Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ukexpat (talk | contribs) at 15:29, 6 December 2011 (→User:Nationallawreview). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Theadore Beale

• Theodore Beale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Xday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is the third report at COIN regarding this user and article (see here and here). The username Xday allegedly stands for "Vox Day" which is the subject of the article's standard internet handle. I definitely consider the editor's additions/removals to be contentious and I see some strong ownership issues. The article has a good amount of bloat in it and I believe that the issue stem from the subject's strong political views which may be why several editors have voiced a concern. The article could use some eyes on it. OlYeller21 16:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I need help with this. The editor is now inserting text such as, "and is considered to be one of the Internet's most influential libertarians, as his Vox Popoli blog ranks #25 on the list of Libertarian Top 50 sites, as ranked by Alexa worldwide traffic". They're also adding some heavy claims with only one reference to articles with no cited author. OlYeller21 14:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The editor continues to make edits to the article. 76.218.68.67 (talk) 07:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't claim to have resolved anything, but I've copyedited the article and left a brief explanatory note on its talk page.  —SMALLJIM  23:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the article adequately calls out where citations are needed. None of those claims are overly promotional that I can see. There are some heavy claims made and have one reference associated. There may be some synthesis present but the editor in question seems to understand the issues at this point and is using the talk page. The article still needs work but I don't feel that the help of this noticeboard is currently needed at this point. OlYeller21 21:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The editor in question keeps making edits to the article which are unverified and contentious. What are further Misplaced Pages steps in a situation like this? The editor has not addressed any of the COI concerns raised.76.218.68.67 (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Alf.laylah.wa.laylah and I have been monitoring the page and reverting/discussing changes with the author. We've at least opened a channel of communication but in my opinion, there's still some resistance from the subject of the article. He's not arguing that our policies and guidelines are wrong which is something I always look for. I like to think that we can work with him to improve the article in compliance with WP's policies and guidelines but if problematic editing persists, I think greater action may be warranted to get the editor's attention. In short, I think we're making progress and wait to see how it plays out. OlYeller21 14:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

He's been making a number of WP:POINTy edits recently - today's included. Since he doesn't appear to be able to stop himself from making controversial edits to the article, I have strongly advised him to restrict his editing to the article's talk page in future (as recommended by WP:AVOIDCOI). He also now knows that if he doesn't stop, he's likely to find himself blocked.  —SMALLJIM  22:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, things fell apart quickly. It's becoming clearer and clearer that his goals do not align with Misplaced Pages's. OlYeller21 14:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Eseschool

User:Eseschool has edited European School of Economics. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. – ukexpat (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I stubbed the article, it's largely unsourced and promotional in tone. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Rostislav_V._Lapshin

I don't have any time now, but could someone take a look at some of these additions? A few of them are OK but others appear not to be constructive, and may need to be reverted or replaced with better refs. A13ean (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Lilith (magazine)

• Lilith (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• lilithmag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Today, a series of edits have been made by a user editing as User:lilithmag, adding a raft of awards won by Lilith magazine. I assume good faith, but wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle for even the most worthy of magazines. David in DC (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The user has been blocked and advised on how to change usernames. Looks like the issue is resolved. Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Stay15

• Sharon Tay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Stay15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(Copied from Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention)

• Stay15 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) - The user is only editing the Sharon Tay article presenting biased forms of view and the username is most likely meant as S. Tay. Reliable Forever 17:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a blatant violation of the username policy. Consider filing a report at the conflict of interest noticeboard. January (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

So copied. Rich Farmbrough, 02:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Horasis

Note: Section renamed as my original suspicion appears unfounded. Looks like a standard COI problem now. Hans Adler 09:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Germany's former finance, then defence minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg appears to be planning a comeback, as the popular press has simultaneously started to hype him. (The quality press has commented on this.) On the height of the plagiarism affair, he had received an amount of support on Facebook that appeared far out of proportion for any politician however popular, and consequently some people suspected foul play. (It is possible to buy Facebook fans for fake grassroots campaigns.)

User:Dewritech has, since 28 June (4 weeks after interest in Guttenberg had subsided, as witnessed by page views both here and on the German Misplaced Pages, and by 4 weeks without any edit to the article), consistently and very slowly been moving the article in a more Guttenberg-friendly direction. In many cases his changes were clear corrections and improvements, but for reasons that will be obvious I am a bit suspicious, which made me look at the user's contributions.

The user's first activity was to create an article on a Swiss think tank called "Horasis". An article on Horasis had been deleted in January 2010 after a first AfD. He wrote the new article in his user space , then pasted it into article space and blanked the draft. Speedy deletion as recreated deleted article was declined due to new content, but as a result of the second AfD the article was deleted again in May 2010.

In July 2011, User:Dundswk, a single-purpose account that was active only for 4 days, recreated the article and used an image uploaded by Dewritech. The first lead sentences were identical to those of Dewritech's version, although Google does not find these formulations anywhere except in Misplaced Pages and its mirrors. The article exists to this day under Horasis and still starts with words that were already in Dewritech's version. I cannot see the deleted revisions, so can't check whether they were also in the earliest version, the one that was deleted by the first AfD. It has seen significant activity by red-linked SPA accounts.

There are several dimensions here:

• Persistent recreation of an AfD-deleted article. (I will not G4 it because then I can't see it contents any more for dealing with the other problems.)
• Flagrant sock puppetry or meat puppetry (Dundswk (talk · contribs), Johnbkidd (talk · contribs), Candyisdandy (talk · contribs), Boiscoupe (talk · contribs), AndyorPandy (talk · contribs), Tonyorellie (talk · contribs)). Apart from maintenance work and a few IP edits, the article was edited exclusively by this sock drawer.
• A suspicion of paid editing as opposed to ordinary COI editing, due to the Dewritech/Guttenberg connection.

I am documenting this here so that other editors can also have a look, and will now file an SPI on the obvious Horasis socks. Hans Adler 11:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

SPI page started under WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Dundswk. Hans Adler 12:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

We have a walled garden of spam - Global Arab Business Meeting, Global China Business Meeting, Global India Business Meeting, Global Russia Business Meeting. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

All tagged for G11 speedy. – ukexpat (talk) 14:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned above here some infos about my way into wiki:
At beginning of 2010 one of my younger family members told me about the problem of one of his friends, who had created a Wiki-article, Horasis, which was in danger of being deleted. As I had just used Wiki from time to time before in order to get information, I (having fun with writing) decided to make my first steps as an author and promised to try to improve the article. But after creating my account I discovered that the article in the meantime had already been deleted. So I started in my user space to create a new Horasis article and finally published it. In the following weeks I learned a lot about notability, reliable sources, etc. as in the end the article was deleted again. But within the AfD someone gave the hint, that maybe the Global China Business Meeting could obtain notability. This in mind, and frustrated with my first result, I started again – and this time with more success. After that my Wiki activities slowed down again, but a few months later I was asked to check a different meeting, the Global India Business Meeting, if it has enough notability for an article and if yes, if I could write it. I checked the sources and agreed and wrote the article. My second success.
Since then, being out of business since summer (and still being/feeling young), my activities in Wiki increased, but this time focused on politics, which I like much more. And yes, politically I consider myself being a conservative, what you might discover in my edits. My preference for the Guttenberg article derives out of the poor quality and sourcing the article had in the past, when I saw it the first time. So, since then I have been trying to improve the article step by step, always based on sources – and after discussions, when they were necessary because of different views. Although I was able to start working with AWB in the meantime, making most of my edits there, the Guttenberg article remains of some (maybe sentimental) special interest to me. And I like controversial topics, they keep your mind young.
With my first two articles I have no relations any more (just remained in my watchlist). Just compare my first versions of them with the current ones…
The socket puppetry is absolutely not my business, what some check of the IP’s will validate.
This has been my way in Misplaced Pages so far. -- Dewritech (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and taking the suspicion so well. If I may ask you for clarification on two points:

• So you have no idea who re-created the article once more? (You are under no obligation to answer this.)
• Where did the text come from that makes up the first lead sentences? Did you base it on some source about Horasis, or did you write it free-style? I am asking this because it's remarkable how it was copied literally also into the latest incarnation. It appears to me that either the person copied it from you and so was fully familiar with how and why the article was deleted, or you both used a common source. Hans Adler 16:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Here my answers:

• q1: No, I have absolutely no idea, who re-created the article.
• q2: I just checked my remaining records in detail but could not find an external source for the questioned passage there. At google I found this but can not say which was first. According to my remembrance I tried to avoid carefully any copy-paste of official material for copyright reasons and to prevent any PR-character, therefore I’m quite sure that the passage was indeed "genuine me". -- Dewritech (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Especially your answer to my second question rings true as it is absolutely consistent with the high quality of your copy edits to the Guttenberg article. Johnbkidd has now come to my talk page, is just as cooperative as you are (a rare sight on this website) and also claims to have no idea who you are. So everything is consistent. Hans Adler 19:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your positive feedback. Glad this could be cleared up so quickly. -- Dewritech (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I see the Johnbkidd (talk · contribs) account has popped up this afternoon as well, if this is not sockpuppets, on a behavioural level, it certainly looks like Meatpuppets. I think we need to recruit more eyes to start look at the contributions of those accounts in more detail. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Aquamari has created a specific cat for the org.(), and is also a newly revived account. The Interior (Talk) 04:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

And Aquamari has been editing the Guy Spier article - and what does Spier do he runs a financial fund called the Aquamarine fund and he sits on the board of Horasis.... so whoever that account is, it is likely linked to both. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Cuvette#Specialized_cuvettes

• Cuvette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Cyanine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Orchidee3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Orchidee3 added "Specialized Cuvettes" section to Cuvette, which primarily serves to advertise "DiluCell(TM)" cuvettes (which are made by Implen). Looking at other contributions, they added the section "Nanospectrophotometry" (later NanoPhotometry), which is also an Implen product, and a suggestion to use the "NanoPhotometer(TM)" on the Cyanine page. The reference (pdf), which is added to most of those pages. I think it reads like an ad. Kjsharke (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Brownbrokers

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

I've been working with this editor and they have been very open about their connection to the subject of the article. I don't foresee any problems occurring with this editor. They've been very cooperative.

They have asked that the article be assessed so that the COI tag can be removed from the article. I'm stepping out and don't have time to check right now. Is anyone able to check the article for issues and remove the tag if there are no issues (related to a COI)? If not, I'll do it sometime this weekend. OlYeller21 21:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The Brownbrokers article is at a place where it need to be combed by an editor for neutrality. I have declared a close connection to the subject - I was a manager for the group 2 times during my undergraduate career at Brown University - though I was never a writer or director and I am not cited in any way in the article. I have worked hard to write with a neutral point of view, factually and using encyclopedia rhetoric. All of this can be seen here (http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Charliehertz) discussion with OlYeller21. Charliehertz (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Adamsonians

COI, only contribution is to add an eponymous EL to Adamson University. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Mitch Kokai / John Locke Foundation

• John Locke Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MitchKokai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User name matches the director of communications for the foundation, article may bear checking. A13ean (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Jared Pelletier and Halo:Faith

• Jared Pelletier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Halo: Faith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 174.112.8.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Per the IP's comment here ("I work for Halo:Faith"), and the promotional nature of Pelletier's article, this needs a look. A lot of sourcing to blogs, puffery, etc. It's unclear to me if Pelletier even meets the GNG. The Interior (Talk) 12:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Nationallawreview

• 2011 in LGBT rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nationallawreview (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

While the username is immediately suspect of being from an organisation to promote its website/agenda, the 2 edits he made to the article () link directly back to his site. Lihaas (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

User blocked. – ukexpat (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Dee Dee Myers

I've just posted an explanatory note and {{request edit}} template on the article of former White House spokesperson Dee Dee Myers, seeking consenus to replace the mostly-unsourced, low-quality current article with a better-researched, better-written version. That version is available in my user space here—prepared by myself at the request of Ms. Myers' current firm—and I'd appreciate it greatly if anyone here will take the time to review it and perhaps move it over. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution