Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:05, 8 August 2012

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:

BeijingWest Industries

• BeijingWest Industries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MagneRide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Delphi Automotive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mandrin2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Appears to be promotional material masquerading as a series of articles with some suspicious removal of material and amendments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mighty Antar (talk • contribs) 21:47, 1 May 20 (UTC)

It's a single purpose account - but it hasn't edited for over a year - I popped a note on their talk to alert them to this post just in case they are lurking.Fayedizard (talk)

Sister Roma

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

I added neutral content from news sources and it keeps getting deleted and a references tag added. I think this might be harassment, can someone please help? Panther Pink (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC) They're erasing news reports again, can an administrator please help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panther Pink (talk • contribs) 04:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC) For the record I saw Roma's TV interview. By the same standard I'm apparently friends with Madonna, Will.i.am and the Kardashians. Can I PLEASE get some help with this? I added news reports and interviews with her. Obviously these editors didn't even read those articles and just dislike Sister Roma. Is that the standard around here? Sabotage any article you don't agree with? A little help please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panther Pink (talk • contribs) 09:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for problems caused by editors with a conflict of interest. There seems no indication that here, only a simple content dispute, which should be resolved by discussion on the article talk page or, if that fails, by WP:Dispute resolution. See WP:BRD. JohnCD (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

These three people are accusing everyone who touches the article as working for Sister Roma, the tags were removed but the deletions and bullying continue. " I contest almost the whole existence of this article as a puff piece by the people involved." Isn't that sweet? Panther Pink (talk) 05:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The behavior of these editors does seem bullying and meatpuppetish, but it's not COI, so this is the wrong place to be discussing it. There are more eyes on the article now as a result of this notice; with any luck, the situation will improve; if not, there are better ways to deal with it than continuing to bring it up here. Abhayakara (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

THEY were the ones accusing everyone else of COI. The tags are not being re-added every time and I thank you for trying to make them defend their sweeping deletions. Panther Pink (talk) 09:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Panther Pink is almost certainly Sister Roma or one of her mates from the "order." The article was started by Benjamin Hohlman (User:Benjiboi) a paid editing advocate and pornography promoter who is a friend of sister roma's (and a fellow member of their group the sisters of perpetual indulgence, an activist organization). The article has been groomed by a succession of Benjiboi's socks over the years (he is now banned from wikipedia; like "sister roma" benjiboi's socks likewise had a habit of attacking his critics as having COIs while he was busy stuffing wikipedia full of promotional articles on himself, his friends, and pornography studios he was involved with). Sister Roma is a very minor drag queen and the article continues to be filled with promotional and fawning language, often relying on poor sources. Yes, there's a conflict of interest here. But is has nothing to do with whomever "Panther Pink" is complaining about. Aint wikipedia grand?Bali ultimate (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Bali ultimate, if you are making a COI accusation, you should do it here, but you should do it properly. If you are not making such an accusation, discussing the article here is not appropriate—discuss it on the talk page. User:Panther Pink, you should do the same—it just isn't going to help matters for you to continue this discussion here. Abhayakara (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

What are you on about? "Properly?" I most certainly am making an allegation of conflict of interest. I am asserting that Panther Pink is either Benjiboi (of the 100+ socks and the long and poisonous career of using identical tactics to those being used by "Panther Pinks"), Michael Williams (AKA "Sister Roma", a close friend of Benjiboi Hohlman) or one of the other socks that have trolled wikipedia from the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence for quite some time. The fact that the vast majority of their edits are self-promotional is a problem. That they scream harassment (accusations of criminal activity were benjibois favorite smokescreen for his lying) and all the rest is just sauce for the goose.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"Properly" means you need to say who you are referring to, and what their conflict of interest is, and give evidence to support your allegations. Evidence of the form "because the editor is adding text to the article that I disagree with" does not support a COI assertion—you should read WP:COI for a list of valid COI assertions. If User:Panther Pink is in fact the same person as Benjiboi and is sockpuppeting, or was previously found to have COI, and is pretending to be someone else to escape the COI label, then you would have a point, but you should be able to provide evidence that this is the case, not just a wild accusation. Similarly, if Panther Pink is Michael Williams, you should be able to demonstrate that this is the case. Abhayakara (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Good evening everyone. I see from looking here that, following the COI template, an editor experienced in COI has already given some sensible advice - including the word 'evidence'. Everyone posting to this thread appears to be rehashing previous augments from that one, so I believe it might be sensible for this to stablise on the talk page and not here. Lastly... Panther pink, let me welcome you to Misplaced Pages, and express my regret that nobody appears to have done so yet. I'm hoping you've survived your baptism of fire and you're happy to keep improving wikipedia, although I suspect you might find it easier to learn your craft in some of the less controversial areas of wiki first and then come back to the article. I'd like to see this thread closed off personally - if someone comes back with a set of diffs and a username then it might be best to start a new thread. How do others feel and closing? Fayedizard (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please. Abhayakara (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I for one would like to hear from Pink Panther if the account is not controlled by Sister Roma or User:Benjiboi or User:Sfdrag (one of benji's confirmed socks) which have both edited the article (it's a near certainty that other benji socks also edited the article) or another of the members of their so-called "order." Here's his ban discussion for those interested in his M/O. . And here's the SPI archive case page (minimum 50 socks confirmed and many more IPs) and here's a link explaining his involvement with self promotion and connection to the sisters of perpetual indulgence and sister roma (Benji created not one, but two autobios on himself under the "names" DJ Pusspuss and "Sister Kitty Catalyst; he was asked about his connection to self-promotion and "the order" as far back as 2008 and lied about it all the way til the point he was finally banned). Bali ultimate (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious this editor has a severe hangup on either Sister Roma or someone they assume is working for her. As I said before my extent is that I saw her interview on TV and thought she was fascinating. To the same degree i am working for Madonna, David Beckham and Justin Bieber! This should also be noted as the reason this IS a COI issue in that they accuse everyone who tries to improve the article as being her employees or coworkers, etc. So the improving of the article is prevented solely on the COI accusations of suspicion. Panther Pink (talk) 05:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Pew Research Center

This is a weird one. I am Canadian so I may be wrong. The list may be long if I am not. It wikilinks to many articles but only has 120 employees in the infobox. Notability, RS, COI, spam, merge to The Pew Charitable Trusts etc. I thought I would post here for thoughts as well. Feel free to {not done} {resolve} if you wish.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

 Warning Cross posted. I started at help desk and then pump/tech to see if they can database search a few users for the wikilinks.(leave at bottom?)

This is a widely-cited organization in U.S. politics, on opinion polls and analysis. Dru of Id (talk) 12:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Widely cited, but I am curious about their Survey methodology. They don't list the sample numbers on their site. Gallup and Angus Reid claim 1000 calls a day. I am wondering if they just call 50 or so and sell their numbers for less. That is why they are cited so much. They make WP:NOT easily I guess so RS and COI probably aren't an issue then. Feel free to close this section as goose chase unless someone else wants to kick it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Jsteininger

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

Issue has been reported here several times (). To sum up the issue, a person using accounts that appear to be the subject of the article keep changing the date of birth listed in the article which is currently backed up by reliable sources. I've attempted to start a discussion with the editor several times on their talk page but they continue to cite themselves in their edit summaries, claiming to be the subject of the article. They've passed an L4 warning. I don't see any other way to address this than with a block. Any admins around that can assist? OlYeller21 14:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no dispute over the November 15 date. The dispute is whether he was born in 1985 or 1987. This article says he was 22 years old on the date November 21, 2008. If he was born November 15, 1985, he would be 23? Of course, the article could have been written before November 15, 2008 and only published on November 21, 2008. He was 20 on the date May 22, 2007. He was 21 on the date May 24, 2007. Another article says he was 21 on the date November 2, 2007. He was 23 on the date December 8, 2010. He was 23 on the date December 9, 2010. Not sure if this helps but another article says "Jeffree Star started off as a make-up artist at the age of 15." At around age 18, Star put a couple of videos online for fun. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Some of the info for case numbers 20235CM, CY298836, CM46498PEA, and 46563KH at https://ocapps.occourts.org/CourtIndex/ is available. His birth date is 11/15/1985 per the court records. Then there's this, which also shows a birth date of 11/15/1985, but that could have been added by someone. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPPRIMARY, we are *not* allowed to use public documents or court records to support a date of birth. If otherwise reliable sources differ, both dates can be quoted if it seems significant. One of the two can be chosen for the official DOB and the other mentioned in the text as a conflicting report. EdJohnston (talk) 06:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find any source with the specific birth date of November 15 or even the birth year. There might already be links in the article to support the birth date. The public documents/records establish that Jsteininger is wrong about the year being 1987, so it seems reasonable to exclude 1987 as being the birth year from the article, particularly when there is no source to support 1987 as the birth year. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If so, what wording do you actually want to put in the article? Just omit mention of his date of birth? EdJohnston (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think omiting his date of birth at this point is the way to go. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Any suggestions on what to do with the user (presumably the subject of the article)? Their intent seems to be to list the date that they feel is or know to be correct. I'm not suggesting that we go with their self-citation but I'm not sure they're going to be happy with that solution. I'd suggest we discuss it with them at this point but they've avoided all attempts to discuss. Perhaps it would be best to remove the date, see if they attempt to change it again, then block if they do? OlYeller21 15:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The trouble started when the date of birth was added to the article. I think if we remove the date entirely (since no reliable source and it is contentious material, that may calm things down. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding whether Jsteininger has a COI with the Jeffree Star article, Jsteininger is holding himself out to be Jeffree Star (Edit summary: "I think I know my OWN birthdate, thanks".) So either there is a COI or a potential WP:IMPERSONATE issue. To protect Jeffree Star, we may want to ask Jsteininger to prove he is who he says he is by sending an e-mail to info-en@wikimedia.org. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

  There is no conflict of interest here. Both the subject and Misplaced Pages have exactly the same interest here, which is to get an error out of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

  Unless we're looking at Age_fabrication... bit of an interesting one... Fayedizard (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Cape Henry Collegiate School

• Cape Henry Collegiate School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• CapeHenry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor, with a COI username, has added massive amounts of copy/paste material to the article. I stumbled upon an incipient edit war just now and reverted everything since it all came straight from the school's website. I put some of the urls in my edit summaries before I realized that the whole article was copied and just rolled it back. I will notify the other editors involved now. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the COI is pretty obvious - but also User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah has got a good hold on the article - I'm not sure this needs much more action, unless we think CapeHenry is a violation of WP:USERNAME? Fayedizard (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The Moons

• The Moons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Schnitzel Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Mrrooftop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Anna Sbr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.155.86.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.156.55.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bengordelier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lois Moon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jeb123abc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Most of this feud is taking place at The Moons where an edit war is taking place with several meat or sock puppets. Mrrooftop has been blocked but Anna Sbr quickly took their place. Now the listed IPs are reverting my edits and the edits of DMacks. Bengordelier, Jeb123abc, and Lois Moon are WP:SPAs who have been making edits here and there. Ben Gordelier is a band member and "Lois Moon" may or may not be related to the band but their unreferenced edits suggest some personal knowledge of the band.

I'm usually able to handle these situations myself but this crew is particularly persistent and I don't like dancing around WP:3RR.

This is the edit that's getting tossed back and forth right now. It's, "Full of uncited opinions, motivations, and fawning praise." and they've ignored all attempts at discussion. I'm not as concerned about that as I am the rest of the content of the article and all of the article for bands signed to Schnitzel Records Ltd. and all of the numerous files uploaded about The Moons, Schnitzel Records Ltd., and the bands it has signed. I've only turned over a few rocks but this appears to be a very widespread issue. OlYeller21 19:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I modified your listing by adding the pages in the collapse boxes. I listed Schnitzel Records at AfD. The Schnitzel Records article has been around since December 2009‎, not sure what prompted the recent flare up of SPAs, IPs, edit wars, etc. There's a lot of non-free images that have been uploaded, which needs to be reviewed. "The Moons" appears to meet WP:GNG. Significant coverage includes , , , with filler , , . -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I just added another WP:SPA to the list (Max Fis (talk · contribs)). I've been fighting a fire at work the past two days so I haven't been able to do anything besides revert and warn. I may have more time after 2pm EST today but I don't want anyone to think that I've taken care of this yet. OlYeller21 12:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's time to start an SPI and roll out some blocks. I'll work on the SPI but I've got a really super fun meeting in an hour that will hopefully not last more than 5 hours. I'm not going to cry if someone beats me to it. OlYeller21 13:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

OlYeller and I had a lengthy conversation on this case within the broader context of converting covert COIs to less disruptive and potentially even helpful above-board COIs and how the first step of any conversion is convincing the COI to disclose.

This isn't an ideal example, as ideally conversion attempts would made at the first couple edits, rather than when an organization is in this deep, but I offered the accounts an "invitation to disclose" (call it an experiment). Just an idea I'm toying with, but I think a lot of COI problems would be resolved easier if the COI was informed of the benefits of disclosure and asked to do so if they have one in plain-english. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 15:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Mrrooftop (talk) blocked a week, as he went straight back to edit-warring after his first short block. King 4057, sorry if that conflicts with your attempt to engage them, but Mrrooftop had a notice of this discussion, he didn't come here, he just re-inserted (for the ninth time, if I counted right) what DMacks well described as "a mess of uncited opinions, motivations, and fawning praise." JohnCD (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I mentioned to OlYeller that converting a COI means you are AGFing. I wasn't AGFing the case or at least didn't think it was salvageable. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 00:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Fred Lipman

• Initial public offering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• FredLipman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I warned User:FredLipman that Misplaced Pages discourages self-promotion,book/link canvassing, etc. In the case, the user claims to be a well-published authority on some topics. Misplaced Pages:COI#Citing_oneself says this may be appropriate in some circumstances as long as it's not excessive. See talk page discussion here OhNoitsJamie 19:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I added links above. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

List of video game developers

• List of video game developers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MirMahna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Esprisco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2.177.122.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2.37.59.223.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor is pretty obviously the same ESPRIS video game developer suggested by his name, which he is attempting to insert into List of video game developers. MirMahna is the name of his game. Msnicki (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

MirMahna is mentioned in Hindustan Times July 13, 2011 and World News Connection August 13, 2011. When spelled differently as Mir Mahna or Mir-Mahna, the topic actually might be WP:GNG notable. See, for example, "Iran unveils national herotic computer game". Iran Daily. February 28, 2011. Retrieved 4 August 2012. If you figure on there being Iranian source material, that with about fifteen English sources may make the topic notable. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

'Create artist wikipedia'

• Create artist wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nikxhinfanatics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Claims to be a fanatic of a person named "Nikki Xhin". The page mentioned above (since PRODed by me due to WP:N/WP:NONSENSE/WP:COI) tells the reader to find the person in question and that User:Nikxhinfanatics will write/wrote articles for her. J u n k c o p s (want to talk?|my log) 07:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deleted, for too many reasons to list. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It does not solve user's issue, however. Needs to be blocked. J u n k c o p s (want to talk?|my log) 08:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't edits made to the article but it doesn't look like you've ever spoken with them on their talk page. They should have at least been warned about the discussion here. There's no way a block is coming unless the now-deleted edits were incredibly egregious. OlYeller21 12:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The article was run-of-the-mill for non-notable people wanting to be discovered. Similar articles get created and speedy deleted all the time when they're written about friends from school, siblings, etc. —C.Fred (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Creators Syndicate authors

• Creators Syndicate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikicreate91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There have been insertions on a number of pages (e.g. on Linda Chavez) on biographies of columnists distributed by Creators Syndicate. These insertions are the only contributions by this editor, whose name suggests to me that they may be an employee of the syndicate. I was of mixed opinion about this and therefore did not revert, but a little checking shows that there seems to be widespread objection to these edits, and that the user in question is unresponsive to multiple messages on their talk page. I am raising the issue here for lack of a better forum as to the appropriateness of these edits. Mangoe (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

My primary objections have been lack of sourcing and placement of information about the syndicator in the lead of bio articles. If this user is somehow affiliated with Creators Syndicate, he/she should suggest such edits on talk pages rather than placing them in articles because of obvious COI. Cresix (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I am associated with the company. We are trying to link each of our writers' and cartoonists' to our Misplaced Pages page and vice versa. Our Misplaced Pages page already states that all of these people are syndicated by us. I'm not adding any new information, just trying to link the pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicreate91 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This is link spamming, pure and simple. Please stop it.--ukexpat (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Creators Syndicate is widely WP:GNG notable - there's hundreds of news article on the topic. You would be better off incorporating material from reliable sources into the Creators Syndicate's article than going around violating Misplaced Pages's policies and procedures to implement your own personal views of how Misplaced Pages articles should be written or what they should contain. I would be surprised to learn that Creators Syndicate approved your Misplaced Pages efforts. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The editor is adding cited material indicating that a syndicated columnist is, indeed, syndicated (by CS, one of the big syndicates). There really isn't any policy violation here. It might produce less-than-stellar writing, but there's no serious violation, and the new editor is making an honest effort to help. Syndication is a big deal. It is, in some cases, the only reason these people became famous/notable enough to have Misplaced Pages articles in the first place. I wouldn't always place that information in the lead, but it is not an unreasonable starting point for a typical syndicated columnist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There may not be a policy violation in a technical sense, but your comment that it is cited material (your italics) is irrelevant. There's a lot more to making reasonable edits than providing a source. When a single purpose account who acknowledges that he has a conflict of interest adds numerous references to the organization that he represents, sometimes placing them inappropriately in the lead, that editor has stepped over the line and is linkspamming. There's a reason we have the information found at WP:COI. That editor should make requests on article talk pages rather than spamming articles. Cresix (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding accurate, relevant, and important information to the text of articles is not "linkspamming". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I second WhatamIdoing's opinion. The linkspamming policy, in it's very first line, says that the policy applies to "adding external links." The user in question has not added external links. They have added an internal wikilink to the syndicate's wikipedia page. They have then referenced the data to an outside website which confirms the relationship. While there is certainly issue to be taken with readability, this doesn't seem to meet the definition of linkspamming at all. I've noticed that the Linda Chavez lede also mentions that she is not only an "analyst," but is specifically a "Fox News analyst." Fox News is, of course, wikilinked. Why should we mention specifically who employs her as an analyst, but not who specifically syndicates her? Sperril (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not it is officially linkspamming, it clearly is a conflict of interest. Let's try to remember that this is the "Conflict of interest noticeboard". That is the issue. Cresix (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The syndicate is not an employer; it's more of an agent, for however that may matter. Mangoe (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you missed the point here. I don't think you really believe that Creators has no employees. The syndicate is an agent for its writers. It is an employer of its staff. Wikicreate91 (talk · contribs) stated that he/she is "associated with the company" and added links to articles for dozens of the writers represented by the syndicate. That is the conflict of interest. It's one thing if I myself am a writer, have a Misplaced Pages article, and add to that article that I am syndicated by Creators, that's not much of a problem. On the other hand, if work for Creators (whether as CEO, publicity agent, or secretary) and my sole activity on Misplaced Pages is to add links to Creators in numerous articles, that is a conflict of interest. If we find such behavior acceptable, we may as well give editorial control of every article on a company to its employees. Imagine allowing Donald Trump and his minions to have their way with his biography as well as Trump Mortgage, The Trump Organization, Trump Entertainment Resorts, and the various other companies that he owns or controls. As I said, there are very good reasons we have the information at WP:COI. Cresix (talk) 01:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The Urantia Book

• The Urantia Book (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• UrantiaFoundation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jaworski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The book is a religious text, which believers think was written by angels in Chicago, Illinois in the 1930s as a revelation, the last "epochal" revelation having been Jesus' life.

Sooooo... not entirely surprisingly, with there being adherents for it, the article over time attracts its fair share of editors who come by with a (sometimes strongly) religious POV, typically also with little experience in editing, and since it's not an especially well known topic, the article has a tendency to drift toward WP:PROMOTION. Critical and skeptical POVs are very regularly cut back or eliminated. It hasn't been especially a big deal, discussion about wikipedia policies takes place on the talk page, it gets worked out.

I'd just go to the WP:FRINGE noticeboard about the more recent changes (past few months) that have been pushed, but in this case unlike earlier ones, the editor, Jaworski, has an apparent almost 15 year association with the publisher of the book, Urantia Foundation, working for them and promoting their book, according to readily available articles on the publisher's website praising his activities. His only wikipedia activity is as a WP:SPA regarding this book's article. I don't know if he has a financial interest, but the "close relationship" criteria seems to me like it's being met, both toward the book and the book's publisher. Less firm (but I can't help but notice): The publisher apparently setup an account User:UrantiaFoundation, which was indef blocked after a few edits, and in a later newsletter in early 2011, they wrote to their believers "There are other sites important to the study of The Urantia Book including Misplaced Pages. A team is being formed to review this site and improve its quality, not only in English, but also in other languages." Presumably they learned from the indef block, and the publisher and their "team" know not to edit using a WP:GROUPNAME again. This happens to also be right about the time Jaworski resumed activity. (In all the nearly 5 years prior, his only account activity was to insert an external link in the article pointing to his website a couple times.)

I've known about the apparent conflict of interest of the editor's close relationship to the book and its publisher for a while and have spent a lot of time on the talk page going over wikipedia basics. The reason I bring it up now on COIN (which I was hoping to avoid and be a last resort) is because in recent interactions, I've even set aside neutrality and WP:UNDUE issues that have been introduced to the article, just to focus on the simple fundamental of reliable sourcing being needed, and the response has gone into WP:TENDENTIOUS territory in my view with even this not being accepted. (Of note, this has even been at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard already, see here. Hats off to him for taking that step. But not liking their understandable assessments, the response from Jaworski was four attempts to delete the topic and the responses: here, here, here, and here.) I'd appreciate input, advice, recommendations. Thanks. I've notified Jaworski of this discussion as well. Wazronk (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The earliest references I found on The Urantia Book was from 1986, not the 1930s, and that reference indicates that the book was the outcome of a 1934 study group that discussed religion and philosophy whose writings (I'm assuming) were published in the URANTIA Book in the 1950s. After that, there's a 1989 aticle that says "One can read truly glowing passages of God's love for each of us (he is no respecter of persons), check out The Urantia Book at the library." and a 1990 article that reads "Anyone who fears total annihilation of life on Earth will be comforted by the certainty of man's physical survival, as stated in The Urantia Book, page 582." There's a 1992 article that notes how the book On the Wild Side devotes two chapers to debunking Urantia: "Two of the most fascinating chapters in this book deal with the bizarre Urantia ("I AM") cult, headquartered here in Chicago. At 4.3 pounds and 2,097 pages, The Urantia Book is a kind of Book of Mormon written by superhumans and channeled to disenchanted latter-day Adventists. It "supposedly contains the earth's fifth revelation from God. . . . it may be the largest, most fantastic chunk of channeled moonshine ever to be bound in one volume." " There was a 1992 play that dealt with the topic. The Urantia Book topic didn't really catch on until 1997. In particular, it was the June 12, 1997 federal appeals court ruling giving copyright protection to celestial beings (as the media spun it) in the Urantia Book that brought the book to national attention,After that, there's plenty of info. That June 12, 1997 court ruling is a very significant reliable source event in the books' history, but isn't even mentioned in the Misplaced Pages article on the book.
(i) First, we need to establish that Jaworski has a COI with the topic. Then, (ii) we can figure out whether Jaworski is editing in a way that does not comply with Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest and, if so, (iii) what to do about it.
As the first step, please post diffs that establish that Jaworski has an association with Urantia Foundation, the publisher of The Urantia Book. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed research and reply. The editor Jaworski initially registered in Feb 2006 and proceeded to have only one edit on wikipedia, the addition of the URL http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pjaworski/ to The Urantia Book article in its external links section. Diff. The link was later removed by someone else. In 2008, Jaworski returned, and again had only the one same edit to wikipedia, the addition of the same link. Diff.

The connection I've known regarding a person "Jaworski" with a website "http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pjaworski/" being in association with the Urantia Foundation is a detailed article published by the Urantia Foundation on their website, about a husband and wife team the "Jaworskis" (I won't say the first names, the husband's first name begins with "P" though), who in the article are identified as the creators and operators of the website "http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pjaworski/". The article is about a very large decade-long piece of work they did for the publisher, Urantia Foundation, and about the Jaworskis association with the foundation since 1998, praising them for their work. I haven't encountered an WP:COI issue before or posted to COIN, and I'm mindful about respecting the privacy of the editor(s), I don't know about it being appropriate to provide the link so I won't, but this isn't a hidden article, and the name of the user is what it is (I came across the article actually while researching about the translations the publisher has). Can summarize at least that everything is consistent between Jaworski the wikipedia editor and Jaworski the husband-wife team who has worked with Urantia Foundation since 1998: the name, the website, the same opinions in the article vs on the Urantia talk page, the mannerisms of speech as non-native English speakers.

I'm also aware that as of November 2010 the president of the Urantia Foundation, Mo Siegel, was evidently personally upset about the wikipedia article, see second comment here. (Their assessment from this: "Someone who is not a believer in the revelation has rewritten what was once an informative article. The Urantia Misplaced Pages article should be under the watchcare of the Fellowship and the Foundation and they've not been minding the store." Yikes!) Starting in December 2010 then, just one month later, lo and behold an editor with the same name as a person with a long-term association with the foundation begins making edits to remove criticisms, and in early 2011 and onward goes on to add original research, emphasizing "prophetic science" in the book. At just this same time in March 2011 the publisher Urantia Foundation is acknowledging a "team" being formed to "improve" the article (newsletter I linked to in my first post above).

Whether "Jaworski" is editing on behalf of the organization or for a "team" put together by UF is more circumstantial to say, and I'm just mentioning it since I've noticed these pieces of information and it's added to my wariness. On the basics of a "close relationship" WP:COI between the editor and the book and its publisher, that's what is more clearly and solidly evident to me. Wazronk (talk) 06:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the gaps in the article. One aspect of the Urantia book that is discussed in some of the sources used but not in the article is channeling. Another is possible Seventh Day Adventist influence, and a third is a splinter group called The Teaching Mission composed of believers who think they are in touch with "unseen friends". This is probably because Urantia supporters don't want to add it, and most editors don't know much about Urantia. Dougweller (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The work I did for the Urantia Foundation was the translation of The Urantia Book into Polish. The Polish translation was published in 2009. I am not a member of their board, permanent or voluntary staff, nor am I a member of any of their committee or special task groups. I don’t even live in USA where they have their office. Editing the TUB article is my own initiative. I began editing the Misplaced Pages article about The Urantia Book about a year ago when I found that it was based mostly on one biased source. As a beginner to Misplaced Pages I made many mistakes (original research, asking wrong formulated question, later deleting it, inserting links to my own webpage). As translator I have very good knowledge of the text of this book and also many issues and sources related to it. My main goal is to achieve the NPOV not to promote this book or any of its ideas. A few years ago Wazronk main activity on Misplaced Pages was The Urantia Book and related articles WP:SPA . . After some time he began the editing of other non TUB related articles and this is also my intention. Wazronk was and still is the most active editor of the TUB article. Maybe some discussion from the year 2008 will shed new light on this issue.

True about the true believers, and thankfully I was here to prevent them from repeatedly stripping out criticisms and constantly inserting their non-NPOV language. Wazronk (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that single purpose accounts such as your own should not be dictating Misplaced Pages content. You do not own the content nor the article and need to work with others. The first order of business is improving this article. After it is clear that this article needs to be content forked, we'll do so. Not before. The previous archived discussions did not address this fundamental point. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not dictating the content. I am a person who happens to have read a large number of the secondary sources and the book itself and edit according to those sources. I do not in any way own the content, I make it match the sources and I back up my edits with citations. Wazronk (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

In the year 2005 Wazronk apparently created The Urantia Papers article (TUP) which now redirects to the TUB article. He is very personally involved in this subject for a reason unknown to me. On the support of his editing he always quotes many Misplaced Pages rules such as WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:RS when in fact he actively prevents the inclusion into this article any POV representing adherents beliefs by deleting all such entries as not based on reliable sources as in his edit from the 21st of July 2012, contrary to Misplaced Pages rule:

Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view. WP:RSEX

I present followers beliefs without removing the critical section from this article which was created by Wazronk and is rather extended. I think that at the moment this article basically presents NPOV and all it needs is maybe some stylistic corrections. I have read the extensive talk archives of the TUB article and my impression is that Wazronk tried to prevent the inclusion into this article of anything which presents this book in a positive light. Wazronk edits are based mainly on Martin Gardner book Urantia – The Great Cult Mystery in which I found many inaccuracies in the description of the statements of TUB and also misquotations. In another words Gardner writes that TUB states something, when in fact the exact statement doesn’t exists in the text of this book. Gardner research is rather poor which confirms Sarah Lewis of the Univ. of Wales School of Theology, Religious Studies, who also conducted research in these matters: “Martin Gardner is one of the few people outside the Urantia Foundation who has undertaken research into the movement. His research is worth noting, although his position as a great skeptic does not allow his conclusions much academic credibility”. Sandra Collins, SLIS, Univ. of Pittsburg, wrote about Gardner book in Library Journal April 15, 1995: "Given the lack of scholary distance from the subject, the patronizing tone and the gross editorializing, it would be difficult to recommend this book to any library". I regard Martin Gardner book as a reliable source however every one of Martin’s sentences has to be checked for accuracy. When I found, that Martin Gardner book is the source most extensively used in TUB article I began my editing to achieve NPOV. When editing this I didn’t delete anything without comments as Wazronk often does. I believe more light on the problem of this article editing will bring a talk section of the TUB particularly the latest entries. I am ready to answer any additional questions. Jaworski (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Leefodi

• Faun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Puddleglum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Peryton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Leefodi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

While I think the edits have been made in good faith (the editor has not set out to vandalise), I suspect the following account was established by an author for the purposes of promoting a series of books. The name of the author and the username are the same (Lee Fodi) and every edit so far (5 in total, 3 substantive) has been to include details of that author's book series in various articles. I suspect it's a matter of not knowing the rules rather than purposefully breaking them. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Lee Edward Fodi is an Canadian children's book illustrator and writer and his books got some good press: "Lee Edward Fodi's drawings are divine" 2005, editor's choice 2006, Most of the press is about his appearances or his book, not him. I didn't find any source information about peryton or puddleglum related to Fodi. I'll post a note on his talk page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Greg Quinn

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

The article Greg Quinn has been created and lightly amended over several years by User:Currantman. The article is quite laudatory of Quinn and contained multiple links to his commercial currant growing concerns, I wonder if it is mr Quinn himself? There are few sources. I'm not sure what (if anything) should be done, could the experts here offer some advice? rgds 94.195.187.69 (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Greg Quinn owns the ELECTRIC CURRANT trademark and a bunch of other CURRANT related trademarks. The article's boast about Quinn's currant efforts seem true. There are at least ten to fifteen news articles on Quinn and the currant. The biography article could be better written to be directed more towards Quinn and not the mighty currant. I'll put a note on Currantman's talk page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like he last edited on 9 February 2012. Hopefully, he gets the message. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I did a bit of a pass at this today - much of the content is already in the Blackcurrant article (and also cited there) and it made sense to me to avoid Misplaced Pages:Coatrack issues. This has left the article effectively stubed though - so I'd be happy if people wanted to revert and do a more delicate approach (a bunch of the paraphrasing was a touch too close for me also) Fayedizard (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Pantheism

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

Editor User:Naturalistic has identified himself as author Paul Harrison (pantheist). He wrote the book Elements of Panthism (1999, Element Books). Some editors (perhaps including himself?) have mentioned that book (and its sales website http://www.pantheism.net ) in two articles: Pantheism and Naturalistic pantheism. This led to a Dispute resolution case at WP:DRN. It would be great if some COI experts could provide some insight at that DRN discussion page. Thanks. Noleander (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

United States Senate election in Texas, 2012

• United States Senate election in Texas, 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Johnjaymyers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user, User:Johnjaymyers, is a candidate for United States Senate in Texas, under the Libertarian Party. He is attempting to promote his candidacy by adding himself to the main infobox of the article United States Senate election in Texas, 2012, which is traditionally only allowed if the third party candidate is polling higher than 5%. This is evidenced by this edit, and his only edits appear to be in promotion of his own candidacy. Please address this obvious conflict of interest. Thank you. Gage (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I just rang up to speak to John - nice sounding fella, it's definitely him so the COI is confirmed - I've directed him to this board as a first point of contact (should probably be the article talk page but I was in a bit of a hurry). I've also put the {{subst:coin-notice}} tag on his talk page as per usual. Gage - I'm not familiar with any the guidelines for politics on wikipedia - do we have policy that we can point at for the 5% figure? Fayedizard (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Continued

Today we posted a picture and information for John Jay Myers who is running for United States Senate in Texas. This picture was removed from the top right corner, which gives the impression to the average voter that there are only two candidates in this race. What purpose does it serve to do this? This is an encyclopedia site, that should present fair and balanced information, obviously we can no longer get that from major media outlets, but the people should be able to come here, see accurate non bias information and make their decisions.

The fact that I (John Jay Myers) added the information makes no difference, because there is nothing untrue in the article and nothing is a matter of opinion.

I am one of three people on the General Election ballot, and I deserve to be displayed fairly. How would anyone suggest anyone Poll higher... considering their name has never been listed on a poll, and you can't even get your information listed correctly on what is supposed to be an non bias media like wikipedia?

This is not an effort to promote my candidacy it is an effort to put up relevant information on a wikipedia page in the same manner as has been put up by/for the other candidates.

Johnjaymyers (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Adam Kluger

• Adam Kluger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kluger Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Kluger Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• keywordrenewals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User appears not to be currently active, but is the creator of the three articles listed - all of which were originally blatant advertisements for Kluger, who was the subject of this controversy wikinews:Accidental email brings product placement agency under fire for attempting to solicit product placement of Double Happiness Jeans in a Pussycat Dolls song's lyrics. I'd tagged Adam Kluger for proposed deletion, but now see that this page (created 4 may 2009) is a re-creation of a previously-deleted article in December 2008 per User talk:Keywordrenewals#Notability of Adam Kluger. I've reinstated any mention of the controversy at Product placement#Music and recording industries and The Kluger Agency (these were being replaced with Kluger self-promotion, although I haven't reviewed the full history to see if there are other WP:COI accounts behind these edits) but it may be worth keeping an eye on the affected pages (if they're salvageable) or speedying them (if they're advertising). 66.102.83.61 (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams

• Stephanie Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fbell74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Editorkabaap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• عباد ديرانية (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pkeets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For over six years the Stephanie Adams article, has been abused by prolific sockpuppet User:An-Apple-A-NY-Day, whom despite being banned continues to try and WP:OWN the article. Usually this was attempted by ip and newly created SPA accounts. Over the past month the sockpuppet switched tactics and started using proxies, but those efforts were easily quashed by the SPI team.

However, recently the above named editors, all of whom have established accounts, have joined the article and talk page parroting positions of those taken by the sock. For an article that rarely sees new editors to get four of them in such a short period raises concerns that the sockpuppet has switched tactics again and has started to WP:CANVASS. A few brief searches yielded the following possible canvass attempts:

• This screenshot from an elance ad
• And this project description from a job posting on freelancer (saved via WebCite).

From the freelancer site a message from the client "Archangelseven" reads The prior assistant was fired and we are now handling this project so we apologize for the delay. We would like to offer you more than the $20 you were due. We only ask that you make one or two comments, if needed, in the talkpage the next coming days. It might not be necessary, but if you can add in the talk page that you feel your edit and addition about the NJ guardianship should remain, that would suffice. Consensus thus far is that it be added, as long as you include that you agree. For the additional $10, that is all we need. Thank you for your professionalism and we hope to keep you on board for future projects. Fbell74 is being solicited not just to edit, but being paid to offer opinion.

User:Bilby confirms that users User:Editorkabaap & User:عباد ديرانية have also been solicited to edit and post comments, though he is unable to provide evidence on-wiki due to privacy concerns.

User:Pkeets has so far not been definitively connected to any canvassing, but the timing the type of edits by this user are too circumstantial, and WP:DUCK applies. Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Users have been notified. Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Fasttimes68, please advise whether you yourself have been involved in any off-wiki disputes with or concerning the subject of this article. If you would prefer not to answer here for privacy or other reasons, please submit your response via e-mail to the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Admin ErrantX made the following request at the Stephanie Adams AfD started by Fasttimes68 a few days ago "Afd is another step in an harassment campaign against the subject. Unfortunately I am away from my computer for th week; but if someone could block fasttimes under BLP sanctions that would be great. If you do block please inform ARBCOM as they are looking into the matter more widely". I assume that ErrantX thought that someone would follow through on that block request. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I dispute ErrantX's contention that the AfD was made in bad faith. I explained my concerns of notability on the talk page earlier. And some editors seem to agree. You and Errant recreating the article overrode the standing consensus. Your objection is not that the AfD was raised, but it was raised by me. Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I am absolutely not involved with the subject. I've never had any off-wiki disputes. There have been many unsubstantiated accusations in the past that I "ran an attack site", which I explained at least once (I don't have the diff handy, sorry). I will elaborate on that here. I used a blog entry to copy verbatim the text from a few blogs which had discussed the subject. Why did I do this? Because a) that information was not considered to a RS to be used on wikipedia and b) one of those sites was constantly going up/down and one month would be available and another not. Why didn't I use another tool to store this information, like the sandbox? I didn't care for wikipedia editing tools (like the sandbox) at the time. Someone commented why I didn't just store it on a hard drive. In retropsect I probably should have done that, but I was "in the cloud" at that moment and storing things online. And the final question of why I wanted to save any these blogs, is I wanted to see if some of the information could be corroborated by an RS. Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to add something, I came to find the Stephanie Adams AfD after noticing a suspicious editing action by PKeets. They created the User page for Fbell74 on 5 August (Fbell74 had been on my 'watch list' because I had declined an article of theirs at AfC). I don't understand why an editor would create the user page for a new user, other than maybe (by removing the redlink) to make a contributer look more established than they actually were. Fbell74 had contributed to a consensus discussion about Adams the day beforehand and also returned a couple of hours later to enter the AfD discussion. Make of that what you will, there may be an innocent explanation, Fbell74 seemed quite genuine to me! Sionk (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Sionk - Just to clarify, my userpage is my own and was not created by anyone else. Re the other article you mentioned, obviously I would have liked this to be published (or I wouldn't have written it), but I accept your reasoning in deeming it not acceptable.Fbell74 (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Fasttimes68, a one point you had a post on your blog entitled "Stephanie Adams is a twat". Is your claim now that you did not write the material in that post? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It has always been my claim that I never wrote anything, but it was a cut and paste job. And as far as I can remember the blogging site took the title from the first sentance. It was several years ago, so I don't remember the particulars. Perhaps if you had asked politely instead of taking the accusations of others as fact and then making them your own I would have explained this in detail. But being agreeable is clearly not your style. Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll just leave this ANI link here so that people can see what you actually said in the past. I cannot recall you ever saying that you did not write that blog post, but feel free to prove me wrong by posting links to where you said that. Would it help if you had a copy of the blog post in question to refresh your memory? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You should have ended your first sentance after the word "leave". You seem to know how to use the search functions here better than I do, don't let me keep you from it.Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

(To Fasttimes68) Based on the entire history here, I think it would be highly desirable for you to disengage from further editing concerning this particular individual. Whatever the background might be, there is a reasonable perception that you are actively hostile to this individual, such that issues concerning the content of her biography, and whether she is sufficiently notable to have a biography on Misplaced Pages, should be left to others. Please advise whether you are willing to step away voluntarily at this point or whether I shall have to pursue a more formal sanction. I repeat that you may contact the Arbitration Committee (of which I am a member) via e-mail if there are aspects of the subject you do not wish to explore on-wiki. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I've not a problem with stepping away from the article and talk page. In the unlikely event that if I feel the absolute need to edit either, I'll notify you personally via email and discuss the matter first. The puppetry cases are a different matter. I can't control stalkers. If you want to discuss those in further detail, you may email me from my user page. Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• عباد ديرانية / aad_Dira has confirmed that they have been paid to edit . IRWolfie- (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to bring it back to the initial concern for a bit, while I don't know anything about Fasttimes68 and the article, it is worth addressing that at least five editors in recent weeks, and possibly as many as seven, were hired to post comments and edit war on behalf of a third party, who is assumed to be a banned editor. In addition, at least two of those editors were also hired (as confirmed by عباد ديرانية and pointed to by IRWolfie) to organise to have Fasttimes68 banned. This isn't the usual concern of paid editors being asked to edit an article on behalf of a client, but something a lot more problematic. - Bilby (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you please identify these users, blocked or not? Has Arbcom or CU been provided the evidence you cant provide on wiki? Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The five I can confirm are mostly the ones you know: عباد ديرانية (who has made a statement and apology), Fbell74, and Editorkabaap. The two blocked as socks were Glassoftamarindo and Numbgnome, although based on a later comment by Archangelseven on Freelancer I was led to belive that they were acting for the client. Of the other two, I have no particular knowledge about Pkeets, but the timing and one of the editor's comments raised concerns. I won't name the last editor here, because I have no evidence that he was paid directly, but I think that there are reasonable suspicions as the editor was one of the people who applied for the original job posted by Archangelseven, and subsequently posted in the AfD, but I wasn't aware of him being employed as such and he made no comments in the interveneing time.

I did write a piece for ArbCom, but I wasn't aware that this was being looked into by them, so I haven't sent it. Plus it is a bit tl;dr. :)

My major concern, other than that the contract was to post on behalf of someone I now assume to be a banned editor, was that the original job also asked them to organise for you to be banned. Fbell74 didn't apply under that contract, but عباد ديرانية and Editorkabaap did, as did the editor I'm not currently comfortable naming (as he wasn't given the job). عباد ديرانية has stated that he refused that part of the contract, but I think it was a serious concern that it was included. - Bilby (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

With regard to my contribution, I'm happy to confirm that a person hired me to write on the article. I don't know who the person was, because they used a handle (Archangelseven). However, this name doesn't appear in any of the discussions on this article. The section I wrote related to the New York guardianship case, which I submitted but this was deemed as not being acceptable. I felt that it was, for the reasons mentioned in my posted comments. I also came across mentions of Stephanie Adams in relation to LGBT and believed that these are worthy of inclusion in the piece, as I mentioned. The person who contacted me about working on the article asked me to mention Fasttimes68 as they felt s/he had a personal motivation against Stephanie Adams, which wasn't related to the merits of the Misplaced Pages piece. When they brought this up I looked into the history of the comments and contributions on the article and I felt this was fair comment. I didn't ask for the user to be banned because I don't think it's my place to do this. However, I stand by my opinion that it appears as if there is a personal motivation to the user's contributions. Fbell74 (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Tony Banks (Falklands Veteran and Entrepreneur)

• Tony Banks (Falklands Veteran and Entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ian Robertson (Professor of Psychology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Andro Linklater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), particularly in relation to this edit
• Jonathan Yeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• ‎Livemusic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• GH - AC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user's edits appear to be almost entirely BLP articles (with the exception of Livemusic, a company), and primarily consist of positive POV articles created and edited by said user. Unfortunately, the seemingly nature of the account leads me to suspect that this may be a case of paid editing. Zaldax (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution