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 20:45, 11 August 2009 editLittleolive oil (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers25,081 edits →User:Littleoliveoil and TM-related articles: clarifying which editors without naming← Previous edit Revision as of 20:56, 11 August 2009 edit undoFladrif (talk | contribs)6,136 edits →User:Littleoliveoil and TM-related articlesNext edit →
Line 437: Line 437:


The very editor (not the same editor who is described above in sock case) who is again bringing up a COI issue as he did in February, is the same editor who repeatedly attempted to remove well sourced content despite requests for discussion, active and suggested compromises from editors, and was finally at 3RR last night. It concerns me that when attempts to control the article don't work, attempts are made to undermine the editing capabilities of the editors. I find the attack of another editor extremely distasteful, and is not how I try to work on Misplaced Pages, but feel forced to defend myself once again.(] (]) 20:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)) The very editor (not the same editor who is described above in sock case) who is again bringing up a COI issue as he did in February, is the same editor who repeatedly attempted to remove well sourced content despite requests for discussion, active and suggested compromises from editors, and was finally at 3RR last night. It concerns me that when attempts to control the article don't work, attempts are made to undermine the editing capabilities of the editors. I find the attack of another editor extremely distasteful, and is not how I try to work on Misplaced Pages, but feel forced to defend myself once again.(] (]) 20:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

:Indeed, nothing much has changed. I won't dignify with a response the false claim that no COI edits were found in February. Olive continues to directly edit the TM-related articles though she has been directed by an Admin not to to so. And, her edits include the deletion of reliably-sourced material adverse to her employer's interests without discussion. Here's just one recent example in the ] article. . Here's another at the ] article. ] (]) 20:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


== User: Fladrif--Disruptive Behavior on Transcendental Meditation topic == == User: Fladrif--Disruptive Behavior on Transcendental Meditation topic ==

Revision as of 20:56, 11 August 2009

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:Bashir Al-Hashimi Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:AvePoint Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Edi Birsan Talk:Adam Boehler Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Bunq Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Casualty Actuarial Society Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Michael Dell Talk:Etraveli Group Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire Talk:Group-IB Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Insight Meditation Society Talk:International Motors Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss 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:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Uppsala Monitoring Centre Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    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.

    Requested edits

    • Category:Requested edits.  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 undo the {{Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requestor to explain your decision.

    Clive Fiske Harrison

    Clive Fiske Harrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

    This has been flagged as autobiography. It is not, as is clear, he is my father. However, I am aware there is a conflict of interest, so having sourced the material, I leave it to other editors to change it should they find it lacks neutrality.--Fiskeharrison (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

    That still counts as an ‘autobiography’. I would also question notability here. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    Technically not - an autobiography is a biography written by the subject himself (see auto- on Wiktionary), but it is a COI. – ukexpat (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    What I meant was: This is still covered by the autobiography tag. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    Is it a COI? I doubt he's being paid. Not disagreeing necessarily, just wondering where we should draw the line. Rees11 (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    Getting paid isn't the only Conflict of Interest that can exist. I would love for a WP article to exist about my father, but to create one myself would be CoI. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    Obviously I don't think it is - I have tried to be fair to the sources used, NOT to my own view of the man. However, I felt duty bound to put it up here myself, which is not to say it actually deserves to be here. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    The part of WP:COI that applies here is in the close relationships section where it states, "Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest." Later in that section it states, "The definition of 'too close' in this context is governed by common sense." That's why the COI doesn't automatically apply, for example, for a person editing an article about a religion they follow, or someone who's a fan of a rock star editing that person's page. Someone who is the subject's son would be considered "too close", I would think. -- Atama 19:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

    Having put this up here myself, and had it moved to AfD - which has been closed - I think we can now close this. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

    It would have been better if the article had been written by someone else but as it's survived AfD I think that this is now resolved. Smartse (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

    RESOLVED Hi, as the person who put this here, and with the blessing of all involved in the subsequent AfD, I think this is done now. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

    Norvall Jerome Pickett

    Resolved – Article deleted Smartse (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

    Norvall Jerome Pickett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Extended content

    Having never run into any real COI problems before, I'm not sure if I'm jumping the gun here, but I thought I'd be cautious and see what some other people think.

    The subject of the linked article has a son whose name matches the username of the article's main author. The article has plenty of citations, but none of them are actually to material that substantiates the article's claims. Rather they are typically just links to the homepage of any of the various organizations that the article's author has been associated with, containing no mention of the article's subject himself. I took the links out to prevent linkspamming and to make clear that the information in the article was not yet verified.

    Since then, the original author has restored them with what seems to me like an unfounded rationale. I'm coming here because the author has what appears to be an obvious conflict of interest, but I'm also reticent to address it straight out because of the outing rules, which I suppose could be strictly construed to ban this. I'm just hoping someone with more experience in this area can offer some guidance. Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

    The outing rules don't apply to information that an editor voluntarily provides. When the editor chose to use his real name as his username (assuming it is) he gave that information freely. Inquiring about any possible real-life connection to the article subject based on what they've done or said in Misplaced Pages isn't a violation of their privacy. Now, if you had done some off-wiki sleuthing and came across info, and then brought it here and confronted him, that would be a different story. -- Atama 04:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks. No Inspector Gadgetry here; the username just was a clear match to the name in the article, and I've since discovered that he outs himself on his userpage. The userpage also shows that his edits, which are numerous, are primarily limited to topics with which a COI would be likely. Again, I'm not sure if just stating that possibility on your own userpage is enough to notify people of the conflict, or if the editor should be making those notifications at each article's talk page, or if he should just be staying away from the article altogether. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    There are no set rules. Stating the COI on his own page I would think is sufficient declaration, it's certainly a sign that he's not trying to sneak in anything under the radar. You've addressed your concerns in a civil manner both on the talk page of the article and the editor's talk page, and I think the AfD is also appropriate, you've handled everything properly in my opinion. -- Atama 05:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    Easy enough. Thanks for the guidance. — Bdb484 (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    I might as well weigh in on this. I am an inclusionist and see no problem with including minor notables, persons known in their communities and circles but not to the greater world. Its not like a few KB of memory is expensive. I also can't quite get my head around the conflict-of-interest controversy. Direct promotional articles, or articles defaming persons should, of course, be limited. However I can't see Joe Blogs from Florida being interested in writing an article about California pizzas. Certainly article creators have some interest in the subjects they write about. Otherwise there is no reason a person would write about someone. I personally knew George Swain, a person with numerous articles written about him, so he is notable. But he was what would be considered, to anyone who saw him, to be a desert tramp. Who else in the world would know enough ABOUT him or cared enough, or had the knowledge about writing Misplaced Pages articles, to write an article for inclusion? Who else has the intimate knowledge of the History of a subject to include the necessary details? You won't find those details in newspaper articles. I know it is not Wiki policy but there is a need and a place for Eyewitnesses to History. It is something sorely lacking in Misplaced Pages. When I wrote the article about Norvall Jerome Pickett I tried very hard to use a NPOV. I wasn't hiding my identity behind a made up user name as many do (see above). He had a place in the History of the towns and communities where he served. He was well known, to almost everybody in those locations. Many of the references I included because there is no article about those subjects in Misplaced Pages, articles that NEED to be written as they are institutions that are notable. I think it is time to expand our horizons in Misplaced Pages, or else there needs to be something created that will allow for this to happen. DavidPickett (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)I'm sorry but you want to fundamentally change what Misplaced Pages is. Misplaced Pages not a place for first-hand accounts or personal research. You can't provide information provided by yourself. This just isn't that kind of a web site. Misplaced Pages only contains information that is backed up by sources found in other places. It's how the whole site functions. And by the way, the encyclopedia gets by just fine when Joe Blogs from Florida writes about California pizza, because he'll just include information found in the California Pizza Weekly magazine.
    Now, if I may make a suggestion (and please don't take this the wrong way), but if this is your only interest then Misplaced Pages might not be the place for you. I'm not saying you don't belong, every person who wants to contribute positively is welcome and you've definitely done nothing wrong that would mean you shouldn't edit anymore. But if you find Misplaced Pages's policies too restrictive for what you want to do, there are other places you can go. There is a list of wikis maintained on Misplaced Pages that you can look over to see if perhaps a different wiki would be a better place for the info about your father. WikiIndex is another place to find other wikis that's located on a different site. Or, you can check for other places that aren't wikis at all that you can post the info. But honestly, you're not going to be able to publish original research on Misplaced Pages, that's never going to happen. -- Atama 17:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    You might want to check out new projects on Meta, some might fit what you're thinking of. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    That is very sad for Misplaced Pages in that it becomes only as good as the news articles that are out there, which are usually biased, one sided, or do not give the whole story. To get the "Whole story" you need people who are not influenced by the Editorial slant of the newspaper or magazine which has the "Original" "Research". You need people who lived it. DavidPickett (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    That's a completely legitimate criticism. When you consider that Misplaced Pages is based on "verifiability, not truth", it might lead you to wonder, "Why isn't the truth more important?" Unfortunately I think that while that would be a wonderful goal, it won't be achieved in a collaborative project like Misplaced Pages because different people will have their own idea of what is and isn't the truth. That's why we have to fall back onto news articles, books, and other sources outside of Misplaced Pages itself, because we can be more objective that way. It can lead to a situation where you read an article that has information that you know to be false, that you've seen with your own eyes that it's false, but if some newspaper story cited in the article says otherwise there's nothing you can do (at least no here on Misplaced Pages). -- Atama 18:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks for listening to my concerns anyway. Glad to know someone understands Misplaced Pages's shortcomings. If I were to be quoted or have a column weekly in some local rag I could be "notable", but someone such as Jean-Philippe Susilovic who is never written about but appears weekly on TV is not notable! Thanks anyway! DavidPickett (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    Actually, the article for Jean-Philippe states that the notability isn't established, and obviously it isn't in that article (there's almost nothing in the article). But just a quick search on Google News shows plenty of mentions. That's an example of an article that needs improvement, not deletion, because reliable sources can be found. A bit off-topic but I thought I should respond. :) -- Atama 18:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    Possible COI/self-editing by subject of article

    EdBedden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) would appear to be the subject of the article Marc Leepson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Although the subject passes WP notability test, it appears he is self-editing, and with all the links to personal pages on Facebook etc, the article is bordering on a vanity page. 98.169.235.230 (talk) 04:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    The personal links are gone, I just cut two biographical links in the article that don't add anything of importance. I did leave the link to his personal web site, because that's a standard external link to have. EdBedden hasn't responded to any queries about COI but I'm pretty sure you're correct, the language on their user page matches the biography of Marc Leepson much too closely to be a coincidence. -- Atama 21:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

    Siemens PLM Software

    The talk page comment on this was raised as a concern. Further checking quickly showed the article was apparently the writing of an individual at the company itself .

    None of this means the article is an automatic delete, but given one user has critiqued it very strongly and the COI issue, can the article be reviewed to see if it is overly promotional, non-encyclopedic, or meets WP:CORP?

    FT2  16:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

    It clearly meets WP:CORP but could really do with some more reliable sourcing. The IP has edited other pages with which they have a COI: Special:Contributions/146.122.204.33. Smartse (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

    Internet advertising bureau

    Resolved – Article speedily deleted Smartse (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
    “ I am the editorial manager of the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB) in the UK.. ”
    — User_talk:Stuart2009/Internet_advertising_bureau



    --Hu12 (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

    The article has been deleted and Stuart2009 is both up-front about the COI declaration and expresses a willingness to follow Misplaced Pages's policies, so I don't think there's a problem right now. -- Atama 21:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

    User:OMC TeamObaidullah

    Resolved – Thanks for letting us know Smartse (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

    Role account: "Joint account for use by the attorneys detailed by the Chief Defense Counsel, Office of Military Commissions, in support of U.S. v Obaidullah. -- I blocked as spamusername, but thought I should let folks know. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

    Devendra Banhart

    This editor, who previously worked on the article evidently as an IP editor, claims to work for the management of this individual and is removing sourced information based, evidently, on personal knowledge that the Rolling Stone source is wrong. I have issued a 3RR notice but am backing off now to avoid stepping over any such lines myself. I would appreciate other input. I'll get back to my copyright work. --Moonriddengirl 21:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

    Hi. I am happy to discuss this more. I am merely trying to make this page more accurate. Please remove the conflict banner at the top of this page. I respect the process and realize you are all just looking out for the process and truth. I apologize for any missteps with this process as it is new to me and am happy to discuss this further. Thank you. Lktmgmt (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

    I've offered advice to Lktmgmt in helping understand WP:V policy. -- Atama 16:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

    This IP has been reverting too. I left a 3RR notice. Rees11 (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

    COI + WP:OWN issues on Queensland University

    Various editors have been ignoring my calls for a clean up and have reverted my attempts to tone down the article in order to make it more encyclopaedic rather than being an advertisement. Instead, information of a more "promotional" nature have been added. Need help with some sort of arbitration. Messages, and attempts to discuss the matter have been ignored. It is clear that the editors are either attending or is associated with the university in some way. -Reconsider the static (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

    I'm going to go ahead and do a major clean up on this article starting now and probably lasting for a day or two. I'll remove any promotional content that is uncited too. Thanks. Netalarm 04:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
    Yeah, the main problem with the article is the pervasive use of peacock terms and the overall tone. Thanks for the help! -Reconsider the static (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Would other editors like to help out? Some contributors to this article have little understanding of our policies, which is making this a bit harder. I'm almost done with WP:ABUSE so I'll get to this soon. Netalarm 22:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
    I think it's looking better now, a number of editors have swooped down on the article to trim the nasty parts away and flesh it out with some real sources and neutral language. -- Atama 00:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I would like to bring to everyone's attention the single purpose account
      This account has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser evidence confirms that the account's owner has abusively used multiple accounts.

      (Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets · sockpuppet investigations casepage)

      , who edits this article. Nja 17:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
      I've notified Selwin wu about this thread. They've been having some real problems with copyright violations, and though recently they've responded to them by trying to make some differences between material on the article and material on the university's web page, the differences are very minor. I've raised a concern on the article's talk page about this. -- Atama 18:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
      Selwin is a sock. Notice how he starts editing again once the article is protected. It is pretty obvious that he was in control of the other two IPs. -Reconsider the static (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
      I don't know about that. Looking at the history of the page, you see 116.15.38.240 editing at the same time as Selwin wu, see here and here. I find it implausible for Selwin wu to make dozens of edits over a period of hours, then suddenly switch to an IP to make a few changes for 10 minutes, then switch back to a logged-in account to make a few more edits for another 10 minutes, then switch back to an IP, then back to a logged-in account... Why? It's possible that 116.15.38.240 is a meatpuppet helping Selwin but I doubt very much they're the same person. The other IP, 219.75.84.153 might be Selwin but that was only a few edits done over the course of a couple of hours and might have been Selwin either forgetting to log in or not bothering to do so, I don't see it as a deliberate evasion of any kind. -- Atama 00:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
      Isn't that a sign of sockpuppetry though? The editing style of Selwin and the other IPs meets several of the points stated in WP:SIGNS, ie "single purpose account" and "editing identical articles. Also there is evidence of "chronology of edits" which is not definite proof, but it certainly raises suspicion. Also note how they make very similar edit summaries -Reconsider the static (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
      It still doesn't make logical sense to me. I can only think of 3 scenarios in which a person was editing as a registered user and an IP at almost the same time, switching back and forth. The first scenario is that Selwin is crafty and trying to throw people off but I don't see it, they don't seem very knowledgeable about Misplaced Pages based on the way they've edited, also they were editing in that fashion before any warnings were issues about copyrights, COI, or anything else. The second scenario is that they were using 2 different computers and going back and forth between them, and were logged in on one and not the other. The last scenario is that it's a shared account and one of the two people weren't logged in, but again that's more along the lines of meatpuppetry because again we're talking about more than one person getting involved.
      If you're this sure about it, just bring it up at WP:SPI and submit your case. I think that WP:AGF doesn't really apply because Selwin has never been communicative. In almost a week, they haven't made a single attempt to communicate with another editor, not on any article or user talk page, not even their own. Amid the warnings and questions and reverting and everything else going on they've bulled their way through. So go ahead with it. -- Atama 06:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
      While you're at it, see if User:Munrostreet is another sock. -- Atama 06:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
      The IP numbers are both registered in the same area, suggesting they may be related somehow. I'll go ahead and clean up a bit, but something needs to be done with the problem editors. Selwin (very possibly) has a conflict of interest with the subject of the article. Netalarm 21:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Does anyone think the Research institutes and Centres section should be removed? I've checked the articles on other universities, and they don't have this section. Furthermore, there's no citation for the information and could be considered promotional in this case. Netalarm 21:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
      Aside from the usual WP:NPOV and WP:V concerns we also should be concerned about style. What does the article look like with that text in there? Previously, I moved long lists of alumni and faculty to a previously-created spin-off article that contained that same info just to trim down the length of the article. If the text is unsourced and doesn't look to provide anything of importance to the article and it's ugly then by all means delete it. -- Atama 22:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
      I just took a look and the "Organisational structure" section looks worse. It's nothing but a long list and it's not encyclopedic at all, more like something you'd expect to see in a student guide than something giving important info about the school. -- Atama 23:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
      I think we should keep the "research centres" section, as there is nothing inherently wrong with it. Of a greater concern is the "University-based organisations and companies" section. It may constitute as spam. -Reconsider the static (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
      Lovely, now Selwin is edit-warring with insulting edit summaries. They're ignoring requests for 3rd-party references. -- Atama 04:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
      Yes, we must be naive for not recognising the pure brilliance of UQ, as it is obviously the best university in the world. Selwin has been given plenty of opportunities to cooperate but has refused, perhaps it is time for a block. Where should I report? -Reconsider the static (talk) 05:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
      It's not that easy. I don't think there's a clear blockable offense at this point. If Selwin reverts 2 more times in the same day (24 hours since their first revert here) then they are in violation of WP:3RR. It's appropriate to warn them after the 3rd revert (there have been 2 in the same day so far). At that point you can report to WP:AN3 and they will probably be blocked for 24 hours. The thing is, when that block is in place if they edit with IPs then that's a clear violation of WP:SOCK and a report at WP:SPI would lead to an indefinite block if it came back positive. Using sockpuppets to get around a block is basically a one strike and you're out violation. If they don't use IPs or alternate accounts and wait out the block, and edit-war some more then a longer block would result, and the cycle continues. If they keep it up it could lead to a block that lasts months, or indefinitely.
      There's also the possibility that they'll stop with this kind of behavior and actually come to the talk page for a compromise. But that seems unlikely. We'll see. Until then I'm not going to revert that page anymore. I've reverted twice in the same day which is already more of an edit-war that I prefer to engage in. -- Atama 06:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
      I'm going to go ahead and remove the University-based organisations and companies and Organisational structure sections because they do not add anything to the article, and make the article look quite messy (also unsourced). Besides, other schools do not have long lists of there colleges listed directly inside the main article. Netalarmtalk 03:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
      In regards to the block, I think that there is enough disruption (OWN, copyvio etc) to warrant one. According to 3RR "Administrators can and will still take action on disruptive editors for edit warring even if it does not violate 3RR". -Reconsider the static (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
      In my experience, while admins can take action if you report someone at WP:AN3 and they haven't technically reverted more than 3 times in a 24 hour period they'll close the report without a second thought. Not long ago I was involved at the iPhone article where an editor was going against the opinion of 8 other editors and inserting a controversies section to the article over and over. That editor was the clearest example of WP:TE I have ever seen. When they had reached 3 reverts I reported to the board, including all of the crazy, drawn-out drama they had started, their inability to listen to anyone else, and the fact that they had been edit-warring for days on the article though not technically going past 3RR. The result was that they blocked a different editor who had been reverting vandalism from IPs in the article, an administrator who was the most productive person working on that article. So frankly, I don't trust the judgement of that noticeboard anymore, if I don't have anything but a clear-cut 3RR I'm not going to bother. Honestly that noticeboard can probably be replaced by a bot. -- Atama 17:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

      User:Selwin wu

      This single purpose account is entitled to their own sub-section. I've blocked them today for 24-hours for continuous copyright violations, and I went through and deleted a few more of their uploads marked as their own work that I found clearly on UQ's website with matching resolutions, etc. Check my deletion log for details on the images I'm speaking of if you're curious.

      As for the implausibility of socking because of edits that are roughly within the same period of time, rest assured legit seasoned socks can and have edited at exactly the same time via two computers so as to later use that as evidence that they didn't sock when it comes around to SPI. So whilst we should AGF, definately give determined socks the credit they deserve. As for this case, if it's only one IP it is possible it's Selwin wu and they simply forgot to log in. It's an issue when they use the IP to get around the 3RR, to vote stack, or evade blocks. If that's the case take it over to WP:SPI or show me the evidence and I'll do the honors if it's obvious enough without the need for checkuser. Also please do not hesitate to let me know if they resume copyvio's after the block. Cheers, Nja 14:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

      I've come around and I'm convinced that they are using socks. What is interesting is that you see Selwin wu editing almost constantly for about 4 days, then the moment that the COI tag appears on the article they stop. The IPs continue to edit the page after that point. Then the article is semi-protected, and Selwin wu begins to edit again. It gives the appearance of using IPs in an attempt to hide the COI then using the registered account to edit through semi-protection. -- Atama 16:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
      Almost sounds like a case for WP:SPI. Filed. Nja 19:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
      That's what I've been trying to tell you! Well at least he is blocked now. Plus the new protection thing should help stabilise the article.-Reconsider the static (talk) 07:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

      Lewin Group and Coverups

      206.65.37.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is an IP who traces back to a domain called "Lewin-VHI" over the last few days they have been making edits that relate directly the the current Lewin Group controversy, if you don't know what that is basically the GOP is citing the Lewin group as an independent health care policy analysis outfit when the Lewin group is owned by UHC one of the countries biggest health insurance companies.

      That is all background and outside the scope of wikipedia, what we need to do is make sure the Lewin Group doesn't whitewash their wikipedia page or related wikipedia pages, see the edits , the damning edit , and another cover up . We can't stand for that sort of conflict of interest whitewashing here on wikipedia, can we get some blocks and page protections then whatever other actions need to be taken? TharsHammar and 02:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

      Ick, definitely not good. If this is persistent you might be better off at WP:ANI, it looks more serious than the usual COI stuff. -- Atama 04:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
      Yea, not good but fortunately pretty easy to notice. They haven't edited in almost two weeks however so hopefully this should be the end of it. I've left them a note on their talk page (surprised no-one had already) alerting them to this and giving a link to WP:COI. Smartse (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

      Ebiglione and HACER

      Ebiglione (talk · contribs) has started placing inappropriate external links to hacer.org in a lot of articles. This user also created and did much of the editing to Hispanic American Center for Economic Research. I requested that the user not spam up the EL sections. I tagged issues at the HACER article as well. NJGW (talk) 07:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

      User did not reply and has ignored my request to not spam articles. I expect they will start using IPs if pushed too much. NJGW (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
      - NJGW (talk) 07:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
      I don't really see a COI issue, unless I missed some clue that they are directly connected to HACER itself. You can spam something without being connected to the organization you are promoting. On the other hand that editor's contributions to this encyclopedia are almost exclusively spam, so I'd suggest using some aggressive templates and if they are ignored report them to WP:AIV to be blocked. If you suspect that they are trying to use IPs to disguise their actions (or to get around a block later) go ahead and start a report at WP:SPI. -- Atama 17:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

      User:Charity:_water editing article Charity:_water

      Full disclosure: I tagged the article Charity:_water with {{nofootnotes|date=July 2009}} in July and as an article for deletion yesterday.

      User:Charity:_water has made but two contributions yesterday to Misplaced Pages, both on Charity:_water. The user was swiftly tagged with {{uw-coi}} by User:98.248.32.178. No edits have One edit was made before the COI tag was placed on user's talkpage, one has been made since. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

      I don't think the article has a snowball's chance of being deleted (and yes I voted to keep it). That being said, it does need improvement. The most perplexing thing for me, though, is that the COI editor is actually removing POV material from the article. They're actually making good edits from what I can tell. The WP:COI guidelines don't specifically prevent an editor from contributing to any article, they only suggest the most appropriate way for an editor with a COI to contribute to an article. An editor who is editing in a disruptive manner who also has a COI would expect to have their actions judged more harshly than an editor who doesn't have a COI. But in this case the editor actually seems to be doing good, and if they continue in that manner there shouldn't be a problem. -- Atama 17:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
      I forgot to add, the editor was reported to WP:UAA because the username is definitely not appropriate. -- Atama 17:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
      That was me, and it wasn't meant to reflect on the edits in question. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

      User:PMMP NPS adding links to National Park Service sites

      I've left them a note on their talk page. The sheer number of links, the clear lack of discretion in adding them (see the edits to Cowboy and Abolotionism for example) and the apparent conflict of interest add up to behavior that should at least be moderated. I avoided a boilerplate, I didn't want to give them any indication that they were "in trouble", because as you said the links appear to be in good faith. -- Atama 19:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
      Question Having come across this issue, as one of the articles edited by PMMP NPS is on my watchlist. I noted it was reverted to my last edit, to remove the NPS link, by Orangemike, who has also blocked the editor indefinitely for spamming. Having then checked the contributions by PMMP NPS I note that some, but not all, of the articles he placed links on have also been reverted by Orangemike to remove the NPS links. If the inserted links are considered to be spam, sufficently enough to have the editor blocked, then should'nt they equally be removed from the remaining articles he edited under the same criteria? Richard Harvey (talk) 10:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
      Comment I would ask Orangemike directly. Personally, I thought the warnings were sufficient, esp as PMMP NPS had not edited since they were left. However, Orangemike does have a point with the username problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

      YourTravelBiz.com CoI

      YourTravelBiz.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

      I had written on the YTB talk page about some edits that need to be done. I also stated that I have an affiliation with the company and requested someone look at the edits, as well as the undue weight being given to articles about the California Attorney General's lawsuit. Essentially, it seems to be a nice article filled with facts, but the facts are incorrect in many cases (as stated in the talk page) and the links that back the information are purposefully picked to link back to completely negative articles about YTB. The lawsuit is settled, yet those news stories are completely about the lawsuit. Further, there is a statement about YTB being investigated in RI... All agencies were investigated there. Also, this article is written by someone interviewing a person who is blaintly anti-YTB. I have listed these changes on the talk page, yet nothing seems to get done. One lawsuit is settled, another thrown out of court, yet the first paragraph is half about lawsuits... and they have their own section!

      Please take a look at this as I have done everything I can at this point. I had someone log the following on my talk page: "I think you may have a point about undue weight. I need to review the sources and get back into editing the article. I don't want anyone getting scammed by this company, but I appreciate that people depend on it for their livelihoods. I look forward to working with you to produce an even-handed article" But that was July 19th and I have messaged back since then.

      Thank you for your time and consideration. Please refer to the YTB talk page for more details on the information. Zulualpha (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

      I have taken some time to perform a reorganization and add additional information to make it conform better to other corporations. I agree that there appears to be WP:COI involved. I believe the edits made today will help clear up the issue, and have addressed some of your concerns. Also, feel free to use the WP:BOLD process. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

      Miranda Grell

      Miranda Grell is a former Labour party politician and councillor for the London Borough of Waltham Forest, and the first person to be found guilty of making false statements under the Representation of the People Act 1983. As such, this is a controversial article, and we've had edits that one might consider to be pushing a particular point of view by editors one might consider to have a COI before (User:Fys, another London Labour Party councillor, in 2007; and User:Justiceforleytonward, named after a group campaigning in support of Grell, in 2007/8). We now have a SPA editor in User:Grellfamily, again who one might consider to be pushing a particular point of view and with a user name that implies a COI. There hasn't been any big edit conflict so far, but I tweaked Grellfamily's edit of 2 Aug, got reverted by Grellfamily yesterday, and have just reverted back. I would appreciate any input/help here. Bondegezou (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

      For one thing, two of those accounts should have been reported to WP:UAA. I've done so. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
      User:Grellfamily has said on their talk page that they are the subject of the article. I've left a message and will point them to this discussion as well. Smartse (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

      Potential COI

      Yes, this is the wrong place to report this, but it's no problem. A conflict of interest arises when an editor makes edits to an article when they have a strong connection to the subject, and could personally benefit in some way from those edits. An editor who hasn't even made any edits yet wouldn't fall under that criteria. You might want to try reporting to WP:UAA which is where username policy violations are reported. -- Atama 23:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

      Christos Kedras

      This article appears to have been written by the individual concerned (User:Kedras), and is written very much like a vanity page. My instinctive reaction would be to go to AfD, but, since the article asserts some notability, I'd like to know if it is salvageable. Regards, Constantine ✍ 11:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

      See:- Conflict of Interest - Autobiography. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
      Yes, I've read the guideline, but it is addressed to the editors with COI (and they rarely bother to check it), and thus not very helpful for other editors in deciding what to do with these articles, i.e., copyedit to the bare essentials, or go to AfD? Constantine ✍ 16:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
      As per the Conflict of Interest - Autobiography guidline advice of:- "In these cases, the article is normally moved into the user namespace rather than deleted". So do that, using that link as the reason in the edit summary. Then redirect the article page to the editors user page. Place a message on the users talk page as to why the article was moved to his user page and advise him to read the Autobiography guidlines, specifically Autobiography, Creating an article about yourself. Richard Harvey (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
      To save work I have done this already. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
      OK, thanks! Constantine ✍ 10:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
      I've tagged the original page with G6 CSD, since it's a cross namespace redirect. Netalarmtalk 21:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
      I encountered this page while new page patrolling and thought it smelled kind of funky. I was actually on my way to AFD it, since an hour spent trying to establish notability turned up nothing. Nosleep 23:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

      Israel Project

      There have been three sets of edits so far by different IP addresses claiming to be the "web director of The Israel Project".. All are deletions which include properly cited sources. The thrust of the edits is to remove criticism of The Israel Project. Sources removed include Newsweek, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, and J Street. It seems that The Israel Project had an embarrassing leak, Newsweek picked it up, it appeared elsewhere in the press, the info was cited in Misplaced Pages, and The Israel Project doesn't like it. --John Nagle (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
      I added a level 3 warning (blanking) to the latest IP to blank content. I've also added a more strongly worded note to the user, stating that the content will stay on Misplaced Pages, but if they find a reason to prove that it is inaccurate, we'll remove it accordingly. A person that claims (or is) affliated with the project attempting to hide negative aspects of their organization... I think we should keep an eye on this. Netalarmtalk 03:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
      94.188.130.146 and 84.228.211.216 are both from Amsterdam, and I'm sure are the same person. -- Atama 03:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
      Actually, those IP addresses aren't from Amsterdam. They're both from Israel. The IP address space was acquired from RIPE in Amsterdam, but a traceroute shows that 94.188.130.146 routes through "ce-int-V-side.qos.net.il" and 84.228.211.216 routes to "IGLD-84-228-211-216.inter.net.il". --John Nagle (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
      94.188.130.146 traces to Tel Aviv and 84.228.211.216 traces to Nazareth in Israel. No attempts to hide any content have been made since the report, but I think we'll continue to watch this page just to make sure. The user seems to have understood the messages we gave. Netalarmtalk 21:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
      See also 66.208.24.163 (talk · contribs), especially this section blanking. There's also a new named editor, Freebloggers (talk · contribs), who seems to edit only Israel Project. No user page, no talk page, no edit comments, no citations, somewhat POV edits. --John Nagle (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
      I have given Freebloggers (talk · contribs) three warnings now (and by the time I get back it may be time for UW-4) for uncited / improperly cited / removed cite edits. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
      Sure enough, final warning given for making factual changes and self-cites. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

      Is "Rightweb" considered a reliable source? -- Avi (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

      The article is a wreck; some sources did not link to the sites they claimed with which to link, citations do not support text, some of the sources my not meet our standards, ouch. I am going off line for a while now, but this article needs serious work. -- Avi (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
      The substantive issues are being discussed on talk. Avraham (talk · contribs) is making useful contributions. The substantive issues revolve around the criticism section in the lede. The blanking issues revolve around other material which leaked to Newsweek. The Israel Project would like to make it disappear, a futile exercise since it's all over the mainstream press now. --John Nagle (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
      Fixed one of links that didn't link to the source to which it claimed to link. That was due to an edit by Freebloggers (talk · contribs) which changed a link from a story in The Forward to The Israel Project's home page: . Are there any other bad links? --John Nagle (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

      Article Khokhar which has WP:OWN and WP:COI by Khokhar

      Hi I have tried to make Good Faith additions to this article from verifiable sources. See here:

      The sources I have used are:

      He deleted them.

      There also seems to be some WP:CANVASS Going on against Indian Administrators and Editors as in Here:

      He has WP:GAME the system here:

      before I could repost him

      Also there maybe an issue of WP:NPOV because the article is titled Khokhar and the user is a Khokhar, hence again, WP:OWN.

      Thanks --Sikh-History 15:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


      This is part of a wider problem involving User:information-Line making vandal edits to all articles related to Sikhs, this was taken on ANI and is part of a wider Misplaced Pages:Canvassing with user:Sikh-history, evidence can be found in this extract from ANI:

      Moving here from Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Geopolitical_ethnic_and_religious_conflicts, the above user has continued to make disruptive edits of the exact same nature even after the above comments.. and user was blocked for 48 hours for the same disruptive and 'vandal' edits in another article but now another user Sikh-history, who is very active on User:Information-Line personal talk pages and was requested to intervene by said user here and had already made 'threats' on the other user's talk pages (mentioned in previous link) here before starting to make disruptive edits on an article I have been maintaining, about the clan called Khokhar, clearly to aid User:Information-Line and be a nuisance.


      And the only racist/extreme views were made by User:Information-Line, who was Misplaced Pages:Canvassing with User: Sikh-history, on my talk page here and are cleary Islamophibic and hostile towards the muslim population.


      The reason for the initial issues were due to User:Information-Line vandalsising all articles that related to Sikhs, such as inflating Sikh numbers in the punjab article from 15% of the population to 45% and he also tried the same in the Chandigarh article but was reported and got a 48 Hour block.. I was actively reverteing his vandalism.. then he approached User:Sikh-history, as you can see we have a 'Sikh' link here and the two users are very active on each others talk page(evidence is avilable above).


      Here's a full version of the initial ANI report concerning the above two users:


      The above user has constantly made disruptive POV edits to the punjabi people article, made numerous reverts despite edits being explained, taken part in constant edit warring with other editors, and clearly has a bias and wants to push a pov which said user knows to violate the NPOV rules and make blatantly false edits, such as here and here , which user has repeatedly reverted here , here , and here , the only obvious reason being that he belongs to the minority Sikh Punjabi community and user feels the need to inflate numbers, user has been warned on numerous occasions here , here and here but has instead decided to be confrontational here and here


      Khokhar (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

      There is obviously a dispute but I can't see what the COI issue is, I don't think this noticeboard is the best place to discuss this personally. Perhaps you should try dispute resolution? Smartse (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
      Agreed, not clearly COI, try WP:DR Tiggerjay (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

      Two Issues That Make it WP:COI

      Note from the warnings I have issued, I have warned User:Information-Line on several occaision about making disruptive edits. The issue is not User:Information-Line and Khokhar. Check User:Information-Line page history, so there clearly is no WP:CANV going on. I am concerned about the WP:COI on article Khokhar by a person named Khokhar. The user seems to WP:OWN, the article and does not allow any other good faith edits on the page. By assuming that I am colluding with another user Khokhar has not assumed good faith. In my mind there are two issues:
      1. Should a user with a surname Khokhar be assuming to be an authority on an article Khokhar. Is this promoting self interest? WP:COI is "COI editing involves contributing to Misplaced Pages in order to promote your own interests". Indeliberately leaving out Arains and Churahs, the editor is promoting self interest, and does not wish to see Khokhar be associated with so called "lower castes". For another example, that occured similar to this, see article Khaira where User:Information-Line (who has surname Khaira and was known as this user), did exactly the same thing and therefore there was WP:COI. In both instances they seem not to want anything negative (or what they percieve) portrayed about these clans (despite sources being there)
      2. As a result of this WP:COI from the same surnames there is WP:OWN of the article.

      Hope that has clarified what I wrote.--Sikh-History 10:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

      Then I guess user:Sikh-history should not do any work on artices that Include the word Sikh.. or even history for that matter... also the only warnings user:Information-Line got were the type that come with animated stars including one for anti-vandalism...Khokhar (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

      I was the one who suggested that Sikh-History bring the incident to the attention of the COI noticeboard, based on what was posted here, but I admit I didn't look into it very deeply. I thought that a COI was being claimed because of the statement, "Also there maybe an issue of WP:NPOV because the article is titled Khokhar and the user is a Khokhar, hence again, WP:OWN." That is why I made the recommendation.
      It's clear looking at the additional information presented that this isn't the case. K.Kokhar took the words right out of my mouth, that if they have a COI at the Khokar article because they are a Khokar, then Sikh-History would have a similar COI at any Sikh-related article (and I know that Sikh-History does edit such pages, understandably). A person's religion, beliefs, or ethnic background should not preclude them from editing an article. Perhaps if K.Khokar were a member of a particular pro-Khokar organization and was trying to promote that organization that would be one thing, but this subject is too broad for COI to apply.
      So, I apologize for my mistake, I should have looked into this further before making the suggestion to Sikh-History. The WP:NPOV noticeboard might be a better place for this info. I realize that this is the second time I've asked Sikh-History to repost the info elsewhere, so take my advice with a grain of salt. Perhaps another editor who hasn't already screwed up has a better idea where you can turn. -- Atama 00:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

      Barbara Biggs editing her entry (again)

      I'm not sure if this is the correct place to raise the issue of an editor making dubious edits to an article about themselves, and self-promoting in what seems an exagerating manner? If that constitutes a conflict of interests I would ask someone to intervene in the Barbara Biggs article. If this is not the correct place, would someone with more knowledge please pass this to someone who can look into it?

      Biggs has removed an Original Research tag which was placed in the article at the place where Biggs herself makes a claim, without a citation, about parents being "ordered to send their children to contact visits with abusive exes by the Family Court". There is absolutely no verification for this claim about the Family Court and I suggest it is original research by Biggs (like several other comments she has placed in her entry). I note that Biggs has placed a link at the end of this same section leading to a government document which says ZILCH to confirm Biggs claim that "parents ordered to send their children to contact visits with abusive exes by the Family Court". Therefore I suggest the Original Research tag be replaced or better still, the entire OR sentence deleted or reworded to make clear it is her own unscientific belief.

      I note also that Biggs herself writes "Regarding abuse victims, Biggs writes and speaks about the much-misunderstood phenomenon of emotional attachment to the abuser". Is this Biggs, the novelist, claiming to speak on behalf of herself, or is she speaking (as appears) in the guise of a psychology academic on behalf of victims plural? Might I remind that biggs is not an academic, her credentials coming down purely to her own personal experiences.

      Finally, the openly anti-father group 'Anonymums' with whom Biggs is affiliated has placed the following menacing threat in the talk section on behalf of Barbara Biggs:

      "Response from Anonymums
      What a load of rubbish!... Expect that you will no longer are able to continue your propaganda and whilst Barbara and other advocates have been incredibly polite and considerate of your needs and thoughts - We are not! Lies and propaganda will NOT be tolerated. You have been warned. Expect us"

      Biggs has been asked previously to not edit her own article Don't edit your own article. Perhaps she needs reminding again? 123.211.186.53 (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

      If that truly is Biggs then clearly it's a COI. I looked at the article and it's a mess. There is some clear POV in the advocacy section and lots of peacock words and other things that need to be cleared out. -- Atama 21:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

      User:Rd232

      I've been accused, at Talk:New Chronology (Rohl) by an admin (User:Dbachmann) of having a WP:COI (diff). This finally explains his repeated re-adding of a {{COI}} tag to the article, when the obvious COI target (David Rohl / User:David Rohl) had agreed not to make any controversial edits. So, erm, I'd like some help/advice with my COI problem which is apparently so terrible - "an obviously fraudulent attempt to present this theory as having credibility", no less! (Talk:New Chronology (Rohl)#Merge) - that it merits a COI tag. Thanks! Rd232 18:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

      On the other hand, I think it merits a COI tag as Rohl is editing it, whether or not his edits are considered controversial. It's confusing as he edits for some things and for other things requests someone else to do it. How much editing can an author or subject do to warrant a coi tag? Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
      If he starts doing a lot of edits that get reverted, I'd say. Rd232 19:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
      The COI tag literally states that there is content that was added by an editor with a COI, and may need to be checked for neutrality. So, if there is content in the article that the COI editor added, check it out and clean it up if needed, then remove the tag and put a note on the talk page that you cleaned up the article. If the editor with a COI is editing the article and nobody has an issue with the edits then the COI tag is redundant. -- Atama 20:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
      Thank you for clarifying. Generally such tags should be associated with a clear talk page description of the problem, so that there's a chance to try and solve it. There hasn't been one here. Rd232 08:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

      so rd232 came here to inquire what it is the "COI" tag is saying or what? We have had several editors clearly in support of this theory editing the article, removing criticism and edit-warring over content warning tags. They are trying to present this "theory" as a bona fide academic suggestion, purely based on the primary publications of the proponent (Rohl). It has transpired that there is literally zero debate on this in scholarly literature, such few experts as commented on it dismissing it out of hand. rd232 & friends still insist on presenting this stuff as if it was academic, never mind that they have nothing to back it up because, hey, it was on Channel 4. When told that this is in violation of policy, they begin waving their hands and make excused along the line of WP:DEADLINE and WP:NOTPERFECT. As if Misplaced Pages being eternally unfinished was some sort of excuse for blatantly ignoring policy and when challenged revert-war over article tags. If the "interst" of rd232 is anything beyond touting this fringe theory beyond anything permissible within WP:DUE he certainly is hiding his agenda masterfully.

      Now seeing we're already forum shopping over this, could as many editors as possible please go over to the article and see to it that policy is upheld and the topic is critically assessed within WP:NOTE and WP:DUE and above all solidly based on third party WP:RS, cutting all the WP:SYNTH chaff that has grown around the actual topic to make it appear more legit. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 21:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

      WP:SYNTH applies to Misplaced Pages editors. Reporting research by external sources, whether that research is widely accepted or not, cannot be WP:SYNTH. OK, there's a complication when the external source is also active on WP, but everyone's aware of the issue and seemed to be dealing with it quite well. Then dab charged in like a bull in a china shop and destroyed an incipient productive collaborative atmosphere which was (as a reading of the talk page will attest) well aware of the policy issues involved. And by the by, treating an admin of 4 years starting with little prior involvement with the topic as an WP:SPA is rude at best. Rd232 08:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
      I see Dab has removed the merge and notability tags. But this edit by David Rohl, with the edit summary ") (Reinstated proper academic source and removed creationist literature who's author has no specialism in the subject and no sources for the statement made in that literature.)" is the sort of edit that I think warrants a COI tag. The wording makes it clear the Rohl is disputing something, and he should have used the talk page for that, not edited the article - isn't that correct? I'm still not convinced he doesn't see BLP as a sort of 'Get out of jail free' card. Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
      "The wording makes it clear the Rohl is disputing something, and he should have used the talk page for that, not edited the article - isn't that correct?" According to WP:COI he should, but it doesn't say that he must do it, because it is only a guideline. There is no policy that prevents him from editing the article as long as his edits are positive. If he edits to add POV, delete cited sources, add uncited controversial material, or against a greater consensus then the usual Misplaced Pages policies apply.
      Looking at User talk:David Rohl, it's clear that Rohl has had a history of problematic editing. He's been blocked more than once. I see that Rohl is participating on Talk:New Chronology (Rohl), so if you have problems with his edits discuss them there. If he becomes tedentious and refuses to compromise or edits against consensus I would recommend bringing this to WP:ANI. The community might consider a topic ban for editing article space in articles related to him. He has been warned already that it would be a possibility and that so far he hasn't been restricted in such a way yet. -- Atama 17:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

      User: Abmuse and Ali Bongo Ondimba

      We'll just keep that content off Misplaced Pages until the user can provide reliable sources that prove otherwise. If he does get married to her, there should be enough sources to prove it. Netalarmtalk 21:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
      I'll continue to watch that page too. Netalarmtalk 21:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

      Curtin Business School

      Talk:Curtin Business School - Requested article but acknowledging COI CbsExternalRelations (talk) 08:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

      Replied on user's talk page, stating that Curtin Business School must be notable by itself. Netalarmtalk 14:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
      I did a Google on the subject, but could not find any sources indicating its independent notability. Also, the requesting user has been indefinitely blocked due to a username violation. I'd say this is just another case of an organization attempting to promote themselves on Misplaced Pages (but using COI for some reason). Netalarmtalk 14:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

      User 76.76. etc and Transcendental Meditation Article

      IP editor Special:Contributions/76.76.232.130;Special:Contributions/76.76.232.41;Special:Contributions/76.76.232.83;Special:Contributions/76.76.233.169 (edit contents suggest a single editor, not multiple editors) whose IP address resolves to Fairfield, Iowa, home of Maharishi University of Management, and world headquarters of TM Org's "Global Country of World Peace" appears in last week, dozens of edits without discussion pushing pro TM POV, edits suggest detailed knowledge of arcane pro-TM research. Probable TM Org employee. Also probable Sockpuppet/Meatpuppet, evidenced by talk page "friendly warning" an another editor's talk page about 3RR - not something a novice editor would be likely to know or do.Fladrif (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

      I'll let the IP further respond and more specifically with diffs as it sees fit, but as a general background on this issue, Fladrif is involved in an edit discussion and war on the Transcendental Meditation article in which he removed 71/2 paragraphs of well sourced material and that he summarized in two sentences despite the request of other editors to look at a compromised version,(discussion here) and efforts of the IP to reduce the content size. The IP's edits would seem to be accurate reading of the research, and to suggest that the research is arcane is absurd and unfounded and suggests an agenda since TM research consists of about 330-350 peer reviewed studies, and includes NIH grants. I advised Fladrif he was at 3RR as a courtesy as he attempted to force the deletion despite requests for further discussion. I am at 2RR on this issue don't like to edit war so will stop there, but the issue is larger than an edit war.(olive (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC))
      I welcome anyone to look at my edits. Note, for example, the edit where I removed a statement in the article that said two subjects in a study on TM attempted suicide shortly after learning TM. I checked the study and it said no such thing. Why do people who oppose TM put these kinds of things in the article? This is not an isolated instance. 76.76.232.130 (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
      Edits like these?
      1. Deleting reliably sourced paragraph on adverse effects of TM in article from peer-reviewed journal.
      2. Adding 71/2 paragraphs to article on pro-TM research on "TM vs Rest", none of it available online (at least not for free), with no pior discussion.
      3. Removing another reliably sourced paragraph on adverse effects of TM from a peer-reviewed journal.
      The level of familarity which this editor has with research that is indeed arcane, suggests strongly that the editor has to be an employee or MUM or the TM Org in Fairfield, likely either involved in the TM research directly or in the PR department of the TM Org something that the editor does not deny. Fladrif (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
      Do you have proof? Absent an admission or some kind of "gotcha" there's not really any way to show a COI. Having a pro-TM POV doesn't mean there's a COI. Being from the same town as a TM center doesn't mean there's a COI. Seeming to have knowledge of TM doesn't mean a COI. And, honestly, even if the IP admitted to be from that center, there's still no clear COI unless they are editing to promote that center specifically. A COI applies when a person might directly benefit from their edits, either financially or through promotion. If the IP is involved with a TM organization and wants to slant the TM article in a positive way, that's still just an NPOV issue. You're just bringing a lot of suspicions with no way to back them up. -- Atama 17:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
      COI is an indicator of likely problems, but it is not an automatic problem of its own. In this case it'd be better to address the behavior than the presumed COI. An overall problem with the TM articles is that there appear to be a number of users who have similar views and who may be overriding NPOV. But that problem can't be directly traced to any individual editor, as it's a factor of the dynamics of the group. There's never been an adequate solution to tag team editing, thought if it gets bad enough there is an option of widespread banning, as was done in the Scientology case. That would require an RfAR.   Will Beback  talk  18:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

      I'ld like to address Fladrif's diffs. # 1 and 3 clearly violate WP:MEDRS. They are case studies, which fall below the threshold for inclusion. And Fladrif is faulting me for inserting peer-reviewed research into the article? He's the one who used popular media as sources in violation of WP:MEDRS to support the claim that TM is no different from rest. So I put in peer reviewed research that presents the other point of view. And he has done everything he can to try to suppress that from inclusion, first deleting it outright a couple times and then condensing it by deleting all the detail that didn't support his point of view. 76.76.232.130 (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

      This IP geolocates to the HQ of TM in the US. Could you clarify what your relationship is to the movement? Are you employed by any of the entities whose trademarks are owned by MVEDC?   Will Beback  talk  19:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

      Since Will has addressed behavioral concerns, I will add that yes, there have been serious concerns that have disrupted the work on the TM article. with discussion here , and also ,.(olive (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

      Will, are you requiring me to reveal personal information? 76.76.232.130 (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
      If you have a conflict of interest then it is your responsibility to disclose it. If you don't feel comfortable doing so then you should probably avoid editng the TM-related articles.   Will Beback  talk  19:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
      Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Misplaced Pages. WP:COI
      So, I take it that the answer to Will's question is "Yes", which in fact discloses no personal information. Fladrif (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
      Well, it also states on WP:COI that the conflict of interest guidelines take a back seat to harrassment policies. So the answer is actually "no", but the IP is definitely encouraged to disclose their affiliation. You don't even have to say "I work for so-and-so", just to say "yes I'm affiliated with them" will be a disclosure of the COI that doesn't reveal much personal info at all. Also note that an IP address registration is publicly available and does not apply to WP:OUTING, so information revealed in this thread so far has not been a violation. An editor who doesn't want to reveal that kind of information should register before editing, in reality an "anonymous IP" is less anonymous than most registered editors. -- Atama 20:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
      I believe that we're in agreement here. The answer to 76.76's question is "No, you're not required to disclose personal information." But, I infer from 76.76's evasive "answer a question with a question" that the answer to Will's question is "Yes, I'm employed by one of the TM Org entities."Fladrif (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

      User:Littleoliveoil and TM-related articles

      User:Littleolive_oil

      Editor warned by Admin following lengthy discussion on COIN to abide by COI rules re all TM-related articles, continually ignores the warning, insists that unless editing restriction is place on by arbitration, she is not bound by WP:COI. and threatens Admin if he enforces using Admin tools. Fladrif (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

      I notice that WillBeBack, an administrator, lead the COI discussions referenced above, on the notice board and on Little Olive Oil's user page. Since WillBeBack has been an active editor on the Transcendental Meditation page during all of this time, that would seem to also be a COI. Maybe a new administrator, could evaluate the situation and give a fresh perspective. Just a suggestion.--Kbob (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
      Little Olive Oil is correct, actually. I see that you've warned them that they are not following "COI rules", when in reality there aren't any. WP:COI is a guideline meant to suggest ways for an editor with a COI to contribute to Misplaced Pages without disruption. They aren't preventative in any way. An editor is only expressly forbidden from editing a page where a COI applies if a topic ban has been placed on them. Such bans do come from ArbCom, but I believe that the community can decide a topic ban (just as they can declare a more general ban against an editor). I've seen such proposals on the WP:ANI board. I recommend that you try WP:RFC/U if you truly believe that Little Olive Oil needs such a sanction. Just keep in mind the Plaxico Effect; if you want to escalate the dispute that far you might bring scrutiny on yourself as well. If you're not confident enough for that, I suggest keeping the discussion either at the TM talk page, or going through the usual dispute resolution channels for article content. -- Atama 17:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
      No. This is the right place for this dispute. Specific sanctions including topic and other blocks are frequently implemented through this Project Page. Look at any one of the archives for this project. Fladrif (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
      I suppose a community-sanctioned ban could happen anywhere, I just don't think this board gets enough attention for that. I haven't seen anything like that before. If you know of one I'd be interested to see. It's not that I don't believe you, I just don't want to go through all the archives searching and it sounds like you have an idea of where to look.
      I see that from the old discussion you linked, the only decision that Will Beback made was that Little Olive Oil wasn't bound by WP:COI not to edit. I don't see anything saying they weren't allowed to edit TM articles. -- Atama 18:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
      That is incorrect. Will told olive that she was not to edit the TM-related articles directly, and to instead confine herself to the Talk pages.
      1. Getting back to the policies and guidelines, the relevant WP:COI guidelines calls on editors with conflicts that affect their impartiaility to avoid editing directly. Back in 2007, user TimidGuy was given clear direction on this page to stop editing directly. It isn't clear to me why he chose to ignore that direction, and why Littleolive oil, who is apparently similarly situated, also choses to ignore the guideline. I'd like to hear why they think it is necessary for them to keep editing the relate articles directly rather than making suggestions from the talk page as called for. Unless there is a strong reason to ignore the guideline, I think it should be respected. Will Beback talk 09:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
      2. WP:COI calls upon editors to behave in a certain way. There is evidence that you have not followed that guideline. If there is no evidence to the contrary, I will move that both editors with COIs be asked to comply with the guideline, in this case by not editing TM-related articles. Will Beback talk 04:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
      3. The WP:COI noticeboard is the place to discuss this. The guideline calls on conflicted editors to not edit in their areas of conflict so it's incumbent on you to show why you've done so anyway. Will Beback talk 05:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
      4. I'm disappointed to see that, after our discussion on WP:COI, that you are making edits which promoted a particular POV regarding TM. I urge you to seek consensus on the talk page and avoid making edits directly to the article except in cases of vandalism. As I explained on the article talk page, this is not a clear-cut case. Promoting one view by deleting another isn't consistent with Misplaced Pages's policies on NPOV. Will Beback talk 22:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Fladrif (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
      Since Will is participating in this discussion I'll leave it up to him to say what he meant, and to give any further judgement on the matter. But what you said above is false. Nowhere in any of the information that you quoted did Will state that Olive was not allowed to edit those articles any longer. Will said that he was going to suggest that they refrain from doing so, but that's it. In any case, Will cannot topic-ban Olive. It's not in his authority to. See WP:BAN, he can certainly block her for misbehavior but only Arbcom or a community consensus can declare a ban. You seem to be working under the false assumption that Will somehow unilaterally banned her already. -- Atama 19:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
      Will most definitely had the power to impose a Topic Ban on olive without Arbitration, per Misplaced Pages:BAN#Administrator_topic_bansFladrif (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
      What you linked says that an administrator can enforce sanctions listed at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions, and that's it. Do you see Transcendental Meditation in that list? -- Atama 20:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
      I've made few edits to Transcendental Meditation, most fairly trivial, and my involvement in that topic is largely an outgrowth of getting involved in the previous discussion here. Since the user has redacted information from her talk page about the nature of her involvement with the topic, it would be difficult to do a fresh evaluation of the matter without compromising the editor's wishes. I think the discussion held in February is still relevant, and I don't believe any of the facts have changed.   Will Beback  talk  17:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

      Will is right. Things haven't changed much. This same editor started a COI in February. There were no COI edits found in February, and I continue to edit as a neutral editor now as I did then. In addition since there are concerns with behaviour, I'll mention editing on this article had become increasingly difficult as an editor employed sock puppets to control the discussion, and low level but relatively constant incivilities were ongoing.

      The very editor (not the same editor who is described above in sock case) who is again bringing up a COI issue as he did in February, is the same editor who repeatedly attempted to remove well sourced content despite requests for discussion, active and suggested compromises from editors, and was finally at 3RR last night. It concerns me that when attempts to control the article don't work, attempts are made to undermine the editing capabilities of the editors. I find the attack of another editor extremely distasteful, and is not how I try to work on Misplaced Pages, but feel forced to defend myself once again.(olive (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

      Indeed, nothing much has changed. I won't dignify with a response the false claim that no COI edits were found in February. Olive continues to directly edit the TM-related articles though she has been directed by an Admin not to to so. And, her edits include the deletion of reliably-sourced material adverse to her employer's interests without discussion. Here's just one recent example in the Transcendental Meditation article. . Here's another at the TM-Sidhi article. Fladrif (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

      User: Fladrif--Disruptive Behavior on Transcendental Meditation topic

      This post attempts to document a pattern of disruptive behavior consisting of personal attacks, removal of sourced content, edit warring, misrepresentation of sources and disrespect for editorial process.

      Warning and Block History

      • 1/19/09 Blocked, Outing, ]
      • 2/18/09 Warning, NPA, Dreadstar, ]
      • 3/9/09 Final Warning, NPA, JGHowes, ]
      • 8/8/09 Warning, NPA, Rlevse, ]

      Edit Warring

      • He deleted 6 times over 3 days a large section of text with 10 citations (all peer-reviewed research sources), despite strong opposition from multiple editors and offers and attempts to compromise.See Talk Page: Removal of “Effects of the TM technique compared to Relaxation”. ]

      Diffs for deletions and reverts mentioned above:] ]]]]]

      Lack of Respect for Other Editors

      • “Oh wait, I forgot Luke. And now BWB. I suppose that uncreated and LFE will weigh in soon to express their horror. I kinda think that all of you put together really only adds up to one vote as far as I;m concerned” ]
      • “I don't know anything about any of the editors other than what they say about themselves in their profiles and posts, buy as everybody knows, every single person who posts on the internet is a pimply 13-year old boy, so what's to distinguish one editor from another.”]

      Violation of NPOV

      • Fladrif has condensed a large section called “Effects of the TM technique compared to Relaxation” into 2 sentences describing the one adverse study and providing no text for the 9 beneficial studies. He does this as a justification for his deletion and edit warring. However his condensed version is grossly inadequate and skewed towards his POV as described above. See Talk Page: Removal of “Effects of the TM technique compared to Relaxation. ]

      Misrepresentation of Sources and Violation of NPOV

      • Fladrif writes: “and TM is regarded as being outside the mainstream of health system and mental health practice.” ] Cotton, Dorothy H.G., Stress Management: An Integrated Approach to Therapy Psychology Press, 1990
      • Fladrif does not cite a page number but I found the following text on page 138 of the book he cites: “Interestingly, in spite of TM’s status outside the mainstream of the health system and mental health practice, it has been subject to a significant amount of empirical evaluation, much of which has in fact supported its claims of effectiveness in countering the physiological effects of stress.” So one sees that Fladrif has taken a small part of a sentence, out of context, to create a negative POV.

      2nd Example: Misrepresentation of Sources and Violation of WP:MEDRS

      • The following copy was added to the article by Fladrif on 8/4/09 ]
      • “Some researchers of TM effects subsequently retracted the conclusions of their earlier studies on meditation effects, acknowledging methodological weaknesses and bias, and other researchers concluded that the literature on meditation and physiology was rife with methodological weaknesses, and that those studies with proper controls showed that TM had no different effect than other self-regulation strategies, such as rest.”

      Two sources were given and neither source in any way supported the above text. These sources are: 1. Time, Mind Over Drugs, 10/25/1971 ] 2. Eugene Register, Meditators, 1/8/1977 ]

      Kbob deleted the sentence(s) ] citing WP:MEDRS “Popular Press” section

      Fladrif reverted Kbob’s deletion ]

      Kbob made talk page entries citing MEDRS and poor sources, and asked for comments from other editors. See Talk: Removal of Text from Research: Effect on the Physiology for full discussion] ]

      Kbob gave specific reasons why this particular sentence had invalid sources.]

      • See Talk: The First Sentence for full discussion]

      Fladrif refused to remove the invalid citations. See Talk: The First Sentence for full discussion ]

      The sentence remains, today, in the article (see below). The first three citations do not verify any of the content of the sentence. The fourth citation is inconclusive and the only mention of Benson is: “Herbet Bensons’ opinion its that TM is, ‘a hypometabolic state (…) that may well be induced by other techniques (…) and various religious prayers. TM therefore, is one method for eliciting the relaxation response’.” pp 11-12

      Fladrif has turned this one quote of Benson’s into the following POV sentence:

      • “Benson acknowledged methodological weaknesses and bias in the study he co-authored with Wallace, and other researchers concluded that the literature on meditation and physiology done in the 1970s had methodological weaknesses, and that early studies using control groups showed that TM had no different effect than other self-regulation strategies, such as rest.
      • ]

      "Mind over drugs" Time (October 25, 1971)

      • ]

      Wagstaff, Beverly, "Meditators", Eugene Register-Guard (January 8, 1977) p B1

      • ] "The TM craze: 40 minutes to bliss", Time (October 13, 1975)
      • ] Phelan, Michael, "Transcendental Meditation. A Revitalization of the American Civil Religion / La Méditation Transcendantale, une revivification de la religion civile américaine" Archives des Sciences Sociales des Religions Vol 48-1 (1979)pp 5-20

      Summary: Fladrif has engaged in a continued pattern of disruptive behavior. Through personal attacks and edit wars he has created a battleground environment which is counter productive to the article. In addition he has misrepresented sources and created content to support his POV. This has damaged the credibility of the article and obstructed the ability of other editors to make corrections, add content and move the article forward in a neutral and balanced way.--Kbob (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

      This is definitely not the board for this kind of thing. This board is for discussing conflicts of interest, not improper conduct unrelated to a COI. Maybe WP:ANI would be better, or WP:RFC/U. -- Atama 19:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
      And, this involves WP:COI how, exactly? Fladrif (talk)
    Categories: