Misplaced Pages

:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:26, 4 March 2007 editMauls (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users134,906 editsm →[] {{coi-links|Peniel Pentecostal Church}}← Previous edit Revision as of 23:51, 4 March 2007 edit undoBabyDweezil (talk | contribs)1,482 edits →[] {{coi-links|Clouds Blur the Rainbow}}: ironyNext edit →
Line 324: Line 324:
==] {{coi-links|Clouds Blur the Rainbow}}== ==] {{coi-links|Clouds Blur the Rainbow}}==
* {{article|Clouds Blur the Rainbow}} is being edited by ], an uncritical supporter of the individuals and groups criticized in this report, which I wrote. The same user, ], has a long history of personal attacks and repeated POV edits that demonstrate a clear conflict of interest. Some of the material being added is simply false, and based on the marginal and frequently distorted writings by members of a political cult similar to (and at one point connected to) the ] cult. Among the other pages subject to this type of editing by ] are ], ], ], ], ]. I understand that it is appropriate that critical opinions about the report Clouds Blur the Rainbow be included on its entry page, but what is happening here is wildly POV, unbalanced, and sometimes just false. It is time to consider banning ] from editing any pages related to this cult, just as some pro-LaRouche editors have been banned for being unbable to abide by basic Misplaced Pages guidelines.--] 03:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC) * {{article|Clouds Blur the Rainbow}} is being edited by ], an uncritical supporter of the individuals and groups criticized in this report, which I wrote. The same user, ], has a long history of personal attacks and repeated POV edits that demonstrate a clear conflict of interest. Some of the material being added is simply false, and based on the marginal and frequently distorted writings by members of a political cult similar to (and at one point connected to) the ] cult. Among the other pages subject to this type of editing by ] are ], ], ], ], ]. I understand that it is appropriate that critical opinions about the report Clouds Blur the Rainbow be included on its entry page, but what is happening here is wildly POV, unbalanced, and sometimes just false. It is time to consider banning ] from editing any pages related to this cult, just as some pro-LaRouche editors have been banned for being unbable to abide by basic Misplaced Pages guidelines.--] 03:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
**Chip, basic Wikicourtesy would dictate that you notify me of this noticeboard posting rather than (or at least in addition to) obliquely of the action.
:That said, I challenge ] or anyone else to point to anything in the above articles that is "wildly POV, unbalanced, or false." The fact is, these often contentious articles have been collaborative efforts between editors with different viewpoints, and the results have been a relative semblance of balance. It seems, historically, that ] files protests such as this one precisely at those moments when his own ''demonstrably minority POV'' on the above subjects ceases to dominate. I won't waste the space here to document the reality of his POV being decidedly a minority one (not to mention likewise demonstrably riddled with bias and unprofessional research methodology) but would be happy to if needed. Nor do the claims of someone who refers to editors with a different opinion than his own minority one as "cult apologists" "totalitarians" and "Orwellian sanitizers" and worse need a response re: "personal attacks."

:The irony of ]'s posting this cannot go uncommented upon. Chip Berlet has been for a quarter century a ] for ], a thoroughly organization that largely devotes itself to issuing attack reports against groups that do not fit its particular view of of the world, be they on the right or in some instances, as with those above, on the left. PRA specializes in labeing and guilt by association (as evidenced above by Berlet's Larouche-baiting, based on a brief relationship Newman had with the long since noxious Larouche ''30 years ago)''. The notion that a paid partisan like Chip Berlet should remain able to run roughshod over countless articles with which he has a true conflict of interest AND attempt to '''ban'''(!!) points of view contrary to his own is simply too absurd to comment onbeyond simply stating it. Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with Chip, or Dennis King or others with clear COI's from being involved, in fact I welcome their input and--them being long-time sppoks and all--value the resources they have filed away. Over and out-- ] 23:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:51, 4 March 2007

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    ShortcutsSections 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-wp@wikipedia.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?
    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
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests Talk:260 Collins Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:Atlantic Union Bank Talk:AvePoint Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Edi Birsan Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Bunq Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Casualty Actuarial Society Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Current (newspaper) Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Michael Dell Talk:Adela Demetja Talk:Etraveli Group Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire Talk:Group-IB Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Mark Hyman (doctor) Talk:Insight Meditation Society Talk:International Motors Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:List of PEN literary awards Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician) Talk:QuinStreet Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Trendyol Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Zions Bancorporation


    Georgetown University - Inactive. 08:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

    Georgetown University

    The IP user User:68.98.161.246 has made more than 300 edits, all of which relate to Georgetown University and Georgetown's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service in a positive nature. I think the IP should be checked to see if it comes from the university. For example, there has been a discussion at the School of Foreign Service article about academic boosterism by the user. Here are their contributions: Special:Contributions/68.98.161.246. Another similar IP user has made similar boosteristic edits, Special:Contributions/68.49.15.185. Thanks --AW 07:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

     Likely I did the whois on both IPs. Neither resolved to the university itself, but rather the surrounding urban area, Arlington and Vienna to be precise. It's consistent with a student/employee editing from home. MER-C 07:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

    Added a {{primarysources}} to that article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks, but they are still doing that sort of thing to other articles. I've left them messages to see the Conflict of Interest policy but they haven't responded so far. --AW 05:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • As a general comment, the Georgetown University article is not that bad, though it suffers in part from boosterism and weak prose, as the following illustrates:

      Several academic themes distinguish the McDonough School of Business and give the school a special identity among managers and academicians, including international and intercultural dimensions of the marketplace, the importance of written and oral communication, and interpersonal effectiveness in organizations.

      So there is a mixture of really interesting stuff, and passages of flabby prose. There is an insufferably-long list of notable alumni. Luckily there is a separate article with a list of alumni, which is pretty well-written and not objectionable. In the recent edit history, there seems to be a dogged attempt by one particular anon to reset the University's founding back to 1634, rather than the more logical 1789. There seem to be a variety of different editors who are working on it, probably enough to keep it in check. If someone wanted to make this article a project, they could probably attempt a rewrite to make it less spammy. EdJohnston 22:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    I found these in the article history:
    The most active one clearly has not backed off, editing Georgetown University and other GU-related (alumni, sports, foreign service school, etc.) articles, and of course may be the same person as at least two (or all) of these. — Athænara ✉ 06:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
     Likely, same geographical area as the other IPs. MER-C 08:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    I'd like to at least get a response from the user. The edits aren't too bad, but it does ring of some boosterism and COI. Also, this guy didn't make too many edits, but they were also all to GU related articles, and he has a similar ip: 68.49.15.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --AW 19:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

    The editor has never responded to posts on own-talkpages (nor on anyone else's as far as I've been able to find in contribs) and has never signed messages posted to article talk pages. The probability that the four 68*s are not the same user is infinitesimal (1), and it's someone who is deliberately not part of the Wikipedian community. The remaining question here for WP:COI/N purposes is: has s/he stopped, or will s/he stop? Persistent tampering like this can prevent GU articles from ever becoming encyclopedic. — Athænara ✉ 06:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    It looks like the 68.48.79.224 user made some edits on Feb 26th --AW 16:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    04:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC) here . (2)Looks well referenced. (2) strike: I was wrong about that! — Æ. 08:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC) (1) strike: presumption in my previous post was not NPOV. — Æ. 21:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    It appears that User:CasqueGauntletDmouth is the same as 68.48.79.224, as they both made the same edits, and both seem to be ignoring requests to talk about it. CGD has only edited the Georgetown page so far. --AW 21:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    See Talk:Georgetown University#Founding date for some evidence why the earlier founding claim is bogus. They want to establish a 1634 founding date based on someone coming ashore who had a letter from Rome endorsing the project? This date is well before the actual founding of the town of Georgetown. So an empty piece of uninhabited woodland constituted Georgetown University back then? I wonder how many degrees can be issued by an uninhabited woodland, especially when it had no definite location. Actually this seems to rule out a normal COI because a college employee wouldn't insist on a nonsensical founding date. Although this editor is peculiar, in my view, I doubt that he could do major damage because he has so few edits (only 12 in the last two months, and only 2 to the GU article). The guy above who has 300 edits should deserve more of our attention. EdJohnston 21:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    If you're talking about 68.48.79.224, he only has 12, but they're all Georgetown related. It makes me wonder if all the 68 IPs are the same person. --AW 22:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    If it's a sockpuppet issue, Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry (e.g. the "avoiding scrutiny from other editors" section) is the place to pursue it. I doubt any benefit to the Georgetown University encyclopedia articles as such will accrue from further exposure on COI/N. — Athænara ✉ 04:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    Although the guy with 300 edits, 68.98.161.246 (talk · contribs), has never responded to a message on his Talk page, and never writes to anyone else's User_talk, he does seem to make some good edits, so he's not a pure vandal. He also writes occasionally on article talk pages, though he hasn't mastered signing his name. (That's the IP that the nominator, User:Awiseman, complained about when opening this item). This guy has never pushed the 1634 founding date. I've also managed to engage 68.48.79.224 (talk · contribs) in a conversation on his talk page (he's one of the enthusiasts of the 1634 founding date). EdJohnston 04:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    I guess it appears to be two groups. The COI people seem to have stopped, while the 1634 folks have gotten a few more sock puppets, it appears to me at least, but at least they're talking. So I'm ok with closing this one if you all are. Thanks! --AW 06:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.
    Afshar experiment – COI not apparant per below – 07:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

    Afshar experiment (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    The discussion on Talk:Afshar experiment continues to rumble along slowly, with the help of a mediator, with unfortunately a lot of incivility. I personally think it would go faster without the participation of User:Danko Georgiev MD but it's not obvious how to persuade him to step aside. The nominator, User:Ideogram, who raised this as a COI issue did not explain what the real-life connection between Georgiev and Afshar might be, so this issue is not yet substantiated. EdJohnston 01:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    I suggest that this item be closed. The nominator, User:Ideogram, did not explain how Danko has a conflict of interest, though I agree it would be better if he did not participate. The article in its present state is not too bad, though the struggle on the Talk page appears likely to continue through many lifetimes. I wonder if there's any chance the participants would agree to Misplaced Pages:Peer review. Otherwise, I think this should be closed as a COI. EdJohnston 04:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.


    Root of all evil – Inactive for one month, one edit to article, zero by parties – 09:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

    Root of all evil (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Afterthought: I'm not involved in this, knew nothing about it, but having now read the the article in question I can see the logic of a link to the book in that particular article, perhaps in external links. Just my opinion, I'm not on a crusade here. — Athænara ✉ 10:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    Looking at the nominator's complaint, I can see that the first-mentioned link is clearly against policy, putting a link to a user page into article space. The second link doesn't have that problem but it has a misleading edit summary. I agree that this should be watched. I actually don't see the relevance of the book to this article. The title of the article is a proverb, or part of one. How would you appropriately reference articles on other proverbs, like 'A rolling stone gathers no moss', or 'A stitch in time saves nine?' Maybe to a work of mythology or popular lore, but this book is a stretch. EdJohnston 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.


    Suhayl Saadi (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Suhayl Saadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I found this page while looking through WP:DEAD. The page history reveals a red-flag conflict of interest, i.e. the most active writer of the article is also the subject of the article. Normally I nominate such things on Afd, but I think he's notable enough to survive Afd. One possibility is to revert to the situation before he got involved, but that's really not as good: . I would appreciate notification on my talk page to any comment made here. // YechielMan 04:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

    University of Phoenix (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    • University of Phoenix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Fairly straightforward: at least one admitted employee of UOP is getting into an extended fracas with non-UOP-related members over controversy sections and other unflattering information (most of which appeared in a front page NYT article the other day) --UOP is different than most universities as it's for-profit and, more relevantly, publicly traded (thus public bad info isn't good). // Bobak 01:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


    Single-purpose (or nearly so) participants on Talk:University of Phoenix:
    Have the COI problems been resolved to the satisfaction of the NPOV editors of that article? — Athænara ✉ 05:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

    RateItAll (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Could I get a third, or fourth, or etc pair of eyes on this. I've been keeping an eye best I can on this article RateItAll which is going through some serious clean up as there are some PoV issues, and reliable source issues that need cleaned up. In my process of checking sources, I found this mentioned in the official blog of the site Blog Entry where the person who's been heavily working on the article says "Go for it. Sign up with Misplaced Pages and sing the praises of the RIA!" and yet claimed on the articles talk page he was the most neutral person around. Anyway, some additional feedback would be appreciated as I'm keeping an eye on a lot of articles right now.--Crossmr 05:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

    We may still need more eyes on this. The main editor has again been shown to be encouraged by and recognized by the creator of the site, and he's failed to not only respond to questions about that, but fails to respond to any questions and just plugs ahead with edits, which include re-adding material which was removed for failing several policies.--Crossmr 06:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

    Yankee Candle Company (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Yankee Candle Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article is being edited by multiple employees of the company. Wackalectic (talk · contribs) is an Internet Strategist and Annmariehall (talk · contribs) is in Public Relations. They both have added copyrighted information to the article from and . They have both been warned and informed of Misplaced Pages's COI, SPAM and COPYVIO policies.↔NMajdan•talk•EditorReview 17:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

    • Who better to have knowledge of the company than people who work there! I'd love to see some diffs of the copyright stuff you say has been added to the page. For now, though, it seems that they are harmlessly trying to defend their workplace. There seems to be a fine line between COI and asserting the truth, and you haven't clearly pointed out where or how they have cause problems with the page. Again, diffs on the page would be nice. └┘talk  00:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    I provided in my initial post the sources of the copyright violations; my apologies for not providing the diffs to the article changes. Here they are: and .↔NMajdan•talk•EditorReview 01:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you; and sorry if my comment earlier seemed a tad rude, I just read it over! Haha. Now, it seems that they copied that right off of the YCC page. Has this been going on long, or was it just a one-time ordeal? I think that, in this case, warnings on the pages of the "vandals" would be the best bet. Unless they've been doing this for a while; then, I'm not the one to ask! It just seems that they are new to WP and don't know about policy, etc, and that we have a system. I think that's really just the problem here. └┘talk  01:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

    I tagged the article with {{cleanup}} and {{copypaste}}. — Athænara ✉ 23:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

    Sorry for the delay on that, btw—I didn't really focus on this one until after some of the more humongous and acrimonious sections had been squared away. — Athænara ✉ 07:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Lera Auerbach (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Lera Auerbach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    A very persistent editor (User:DeStella and User:68.161.47.171) has been aggressively promoting this semi-notable composer (while decently represented by Google, she does not have an entry in the current comprehensive New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians). After a long discussion on my talk page (User talk:Antandrus#Unwarranted deletions) I made the discovery that Lera Auerbach's husband is named DeStella near the bottom of the page. To me this is clearly a single-purpose account to promote this composer, most likely the husband or another member of the family. I could use an extra pair of eyes or two, or backup of any type: he is accusing me of "having issues with successful composers" so perhaps a non-musician could help. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

    (Article/user links added to aid looking into this.) — Athænara ✉ 00:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

    I'm not a non-musician but I hadn't heard of Auerbach before seeing the report here, and it seems to me that the article is in pretty good encyclopedic shape. Aside from some unpleasant disputes with an editor, what do you think of the article itself? — Athænara ✉ 08:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    CIIS

    CIIS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a New Age-oriented graduate school in California. It is regionally accredited, but does not appear to be widely respected (as measured for example by rankings, publications, or having its graduates teach in other schools). An editor, Psykhosis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has made the page into more of an ad for the school (for example, claiming that it is known for "rigorous academics," which I can assure you is not the case). Dawud   (Posted by 218.167.163.63 (talk · contribs) 02:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC))

    Baha'i (100+ boards)

    The Baha'i religion is small Middle Eastern sect which is one of the topics of my research. The wikipedia articles on it (and the related topic of Babism) are in my opinion unsalvageable due to the preponderance of Baha'i editors (and corresponding dearth of outsiders), who delete items that make their religion look bad, and otherwise change things to reflect their view of history. (A telltale sign is that all proper names are spelled using their "house" style of accent marks.) I have since learned that the Baha'i leadership has made its presentation in wikipedia a major PR priority.

    Not sure if anything can be done about this, short of expelling most of the Baha'is. One issue that has come up is that of "reliable sources." Baha'i critics tend to be found on internet sites, while the Baha'is themselves publish things on paper as well. They claim that wikipedia has a policy against the former medium and in favor of the latter. Another issue that has come up is the "noteability" policy--so if their leadership censors some dissidents, Baha'i supporters will say that the number of dissidents is small and therefore not notable.

    Another, related issue is that Baha'is have been trying to promote their religion on unrelated boards, for example by arranging the religion to be name-dropped in places where it is not noteworthy.

    I personally decline to get involved anymore, but put this out there for you guys to deal with as best you can. Dawud   (Posted by 218.167.163.63 (talk · contribs) 02:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC))

    Where is your proof that "the Baha'i leadership has made its presentation in Misplaced Pages a major PR priority"? Can you provide copies of internal Baha'i documents which state this? —Psychonaut 16:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    It's been over ten days since this question was asked. — Athænara ✉ 06:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    Government control of the media in the People's Republic of China (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Ideogram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Registered yesterday and seems to be making a series of political POV edits concerning China, including renaming Media of PRC to Government control of.... - Fayenatic london (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

    • Well the user didn't register yesterday, but seems to have an agenda. I would revert the page back to the title it originally had. For now, though, it seems that the user just needs to be watched. └┘talk  00:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The page move has not been reverted. There have been no edits to the article (except by two maintenance bots) since the page was moved. There have been no posts about it on this noticeboard in the past ten days. Inactive? — Athænara ✉ 06:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    Potter's House Christian Fellowship

    (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) The issue seems to be two users back and forth. One -User:Potters house keeps saying how links are directly about him dealing with the church in question. And the other user User:Darrenss seems to be a former memeber and they have it out for each other with these links and the article. Now they are dragging me in since I reverted vandalism on User:Darrenss page. And they are debating on my talk page - ] So if they both especially one is directly involved is this not COI? Another user put it this way above "I personally decline to get involved anymore, but put this out there for you guys to deal with as best you can" Thanks --Xiahou 04:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

    Michael Netzer (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    MichaelNetzer (talk • contribs) has significantly expanded his own autobiographical article. My correspondence with him started when I nominated Image:Michael Netzer spoof of Time Cover.jpg for deletion (here) because it was mistagged and I thought that it was an unnecessary derivative work. Any help cleaning up and deciding what to do with Michael Netzer and Expanding earth theory would be sincerely appreciating. --Iamunknown 02:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

    Needs some {{primarysources}}, so tagged. MER-C 11:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

    Rkeditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Bumped into this user's contributions via Laetare Sunday, and noticed that all their edits consist of adding links to things on http://www.raisingkids.co.uk - maybe I'm making 2+2 = 5, but I reckon rkeditor = Raising Kids editor. I think this is being done with good intentions, never-the-less I've left a gentle warning (and a welcome message) on their talkpage, suggesting that in future they might first add the links on article talkpages to allow neutral editors to assess them. A few more pairs of eyes watching thier future contributions wouldn't go amiss. David Underdown 13:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

    Keep an eye on this. {{spam3}} would be the next stop, as this is obvious spamming. MER-C 08:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

    This editor made a delayed but cooperative response to MER-C's message, and does seem to be taking it to heart. They asked on Talk:Autism whether they could add their link at Autism. I replied there that their proposed link goes to a discussion forum, therefore is disapproved by WP:EL. EdJohnston 02:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

    Adam63 (talk · contribs) is the subject. I don't know enough about the subject to really check it someone else might want to go through and see if its okay.--Crossmr Iamunknown 06:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

    Jessica Cutler (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    User:Mcbillips, apparently her attorney in an ongoing legal action, is making repeated edits to this article. RJASE1 15:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

    It's got a few WP:BLP problems, so I cut down the article. We'll see what happens from this point onward. MER-C 01:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

    Adrian College (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    The user has legitimate concerns: the alleged controversy is totally unsourced. They (assuming "AC pr office" stands for "Adrian College Public Relations office") should have not, however, done it themselves, but instead come here or e-mailed info-en-q AT wikimedia DOT org. --Iamunknown 22:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    Agreed about the lack of sourcing, on a contentious issue; I've deleted it. References in general would be nice. Tearlach 23:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    I agree that the controversy claims is unsourced and should go, but the rosy prose that "AC pr office" inserted to replace it is not much better. I have removed it; minute details about year-to-year changes in the number of housing staff and so forth does not sound like encyclopedic material to me. –Henning Makholm 02:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    Farm Sanctuary and Gene Baur

    Articles
    Users involved

    * MichaelBrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Explanation

    This is a sock/meat puppet army organized by the organization Farm Sanctuary.

    GingerGins's involvement is someone else's hunch that was sent to me in private e-mail. I do not necessarily include her but she is a mostly single purpose account on the same issues and she appeared under suspicious timing. It is entirely reasonable on circumstantial evidence that she may be editing independent of the FarmSanctuary socks, but still has her own socks and is doing the same edits the Farm Sanctuary socks.

    Two of the IP addresses are directly related to GingerGin: 70.109.119.191, 66.74.212.163. These accounts made fairly silly edits to her talk page, then went on to repeat a revert performed by GingerGin (who admits to revert counting to game 3RR).

    user:FarmSanctuary used to have a user page stating they worked for Farm Sanctuary. user:Brooklyn5 used {{Db-owner}} on the user pages for the FarmSanctuary user and admitted it was a role account for the organization. While having their userpages deleted, they asked to have their username changed, so they were intent on returning.

    This morning user:Winchester1962, user:Sieveking, and user:Vladivostock showed up to edit the Farm Sanctuary/Gene Baur pages. SieveKing created a userpage and claims to have been a Misplaced Pages editor since 2005, with the first contribution as this morning. Similarly, Vladivostock removed a Welcome template from the talk page insisting he has been here for three years, first edit this morning. All three of the accounts engaged in the same edits: removing SOURCED negative information from the Gene Baur/Farm Sanctuary articles.

    The rest of the IP addresses are simply doing the same exact edits as User:FarmSanctuary, etc. Removing sourced negative information, often within minutes of the named users.

    An older account, User:ApisMeli, was probably a young intern/volunteer at the organization several months ago and isn't involved in the latest edit war. It would be interesting if it shows up again.

    SchmuckyTheCat 23:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    I can verify a unique editing habit of User:Winchester1962 and User:Sieveking that proves it is the same as User:FarmSanctuary SchmuckyTheCat 00:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    Have you considered filing a request for checkuser at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser? --Iamunknown 05:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    Yes. Though the circumstantial evidence here is overwhelming. It is legit that User:FarmSanctuary needed a new name, but to morph into two is not. SchmuckyTheCat 15:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    Update: User:SchmuckyTheCat posted this issue at WP:AN/I. See . He's using the list of sockpuppets displayed here as a reference for that report. In response, User:Isotope23 protected both Farm Sanctuary and Gene Baur here and indicated that a full review would occur. I assume he's taking charge of that, and that all we need to do on this noticeboard is to keep the issue open until the list of socks no longer needs to be displayed. EdJohnston 16:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    Zoe Williams – Resolved. – 04:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

    Zoe Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This article has been edited by Zoewilliams (talk · contribs), and this conflict of interest has been mentioned in issue 1179 of Private Eye.

    The entry on online encyclopedia Misplaced Pages for Guardian journalist Zoe Williams was recently amended, with the insertion of the phrases "highly regarded", "witty articles" and "critically acclaimed." The user who made the revisions. One "Zoewilliams".

    Catchpole 13:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    Those edits were a month ago, and it looks like the regulars at Zoe Williams have the situation under control. Zoewilliams (talk · contribs) has edited several other articles since, and frankly those edits do not lend support to the hypothesis that this user is a professional writer. Might be a fan, or a different Zoe Williams. –Henning Makholm 15:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    Agreed. — Athænara ✉ 04:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

    Campusj (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Campusj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - article created by Steveniweiss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whose name is the same as the editor-in-chief of the CampusJ website/newspaper. ju66l3r 23:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    Obvious corporate vanity, so tagged. MER-C 04:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

    Fashion (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Julia14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    This is more a user than one article. User:Julia14 has been adding various celebrity clothing lines and spam fashion links to articles, I think they might be a press person trying to drum up business. Not sure this is the right place, AIV said to list it here --AW 19:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

    She is claiming to be a new user, so maybe not. She learns really fast, however. --AW 20:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    Checking her contributions I don't see any clear evidence of a CoI. Looks to me more like whatever is the fashion equivalent of fancruft. If somebody showed up and added short paragraphs about Pokemon-themed restaurants to ten articles about cities, would we automatically assume that he or she was a press person trying to drum up business? I hope not. (However, please don't let there actually be such a thing as Pokemon-themed restaurants....) –Henning Makholm 03:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

    Lennie Lee (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Lennie Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a South African artist, is openly autobiographical. I have run into it accidentally while doing disambiguation and do not have the time right now to check it for notability and verifiability. Sam Blacketer 12:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

    Its history looks fine until recent anon edits by 80.41.10.175 converting it all to first-person. I've reverted it to the previous version. Tearlach 14:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

    Andy Miah (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    I have just re-edited the article, removing a great deal of puffery. I have also explained to the ed. the need for 3rd party sources. DGG 02:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

    Peniel Pentecostal Church (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

     Confirmed. Absolutely. As for Tell The Thruth (talk · contribs), we need a checkuser for that and we're not likely to get one yet. MER-C 04:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

    However, the article could do with some references, so tagged. MER-C 04:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    Article now fairly comprehensively referenced (two references still required). Tag removed. Mauls 18:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


    There is a lot of spin going on here because I fixed the article after it was marked for speedy deletion do to the fact that much of the content was removed for being overly critical and now the opposite is true with all the critical links being removed and replaced with pro-Reid sites.--JEF 18:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

    Steven Hassan (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    There is a conflict of interest in the criticism section of this article. A member removed an RS for reasons other than Misplaced Pages policies. The citation is a university professor with a Ph.D and one of that RS's papers was cited. He is claiming it is coming from a fringe group. COI occurs because he simply does not like the group because it does not coincide with his opinions — Preceding unsigned comment added by John196920022001 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-04T00:11:24 (UTC)

    Which editor do you think has a conflict of interest, and what do you think the conflict is? Bear in mind that not every content dispute is a COI. Merely holding an opinion about the subject of an article does not in itself a COI either. –Henning Makholm 03:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

    Cofftea (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    3 things...

    1. Cofftea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is made-up rubbish.
    2. The Cofftea section in Yuanyang (drink) shouldn't be there, as I explained at Talk:Yuanyang (drink)
    3. Am I being overly paranoid to think WP:COI prevents me deleting Cofftea?

    Angela. 03:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

    1) I don't know if it is entirely made-up rubbish, but it certainly looks like something that would snowball through an AfD for lack of sourceable notability. 3) Which conflict of interest do you have? None is obvious, even after skimming your user page. If you have nothing specific to disclose, I'd be more worried about the lack of an unambiguously applicable CSD; why not just prod it? –Henning Makholm 03:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    My possible COI is explained here. The article is on Wikia, as a semi-parody, so it could come across that I want it deleted here so people can only read it at Wikia, but I don't regard things people make up about Cofftea as encyclopedic. Everyone who ever mixed coffee and tea thinks they invented it, which is exactly what the author of Misplaced Pages's cofftea article is claiming. Angela. 07:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    You can't prod internet memes, unfortunately, as the tag won't stick. MER-C 03:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    Cofftea isn't an internet meme. Angela. 07:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    I can at least try (so done). For a freshly created page I agree that it would be futile, but this one is a month old, and its creator has no contributions since then. –Henning Makholm 04:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    Yes. Make it disappear, as it is practically speediable. MER-C 03:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

    Clouds Blur the Rainbow (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    • Clouds Blur the Rainbow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is being edited by BabyDweezil, an uncritical supporter of the individuals and groups criticized in this report, which I wrote. The same user, BabyDweezil, has a long history of personal attacks and repeated POV edits that demonstrate a clear conflict of interest. Some of the material being added is simply false, and based on the marginal and frequently distorted writings by members of a political cult similar to (and at one point connected to) the Lyndon LaRouche cult. Among the other pages subject to this type of editing by BabyDweezil are Fred Newman, Lenora Fulani, New Alliance Party, Social Therapy, International Workers Party. I understand that it is appropriate that critical opinions about the report Clouds Blur the Rainbow be included on its entry page, but what is happening here is wildly POV, unbalanced, and sometimes just false. It is time to consider banning BabyDweezil from editing any pages related to this cult, just as some pro-LaRouche editors have been banned for being unbable to abide by basic Misplaced Pages guidelines.--Cberlet 03:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Chip, basic Wikicourtesy would dictate that you notify me of this noticeboard posting rather than (or at least in addition to) obliquely canvassing surefire supporters of the action.
    That said, I challenge Cberlet or anyone else to point to anything in the above articles that is "wildly POV, unbalanced, or false." The fact is, these often contentious articles have been collaborative efforts between editors with different viewpoints, and the results have been a relative semblance of balance. It seems, historically, that Cberlet files protests such as this one precisely at those moments when his own demonstrably minority POV on the above subjects ceases to dominate. I won't waste the space here to document the reality of his POV being decidedly a minority one (not to mention likewise demonstrably riddled with bias and unprofessional research methodology) but would be happy to if needed. Nor do the claims of someone who consistently refers to editors with a different opinion than his own minority one as "cult apologists" "totalitarians" and "Orwellian sanitizers" and worse need a response re: "personal attacks."
    The irony of Cberlet's posting this cannot go uncommented upon. Chip Berlet has been for a quarter century a paid propagandist for Political Research Associates, a thoroughly partisan organization that largely devotes itself to issuing attack reports against groups that do not fit its particular view of of the world, be they on the right or in some instances, as with those above, on the left. PRA specializes in labeing and guilt by association (as evidenced above by Berlet's Larouche-baiting, based on a brief relationship Newman had with the long since noxious Larouche 30 years ago). The notion that a paid partisan like Chip Berlet should remain able to run roughshod over countless articles with which he has a true conflict of interest AND attempt to ban(!!) points of view contrary to his own is simply too absurd to comment onbeyond simply stating it. Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with Chip, or Dennis King or others with clear COI's from being involved, in fact I welcome their input and--them being long-time sppoks and all--value the resources they have filed away. Over and out-- BabyDweezil 23:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    Category: