Misplaced Pages

You have never disclosed your connection to the farm on the sugar mountain farm wiki entry. I did that. You did not change your user page entry to disclose your connection to the farm until april 19th 2015., 6 days ago. When you created your account in 2008 you were explicitly warned about COI issues but chose to ignore that and edited the entry for the next 7 years. During that time you were repeatedly warned about adding links to your blog and various content issues but continued to edit it despite a fairly clear COI; which has been supported by the comments here. I'm glad that you now recognize that you have a COI and hope that you agree with the conclusion here that you should not be editing that page from here on. Bruceki (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

There's a difference between disagree wtih a statement or content and a person. Some of your statements about farm operations appear to be exceptional (as per WP:EXCEPTIONAL , and I've pointed that out where you've made them. That has nothing to do with you as a person; you are probably a fine fellow who kisses your wife and doesn't kick puppies every often. Bruceki (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Pubwvj&diff=658463771&oldid=657147263
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Pubwvj&diff=658973509&oldid=211296194

Break: Notability

I've culled through the article's sources (all 30 or so) and found almost none that were acceptable. Most of them were blogs, primary sources, advertisements, brief mentions, did not mention the article-subject, or did not actually directly support the article text. Some were from credible news outlets, but just linked to the front page of the news site, not to an actual news article about the farm. What was left after my culling were local sources and Voice of America, which RSN archives suggest is a questionable source. Typically we expect at least one strong national level source to verify notability.

I'd encourage that in circumstances like this, notability needs to be considered before other issues; otherwise editors waste a lot of time, energy and emotional investment into an article ultimately headed for the trash bin. In a large number of articles where a COI is involved, this is the first thing we should look at. CorporateM (Talk) 03:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Nossiter

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

The user has claimed to be Jonathan Nossiter's assistant here. Despite discussion on their talkpage, they continue to make edits which break WP:MOS, and add in POV content. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Joseph2302, I've tagged the talk page of the article accordingly and left some explanation there, including the Terms of Use requirement. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I love the username. must not be a nice person to work for. :) Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear All,

I'm appalled by the snide, gratuitous and uncivil comment from jytdog (above). (in fact the production company is called Goatworks films and I am an assistant!) Surely this sort of sophmoric commentary is unwelcome on your board.

Misplaced Pages is taken seriously and that's why the innacuracies and lacunae on the Jonathan Nossiter page needed adressing.

Never having done this before I understood that I made several errors of judgement, but I corrected them swiftly. If there are others, thank you, those who wish to help in a constructive way, for your comments. However, would you kindly restore the factual emendations (including that Nossiter is a Brazilian and American citizen inter alia)? And while I fully understand and respect that flattering comments about a given work are as unwelcome as spurious criticism, how can you justify leaving the only comment about a book that has been published in 8 countries and has won two awards as that posted by a partisan wine writer close to Robert Parker, one of the targets of the book's attacks with a vile, anti-semitic slur (Parker, not Jewish, accused Nossiter, who is Jewish, of Gestapo techniques...and all of this in a blog comment!)?. There are significant reviews from many of the world's major newspapers. Why include a wholly unrepresentative and specious blog attack as the only opinion about this book? And you say you wish for balance? Surely this is anything but neutral and encyclopedia-like. At any rate, thank you for restoring what is factual and neutrally descriptive so that you have a more complete and accurate page rather than an incomplete and misleading one. Your sincerely Alberto Rigno Assistant at Goatworks Films (!!!) ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goatassistant (talk • contribs) 12:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

my apologies, i agree that was snarky and i should not have written that. struck - my apologies again. Jytdog (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

that said, the article as it stands has a lot of problems that need to be fixed. please do not edit it going forward, per WP:COI, but instead use the "edit request" function on the Talk page going forward. thanks. Jytdog (talk)

@Goatassistant: If you can provide corrections in the format below, then ping me on my Talk page, I will review them.

In the ___ paragraph of the ____ section it says "_______________" does not actually support this and/or is not an authoritative source for this information. In credible, independent source from an authoritative news publication, book, academic, etc. (not his website) you can find the correct information about ____-way down the article

I'm afraid this is time-consuming and we shouldn't make it so difficult to correct errors, but inevitably editors that work on behalf of the article-subject tend to attempt to correct errors, and in the process add promotion, then get their edits reverted and the whole process is very frustrating, so it is better to explain the errors clearly and make it easy for us to correct them.

CorporateM (Talk) 01:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

AnastasiaDate

• AnastasiaDate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The entire history of the page, if you look at it, is paid editors who are trying to mask the company's fraudulent business practices. It's not neutral because any neutral point of view is systematically deleted and replaced with propaganda.98.155.181.243 (talk) 10:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

There is very little recent editing activity. Are there any particular user's contributions you think should be investigated or reverted? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Note, this site cropped up twice at this noticeboard in 2013:

• Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_63#Anastasia_International
• Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_66#Anastasia_International

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Stefie Shock

• Stefie Shock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Francis Cabrel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tandem.mu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

here they have admitted to being the social manager of Stefie Shock. Similar linkspam on Francis Cabrel suggests they may well have COI with them as well. They're currently blocked for username vio (it's a website), but if they come back, we'll need to deal with the COI. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No COI in Draft space?

I was surprised at the advice given in response to Misplaced Pages:Teahouse/Questions#Can we add a page for our company if it is completely neutral and not promotional, and does not give external links? Is there some sort of unwritten agreement that our guidelines do not apply there? And what happens to those COI pages when they hit mainspace? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

COI is COI, but part of meeting our guidelines is to go through draft for review. If and when they hit article space then any edits should conceivably be done via edit requests, not directly. §FreeRangeFrog 17:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I really don't know how things away back at AfC. Joseph2302 works a lot there and picks up COI there - I don't know how he handles thing. For my part, my wish would be that if it seems pretty clear that the person creating has a COI, that folks working with them, would:

a) call their attention to WP:COI and the Terms of Use, nicely, and ask them to disclose any relationship they have with the subject of the article.

b) put the connected contributor tag on the Talk page and a COI tag on the article itself, with a section on the talk page noting the COI and tagging.

(pause) it is pretty clear to me that the part of WP:COI that says you should not create or edit if you have a COI gets blown off at AfC - as far as I know, nobody just stops conflicted editors cold and tells them they can only work via the talk page. right? so we should probably change that part of WP:COI since it is ignored in practice. But it would be very good if folks working at AfC would:

c) inform the conflicted creator (that could be a useful term if we do amend) needs to be ready to step away from the article once it goes live

d) move the article to mainspace only after it has been carefully reviewed for NPOV and decent sourcing (per the COI tag). the tag should be taken off and a note put on the Talk page in the COI section, that the article was reviewed by whoever took the tag off and moved it to mainspace.

that seems workable - it manages the COI but allows new article creation.... what do you all think?

i wonder if we should somehow have a chat with the folks who work at AfC and see what we can agree on. (i have no idea how much of a community those folks have) Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Definitely not an expert, I've only been doing AfC 2 days, and so far, I've seen 1 or 2 COI articles only, and they were way short of being accepted- massive POV/advert issues (so won't get accepted until NPOV). If there's a clear COI, then I've left the COI notice on their user talk, and tagged the draft talkpage. Suggestions c) and d) seems sensible though IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, giving my own personal view, Draft space is exactly the way a COI editor should proceed. It is the advice I have always given, and the advice I have always seen given by volunteers at OTRS. As long as the COI is clearly declared accourding to our Terms of Use, there will no confusion about the nature of the edits. Draft space is not indexed in the googles. It does not work for publicity purposes until it is moved to mainspace.

Obviously, the reviewers moving it to mainspace have the responsibility for ensuring the article complies with the basic requirements. Many of them have not done so in the past, but that's another problem. These reviews do not I think bypass NPP (at least, they certainly should not), and all articles actually submitted get scrutiny by the same standards. When a page is moved, it should carry the possible COI tag, and I think it should continue to carry it, whether or not it is judged that the article is currently actually npov. I have no hesitation listing a page moved from draft space for speedy or prod or afd as appropriate.

As I personally understand it, there is no policy that people with COI in general are forbidden to contribute to the encyclopedia, and there is no policy that paid editors or those with a financial conflict of interest are forbidden to contribute. Whether or not there should be is another question, but proposals to that effect have never attained consensus.

I think the only practical solution at this time is to actively follow individual articles and to actively participate in afd discussions , to prevent items brought there being closed as no-consensus or even keep because of lack of participation. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• I find {{Connected contributor}} to be very helpful in flagging COI on a draft's talk page. I am also usually easily able to suggest that the COI editor self identifies and deploys it themselves.

What I would like to see is a formal policy statement that sets out the difference between Draft: and main namespaces and the different ways COI editors may/should behave in each.

I should state that I am in favour of good quality paid and COI editing, via the WP:AFC route, and am wholly opposed to bad editing from whatever source. I most assuredly feel that COI editors must disclose. It annoys me to discover one masquerading as a bona fide unpaid/non COI editor. IN this I do not include those who genuinely do not know we deprecate main name space COI edits. Fiddle Faddle 23:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Venu Govindaraju

• Venu Govindaraju (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Came across this article, which contains unusually flowery prose ("pre-eminent computer scientist" etc.). Did some digging, and it reeks strongly of COI (self-promotion).

The primary user Suo Motu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a SPA created just for editing this article. The other user who edited the article, ESobczak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an employee of the department to which this person belongs: see here. This is not an "outing", just obvious information from the Internet.

If the IP addresses of the users are analyzed, you will most likely see that they belong to the University of Buffalo (IP address range: 128.205.*.* ; see the 128.205.0.0 line here). In short, it appears that persons affiliated with the subject of this article and/or the University of Buffalo are editing this article, which is a violation of the TOS of Misplaced Pages.

ADrakken (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Kent Hovind

• Kent Hovind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jacob A. Henderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Had multiple discussion with editors, especially @NeilN: about how they must be right because their edits are "what Kent wants" or "Kent says this correct", although they don't seem to have given a proper explanation of their COI. Multiple edit wars on that page too. Tagged the article as per usual. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

What Kent wants and discussion on my talk page --NeilN 01:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this might be better dealt with at WP:BLPN if the subject has concerns about the article. The use of primary court-related sources suggests that they might at least have some point (not that I've spent an hour listening to that video). SmartSE (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Most of the primary sources are backed by secondary sources, no? --NeilN 14:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Gračanica, Kosovo

• Gračanica, Kosovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Maurice Flesier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Maurice Flesier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) insists on adding Turkish language to the introduction of settlements in Kosovo which have no Turkish community, on the conclusion that "Turkish language officially recognized regional language for Municipalities of Kosovo like Albanian and Serbian!!", however, Turkish is not the only regional language, so are Bosniak, Romani, and others — adding any regional language to articles of settlements which have less than 0.1% of said community is extremely redundant and unconstructive, which I have commented in edit summaries, as well as on his talk page. Btw, the user is Turkish (hence his POV-pushing). Zoupan 16:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for move Zoupan. Turkish language officially recognized regional language for Municipalities of Republic of Kosovo and include their official websites with Albanian and Serbian See. And there is also other cities Ferizaj, Orahovac, Pristina. The presence or absence of the Turkish population must not be considered as a reference point. Well, why give place to Armenian pronunciations in Turkish cities such as Erzurum, Bitlis, Sivas? Armenian is not even recognized as an official language and Armenian population does not live here! I see it as a WP:IDONTLIKEIT! Maurice Flesier (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)