Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) at 05:18, 15 November 2010 (→User:Yrsukrutt alt of User:LyfjahonnunGroup1: Identity?). 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)

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)

If he has valuable information to contribute, it might actually be useful. He just needs to make sure that he is contributing in the "third person" from reliable peer-reviewed sources, not his own take or opinion...--Novus Orator 04:47, 14 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)

Are you sure that it's really someone at the agency? I just checked, and there's no "User:US Food and Drug Administration" or "User:EMEA". Anyone could create an account with those names. I've certainly encountered one perfectly legitimate, long-time editor whose username is the university he once attended. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:18, 15 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)

I've just found this User: Auspeto who is clearly from the same employer and doing the same thing - Advertising and using Misplaced Pages as a Soapbox. Can someone please help me with what the correct process is, because this does not appear right - everytime you go to an article about music, this user (via numerous sockpuppets) has inserted trivial and non-notable information which also amounts to original research along the lines of "X recently revealed on Radar Radio that..." Teachingwedge (talk) 23:23, 14 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)
• JadamHosey (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)

Firstly can I remind everyone not to out other editors, we should comment on contributions rather than the contributor, if someone has a COI it is apparent from their edits, rather than any other information. I've removed information from the previous posts and the versions of the page where outing was visible have been deleted from view. I agree that there is a problem related to these articles and agree that TadjHolmes may well have a COI based on the single purpose nature of their contributions, particularly ones such as this which is be arguing over whether VG Chartz is a RS or not and this where referenced material was removed with an edit summary of "removing spam". I've never heard of this site til today, but will keep an eye on the article and try to ensure it remains accurate and neutral. I've added JadamHosey to this report as they may also have a COI based on the edits they have made today, as a brand new user. If these users do have a COI, I'd ask that they follow WP:BESTCOI and only make suggestions on the talk page of the articles, particularly as editing the articles directly may have unintended consequences. SmartSE (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about the links and Google cache page I had posted. As for my "history of defacing the VGChartz article", I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean when I only ever edited the article twice. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a general comment on this - I was the user that originally suspected and asked about the COI, but after receiving a negative answer, I took the user at their word and let it be. However, their editing pattern (only VGChartz-related articles) and aggressive removal of negative VGChartz coverage/content means I still have my doubts. Likewise with the second user (Jadam), who only appeared today, and seems to be even more aggressive in their removal of negative items. Thanks! Fin©™ 17:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

User THF and subject Arthur Alan Wolk

--JN466 01:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

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 and Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Christopher_Connor. 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)

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)

• Comment. You also have to consider the other side of this issue: should editors sued by the subject of a Misplaced Pages biography because they have edited it cease editing that biography? If we assume the answer is yes, that automatically creates a chilling effect. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • As I understand, this situation is the reverse. Editor claims to have been sued, and then starts editing the article. This creates a bad appearance. Jehochman 13:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I've asked him to clarify what came first on his talk page, but after he received several strongly worded warnings from admins, he refuses to discuss the matter any further: User talk:THF#COI clarification needed. I assume that also means he's going to stay away from the articles in question. So, this report can be closed anyhow. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Jehochman wrote: "Editor claims to have been sued, and then starts editing the article." As far as I understand it he never edited in article space. According to his statements on his talk page he only edited twice, once in talk space (allowed by COI) and once during an AfD (which isn't article space either). I agree that he (and the project) is much better off if he stays away from this entirely but I think he has a point when he argues that the COI guideline does not forbid the editing he did do and that if it ought to someone should change the guideline. As far as I can tell his editing has all been in good faith, and I sympathize with his feelings of being railroaded here. I;m not sure he's getting the fair hearing that he deserves, especially in terms of the issues he's brought forth in his defense. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
        • That is my understanding as well. On his talk page THF claims to have edited only discussions related to those articles, which appears to be true. Unless you count the edit that added the AfD tag, I don't see how that constitutes article editing, but I can't see the deleted history. Cirt above only mentions THF discussing the articles/topics, which he is allowed per my reading of WP:COI, just as User:Lawrencewarwick who seems to be a PR representative for Wolk is allowed (see report on him further below on this board). Tijfo098 (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
        • By the way, the answer to my question "what came first?", can be found here. That post was WP:BATTLE to a fair extent and so was , but these posts did not actually breach WP:COI in my view because while THF poked several Misplaced Pages editors (and Wolk), he did not really try to promote any particular outcome in those discussions. On the other hand, THF should not have nominated for deletion that lawsuit (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson); that may be seen as a breach of WP:COI, although to be fair Wolk lost that lawsuit, so THF doesn't have anything to gain by making the lawsuit less visible. That issue is moot now anyhow; the article was deleted by consensus, but mention of the lawsuit remains in Wolk's biography, which THF did not edit, but User:Lawrencewarwick did edit. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
          • If THF hasn't edited anything in mainspace, I don't see how he has violated WP:COI. (I became aware of this report via AN/I, and because I noticed an unrelated dispute between Cirt and THF at Talk:Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System. --JN466 17:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
            • COI says to "avoid, or exercise great caution," participating in deletion discussions as well.   Will Beback  talk  22:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
            • This edit seems rather odd, and might be seen as WP:BATTLE - an on-Wiki continuation of an off-Wiki conflict.   Will Beback  talk  22:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
              • How so? He's admitting to his involvement with the BLP subject, and is warning someone else about editing the subject. There is nothing below board here. THF has been completely open about his COI and has, in all good faith, tried to abide by the guidelines. Cirt's posting here and at AN/I, came rather precipitously after THF became involved in a content dispute with Cirt regarding a completely unrelated subject matter. There has been no COI violation, nor NLT (see the AN/I report), and that was clear from the start. This appears just to be procedure based mud slinging and as such a complete misuse of this noticeboard as well as AN/I.Griswaldo (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
                • I didn't say it was "below board". I said it appeared to be using Misplaced Pages as part of an off-Wiki dispute. Also, COI specifically warns against getting involved in AFDs, which seems to have been an issue here. THF has real-life legal disputes, due to the nature of his work. It's reasonable to ask him to avoid carrying his involvement over into Misplaced Pages editing. Likewise for other parties to this suit.   Will Beback  talk  23:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
                • "Seems"? I was asking for an explanation of just that. He was clearly trying to prevent exactly what you claim he "seemed" to be doing -- to prevent any spill over of the two. I think it would have made more sense for him to stay clear of the AfD, and it appears that he has taken that advise now from several parties, but COI does not prohibit it. Being advised to stay clear is fine, but being warned and dragged to noticeboards is not. Especially not by an editor who is engaged in an unrelated dispute with him. I'm wondering what your opinion on that is? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
                  • WP:COI doesn't prohibit anything. It doesn't even prohibit writing about oneself or one's business interests. But it does provide guidance which should be followed unless there's a good reason to ignore it. The purpose of this noticeboard is to deal with those who edit despite the strong advice to the contrary. I think "dragged" is hyperbole since no physical abduction was involved. If folks don't follow the COI guideline, then they should be expected to explain why on this noticeboard.   Will Beback  talk  00:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
                    • WP:COI advises editors with a COI, including legal antagonists, to avoid mainspace edits, use talk pages and disclose their conflict of interest. THF did exactly that. The timing of the OP's report seems at best opportunistic, given that they were in an unrelated dispute with THF at the time. This is not what noticeboards should be used for. --JN466 00:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
                      • It also calls on them to avoid AfDs. This isn't the first time that actions by this editor has led to a COIN posting. The Wolk issue seems timely - one AfD just closed and and another is still active. When is the right time to raise COI issues? Months after the fact?   Will Beback  talk  00:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
                        • (edit conflict) I agree that the above edit you diffed is odd, and I am glad THF has seen reason and stepped back from this. I think this thread can be closed; DGG has asked THF to make no further comment on this matter. --JN466 00:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Recently, User:THF has made a statement at User talk:THF#COI clarification needed agreeing to take a step back. Will Beback and Jehochman have explained what the matter is. Since THF has agreed not to continue in this vein, I propose that we consider the COI matter resolved. THF's comments about the filing here by Cirt as being a violation of WP:HARASS are in my opinion not justified. Cirt's COIN filing above, though it is vigorously worded, in my opinion is a correct use of normal procedures. Legal threats are usually made in talk space not article space. The fact that THF was not editing articles directly doesn't avoid the COI problem (bringing an off-wiki connection with the subject of the article into the wiki). EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes the COI issue is resolved and I guess I'm not surprised that after being unfairly tarred and feathered the most THF is going to get here is a detailed map showing him how to get to a cold shower. I guess the lesson is don't get into content disputes with certain people because they can make your life miserable without consequence. I hope THF hasn't been turned off of Misplaced Pages too much by all this. Resolved it is.Griswaldo (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything unfair about asking a party to litigation to avoid carrying their legal battles onto Misplaced Pages.   Will Beback  talk  02:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Promotion of an Author

Chris Gair (talk · contribs) has contintued after a COI warning to Promote books relating to author Dominic Streatfeild whose BLP he created, putting links to it in multiple articles and BLPs . Extra Scrutiny is welcome The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any conflict of interest from what I can tell. The biography isn't particularly well sourced, but it doesn't have classic COI signs like unsourced DOB and family deals. Some of the links and references inserted into other articles violate the external links guideline, but I think that these were probably made in good faith, and I've removed those that I felt were not appropriate. The books appear to be sufficiently notable and the articles are neutrally written as well, maybe with a few too many external links, but I don't think that's a major problem. SmartSE (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The China Study (book)

• The_China_Study_(book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Aronoel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Headveg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Kelly2357 (talk) 06:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Animal rights wiki admins (and general editors) are censoring and deleting content on this page. We need netural mods to help the page (who do not have a vegan agenda)

Vegan animal rights activists at 30bananas forum have committed to hijacking the Misplaced Pages page on the China Study (seemingly in cahoots with some of the editors), removing any mention of the most relevant critiques of the book. You can see what tampering has been done on the revision history of the page.

To give you an idea of what we are up against check out the comments from a 30 bananas member below:

"I am sorry if this request lands in the wrong thread, but please alert all VEGAN Misplaced Pages editors and admins of this (if you know any)! "Denise Minger" is very likely a large scale underground defamation campaign against Dr.Campbell! No matter if she is a real person or not, this is no "private blogger". I wrote already to Dr.Campbell himself, I hope there will be more awareness of the case. But what is essential is urgent protection and following up on the Misplaced Pages article: http://en.wikipedia.org/The_China_Study Please do not take this lightly. This is a war somebody is leading on, but it can be stopped by focused and clear approach at the major concentration points (like the Misplaced Pages). Please consider adding this possibility to your agenda and to support the Misplaced Pages article on a daily base."

"I just come back from the Misplaced Pages with a small first victory :) I was alerting many (vegan) admins and long term editors, and other people were on the move as well, and finally one of THE major Misplaced Pages admins, who happens to be vegan, is now watching over the article. ALL the "Denis Minger" blah got removed :) Plus some of the other only blog published, not peer-reviewed and not in the least scientifically backed nonsense too!"

References: http://www.30bananasaday.com/group/debunkingthechinastudycritics/forum/topics/official-responses-to-the?commentId=2684079:Comment:739324&groupId=2684079:Group:628512 http://foodfloraandfelines.blogspot.com/2010/10/vegan-propaganda-campbell-vs-minger.html

Thank you for your help, I believe Misplaced Pages should be a fair place Kelly

Several new accounts/IPs — Kelly2357 (talk · contribs), Cccpppmmm (talk · contribs), 24.95.237.242 (talk · contribs), and 132.170.56.157 (talk · contribs) — recently arrived at this article to add material from raw-food blogs, personal websites, and websites of unclear status. Several regular editors are therefore requesting, or adding, reliable secondary sources, and removing the OR/poor sources.

There seems to be an offwiki campaign to add material sourced to one blogger in particular: a young woman with no biomedical qualifications or background; who has not been published in this area by independent publishers; and who therefore fails WP:SPS. She has written extensively about various fad diets she has tried, and either she or her supporters have been trying to add her opinions about diet to this article. SlimVirgin 06:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

What about the reviews from all the other critiques? The medical doctors, the professors and the nutrition experts? These all have references that are not from blog websites. but still, all these edits were censored or removed.

It seems you only need strong news like references if the material is 'likely to be challenged' ... posting someone's review or criticism of a book should not be challenged. see WP:CHALLENGE

What is there to challenge about a book review from another expert in the same field? I do not understand why you would challenge that the critiques never said this? It’s only when you state something like “80% of red heads are colour-blind” that you need to cite a strong reference, as that of course is likely to be challenged (as it simply is not true) whereas it is true that these professors and doctors did say these things about the book.

Sorry if my n00bness is frustrating you, I'm just trying to understand the issues & rules Kelly2357 (talk) 07:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Kelly, I've explained this several times. We have two key sourcing policies, WP:V and WP:NOR. There are three sections from these policies that you need to read: What counts as a reliable source; Sources that are not usually reliable; and primary and secondary sources. All the sources in that article must adhere to these policies. That means no blogs, no personal websites, no websites of unclear status, and preferably no primary sources either. Ideally you need to use books from good publishers, newspaper articles, and journal articles.

Please read those three sections, then if you still have questions we can discuss them on the article talk page. SlimVirgin 10:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

PR representative

User:Lawrencewarwick declares himself to be part of a "partner in Websketching.com which is a website developer and online marketing firm." He also says he has "permission from Author Wolk to write about him". He has edited almost exclusively the bio of Arthur Alan Wolk. Is this okay per WP:COI? Tijfo098 (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It certainly hasn't been neutral editing. For example, in the first version: "As a result of his seasoned courtroom skills, aviation industry savvy and technical aircraft knowledge, Arthur has been named to the steering committees of every major airline disaster ..." SlimVirgin 10:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Paid editing

Conflict of interest by User:Danieldis47 and User:Etalssrs (possibly the same user, or associates) discovered by User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry as per this AfD, which is how I first found out about it. The creator of the article works as a "communication consultant", and has admitted on Twitter that he was being paid to write Misplaced Pages articles. Going through his contributions, most of his new articles seem to be of borderline notability, but his contributions have avoided scrutiny since he is familiar with the Manual of Style. I'm relatively new to this proccess, so I'm not very familiar with the correct course of action or the particulars of WP:COI on what should be done. His earlier contributions seem to be innocuous, but his newer ones stray farther away from his field of interest and are suspicious.--res Laozi speak 13:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

COI, BLP, edit warring--it's a grand slam

Reported single purpose account KingCast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for vandalism; request denied with the explanation that this user's edits don't constitute vandalism. Before I could respond request was removed from AIV page. Taking it here, pissed. It requires some fine hairsplitting to not accept a history of edit-warring, COI violations with links to unacceptable sources, and likely violations of BLP as block-worthy. Hell, I'll report this at improper usernames page, since it's the same as the blog being promoted. JNW (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I find this interesting . Regardless of one's thoughts on the politician in question--and to put it tactfully the senator elect holds very little appeal for this contributor--the continued posts are unacceptable without the presence of objective reliable sources. Given the blog from which this emanates, the accusation that Misplaced Pages is censoring posts, the name of this account and its single-purpose agenda, I expect this will merit further attention. JNW (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir or Madam: Why are my sources not objective or reliable, most of them are COURT DOCUMENTS or Kelly Ayotte's OWN REPORT when you go to the requested pages. I have a law degree, got an A in Constitutional Law, have changed First Amendment Law in Nashua, have a Mayoral Commendation from former Mayor Bernard Streeter for so doing. I changed the link when it was not acceptable for me to use tinyurl, so what gives?

How can things be more objective than a court document?

And by the way, I don't commit Defamation, I have worked for the Indianapolis Star as a reporter and Editor at the Ohio Call & Post many years ago so I don't play around with inaccuracies folks, I bust on bad journalists who DO:

Read the Joanna Marinova v. Boston Herald post and watch my short video on that. http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2010/11/kingcast-gets-another-visit-from-joanna.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1x3dn_YGnU

Now gosh dang it, I'm going after a very powerful person, and I am doing it with accuracy or she would have been all over my arse already but she can't because there's nothing inaccurate about what I am reporting. You guys are getting in the way of Justice, heck if you read the comments in my blog I was going to seek a vandalism complaint before my accurate posts were themselves stricken.

I respectfully request a well-reasoned response on Monday at , thank you. Christopher King, J.D. http://KingCast.net -- Reel News for Real People 617.543.8085m —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.33.26 (talk) 02:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added a welcome template to 68.184.33.26's talk page to help the user, who apparently is evading the block of user KingCast, better understand how Misplaced Pages works. --CliffC (talk) 03:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Mr. King: One thing I appreciate is your honesty, which makes it easier to pinpoint the issues: There's nothing objective about your mission, as you say, in "going after" a person--as an attorney and journalist you know that, and understand that you can surely use your blog to that end, but not an encyclopedia. You're citing yourself and editing under a clear conflict of interest--if the proceedings you reference have received extensive coverage in newspapers or journals they're okay, but my guess is that this individual is a party to thousands of court documents....as well, Misplaced Pages's goal is not the achievement of justice, a noble and subjective cause. It is concerned with reliably sourced factual content, without personal or political agenda. In other words, neutrality. That is why I may find the subject not at all to my taste, but attempt to honor the guidelines regarding her biography nonetheless. And it's not unreasonable to wonder if there isn't a little self-publicizing here, too. Again, your background suggests you understand these distinctions already.... JNW (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree that more eyes on this would be good, particularly as there are major BLP issues with the content being added. For others, the article in question is Kelly Ayotte. I have it watchlisted and will certainly protect/block as needed, but hopefully it won't be.

Chris, it appears you are watching this. Your blog and website is a good place to publicize the material and concerns that you have about Ms. Ayotte. Unfortunately, until what we call secondary sources (mainstream newspapers, magazines etc) publish about the matter, it cannot and will not be included on Misplaced Pages. This is because of our non-negotiable policies about WP:Verifiability, no original research and in particular articles about living people. This last specifically forbids us to use court documents in articles about living people unless information has been published elsewhere in the media, for example. You may feel that WP is standing in the way of justice, but we are not in the truth or getting-the-word-out-there business. --Slp1 (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixing my own high school article

I've been working on a slew of high school articles in Arizona of late: 13 school stubs and three district articles, mostly in the past few days.

One of the schools on my target list to improve (many are stub creation efforts for schools with enrollments that are pretty high: 1,500 for instance, with the exception being Camp Verde High School) is Seton Catholic High School.

This article needs a bit of work – and I know because I attend said institution:

• The school changed its name (added Preparatory in the middle) in mid-2009. (At least the athletic titles seem to be better cared for!)
• Some information on the building project reads incorrectly.
• Accreditation information and a recent honor from the Catholic High School Honor Roll project.

Would it be OK to make this information change (in line with work I have done for other school articles), provided I keep to WP:NPOV etc.? Today marks my 5th anniversary as a Misplaced Pages editor, by the way, so I think I can do this. Raymie (t • c) 05:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution