Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:10, 26 January 2010

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.

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.

Vandalisation of Demonology and Demonologist

few months ago he/she already had waenings, now and again

Revision history of Demonology:

(cur) (prev) 04:05, 9 January 2010 Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) (21,632 bytes) (Getting rid of redirecting link.) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 03:07, 9 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) (21,706 bytes) (now it is not a redidirect!) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 16:31, 8 January 2010 Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) (21,632 bytes) (Removing a link that redirects here.) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 08:55, 8 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) m (21,706 bytes) (orpho) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 08:53, 8 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) (21,705 bytes) (agree) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 04:46, 7 January 2010 Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) (21,632 bytes) (This article isn't about the demonologist class in some games.) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 03:35, 7 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) (21,663 bytes) (Undid revision 336140734 by Gordon Ecker (talk)) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 04:28, 6 January 2010 Gordon Ecker (talk | contribs) m (21,632 bytes) (removing from the character classes category) (undo)

the sitation is following:
1. the Demonologist is a character class in D&D
2. Ian.thomson removes any info abot that fact from Demonology and Demonologist articles
which is a kind of vandalizm (Idot (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC))

There being a demonologist class in a number of games does not justify that the article about demonology in our world be messed with (as you have done in the past), nor justify that they have a separate article (which you have repeatedly tried to create with original research and some outright misinformation). Also, it is a lie and nothing more to say that I got any warnings from your actions in the demonologist and demonology articles. Adhering to notability guidelines and trying to ensure the quality of articles is a conflict of interest. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Idot. Please read WP:VAN for what constitutes vandalism in Misplaced Pages, and WP:COI for what constitutes a conflict of interest. Ian.thompson's edits don't come close in either case. This is a dispute over whether or not the "demonologist" character class is relevant to the demonology article, and should be discussed on the talk page of the article. Bringing the issue to this board was not productive. -- Atama頭 18:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

User:CubeSpawn

• User-multi error: "CubeSpawn" is not a valid project or language code (help).

This editors edits appear promotional to me, along with this edit which I reverted as spammy, but was then reverted by another editor who didn't agree. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 04:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Spammy, yes, actual spam, I wouldn't go that far. Is there a COI with an editor named CubeSpawn creating an article called CubeSpawn? Possibly. The username itself is problematic, as it might be a violation of WP:ORGNAME. Since raw linking of external web sites is discouraged, I've converted the link to a reference. I'd like to know what relation the editor has to the project, and it would be a good thing if they were to choose a different username (one that represents them as an individual, not the project).

My other concern is that I see zero notability for the project itself. I know that the editor who reverted you had expressed that he likes the CubeSpawn concept, but that doesn't mean we ignore WP:N. For now, I don't oppose mentioning it in the open source article (that's why I went through the trouble of cleaning up the link) but I don't see any potential for a stand-alone article. -- Atama頭 19:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this notable yet? Probably not (Incidentally, I'm the editor who initially reverted ArcAngel). Looks like a case of a highly interesting project, but it's still too early for WP coverage, according to WP:RS. However, my concern isn't with deleting the article (which, let's remember, didn't even exist yet outside userspace!) but with deleting the user through a heavy-handed WP:BITEY welcome. MFD isn't for flogging well-meaning newbies who don't yet underside groupname policies, it's for wiping out real problems. What does it feel like for a new editor to start out in a fairly discrete manner with a clearly GF creation, then have the whole weight of the wikicops descend upon them? Congratulations mission accomplished. We've driven that editor away 8-(. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that my interpretation and implementation of various policies and procedures doesn't match up with other editors. My approach may appear to be heavy-handed (it's not meant that way), but I am simply trying to keep the advertising/spamming to a minimum as best as I can. I guess what I see as spam or promotion isn't always the case in other points of view. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 03:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Dawood Group

• Dawood Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kashifpisces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kashi786 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This seems to be a classic case of Misplaced Pages's Law of Unintended Consequences. Last May, Kashifpisces created Dawood Group about a Pakistani group of companies; he is an SPA editing only Dawood-related articles. Other users have since added sourced material unfavourable to the company, and Kashifpisces has been edit-warring to try to remove it; he was finally blocked for 31 hours, when Kashi786 appeared and carried on, finally requesting deletion WP:CSD#G7, which I declined; he is on a 24-hour block. It is likely that one or both, or others, will be back; a report to WP:SPI may be necessary. JohnCD (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

A sock puppet investigation case has been submitted already. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Kashifpisces. -- Whpq (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It may be worth semi-protecting the page if the user attempts to circumvent the block again. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

117.20.28.66 (talk · contribs) removed sourced information; if it happens again, I will semi-protect. JohnCD (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It happened again. . -- Whpq (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

117.20.28.66 belongs to DawoodGroup according to whois, apparently a COI. Rees11 (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a month. JohnCD (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the semiprotection, but have some concerns about reference 5, which currently links to scribd.com, a host for self-publication. The scribd page claims to be a reprint of an article that appeared in a more mainstream source in 1972, but somebody might want to read it carefully to see if it is legit. This reference 5 is the only source for the following sentence in the article: In the 1970s the group was accused of poor labour practices and using violence and torture to repress organized workers. If these people are really sleazy, wouldn't something have appeared in the press more recently than 35 years ago? EdJohnston (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion should maybe move to the talk page, but I think that sentence should come out. Rees11 (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that reference is perfectly fine since it was typewritten (we don't discount printed sources), though the sentence could use a re-write. It may just have been a localized incident not picked up by any of the major news agencies of the time. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 00:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

We're accusing people of torture based on what could be a self-published manuscript? It reads like an editorial. What exactly is the Pakistan Forum, even if that truly is the source? I urge that the sentence be moved to the Talk page until someone has the time to find better sources. EdJohnston (talk) 04:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality of company article

• Hill & Knowlton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(moved from the WP:POV notiveboard --Enric Naval (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC))

As I have mentioned on its talk page, much of the article on the company that I represent (and therefore have a conflict of interest regarding), Hill & Knowlton, is POV and requires references and citations from reliable sources. So far, none of the article's editors have responded to my call for the article to be checked for its neutrality and references improved/unreliably sourced material removed.

I can therefore only assume that the editors of this article are trying to make my organisation look bad by not presenting either a neutral or well-balanced point of view, supported by reliable sources.

As my COI restricts me from directly editing the article, I am therefore reaching out to this community of editors in the hope that someone with an independent position will review the article for POV and edit it accordingly.

Niall Cook (Hill & Knowlton) 13:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.114.169 (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Please take this matter to the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. That board is reviewed by people who usually deal with this type of problem. Please register an account in your own name so you have a permanent User talk page. This allows others to have an ongoing conversation with you. Temporary IPs are not good for that. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was following the guidance here which suggest that the WP:POV noticeboard is the place to go. Thanks for moving it. As far as I know, I am using my real name and have a permanent user talk page. However, I first posted this whilst not logged it and subsequently updated it. Thanks to everyone who has edited the article. I note that "Notable Clients" only contain controversial ones. How do we go about getting some of the non-controversial notable clients included? Or does notability actually mean controversial? Niall Cook (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If you provide me some notable clients along with what makes that engagement notable and sources on the talk page I'll work it in. Hipocrite (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, been away and just seen your reply. Will do exactly that. Niall Cook (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at it. Hipocrite (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible COI Noahchestnut (talk · contribs)/ Nchestnut (talk · contribs)

Hello, I'm a new editor & would like some advice on something I have noticed. Whilst reading an article Walid Phares I saw that some months ago Noahchestnut (talk · contribs) removed some sourced info that I guess he thinks is bad, Phares writing for Jerusalem Post, FrontPage, representing the Maronite community. Also on Clifford May , he removed sourced info about him being a past vice chair of the Republican Jewish coalition, and other sourced relating to being neo-con & similar. This editor has also workerd on Mark Dubowitz, and has also probably edited as Nchestnut (talk · contribs).

All these articles are associated with Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and googling finds an interesting linkdin profile . I've re-added some of this info ( not all) with some more sources for the Phares.. after all why should someone hide info about being a Republican Jew or writing for JPost / FrontPage??

Is it okay for this user to be editing these articles in this way, being new(ish) I'm not sure of the protocol here...it took me a while to find this noticeboard. Thanks for any advice. Rootless Juice (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a pretty blatant COI. We do have an anti-outing rule as part of our harrassment policy, but that excludes revealing a person's identity based on information voluntarily provided to Misplaced Pages, and since he has identified himself through his chosen usernames I don't think there's any problem with your report. A "Communications and Technology Manager" sounds like someone paid to improve the image of the Foundation on the web, and he shouldn't be making any controversial edits to articles related to it. Now, as he hasn't edited since December, he may no longer be editing any of those pages but if he continues to do so we may want to consider sanctions. I've left him a notice on his most recently-active account about this report (my guess is that the older account was abandoned, perhaps he forgot his password). -- Atama頭 21:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the advice, following your lead I added a template on the older account, although he might not see it now if he's using the newer account. Hopefully he will refrain from removing these sourced and (to me) uncontroversial details, and discuss why he thinks it should be deleted. Cheers --Rootless Juice (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Linear programming editor has acknowledged repeatedly adding own thesis

An about conflict-of-interest concerns, etc., following the editor's repeated inclusion of a thesis and an unpublished manuscript by Jalaluddin Abdullah. Today, the cautioned .

Dr. Abdullah has an IP address similar to those of all the other (anonomyous) editor(s) adding this material, all of whom seem to come from (like him) from Malaysia.

The suggested that I consider bring our concerns about possible conflict of interest to the attention of this bulletin board. (I had asked for help previously on the bulletin-boards for reliable sources and notability. )

(Caveat: I seem to be the only editor of the Linear Programming article who has recently commented on this problem.)

Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked Hjjalal for 48 hours, since the promotion of his own thesis work was quite blatant, and people had vainly been attempting to explain our policies to him for some time. He and his IP socks were quite busy restoring mention of his work to the article, after being reverted by regular editors. Any support for the inclusion of his work by regular editors at Talk:Linear programming talk page would of course change things, but so far he is the only one who believes his work merits notice in the article. (This is an introductory article, after all). My own impression of User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz, though I don't know him, and Kiefer.Wolfowitz does not seem to be his real name, is that he appears to be an expert in the field. Editor EdJohnston (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(I would be happy to discuss my qualifications privately, if asked by any senior editor. My first extensive editing was on the article for the optimal design of statistical experiments, field in which the Kiefer-Wolfowitz Theorem is central --- also, I thought that Jacob Wolfowitz's name needed good press after his son's behavior in the Bush Administration! ;) Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC))

I did some editing on Linear Programming and George B. Dantzig this weekend, to give some evidence in support of EdJohnston's generous words. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There have been (at least) 3 other cases of similar editing, presenting a conflict of interest:

• occured at the Convex optimization article, but it was successfully removed without so much fuss.
• also occured at the Nonlinear programming article.
• also occured at the article on Karush–Kuhn–Tucker conditions. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: Another anonymous IP editor (also from Malaysia, apparently) to the article on convex optimization today. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor EdJohnston semi-protected Convex optimization. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor EdJohnston semi-protected Nonlinear programming and Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions. Jalludin Abdullah's manuscript was again added at Nonlinear programming and Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions by an anonymous IP editor (another Malaysian sock).

Wiki Page used to advertise theater company

There is a user called Smatprt being an acronym for Stephen Moorer AT Pacific Repertory Theatre. He is the founder of the Pacific Repertory Theatre. On 22 July 2006, he created an article about himself and such was the concern that it was put up for deletion on 20 July 2009 but the decision then was "keep". At that time the article was 34,000 bytes. However, it has now grown to 46,000 bytes and recently he has uploaded a photo of himself . It now seems clear, if it wasn't then, that this article is intended for self-promotion. TermiteGo (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:OUTING. If the editor has not disclosed the information about themselves on Misplaced Pages, we generally put our fingers in our ears and shout "I can't hear you" no matter how compelling the evidence to the contrary. Note also that WP:COI does not prevent editors from writing about themselves, it merely suggests that it is not a good idea. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. I see past discussion of the Stephen Moorer article has been acrimonious. All I'll say is that it looks promotional to me, and excessive in length for an actor with a small regional company. Surely an article that only quotes positive reviews of an actor is in breach of WP:NPOV? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is the article, and the editor proposed for discussion by TermiteGo:

• Stephen Moorer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Smatprt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article on Stephen Moorer survived an AfD at WP:Articles for deletion/Stephen Moorer, and I don't believe there is much doubt about the subject's role in writing the article. The new photo seems OK to me. I hope that TermiteGo or Gordon will specify some changes they would like to see in the article. Termite's stats on article size don't seem correct. The article on Moorer is currently at 17,000 bytes and has changed very little since July, 2009. There may be an occasional turn of phrase that is promotional and possibly every single production doesn't need to be listed in the article. But generally, I agree with the verdict of the July, 2009 AfD that the article should be kept. User:Smatprt has some blocks on his record, though none since July, 2009. I hope he will be careful in the future. Local theatrical productions are often covered in the press and I believe this is a claim to notability, in the cases where coverage can be found. AfD participants pointed out that the subject easily meets the requirements of WP:GNG. Papers cited include the SF Chronicle and the San Jose Mercury News. EdJohnston (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

All I would like to ad is that TermiteGo is the most recent sockpuppet of banned user:BarryisPuzzled ] who has a personal agenda at play here, which he even announced here ]. After being banned over a year ago], he reappeared with 3 (now at least 6 - see his threat here ]) more puppets which I uncovered and had banned. He is living up to his threat and this appears to be payback. Unfortunately, the original AFD was also filed by an editor who I had edit conflicts with (as evidenced in the AFD discussion). Such is the lot of being a strong editor who does not endorse bullying and is not afraid to call a spade a spade. I will also add that the growth of the article was directly because of the AFD and was contributed to by numerous uninvolved editors.Smatprt (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm blocking the two accounts per WP:DUCK. One is a pretty much self-declared sock (compare StanIsWell to WellStanley) and the other one creates a COIN discussion as its 3rd edit, after creating a user page and talk page. The declaration that they will continue socking over and over again from different Internet cafes is no worry to me; it's a lot easier to block an editor than to find a new cafe. -- Atama頭 21:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As to the original complaint (which shouldn't be tossed out despite the intentions of the original reporter), the COI is pretty obvious and seems to be acknowledged, I'll echo EdJohnston in saying that Smatprt needs to be cautious. I don't see any evidence of current problems right now, but if someone can show diffs of recent problematic behavior (ownership, removing negative info, etc.) then we might have to do something. -- Atama頭 22:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the caution. Let me assure you that I have, indeed, been extremely careful in editing this article (which as noted above by DeliciousCarbuncle is, indeed, allowable) and I would hope that you have noticed that I have not been the main contributor. In fact, I have added approx. 6,000 bytes and that was limited to only the bare verifiable facts - no praise, no reviews, etc - strictly the bare facts, dates, play titles, and any references that were requested. The remainder (over 11,000 bytes) was added by other uninvolved and unaffiliated editors. This material included all the review quotes, by the way. And I have never deleted ANY of the prose and will not (excepting Sockpuppet edits, of course).Smatprt (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I am disturbed, however, at the comment that it is "easier to block an editor than to find a new cafe". This awful Sockmaster does not even need to find a new cafe - he can sit in the same cafe every day and simply make up puppet after puppet after puppet (he created 3 more in the last two days). Surely Misplaced Pages can do better than allow this kind of blatant violation to continue. Smatprt (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Account creation has been blocked from his IP (which is standard practice when blocking a sockpuppet). If he tries to create a new sock at the same cafe he'll be prevented from doing so. That doesn't prevent him from ever making a new sockpuppet anywhere, but it makes it inconvenient. Unfortunately, Misplaced Pages doesn't have the technology to prevent people from making sockpuppets over and over again, so the best tactic is revert, block, ignore and eventually they'll give up. -- Atama頭 18:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Todtanis and Ceebraid-Signal Corporation

• Todtanis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Highgrove Luxury Condominiums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (now Highgrove, Stamford) at AfD here
• Omphoy Ocean Resort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Brazilian Court (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User is an SPA posting articles about properties developed by the Ceebraid-Signal Corporation. JohnCD (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a blatant COI, see here where it shows that Tod Tanis is the "Sales Coordinator at Highgrove Sales and Design Center". I must say, Linked In comes in very handy with COI issues, as long as the editor is kind enough to give us their real name (otherwise we're violating outing policy). The articles themselves seem to merit inclusion, as this AfD shows, but I'm not comfortable with Tod editing them. I'm also uncomfortable with Tod's removal of the COI templates from his talk page, without responding to them. He's perfectly within his rights to do so, as removal of such notices implies that he has read and acknowledged them, but I can't help but feel that he isn't being totally transparent. Not only this, but he continues to add promotional information, such as this series of edits which is completely promotional. I've left him a warning about that, generally even with a strong COI I'll look the other way but when a person is making inappropriate edits as a result of the COI, then it's relevant to treat such edits as disruption. -- Atama頭 19:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, Tod has contacted me on my talk page to ask my help on getting the information added to the Highgrove article in a neutral fashion, so this may not be a problem after all. Any editor who wants to cooperate with others on articles should be welcome in Misplaced Pages. -- Atama頭 21:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Adigiorgio

• Adigiorgio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I cant even get this link to work. Looks like a nice, intelligent person trying to set the record straight by writing about his family's history, which may well be very notable for all I know. Some experienced administrator should probably offer to help him.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, Smokefoot, I think you've done a pretty good job already of letting this person know our COI guidelines and they've accepted them, and this editor also seems very well-meaning and honest, so I think everything is good. But it was good to bring this up here anyway, in case there does become a problem in the future people will be aware of this. Thanks. -- Atama頭 16:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Billy Drummond

Billy Drummond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Repeated COI/POV edits from a new user (User:Tessa Souter) on this page, no response to talk page warnings/inquiries. Tessa Souter is a musician who has played with Drummond - she has added herself to the discography, as you can see. Chubbles (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

User has replied on talk page; looks like the issue has passed. Chubbles (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User:TonyTheTiger compensated editing

• SitNGo Wizard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:TonyTheTiger recently created the article SitNGo Wizard, which User:DegenFarang nom'd for deletion. In the AFD discussion, User:TonyTheTiger wrote:

Disclosure I have written the article in exchange for a free registration (which would cost me $99 after the 30-day trial ends).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be against WP:Conflict of interest#Financial, which says editors shouldn't edit WP if you "derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Misplaced Pages." I tried to clean the article up, but was reverted by the editor in question. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Even though I nominated that article for deletion and got involved with an edit war with TonyTheTiger over it today - I would like to say that he volunteered that information (without even being accused of it) and appears to be a good editor with a long history. 95% of editors would never have said that and I don't think he should be punished for being honest. A warning at most is in order in my view. DegenFarang (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Imo, it's also reasonable to disregard his !vote at the AFD, and to scrutinize any other articles he's created. He said he wrote the article and then approached the company for compensation in exchange—has he done that for other articles as well? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
    • He put a great deal of effort into PokerTracker and it is a similarly extremely detailed article (very atypical of even the most famous poker brands) - it wouldn't surprise me if he received compensation or approached them about it - that said, it is without question a notable product, though I'm quite sure it would never have gotten so much attention without him. This is not an accusation, just an answer to your question. DegenFarang (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• I think this editor should be severely reprimanded. Having dozens of stars, banners and bangles does not permit an editor to approach a commercial company and make a financial arrangement with them to expertly spam Misplaced Pages (and then brazenly tell everyone about it like it's no big deal). Hazir (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I recommend the severest censure possible under current Misplaced Pages policy be imposed on this user, up to and including permanent account deletion if that option is available. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Here is the problem. Misplaced Pages currently has no policy involving paid editing. Look at WP:Paid editing, it's a disambiguation page for two proposals; one a guideline, the other a policy. There has been a long-running debate about the subject, and some people say that paid editing should be forbidden because it turns Misplaced Pages into an advertising vehicle, and the others say that whatever improves the encyclopedia should be allowed whether or not the editor is doing so for profit. As it stands right now, editing Misplaced Pages on behalf of a person who is paying you is not a blockable offense. If you happen to cause problems while making those edits, such as BLP violations, or creating spam, as just a couple of examples, of course that editor can be blocked for those reasons. The debate above between DoriSmith and DegenFarang echoes exactly what is being debated elsewhere. For now, the COI should be acknowledged, but absent any actual evidence of disruption there's not much anyone can do. And maybe that's okay, if the editor is making positive improvements despite the COI. -- Atama頭 16:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

John H Abeles

• Drjabeles (talk · contribs)

Article was deleted as a copyvio of http://www.plaxo.com/profile/show/17179963604?src=myProfile&pk=46eb322c33780caf3999aa8250ec50fda5f16402 but restored following verification of permission through OTRS. The contributor was cautioned before OTRS permission was logged that the content would be subject to community review and provided various links, including Misplaced Pages:Autobiography and especially WP:YOURSELF. He chose to verify permission anyway. Since I handled the OTRS ticket, I think there's a kind of conflict with my taking part in the community review, but I believe it pretty clearly needs some cleanup. I'm dropping it off here in case somebody else can handle it. I'll get back to the copyright stuff. :) --Moonriddengirl 16:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I did some copy edit, and it looks like other than a copy paste of a non wiki-stylized content, he has done no additional editing. Probably not a lot needs to be done along COI at the moment unless we see more editing from this user. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Hello1237

Hello1237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - See the currently open case Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Usgpo. I ask that this user who is still active be barred from editing any article with relation to the GPO Sole Soul (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

well you cannot block a specific user from editing a specific page. You can only totally block a user or protect a page. Blocking the users will likely come out from the sockpuppet investigation. And only a total page protect will block these auto-confirmed users, but will not likely be done since it has been spanning time, and a user block is more appropriate. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note I've closed the SPI (reasoning). Should you believe there's a current COI, please elaborate on it here for consideration. Thanks, NJA (t/c) 12:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

User:209.208.191.8 New York Film Academy COI

• 209.208.191.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - 55 edits on New York Film Academy. 12 edits on NYFA owner Jerry Sherlock. IP WHOIS results show internal.nyfa.com.

Other notable (sock puppet?) Users: User:212.123.163.146 with 28 edits on NYFA (no other wiki edits), User:Kalinpmoon with 26 edits, User:Obilon 26 edits about which User:Colfer2 at one time "reverted a bunch of adspeak by Obilon and a not-notable NYT article about the school's TV commercials". Also User:Kalinmoon and User:Nyfa w/ 3 edits apiece. Many of these Users also edited Jerry Sherlock, w/ User:Oblion being that page's creator. Badcamera (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This sounds more like a sock report than a COI concern. If that's true, place your sock investigation at WP:SPI please. Thanks, NJA (t/c) 11:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This is COI for all of the usernames involved. Was unsure if I was supposed to start a new section for each name. I found the main source to be User:209.208.191.8 with an IP registered to internal.nyfa.com and 55 revisions to New York Film Academy. The other names listed may more accurately be meat puppets, and employed by User:209.208.191.8. Thanks. -- Badcamera (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Citizens United

I just happened upon a user named User:Citizensunited (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) editing the article about the organization Citizens United apparently to promote some products. So, let's keep an eye out for line-crossing policy violations. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a clear user name violation to me, reporting to WP:UAA. – ukexpat (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Kids Help Phone

Kids Help Phone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 207.164.226.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) are making potential COI edits to the previously existing article Kids Help Phone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Some of these have been reverted. Tckma (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The article itself is promotional in tone, the edits by Kids Help Phone have been mostly helpful (no pun intended). I'm going to try talking with the editor about changing their username rather than doing even a softblock for the name. The article also needs references, but they do exist so I don't think it should be deleted. -- Atama頭 22:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I was able to find some third party references, but very view. I did some minor copy edit to wikify, and added two references. I also re-sequenced and removed a peacock word or two. I think Atama is doing well by talking to the editor and the article itself isn't bad for being COI. Tiggerjay (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Mike Rother

Possible conflict of interest by Mike734 (talk · contribs) creating the page Mike Rother and adding related references and publications on various pages -- 85.180.41.195 (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've welcomed him with info about the COI guideline, and informed him of this discussion. -- Atama頭 23:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Tree shaping - User:Blackash

User:Blackash is the co-creator of the "Pooktre" techniques given prominence in the Tree shaping article. He is shown in a photo added to the article in which text has been superimposed. Despite repeated attempt by various editors to get User:Blackash to respect Misplaced Pages COI policies, this user continues to use this article to promote himself personally and professionally. This user makes few edits to other articles, and most of these are related to efforts at self-promo, his preference for the term "tree shaping" versus "arborculture", etc. Finally and most damagingly, User:Blackash is extremely resistant to other editors' efforts to improve this article and seems to be making every effort to control and micromanage it's content. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this is where I should reply, if not please tell me where. Blackash is co-creator of pooktre. In this verision of the page (before 208.59.93.238 started editing) I had added the other practitioners (except for Arborscuplture and Pooktre, I didn't add these) I have actively found references for other artists, I also got permission to put up Dr Chris Cattle image. The placing of the first photo was not done by me. When editing other articles that are related to Tree shaping I will add Tree shaping text, links and images, so as to display Tree shaping in context to the related article. This type of editing I would not class of self-promotion. I endeavoured to always discuss any changes I make or that I object to. I don't prefer Tree shaping verses Arborculture. Any neutral name would do. Tree shaping was changed from Arborsculpture becuse there is a method linked the word. Arborsculpture and Pooktre both have methods linked to their names and it would be inappropriate to use these as they are not neutral, generic, or descriptive. Richard Reames and now this editor keep trying to imply that we were responsible for the naming of this article. There was a consensus of quite a few different editors. Move from Arborscusculpture to Tree Shaping Blackash (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

(They) have failed to explain why they are exempt from the WP:COI guidelines which have guided the creation of 14 million articles on Misplaced Pages. Editor after editor have asked them to read this policy and to please comply out of respect for everyone involved with Misplaced Pages. Is there anyway to make these people understand that they should not be editing this article at all and that they certainly do not have the right to micromanage it and to control the nuance of every phrase within? --96.233.40.199 (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

St. Louis Globe-Democrat Article Conflict of Interest

St. Louis Globe-Democrat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editing war has broken out on this page. A new startup company has begun using an expired trademark from the defunct St. Louis daily newspaer the Globe Democrate. This company uses the old trade name for a news web site that has no affiliation with the old newspaper.

The staff and ownership of this start up web site has been editing the wikipedia page on the Globe Democrat to state falsely that it is affiliated with the old Globe, to list the new website's entire "staff", to link to the new website and otherwise advertise its new web site. Reporting on this new web site should not be made by any staff or ownership of this website as it violates Misplaced Pages's conflict of interest rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danocooper (talk • contribs) 04:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

On 23 January, User:CIreland placed a edit-protection on the page due to edit waring. Please use the talk page to resolve this issues from here. If there still appears to be a conflict of interest, please specifically state which users or IP's you believe to have a COI with this article. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I edit-protected it and will try to mediate this, I just haven't had time as yet. Will get to it in the next day or so. -- Flyguy649 05:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark Geier article being edited by multiple socks of Mark Geier

The talk page of this article:

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

lists just some of the accounts Mark Geier has used to edit his own article:

• 69.138.245.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• 69.138.225.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• Justice2day (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Seidel,K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

One of them was blocked for very abusive socking (impersonating one of his major critics). His use of these multiple accounts is a violation of the very basic principle of editing under one account. (Yes, there are specific exceptions allowed, but none of these are allowed exceptions. He's spreading his edit history and that's "avoiding the scrutiny of other editors".

This issue has been reported at BLP/N once before, but apparently nothing happened.

The edits are frequently deleted as very controversial, peacocky and self-promotional. It's a biography, not a resume, and there's a big difference. The worst infraction is removals of criticisms mentioning his dubious practices and "intellectually dishonest" testimony, etc.. What can be done about this? There are serious COI and sock issues involved. He (IOW all his accounts and IPs) should be topic banned from the subject. If allowed at all, he should be forced to edit under one account using his own name and be limited to the talk page. The abuse needs to stop. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The edit history of User:Justice2day speaks volumes. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! Geier has no respect for Misplaced Pages policies, and has instead used it to promote himself, his dubious and dangerous ideas about autism and the vaccination controversy, and to whitewash his biography of properly sourced criticisms, thus violating our most sacred policy, NPOV. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that the removal of Dr. Geier as a Fellow of the American College of Medical Genetics is incorrect. It can be confirmed by any at the following link:

• http://www.acmg.net/source/members/cmemberdisplay.cfm?section=Find_a_Geneticist&id=1906

This is part of an endless effort by certain individuals to refuse to allow placement of acurrate details regarding Dr. Geier's qualifications on this entry. Those who are intentionally deleting accurate information regarding Dr. Geier have not respect for Misplaced Pages policies, and have instead attempted to use Misplaced Pages as a means to promote their attack agenda on Dr. Geier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice2day (talk • contribs) 02:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Geier, misuse of multiple accounts is forbidden here. You also have a colossal COI and shouldn't be editing your own biography. Use the talk page. If you aren't willing to follow the process of collaboration and consensus that rules here, your edits will be deleted like the edits of any other sockpuppet. While you should be treated fairly, you don't deserve any respect as your editing history here reveals you aren't here to edit an encyclopedia, but to promote yourself and your agenda. Your agenda can be presented neutrally, but you aren't doing that. Leave it to other editors who share your POV AND who also respect our policies. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, since what you mention is a content issue, I'm taking it to the talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• In referring to himself in the 3rd person above, Justice2day seems to be denying sockpuppet charges. Ultimately IP checks and IP blocking might be the only way to deter what is -- IMO -- blatant and obvious POV, COI and SOCK violations. These sort of disruptions are despicable and those responsible deserve neither patience nor sympathy. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously wanting Justice2day blocked for having a sock that was indefinitely blocked 3 years ago? Not going to happen. For one thing, there was already an SPI run back then, for another, I think it's technically impossible to run a check on an account that hasn't edited for years. If the IPs do belong to Justice2day, there's no violation of WP:SOCK because sockpuppets are alternate accounts, and editors are allowed to edit anonymously as long as they aren't trying to gain false consensus by using an IP address in a discussion and pretending that the IP is a different person (as in an RFC or AFD). So there aren't any sockpuppet charges to deny. As to the COI, do you have anything to support your outing other than the fact that Justice2day is a single-purpose account and is editing in a promotional manner? If you don't have any on-wiki confirmation that this is the same person, then I'm going to have to ask you to stop the accusations or risk being blocked. I may have to get an oversighter to remove your posts as well. -- Atama頭 18:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Some of your comments are helpful and appreciated, but you end on a note I disagree with strongly. Dutiful editors consider it a responsibility to ferret out WP:COI where it exists. Sometimes editors can be overly enthusiastic in their anti-WP:COI efforts, and it’s good we have conversations in which our understanding of policies is discussed. As you note “Justice2day is a single-purpose account and is editing in a promotional manner” an article which has had COI issues in the past. The fact that this has alarmed several Wikipedians shows that they care and that they are paying attention. The statement that these editors “risk being blocked” for voicing their suspicions seems entirely inappropriate at this time. Yes, at some point if someone persists in accusing someone of WP:Sock after the matter has been discussed appropriately, then the good guys do become the bad guys. That point hasn’t been reached, and editors need not fear they will be blocked for identifying (correctly or incorrectly) COI/Sock issues. I agree with you that due to the three years that have passed, we should not worry so much about COI/Sock as with the inappropriateness of the edits themselves. Thanks. --96.233.40.199 (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly I don't care if you "disagree" or not. We have a harrassment policy on Misplaced Pages, and every time you post to the conflict of interest noticeboard you see the following information:

Before editing, please read:

When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to out other editors.

Misplaced Pages's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline.

That must seem familiar to you because every time you post on this board it is prominently displayed at the top of the page. I'm going to try to get this oversighted to clear this out. -- Atama頭 21:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I was about to post the following but had an edit conflict with User:Atama:

I need to ammend my comments. The outing policy is actually pretty specific and stringent, and User:Atama's comments make more sense to me now that I've reviewed that policy again (thanks for bringing that specific policy to our attention, Atama, sorry for my misfire.) Standing by my statement "we should not worry so much about COI/Sock as with the inappropriateness of the edits themselves", and recalling again Atama's statement that "Justice2day is a single-purpose account and is editing in a promotional manner”, User:Justice2day has no reason to celebrate. --96.233.40.199 (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've stricken my comment above based on this apology, no worries. -- Atama頭 22:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Christina Mendez

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

Unexperienced editor Christina Mendez is reverting the page to original form. Doesn't use wikilinks, but instead pastes the entire web link. Is utilizing copyright photos when I have warned him not to. Is making article look like a vanity page/resume. Adds links that look like wikilinks to Spanish Misplaced Pages article when I informed him this in English language Misplaced Pages edition. I have given him instructions on how to create wikilinks and also not to use copyright photos without permission. He reverts page after I made extensive grammar, structure and Misplaced Pages-related edits. Have removed external links and categories that have nothing to do with subject. Subject has ignored warnings. Also, I need opinion if subject is notable for Misplaced Pages article. Many Thanks!--XLR8TION (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Christina is a "she".... -- Brangifer (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The user's original is Carlos. He changed it to Christina yesterday. Unless he's a transsexual, I am sure user is male.--XLR8TION (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

So are we dealing with sockpuppetry and misuse of multiple accounts to "avoid the scrutiny of other editors", COI, or what? -- Brangifer (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's sockpuppetry, just a confused editor (or possibly more than one).

• User:Christina Mendez last edited WP October 2008.
• User:Carlos5053 has recently edited the Christina Mendez article, but
  • User:Carlos5053 redirects to User:Christina Mendez and
  • User talk:Carlos5053 redirects to User talk:Christina Mendez
• Things became more confused when XLR8TION copied the contents of User talk:Christina Mendez to Talk:Christina Mendez.

Something is definitely funky here. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't get the impression that User:Carlos5053 has done anything sockpuppet-y except perhaps accidentally due to inexperience. I would concentrate on curbing this user's misuse of links and copyright photos. They seem to be editing in good faith, albeit not correctly. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have left a longer explanation of the confusion between the two accounts at User talk:Carlos5053#Confusion due to renamed account. This editor, presumably Christina, is now the owner of two accounts. I've undone the redirect between the two talk pages. I've recommended that she stop using User:Carlos5053, and am hoping for a response. Presumably, we still have a COI situation, even after we sort out the account confusion. EdJohnston (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• I wouldn't presume User:Christina Mendez is the person discussed in the Christina Mendez article. I suspect instead that User:Carlos5053 is a fan of Christina Mendez and the "User:Christina Mendez" username reflects that. --96.233.40.199 (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation

There have been concerns about some of the editors at Transcendental Meditation are associated with this movement. User:Littleolive oil may be one user however I am unsure. Wondering about the appropriateness and how one would verify this?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem isn't that they're associated with the movement, it's that they are making non-neutral edits to promote the movement's POV and to minimize negative material. Using Misplaced Pages for advocacy is a problem.   Will Beback  talk  22:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) It does not appear that this is a conflict of interest, per se, but rather someone who is passionate about the subject matter, and perhaps a fan. It does not appear to be a WP:SPA but they are editing in a non-neutral way, with bias/pov. And it appears that you have been in an edit war with the editor, including violating 3R yourself. I don't believe that WP:COIN is the best place to have this resolved. Try to continue to work it out on the talk page, or take a wikibreak from the page, and come back after a month of not even looking at the article. If edit warring continues, request page protection to help encourage an open discussion on the talk page. Failing that, please checkout WP:Dispute and then open a request over at WP:DRR. Good luck. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks tigger. Was recommended that I post here.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am a neutral editor. Please, look at my edits, discussion of those edits, and especially their context to understand the editing environment. I can also, if necessary discuss and provide diffs to describe the agendas, biases, and harassment carried on by editors on the TM article pages, if that's needed. I am not an aggressive editor by nature, but enough is enough.(olive (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

The problems are more significant than can be seen from a cursory review and they concern a group of editors, not just one. Olive has repeatedly suggested taking this to the ArbCom and I'm afraid that she's probably right.   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

How often do editors come to to this Notice Board and again and again be told there is no problem, then again bring the same issues, the same editors back. How much in between times is an editor supposed to take of almost every day personal attacks, incivility, and constant claims that they're edits are COI edits no matter what the edits are. What is that called and is there a point where an editor has recourse to defend not only herself, but Misplaced Pages against editors whose biases and agendas will undo neutral collaborative editing processes. Do I want to bother ArbCom with this. No . Does this have to stop. Yes.(olive (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

I never said you did have a COI just that you "might". Was just inquiring about clarification on this matter. This is sometimes a concern with users who edit primarily on one topic.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Olive, what biases and agendas are you talking about?   Will Beback  talk  00:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll be happy to discuss that in a forum that is more appropriate for that kind of discussion, like ArbCom.(olive (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC))

Unless policies are being violated, biases and agendas aren't relevant to the ArbCom. In any case, it'd be hard to argue that folks at the Maharishi University of Management are free from bias on that topic.   Will Beback  talk  01:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not clearly see any COI, but rather a dispute which has lead to uncivil behavior. I highly recommend you open this at dispute resolution request, or Arbcom. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Tiggerjay, the details of the COI cannot be discussed openly here because the editor has requested that her previously disclosed personal information be kept private. However the problem of the COI still exists, and it concerns more than one editor. If you'd like more information I can contact you by email. However I don't think that there's likely to be a resolution of this problem on this or any other noticeboard.   Will Beback  talk  01:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Will to release personal information one will need to go through the proper channels. Well Tigger is here to help he is not an admin / checkuser which by the sounds of it would be required in a case such as thus. I was just hoping to get some clarification here on methods to verify COI. Now that I look back at the history I see that this has been brought here a number of times before as Olive mentions. I guess ARB might be what is required with arguments potential similar to those that involved Scientology?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There are many previous ArbCom cases that deal with advocacy, which is a violation of core polices. As I wrote above, COI isn't a problem in and of itself--the problem with COI editing is that it tends to include behaviors like POV pushing and other forms of advocacy. The reason that this issue keeps getting raised here by new editors is that it's never been resolved. I raised it with another editor, to try to make him see that his COI was apparent, but Olive stepped in to deny there was a problem. That kind of team behavior is another aspect of COI editing that's unhelpful to the project.   Will Beback  talk  01:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm just a new editor on the TM entries and it's obvious to me that there are multiple COI's going on, esp. if one looks at past history. It's obviously a very concerted effort. If something isn't done, these entries are compromised.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well said. But what to do about advocacy in the project, when it takes the form of every content dispute being portrayed as a schism between "my side" and "those with the battleground mentality," to summarize a commonly seen dichotomy? If there is evidence that an editor has outside interests that undermine the neutrality of the encyclopedia, and yet people deny a COI exists, it seems to show that the problem is widespread and ill-adapted to being solved by policies that target one editor at a time. Blackworm (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Issues with a single editor can be addressed in an RFC/U, but I've never seen one that concerns six editors. There's no rule against it, though, so perhaps that's the next logical step.   Will Beback  talk  01:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the adamant insistence of the TM-Movement employed and/or affilitated editors that they are free to ignore the prior clear findings and directions from administrators that they are not to edits these articles, but instead confine themselves to the talk pages, I frankly have no idea what anyone is supposed to do about this untenable situation. Is a series of arbcom discussions, similar to the ones on Scientology-affilited editors leading to account, IP and topic bans the only way to bring sanity to these articles? Fladrif (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are looking for administrative action, instead of community assistance, you should post over at WP:ANI, but there is so much accusation of unstated or undefined edits, that you are really making resolution harder. It appears that the desire by both sides is for sanctions or disciple against the other party, instead of working to have the best article. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of the previous postings here have resulted in clear comments from editors that the COI was a problem and that the editors should stop editing the articles directly, but that community input has been ignored by the involved editors.

Creating the best articles is the goal, but if a hardcore bunch of editors is parked on the article then any one-time effort to make the articles neutral will fail. I came across an example of this in regard to a reference to the song "Sexy Sadie" in the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi biography. The song is on what is called one of the ten-greatest albums of all time, and it was written specifically about the Maharishi as a rebuke by one of his most famous disciples. Two uninvolved editors were concerned that it wasn't included in the article and after a long talk page discussion the "pro" editors agreed to include it. But a while later, and without explaining his actions, another "pro" editor came through and rewrote the section, again deleting the song. When I recently noticed the song missing and asked about it, the "pro" editors simply said it was deleted properly and I'd need to get their consent to restore it. So even if we succeed in bringing the articles into compliance with NPOV, etc, unless they are continuously monitored I don't think the edits will stick. That's another problem with COI editors - they are dedicated to their POVs and drive off or simply wait out the less-involved editors.   Will Beback  talk  02:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I was the editor Will is referring to here on the issue of the Sexy Sadie reference in the MMY article. He and I have been through this on the MMY article talk pages. I have demonstrated that I clearly followed good Wiki editing policy, putting a draft in a sandbox, requesting feedback and participation from editors, giving people time to respond, and moving material from a sandbox to a live article after a reasonable amount of time elapsed. What's all the fuss about? --BwB (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You are not the editor. If there was only one editor then this would be easier to solve. Several editors, all with apparent connections to the movement, have deleted this material. The uninvolved editors have all said it's an important detail to include. I don't see BwB giving his reason for deleting this fact, nor defending its repeated exclusion. Nor do I see anything that would make me believe it wouldn't be deleted again in the future. This is exactly the problem.   Will Beback  talk  14:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that in your review of what happens some of the time. And are probably correct about it in regards to this article. However, I've been around here long enough to know that persistence pays off. The POV pushers will pop up every now and then, and you must constantly monitor the page, but the articles are a moving target anyways, there is no setting an article in stone. The best way is to not take it personally, or get too involved - that is when you need a break for your own sanity. But specific usage of page protection and editor blocking, along with consensus in the talk pages will go a long way. Another tool is to simply agree to remove controversial information - instead of fighting over which wording is more appropriate, simply don't include it. Edit warring makes these issues worse. Sometimes the best thing to do is to let the POV pushers have their way for a while - leave the article for a while, then after they've gotten it out of their systems, you can go back and make NPOV changes. Tiggerjay (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That's good advice for many COI/POV pushing problems. But since these editors have been working on this topic for over three years, and have collectively made about half of all edits to the articles, I don't think that those suggestions will work in this topic. If there are a team of editors who exert control over an article and its talk page, and who ignore outside input and engage in tendentious editing, then just letting them get it out of their system isn't an option. This is a topic that involves pseudoscience, fringe theories, and remarkable medical claims. If the advocates of those control Misplaced Pages articles then the entire project's reputation is harmed.   Will Beback  talk  04:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Will, the information on Sexie Sadie is a mischaracterization of what happened, and it shocks me that after the number of times I tied in good faith to explain, that you still hold to a notion that has nothing to do with what really happened, and drag it out again like some old shoe. The assumption that editors are POV pushers is not fair but is based on more mischaracterization . I have no desire to go to ArbCom or to in any way have sanctions placed against any editor, and no editor here should assume that is the case. If people could stop making assumptions and just edit the damn articles, but I am dealing with editors who immediately deal with any edit that doesn't jive with their own opinions as if the edit is a non-neutral edit, and who assume their position gives them the right to attack. I will assume these bahaviours are based on preconceived notions, and deeply held biases or beliefs rather than being truly personal but they effect the project, and the articles. I am beyond tired of mischaracterization and incivility and being harassed. I can't see what else to do. I have never in my life dealt with the kinds of attacks and prejudices I have here, and I have dealt with some nasty situations. I won't take this to ArbCom myself , but if that's the next step I will lay out what I know and have. What is going on is bad for the articles and bad for Misplaced Pages, and it needs to stop. And yes, I did support an relatively inexperienced editor who was being confronted by an experienced admin in what I thought was an unfair way. I would do that for any editor.(olive (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC))

I don't think I'm mischaracterizing what happened. I don't know what you mean about me dragging it out again and again since I haven't mentioned it outside of the relevant thread. I don't know why people from the Transcendental Meditation movement keep coming here to delete the fact that Lennon wrote a song which rebuked the Maharishi. You deleted it twice yourself. (The second time with a misleading edit summary.) So did a user called Maharishi International Publications Department. (Did he or she have a COI?) So did an anon using an IP registered to the movement. No COI or POV-pushing there either? Removing relevant, well-sourced negative material that is presented with the neutral point of view is a form of POV pushing. Several otherwise uninvolved editors have discussed this exact issue, but the TM-related editors are still insisting that they improved the article by deleting it. Part of the problem with COI editing is that when we're too close to a topic we don't even realize we are pushing a POV, or what neutral means. As for myself, I assure you I have no prejudice against the movement but if you have evidence of that I'd be interested in seeing it. Making unsubstantiated allegations over and over is a form of harassment, so please either give your evidence or stop making the charge.   Will Beback  talk  05:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are some previous examples of the same behavior:

I had these links posted to me:

. This one is the most recent. Then there is the issue of Meatpuppets/Sockpuppets, anonymous or otherwise, which is another problem altogether. --Kala Bethere (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• • The discussion concerning John Lennon, February 2008, in which I clearly state I have removed the Sexie Sadie content and why, mischaracterized above. This is not a sneaky removal as implied, but in context of a larger discussion. I, as well, add another quote as suggested by the editor. Please note this was BLP at the time, (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi has since died), and part of the discussion played around concerns with text that was possibly in violation of a BLP.

We could say Lennon was clearly bitter about the split... which is supported by the interview (Lennon himself comments on it), without implying anything about timeline. Nandesuka (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nandesuka and TG. In reviewing the policy on biography of living persons I realized that material already in this section does not comply by Misplaced Pages standards. Since I recently did a pretty extensive rewrite of the section I felt this was in part my fault. The policy states:

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".

The information, in what was in the article until today, on John Lennon, seems to have no reference, and is in addition, given the later explanations of what happened at that time, to be merely sensationalist and not appropriate for any biography . Thanks to Nandesuak we now have a sourced comment that explains how Lennon felt. I quote directly, although Misplaced Pages does not encourage quotes I felt that we could be most accurate in this kind of article with a quote. I also left out reference to Sexy Sadie because I think the words imply wrongdoing and again we must do no harm. I think this provides a appropriate compromise to the dilemma of what to do with the new source Nandesuka provided, and the appropriateness of considering a time line in terms accuracy of the claims and material presented.(olive (talk)

As well, I did not accuse you or anyone specifically in terms of behaviour on the articles, and in fact you are a civil editor. I am referring to a general environment and the behaviours of other editors which I really don't want to get into here.

• • Since you bring up the recent Sexie Sadie issue, this is what happened.

• Sept26: BWB...Suggestion section is too long. Asks for comments. No comments

• Oct.8 :BWB...Advises he will rewrite. One comment to go ahead

• Oct 28, and Oct 30: BWB....Notifies of rewrite in sand box, twice asks for feedback . No comments,

• Nov 4: BWB....Notifies he has moved rewrite into main space. No comments

• Nov 23: Kbob... edits to satisfy concerns about controversy of the section

• Jan 14: Will Beback.... asks why Sexie Sadie section has been removed.

• Olive says multiple times she is fine with re adding the Sexie Sadie content, whatever her opinion is, if its fine with all editors.

• Today in the middle of this COI Kala Bethere suggests this on the Sexie Sadie thread referred to above.

"Will to flesh out the Sexie Sadie reference it might be helpful to include some quotes from one of the Maharishi's former close assistants, Conny Larsson, who in his book Behind the Mask of a Clown wrote "Maharishi’s sex life, for example, was extensive, to say the least. That a man in his position had a sex life I regarded as quite incongruous. As I had been very close to him I was often in charge of the key to his room, which he asked me on various occasions to hand over to one of the young ladies."--Kala Bethere (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The way in which BWB a relatively inexperienced editor was treated in this discussion was not in my opinion, appropriate, and I did defend BWB and the procedure he went through on the "Sexie Sadie" rewrite and discussion I felt he had made an honest attempt to get input on what he was doing. I did not edit the content in or out of the article, but agreed to go with whatever was decided by the other editors. Where is the COI editing here? For an obvious starter there was no editing.

And Will, I am in no way responsible for an IP, or something that comes from Maharishi International Publications Department, whatever that is, and I would assume you wouldn't make the mistake of making such an implied accusation, especially here.

And being brought to the COIN several times with out any evidence of COI, and this kind of statement that has come from multiple editors is harassment too. If more diffs of that kind of comment are needed, I can certainly supply them. There are lots.(olive (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC))

The fact that Keithbob agreed with BwB about the deletion is more evidence of the problem. And your view that the material could be restored "if its fine with all editors" is an indication that you thought doing so would need the consent of the "pro" TM editors, which is a curious view of how editing on Misplaced Pages should work. I don't think Olive is responsible for other editors, I was pointing out that this same material has been deleted repeatedly by accounts linked to the TM movement, and restored many times by editors with no such association. The problem is with editors linked to the TM movement advocating for that movement and pushing its POV. The problem is with the virtual ownership of the topic by TM-related editors who have made half of the edits to the articles about TM.   Will Beback  talk  23:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Kbob supported the deletion? How do you read that in, I checked the rewrite because the content is contentious. And Will you are insulting my integrity and honesty. Lets be clear. When I said I would go with the other editors that's what I meant. I have no history of doing what you suggest, so why would you say such a thing? I find your comment incredibly disturbing and have no idea what one does in such an online forum when this kind of untruth is passed around as it its a given fact. (olive (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC))

Little Olive Oil I have no intention to harass you, nor do I believe do other editors; it's simply that other editors claim COI, gave a reason for it and when you are asked you do not answer. I certainly have zero interest in outing you, but am interested in having the best editing we can on this topic.--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

BWB is an inexperienced editor in need of your protection and defense? With over 6700 edits? If I didn't know better, I'd think that was a personal attack; I suspect that if I said such a thing, you would eagerly accuse me of incivility for maliciously maligning BwB. Moreover, I am utterly mystified as to what in all of this you regard as involving mistreatment of BwB by other editors. Fladrif (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Many of BWB's edits until recently were copy edits... this was a first time use of sandbox and rewrite, as I remember, and since I remember being in that position myself I know that it requires some learning and understanding. Sorry, Fladrif i'm not going to get into a wrangle here on who I can and cannot support. I've supported Will to for his extensive addition of content on the TM article, too. I've said how I see things. The thread is available for anyone who wants to look at it, and can be interpreted in any way you want. That's all I have to say.(olive (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC))

You can support whomever you want. You and I agree and support each other more frequently than either of us might imagine. But, I have read the thread, and I understand both from what you posted there and your statement above that you believe that BwB was not treated appropriately. But, I have no idea from any of your posts what the basis for that belief may be, nor what conduct and statements from other editors you think was inappropriate toward him.Fladrif (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The last time this came to COIN Atama concluded that it was a content dispute and suggested that it's healthy to have editors with opposing views involved: " I've always felt that it is actually healthy for people with opposing POVs to work on an article, as long as they are willing to collaborate constructively. -- Atamachat 16:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)" I think it can safely be said that Doc James himself has a strongly held point of view. Evidence includes his Arbcom restriction and edits such as this where he deletes a 2006 randomized controlled trial published by the AMA and conducted by independent researchers and then a few days later adds material sourced to a blog.. TimidGuy (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, maybe it was an error to leave out the Sexy Sadie stuff in the rewrite. My mistake. Nobody added any comment at the time. when I invited them to participate. It was overlooked for several weeks before Will caught it and made a big issue out of it. I think the Sexy Sadie stuff is back in the article now. Wiki is a fun process. --BwB (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all Timid please read WP:MEDRS. Consensus for my edits may be found here and along with a number of other places. So my POV is that we should follow wiki policy. The papers you provided are primary sources. They are not to be used especially in a controversial topic like this. I am an expert in medical literature having my profession on my user page. I edit on over a 1000 different pages. Have brought a controversial articles to GA Obesity. I do edit on a number of very controversial topic and have been accused of all sorts of things. Please see WP:V and remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Tim is that you who has commented there btw http://spacecityskeptics.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/how-to-design-a-positive-study-meditation-for-childhood-adhd/? Would be happy to discuss the merits of this page on the talk page. BTW my ARB com restriction has expired and if it had not had nothing to do with this topic but pertained to ADHD. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:TimidGuy ] and User:Littleolive oil ] seem to be WP:SPA. I have read evidence that TM actively sends out teachers to edit the internet to get the right point of view about there organization across. I have serious concerns about the distortion of the medical literature. As was as concerns of WP:COI.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The forum shopping that olive and TG engage in to try to avoid the clear directives of three separate administrators not to edit the TM-related articles, and the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT insistence that somehow that never happened or, even if it did, can be ignored is unacceptable.

Another response: TimidGuy has a clear and immediate conflict of interest and for this reason would be well advised to restrict participation to talk pages for all transcendental mediatation-related articles. The particular reference in question appears to be published legitimately and appropriate as a reference source. I suggest an article content request for comment to settle the particular debate. I hope that resolves the problems, but in case it doesn't the likely alternatives are this: a user conduct request for comment and an eventual arbitration case, which would likely end in article paroles on TM topics. Another experimental option is community enforceable mediation. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 02:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Durova posted: "TimidGuy has a clear and immediate conflict of interest and for this reason would be well advised to restrict participation to talk pages for all transcendental meditation-related articles."

Given that this is the Conflict of interest noticeboard, a response like "Not sure why you're making this point" is not straightforward and intelligent. This section is about editors, you for example, and in fact you in particular, with, yes, clear and immediate conflict of interest issues which it would behoove you to take seriously. It is not about Mason's (or anyone else's) book.

Misplaced Pages does not need another ream of paragraphs out of you, it needs you editing neutrally or not at all. No more long diatribes, no more changing the subject, no more disingenuity and smokescreens, capisce?

This section alone is already over 56 kilobytes. Enough, already. — Athænara ✉ 05:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Enough already. This keeps coming up again and again because the conflicted editors simply ignore it again and again, to the dismay of anyone who has looked at these articles for any length of time, and to the astonishment of anyone who comes to the articles with a fresh eye. Fladrif (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Fladrif, as in the last two COI cases you do not present any kind of argument that shows editors have had restrictions placed on them. And Will Beback's position on this holds no more weight than any other editor right now as he is a editor highly involved in both the editing, and contentious issues. I see also you completely ignore Atama's comments in favour of accusations.(olive (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC))

Nthellworld

• Template:Cableforum - aka nthellworld.com this article is a clear case of conflict of interest. The people who run the organisation also created the article and guard it for any changes they don't like.

This is an ongoing issue which is easily revealed by looking at the history of the article.

Furthermore, the supposedly consumer group for Cable users in the UK is populated by people who themselves have a conflict of interest.

When I last attempted to edit the page I started receiving anonymous threats by email.

Some of the threats contained my full home address - I have no idea where they got it from, possibly from my past membership of their forum.

They will of course deny all this, but I kept all the email threats on file. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.129.67 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean Nthellworld. If you are getting person threats it is best to report them here Misplaced Pages:ANI. Get more traffic by admins who can help resolve issues.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• I believe the article being discussed is Nthellworld. A redirect called Cable Forum points to it. I changed the title of this COI report accordingly. Here are the article links:

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

Looking over the article history of Nthellworld, I see only three edits by anyone in the last 12 months and they are all of a minor nature. So I don't see "an ongoing issue which is easily revealed by looking at the history of the article." Where exactly is the abuse? A complaint about the Nthellworld article being biased was raised on the talk page at Talk:Nthellworld back in early 2007, but it did not continue past that time. Someone who was very discontented with Nthellworld did raise some COI complaints on Talk, and they were reminded of our policy on WP:Original research. The Nthellworld.com site, despite its free-spirited name, is owned by one of the major media companies in the UK so it would hardly be expected to be a beacon of independence. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution