Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:05, 29 August 2011

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.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. 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:

Ir Ovot

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

This is a single-issue user whose user name is the same as the article he is editing. I think it's worth keeping a watch on this user. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It's good to know. I'll note that the article subject is a kibbutz that was dissolved almost 20 years ago, so the username couldn't really be considered promotional or representative of an organization (similar to someone named Troy editing Troy). There might not actually be a COI at all, they may have been motivated to edit Misplaced Pages simply to edit a single article, and so picked the article's name as a username. On the other hand, regardless of the COI, their edits removed a lot of information without explanation. Their sole contribution is a single burst of edits, and we'll have to see if they repeat the behavior. If not, no worries. -- Atama頭 23:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. FWIW, even though the kibbutz was dissolved, Ir Ovot as a messianic community in Israel is a current phenomenon, which is why I think the user name is promotional. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not affiliated with Ir Ovot in any way, shape, or form. I just liked the name. There was a lot of unsourced information and also that had original research. I took out that information. Since WP states "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable", i took out the stuff that was not. --Ir Ovot (talk) 06:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: The complaining editor seems to be involved in many edit wars and seems to have have many problems with other editors according to her User Talk Page. --Ir Ovot (talk) 06:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Lisa used to troll another site that I was involved with. He would repeatedly start arguments about Israel, belittling and berating anyone who disagreed even slightly with any of his assertions. He seems to have toned it down quite a bit...the kind of behavior he exhibited over there would have gotten him banned from wikipedia very quickly. 72.245.191.50 (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

None of that is relevant at all to this COI discussion. -- Atama頭 19:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Gompertz–Makeham law of mortality‎‎

• Gompertz–Makeham law of mortality‎‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Gavrilov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since April 2007, adding mentions of/Amazon links to medical books authored by Leonid A. Gavrilov & Natalia S. Gavrilova. User page is a lengthy CV of Dr. Leonid A. Gavrilov. --CliffC (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Also,

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

Note also article Leonid Gavrilov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), created 14 August. I'm not questioning Dr. Gavrilov's notability, I'm just pointing out the promotional aspects of all this. --CliffC (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The user page at User:Gavrilov is clearly in breach of the WP:UP guidelines (it's basically a CV and therefore promotional) and I have tagged it for speedy deletion accordingly. – ukexpat (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the userpage. I'd like to ask, though, that we handle Dr. Gavrilov with a bit of tact, unless and until he (or she, if this is Natalia) becomes willfully disruptive (ignoring requests to discuss things, attacking other editors, etc.). I do have concerns about the relentless spam, the editor's contributions are questionable at best, but I also hate chasing away subject matter experts for COI reasons. -- Atama頭 19:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hundredth (band)

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

See post on the talk page of the article. In addition, the article was apparently mentioned by the band on their Facebook page while it was tagged for speedy deletion. I'm requesting at least a few extra eyes on the article. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I commented on the article's talk page about the band's notability; essentially the claim that it met WP:BAND criterion number 5. (The band has only released one album, and I'm not convinced that the label is a notable one.) -- Atama頭 19:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Would listing it at AfD be appropriate? After putting it on my watchlist via NPP, I've noticed the only substantial edits were by apparent SPAs and IPs. It also appears that the subject fails WP:BAND, though admittedly I haven't done a proper WP:BEFORE check yet. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing that would make the AfD inappropriate, but I do strongly encourage you to check for sources just in case. I highly doubt you'll find anything but you never know, I've been surprised myself more than once by finding good references for a subject that I wouldn't expect to have any. -- Atama頭 19:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I Am Equal (photo documentary) spamming

• User:Steinway1701 is doing nothing but advertising this project all over Misplaced Pages. Since one of their goals is to get tens of thousands of participants, and he/she wants to add non-free pictures from the project (which advertise the project as well as the subject) to the articles on every notable participant, the clutter factor is getting pretty appalling. I've given him/her templated anti-spam and COI warnings, and added a link to WP:NOBLECAUSE. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a G11 to me. It appears to be notable but at this point, it could only be more spammy if there was a link towards the top of the page pointing to a donation website. OlYeller 16:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and have tagged it as such. – ukexpat (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Although, I guess G11 won't solve the presented issue. The editor has been painting the same information all over WP. I've been going through their contributions but it looks like it's all been cleaned up so far (they added the info to very high traffic articles that are highly monitored by other editors). Eventually, the files they have uploaded won't be linked to anything and deleted unless someone wants to take the initiative for copyvio checking/tagging/deleting. I'll keep looking through their contribs for missed spamming but an admin can watch their future contributions and take whatever action they see fit for the spammery. I'll make sure all the past spamming is dealt with. OlYeller 16:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Finished checking past contribs. Looks like Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) took care of almost all of their article contribs (I didn't check files/photos). High five him if you get a chance. OlYeller 17:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not my intention to be SPAMING Misplaced Pages or to be "cluttering" the site. My only reason for joining this community in the first place was because I was introduced to the I Am Equal photo documentary recently on Facebook, saw that Chelsea Handler had participated, posted on her Facebook, and her website about the campaign, and was surprised to see that it had not yet been added Misplaced Pages. Understanding the importance of citations, I researched the project, and gathered over 50 news articles and reports before beginning to build the article and then went through a rather clumsy learning curve to get the information into Misplaced Pages. Editing, citations, and formatting in wiki is all new to me and I'll admit, I have had to make many (minor and otherwise) changes to the article to get it where I thought it was matching other materials on the site. I have done my best to be thorough in my citations. I acknowledge that I may have done too many since after adding traditional news citations, I also searched the web for more details to verify references to events or individuals mentioned in the article, and added more citation references to galleries, and press releases. I thought they were relevant and supportive to the details being shared. There also seems to be some concern about my trying to add reference to the photo documentary on other wikipedia articles. I'll admit, if this is a problem then it's a result of my ignorance to the terminology of the site. While I was building the initial article, an administrator added the ORPHAN template to the top of the page indicating that there were no other articles linking to the page. I took that to mean I needed to go and create those connections (because they don't just make themselves). So naturally, I proceeded to the articles of the individuals, groups, and corporations mentioned in the main article and added a brief paragraph and link to the documentary page. It seemed to be exactly what the Orphan template had told me to do. Unfortunately, another administrator followed me around the site and systematically removed the references without explaining to me the problem or how to resolve the Orphan issue without adding references to other articles. Regarding the use of non-Free images, I must claim ignorance again. I thought that it made sense to supply the image of the individual, celebrity, or group referenced in the article as additional support for the fact that they had participated in the campaign. It's clearly my novice mistake to assume that an article should have as much support material as possible. As such, I attempted to upload the appropriate images that I found in the project gallery and include them in the article or associated article references. Of course, another admin was quick to remove the images and tried to explain the licensing issues associated with it. I attempted to navigate my way through the licensing and non-Free use materials to better understand the issue, but I'll admit, I'm still not totally clear on the procedures (though I think I understand the Fair Use Rational process for non-Free images). Needless to say, I am new to wikipedia and not completely versed in the process of adding, editing, and referencing articles in the system. Although I am new (and this article process was less then elegant), I still hold that the I Am Equal (photo documentary) is a noteworthy project that belongs in wikipedia. I'm happy to leave it to the admins to create the associated links to other articles as they see fit and add related images when appropriate, because I just don't get the rules of that process. As a wikipedia user, I feel the article is relevant based solely on how I heard about it. It took very little research for me to find out that this campaign is much bigger than I thought and something these individual participants are proud to be part of. My research lead me to websites, news articles, and phone calls to documentary office so I was absolutely clear on what the campaign is, how it works, what the intention is, and how long it will be going on. I included all my research notes in the article and built as complete an entry as I possibly could. I feel invested in the article simply because of the time, effort, research, and verification I put in knowing this is my first article on wikipedia and wanting it to be complete. In my naivete, I though that the research would be the hard part and adding the article to wikipedia would be easy, but I was wrong. Getting this article into the site, dealing with the admins, automatic template messages, talk pages, moving conversations, conflicting instructions, and threats of deletion have been more than I was expecting. I'd like to see the best article possible about the I Am Equal photo documentary on the site as possible so when other users come here to research (as I did initially after seeing the information on Chelsea Handler's facebook page) can get a complete understanding of the campaign. I'd also like to think that as the campaign grows over the years and new celebrities, groups, and corporations participate in the project, that information can be added to the article. Perhaps I am not the best person to do that because of my ignorance to the process, but perhaps someone else (an admin, maybe) will take up the responsibilty of keeping this article current and accurate for future readers. Steinway1701 (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey Steinway. There are several problems with the article as it stands. As a new editor, no one really expects you to know all of the policies and guidelines that rule WP so don't feel like you've done something that can't be fixed. First off, for the subject to be included, it must satisfy an inclusion guideline found at WP:Notability which I'm almost certain that it does. Secondly, the article's information must be WP:Verifiable and non-bias (which is where the advertising-ish content is a problem). As of right now, the article reads like an advertisement and not so much like part of an encyclopedia (the links and prose of the text contribute the most to that in my opinion). Most importantly, even if the article is deleted, that doesn't mean that content is gone. We can WP:userfy it for you and put it in your userspace to work on until it's ready for mainspace. I certainly appreciate that you want to make the best article possible from I Am Equal. WP's goal is to have the best encyclopedic article for notable subjects as well. We just need to make sure that your goals and WP's goals line up. I highly doubt you want anything other than that so I'm sure we'll be able to get this worked out. Does that make sense so far? OlYeller 17:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand that everyone is committed to maintaining Misplaced Pages as a credible resource for information and a neutral space for all users. I know that there is a learning curve for entering the world of wiki and I have done my best to get through that as best I can. There are so many admins now focusing on what I have done (and what I was doing) that I am surprised none of them actually contacted me to explain the errors I was making BEFORE suggesting the article be deleted. They were quick to delete my work, suggest deletions, and remove links...but never actually work with me to resolve the issues. As a result, I feel like I am now chasing around this site, answering allegations of SPAM and promotion, fighting deletion, etc when much of this could have been mitigated with conversation and explanation. I'll be honest, I'm quite disillusioned by this whole process. At this point, it's getting so that I feel that the process is stacked against me at this time and there is nothing I can do to make this right. The fact is, the article is noteworthy. It's written from resources and news I found about the project. I probably included too much detail (because of the exhaustive research I did before starting this process) and thus called down the ire of the admins who now seem hell-bent on deleting the article completely rather than using their expertise to resolve the issues (or at the very least converse with me about the problems). I have initiated Talk conversations on a few of these admins walls and they are left unanswered. Instead, I find a new action has been taken against my work. It's frustrating. I'm doing my best to remember that everyone just wants to keep wikipedia clean and free of promotional spam...but the whole process seems more vindictive, exclusionary, and passive aggressive than I would have expected from a community-driven initiative. At this point, I don't know what I want to do. Steinway1701 (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

While I can't pretend to know how you feel right now, when I made my first article, it was quickly deleted and I felt helpless and prosecuted. I really don't want you to feel like that. Deletion doesn't mean anyone is blowing things away with a bazooka. No one is mad at you or what you've done. It's incredibly common for new users and I would be that 80% of users who start out here, have mad the same mistakes. Deleting the article for now is more like making it not visible to regular users until we can address a few issues. The subject does appear notable ([WP's "notable" is well defined and may be different than you think). No one is hell-bent on deletion; quite the contrary. I (not an admin) am doing my best to help you and WP by taking the steps necessary to make sure that the article complies with WP's policies and guidelines. The harsh nature probably comes from people doing lots of things at one time. The lag in communication is very common on WP but it's important to remember that nothing is permanent. Articles deleted 5 years ago can be brought back to mainspace with a few clicks of a mouse.

I suggest taking a break for a few hours or a day. From my experience, people aren't being quite as aggressive as you are perceiving. There are plenty of people here that want to help you create an article; we're all here to improve WP. I'll gladly lend my WP experience to you to help you with the article. Would you like me to help? Again, I'd be more than happy to help. I can userfy the article for you so that we can work on it together. OlYeller 18:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems best that one of the more capable admins can write this article better than me. I'll make it easy and supply links to all the news articles I found about the project that started me down this path to begin with. I'd rather it get entered into the site in the correct way than continue to blindly stumble through the process and be slapped down as a new contributor at every turn. Steinway1701 (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think that an admin needs to even be involved in this process? It's very unlikely that anyone will write this article for you. I've been jumping through hoops to explain things to you, extend an olive branch, and help you create a good article. To keep saying that you're being "slapped down" or suggesting that I'm not able to help you is quite frankly offensive. Feel free to ask around for help and I hope you find someone. If you want my help, I'm here for the asking. OlYeller 18:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• OlYeller you have been awesome, and I have learned more from you and the time you have taken to explain this process than anyone else, and I truly appreciate everything you have said. It's that kind of attention and guidance I could have used 3 days ago when all this madness started. I guess I imagined Misplaced Pages was populated by OlYeller-type people who want to make sure it's a collaborative environment that is welcoming to new contributors...but that hasn't been my experience until now. I'm happy to take a stab at getting the article up to snuff in an area of the site that is not publicly accessible (since many admins seem to agree that my article is a gross misuse of the wikipedia site). I honestly have no idea what is involved in that, nor how to move it from that testing area back into the main site when I'm done. Whatever you think is best is what I'll do. Steinway1701 (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• So, now some other admin has deleted the page. I've actually lost track of all the different admins who have jumped in on this article with different instructions, actions, and motives. I'd like to work on the page and get it up to snuff with wikipedia, but the whole process is seeming convoluted and inconsistent. So many admins with broad discretionary powers to move, change, and adjust content without question, discussion, or explanation is not a very collaborative approach for a site that seems to be built by the masses. It's looking more like a small group of admins do whatever they please with very little interest in cultivating new users and contributions. It's disappointing to say the least. I'm comforted in having found OlYeller in this process. Maybe there is still hope that there are genuinely collaboratively-minded individuals in the Misplaced Pages world and there's a chance for new people like me to make a positive contribution in the end. Steinway1701 (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey. I've asked the deleting admin to move it to your userspace. Either he or I will let you know when it's there. From there, we can work on it. I've got a deadline coming up at work here in a few hours and need to focus on that but I'll be back later to help out. If anyone else is available, they'll be able to help as well.

As for the report on this page, I don't see that Steinway is closely related to the subject so I don't believe there's a COI. I'll be helping Steinway with editing so I personally consider the COI matter closed (no need to worry about this part, Steinway). OlYeller 20:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The text has now been userfied at User:Steinway1701/I Am Equal (photo documentary). – ukexpat (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify for you, Steinway1701, what the role of an administrator is on Misplaced Pages (the quick-and-easy version). Administrators are individuals who have some additional tools that other editors don't. The main tools, the ones that are used the most, are the ability to block and unblock another editor (blocking prevents the person from being able to edit Misplaced Pages), delete or undelete pages, and protect or unprotect pages (which can prevent some or all people from editing a page for a particular duration). Administrators don't have any special authority over content. If I don't like a paragraph on an article, I don't have any more right to change it than you do. The ability to change content without discussion is a right that all editors can enjoy, including you. The discussion occurs when two or more people disagree on the content. And again, administrators are on an equal footing with everyone else in those discussions.

I would have chimed in earlier to this discussion but I was busy with real life issues, so I apologize for coming in late. However, I wanted to point out that if the subject of the article meets our inclusion criteria, that a recreation of the article should certainly be possible. Very little that is added to Misplaced Pages is lost forever, even deleted pages can be restored later. The article that was deleted has been restored to your userspace. It sounds like the issue is that the article was worded in a way to sound promotional. I'm sure that wasn't your intent, and only came about because you were so enthusiastic about the documentary. That enthusiasm which inspired you to create the article in the first place was a double-edged sword, unfortunately.

I'd like you to understand why the article was deleted, and that it shouldn't reflect a prejudice against your efforts or the documentary. Misplaced Pages does everything it can to be credible, because an encyclopedia that can't be trusted is worthless. That credibility is difficult to maintain when the encyclopedia can be edited by anyone. Some people add information that is well-meaning but harmful, while others see the site as a way to spread hoaxes or attack people. We have certain criteria for speedy deletion that can lead to a quick deletion of a page without prior discussion if the content of that page can potentially cause harm. Those criteria include such obviously problematic issues as violations of copyright (which can lead to legal action if left unchecked) or pages that attack real living people (which can not only harm Misplaced Pages, but others as well). More subtle problems are also listed, such as overly-promotional articles. Those articles hurt Misplaced Pages's credibility by giving the appearance that Misplaced Pages is an advocate, or an advertiser, and not a neutral presenter of information.

By moving the article out of the main space to a less-visible area, that promotional language can be improved with the goal being to return the article to the main space for others to enjoy. Sometimes people will create articles with the sole intention of promoting a person, organization, or product (and many of those people are hired public relations personnel), and in those cases we delete the article with no intention of restoring it, and if the person persists in recreating the article or adding the promotion elsewhere we may block them from editing. You're clearly not one of those people, and you should expect and I hope you experience that others like OlYeller will be willing to help you learn the ropes here. -- Atama頭 21:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Atama I appreciate the time you, OlYeller, Orange Mike, and others have made in getting this article in the right place and recognizing that I have been simply trying to be a positive contributor to a site that I have come to value and use on a daily basis. Clearly there is a learning curve and the admins are people too...who have the added burden of keeping Misplaced Pages a reliable source for content information around the world. I'd love to think that I can be come an expert in just 4 days (when I started this process) but there is much more work for me to do. I'll get into the article that was moved to my user space and see if I can make it better. I'll admit that the language is clunky because I felt such an urgency to get it up and available that I didn't have time to re-edit it before the army of admins started tearing it apart. Maybe now I will have the luxury of time to resolve the concerns made through this 3-day marathon of wiki-madness and the resulting article will be something we can all be proud of. Regards, Steinway1701 (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

User: Bruce Cairney

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

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Bacmac (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

this User: Bruce Cairney is an imposter and uses this "User Name" to intimidate others,(due to the rank and position of the real Bruce Cairney in the Choi Kwang Do organisation) and makes edits to muddy the real Bruce Cairney's reputation. Have them prove who they are by providing drivers licence etc.

this fake user has had the run of wikipedia for 5 years? each time a query is brought up they go quiet and then come back when the attention is gone like they have done again in March 2011 Bacmac (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you please provide us with some links to edits (diffs) where Bruce Cairney (talk · contribs) is doing harm to articles (like making unsubstantiated or libelous claims about living people or attacking others)? As of right now, this sounds like more of a username and civility issue than a conflict of interest but without any diffs, it's hard to tell. Regardless of what the problem is, with some diffs we can at least point you in the right direction if not help fix the problem. OlYeller 14:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC) -- I look forward to being pointed in the right direction Bacmac (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I dont understand what you are asking me to do - the user is impersonating another person and making edits in a martial arts article. As the real Bruce Cairney is a high rank in that type of martial art it would be considered bad ettiquette for members of that martial art to reverse the changes done by this fake user. This user has also published photos at times and made confronting comments. Bacmac (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What bizarre behaviour you are exhibiting Bacmac. You brought this up on 3 October 2009 Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_37#User_name:_.22Bruce_Cairney.22_being_used_to_defame_him, and then again on on 29 October 2009 Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_38#User:_Bruce_Cairney_is_a_sockpuppet_and_used_to_defame. Since then the user in question has made just two edits in March 2011, both of which seem reasonable - especially the one to Choi Kwang-Do (diff), which was removing the link to an individual club (I would have done that myself). What has prompted you to pop up for a third time to report someone that hasn't even edited for the past six months? --Simple Bob (Talk) 14:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC) It says brief explaination right? , I also wrote that each time it has been brought up the user has gone quiet and things die off, are you willing to help? or just out to vent - cause I dont know how this place works as you have noted each time I have got no-where AND that is because I hit dead-ends Bacmac (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A link to a page that shows what you're claiming. Where is the user impersonating others? Is it just from his username? As you've been told twice in the past, this is a username violation at best but the user hasn't edited for quite some time. they Edited in March this year and the impersonation is from the user name (isnt that enough?) as well the impersonation is on the main wiki pages (martial arts)where people with an interest in visiting these wiki pages will know the real Bruce Cairney or know of him Bacmac (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I should of looked at their edit history which is 6 edits long and contains nothing that can even be construed as a COI, vandalism, or incivility. An IP editor has apparently attacked User:Bruce Cairney's talk page at least once but that's the only issue I'm seeing. I should also note that Atama has dealt with Bacmac presenting this issue here in the past. No one can ever figure out where all of the intimidation and reputation-muddying is going on. As with the past two times this has been reported by Bacmac, this isn't a COI. OlYeller 14:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC) I have added information about each edit from the oldest to the newest if they require more detail please let me know, the very first two edits I could not access (CAN YOU?) cause if you can you should they may be more blunt examples before this impersonator got more sneaky. Bacmac (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

On further reading of Bacmac's contributions, this is beginning to look like harassment against user Bruce Cairney, which is clearly forbidden at the COI noticeboard - as evidenced by the bright red text that appears when you click to edit this page. You exhibit a pattern of ownership behaviour on the Choi Kwang-Do article, reverting and sometimes badgering people who make negative, but sourced, entries regarding the organisation. --Simple Bob (Talk) 14:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC) yeah well like i said below I have not been chastised for any of my edits that I can recall? Bacmac (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Very funny you guy(s) - I already told you I didnt understand what your question was. I have gone back and read through the edits and and here is my explaination AND it does not include the User Name Page write up deleted by EdJohnson. Here are my notes from looking through the edits. As Bruce Cairney is a long standing professional martial artist - the comment this fake user is adding are designed to undermine that professionalism / cheapen the services provided / and make out that some of the reasons for certain practices in th emartial art organisation is only to generate extra income. The user has also added comments about political persons under states and territories of australia which were not accurate (and most likely meant to reflect negativly on the real Bruce Cairney who conducts himself apolitical )

The edit removed as 'Blatant Advertising' is a former student/protege of the REAL Bruce Cairney and he would have contacted them directly.

 And for the record Simple Bob you can keep your personal attacks to yourself.  Also guy(s) I do not know who Atama is. Bacmac (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Simple Bob, I cannot recall being chastised by any admins for edits or changes and I have always tried to make any I do based on accuracy of information. I visited your user page and found your introductory statement in my experience to be false, because I require guidance where the appropriate area is to get rid of this impersonator. Bacmac (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC) ... and how many hours do you think it will take me to troll through and get this sorted out with my top speed of 30 words per hour? Bacmac (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this the right way to respond to your barrage of questions and statements? Bacmac (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC) i DONT KNOW WHATS GOING ON HERE I just did a heap of edit and got run around .... hope this is done right , if not appologies now Bacmac (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That the user is or is not The or A Bruce Cairney is not a matter for this noticeboard to handle. This noticeboard is for conflicts of interest. The edit you're referring to was correct, linking to a company from such a subject is considered spam (the same way Internal combustion engine doesn't have links to every engine maker/seller). If the person is an imposter, you should make a report at WP:UAA where WP:REALNAME will be applied but they most likely will not take action as the editor hasn't made an edit in 5 months. Regardless, it's up to the administrators monitoring that noticeboard to act. If you have any questions about that, I'd be happy to explain. Otherwise, this board is about something not apparently related to this issue. OlYeller 16:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Bacmac, you may not remember me, but I remember you. I told you 2 years ago what could be done, and it was the same advice that OlYeller gave above (take it to UAA). This is the third time you've misused this noticeboard. -- Atama頭 20:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If trhat is the case appologies to you Atama, I have no recall of coming across you in my very interdispersed visits to wiki - perhaps time lapsed is against me, I wondered why I was not able to sort it out if you had given me THE EXACT INFO OL Yella just did?? So I followed Ol Yellas link where to go and it takes me to a page that doesnt tell me how to use and is very different from adding comment in an area like this (which is all I believe I have been successful in doing so far on wiki) - so I have been sent to a page that I dont know how to use and I dont know how to find out how to use? probably why i couldnt follow your information provided to me in exactley the same way as Ol Yella has. So where do I go from here - dont want anyone to take offence but this is a 5 year long frustrating cycle of being sent around the garden path - is this the spirit in which wiki was created? Bacmac (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ol Yeller for giving me active links , I will follow these and hopefully they will take me to an area I can seek some action from. I will also save these links on my pc so i can return when this impersonator activates again (this is definatley in an abusers advantage isnt it??) thanks again OL Yeller Bacmac (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

is there some way I can get an email sent to me automatically to tell me i need to make a responce or have information to respond to? Bacmac (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is called a watchlist - simply add the pages that you are interested in to your watchlist and you will be able to see when there are changes made, letting you responds if you think it is appropriate. See Help:Watching pages. --Simple Bob (Talk) 15:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You can also get notification by email of changes to your user talk page. Set up your email address and the appropriate notification options in your user preferences. --Simple Bob (Talk) 15:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Capital punishment in Texas

• Capital punishment in Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tcadp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has repeatedly been introducing some sort of (perhaps promotional?) information about an organization against capital punishment in the state of Texas. Their username is conveniently an acronym for the organization, leading me to believe that they run or are otherwise part of the organization as well.  dalahäst 15:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

User has been blocked for username violation by TParis. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Bengal tiger

• Bengal tiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Save China's Tigers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• China's Tiger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user in question admits on his talk page to be a volunteer for Save China's Tiger (SCT). The was a dispute between the backers for SCT (Li Quan and co) and a former partner / employee in the project John Varty (documented on the John Varty page). The user in question has repeatedly placed / replaced allegations of fraud against Mr. Varty on the Bengal Tiger page.

Another user (LesnarMMA) has been blocked for edit warring against me on this. A third user has already been banned for vandalism against John Varty. Nic Roets (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear NRoets, no need to brings thing up till this extend. It is not about any conflict of interests. It is about placing what is right and verified on the various pages. Please do note that you are removing huge chunks of information from the various articles, such as the Bengal Tiger page. I have already discussed with you why such information should not be removed. Simply because they are not poorly-sourced, and are quite credible and informative. We can discuss all of this on the talk page, why do you have to come here? You have not replied to my statments on the various talk pages, and have not justified your action. It is pot calling kettle black because you are defending JV while i am just putting in information which has been there for the past 2 - 3 years. There is no conflict of interest issue. I dare to admit that i WAS a volunteer of SCT because i have nothing to hide, i am no longer in SA now and is overseas for further studies. I am a friend of JV too, but the fact remains that these are not allegations but facts. Administrators, please feel free to contact me, and to keep a lookout for everything. I have nothing to hide. Cheers

And Nroets, we can discuss all these on each other's talk page, you have not mentioned anything about all these to me before. You can just come to my talk page and ask me. Why haven't you? All you are doing is to bring all these up to the noticeboards. When you are the one who keeps removing important information from wikipedia. Stop doing all this. What do you gain? Like you mentioned, you have caused some other members of the wikipedia community to be blocked and banned due to your support for JV and them just trying to revert your edits... You know how to go to the right channel and go to the administrators and to lodge reports on them, now its my turn? China's Tiger (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Administrators, i have been discussing with Nroets on his talk page, and the various discussion page regarding this issue. I have suggested to take matters in our own hands, and to agree on disagreeing. We will sort this out ourselves, and edit the articles accordingly. Cheers. China's Tiger (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The user continues to act unfairly against Mr. Varty. Most recently he duplicated criticism that already appears on John Varty . The criticism is of financial mismanagement, so it's clearly unrelated to Bengal Tigers. -- Nic Roets (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Nroets, not this again. I merely rephrased and edited what was on the Bengal Tiger's page in point form, to make it better structured and giving it better references, it can even be considered a "minor edit" since it is mostly just paraphrasing. How is this a conflict of interest case? Cheers. I thought we were over this already 16:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by China's Tiger (talk • contribs)

I would like to contribute to this case since I have been aware of and following an edit war between Nroets and other users, which has ensued over the past few days. Given that Nroets has been involved in several conflict disputes with China's Tiger over the past few days, I question Nroets motivation for this COI accusation.

Having followed the edits of China's Tiger, I am aware that China's Tiger has made valuable contributions to the articles in question. Nroets has frequently removed these contributions, seemingly using a lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete. China's Tiger has furthermore expressed an interest in enhancing the articles' neutrality on several occasions on their respective talk pages, requesting more time before the removal of content. I have expressed my concerns with the edits of Nroets on the Save China's Tigers talk page.

However, the motives behind the edits of Nroets have become increasingly questionable. For example, the motivation he provides for removing some content on the Bengal tiger page (which he refers in his comment above dated 16:08, 28 August 2011 — "criticism is of financial mismanagement") reads as follows: "Criticism added already appears verbatim on John Varty. Adding it to a second page is unfair to Mr Varty." (See Bengal tiger 16:01, 28 August 2011.) Is this not bias towards John Varty? Although I do not necessarily contest his edits, I do feel his motivations suggest a lack of neutrality — being "unfair" to someone is not a valid reason for removing content. I have expressed these concerns with Nroets on his talk page

In conclusion, I feel that this is a matter which should be resolved on the articles' talk pages, not the COI board. Given the prior conflicts of Nroets with other users, I question whether he is using the COI board to "gain the upper hand in a content dispute". I do not feel that his accusations have any grounds.

-- Dremagon (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the editor does have a conflict of interest, that's not at question. They admit to having one on their own user page (which I commend them for, by the way, I wish everyone was as open about COI). So it's worth bringing to this board for that reason alone. I don't know that this is the best place to resolve a content dispute, but the COI is definitely valid. Secondly, China's Tiger is unfortunately not a proper username, as it is a violation of WP:ORGNAME. I won't soft-block for the username, but I will ask for the name to be changed (but if China's Tiger doesn't wish to change it, I will soft-block). The edit war itself is a separate matter. -- Atama頭 18:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Parkinson%27s_UK

• Parkinson's_UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• ParkinsonsUK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Though initally this user expanded the article and it seemed balanced they now are sourcing pretty much all of the article to the charities own website and the article is reading like little more than an advert. RafikiSykes (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It still looks *reasonably* balanced to me (there has been no changes to the animal testing section for example) and there seams to be some effort to avoid marketing language ( for example) my feeling is 'new editor doing best to make sure Misplaced Pages has the right information about their organisation in it' more than 'editor promoting their organisation against best interest of Misplaced Pages' - but I do think that the username is a big red flag, and that the editor needs a bit of guidance. All that said - this is my first post to the noticeboard and I'm much more here to learn than offer opinion...Failedwizard (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Right now, I'm not seeing that the subject is establishing notability so the COI may be coming through as pushing for the creation of an article for a non-notable subject. For WP:ORG, I'm not seeing any independent coverage that would satisfy WP:NONPROFIT. As for WP:GNG, I see 3-4 independent sources but from a quick skim, the coverage is from local papers or not significant coverage (or some combination of both).

Ultimately, I don't see any overzealous editing so addressing notability is probably the highest priority. During that process, if there is a COI (I see a close connection but no pushing of goals that are contrary to WP's yet), it will most likely come out. OlYeller 15:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The user hasn't edited for a few days. I'll watch today for new edits as they might only edit from work. OlYeller 12:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, it's a bank holiday in the UK today... so might be better watching tomorrow... :) Failedwizard (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Bank holiday?! Crazy UKians. OlYeller 16:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Us Yanks get next Monday off, don't forget. ;) -- Atama頭 18:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Optical Express

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

PKdundee has an admitted connection to the company and also has serious ownership issues - seems to think they have the right to transform the page into a promotional site run by the company. Possible sockpuppet of blocked user Beatthecyberhate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who also tried to purge negative content about the company from the article. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I see a lot of discussion taking place on the talk page. Unless someone else gets to it first, I'll check out the talk page and report back. There's obviously a COI but we'll have to see if there's still COI type content on the page and whether or not the editor understands what's going on. OlYeller 18:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

76.175.193.153 Edits

• With or Without You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Brilliant Disguise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tunnel of Love (Bruce Springsteen song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• New Year's Day (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Gloria (U2 song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Flash mob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 76.175.193.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

76.175.193.153 an IP address user who is clearly Meiert Avis—the director of this and other videos— and he is clearly making edits to this page—and others—solely to promote himself and his work. Additionally he has made edits to replace valid sources with URLs to his self-promotional page on the web such as this one and this one and even this one. I came across this user while doing vandalism patrol of edits for the flash mob article, an article 76.175.193.153 is utterly obsessed with connecting to flash mobs even to the point to claim the video itself was the seminal source of all flash mobbing. --SpyMagician (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ricardo Duchesne

• Ricardo Duchesne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am concerned about a possible breach of WP:COI on Ricardo Duchesne. User:Gun Powder Ma has included information about the subject that does not appear to be publicly available. This includes

1. the subject's place of birth
2. the year in which the subject was promoted to full professor
3. the subject's membership on the doctoral selection committee for The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

This could have been a minor issue, except that User:Gun Powder Ma is the principal contributor to the article and an unrelenting defender of its inclusion on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ricardo Duchesne. I have asked User:Gun Powder Ma to state where s/he obtained this information. This request, however, was repeatedly ignored, which I found troubling. Given that s/he is the principal contributor to the article, and given that the second and third items were clearly included to build the subject's notability, I am concerned that User:Gun Powder Ma may have an undisclosed connection to the subject.--BlueonGray (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any connection to the subject? I ask because you do *nothing* on wiki that is not related to this bio, and invariably related in a negative way, up to and including vandalising it. It is difficult to believe that you just happen to be interested but have no connection William M. Connolley (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If I had any connection to the subject, I would have disclosed it long ago. The contention that I do nothing on Misplaced Pages that is not related to the article is demonstrably false. For the time being, my main purpose here will be to evaluate the quality and integrity of academic biographies. My suspicion now, as from the beginning, is that the article on Duchesne is a promotion piece. If you can furnish the above three pieces of information from public sources, I would be grateful. Otherwise, I cannot help but interpret your appearance here as a partisan intervention on behalf of a friend.--BlueonGray (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

As a monitoring/helping editor at COIN, I'm not seeing a COI here. First and most obviously, I don't see that the subject has admitted to a close connection or a goal that directly goes against WP's goals. Secondly, the evidence provided is vague as it links to a very large number of edits and possibly the largest AfD I've ever seen in almost three years on WP. I did find the diffs you provided in the COI discussion in the AfD and don't see a clear COI but that may be because I have no knowledge of the websites linked in a few edits. As you have taken this issue to several places that also don't see a clear COI, I don't see that anything can be done unless you provide some additional information/evidence that proves a COI or at the very least, strongly indicates a COI.

Also, if you're suggesting that arguing in an AfD, providing references/information that you can't find publicly, or disagreeing with your AfD constitutes a COI, then you're wrong. I don't know if WMC has a connection with the editor or subject in question but if he doesn't, you seem to be assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is somehow linked to the subject or editor in question. While I don't see any evidence to prove WMC's claim, your actions are verging if not fully assuming bad faith. I usually follow the duck test here but I'm just not seeing a connection. Unless you have some clear evidence of a COI, I think continuing this conversation may be out of line. OlYeller 17:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, even if the subject themselves logged on and provided the information you listed above, there isn't a COI. A COI consists of an editor having a close connection to the subject (or being the subject) and advancing outside interests is that directly compete with advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages. If they're just doing the latter, it's a problem but not a COI (or a problem for this noticeboard). As neither have been proven, I don't see a COI. OlYeller 17:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. To clarify, I did not bring up the COI on the AfD. That was brought up by someone else. This is a separate case. I am merely raising an issue concerning three pieces of information on Ricardo Duchesne that have not been sourced and for which there appear to be no public sources. I asked User:Gun Powder Ma if he could share his sources for this information, but I was not given an answer. Given his role as a major contributor to the article, I therefore thought there should be some discussion about it. I'm not saying anything has been proven, but rather raising concern. I consulted with different pages and concluded, perhaps mistakenly, that the best course of action was to initiate a COI discussion. If this is not the place to have that discussion, I would be grateful if you could kindly advise where and how that discussion should proceed. Thank you,BlueonGray (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This would be the place to discuss it and I wouldn't say you've really done anything wrong. The issue we see here often is that content cases will be brought against someone when there only seems to be a content dispute. I'm not saying that there's only a content dispute because things do seem a little fishy but at this point, I don't see that any action can really be taken past continuing to monitor the situation. The one thing I'd like to make sure of is that we don't go around accusing editors of having a COI without and real evidence. Like I said before, there can be an overwhelming amount of "circumstantial" evidence which allows action to be taken (which is how I interpret WP:DUCK) but I'm just not seeing it right now. It's definitely strange when information is added that, it appears, only someone with a connection to the subject or the subject themselves would know but that in itself doesn't constitute a COI where action can be taken.

I'll try to keep an eye on things but as this case is quite large, it's almost impossible to catch everything so if you see any evidence that further substantiates a COI, be sure to post it here (diffs and a short explanation work best). OlYeller 18:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the advice and helpful suggestions. I agree with everything you've written, and I've tried carefully to avoid any accusations, explicit or implicit, against another editor. I agree, the case is very large and rather complicated. To clarify, I'm not asking for any disciplinary action to be taken. I leave that entirely up to an admin to decide. In any case, if I find anything else, I will share it here. Once again, thank you.--BlueonGray (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Generally you can't establish a COI without a direct admission or a clear "gotcha" from the editor. In this case, the unsourced information could simply be original research, or even falsified (though I'd rather not assume the latter). If I added info about Patrick Stewart's hat size, I could have gotten it from carefully examining the size of his hat in relation to objects of known size in a feature film, or just blindly guessing, it doesn't mean that I'm his personal milliner. -- Atama頭 18:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your point. It could indeed have been original research, and I made sure to leave that open as a possibility when I tried to discuss this with my fellow editor. My only concern is that, when asked about this research, the editor refused to say where s/he obtained crucial information about a biographical subject. It's not so much the inclusion of that information, but rather the persistent refusal to say where s/he obtained it. Still, your point is well taken and I appreciate it. Thank you.--BlueonGray (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Any controversial information about a BLP must be sourced. Regardless of COI or any other factors. -- Atama頭 19:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The only possible COI I can see is this:

1. 03-01-2011: Ricardo Duchesne (RD) writes an article about the "racism industry" of Canada's academia in a national newspaper
2. 12-02-2011 5:28 PM: On a comments page a user named "Blue on Gray" gets pretty agitated about Duchesne article. Quotes:

For the record, if anyone is turned off by Western civilization, it is because of the arrogance and tastelessness of its self-appointed representatives like Ricardo Duchesne. (Feb 12, 2011 5:28 PM)

And, why not do this all *without* the resentment and foaming at the mouth? That would be a genuinely interesting research project. For that, of course, you would actually need to think and speak like a mature, civil, and intellectually responsible social scientist. (Apr 24, 2011 10:55 PM)

1. 21-02-2011: BlueonGray registered on Misplaced Pages and...
2. became until August 2011 a WP:single-purpose account (1) only devoted
3. ...to vandalize the article on RD repeatedly: 1, 2 and...
4. ...initiated two AfDs misusing WP as his personal battleground and...
5. refuses to answer a simple question whether he is identical with this BlueonGray even though I was gracious enough to tell him that I am not RD (I am not)...

So, if someone misuses WP as a platform for his/her personal antipathy, then it is BlueonGray who comes here to wage his personal crusade. I am concerned that User:BlueonGray may have an undisclosed connection to one of the Canadian academics mentioned less flatteringly in RD's article. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If you are accusing me of a COI, please be explicit about it and kindly follow the established procedure for initiating an investigation. This discussion is not about me. It is about how three crucial pieces of information in Ricardo Duchesne, the second two of which were included to elevate the subject's notability, managed to be included without public sources. Since you are finally here, I would be grateful if you could kindly share how you managed to obtain those three pieces of information. Thank you.--BlueonGray (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

List of all-female bands

• List of all-female bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Claudia Diez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Claudia Diez replaced a large portion of the "C" section of List of all-female bands with what appeared to be cut-and-paste material from . The edit was reverted as removal of material from the article without explanation. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Alan. It's the account's first edit and, I would guess, the editor's first edit. Since you've handled it all (reverted and warned), it doesn't look like there's anything to be done but watch for more problem edits. I'll keep an eye out and report back here if I see anything. OlYeller 17:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I get the feeling that this may be a WP:REALNAME problem as well, but that's difficult to judge based on one edit. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon an article (Claudia Diez and The Tropical Symphony Concert that I nominated for deletion that was a copyvio of the same website. I didn't put it together until a few seconds ago. It was created by Bibiana Fricke (talk · contribs). As for REALNAME, we'll have to ask over in their talk page then take it to UAA. I'll start checking around for more pasting of that website. OlYeller 18:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Claudia Diez was already declined at WP:UAA. That's why I brought it here. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ya, having the name isn't a problem in itself unless they're pretending to be Claudia Diez. If we ask and they're not that person, they're violating UAA which they would care about at UAA. Ultimately, that's unrelated to a COI though unless they picked the name to defame the person or push other goals that are contrary to WP's goals. They probably should have mentioned that but they tend to work through things very fast over there. OlYeller 18:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Evolution

• Evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Evolutionary history of life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sciencenews (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Sciencenews is editing a number of articles where their main interest seems to be the inclusion of this and other articles by the same group of authors. Now, the articles are probably fine and acceptable, but this is a bit of a coincidence. I have reverted on two occasions also because the quality of the writing wasn't great (and Evolution is an FA). I am interested in hearing other editors' opinions. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm personally not a fan of random insertion of sources--Guerillero | My Talk 20:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking through their contributions, it looks like all they have done is add links to papers by the same set of authors - particularly, papers by Sahney. There's nothing inherently wrong with adding sources without much else, even if they are sources you were involved in creating, as long as it is done in a way that adds to the quality of the article. However, many of Sciencenews' additions don't seem to add to the quality of the article. Some of them, like this one, don't even really seem to make any sense. Given that sciencenews made more than five dozen contributions over six months that look like they are entirely geared towards promoting a particular person's work rather than improving the quality of the encyclopedia.. I think we have a problem.

Coincidentally, sciencesnews also wrote Sarda Sahney's article here. If I was feeling a little bit more delete-y today I'd try to kill it since there's no way she meets our notability guidelines. Kevin (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sarda Sahney is a Ph.D. student in Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol (started 2005 ). <redacted> I have nominated it for speedy deletion. Enough said? Mathsci (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't WP:OUTING prohibit us from suggesting an editor's real life identity even if it seems kind of obvious? That said, I would agree a prod is warranted. Kevin (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Textbook Outing. OlYeller 21:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I used the word "probably", so it was just a guess, so it is not outing since there is no joining-of-the dots. (OlYeller21, please try to be more careful what you write.) It is very hard to explain the edits in any other way (extreme puffery in the BLP and the undue insertions prominently in a high-level article). Mathsci (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, guy. You're certainly walking a thin line. Given your history here, I doubt it will go over well but if you feel that you "probably" weren't outing then more power to you. OlYeller 21:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Please cease these unsubstantiated personal attacks: ("your history here" is a smearing and baseless remark which you should please redact): you are likely to be blocked if you continue. Please also do not address me as "guy". That is just rude and uncivil. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if you were offended by a colloquialism I use often. Perhaps it's used differently where you're from. Any derogatory connotation you have read into the word was unintended. It wasn't a personal attack, just stating an opinion that I believe you have outed someone when in your opinion you have not. I didn't call you names or post in bold to tell you to stop or anything. Whether or not there's outing is up to an admin, not you or me. If I had to guess, if you remove the information now, any problem would be averted. Regulars can asses your history of bringing content disputes here as a COI. That's not an opinion. I can see from the rapid edits and changing of your comment that this discussion isn't going to go well so I'm stepping out for now. We can address this later if you'd like. OlYeller 21:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a reminder of the "history here": Mathsci was given a block in October 2008 for the exact same behavior, namely speculating (without quite rising to a definite assertion) about the RL identity of an editor with a possible COI. 212.183.140.23 (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

(←) Yeah, that's a violation of WP:OUTING. I just redacted it and had to delete a dozen revisions (ugh, that's why I hate outing, especially on a noticeboard). Mathsci, Rule #1 of the COI noticeboard is to be extra super-duper careful about outing, which includes speculation of an editor's identity. We have reason to believe there's a COI, based on information on-wiki, but anything further that's even a guess is a violation. Outing is grounds for an immediate block but I'm not going to do that at this time, just remember, and I mean this in the strongest terms, be careful. -- Atama頭 22:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution