Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stewiedv (talk | contribs) at 02:03, 22 April 2013 (→Vanilla DeVille). 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:

John Mackey (American football)

Recently, I posted a request on the Talk page of the article linked in the header, aiming to point out some false information within the article and propose a replacement section correcting this, along with a few other issues. So far, I haven't had any luck getting help from an independent editor, hence my follow-up here. And myy COI is with the NFLPA, of which Mackey was formerly president. I'll be watching this page or the Mackey Talk page for replies, thanks! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done - I couldn't see any reason why not. The logic was sound, the sourcing was better and the text was less POV and more compliant with WP:BLP, in my view. Stalwart111 07:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Stalwart, very much appreciated. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Vanilla DeVille

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

I created this article about an adult film actress a week or so ago, and then when I looked at it later, I noticed that it looked like this, and the problem with that is that not only was much of that information either unsourced or unreliably sourced, but the addition was done by User:Stewiedv, which sounds a lot like the name of Vanilla DeVille's husband (Stewie). I told Stewiedv about the possible COI as well telling him(?) the problem with most of the new info, but he not only put everything back, he even added more information backed up by more unreliable sources (a forum on an adult video store's website, for example). Basically, Stewiedv doesn't seem to understand about WP:RS or WP:COI; can someone help out, please? (And as I stated in this edit summary, I am not trying to violate WP:OWN.) Erpert 21:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the summary above. I took his comments into consideration, and removed several things in my last edit due to his response. However, User:Erpert deleted every word added in each edit, even if it came from the same sources he cited himself. In fact, a good portion of the information added came from the very same sites and sources he used to create the original article, and several of the sources I added verified the same information. Plus, the example given (a forum on an adult video store's website) was not from a forum, but from a DVD database, which is not user generated, showing that he did not even read the sources cited. However, the interview he used for a large portion of his article was actually a copy that came from a forum interview. It seems like an issue of WP:OWN. Stewiedv (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I clearly stated that I am not trying to own the article (especially since I explained my reasoning), so you're the one that isn't paying attention. And I didn't delete every word; if I had, I would be trying to own it. Speaking of that though, you claim I deleted information you gave from the sources I added? Where in those sources does it state "DeVille" is Stewie's last name? Where does it state what year they got married in? (Most porn stars don't use their real names, you know.) It seems more like you strategically added information in the article right near sources that were already there to give the impression that said information came from those sources.

One other thing, I notice that you didn't even try to dispute the notion of this being a conflict of interest. Erpert 04:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, you're sounding possessive and grasping at straws. Of course you would say you're not trying to own a document in an official complaint here, but the fact is you changed even minor word and grammatical changes. For example: I changed your two short sentences of "DeVille was born and raised in Detroit, Michigan.. She was raised by her mother and stepfather" to one proper sentence as "DeVille was born and raised in Detroit, Michigan by her mother and stepfather." - You changed that back, even though there was no difference in information, but you felt it was against the rules and not sourced properly. Another example: You removed "She entered the adult film industry in 1999 at the age of 28." from the opening intro paragraph, yet you had similar data, from your original source, in the "Adult film career" section, which was verified with additional sources I posted. I also fixed incorrect data that you had paraphrased in your original writings, such as she only worked for only one corporation in HR, and that she "used webcam profits to create a porn site" (both are incorrect). I changed them to match the actual responses from the source you cited, as well as backed them up with additional interview sources, but again, you changed them back. Plus, since most of your research was from 2005 and 2009, I added more current data from this decade, many from articles published by the same news sources that you cited originally, but you claim none of my sources are credible. As for your 1989 issue, if you actually read the interview you cited, she stated that they were a young military family starting back in 1989, and the additional interview question that I cited showed her stating that she had been married for over 22 years as of last year (which 2012-23=1989). The same goes with "DeVille" - If you Google "Stewie DeVille" you will find several sources that show the full name, including her official affiliate program/business site (Plus, I know how pseudonyms work - please tell me where I posted that either name was real or fake). I don't see any of this being a conflict of interest, but more of someone who wrote a sub-standard article and is upset that someone else corrected it. Stewiedv (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, "Stewie DeVille" comes up with several Ghits; I'm talking about reliable sources. Everything Google returns isn't necessarily a reliable source; in fact, most Ghits probably aren't (not by Misplaced Pages standards, anyway). For example, you included an article from reddit.com. That is not a reliable source because that website is based almost entirely (if not entirely) on user-submitted content. And the age Vanilla supposedly was on different occasions are approximations on your part; the sources don't explicitly state the ages at those times. But the more important thing here is the conflict of interest: Stewie Deville. User:Stewiedv. Do you really not see the problem here? (In other words, are you Stewie?)

And I'm sounding possessive again? Please explain how. (The person that created the article isn't automatically possessive of it.) Erpert 10:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Now you're just starting to sound desperate. You continue to ignore valid points made against your original article, as well as your possessive editing practices, but instead keep trying to nit-pick over made-up conspiracies. I never claimed that everything on Google is a reliable source, but the example I gave of Vanilla's official affiliate/business site is just as valid as the two other Vanilla DeVille websites you cited originally. The reddit example is another poor choice for you to attack, as it was not a user post but a live interview on the site with Vanilla, and she answered the question herself (Which is the exact same situation with the Ambush interview you cited for most of your information originally - You may link to a static summary page with the questions, but the original interview was done live on the gfy.com adult message board). As far as your age issue, there is this thing called math: You posted and cited her birth date as December 12, 1970, and she has stated previously (and you included it in the article yourself) that her start was with a girlfriend on a webcam site in 1999 shortly before launching her original domain vanillacam.com, also in 1999. Based on her interview answers, it is improbable that she did all of those things in the last 19 days of December 1999, but if that's not enough, the original registration date of vanillacam.com per any whois you choose is December 8, 1999, which means she was 28 for both her first adult appearance and her site creation (The registration date of a domain is not user generated, and by the way, the same public domain records also show Stewie DeVille as the domain contact). You can wave the COI flag all you want, but the fact is your arguments are invalid, and you're trying to abuse the COIN system to justify your WP:OWN issues. Stewiedv (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Now I'm abusing the system? This is going nowhere because you're policy shopping in order to dance around a simple yes-or-no question: Are you Stewie? (The fact that you present different ways to interpret your same argument instead of actually answering my question is highly suspect.) Erpert 09:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If anyone is blatantly dancing around and policy shopping, it's you. You continue to ignore numerous valid points about your original article, your inaccurate attacks and your suspect editing practices. Plus, you've been citing multiple policies in just about every post and talk section related to this article, while avoiding any critiques about your own suspect actions. I've only cited one policy, WP:OWN, because it's abundantly clear that is the issue here. I will cite a second policy now, as this is also beginning to look like a case of harassment to me. A look at your various talk pages and contributions shows that this is not the first time you've been involved in confrontations with other contributors. As for my identity, I know you think you're a world-class detective, but I've never hidden or denied who I am. If the consensus deems this as a COI, I will respectfully stand by their decision (as well as petition to have unbiased editors review the article and have you blocked as an editor for it). However, I refuse to let you hide behind COI and abuse it in order to bully other posters and justify your own inaccurate articles and unacceptable practices. Stewiedv (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

"Petition to have unbiased editors review the article and have blocked as an editor for it"? I'm sorry; that is not how Misplaced Pages works. And for the record, past disagreements with other users (which have nothing to do with this disagreement, btw) do not automatically make me a problem user. And how am I hiding behing COI? You full-on admitted that you are the subject's husband; with all due respect, do you not understand what a conflict of interest is? Also, how am I being a bully? The only person getting all riled up here is you. Speaking of that, I just requested assistance from an admin because you're going a little crazy. Erpert 08:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It's funny how you keep policy shopping, citing all these various rules, when you're the one who is breaking them. Nothing in my statements in response to your attacks falls under canvassing, but your continued actions and posts certainly do. I also stand by my statement that you are hiding behind COI, because it doesn't justify your removal of non-controversial edits allowed under COI, or excuse your tactics used on the various pages where you've posted during this disagreement. You continue to ignore any points made against you, your article and your actions that have noting to do with COI. As soon as I debunk one of your claims, you ignore it and search for another policy to falsely accuse me of abusing. I welcome admin assistance, because no matter how many facts are listed, or how many of your arguments are invalidated, you continue to hide behind all the various policies that you yourself are breaking. Being able to list a dozen polices does not make you right, or excuse you from following them. Stewiedv (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me Stewiedv, but I believe you should read WP:REALNAME and follow the instructions to confirm your identity with the Volunteer Response Team. You may be subject to blocking under the WP:USERNAME policy to prevent impersonators. The matter of the WP:COI should most likely be handled after your identity is confirmed. This policy exists to protect subjects of articles. This is not personal and is standard procedure for spouses and close relatives of a subject, as well as the subject themselves. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the information ChrisGualtieri. I will review the article you cited and respond accordingly. Stewiedv (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't break any rules, including WP:OWN; in fact, I haven't even edited the article since starting this thread. And it doesn't seem to be a matter of my arguments being invalidated; it seems more like you are downright enraged that we have a difference of opinion. Now, granted, being accused of a COI might not be the nicest thing to happen to a user (even though you admitted to it), but why are you so mad? Erpert 04:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Enraged? Actually, I find you and your antics somewhat amusing. I don't see anything in my comments that shows anger, but looking back at this entire event, you seem to be the one who is extremely upset: We had two short interactions on a talk page, and when I didn't immediately agree with your assessments, you refused to discuss things with me further and took it to COIN, and when that didn't work, you took it to the Admin board. Now that you're not getting your way there either, you're suddenly trying to play it cool, distancing yourself from your obvious Owner attitude and trying to bait me into an argument. Seems like you've been very frustrated with me from the beginning for editing your original article and now you're running out of tricks. As for my posts in defense of your attacks, maybe what what you're seeing is resolve. I don't know how things transpired in your past confrontations with other contributors, but I won't be frightened away by your abuse of the rules. I could restate all the ways you've done so again, but you'll just ignore it and try another tactic, so why bother (feel free to re-read all of my previous posts if you want clarification). As I've said before, you can try to hide behind COI all you want, but it doesn't change or justify your inappropriate actions (In fact, in your initial revert comments, you were more concerned with my edits overall, only citing COI as a final afterthought). I've already addressed all of your inaccurate accusations, so what policy are you going to try next? Stewiedv (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

When are you going to get it through your head that this isn't about my trying to own the article; it's about your admitting to a conflict of interest? (And if I were trying to own the article, how come you're the one who keeps referring to it as "your article"?). And it's perfectly fine for me to bring up different policies when you're violating each one I brought up (canvassing, COI, etc). Also, if I'm abusing the rules, how come you're the only one who says so? (Not to mention your very long responses compared to my own simple responses.) If you're going to continually try to bait me, I'll let you know right now that I'm not giving in to your battle, but I'll also have to conclude that maybe you're not mature enough for Misplaced Pages. Erpert 22:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

When are you going to realize that no matter the COI situation, it doesn't excuse how you're hiding behind it and every other policy you've quoted to justify your inappropriate actions, or how you've broken just about every rule you've cited to try and influence the outcome of this debate. All of your bluster just validates my points, especially about your ownership and policy-shopping issues (congratulations on finding even more policies to link to this time). Never mind that I have already admitted who I am, had my identity verified, and asked for feedback from any unbiased contributors on my edits... What exactly have you done to correct the situation, other than policy shop and continue to post in more and more locations when you don't get your way? As for "your article" (I actually said "your original article" most of the time), you've stated that you authored the article. So, I used those terms to describe the first version of the poorly-written article that you created. Since it is not an edit, and you wrote the article, how would you describe it? In regard to the length of my replies, let me apologize for providing thought-out, logical responses that invalidate each and every one of your bogus accusations. I imagine that your responses are shorter as they lack any real substance, except attempted insults and links to every policy you can find. You are welcome to question my maturity, but I don't need to resort to cheap shots to prove my point. Stewiedv (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

GNU C-Graph

The following discussion 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.

• GNU C-Graph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Visionat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Adriennegt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 72.252.229.15 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

COI Notice for draft article “GNU C-Graph”

This is to declare a conflict of interest under Misplaced Pages's Conflicts of Interest Policy in accordance with your Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, section 3(3), and to request reinstatement of the deleted article “GNU C-Graph” amended and uploaded to my user sandbox.

Please see my talkpage for the remainder of this notice.72.252.229.15 (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Visionat (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Visionat, you're in the wrong place. The WP:PSCOI document you refer to says that you should request feedback on your userspace draft "through Misplaced Pages:Feedback, the live help channel, or Articles for creation." (Alternatively, if you want the original version of your article to be restored, you need to "ubmit a request for undeletion for uncontroversial deletions. For controversial deletions use Deletion Review.") That said, if I may be frank your draft doesn't have any chance of being accepted as an article in its current form. None of the references it contains are independent sources which cover the subject of the article in any depth. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Psychonaut thanks for the feedback, but if you visited my talkpage you should be aware that my COI declaration (which needs to be posted here) includes a complaint. The WP:PSCOI doc also suggests that one can ask for help, here, at the COI Noticeboard. You don't seem to be an engineer, though. Best to leave the technical evaluation of the article and its sources to the experts.

I've posted the full article below as users/admins may find this more convenient.Visionat (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

One does NOT need to be an "engineer" to determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Misplaced Pages articles. There is no reason to be condesending or snarky towards trusted, high-volume editors. Regardless of you declaring a conflict of interest, it is neither a trump card nor does it make for exemption from compliance with Wikipedias policies. Such as;

• Neutrality (a fundamental principle by which Misplaced Pages operates)
• No original research
• "Verifiable Reliable Sources"
• Self-published sources
• Advertisements masquerading as articles
• Misplaced Pages is not a Web host
• Paid advocacy, public relations, and marketing
• Accounts used for promotion
• Misplaced Pages is not a vehicle for advertising
• Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts
• Breaching the sock puppetry policy;
• Misplaced Pages:BLOCK#Disruption-only
• accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization.

I've also added your other accounts to the list above (Adriennegt and 72.252.229.15).--Hu12 (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Oooh! Talk about bias!! This looks like an attack. I did not intend to be "condescending or snarky". All reasonably educated people recognise the importance of "competence".

Note that, as I pointed out on my talk page, I created User:AdrienneGT when I was unable to log in to my User:Visionat account, and discontinued the former once I was able to log in as Visionat again. The defendants in the criminal matter, to which I referred in the deleted article, hack into my computer on an ongoing basis - I assumed that was the reason for my inability to log in (I tried several times without success). I honestly don't know what the other account User:72.252.229.15 is and don't recall ever creating it. Please go ahead and delete both User:AdrienneGT and User:72.252.229.15 as I don't use them and was unaware that creating an alternative account just to be able to edit the article was against Misplaced Pages's policies.Visionat (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Full COI Notice for draft article “GNU C-Graph”

This is to declare a conflict of interest under Misplaced Pages's Conflicts of Interest Policy in accordance with your Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, section 3(3), and to request reinstatement of the deleted article “GNU C-Graph” amended and uploaded to my user sandbox.

I argue that:

1. The summary deletion was contrary to Misplaced Pages's policy on deletion;
2. The deletion was motivated by bias; and
3. The amended article complying with Misplaced Pages's policies should be reinstated.

COI and Deletion

I am the author of the software package "GNU C-Graph" and the author of the draft article of the same name. While Misplaced Pages discourages the creation and editing of articles by authors closely connected with the subject, doing so is not prohibited; nor was I aware of the relevance of the COI policy until 3 April 2013, when the newly created article was “speedily deleted” (see ]. The purported criterion for deletion stated that the article appeared “to be written like an advertisement” serving “only to promote an entity, person or product”.

The Administrators' Breach of Policy was Motivated by Bias

An objective reading of the deleted GNU C-Graph article would reveal that its content sought not to advertise, but to present verifiable factual information and evidence substantiating assertions that define the history of the software (typical software articles in Misplaced Pages devote a section to history). Rather than being promotional, the description of the software seeks to underscore its technical significance in the field as recommended in Misplaced Pages:NSOFTWARE. As I pointed out in the ensuing deletion discussion, Misplaced Pages's articles on software are all inherently promotional. Accordingly, the stated deletion criterion of promotion/advertising gives the appearance of bias.

The conduct of the administrators, which demonstrated (among other things) a lack of competence in matters of law, gave priority to responses comporting with bias: threats to block me for “a good long time”, disparaging remarks such as “soapboxing” and “boogeyman” claims. They failed to articulate what I have identified as the only breach of policy in the article – that although information likely to be challenged cited documents distributed by public authorities and public officials, the definition of “published” within the meaning of Misplaced Pages policy on verifiability pertains to sources distributed and accessible by the general public, not just individuals (see Misplaced Pages's definition of published in Misplaced Pages:Published, section 1.1.

It is evident from the amended draft article that under Misplaced Pages's Policy on Deletion, the administrators were obliged to first consider alternatives to deletion, and could simply have edited the article to remove proscribed content: “If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.”

I submit that the administrators' breach of policy was motivated by a root contention that the evidence of racial discrimination exposed in the deleted article (particularly under the section “Theft Apartheid and Obstruction of Justice”) publicized the theft of rights in respect of software authored by a black woman. The summary deletion of the article for reasons pertaining only to ancillary background content corroborates the showing of bias already made apparent by the criterion noted for speedy deletion.

The Amended draft article

I've now had an opportunity to peruse Misplaced Pages's policies on verifiability, conflict of interest, and neutral point of view, with which I believe the amended draft article complies:

• Notability
  1. GNU C-Graph is part of Fedora 18.
  2. C-Graph was designed for purposes of instruction in universities and colleges. As noted in the article, statistics from ftp.gnu.org point to a growing worldwide user base in the tens of thousands. See the guideline on notability, section 3:

”Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article”.

• Verifiability and No Original Research
  1. The engineering theory illustrated in the article is verified by the 6 independent, third party secondary, reliable sources listed under "References". There is consensus that the majority of these academic and text book sources are among the best in the field. See the guideline on verifiability section 2.1.
  2. WP:V section 1, “Burden of Evidence”: ”ny material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source ...” Accordingly, all material citing secondary sources falling outside Misplaced Pages's definition of “published” has been removed.
  3. With regard to any primary source material included in the draft article, I have noted the following policy elements:
     • WP:PRIMARY:”A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge”.
     • Misplaced Pages:IS#Summary:”Material available from sources that are self-published, or primary sources, or biased because of a conflict of interest can play a role in writing an article ...”

I look forward to your comments - and action.

Sincerely
Adrienne Gaye Thompson Visionat (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Note from Bishonen about a WP:ANI discussion of this issue

Well, as Psychonaut told Visionat above, this is not the right place. But in case anybody here wants to know, there was a pretty short and clear discussion of the deletions of GNU C-Graph on WP:ANI in early April. Bishonen | talk 23:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC).

Copy of Deletion Discussion

Obviously, it is the deletion discussion that is the subject of my complaint. The conduct of the administrators involved suggests that they have their own conflict of interest.Visionat (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Article Sagarika Ghose

Anon IP claiming to be subject of the article is editing the article. Subject is frequently complaining on Talk:Sagarika Ghose and removing or adding contents. Recent edit by anon IP, same IP which claimed to be subject, has blanked 'controversy' section. I had removed controversial text which is not directly related to the article. But it appears that subject don't want to allow slightest controversy. Also anon IP claiming to be subject is using threatning tone on talkpage of the article. neo (talk) 06:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see anything on the article's talk page that suggested a threatening tone, but at any rate, I added a {{uw-auto}} template to the IP's talk page. Erpert 07:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I mean anon IP/subject has talked about 'defamation case against wikipedia' here and 'sexual harassment, crime against women, new anti-rape law, punishable etc' here. Such language is enough to frighten users like me. So I refrained from reverting recent edit. neo (talk) 07:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Didn't see that at first. I posted a warning on that IP's talk page too (it's interesting that users who do such things never actually create an account). Erpert 17:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Clout Communications

• Clout Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Picknick99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In my opinion the offending article should not have been approved for creation in the first place. The banners were added warning that the article did not meet notablity criteria, read like an advertisement, was an orphan article and had no footnotes. Some of these issues have now been cleared up, however the banners were repeatedly removed without these issues being cleared up. All edits to the page have been by Picknick99
Going to Picknick99's talk page you can see they have also attempted to create a page for Greg Day, who is managing director of the company. See: http://www.cloutcom.co.uk/about-clout/
It seems obvious that there is some conflict of interest going on and that the page is being used in contravention to wikipedia's policies, for promotion and advertising.

Rushton2010 (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Further discussion with the individual make me think any breaches of the policy are inadvertent due to "newbie-ism" or ignorance of the rules, rather than deliberate disregard of the rules.
Rushton2010 (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Saam

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

The username suggests that the user is be the person who is the subject of the article. It is also written like an autobiography and is self-promotive. Besides the conflict of interest of issues, the article is not notable and can be directed back to the original Sām article. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

User warned (twice) on User_talk:SamVermeer for inserting his DJ name into Techno and Tech house (warning#1), after having created unsourced, self-promo article about himself (warning #2). CaptainScreebo 10:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Assistance with "Credit rating agency"

I am seeking a volunteer editor to help update a section of the article Credit rating agency. I work with Moody's Investors Service, a firm which is discussed in this article, so I would very strongly prefer to find an editor without a conflict-of-interest to look at my suggestion. On the discussion page of this article (here) I have recently made the case for replacing the current section about CRA business models with one I have prepared which includes proper citations and, I believe, a better treatment of the subject. Any help or feedback would be great. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Neil Patel

• Neil Patel (designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Npatel64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I added a "citation needed" tag to this article. It said "Neil Patel is an award-winning scenic designer...." This user has repeatedly removed the citation needed tag, and I have reverted it twice already and explained that there needs to be a reference. There are no references in the article at all, so there is no reference verifying that he is "award-winning". Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I trimmed the external links (holy smokes) and moved the COI tag to the talk page. §FreeRangeFrog 20:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! For the "award winning" (citation needed) issue, do you have a recommendation? I've already reverted twice. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks fine that way. I don't doubt that it would be difficult to source, but it did sound a bit puffy. BTW, I converted it to a dab page because we already had three people with the same name. §FreeRangeFrog 22:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This article looks like it meets the criteria for deletion. Maybe that would be a more appropriate solution if someone wants to submit it for deletion? I mean there's no reason trying to "fix" things if the page will end up deleted sooner or later anyway. Rushton2010 (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

In digging, I found two journal articles about Patel, so I don't think notability is a concern. - Bilby (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, he's notable alright. It's just the article is badly sourced. §FreeRangeFrog 00:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Because the lead will usually summarize the body of the article, editors should avoid redundant citations in the lead. That also would include adding a "citation needed" tag in the lead as in here. The "citation needed" tag first should have been placed after "Patel has received the Helen Hayes Award, numerous Drama Desk Award nominations and is the recipient of two Obie Awards for Sustained Excellence in Set Design." Placing the "citation needed" tag in the lead carried an aggressiveness with it and there did not seem to be a need to be aggressive at that point. (1) Renner, Pamela. (2000). "Neil Patel: Real Places", American Theatre. 17:7. pp 80–81. and this along with other sources likely would make the topic meet wp:GNG. I removed the COI tag since no evidence of COI presented at COIN. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Blanco Caine

• Blanco Caine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Edubb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Theurbanlink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Theurbanlink is a promotional website based around Jdobypr, Doby Public Relations, www.jdobypr.com/. see User:Jdobypr. Like User:Jdobypr they are trying to promote Edubb and are now promoting Blanco Caine. See for Blanco Caine and For Edubb. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I've indef blocked Theurbanlink as a promo-only account. Jdobypr is a sock and has already been blocked as a promo-only account. SmartSE (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Puma Energy

Hi - I've drafted an expanded and more detailed article for Puma Energy, located in my user space.

It is currently being reviewed by Beagel, and we've agreed that a notification should be posted here. I work for Bell Pottinger and Puma Energy/Trafigura is my client.

Our exchange is taking place on the Puma Energy talk page, and Beagel will begin editing the draft in my user space. Please feel free to chip in on either page.

Many thanks, HOgilvy (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Floppy disk hardware emulator

• Floppy disk hardware emulator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rei 66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 83.112.194.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Datex DSM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There's a COI between reported user/IP and the article because of an explicit advertising of a specific floppy disk hardware emulator product obviously manufactured by user/IP.

• User:Rei 66 adding a DATEX picture that explicitely references the product.
• User:83.112.194.173 adding a DATEX link reference to the article. 137.204.1.40 (talk) 01:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. A while back we had a COI editor who was one of DATEX's competitors removing information on DATEX. Competitive business, floppy disk hardware emulators... --Guy Macon (talk) 09:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference ambush was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution