and they do little to convince anyone of anything. If you believe in a cause, you should be able to argue it on its own merits, not by riding on the coattails of others. I've explained how Misplaced Pages works, I've explained what you need to do - so get searching for sources, rather than wasting time here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
    And a reply to your second comment: We do not have 'moderators' on Misplaced Pages - this isn't an internet forum. It is an online encyclopaedia. Some contributors are administrators - and they have (at least in theory) no more right to determine article content than anyone else - they have additional powers to enforce policies arrived at by general consensus (again, hopeless utopianism, that doesn't actually work in practice, but on the way - probably by accident - helps make Misplaced Pages produce something vaguely useful). And we certainly don't have 'LGBT moderators' - I'm sure we have LGBT administators, but we don't hand out special powers to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation. You'll have to convince us all, gay and straight, black and white, pro-chopping-the-blunt-end-of-a-boiled-egg-off or pro-chopping-the-pointy-end-of-a-boiled-egg-off of the merits of your arguments. That is how it works here. It is a pain, but it seems to work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

    Thank you for your time. If references are at issue, I hope somebody with a lot of time is as passionate about this article as I've been. Maybe NYYankees51 will decide to provide some references or content. In fact, that would show a great deal of commitment to the article's success on his part! I hope he's not just out to make it disappear! Flowingfire (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

    midtown comics

    hope i am doing this right. there is a gallery at Midtown Comics that only looks to be there to promote the institution. it is also almost entirely full of pictures by the same person, who admits he frequents the store and is friends with people who work there. the gallery seems to serve no informative purpose other than to promote the photographer and institution, in my opinion, but i am new here so maybe i am wrong. there's already talk on the talk page about it. cheers. NorthFarWest (talk) 09:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

    Has absolutely no encyclopaedic value at all - I've deleted it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

    appreciate your fast response. have also noticed quite a few articles have the pictures in them like Tim Sale (artist) and Brian Michael Bendis have the same pictures, linking the page to Midtown Comics underneath the picture. not sure of wikipedia policy but does this count as advert? NorthFarWest (talk) 09:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

    It's a matter of context, they are good headshots for their individual articles and the mention of Midtown links to the midtown article here rather than their website, so I say that was fine. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

    right some of them are nice shots and probably there are not better ones. looks like advertising to me but as long as hes not changing all the profile photos to his own seems cool. cheers. NorthFarWest (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

    I think it's important to note that the user who uploaded and added most if not all of the images (Nightscream (talk · contribs)) is an admin. Obviously this doesn't make them immune to COIs but notifying them of this inquiry would be kind. I wouldn't say it's advertising but probably more of an excitement surrounding a topic. Regardless, I don't particularly see how it's actively going against WP's goals but doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic either (so I support the removal). OlYeller 18:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
    For the record, I give descriptive captions to all of my photos to when I add them to articles, regardless of where they were taken. Examples include the Brooklyn Book Festival, Big Apple Con, Barnes & Noble, or events in my hometown, and I gave these examples in a discussion on the Midtown Comics article talk page here. As I stated in that discussion, my intent in doing so is to provide information that is descriptive and explanatory, not promotional. It is neither my intent (nor do I believe that it is the effect) to "advertise" Midtown Comics any more than than it is to advertise any of these other locations or events. Nightscream (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

    Dave O'Grady Music

    I unblocked Daveogradymusic (talk · contribs) right after blocking because it was a real name, but if he resumes editing could someone make the appropriate COI interventions? Thanks. Daniel Case (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

    The real person's account Daveogrady (talk · contribs) already exists (and appears to be the same person), so shouldn't Daveogradymusic (talk · contribs), which implies some sort of business using the individual's name, be re-blocked? – ukexpat (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
    Well, let's ask first, if only so we know whether we can block as a sock or for username purposes. Daniel Case (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
    The editor might also have lost control of the original account, because of lost password, etc. The old account hasn't edited for 2 1/2 years. -- Atama頭 01:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

    Ctwomen

    Ctwomen is a promotional only account with a conflict of interest. Joe Chill (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

    Blocked by Reaper Eternal for spamming with an invalid username. -- Atama頭 18:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

    User:Loki0115 and raw foodism

    Moved to WP:NPOVN § User:Loki0115 and raw foodism – —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

    Lately, Loki0115 (talk · contribs) has been raising issues with the content of an article I authored as part of a course on human evolution titled Control of fire by early humans. His issues seem to stem from the fact that he disagrees with the writings of a particular evolutionary biologist who wrote on the subject, who doesn't have many proponents, but the discussion of his writings are still useful for the article. When I checked his contributions, I discovered that Loki0115 has been heavily editing articles concerning the raw foodism movement, which are:

    It appears that he has reached some level of opposition on his beliefs on various talk pages, but my main issue is that he has been removing swaths of content that he does not agree with without adding sources to provide the contrary. I came here because I am fairly certain that his actions are not allowable and his most recent edits, along with his extensive editing history, show a clear agenda to push raw food consumption.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

    That might be, but to show a conflict of interest, you would need to demonstrate that Loki0115 is connected closely to the subject (promoting themselves, a friend or relative, or an organization they are affiliated with). Or perhaps to show that they are being compensated in some way for the edits. Editing with a bias isn't a conflict of interest, those issues are handled by WP:BLPN. -- Atama頭 20:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
    So I have to go to the biographies of living persons noticeboard to report biased eding? I looked at WP:FTN too, but that didn't look like the right place because this isn't a pseudoscience as far as I am aware.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
    These articles aren't BLPs, and I cannot see a BLP issue here. BLP/N isn't the place to deal with this. I suggest that you try to engage with Loki0115 on his/her talk page - if nothing else can settle this Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct might be the last resort, but we need to make clear what the problem is first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
    Meh. I meant to put WP:POVN, my mistake. We have too much freaking alphabet soup on this site, I tell you. :) But yes, that noticeboard is specifically for editors who are clearly demonstrating an inability to edit without bias. -- Atama頭 20:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
    All right. I'll copy my initial post over to POVN then.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

    I am surprised at the charges, a number of which are clearly inaccurate. But I will continue with this on the other page.Loki0115 (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

    Craig Mitnick

    Anonymous user changed the wording of the article to laud the subject. They claim that they were a broadcaster with CBS, hinting personal involvement. They now refuse to have these edits reversed. KJS77 03:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

    Categories: