Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:03, 20 December 2007

If you are an anonymous user who wishes to make a COI report, please edit this section.

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:

Possible autobiographies found by bot

• User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult   This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.

Human trafficking in Angeles City

Anti-stuttering devices, Stuttering

• Anti-stuttering devices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Stuttering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tdkehoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Anti-stuttering devices was created by Tdkehoe, who wrote here "I'm an expert on the subject because I own one of the companies that make anti-stuttering devices". He has since removed {{uw-coi}} and spam notices from his talk page. For summaries of COI and other concerns with his edits, please see Talk:Anti-stuttering devices, Talk:Stuttering and the FAR for Stuttering. Finally, it is possible that Stutterman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and some IPs are sockpuppets or meatpuppets of Tdkehoe. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>° 17:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a serious and growing concern, which led to Stuttering being defeatured. Please refer to the Stuttering FAR, the Stuttering talk page, and the anti-stuttering devices talk page. Slp1 (talk · contribs) and I have spent days just trying to restore these articles to a reliable level. Slp (a speech and language pathologist) suggests that some sections of anti-stuttering devices need to be reduced to one paragraph. Another concern is that Tdkehoe did not participate in the FAR, but once he resumed editing of Stuttering, after a several month absence, several other new editors and IPs began backing up his reverts to the older, problematic versions. As noted on the FAR, Tdkehoe has started numerous similar articles on Wikibooks, which are now linked at alt.support.stuttering and on their FAQ. It seems as if Wiki is systematically being used to promote anti-stuttering products. (According to Slp1, some of which is easily verifiable via Google, Tdkehoe is likely the inventor of several anti-stuttering devices, including the SmallTalk and School DAF and he owns Casa Futura Technologies which makes and distributes them.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if there's any particular reason why this issue generates not a single response at COIN; this came to COIN once before, and was archived without a single response, leaving a few editors to deal with this for another two months. Is there something I'm missing? If no admins respond here, perhaps AN/I is the next stop? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Are most of your problems coming from a user, or from IP's? - Jehochman 13:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

One user, with a conflict of interest. The IPs and the new account appeared briefly, recently. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, so not logical order!) I actually don't have much to add to the descriptions listed above. And I must apologize that some of the links below may not be the most informative I could provide. I have extremely limited and very sloooow internet access!

On the plus side, User:Tdkehoe has since June been upfront about his business interests on his userpage, has sought advice on various occasions , and I honestly think hasn't understood some WP policies and guidelines. On the other hand, he hasn't readily followed through with recommendations made to him,, , or chose to interpret them to allow what he would like to include.

I find the editing here and on wikibooks disconcerting, in part because of the criticisms the manufacturers of another anti-stuttering device have received (in a peer reviewed journal no less) for grandiose claims of treatment effects on shows such as Oprah, without the scientific data etc to back them up. I feel that a similar approach at diffusion is being used here. Slp1 (talk) 14:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it means, but Tdkehoe hasn't edited Misplaced Pages since this edit one week ago. This may or may not be because, on the following day, he was notified of this noticeboard discussion and reminded of the possible consequences of COI editing. — Athaenara ✉ 16:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the same thing that happened last time 'round; hopefully, more people will watchlist now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added Stuttering to my watchlist and will keep a closer eye on both articles Ruhrfisch _><>° 22:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Stutterman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - it's not clear, at least to me, whether or not this is another Tdkehoe account. — Athaenara ✉ 22:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It just seemed odd to have a new editor who reverted edits so expertly on just one article. On an unrelated note, has anyone notified WikiBooks of the COI issues with Tdkehoe? I do not have an account there. Ruhrfisch _><>° 18:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said clearly that I think it is another Tdkehoe. I don't have a Wikibooks account, either; perhaps Slp1 can warn that project? — Athaenara ✉ 21:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I too find it interesting that Tdkehoe hasn't edited recently, and also wonder whether it isn't a good example of the effectiveness of polite interventions by several different editors in solving issues of this sort. On another topic, I don't have a WikiBooks account either, and have no idea how it works, but will commit to figuring it out and commenting as appropriate in the next few days.Slp1 00:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No Wikibooks account here either, but I'm wondering if we're obliged to keep the Wikibook links in the articles or if the usual WP:EL criteria apply there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It is only linked from Stuttering - I see it is a "featured book" on WikiBooks(!). Given the COI concerns, I am fine with delinking the WikiBook from the article for now. Should a note be left on the Stuttering talk page? Ruhrfisch _><>° 05:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I delinked it. We should remember to add a note to the talk page once this COIN goes to archives. Honestly. I'm going to be more careful from now on with sister links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC) {{Wikibooks|Stuttering}}

Google anti-stuttering devices, casafuturatech first, wikibooks second, wikipedia fourth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting about the Google search! I have posted something over at Wikibooks, and will follow up with whatever transpires over there. BTW, having read the comments in this news article, I am even wondering about the appropriateness of using 'anti-stuttering device' as an article name. Slp1 14:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I support changing the biased title and incorporating some of this info into the article. Is there a less-biased term used in the research studies, or should we change it to "Electronic stuttering devices"? I also notified an admin and beaurocrat on WikiBooks, but I'm unclear what the standards are there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I would also be in favor of a better title, but do not have the expertise to suggest what that title should be - the newspaper article mentioned "electronic fluency devices" (IIRC). There has been a reply at WikiBooks, by the way (they are much more laid back about COI). Ruhrfisch _><>° 17:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I support a move to "electronic fluency devices" unless Slp1 has a better term. Interesting about WikiBooks; with all of my work at FAC and FAR, it had never before occurred to me that we need to evaluate inclusion of those links with the same critical eye we evaluate other external links wrt WP:RS and WP:V. I'll be raising this issue more aggressively henceforth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The title looks a bit of a challenge... Guitar (2005) calls them 'assistive devices' , the British Stammering Association calls them 'electronic aids' (neither specific enough in my opinion), Lincoln et al. (2006) and Ward (2006) calls them 'Altered auditory feedback devices', Kalinowski and Saltuklaroglu (2006) call them 'altered feedback devices'. Electronic fluency devices/aids are also used, but this would probably include some other types of devices, which actually might not be a bad thing. So I would plump for electronic fluency devices and have done with it.--Slp1 19:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold and changed it since consensus seemed acheived.Slp1 14:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone advise now how to handle Category:Anti-stuttering devices? It needs to be moved to Category:Electronic fluency devices. I don't know how cats are dealt with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Checking further, that category has only two other articles, and they both had merge tags to Electronic fluency devices and need to be merged. Can the category be deleted without an XfD? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. I've found that many of your suggestions improve the quality of the article.--TDKehoe 17:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the COI edits continue. I hope we don't have to request a block. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The latest COI accusation is about a study I summarized which was published in 1996 using EMG biofeedback. The EMG equipment used in the study was never commercialized. My company doesn't make EMG equipment. No companies sell EMG equipment for treating stuttering. The study was done by university researchers. I wasn't one of the them. I've never even met them. I don't see how there's a COI here.--TDKehoe (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, nobody said the addition of that information was a conflict of interest edit. Just that it wasn't an accurate representation of the study., (with expanded reasoning here ) Other edits in yesterday's series were promoting of your products, however, as also noted on the talkpage.Slp1 (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I blocked Tdkehoe for 72 hours. — Athaenara ✉ 09:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Criminologist1963 and Conflict of Interest

• user: Criminologist1963 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• article: Satanic ritual abuse in The Netherlands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think we've got a clear case of conflict of interest at Satanic ritual abuse in The Netherlands, and I'd appreciate some administrative attention/advice.

A few months ago at Satanic Ritual Abuse, an editor called Criminologist1963 posted a large amount of material, much of which was rambling, speculative and unsourced. The material was taken from a similar article at the Netherlands Misplaced Pages that had been translated and pasted into the English SRA article. Some of the material was factually incorrect, but the editor repeated blocked any changes to the material.

Much of the material was sourced to a Dutch PhD candidate called Tjalling Beetstra, who runs a website where he offers his commercial services as an "expert" on SRA. Criminologist1963 cited Beetstra as an authoritative source no less then three times, then mentions Beetstra as an expert in the article itself, and provides a link to Beetstra's commercial website.

A number of similarities emerged between Criminologist1963 and Tjalling Beetstra (they are both Dutch, they both study "Satanic Ritual Abuse" from a skeptical POV, they both claim to be criminologists, and they were both born in 1963) such that it was reasonable to believe that Crim1963 and Beetstra were the same person.

After reviewing his material, editors deleted it, since (a) the material breached a number of Misplaced Pages guidelines related to sourcing and NPOV, and (b) it seemed that Beetstra was using Misplaced Pages to promote himself, and to promote a commercial service.

When his COI was uncovered, Criminologist1963 promptly created the article Satanic ritual abuse in The Netherlands, which reproduced the deleted material from the SRA article. It seems that Crim1963 has a financial interest in maintaining this material on Misplaced Pages, and he is willing to conceal his identity, and ignore the concerns of other WP editors, in order to do so.

I think this is a clear-cut case of self-promotion and conflict of interest. What do administrators think? --Biaothanatoi 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This probably *is* self-promotion. Since your report, the article Satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands has been cut down to a redirect to the main article, Satanic ritual abuse. The latter has only one reference to the work of Tjalling Beetstra, and it appears to be a book chapter (a reliable source). Evidently the main article is undergoing an intense struggle about which sources should be used (in which you are one of the participants), and this COI seems to be no longer playing much of a role. I suggest that this COI report be marked as Resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

FactSet Research Systems &‎ User:Ktsummer

Can someone have a look a FactSet Research Systems and Ktsummer's recent edits. This looks to me like pure PR. --Pleasantville (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The company appears notable. I added {{advertisement}}. Article contains usable facts, though it's one-sided, and it could be fixed by rewriting. EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Max Boot

I don't know if this is appropriate here or if it should be brought to the attention of folks over at WP:BLP, and it's really just something old that never was properly addressed. Let's see if I can make sense out of it all:

1. During the course of litigation against tobacco companies (esp. Phillip Morris), documents were uncovered detailing the tobacco companies' attempts to manipulate scientific data in their favor. One such document, from the mid 1990s, attracted attention and spawned suggestions that while at the WSJ Max Boot had breached journalistic ethics by collaborating with a tobacco lobbyist in the course of authoring editorials discussing regulatory policy (in other words, creating a conflict of interest).
2. This paragraph was added to Boot's Misplaced Pages article, essentially repeating the accusations. (Note: the paragraph has been heavily edited and is in a much different form today, although its content is essentially the same.) See the included citations for background.
3. A Misplaced Pages edit war ensues, with the information repeatedly being removed and replaced by various editors. Full disclosure: I attempted to at least improve the controversial paragraph with copy edits and citations, and twice restored the paragraph when it was deleted with no prior discussion.
4. In January 2007, an anonymous letter is published by blogger Eric Alterman on his blog, hosted by Media Matters for America. The letter alleges that the information above was scrubbed or whitewashed from Misplaced Pages by one or more editors operating from the Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank that employs Boot. Thus, Boot or someone operating on his behalf is implicated in COI edits to Misplaced Pages. As far as I can tell, there isn't any evidence presented that these edits were actually made by an IP owned by CFR, but I'm IP illiterate, so what do I know. The allegations are discussed by bloggers Matthew Yglesias , Brad DeLong , and Steve Gilliard , among others.
5. Talk page discussion led me to mark the paragraph as containing original synthesis, but I wonder if adding a discussion of Alterman et. al.'s accusations would establish that this is not, in fact, an original argument made for the first time on Misplaced Pages.
6. Perhaps the whole thing is giving undue weight to a controversy about a 13 year-old editorial, but the accusations of whitewashing or scrubbing seem especially important. I'm basically just curious about the attribution status of blogs, and completely unsure about discussing the article in the article itself. I realize doing so may be nauseatingly meta for many readers, but any help or advice would certainly be appreciated.

- Tobogganoggin 03:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Even when BLP is involved, stuff that is factual, well-referenced, and very briefly stated usually will pass review. Looking at Max_Boot#Controversy, that section seems extremely short, and nobody seems to be arguing it is incorrect. Does even this very brief statement cause you concern? EdJohnston (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not particularly, I'm just hoping to achieve a bit more article stability by appeasing critics of the passage. I'd like to mention the CFR conflict-of-interest edits ("whitewashing") of Misplaced Pages as well, but I'm not sure how to proceed. Does such information belong in the article at all? If so, should I simply cite the accusations of popular bloggers who, while openly biased, appear to be correct? Perhaps I should instead also cite the edit history of Boot's Misplaced Pages article together with a reverse DNS lookup to make things a bit more factual, or would doing that be considered OR? - Tobogganoggin 00:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, now I finally woke up to see there is a long discussion of the propriety of this very passage over at Talk:Max Boot#Explaining a significant deletion. My conclusion is that the passage should be omitted. Essentially Boot, as a Wall Street Journal reporter, was faxing a draft of an editorial to a person who helped write the report being discussed, so that he could identify factual errors. The actual changes are enumerated in Brad DeLong's blog , and don't seem particularly alarming (unless you consider all WSJ editorials alarming). Also, any charges about Milloy being funded by tobacco firms certainly don't rub off on Max Boot, and don't seem pertinent to his article. Regarding the use of blogs, I don't see the need to repeat charges made only in blogs, and not picked up by any reliable sources. EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Cold fusion conflict of interest

64.247.224.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user admits to being Jed Rothwell, the librarian for the cite LENR-CANR.org, a pro-cold fusion site that makes its money promoting cold fusion. This user, in particular, has been insisting on including references that he himself has had a hand in creating (for example a translation of a book by a Japanese cold fusion advocate). In particular, I'm concerned that some of the references he insists on including at cold fusion are published by vanity presses and he is using Misplaced Pages to make money on the translations he himself provided. I believe that this conflict of interest is so pronounced that he probably should avoid editing the article completely: or at least his attempts to include links to books are seen by me to be very close to using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox or even a source of advertisement. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: The situation seems to be getting worse. Jed is taking things way too personally. His threats are coming increasingly incendiary and I'm afraid that he won't take advice from those of us with whom he's already gotten upset. Will an uninvolved admin please counsel him? Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: I cannot believe it, but things have gotten even worse. I'm requesting a community ban here. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The debate at WP:ANI has been archived, but no ban was implemented. User:Hu12 blocked the IP for 24 hours on 6 December with the comment Continued disruptive editing despite warnings. Since then the IP has not resumed editing. EdJohnston (talk)

The archived location of the Dec. 6th ANI thread is here. This case continues to be discussed at Talk:Cold fusion and at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Cold fusion, though Arbcom does not seem inclined to accept the case. It *does* appear that this IP editor, 64.247.224.24 (talk · contribs), has a Conflict of Interest, but he has been blocked once and will probably be monitored further if problems continue. I'm marking this issue as Resolved to help clear out the noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

IAC/InterActiveCorp & User:IACWik

This is pretty blatant, even without the evidence of the extremely stilted, biased text that's been added. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 02:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Posted on my talkpage at the date above; moved here at 04:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC). -Jéské

Having examined the article, the whole thing reads less like an encyclopedia article and more like a peacock's tail. There are no cited sources (just site/company names in parentheses w/year), and the whole thing smells of "Company Spin". I will note, however, that IACWiki appears to be inactive (I have not checked the block log). -Jéské 04:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like a poorly-written article about a notable company, one that clearly deserves coverage. Since COI editing is no longer taking place, I suggest this might be closed as a COI report. Anyone with a bit of free time is invited to fix the article. Curiously, IACWik stopped editing completely after receiving the original {{uw-coi}} notice. Since then a few improvements have happened (a bunch of spam links were removed) but the terrible prose remains. Stubbifying might be an option, while we are waiting for somebody who is inspired to write a better article. EdJohnston (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide Business Research

• Worldwide Business Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• TradeTech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Brittenstreet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 208.49.200.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 38.112.44.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• wbresearch.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• wbr.co.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• iqpc.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sixsigmasummit.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

See also: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Worldwide Business Research
See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Worldwide_Business_Research_.28WBR.29
--Hu12 (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Virtualology and Stanley L. Klos discussion on WP:AN

I started to list these here but then I realized there have already been a variety of related discussions about spam, coi, copyright, and link quality in different places, so I started a more centralized discussion of all aspects at:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Virtualology and Stanley L. Klos -- boon to our historical articles or just a bain of spam? (permanent link)

I'm leaving this entry here to point WP:COI/N regulars to the Administrators' Noticeboard discussion. You guys are our experts at finessing useful content out of spam as well as managing the editors that bring us that stuff. I think you'll enjoy this one. --A. B. 19:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's sensible for you to bring the matter up at WP:AN where it will get more general attention from administrators. What action are you requesting be taken? Or are you going to take the action yourself, and just need general consent? I perceive that most people agree this is complete spam. EdJohnston (talk)

Had a quick glance. Agreed. This concerns a humungous number of links to an unreliable source: a personal website carrying personally-edited entries from Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography, which has long since been outed for unreliability (i.e. having fictitious entries). The links should go, as spam, and any material sourced from Appleton's be viewed as suspect. I suggest A. B. should take it to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Biography, where they could set it up as a cleanup subproject. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(the unanimous feeling at this point seems to be that the links at any rate must be removed, & the articles re-examined). DGG (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The Conflict of Interest here seems obvious and serious. Since there are so many links involved this will most likely be handled like a spam issue. How to do this while protecting any genuine references is still being vigorously debated in a five-day-long thread over at Misplaced Pages:Administrator's noticeboard. Editors who normally follow discussions on this noticeboard are invited to give their views at WP:AN. I am marking this resolved so as not to multiply the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Jevon Sims

Will likely be gone soon, but see Jevon Sims AfD discussion page. Either WP:NOT or WP:COI wouldn't be enough to go on, but that plus the "coincidence" mentioned in the discussion page are enough for me for probable cause. Psinu_{to sign} 21:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Juan Cole

(moved from WP:Notability discussion)

Juan Cole is a famous commentator on the Middle East. Before he became famous, he was a leading figure in the (tiny) field of Baha'i Studies, in which his research continues to be extremely influential. (I would say that he is one of the five or six most important recent writers. Certainly no one in the field could avoid his work.) The current article on Cole includes both aspects in considerable detail. For example, some of his articles (and one book) on the Baha'i religion are summarized.

Now, it so happens that Cole was a member of this religion until the mid-1990's, after which he quit the organized form of it. Most of these articles were published then, and are intensely critical of the religion's administration. (Members, by contrast, are not allowed to publish without the permission of these authorities.) One Baha'i Wikipedian is attempting to delete descriptions of these--despite their importance to Baha'i Studies, and to Cole--by saying that they are not notable. (It may or may not be relevant that various Baha'is, including this guy, have been systematically erasing material embarrassing to them from Misplaced Pages.)

So, what say ye? And what can be done about a dedicated group with an intense interest in making ideologically-motivated edits to obscure topics? Assumptions of "good faith" hardly seem applicable... --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.167.60 (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A more logical place for you to air this concern is the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. To present your issue there, you will need to create an account. (At present, WP:COIN is semi-protected so that anonymous editors cannot make comments there). EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So moved. Dawud (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you point to any recent edit of the Juan Cole article that removed criticism of the Baha'i religion? I am amazed at the current length of this article (66,000 bytes) and the possibly excessive amount of detail. However if there were any bad-faith removals they should be investigated. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Dawud: generally, it doesn't wash to argue conflict of interest on grounds of membership of a large group, even if there's some known partiality. WP:COI tends not to come into play unless the connection is closer than that. But I agree with EdJohnston; an article longer than those on many major politicians seems overkill for a commentator. Do we need his thoughts on every damn country in the Middle East? It looks like some flavour of coatrack to me. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

MetaphorEnt

• Joshua Feinman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Marta McGonagle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lindsay MacFarland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mimi Fuenzalida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Dennis W. Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Cassandra Braden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Erika Ringor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Milena Lukich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fatimah Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kevin T. McCarthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Brien Perry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Elle Travis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• LMA2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SJR2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HollywoodFan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 64.30.201.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MetaphorEnt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pr.Girl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Linzmac78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MetaphorPR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zip100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

LMA2007 seems to be connected Metaphor Entertainment/ Breakdown express. All the contributor’s edits have been in relation to actors, most of who have been metioned on Metaphor Entertainment’s Myspace.com Blog (blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=102544542). Cassandra Braden‘s resume and Erika Ringor’s resume list Metaphor Entertainment as their management. These comments made by the LMA2007 indicate that they are representing Erika Ringor:

LMA2007 was blocked from editing for a month for photo copyright violations, the similarly named SJR2008 edited during that time and reuploaded two of the images that LMA2007 had previously uploaded.

HollywoodFan1 was created a day after SJR2008. They edited the same group of articles and created the Mimi Fuenzalida article. Mimi’s management is listed as Metaphor Entertainment.

The IP Address 64.30.201.109 also edited the same set of articles. A number of other IP addresses also only edited these articles, but none of them made a significant number of edits.

MetaphorEnt, which is probably short for Metaphor Entertainment, created the Elle Travis article.

Pr.Girl created the Lindsay MacFarland article, Lindsay ‘s management is listed as Metaphor Entertainment. Linzmac78 is likely Lindsay MacFarland. BlueAzure (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please Clarify - Above Gordonofcartoon quotes "generally, it doesn't wash to argue conflict of interest on grounds of membership of a large group, even if there's some known partiality. WP:COI tends not to come into play unless the connection is closer than that." I would like to make the same argument for the articles I have contributed to. I do not know any of the people in the articles I edited. I took an interest in this group of talent through one Actress that I am a fan of her work. From there and myspace I have followed the people she's working with. Being an avid blogger, I though it would be interesting to slowly get involved with Misplaced Pages. From my understanding everyone's contributions are welcome as long as they are impartial. If that is not the case, please explain. (HollywoodFan1 (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC))

Beyond the evidence I previously provided, I noticed a number other items that give the appearance of a conflict of interest. First, you uploaded and indicated that you are the copyright holder for and . At the very least they indicate that you have met multiple actors managed by Metaphor Entertainment on two occasions. Second, you created the Mimi Fuenzalida article, it includes fairly detailed information that I could not find online. I’m curious as to where you found the information? Third, your edits have occurred on the same day and within the same hour as edits by 64.30.201.109. 64.30.201.109 has been editing this set of articles starting back in November of 2006 and has continued since you joined wikipedia. Finally, when I searched your username on google, most the results were from imdb.com. Most of the imdb.com pages were for the actors listed above. A hollywoodfan1-1 had posted on the message boards of these pages. The only other posters appeared to be the above listed actors and their Metaphor Entertainment manager Sharon Weintraub. If you are not directly involved with Metaphor Entertainment, you have a relationship that I believe is at least close to a conflict of interest.

I have also added two more accounts to the list above:

In addition to the username, MetaphorPR’s only editing was to one the articles in question.

Zip100 created the article for Marta McGonagle and only edited that article, Marta’s management is list as Metaphor Entertainment. BlueAzure (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not MetaphorPR, nor am I Zip100. My relationship with Metaphor has been through myspace. Isn't is a blessing that multiple users have contributed to a group of articles. Shouldn't that suggest that there is diversified interest. Isn't that what WP is founded on? Do you have issues with the articles content or is there something I contributed that you object to? I've only written one article, and most of my edits have been minor. I openly admitted to meeting one of the actresses once at a premiere. That photo was indeed placed on this site. I contacted you directly for a solution and didn't hear back. What else do you suggest? Please clarify what your solution is.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 08:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

BlueAzure, please review WP:DBN and return with some constructive suggestions. I am truly open to that. HollywoodFan1 (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not say you were MetaphorPR or Zip100. In my previous message I was simply indicating that I was adding those accounts to the list above and providing my reason for doing so. I don’t know why you say that you “didn't hear back”, as I responded here and replied to your message on my talk page. If you have a conflict of interest, as I believe you do, you need to follow Conflict of interest guidelines. I am unable to provide further assistance in doing that, as I am not well versed in how a COI editor should handle the situation. Hopefully, someone else that is can assist you. BlueAzure (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In my research, I found you did not follow the proper procedure under "How to handle conflicts of interest" WP:COI prior to adding the Template:COI. Please review WP:COI and if you have concrete suggestions for change in accordance with the examples on that page, I'm sure the editors will comply as long as you follow the required "The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline".HollywoodFan1 (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Under WP:AGF, editors get to ask only one question: "Please review the conflict of interest policy; do you have a conflict of interest on this article?" If the answer is "No," that should be the end of the inquiry. I found no issues in accordance with Conflict of interest guidelines in the article I have written.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In my research, I have found that all of the articles in question abide by WP:NPOV. Placing COIs on well written articles because the subjects have common threads without verifiable evidence of COI isn't in accordance with WP:FIVE or WP:AGF.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm reverting the closure of this issue by HollywoodFan1, who is one of the editors named in the above complaint. Let's have opinions from others whether this case has been adequately addressed. In particular, it would be good to have the views of BlueAzure who made the initial report. EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking over several of the articles in question, NPOV seems to be adhered to quite well by the named editors. I didn't see any things like "This talent is represented by Metaphor Entertainment" or any Peacock Words of similar purpose. The articles seem factual and very neutral in tone. While BlueAzure was correct to bring a suspected COI issue here for evaluation, WP:COI does not necessarily prohibit editing by someone with a potential conflict, so long as those articles remain neutral and factual. Therefore I feel this can be closed with no particular action required beyond just the usual keeping an eye on things, which we all do anyway. Arakunem 03:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

At a quick glance, I think some of the articles created above may not meet the notability criteria for entertainers, found at WP:BIO:

Entertainers: actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:

• With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.
• Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
• Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

A notable actor should usually have appeared in notable films. We should have WP articles on the films. As I went through the Elle Travis article, I found the article was linked to many unrelated topics with coinciding names. For example, our articles on Never Give Up, Broken, First Watch and The Tipping Point are not about any films (with those names) in which Elle Travis appeared. Those films she did appear in seem in the cases I studied not to have WP articles. It may turn out that this and other articles should be sent to AfD. Since there are so many articles listed here, it would be good to have others help to review them for notability per WP:BIO. EdJohnston (talk) 06:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you User:EdJohnson for noticing the unrelated links. I have corrected my article on Elle Travis and will hear any other changes you want to suggest. Should you have any question to Elle Travis as a viable talent, you can find many links to her work and celebrity on imdb.com, google.com, gettyimages.com & wireimage.com. User:BlueAzure has pointed out, we do openly represent several of the talent listed, yet we did not write all of the articles. The few articles we have contributed to have, by our belief, adhered to both the WP:BIO and the WP:NPOV. Having written one article and made minor changes to two articles only, in good faith we request that the topic of this complaint be changed. The topic as our company name could prove to be defamatory and being that there are no articles written about our company on Wiki, nor are we are mentioned in any article to our knowledge, it was unnecessary and suspect on the part of User:BlueAzure to name this complaint after the company name.Metaphor Ent (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I changed the title of this complaint to MetaphorEnt since it seems equally good to me. Nonetheless, I suggest that you strike through or remove your above comment about libel, because otherwise you risk being blocked due to our policy of Misplaced Pages:No legal threats. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thank you.Metaphor Ent (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I came across Lindsay MacFarland’s article a few months ago, and noticed the same connection between her, Metaphor Entertainment, and the other actor’s listed. I was going to bring this up for WP:COI discussion myself, but in doing some research, I found that it was unnecessary. Metaphor, itself, is never mentioned in any of the articles, and they are all clearly written in a neutral tone and without bias. The notability of actors is my forte in both my work in the PR field, as well as my work as a Wikipedian. In researching each of these actors listed, I have found that they all clearly meet the guidelines for WP:BIO, have high ratings on IMDB Pro, and also have outside sources crediting their notability.TGreenburgPR (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

To set the record straight we do not represent Joshua Feinman. Unless you can find another link beyond management representation that validates WP:COI, I would recommend that User:BlueAzure remove him from their list.Metaphor Ent (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The Joshua Feinman article was created by LMA2007 and was edited by the same set of accounts as the other articles. According to the Elle Travis article, Elle Travis is dating Joshua Feinman. This is enough for me to continue to include it in the filing. BlueAzure (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Some articles proposed for deletion. Under WP:PROD I have nominated three of the above articles for deletion: Marta McGonagle, Elle Travis and Mimi Fuenzalida. If anyone believes they should be kept, please try to find evidence that any of these actresses has received credit for a major role in a notable film. You should be able to provide a URL showing screen credit. See Misplaced Pages:Generally notable people for the criteria for entertainers. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Marta McGonagle

• http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1159715/
• http://resumes.breakdownexpress.com/230012-703388
• http://www.wireimage.com/SearchResults.aspx?navtyp=SRH&sfld=C&logsrch=1&s=marta%20mcgonagle
• http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117970108.html?categoryid=28&cs=1
• http://www.martamcgonagle.com

These are only a few of almost 8,000 sites with Marta McGonagle listed.

Elle Travis

• http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0871387/
• http://resumes.breakdownexpress.com/108474-361948
• http://www.wireimage.com/SearchResults.aspx?navtyp=SRH&sfld=C&logsrch=1&s=elle%20travis
• http://www.indiewire.com/ots/fes_99Tell_990904_lineup.html
• http://fromla.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/2007/10/professionalism.html
• http://www.elletravis.com

"Palisadian Post" (USA) 24 July 2003, pg. 11 (Front Cover of the Lifestyle Section), by: Laurel Busby, "In Loving Memory"

"L.A. Times" (USA) 11 April 2002, pg. F. 39, by: Daryl H. Miller, "Fun and Games in a First Family; The well-dressed Kennedys play to win in a biting musical satire on the life of 'Jack.'"

"The Play Review" (USA) February 2002, pg. 10-11, by: Jose Ruiz, "Camelot? That's Jack!"

"Digital Post Production" (USA) 27 March 2001, pg. 1, by: DMN Newswire, "Look! Effects Creates 3D Intergalactic Journey for Indie Feature First Watch"

"Cannes Market News" (France) 18 May 2002, Vol. 3, pg. 1, by: Chantal Julien, "Cannes In Pictures Day Three"

"KTLA Morning News" .... Herself (1 episode, 2007) ... aka KTLA Morning Show (USA)

   - Episode dated 13 November 2007 (2007)  TV episode .... Herself

"Starz the Hollywood Reporter" .... Herself (1 episode, 2007)

   - Dan in Real Life (2007)  TV episode .... Herself

"The Oprah Winfrey Show" .... Herself (1 episode, 2003) ... aka Oprah (USA: short title)

   - Episode dated 17 July 2003 (2003)  TV episode .... Herself 

"National Public Radio" ....Herself (10-05-1999) (interviewed about Broken, Stella Adler & growing up in Hollywood)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by MetaphorEnt (talk • contribs) 05:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

These are only a few of over 300,000 sites with Elle Travis listed

Mimi Fuenzalida

• http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0297497/
• http://resumes.breakdownexpress.com/103180-988575
• http://www.tv.com/10-8/show/16742/episode.html
• http://www.mimifuenzalida.com
• These are only a few of almost 2,000 sites with Mimi Fuenzalida listed, and she had a career in Chile where the internet is utilized a little less than the US.

I thought this was a forum for COI. How did it turn into a forum for deletion? Will an editor who knows more about tagging references please help with these three articles? I have provided links but don't know how to properly place them.Metaphor Ent (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to the editor who helped with the tags on the Elle Travis article. Can someone please volunteer to help with the Marta McGonagle article and the Mimi Fuenzalida article User:EdJohnston, did you contact the creators of these articles to give them a chance to make the changes you are requesting? I have to say it's such a relief to find people who are willing to help rather than WP:Bite. Thank you again. Metaphor Ent (talk) 07:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

A friendly editor helped to clean up my article on Mimi Fuenzalida. Another editor contacted me and gave me some tips on how to make references. All of this help has been great. Thanks to User:MetaphorEnt for requesting the much needed help and giving us links to start. I could try to help with the Marta McGonagle article if it's not a conflict. This whole thing has made my head spin and I'm not sure what I'm allowed to do or not do anymore. Does anyone have any suggestions?HollywoodFan1 (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Anything more to do here? Thanks to all who helped to improve the articles. I am not happy with the creation of these articles by COI-affected editors, but unless someone wants to follow up on any more of the articles listed above, we may have to close this thread. It would be good to get comments from anyone else who often monitors this noticeboard as to whether the problem is fixed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I would like to thank you for taking a look at this. If the articles can be reviewed for notability and sent to AFD if they don’t appear to be notable, that would resolve the situation for me. I would like to thank the editors who helped to improve the three articles you proded. After reviewing the articles, I still feel they do not meet notability per WP:BIO. Elle Travis’s only film that wikipedia have article for she is listed as playing “screaming hottie”, in the TV shows wikipedia has articles for she is listed as having been a voice. Mimi Fuenzalida only role that wikipedia has a listing for is the TV show 10-8: Officers on Duty, according to IMDB she appeared in an uncredited role in one episode. In Marta McGonagle’s case, the The Spot that she appeared in is different than the one that has a wikipedia article. I would nominate these for deletions, but I am concerned if that is appropriate. One of the involved editors has claimed that I have violated WP:FIVE, WP:AGF, and WP:BITE. I am not sure what actions I am and am not allowed to take in relation to this situtation. I have speedied Dennis W. Hall as it is a recreation of Dennis Wayne Hall which was deleted per a AFD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueAzure (talk • contribs) 03:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Section break

I made a new sub-section for ease of editing. Responding now to BlueAzure who opened this complaint, I see no problem taking those three articles to AfD, if you wish to nominate them. If you do so, it should be OK to announce that fact here and anyone following this debate can decide if they want to participate. If any editor from this debate chooses to comment in an AfD, please mention whether you have an affiliation with any of the firms named in this report. If you are COI-affected, you can leave a comment without formally voting Keep or Delete and your argument will still be listened to. EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Simson Garfinkel, Sandstorm Enterprises, Sophal Ear

User:Simsong admits on his userpage that he is Simson Garfinkel. He has edited or created:

• Simson Garfinkel - Article on himself
• Sandstorm Enterprises - Company he founded

*Sophal Ear - Research associate at the NPS
Additionally, he has removed tags place by other editors questioning the material he has added. Thank you. Mbisanz (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The SG bio poses no problems--there seem no controversial claims in its present state, & he's probably notable. The only questioned part is an anecdote--which, considering his career field, may be relevant. The S Ear bio has possible notability, but more diffuse. The company article does not seem to say enough for notability at this point,based on the information included. I've commented a little further on the pages Ear & Sandstrom talk pagesDGG (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually not contesting the notability of any of the articles. Merely I'm contesting a user editing his own article, an article on a company he founded, and an article on a person who seems to be a close colleague. Mbisanz (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Atlas terriers

Author is User:Autumnbriar - Lauren Wolfe of AutumnBriar Farms is the originator of the Atlas Terrier name, and the Atlas terrier "breed". --jdege (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

After a quick read of the article and its tags, I've prodded this for speedy deletion as spam. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I contested speedy on this as it does not, to my eyes, read as an advertisement. However, I would support a prod if the tagged issues (refs, coi, etc.) are not addressed. -- Shunpiker (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've sent the associated Mini Parsons article to AFD for failure to verify. IrishJack looks COI too, as one of the breeders is also Autumnbriar Farms. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Miniparsons deleted at AFD. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Morals and Dogma

Morals and Dogma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Presumed author of a new edition providing commentary on the original book keeps adding a paragraph about the edition. // uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

See http://www.morals-and-dogma.com/authors.html for list of authors -- I am assuming that James L. "JJ" Miller IV is User:Jjmiller768.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 20:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles related to Sun Myung Moon/Unification Church

User Steve Dufour has been consistently watering down articles related to Sun Myung Moon/Unification Church, an organization of which he is a member (see his user page and this website (look for Dufour)). Articles include Jeffrey T. Kuhner, which he is pushing for deletion and from which he has repeatedly removed relevant information to make it appear less notable, as well as Insight (magazine), which he has been monitoring and watering down. His m.o. seems to be to slowly remove information in an effort to prevent the appearance of controversy, or reduce notability, in an effort ultimately delete sections or articles. It is more difficult with a larger article like Insight, but much easier for a stub like Kuhner's. The possible COI may be in the fact that Insight is owned by Sun Myung Moon, leader of the Unification Church, and Kuhner is editor in chief of Insight. Dufour seems to have an interest in these articles because of his affiliation with the church. He has also consistently removed mentions of the Unification Church and Moon when it appears in the Insight and Kuhner articles. Athene cunicularia (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object to any "watering down" which conceals the existence of a controversy. I glance at my user page shows that my main focus at Misplaced Pages is identifying controversies - not concealing them. Insight is owned by the same holding corporation which owns the Washington Times, so the two are clearly affiliated. And Rev. Moon is the founder (but not literally the owner) of the Times. He has pumped well over a billion dollars of church funds into it,

I'd like to see the linkage between Insight and the Unification Church clarified. (Oh, and in case anyone has forgotten, Jimbo and Lee Crocker and Maveric knew I was a follower of Sun Myung Moon six years ago when I was helping out with the database, the mailing list, and was made a sysop. The only POV I push is that we should HIGHLIGHT the existence of controversy! ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a genuine COI problem with User:Steve Dufour on Unification Church-related topics. I've run into this with him and another editor, both UC members, at articles of other UC members, notably Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) in the past. I've not edited any of the articles mentioned here so I'm uninvolved enough to have a word with Steve but if he ignores my advice I'm leaving it for another admin to take any additional steps to avoid any concerns over my past run ins with him. It would be even better if Ed, being friend and fellow UC member, were to get Steve to step back and find something else to edit. Want to help Ed? FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to be fair in my edits and have never tried to restrict the right of anyone else to edit here. If I am to be kicked off WP for editing articles about my church then I think the same standard should apply to political parties and other organizations. Hmmm....that might be a good idea. ;-) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW Jonathan Wells's article is unreadably badly written. I have tried to help with that but have never removed any information about his church membership. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding Steve. As I've said in my email to you I've found you to be a a reasonable chap in our previous run-ins and we've somehow managed to work things out, so I'm sure you'll be reasonable now. I'm signing off for the night but will check back tomorrow. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(Wrote this at the same time as FeloniousMonk) That's why people recuse themselves--because although they may sincerely "try to be fair," they can't. I would probably agree, too--if someone expresses an affiliation to an organization that they're supposed to objectively portray, they should recuse themselves. Unfortunately, you have disclosed that you are a religious follower of the owner of Insight magazine, which is controversial, and thus, I think that you should recuse yourself from editing these related articles. I would not ask that you be kicked off wikipedia. I think that your intentions are good; in this case, though, I believe that you have a COI.Athene cunicularia (talk) 06:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It is generally accepted that Christians can edit the article Christianity and that they do not have a COI per se, but I admit that User:Athene cunicularian has a point. A committed adherent may not have a COI, but may have such a strong POV that they are unable to be fair even if they sincerely try, indistinguishable in effect of having a COI. Andries (talk) 10:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What matters isn't the presence of a conflict, it's how that conflict is handleed. When people come to Misplaced Pages to act as editors it's expected that they will put the welfare of this project ahead of other interests. Nobody is neutral on everytihng, but people who participate in Misplaced Pages must make neutral edits. Christians, Muslims, Zoroastrians, atheists, or Unificationists can all edit articles on those topics so long as they do so neutrally. If they can't they can still participate by commenting on talk pages. If there is concrete evidence of an editor making non-neutral edits regularly then that may be a cause for concern. However I don't see that here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I will try to be more aware of these issues. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Jjhmccarty

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

I believe this user is editing articles (rivet, Wrought iron, RMS Titanic), and creating articles (Tim Foecke) to promote her soon to be published book. The fact that she created an article on her co-author seems to present a clear conflict of interest. Pjbflynn (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And the Platelet edits concerning the work of OJT McCarty, who a little Googling finds to be her husband. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This does seem to violate the prohibition on Self-Cites. Additionally, as the book has not been released yet, it is un-verifiable as a source. The references to the book should be removed, at the very least until such time as it is released and independently evaluated. If the material cited does add value to the articles in question, then the cites should reference the sources used by the author in the book, and not the book itself. If those sources are OR, well then.... Arakunem 15:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Tim Foecke is a recognized expert on rivet failure, and McCarty wrote a Ph.D. dissertation on the subject. Having an article on Tim Foecke is justified, in my opinion, and the Foecke & McCarty material is worth keeping in some form. I removed a sentence about the number of rivets in the Titanic from the Rivet article, which seemed out of place. The forthcoming 2008 book is probably not allowed due to WP:CRYSTAL, but there are some other reports by one or both authors that may be worth citing instead. I'll try to sort this out eventually if someone else doesn't address it first. What's needed is a bit of rewriting but not much undoing, I think. I'll let others decide if the Platelet edit is OK. I left a {{uw-coi}} warning. EdJohnston (talk) 03:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, but how do you feel about the fact that all edits (excepting one wikify) on the Tim Foecke article were made by her co-author McCarty, indeed that she created it? Pjbflynn (talk) 04:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

COI editing is against the rules, but the best plan is a discussion. You could invite her to participate here, but she hasn't edited since 12 November. This thread may well close without her participation. If you have the patience, you could use Google to check for an email address through one of her institutions. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Errol Louis

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

I have no expertise in this field of Misplaced Pages policy and am not about to start wading in with my clumsy boots on and wielding my mop.

I noticed this () and it seems that User:ErrolLouis who has on more than one occasion removed a photograph from the Errol Louis biog, claims to be, erm, Errol Louis.

See Special:Contributions/ErrolLouis.

I will notify both users in the conflict of this thread. --Dweller (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• It's not really a conflict. Or a big conflict. Louis doesn't like my photo of him, which is fine. He uploaded a photo of himself, but it was a tiny one that is ten years old in black and white. In an effort to prod him into uploading a better, more recent photo I posted a message about it on his talk page and restored my photo he dislikes. He took it down, and I haven't reverted. He sent me a message on my Talk page that I can re-photograph him, but I have too much going on this month that I said it would have to be after the holidays. That's all. --David Shankbone 18:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I put up an edit protected request at Talk:Errol_Louis#new_image. At least that way it can be unprotected for now. Lawrence Cohen 06:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be merely the subject who gets to decide on the picture. There needs to be a Talk page consensus. (I sympathize with the subject's dislike of the new one that was proposed). I gather from Talk:Errol Louis that an effort will be made in January to take a new picture that will be acceptable to all. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ritz Newspaper

• Ritz Newspaper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Franceslynn (talk · contribs)
• Stephen Lavers (talk · contribs)

Could we have extra input on this? User:Franceslynn is being mentored and has understood the COI issues with editing the previously-discussed Frances Lynn, but as she's an ex-staffer of Ritz Newspaper, I think there's a strong COI here too. I'm not comfortable with information being added direct by someone with a COI and cited out to a defunct publication where it's extremely difficult for other editors to check the accuracy of the citation. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Stephen Lavers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now also editing the article (a Stephen Lavers also being on the previous staff). While I hope it's in good faith, I'm not sure ex major staffers of a publication editing its article makes for good dynamics. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Lizzie Dean and zorbing

• Zorbing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - contains NPOV material added by a person with a conflict-of-interest
• Lizzie dean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a Zorb Limited employee (thus the conflict-of-interest)

Yesterday I noticed the Zorbing article contained NPOV material, advertising material, and this content had been added by User:Lizzie dean who appears to be the Franchise Manager of Zorb Limited, the company who started Zorbing. I made some changes which were immediately changed back to the advertising material by Lizzie Dean. It appears other users have had this problem also with Craig Horrocks, CEO of Zorb Limited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amy Talkington (talk • contribs) 17:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Filed on behalf of Amy Talkington on 19:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC) because she is not autoconfirmed yet

DSL Forum

• DSL Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Yue chen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) "I chair the Marketing Committee of the DSL Forum. I'm currently editing the DSL Forum page paint a more complete picture"
    
• dslforum.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I've reverted to the version previous to his additions.--Hu12 (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

World Championship Motorsports

• World Championship Motorsports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The article is about a MotoGP team and was created by Peter Clifford WCM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), The user name suggests he is the co-founder of the team. I believe that this is an obvious conflict of interest and it shows in the articleChris Ssk (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be because a non-trivial portion (as in several paragraphs) of the article is plagiarized from http://www.blatawcm.com/HISTORY.asp , which makes this a possible copyright infringement. MER-C 02:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Asymptote Architecture

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

Accounts

• Asy arch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 72.43.147.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The above account and IP are basically creating advertisements for the above firm...this extends to image pages, as well (see Image:Alessi Flagship Store.jpg for an example.) Videmus Omnia 23:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Self declaration

I have just added a public domain image from one of my websites to Stroller history. I would rather someone checked they were happy with the COI aspect. The image is important because there is a wide claim on the internet (including by a museum in Winsconsin) that the stroller was invented in 1848 whereas the image clearly shows one in use in 1847. I removed this claim from the article. There is therefore also an OR aspect which I would like some form of absolution on. --BozMo talk 09:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd remove the URL from the image caption but otherwise it's OK. I wish I could say the same thing about the article, though. MER-C 13:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, have done thanks. Yep the article is rubbish to the point where I mulled AfDing it. --BozMo talk 14:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible self promotion/ spam account

• Dtemkin4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Amalgam Entertainment, LLC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Amalgam entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Amalgam Digital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I wanted to bring this account to the attention of a sysop. He or she has created Amalgam Entertainment, LLC, and Amalgam entertainment, both of which have been tagged and deleted (the first article twice in fact) as G11 CSD. When the second iteration (Amalgam entertainment) was posted, the edit summary this user gave was (sic) "No promoting any product or service." This in paticular makes me think this might be a conflict of interest/ single purpose advertising account. Thanks, Mr Senseless (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I added Amalgam Digital to the above list after checking the contributions of this editor. It might be a WP:PROD candidate, but it seems to link to other articles in which regular editors do participate. So it's not open and shut. There is some COI editing but not all the results are bad. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Susanbryce&oldid=172957195

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards