Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by THF (talk | contribs) at 14:58, 12 November 2010 (→User THF and subject Arthur Alan Wolk: please read the beginning of this page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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:

User:Ryoung122 on Longevity myths

The editor declares on his user page that he is involved with Guiness World Records. He obviously has a lot of expertise that could be very valuable for the encyclopedia, but in his work on Longevity myths and related articles, he seems to be too close to the subject to see the wood for the trees. It is all just messy. There is a medcab case open, and I made a merge proposal. I came to it from WP:FTN, and am not the only person concerned about the quality of these articles. I'm hoping that the COI question can be addressed effectively but without completely alienating this expert editor. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually we see Itsmejudith canvassing on Misplaced Pages:

Longevity myths

What on earth do we do? The article is battled between two sides, and each seems to be as mistaken as the other. (tears at hair) Itsmejudith (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, the editor she posted this message to (Grismaldo) ended up on the merge discussion.Ryoung122 15:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I was frustrated, as you can tell, and this was a request and plea to work out what could be done. We had already discussed this on FTN on more than one occasion and I've asked for more eyes on the article. I'm genuinely looking for a solution. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

IMJ posted that comment after I was already engaged in the discussion at the FT/N. There was no canvassing there at all.Griswaldo (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the essay I wrote on Longevity Myths in 2005 preceded Guinness hiring me in November 2005, so there's no real conflict of interest.

As for my essay, it's been published online and won a national award as a thesis, and published as a book. But in reality it did little more than to more clearly state and merge in one place what had been said for years in separate accounts. We find articles about the myths of longevity in Russia, in Japan, etc. It's not simply the colloquial myth: the stories of Japanese longevity related to the emperors and the crypto-historical founding of Japan in 660 BC (when in was in fact closer to 420 AD). In Russia, the myths of longevity are collective, group myths, that are intertwined with religious and ethnic beliefs, just as are stories of extreme longevity in the Bible.

And if recent claims to be extreme age are also called "myths," there's a reason the word is plural.

I have a solution. Let's withdraw the merge proposal, and then we need a discussion between the "scientific" POV and the "Christian" point of view. It may be as simple as renaming the article "longevity myths and traditions" and then everyone can assume/presume whether Methuselah is a "myth" or "tradition" (or both).Ryoung122 15:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's clear that you want an article that covers everything from the Sumerian king lists to 20th century reports. I can't see that it can possibly be helpful. But that's for the article talk page, and perhaps needs to go to an RfC. I would be really grateful for uninvolved input on the COI question. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend interested parties view this and more particularly this about when Ryoung122 claimed a living person had died based on the word of an anonymous British government source, and was forced to retract it after complaints from her family. Considering we are quite often dealing with living people, the whole sourcing about supercentenarians is unacceptable in my opinion, particularly when a Yahoo group is being used to source people's deaths. O Fenian (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The second link it particularly dismaying. BLP information should certainly not be handled in this manner. I won't comment on the COI as I don't think I'm uninvolved at this point, but I get the feeling that articles related to supercentenarians need much more outside scrutiny than they have been getting. Apparently they are written and maintained strictly by members of that yahoo group who now appear (see above) to apply their own standards of sourcing to this area of the project as well.Griswaldo (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoa! An IP claims that Robert Young is blatantly breaking canvassing rules! If a user with access can confirm this, he'd better retract quick if he wants to stay on this IMHO. I'll chime in later with relevant history. O Fenian is right on point, but that is just one way that WP:WOP operates as an arm of GRG/OHB/GWR interests rather than WP interests. JJB 16:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved people may also like to note that Ryoung122 has been discussed on this noticeboard before. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Links?Griswaldo (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Previous appearance on this noticeboard

Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 32#Longevity myths, Longevity claims, etc.

He used to have his own article, now deleted

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Young_(gerontologist)

He's a suspected sockpuppeteer http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Ryoung122

Discussions at ANI too.

I just did a search on Ryoung122 and then checked "Everything" to get the WP pages up.

In one case the arb Carcaroth said he could work with him, so perhaps we should drop him a line about it. I'm about to go off-wiki. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I improved Judith's first link above, because the evidence is almost all there. Basically I found Ryoung122 in Apr/May 09 doing exactly what he had been indeffed for, and what he promised not to do as a removal condition after 9 months of block, i.e., preserving his field POV as WP's, extensively and uncivilly. I was also going to add that last month he stepped back from the brink of edit warring after 3 reverts each on 2 articles, and agreed to mediation, which started well until our mediator disappeared on 1 Oct. That is, the last couple weeks he's (either been absent or) behaved much better than any time prior; but now I can't say that either, because there is credible evidence he's canvassing. IMHO, as long as all parties work to build scope consensus on these articles, it doesn't matter if he or other conflicted Yahoo-group members are blocked or not (see WP:WOP talk!); but I would really prefer guidance (please see my last graf on Judith's COIN link) about what to do with those who don't seek to build WP consensus but seek to bring unsourced, OR/SYN, POV consensus from Yahoo-WOP and preserve it at WP. So much evidence that I don't care to list it except for interested requests. Oh, the book Ryoung122 mentions sells for over $100, another COI, which is why I finally succeeded in pulling (or occasionally wikifying) much of the book's OR contents (about 70 sentences) from the article. JJB 21:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Please review this edit about the distressing conflation of the yahoo group and WP:WOP. Please reread the WP:WOP talk page. The roots of this whole fustercluck can be discerned there. David in DC (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Board, is this well-formed, well-evidenced case going to go the way of the last one, where COI was found unequivocally and then ... nothing whatsoever happened? Thank you. JJB 14:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to drop a line to Carcaroth, on his (?her) talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, we really need some regulars on this board to provide uninvolved input. Pretty please. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Update He is now trying to use his own master's thesis as proof that the article discusses a viable subject matter. See here. There is a clear COI here.Griswaldo (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

He's been trying that since three years before he wrote it as a thesis and began selling it for $100+! Perhaps, as my last sojourn here also shows, we should adjourn from this board to a heftier one, since there is no doubt expressed then or now as to the COI? JJB 20:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

 Remark: Related case at Mediation Cabal located here Netalarm 22:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that is on a very limited question between two editors. Perhaps it is active again, was dormant for many months. Also see discussion on WP:FTN (passim). The COI question needs to be resolved separately from the content questions, still really needs uninvolved input. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I just commented that there so visitors will know that this is being (or related issues) at several different noticeboards. I'll look into this further later, probably over the weekend or something. Did the fringe theories noticeboard thread resolve anything, or is that also closed without resolution? Netalarm 23:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The current FTN thread has run out of steam, no resolution, partly because people were waiting to see whether anything would happen here. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I propose a result of toothless board and a finding of an open door to a next WP:DR step. E.g., mediation cabal may have just reopened and I'll try that awhiles. Other prognoses invited. JJB 10:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Good faith prticipation in mediation is always preferable. But one can probably discern my prognosis from this statement.

Not happy with my edits in the past, this editor made a particularly dispicable accusation against me of anti-homosexual slurs. Please see here, here, and the collapsed portion of this talk page.David in DC (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: Origiinally posted above, on 19:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC). Moved here so it would be clear what JJB was responding to.]: Please review this edit about the distressing conflation of the yahoo group and WP:WOP. Please reread the WP:WOP talk page. The roots of this whole fustercluck can be discerned there.David in DC (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks David. I'm also asking at User talk:Longevitydude#COI question for clarification of a statement germane to this discussion. It may require, and I request comment on, a potential additional board finding as to COI for other entities beyond Ryoung122. JJB 21:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's another edit that needs consideration if an additional board finding as to COI for other entities beyond Ryoung122 is on the table.David in DC (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The activity of this IP editor probably fits the pattern too. WP:SPA? David in DC (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to have it in one place, Longevitydude deleted my request from his talk page. I asked him again after he made another GRG-dependent comment. There are other issues inappropriate to mention here. JJB 19:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC) He has now answered and is looking into his own COI issues himself. JJB 21:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion: I have proposed some COI handling options at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#End COI. Please continue there. JJB 21:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson and Arthur Alan Wolk

After I read an article about Wolk's lawsuits, I looked him up and found his Misplaced Pages article. If you Google Wolk, the top links are all about his libel lawsuits, but they were not mentioned on Misplaced Pages.

As these secondary reliable sources discuss, Arthur Wolk has sued dozens of people for libel just for mentioning court decisions that have talked about him, and I don't want to be one of them, so I'd like to be an anonymous editor.

Another editor says that this means I have a conflict of interest with Wolk because I want to be anonymous and not sued. I don't think that not wanting to be sued is a conflict of interest. I have done nothing but cite reliable sources. Can someone check my edits on these articles and see if I have written neutrally? If so, can you remove the COI tag? If not, please make the articles fair, and I will abide by your decision. Thank you.

(The owner of the Arthur Wolk article says that he works with Arthur Wolk, and is deleting reliably sourced information about him and turning the article into a press release. I don't understand why that's not a conflict of interest.) Boo the puppy (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• I have read, Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Arthur_Alan_Wolk and Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FArthur_Alan_Wolk_v._Walter_Olson, and it is clear to me that:

• IP 76.98.165.58
• Christine DeGraff
• User:Lawrencewarwick aka LEW

are violating WP:PAID and should be blocked. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 06:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:PAID is a proposed guideline/policy but hasn't been accepted by the community. Even if it were, it wouldn't ever be a reason in itself to block anyone. SmartSE (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• I get the feeling that a real world dispute is being imported into Misplaced Pages. Boo the puppy seems to be on one side, and those other accounts might be on the other. I will look at this more closely. Jehochman 14:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head. Both articles are at AfD, they are at best, marginally notable. SmartSE (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• I have revised the Arthur Alan Wolk article to add both sides of the issue. Racepacket (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

How to get a link from Misplaced Pages to your blog

FYI: http://www.makemoneybloggingschool.com/index.php/how-to-get-a-link-from-wikipedia-to-your-blog/

When you are trying to use Misplaced Pages to create links you will need to find a suitable page. The best way of doing this is to choose a Misplaced Pages page which isn’t updated regularly. This will make it possible to keep your links there for as long as possible.

Fred Talk 00:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

How to find external links on Misplaced Pages

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/search/?title=Special:LinkSearch Fred Talk 00:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It's just Special:LinkSearch, and you can link a particular search like Special:LinkSearch/*.trademarkia.com. Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

T. Hayden Barnes

• T. Hayden Barnes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Robert Corn-Revere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Valdosta State University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

On Recent Changes patrol I came across T. Hayden Barnes written by User:Thbarnes whom appears to be (and has identified himself on Talk:T. Hayden Barnes as being the article's subject. Looking into the contributions I found he has added information about a lawsuit he involved with at Valdosta State University as well as making an article about the lawyer representing him: Robert Corn-Revere. I'm hoping this COI problem can be resolved peacefully, as I didn't notice the complex issue when I tagged the subject's own article. -WarthogDemon 04:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added an IP that is now editing these articles, which is presumably Thbarnes. SmartSE (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Alan Page

I need a few people eyes on Alan Page it was invaded by Lbln.88 (talk · contribs), a single purpose account only used to promote Alan Page reputation. I just caught the user socking on commons uploading copyvios that were deleted here. Thanks Secret 22:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

User:125.19.51.106 and Indiabulls

125.19.51.106 (talk · contribs), which is shown to be registered to Indiabulls, is removing information in the Indiabulls article which the company might not like to be there, but does appear to be sourced. Corvus cornix_talk 04:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto

Rabbi Pinto Beobjectiveplease User Beobjectiveplease should be banned. Please assist. He only comments on this article and should not be editing this site and doing nothing else. Clear sockpuppetry. Please assist. 68.173.122.113 (talk) 06:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• What is the conflict of interest here? You say "clear sockpuppetry" - sockpuppet of whom? Doesn't seem very clear to me. You need to be more specific. Mosmof (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the history of Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto, it appears that there is a dispute about the IP's edits to which Beobjectiveplease (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is involved. I don't think the COI Noticeboard is the venue for this, especially since there's already a neutrality tag on the article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry means that this individual is whitewashing details on Pinto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

1. That's not what sock puppetry means.
2. This is the noticeboard for discussing specific conflicts of interest. You are in the wrong forum. Mosmof (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Jerod Impichchaachaaha' Tate

• Jerod Impichchaachaaha' Tate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jerod Tate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Lots of edits to his own article, said on his talk page that it is him and has been warned about COI however continued to edit. methecooldude 10:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Andywachter21

• Rick Webb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Andywachter21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Paid editor; see Talk:Rick Webb: "Watco Companies has hired me to set this up for them".. Hairhorn (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

TV Guide's employee Tubesurfer

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

This user states he's director of online marketing at TV Guide, and is aware of the guidelines on conflict of interest, "I've carefully read all of Misplaced Pages's guidelines, and completely understand that any promotion or links back to TV Guide made by me, my staff or anyone at TV Guide for marketing purposes is in violation of those guidelines." as is all stated on his user page. Despite that the user has been adding unneeded references to already aired episode to TV Guide, and replacing references to other websites with TV Guide equivalents. Basically every edit this user makes has been adding TV Guide links and references, although some with valid content, but as of late more pushing TV Guide in favor of other valid websites and unnecessarily adding it. This is basically advertisement for the company he works for. _Xeworlebi  20:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, this is basically reference spamming, they go on to say on their userpage "if you find TV Guide links in the external link section of a TV article, we didn't put it there" indicating that they understand WP:ELNO and suggesting they may well be making these additions in good faith, thinking it is ok if they add a reference, rather than an EL. I've had a look over their edits and agree that they are problematic, there are also copyright/plagiarism issues, for example this edit was the same as the source, just with one word removed and I noticed that other people have bought this up with the user before. Edits like these are also clearly refspam in my opinion as they add very little (if any) relevant information to the article, yet add a link to the site. Another problematic edit is this, it's old but is still present in the article, checking the reference reveals that the information isn't in the reference. Judging by this link search TV Guide is probably added by other people, but I would ask that Tubesurfer refrains from adding any links to any articles, without first discussing it on the talk page of the article. SmartSE (talk) 12:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Tim Eyman

• Tim Eyman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• EymanTim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

EymanTim (talk · contribs) is either the subject of the article, or is violating the User name rules. Corvus cornix_talk 03:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Connor

• Christopher Connor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Christopher Connor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Prior versions of article created by:
  1. Ck415 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. 1919chris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. Christopher Connor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Explanation of the situation = self-explanatory, from the links above. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 07:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Connor (talk · contribs) has been here since 2007 (although there was a long gap in editing), I think it's probably not the subject of the article, or they would have been editing the article all along. Corvus cornix_talk 07:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

In addition, the first version of the article wasn't about this person (christopher james john xander connor was born on the 15th july 1988, he grew up in a musical family and from the age of 5...) Corvus cornix_talk 07:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The user in question was asked twice by two different editors in posts at T:TDYK about COI - and failed to respond. -- Cirt (talk) 07:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems very implausible: Christopher Connor is a fifty-something American executive with Sherwin-Williams, and User:Christopher Connor is a British snooker fan with a wide variety of editing interests, none of which have to do with paint. And the article in question doesn't even read like an autobiography. Far more likely that the Misplaced Pages user had an interest in the famous person who shared the same name--a name that isn't all that unusual. Anyone who was following WP:AGF and doing a smidgen of due diligence would have no reason to suspect COI violation, so I'm not surprised that a longtime TDYK participant treated the COI inquiry as a joke. (And in the unlikely event that a multi-millionaire executive spent three years contributing to Misplaced Pages under a false persona but real name in the hopes of fooling me when writing his autobiography, that's still probably a net gain to Misplaced Pages that we shouldn't discourage.) THF (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

He was asked by several people at DYK whether there was a COI and he just ignored the questions. So either there's a COI or someone is playing silly buggers. Not a good thing either way. SlimVirgin 08:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

User:CC should have enough experience on Misplaced Pages to anticipate that other editors would overreact and done something to head off the overreaction. And given Misplaced Pages username rules, there should be a disclaimer on his userpage. We can fault him for that, but that doesn't change that the overreaction is still silly and a violation of AGF. If Cirt had spent two minutes looking at the article and the editor's editing history instead of WP:CANVASing, we wouldn't be here. Moreover, COIN is for when someone with a conflict of interest refuses to collaboratively edit a controversial article or is disruptive across dozens of articles. Even in the unlikely event that User:CC was taking time off of his Fortune 500 CEO schedule to make three years of edits to articles about race or snooker and then wrote a neutral well-sourced article about himself on the side, where's the policy violation? Cirt's overreaction was far more disruptive and violated the WP:COI guideline, which permits people to make non-controversial NPOV edits about themselves. THF (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think concerns about the DYK hook are valid. By not saying he's not that CC, he's giving the impression that he might be; people shouldn't have to pour through his contribs; he should just say no. In addition the hooks are pedestrian, and he has said that he's "particularly keen" to get it on the main page, so could we please overlook that the hooks are boring. Maybe this is dry English humour, or maybe not; hard to tell, so some clarification from him wouldn't go amiss. SlimVirgin 14:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

What are the concerns? He made the pitch, the pitch was rejected on the merits, he made a joke about the lack of merit of the suggestion. He didn't throw a tantrum that the consensus was against him, he didn't canvas to distort the discussion. If that's a "COI concern," there are far worse ones in TDYK on a regular basis, given the number of editors who promote their own articles for personal pride. And it took far less time for me to "pore through his contributions" (really, a glance at his user talk page is sufficient) than it must have taken Cirt to pursue this white whale. THF (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Meco and Meco (municipality) also have my username all over them, for the same innocuous reason as THF alludes to above. __meco (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's worth remembering that autobiographies are only a problem if the articles are POV and or unsourced - we don't have any policies saying that they are absolutely forbidden. In this case, even if it is an autobiography (which I doubt), there is no problem since the article is neutral and well sourced. That said, before this reaches the main page, CC would ideally let us know whether this is about him or not. We can't force it out of him however, as he has a right to remain anonymous. SmartSE (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

From what I can gather by reading the policies and guidelines, there's no obligation for me to say anything. Other people have commented that the article is within policy and so there's nothing more to be said in this thread. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Not helpful, Christopher. Wastes people's time for no good reason. SlimVirgin 17:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the one who started this thread or any other. I didn't go around solicitating people to comment on this. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic (WP:COI seems to be the most misunderstood guideline out there), but this is kind of WP:POINTy. THF (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Yrsukrutt alt of User:LyfjahonnunGroup1

It looks like the Lyfjahonnun group has created a new account. Since we used a spamblock and not a softerblock for username only, that raises the issue about their new account and continued introduction of material. We may need a subject matter expert in order to figure out whether these contributions are constructive or not.

• User:LyfjahonnunGroup1/Discovery and development of dual serotonin and norepinephrine inhibitors
• Discovery_and_development_of_dual_serotonin_and_norepinephrine_reuptake_inhibitors

Then there's the original article:

• Serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor which seems to overlap almost completely with the article that lyfja is trying to push.

Gigs (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Why do you suspect a COI? User:LyfjahonnunGroup1 was blocked purely for having "group" in their username as far as I can tell, I've no idea why a spamblock was used rather than a softerblock. From my POV as a biologist, this looks like great work from a newbie. SmartSE (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This account represents the Icelandic equivalent to the FDA. I'm not sure what their motivation is to write their own version of the SNRI article, but it does seem suspicious. Gigs (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok, not the easiest thing to work out. I think we should just AGF - it's looks well written and neutral and I can't see how the Icelandic FDA would have anything to gain from writing it. I've suggested merging it with the SNRI article, and dropped a note at WT:PHARM to get some more eyes to take a look. SmartSE (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

david goodall

• Article name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

When you are on the list of british high commissoners to india and you click on Sir david goodall, it goes to the wrong David goodall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrygre (talk • contribs)

Thanks for pointing that out, we don't seem to have an article on that David Goodall yet, so I've changed the list to make the link red and no longer point to David Goodall. SmartSE (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

USER:Radarradio and 203.1.211.150

• Sia Furler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Art vs. Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Radarradio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 203.1.211.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I must admit, I am reasonably new to this, but I have been watching a few music related articles, and have noticed this user which is a radio station 1) creating articles about itself and 2) citing its own "blog" in support of the above articles. There are other examples which you will see when you look at the IP Contribs. I'm not sure if this is ok, but from the WP:COI it doesnt seem right... Teachingwedge (talk) 06:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

VG Chartz and Brett Walton

• VG Chartz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Brett Walton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• TadjHolmes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Special:Contributions/TadjHolmes has a strong interest in the articles VG Chartz and Brett Walton (an article about the webmaster of VG Chartz that TadjHolmes created). All his edits have to do with VG Chartz, Brett Walton or related sister sites of VG Chartz, and he is regularly in dispute with other editors concerning the content of VG Chartz-related articles. Someone asked him some time ago if he has any connection to VG Chartz, to which he replied no. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Then I would also suggest a conflict of interest for Megata Sanshiro and VGChartz. Megata has a history of defacing the VGChartz article. TadjHolmes (talk) 10:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no defacing going on. The problem is that sourced information critical of VGChartz (which is not just hearsay - most people in VG journal know of the issue) should be part of the summary of the article, among the other changes being made. Tadj seems to be intent on hiding this and instead filling the article with favorable promotional material about the website (website sections, major contributors). We have to treat such sources without bias and that means covering the bad as well as the good, and not pushing either side too much. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

User THF and subject Arthur Alan Wolk

NOTE: This report uses only data from on-Misplaced Pages, and declarations and self-disclosures made on-Misplaced Pages.

• THF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Arthur Alan Wolk
  • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Arthur Alan Wolk
  • Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson
  • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson

THF has a COI related to Arthur Alan Wolk

1. THF self-disclosed a COI, here at BLPN: "As a defendant in the case people are talking about, and as a defendant in another case where Arthur Wolk has accused me of "inciting" people to write about the case, I request that you please do not write about this case without Arthur Wolk's permission. I make this request so that Arthur Wolk knows that if you write about this case, you do so against my wishes, and that I cannot be held legally responsible for anything you write."
2. THF self-disclosed a COI, again, here at AFD: "I am a defendant in this case. Also, I have been sued (along with twelve other parties) a second time under an accusation that I have "incited" others to defame Wolk whenever someone writes about this lawsuit."
3. THF self-disclosed a COI, again, here at User talk:Jehochman: "You should be aware of this recent lawsuit, where Wolk has requested IP addresses. As a defendant in a case where Arthur Wolk has accused me of "inciting" people to write about him"

THF has been warned about COI related to Arthur Alan Wolk

1. Warned by Jehochman: "THF should not be commenting here. By his own admission, he's involved in a lawsuit with the subject."
2. Warned by Nomoskedasticity: "You really need to stay away from the Wolk article. COI couldn't be clearer on this, and it's beyond obvious that as a target of the subject's lawsuits you do indeed have a COI. I would request that you strike your recent comments on the AfD."

THF has continued to comment on-Misplaced Pages in discussions and in reference to Arthur Alan Wolk

1. Started and was active in the AFD of the legal case, for Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson, see 20:33, 4 November 2010
2. Continues to comment and edit, at AFD for Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Arthur Alan Wolk, see 06:30, 11 November 2010
3. Continues to repeatedly make reference in on-Misplaced Pages postings to that individual and that lawsuit, in other Misplaced Pages-process AFDs, 18:52, 11 November 2010
4. Continues to make reference in on-Misplaced Pages postings to that individual and that lawsuit, at BLPN, see 21:54, 11 November 2010

Summary - THF should refrain from activity and commenting on Misplaced Pages related to Arthur Alan Wolk

1. THF has a COI related to Arthur Alan Wolk and the related lawsuit.
2. THF has been warned by multiple editors about this COI.
3. THF has refused to stop posting in community process discussions related to this COI, and referring to it in on-Misplaced Pages postings in other related discussions.
4. THF should refrain from activity and commenting on Misplaced Pages related to Arthur Alan Wolk

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

1. I am only reporting what had already occurred, on-Misplaced Pages, and what has been stated by the user in question himself, on-Misplaced Pages.
2. The COI warnings by Jehochman (talk · contribs) and Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs) are valid.
3. User:THF has not abided by those warnings.
4. User:THF has remained actively involved in the subject matter, and referring to it, across multiple pages on Misplaced Pages.

-- Cirt (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

As Cirt's own edits show, I have not violated the WP:COI guideline: I have disclosed the conflict of interest, and I have not edited the mainspace of the Arthur Alan Wolk or the deleted Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson page. WP:COI permits discussion on talk pages, which is the only thing I have done.

As the beginning of this page states, Please note that the conflict of interest guidelines do not require editors with conflicts of interest to avoid editing altogether. An editor who has disclosed a conflict is complying with the guideline when they discuss proposed changes on a talk page, or make non-controversial edits in mainspace consistent with other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Furthermore, accusing another editor of having a conflict of interest in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited.

I request oversight, because these false accusations could result in a lawsuit against me. I request administrative action for this violation of WP:HARASS: Cirt is retaliating against me because he is upset about my position on Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System. This is not the first time Cirt has harassed editors he has had a disagreement with by making a false accusation of a violation of the WP:COI guideline. THF (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution