Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:52, 9 February 2009

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Shortcuts WP:COI/N WP:COIN WP:COIBOARD Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge) This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Misplaced Pages to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes: This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice. The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}. Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request: 1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}. 2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed. 3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days. Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline.
Are you in the right place? An editor can be biased without additionally having a COI. Issues involving bias may be more suited to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Issues involving the biographies of living persons policy (BLP) may be more suited to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Commercial usernames should be reported to Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention. Obvious cases of corporate vanity can be tagged with {{db-spam}}. Articles written about a person, group, club or band by such a person, group, club or band with no assertion of notability can be tagged with {{db-bio}} instead. This page is not for reporting simple vandalism, material that can easily be fixed or removed without argument, or non-conflict of interest breaches of the neutral point of view policy. Notes for volunteers To close a report Add Template:Resolved at the head of the complaint, with the reason for closing and your signature. Old issues are taken away by the archive bot. Other ways to help All editors are encouraged to help resolve reports of COI editing. More problematic articles can be found in Category:Misplaced Pages articles with possible conflicts of interest. Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests. Editors who believe they have a conflict of interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should edit the parameter of the {{edit COI}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requester to explain your decision.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Possible autobiographies found by bot

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

Requested edits

• Category:Requested edits.  Editors who believe they have a Conflict of Interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should undo the {{Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requestor to explain your decision.

Rebreather

• Rebreather (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Themfromspace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• The dispute is currently about whether to include this external link at the end:

(warning: contains advertisements)

• • Janwillem Bech's big rebreather information site (warning: contains advertisements)

I want to link to that site, because it contains much useful information about rebreather scuba diving. See discussion at Talk:Rebreather#External links again. Much of that discussion centers on including/deleting longer pieces of text which I have accepted the loss of; the current dispute is about the one link quoted above.

I am accused of conflict of interest, apparently because:

1. Many years ago before I heard of Misplaced Pages I submitted a short text article (about the Siebe Gorman Salvus) and a few images to that site.
2. As a result, the long list of thanks on http://www.therebreathersite.nl/Zuurstofrebreathers/General/thanks_to.htm (one of that site's many pages) includes a link to my website. (I do not stand to gain financially if more people access my website.)
3. That site contains advertisements as well as useful information. (I have no financial connection with any of the firms with adverts there.)

Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• To be honest I'm not sure if this is the best place to report this, but I just want to mention that anyone who sees this here should look over the talk page of the article and see that Anthony has been defending what is in essence a link farm for years. At one time an RfC was called for the links and most everyone who commented said they should be removed, but nothing ever came of it. About a dozen different people in all have brought the linkfarm up for question over a long period of time and they were all single-handedly refuted by Anthony. There is a strong consensus that the link doesn't belong on the article and this consensus has been taken from the past two years. As for the Conflict of Interest, I have no doubt that Anthony has one with the site. He has fought its removal tooth and nail over the past few years by editing it back in without discussion, taking it to the talk page and then editing it back in without consensus to do so, editing it in with a warning that it contains objectionable advertising (which is in itself a violation of WP:ELNO), and even pleading on the talk page for its inclusion "it's just one link". The site he wants so passionatly to be included personally thanks him on its page, which is what tipped me off for the conflict of interest. He has also inserted the link in other articles dating back to 2004 (!), sometimes referring to the owner by his name, as if the two know each other. This type of behavior is most unbecoming for an established editor, and especially an administrator and it must stop. Although he has a vested interest in the subject, he does not own the page. Anything that is on that site that can help the article should be implemented into the article and properly cited. An external link is not needed here. Themfromspace (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• I let the "link farm" be deleted on 8 June 2008: it can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rebreather&oldid=82888098#External_links ; I put it in a long time ago because such a list is difficult to find and people may want the information; OK, OK, I accept that "Misplaced Pages is not a directory".

  The other affected big text section is http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rebreather&oldid=262473007#Some_makes_of_rebreather , which I also have now let be deleted.

  This now seems to go back to the old dispute: "What if a site contains advertizing, but also good information and/or images which cannot be found elsewhere?".

  Some people supported my side in those old discussions, which are in Talk:Rebreather. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  "sometimes referring to the owner by his name, as if the two know each other": Many web sites are commonly known of as "<someone>'s site" without readers having personal or financial contacts with him. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• As you can see from the Rebreather talk page, I've been involved in the most recent debate about external links in the article. I don't believe Anthony has a conflict of interest, certainly not of the form described in WP:CON. However, he has allowed himself to be put in the position where a perception of a conflict of interest could be reasonably made. Anthony is a long-term contributor to wikipedia, particularly to WikiProject Scuba, and has contributed a lot to scuba-related articles. The problem in the Rebreather article arises because there are many external sites with a lot of information, and others which would be clearly of interest to readers (particularly those who are divers). Anthony really wants the article to provide as much information and interest as possible - I have no doubt of his sincerity. Unfortunately, the result of trying to provide that information and interest by providing links to those sites leads him to fall afoul of our WP:EL guidelines. In the case of Janwillem Bech's rebreather site, it is an excellent reference site for divers interested in rebreathers, but Anthony's appreciation of that site has allowed him to appear to have a conflict of interest. I don't think this is the place for the debate. I do think that what wikipedia requires of us is to try to incorporate as much information into the article itself, and leave the external links for specific items that can't be incorporated, like copyrighted images. Working on the article itself to arrive at a goal we all want will be more productive. --RexxS (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• "to try to incorporate as much information into the article itself": If e.g. I use http://www.therebreathersite.nl as a source of information to write Misplaced Pages matter, then I would have to refer to http://www.therebreathersite.nl as a <ref>---</ref> reference of the ordinary sort to prove the information, and as a result I would still be referring to http://www.therebreathersite.nl . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Implementing it as a reference is perfectly acceptable and that is a way you could link to the site from wikipedia. Requirements for citing reliable sources are much different than what goes in the "external links" section of an article. Themfromspace (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Copying that much matter in, including rewording it to avoid copyvio, would take "a month of Sundays" (as people say here in England). That is why it was easier to link to it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• You do not have to copy it all in! Just have one fact in the article derived from a link, and then ref the link. Simple! --BenBurch (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Pam Evans

• Pam Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Peace Mala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pam Evans (talk · contribs)
• Alosel (talk · contribs)

- Does anyone have spare time to take a look at this? Addressing copyright concerns, I noticed conflict issues, in that not only is the subject purportedly editing the article herself but the other primary editor is citing as sources personal correspondence from the subject to him. (He is involved with Peace Mala, an organization she founded.) I have provided each a COI advisory, but would appreciate it greatly if a contributor here could undertake to evaluate it for cleaning as necessary for neutrality and to remove OR. I try not to mix my copyright problems with other issues if it can be avoided. Moonriddengirl 15:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Details added above. Personally I think an AFD might be appropriate for Pam Evans. Her sole notability is as founder of Peace Mala - I suggest a short paragraph there - and all the ghastly cruft about schools and classes she taught before seems of little encyclopedic interest. Update: I've opened an AFD on grounds of insufficient separate notability. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

User:David44357

• David44357 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 209.76.124.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Saranixon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I noticed that this user had made many edits regarding Fabrik Inc. and its brands such as SimpleTech and G-Technology. He would either write a substantial portion of such articles (which often did sound like somewhat of an advertisement but had many, many citations) or add mentions to the company and its brands to articles on related topics such as External hard disk drive, Toshiba, Samsung Group, etc.

I looked further into his contributions and saw that he made edits to a number of other articles as well...including quite a few edits The Hoffman Agency, a public relations firm. After looking at , it seems that the majority of the edits that he made were regarding clients of The Hoffman Agency...these include Fabrik, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, Friendster, SolarWinds, and possibly others.

As you can probably see I strongly suspect that this individual is making edits on behalf of a PR firm. I'd already warned him about a potential conflict of interest on the SimpleTech/Fabrik topics and he responded but seems to have made a few more edits. Scootey (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Scootey's concerns from here and my talk page:

• I'm not sure what sockpuppet refers to, but the IP address and my username are indeed one in the same. I sometimes make revisions without logging in.
• I made the initial new Wikis for most of the Wikis mentioned including The Hoffman Agency, Fabrik, SimpleTech, G-Tech, SolarWinds, and others - the Gerson Lehrman Group, Sarantel, etc.. My name does occur frequently in the history section as I complete the work, but I generally am not reversing the work of others. I also wrote approximately half of the current Wiki on Public Relations, a whole new section in external hard drive, etc..
• Admittedly, the Fabrik Wiki content had some copy/paste marketing goop that should not have been included and has since then been corrected. This is probably what raised a flag for Scootey.
• I have followed the guidelines set by the Misplaced Pages FAQ for organizations of verifiability (references as mentioned by Scootey) and neutral point of view. I've also frequently discussed changes on discussion and talk pages and have not deleted the works of others.

I think I have made substantial genuine contributions to Misplaced Pages content both on company Wikis and subject-matter Wikis. Each Wiki includes an immense amount of in-depth online research. Many of these Wikis were non-existent, in poor condition, sometimes full of broken links, etc.

Based on Scootey's observations above, I can see his reason for concern, but I think a close investigation of the new Wikis I've created, the research that goes into it, and the factual information I've consolidated onto Misplaced Pages articles would reveal a positive contribution to Misplaced Pages.com.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by David44357 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Scootey is right that there's a problem. There's a deal of correlation between the contributions of David44357 (talk · contribs) and clients of the Hoffman Agency (compare the list ). Plus ... we're not allowed to explicitly "out" editors any more ... but if you digg a little you find a very short trail to the Hoffman Agency.

As examples, the edits that introduce Fabrik into articles look considerably promotional -

• Article creation ("Fabrik is the third largest external hard drive provider in the world. Now there will finally be a centralized hub of information on them on the web")
• Product placement in External hard disk drive, replacing a Seagate drive with a Fabrik one as example image - {"Not to show any bias for brands, but an eco-friendly drive is just way more interesting and modern...")
• Product placement in Computer data storage ("Adding image of eco-friendly hard disk to show some modern trends...")

and there looks to be some fairly transparent canvassing like this one to get the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (another Hoffman client) mentioned in the Nanotechnology article, or this one to keep The Hoffman Agency on Misplaced Pages. If there's a COI, it's a little disingenuous to come on like all these topic ideas are just altruistic enthusiasm. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Quoting David44357 "...but the IP address and my username are indeed one in the same. I sometimes make revisions without logging in."

Interesting. Let's do a whois and nslookup on the IP, shall we?

The Hoffman Agency PBI-CUSTNET-1562 (NET-209-76-124-64-1)

209.76.124.64 - 209.76.124.127

ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2009-01-28 19:10

Non-authoritative answer:

126.64/26.124.76.209.in-addr.arpa

name = ws-209-76-124-126.hoffman.com.

Admit it. You're making edits for your clients that you've been paid to make, and you're editing the articles of their competitors to add them in for special "Competitor" sections and removing anything that looks like advertisement in them while at the same time filling your clients' articles chock full of advertising material. You're completely misrepresenting your motivations and your COI has affected more than just your clients' articles. Lahnfeear (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The clients probably weren't stupid enough to ask him to do this, but it's clearly inappropriate and needs to be stopped immediately. Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

And there's more from the IP 209.76.124.126 (talk · contribs): product placement via "Competitor" sections; trying to get speedy deletion of PacketTrap (a competitor of PacketMotion); canvassing for the inclusion of guess-who's bamboo hard drive in Green computing ; adding a Hoffman client to Agentless data collection ; and so on. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

He just blanked his talk page of all the comments about his COI. Just more of the same pattern... Lahnfeear (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm adding Saranixon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to this report. The edits correspond exactly with David44357 and the ip 209.76.124.126. Obviously either a meatpuppet or sockpuppet of the same user. Lahnfeear (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOCK request

• Could someone with a little more experience submit a Sock report with a request for an IP check for these users? I think there's more than enough evidence at this point to investigate further. This is a case of systematic, subversive edits with an intent to hide intent (see Saranixon's recent, meaningless edits to Laundry to bury the obvious COI edits in prior articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lahnfeear (talk • contribs) 02:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

They won't go for it; IP checks are reserved for major abuse such as banned users evading blocks. What more do you want than what's been raised here quite sufficiently via edit patterns? BTW, even in these circumstances, focusing on edits rather than the editor is good etiquette, so could you tone down this third-degree "Admit it" kind of approach? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks for responding. It just seems wrong that a company paid to, and I quote from his site, "connect clients with...audiences through...Web 2.0 approaches. Whether it’s contacting a journalist via Facebook, harnessing client resources to comment on blogs, or building content for one-off stories," is getting away with this long and systematic series of advert edits, and continues to behave in the exact same way despite being notified multiple times about the problem. They're using WP as a brochure and it just pisses me off. Doesn't the pattern exhibited by these three accounts still show viable reason for a Meat/Sock concern? Anyway... Sorry if I made it too personal. Lahnfeear (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally these things work on a initial wait-and-see basis. An entry at WP:COIN attracts a focus on the problem editor(s) and their topics, and very often they just stop once caught at it. Alternatively they may keep going, but there are far more editors on their case to catch promotional edits (again sometimes making the problem editor(s) eventually give up). Usually things are allowed to go through those options first. But ultimately, there is nothing directly sanctioning a COI as such: the guiding principle is WP:NPOV, and we focus on the editing behaviour in breach of it. Who the subject of a WP:COIN alert might be is just the initial handle for understanding the territory. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmni

• Hmni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rramzshaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- (new name of Hmni)

Hmni (talk · contribs) has been editing Hello My Name Is Records, which the article notes is referred to as HMNI. Rspeer (talk · contribs) insists that we not block them for the username because that would be biting, so we are referring this here from UAA in order to take appropriate sanctions for violating COI. Daniel Case (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hello My Name Is Records. Depending on the outcome of that discussion, we could decide how to approach Hmni regarding the issue of COI editing. He has already received the {{uw-coi}} warning. EdJohnston (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Editor has changed his name to Rramzshaw, in response to a suggestion. He has been cooperating with others. No urgent problem any more. It may be time to close this as a COI complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Korn/Ferry

• Korn/Ferry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 65.125.188.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can someone have a look at this series of edits: . Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Whois on 65.125.188.130: OrgName: KORN FERRY INTERNATIONAL

COI tag added to article. I see the COI issue was raised at User talk:65.125.188.130 on 18 December, with no acknowledgement. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed two sections which were copied from websites as copyvios and removed five external links all of which were to the same site per WP:ELNO #4 & WP:LINKSPAM. There might be an article to salvage once the advertising is pruned, otherwise I suggest it's off to AfD. --RexxS (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• If Misplaced Pages spent more time filling in articles about major businesses, and less time on , corporations wouldn't feel the need to create their own articles. This very clearly met WP:BUSINESS, and I found cites for all of the claims within minutes of looking. THF (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Bill robb

Bill robb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — is adding large amounts of material, and creating a number of new pages, cited to himself on his website www.valueseducation.co.uk (although his attempted contributions to Peace education also include a considerable amount of uncited material as well). Hrafn_Stalk(P) 11:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

On closer examination of his edits, one of Bill robb's first edits on wikipedia, was to describe himself on Values education (the article with the same name as his website, which he has thereafter edited considerably, and cited himself profusely) as "a leading expert in the field - Dr Bill Robb". This seems to have set the pattern for his later edits. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 05:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

MODx

Rthrash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - MODx article was listed at AfD and then this user pops up being unWP:CIVIL because I listed his vanity page. Did a good search for his username and it seems he is a developer for MODx 16x9 (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is the incivility? (He did make a joke when replying to you in the AfD, but what he said doesn't seem worrisome). Anyone who has opinions about the article is welcome to comment at WP:Articles for deletion/MODx. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize to 16x9 if you took my joke as uncivil. I likewise appreciate the process you're putting the article through. I am in fact the project co-founder but am trying to update the article to be in compliance with Misplaced Pages guidelines, warts and all. For example, listing security issues and an article that was not altogether flattering of MODx certainly doesn't make MODx look good. I'm not sure what a vanity page is though? While I did agree with the original AfD request, I can't honestly see how an unbiased individual would say that the original listing reason has not been rectified (Notability and Reliable Sources). Rthrash (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Next Generation 9-1-1

Sole creator is user:NextGen911. I haven't read article thoroughly, it's also on the userpage I believe, but I think it needs work... ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Next Generation 9-1-1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to be well sourced, although use of citation templates in the in-line refs would make the references easier to use. Some of the content (check with a few google searches for key phrases) is taken directly from reliable sources and the PD status of US Gov publications avoids copyvio problems with those. It's a pretty good article as a single draft and unless any content turns out to have been directly lifted from copyrighted sites, I'd guess it can be left to the normal processes of other editors making amendments.

NextGen911 (talk · contribs · account creation) seems to have considerable expertise and an interest in this field and I don't think there's any CoI in the intentions stated on the userpage and the contributions so far. --RexxS (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for checking on it Rexx. I think the way the citations were done threw me because it looks like they are from primary sources, but upon closer inspection it looks okay.ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. You're also correct to suspect the sources. I think there's that fine line in considering WP:V when the source is what the subject of an article says about itself (primary source). In a case like this of a government agency explaining an initiative of its own, one could concede the authority of the (primary) source, particularly as the general content is corroborated by other (secondary) commentaries. Just may humble opinion, of course, others may disagree. --RexxS (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly it would be best to have independent sources. Government agencies are known to push their own programs. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I went through the article and removed links to the author's commercial page on the subject. It's a good start for a page and further edits will continue to improve it. Jc3 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Per Jc3. Seems like the POV issues have been addressed. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

James H. Fetzer

• James H. Fetzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

James H. Fetzer (talk · contribs) has been editing the article, adding a lot of material. It seems adequately sourced, but notability and lack of bias still needs to be determined. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look at the article and tried to format the first four refs to help verify them. The first cite to University of Minnesota was being used to support a statement that the cite did not mention. The link in the second reference to ABC News produced a "not found" - google searching for the claimed article gave no ghits. The fourth reference is a dead link. At this point, WP:REDFLAG tells me that the sourcing on the article is not the high-quality required for exceptional claims. I would consider many of the sources given as self published sources and come under the remit of questionable sources. Once the sourcing can be verified, then unsourced statements can be challenged with confidence, particularly as I believe much of the article has become a platform for Fetzer to promote his views on JFK and 9/11. Those views would be better discussed in Assassination of JFK and 9/11 Conspiracy where they can more easily be judged for WP:NPOV. This biographical article about Fetzer may well state his views, as that is probably his principle claim to notability, but in my opinion it is WP:UNDUE to expound them at this length. --RexxS (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

On further review, the article make sufficient claims for notability and has some cites from respectable news sources to back that up. The problem at present is that although the article looks adequately sourced, in fact about half of the 42 cites are self-published sources and then there are three links to blogs, two to YouTube and a couple to newspaper articles in Spanish. It's not that every single one of those are inappropriate, but trying to distinguish where SPS or YouTube or Spanish is acceptable as a source is a tedious job. Anyone else who can spare the time to take a careful look? --RexxS (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Article very badly needs a top-to-bottom rewrite. I'd rather not be the one to stick my hand in the crazy, though, since if I do it, I'll be accused of being part of the conspiracy because of my day job. THF (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Masonic conspiracy theories" as part of the Freemasonry project

The article Masonic conspiracy theories purports to present conspiracy theories regarding Freemasonry. Instead, it seems to be a white-wash job created by Freemasons themselves, in order to provide a distorted view of conspiracy theories.

Blueboar has committed himself to "edit" articles regarding Freemasonry, and has admitted to being a practitioner of Freemasonry himself. The 2 other editors (MSJapan and WegianWarrior) seem to be providing support rather than making any significant contributions. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

User is forum shopping. See contribution history. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That has no bearing on the facts, and it was an honest mistake. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. My aim was to inform others that another noticeboard might be a better place to answer. Theresa Knott | token threats 00:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Having observed a little of the talk page interaction at Masonic conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I have doubts that Ukufwakfgr (talk · contribs) is engaged in a good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia here. Jayen466 22:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do you make this claim, and why do you feel a need to weigh in at all ? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

why do you feel a need to weigh in at all?

That's what WP:COIN is for: to ask for independent views of situations where COI might apply.

However, I agree with Theresa Knott that this is not a COI issue, just a content dispute. Even if proven, COI claims re membership of some quite large religious/political group don't generally wash. It'd have to be a far closer connection than that (e.g. at the level of the Master of a particular Lodge editing the article about that Lodge). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I neglected to properly indent that message. It was directed towards Jayen466, who has not contributed in the talk page, and whose changes were reverted by me and so may feel personally affected.

A conflict of interest is relevant to official capacity. An example may be a pharmacologist writing about preventative nutrition. Unless he has a compelling reason to discuss it (eg: as part of a holistic regimine, or in the interest of scientific research), it might detrimental for him to do so in earnest. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, that's not how COI is interpreted here. It only covers close personal or business interest, at the level of writing about ones' own company: see Misplaced Pages:COI#Examples for examples. Quoting specifically, Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise - such as your example of a pharmacologist writing about preventative nutrition - is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The article, if presented accurately, would be inconsistent in tone with the other articles in the Freemasonry project. That is why I brought this up in the COIN. Pharmacologists are not infaliable. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Ukufwakfgr: your concerns, although they may be valid, do not rise to the level of COI as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned. Devout Catholics get to edit articles about their religion, members of Mensa get to edit articles about their organization, and Freemasons can edit articles about freemasonry. Your other complaints (e.g., "tone") are not issues for this noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not the article about Freemasonry, but an article describing conspiracy theories, which are mostly defamatory statements. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

which are mostly defamatory statements.

Whether true or not, that's again a content issue, and nothing that's dealt with here. You've now been told by three editors that this is not the place to deal with this particular problem. I'm marking this as resolved. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Where can I go to discuss "content issues?" Ukufwakfgr (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The article Talk page, where I see discussions are already ongoing. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Also where Ukufwakfgr just accused me of being a Blueboar sock for using the phrase "Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle, Pot.".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Wikifan12345 and January 2009 attacks in Gaza

I feel this user might have a conflict of interest in this matter and should probably not be editing this article. His edit summaries are revealing of a passion for the situation in Gaza that is probably unhealthy for the article. He's been driving home a phrasing of the lead that I don't believe is neutral enough, and he's continually reverted me when I've tried to insert a version of the lead that was more neutral. Further to that, he continues to introduce degrading grammatical errors that I have repeatedly attempted to fix. His civility with me has been less than good; he even took to spamming my talk page with a censorship template. That brings me to the other point. He's been labelling my attempts to improve and neutralise the lead as "censorship", which I think only furthers my point about a conflict of interest. I'd appreciate an exterior opinion from someone. Here are some diffs to illustrate what I'm saying:

• A passionate summary
• And again
• Spamming my talk page with a censorship template, as if to imply I'm trying to drive an agenda.
• Domineering the article by reverting a good faith edit by someone else without explanation.

I should note that it could be said I'm in a dispute with this user; I've come here for some resolution. I say this because I don't want to paint the wrong picture. What's fair is fair. The problem isn't being sorted out between us, so I hope someone else here can provide insight. —Anonymous Dissident 05:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Ok, well, I personally think this is simply unproductive, but I'll bite if my privileges as a user are in jeopardy. Every edit I have performed in the article has included a simple rationale, both in the history and in the discussion page. I requested Anonymous to go to the discussion page several times, yet he refused continually. My accusations of censorship were justified. The original lead did not truthfully reflect sources being cited, and I told anonymous this several times. I even highlighted my concern in the talk page and asked for differing opinions. Anonymous seemed to be confusing neutrality with facts, which I cordially questioned, though the argument soon became heated. From what I understand, Anonymous became obsessed with syntax, blurring the line between execution and killed. Further edits seemed to create a false-sense of neutrality, using less-offensive words (like assaults to beatings), and rewriting sentences that did not properly reflect their cited reference. In his userpage, he started saying how he was the one who started the article. Here was my rationale: You being the creator of the article is irrelevant, and in no way gives you ownership of articles - per Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles. You say you are not the owner of the article, but seem to be infatuated with the fact that you started it, and that somehow gives you the right to tell me and everyone how it should be written. As far as I know, Anonymous is the only user who has complained. Not sure how important this is, but veteran Israeli/Palestinian writer Cerejota has yet to revert or agree with Anonymous's opinions, even though he is currently editing the article. I have no problem if you guys want me to take a break, as I will voluntarily do so, but I have to disagree with Anonymous here. thanks! Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks for stating your view. I'd just like to say that my point in regards to "ownership" of the article was that no-one owned it; not me, as the writer, or he, as the dissenter. I made that point because it was my perception that he was attempting to gain a monopoly over the content, seen in his reversion of people without explanation. —Anonymous Dissident 05:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to expound upon what seems to be the salient point of the disagreement for WF; "neutrality" vs. "censorship". What needs to be recalled when we consider this is that the leading statements of an article should be concise, provide a good overview, and be neutral. The phrasing of the article that I gave was worded to the effect of "Hamas is suspected", while WF's seemed to imply that they were certainly guilty of the crimes and that was that. While it is true that Hamas has admitted some responsibility for the attacks, they have on the other hand denied the allegations (strange as that may be, different spokespersons have said different things). This makes the statement "Hamas was responsible for the attacks" a grey area, based on their responses and what we as encyclopedists know and can source. Further to that, it makes the neutral but similar statement "Hamas is suspected of involvement", which is much more neutral and which gives due consideration to the whole scope of the matter and Hamas' responses, much more appropriate for the lead. The body of the content should be used to discuss Hamas' part in the killings, and where the situation is in regard to their actions, not the lead; and that's exactly what's there. The actions of Hamas and what seems to be a campaign against suspected collaborators is fully discussed in later sections of the text, sections which I wrote (again, I'm not trying to claim ownership of the article by claiming I wrote it, I'm just pointing out that I myself wrote sections of the article that soberly state what's gone on and what Hamas has done); thus, claims of censorship by me are somewhat debased. Grey areas, disputed areas and uncertain areas do not work well with the lead, especially in an article such as this. That is all I have to say. —Anonymous Dissident 06:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm tired and I may respond more thoroughly later, but I will say this: I stand by everything I did. I've looked carefully through wiki rules and believe I have violates no laws. Every edit I did was explained through edit summaries, and major editing was discussed in talk. Take the time and look through the references in the article and compare to Anonymous' version, you will hopefully see the inconsistencies and whitewashing. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Further evidence of COI in this talk page section. The user's combative responses to discussion on this page seem to be more indicative again of a COI in this area. —Anonymous Dissident 08:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

An outside opinion: this seems to me to be a misunderstanding of the WP:COI guideline. Wikifan12345 evidently has a strong POV on this conflict, but an interest doesn't automatically imply a conflict of interest. It might do if he was directly affiliated with the combatants - i.e. the Israeli military or Hamas - but I don't think you are claiming that. I can't see anything to action here, quite frankly. (Though Wikifan12345's conduct is concerning in other regards; I've raised an issue relating to him on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration enforcement). -- ChrisO (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I meant COI and I perfectly understand the guideline; thanks for the correction. It seems to me that his POV may be influencing his actions and that his activity on other articles could be suggestive of a conflict of interest. —Anonymous Dissident 05:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I request a delay because I'm involved in more "important" discussions. I'll suspend my involvement in the article mentioned, though it's clear nobody else has had a problem with what I've done. I don't see anything controversial about it, I gave a rationale for everything I did and asked people to go to talk instead of settling disputes like this. Every time someone has a different opinion they tell on you, kind of childish IMO. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a strong opinion and I have not been told on yet. But then again I didn't call the opposition racists. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

PR Firm promoting Warren Farrell, etc

I noticed that Warren Farrell had become very promotional. I checked the editor and found that Rsskga (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) had made a major re-write back in October 2008. The same user also wrote articles on one of Farrell's books, The Myth of Male Power, on an erotica site, Unseen (Unseen.tv), and on a limousine service, LS Worldwide Transportation. The latter article was quickly deleted as having no assertion of notability, but a version can be found here: user:Rsskga/LS WorldWide Transportation. At first I assumed that Rsskga was either Farrell or a close friend, because the article is illustrated with scans of his diplomas and some press clippings which only he would have. However on searching Google I found that Rsskga is actually the principal of a Media Marketing/SEO firm named All the Queen’s Men. It would appear that Farrell, Unseen.tv, and LS Worldwide Transportation are her clients. (On Wikicommons she claims the LS logo is her creation.) The articles cite Rsskga's offsite postings and press releases as sources. So, unless someone has a better suggestion, I'm going to put a long comment on the user's talk page explaining NPOV and V, and strongly suggesting that she stop editing Misplaced Pages on behalf of her clients.   Will Beback  talk  23:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ian Cognito

• Ian Cognito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - written like an ad, doesn't contain any references 200.27.146.116 (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That really is a content issue; I don't see anything much that would count as overt COI activity. I'm busy at this instant, but a skim of NewsBank (UK recent newspaper archive) finds plenty of reliable third-party coverage. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Mystery Method

• Mystery_Method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mystery (pickup artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Vitasmortis (talk · contribs)

A single purpose account, Vitasmortis, seems to have a COI with the Mystery Method page. According to a research, that can be found on the talk page of Mystery Method, it revealed that the user is very likely involved with a commercial company that has an interest in the article. The user also blanked his talk page before and did not disclose his COI. Coaster7 (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Details added. I agree there appears to be a problem. That said, there's also a deal of hostile SPA activity by accounts that have been very busy trying to take down Mystery Method and Mystery (pickup artist) while building up two different articles of considerably duplicated content:

• Love Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nick Savoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm looking at

• 38.98.1.215 (talk · contribs)
• Coaster7 (talk · contribs)
• Camera123456 (talk · contribs)

and a bunch of smaller-scale SPAs (see ).

• AzazelswolfsuperPUAwithacherryontop (talk · contribs) is a trifle socky: sole edit to create a detailed COI analysis against User:Vitasmortis

Love Systems is a newer incarnation of Mystery Method Corporation (looks as if there was some kind of corporate schism).

This is complicated, but it smells of multiple parties with partisan conflicts of interest. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I tried to do an AfD for Mystery method, but I'm having trouble (even after updating it to a second nom). Can someone help me set it up? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not about other pages other than Mystery Method. There seems to be a discussion on whether what to include on that page. Before the edits of Vitasmortis, the page was fine and neutral. However, his edits made it look like a sales page and claims were made that had no source to verify. The Mystery Method is a well known and notable method of seduction in the media that has evolved in other methods of seduction. I'm not sure why you call me a SPA? I'm solely responsible for creating the Love Systems and Nick Savoy page. The first AfDs of those pages were of a year ago and I was not involved in those. That list of was for the very first AfD and none of them were around for the recreation. I was solely responsible getting those pages back up with help of other notable Misplaced Pages users for getting authorization of recreation. Ever since these pages were up, I've branched to other articles. As my first post says, this is about the Mystery Method page and SPA Vitasmortis. Coaster7 (talk) 05:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not about other pages other than Mystery Method.

Not so: WP:COIN is about whatever appears relevant to the article, and it's not wildly uncommon to notice spinoffs and/or COI complaints that might result from possible conflicting COI. Before the end of January, the majority of Coaster7 edits were to Love Systems and Nick Savoy (created with a large amount of canvassing). I agree about Vitasmortis, but patterns of edits focused on inclusion of one person/company and exclusion of who presumably is an estranged business partner of that person/company also look unusual. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. I alerted Coaster7 of the COI page on 23 January; and since then, he's made a more conscious (and quite conspicuous) effort to edit other pages.Benjamin Dominic (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The 27s: The Greatest Myth of Rock & Roll

• The 27s: The Greatest Myth of Rock & Roll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This appears to have been created by the self-published writers of this book solely as advertising. It reads like a press release.

Self-published, reviews are blogs, etc., I've put a Speedy Delete tag on it. dougweller (talk) 10:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Foswiki

• Foswiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Milovlad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SvenDowideit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KennethLavrsen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GilmarSantosJr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 88.66.151.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Foswiki. It seems that the developers of this TWiki derivative (all noted above) have rallied rained down on the AFD in the form of SPAs. MuZemike 04:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Fiskeharrison again

• Fiskeharrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alexander Fiske-Harrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user has been previously discussed Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_28#The_Pendulum_-_A_Tragedy_of_1900_Vienna_and_Alexander_Fiske-Harrison here and Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_28#Fiskeharrison here and COI warned on a few occasions. After a short sojourn he's back editing Alexander Fiske-Harrison. It appears that the usual COI warnings simply don't suffice. --Blowdart | 15:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course I have a COI, and I am aware "COI editing is strongly discouraged" (N.B. NOT forbidden) according to your COI guidelines, which is why I have left the long called for improvement of the article to other hands. However, since the demand to improve the article has been there some time, I eventualy thought to do something about it myself, while following the guideline that "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests" - hence my username IS my surname. Alexander Fiske-Harrison --Fiskeharrison (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Alexander. Per this edit you almost doubled the size of the article about yourself (3,958 bytes went up to 7,474 bytes). I thought we had reached a sort of truce, where you would stop fiddling with the article (especially the promotional language) and we would accept the new version. If that deal is no longer in place, then we have to start reviewing your behavior for promotional editing. It is traditional to block spam-only accounts, and you are not improving your reputation on Misplaced Pages. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As last time I AFDed his articles he accused me of a personal vendetta I'll leave it up to others to decide if a revert is needed on the article. --Blowdart | 20:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Fiskeharrison's interpretation of WP:COI is in any case selective: "(N.B. NOT forbidden) ... Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests" are both true, but they don't offer carte blanche to a free hand with an article. WP:COI simultaneously stresses the constraints of policies such as neutral point of view, what Misplaced Pages is not and notability. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this strikes me as deeply childish.

Obviously, I have a conception of how the information is best presented and I do not claim this is the the most objective - I am happy with how it now is. However, this article has been flagged, not only for improvement, but standardisation, for a while. The info is there, the references ready-made on my user-page, and no one does anything? Why not?

So, instead, they wait til I do and then cry wolf? Come on. Let's face facts, there's people who would rather the article didn't exist, despite the judgement of their peers, who sat and watched when they oould themselves have improved the piece, in the hope I would transgress...--Fiskeharrison (talk) 02:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It is time to give a final warning to Fiskeharrison. We have policies and we don't like it when they are ignored. There has been plenty of discussion here (it is now the second thread on this topic). He feels that his interpretation of COI is the only one that matters, and he doesn't need to listen to us. If he will agree to propose his changes on Talk, and wait for support from others, then we don't have a problem. If Fiskeharrison reverts Blowdart's latest fix, without first getting consensus on talk, I think he should be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

But that is exactly what I did! It was stated that the article needed improvement. I stated on Blowdart's page, and others, and the talk page for the article, where the correct information was. I did not edit the page itself. After a while, when no one had responded, or edited the page, I did so, within the guidelines. Now, those who were unwilling to edit it themselves, are protesting that I did so. I simply don't understand. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

PS I did not double the length of the aticle - if you look at the edit, FIVE lines were added on the published page. By WIKIFYing the references - which had notably not been done by anyone else - more bytes, but no more information, were added. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving this conversation to people's talk pages to ask for truces doesn't exactly exhibit good faith either. --Blowdart | 10:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I didn't. The comment truce was used above,"I thought we had reached a sort of truce", which I found rather out of place. It is a quotation. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 10:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As for your personal accusations, I'll point out two things. 1) wikipedia has the concept of a watchlist, when I tag articles the first time they go onto my watch list and 2) it's not uncommon to keep an eye on people who have broken rules before. I'd suggest laying off the personal remarks, especially those you hide elsewhere. --Blowdart | 10:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I hide nothing. Otherwise I'd be editing this in an internet cafe somewhere without signing in. It is not in my nature. My complaint is that you are willing to watch, but not to do the editing yourself. You say COI, I say disingenuous. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Whilst the community could not agree on the notability of your page, and thus it survives, that lack of decision does not mean I am expected to suddenly support a page that I feel is non-notable and a source of vanity. You however are still expected to abide by the COI principles. However you are correct when you use disingenuous, your attempts at justification certainly are. --Blowdart | 12:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And there we have Blowdart's honest appraisal and his own COI revealed. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that I view your page as barely notable is neither here nor there. I suggest you read WP:COI yet again and understand it, stop editing pages about yourself and stop trying to redefine it to justify your own actions; that is the issue here, not that I consider you non-notable. --Blowdart | 14:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No, what is actually important here is that the page as it stands is more encyclopedic. Essentially what happened was I spent hours creating that version and you spent five minutes removing a quote from a magazine editor which I am quite happy to concede was extraneous, and removing two links which are elsewhere on the page. I do not see what you are trying to do here other than give me a slap on the wrist for Wikifying an article which the consensus was it needed wikifying, after I had waited over two weeks because I had rather someone else do it to minimise the chance of COI. I have not reverted edits, defended a stance nor promoted a line. I acknowledge the strong discouragement of my intervention, hence my delay. What you are advocating, against policy guidleines, is an outright ban. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that conversation has reached an impasse. Since no one was willing to wikify the page as the editors watching it had stood against it in AfD, I did so. Blowdart has taken it back to a position he feels is correct and I happy to leave it at that. Please note before I did this, I did contact the administrator User:MBisanz, and I quote his response of January 24th: "You are free to edit it, or ask someone else to edit it, or place comments on the Talk: page where others would be free to add to the article. Our COI policy lets subject edit their articles so long as they do so in a neutral manner." However, I still thought it best to wait. Via con dios. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that your editing wasn't all that neutral; it added a lot of chaff and wikipuffery. I think there's a bit of overreaction to it on this page (though I'm not privy to the history that may justify the anger), but I'd recommend working through the talk page in the future. I've cleaned up the article somewhat and have it on watch. If you have third-party reliable sources discussing the sentences that have fact tags, I'm happy to add them. THF (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

User:CCFSDCA

Per this WP:AN/I notification. CCFSDCA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is creating pages about holidays around the world, using by the editor's own admission, his unpublished (and unsold) manuscript as the sole source, even adding a credit to himself in his initial drafts. The editor clearly has some fundamental misunderstandings of a host of policies (ranging from obvious conflicts of interest to the complete unreliability of sources), so perhaps someone who has the time should have a word in his ear. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Dann Glenn

• Dann Glenn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fusionoid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dann Glenn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This seems like it meets notability criteria, but appears to be self-promotion with links to buy various CDs, etc. Nearly all editing was done by a single editor, which raised my suspicions. I only started editing this week, so I don't want to throw accusations around, but something just didn't seem right about this one. Thanks for looking this over. Jvr725 (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that notability is met, but the article seems promotional. The use of images makes the article look like advertising. Someone who has the patience could do a cleanup. Some of the image licenses appear defective (submitter claims that he owns them, but they include several album covers and a book cover). Unless he is the designer or the publisher, I doubt that he owns them. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Billie Lawless

• Billie Lawless (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Billiel12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 67.88.31.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DiDyWah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Monciu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

My guess is that there's some serious autobiography going on here. I would think that the artist probably is notable, though I haven't looked closely; most of the sources seem to go back in one way or another to his website (which this article is rapidly becoming): according to OTRS, Lawless hired Amy Sparks, which is why he claims the ability to release her "review" of his material under GFDL and which is why her claims like "Lawless rips political statements out of their contexts and illuminates them with biting irony" would be unusable. I've been involved on the copyright end on this one, and I try not to mix my copyright work with other stuff (since it may feel like its personal), but I think this one would benefit from a few more eyes to help ensure WP:NPOV. Several of the SPA creator(s) have been given COI notice, but I suspect that any efforts to force this article to conform to policy may meet resistance. I bring it here in case anyone has time and energy to take it on. --Moonriddengirl 22:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

He's definitely notable with the 3rd party coverage he's received. This just needs a good rewrite. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Varian v. Delfino

• Varian v. Delfino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ronald M. Whyte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jack Komar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Crisler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Suebenjamin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Amberjacker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Crisler works on two types of articles -- those relating to this lawsuit, and those relating to the death penalty. The article is awfully favorable to the respondents in Varian v. Delfino, and, coincidentally, the respondents in that case have since written annual guides to the death penalty. "Crisler" is the last name of the human resources officer at Varian whom Delfino and Day had their litigious dispute with.

User:Suebenjamin and User:Amberjacker also only write about this lawsuit, and use the same unusual edit-summary style as Crisler.

(Coincidentally, or not so coincidentally, the litigation involved a corporation overreacting to sockpuppet behavior by ex-employees on Internet message boards.)

The possible WP:COI and WP:SOCK problem bothers me less than the WP:NPOV issue; the article, about a minor California Supreme Court case of little precedential value that arguably flunks WP:NOTNEWS, needs a rewrite, as does the BLP article about Judges Whyte and Komar.

This is cross-posted at WP:NPOVN#Varian_v._Delfino; please respond there. THF (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Tort reform and User:THF

• Tort reform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - On this edit on January 13th User:THF replaced the article, with what appears to be something like a cut and paste job of an op-ed he created a few years ago about how successful tort reform lobbyists in America have been. Wikidea 20:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• THF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user will be known to a number of the Misplaced Pages community. He does not appear to be fit to participate in any constructive dialogue and wants simply to reshape the encyclopedia to reflect his conservative political persuasions. As a vocal lobbyist for tort reform, he appears to have a rather large conflict of interest. Wikidea 20:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I propose that the user be confined to the talk page of tort reform topics, in keeping with a strict interpretation of WP:COI. These edits wash with WP:BRD. Cool Hand Luke 21:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

See my comment below—user was asked by Wikidea to edit the article. Cool Hand Luke 21:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• It was also interesting to note that before today, he actually appeared in the lead of the article! Wikidea 21:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, someone else added that in.
  • By the way, you're the one who suggested he edited the article. Why are you dragging him to WP:COI/N now that he actually has? Cool Hand Luke 21:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• I would like to complain about the ludicrous trolling here. I was confining myself to the talk page. Wikidea then whined that I was confining myself to the talk page instead of editing the article:

As an American tort reform professional I'm sure you have plenty of ideas. Here's your chance. I suggest that you change something. Wikidea 13:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

So I did, explicitly acknowledging that my edit needed other eyes to rewrite it. When other editors wanted to change it, I told them to go right ahead.

And now, without even approaching me on my talk page, he's complaining that I did exactly what he asked me to do? This is disruption of the worst order. I also want sanctions for the violation of WP:OUT. THF (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Replacing the page with an op-ed was not a very constructive approach, was it? I think your changes might have made a good contribution to the US tort reform page, but you still have your open bias to remedy. This is the previous pattern of just wishing to trash articles, not improve them. Wikidea 21:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

1) It wasn't an op-ed, because I didn't write it, much less agree with all of it. It was an earlier version of the article that was cleaner than the appallingly substandard version I replaced.

2) You give no defense for your trolling, your violation of WP:NPA, and your violation of WP:OUT. You were explicitly warned about your personal attacks in the past, to the point that it almost resulted in arbitration sanctions against you. THF (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• This is straightforward WP:BRD. He makes changes (as you asked), and you fix anything you find erroneous. At any rate, THF is not the only biased editor here—he is the most open about it, however. Cool Hand Luke 21:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikidea has removed all of the legitimate tags on the page. I don't particularly care whether the page is User:Questionic's version or Wikidea's version, though Wikidea has a very bad history of violating WP:OWN, as demonstrated by the fact that he arbitrarily reverted twenty edits made by Questionic. But per WP:NPOVD, Wikidea has no right to remove legitimately placed tags for NPOV disputes that have not been resolved. THF (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not a straightforward WP:BRD because the entire article was blanked. I did not ask him to do that, I was asking he participate in changes to improve the article, not replace it with something about the US. The tort reform article is meant to be global. Once again, the changes User:THF made may have been relevant for the US tort reform page. User:THF is not fit to participate in anything to do with the article at all. That includes his standard strategy of shoving up neutrality tags, and then saying "the whole article needs a complete rewrite". And then when someone complains, you see this barrage of shrill complaints about one Wikipolicy or another. Lobbyists for the Republican party's values are not very well equipped to engage in productive or collaborative editing on topics which may be political, and this is just another example of it. Wikidea 21:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

He wasn't editing it though. You asked him; if he was so unfit, why did you ask him? Cool Hand Luke 21:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Because he'd complained about the neutrality of it, put up tags, and refused to say what more he wanted to see, except that it needed a "complete rewrite". That's not collaborative editing. It's more of the same. Wikidea 21:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure this out. I presume that the edit Wikidea is complaining about primarily is this: 12:21, January 13, 2009, made by THF with the edit summary: "per multiple invitations on talk page, first cut; still needs a lot of work". Just looking over that version, I that it had no citations and replaced a version that had 25. THF has been here long enough to know that articles require sources. I don't understand how he would have thought it was acceptable to replace a sourced article with one written without any sources.   Will Beback  talk  21:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Beback, please don't misrepresent my edit. I replaced a very very bad version of the page with a slightly less bad earlier version that had improperly formatted references instead of footnotes. So it's not true it had "no sources"; it had 34 versus Wikidea's 25. And to repeat, this was precisely what I said I was going to do on the talk page:

"Changing things" to fix minor mistakes here and there won't fix it. The article needs a complete rewrite. History has shown that the owner of the article refuses to edit collaboratively and resists even minor substantive changes, and it's not worth the fight to me, but braver and more patient editors should rewrite this if they get a chance. THF (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

As an American tort reform professional I'm sure you have plenty of ideas. Here's your chance.

I suggest that you change something. Wikidea 13:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I propose to delete the current version and start over with a stub. If that's not acceptable, then I'll let others argue with you. After seeing your tantrum at competition law, I don't have time to play your games. Also, it's offensive when you template experienced Misplaced Pages editors. THF (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You're mistaken about me: I don't play games and I don't have tantrums. I contribute productively to an online an encyclopedia. Propose an alternative text - you have said absolutely nothing about what you want to see, except above, the removal of a single 'l'. Clearly, you still have nothing whatsoever to contribute. I could be wrong, but you're doing nothing to demonstrate otherwise. And no, more snide comments won't qualify. Some cases, materials, references would. Wikidea 11:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

And sure enough, I did exactly what Wikidea invited me to do, and sure enough, Wikidea threw the temper tantrum I predicted. Note that Questionic made twenty edits to the draft I put up there, and I didn't revert a single one of them, keeping my comments to the talk page. Wikidea, who has done this before on other pages such as competition law, reverted every edit made by every other editor to restore his own personal essay that violates NPOV and NOR. THF (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected about the lack of sources, though I'd have thought that THF would know how to format them. I'm also concerned about some of the sources, which include a blog and a mysterisou news collector called Newsbatch , and the general NPOV issues with that draft, which seems to discount the views of opponents.   Will Beback  talk  22:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, User:THF is not fit to participate in editing collaboratively. Replacing the entire text on a global tort reform page with something about US tort reform is not suggesting improvements, or proposing alternative text. User:THF is not fit to participate because he is not interested in improving or accomodating strands of knowledge outside the lobbyists he works with. He has a conflict of interest. He was the only one to complain, and could not express clearly what his complaint was about. He will go on relentlessly arguing for a very narrow set of viewpoints at the exclusion of all else. It shows no interest in making this a resource for learning. Wikidea 22:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec X n) Isn't it kind of moot now? The proposed changes have been reverted, and I don't see any edit warring. There a principle in tort law, or basketball, "no harm no foul". The article remains in serious need of a thorough rewrite, though, IMO. I've poked a bit around the edges... I think if we could figure out what the different sections are actually saying my simplifying and streamlining the English we might get to the substantive question of whether the content is complete, well-sourced, duly informative, balanced, presents a worldwide view, etc. That's the equivalent of replacing it with a stub, just excise all the fluff section by section and see what's left. Each trim can be pretty noncontroversial if it only eliminates redundancy, weak language, stuff that's an irrelevant aside. That approach might take a couple hours instead of two minutes, but it's more transparent and doesn't get anyone's hackles up. Wikidemon (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I would think so, but Wikidea came here with demands. Do we agree that this is resolved? Cool Hand Luke 22:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No. I would like Wikidea sanctioned for his trolling disruptive editing in bringing this meritless complaint after insisting that I edit the page, and for this uncivil personal attack. How quickly would someone be blocked indefinitely if they went onto the global warming pages and told an environmentalist to "crawl into a hole somewhere, disappear and take your shallow, bigotted view of humanity with you"? And Wikidea was previously warned about that. Just because I'm affiliated with a center-right organization doesn't mean that other editors get to ignore WP:CIVIL. THF (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

THF's conflict of interest is the issue I raised. It is not just that he works for a right wing lobbyist group, it is that he works for them and pursues that agenda on Misplaced Pages. The pattern of tags, demanding "complete rewrites" and throwing around accusations of temper tantrums will continue. He will probably continue to follow his lobbyist values elsewhere, as he has done before. Wikidea 22:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, two other editors have also said your personal essay needs a complete rewrite--aside from the fact that you insisted that I completely rewrite the article when I said I didn't want to get involved. And I don't work for a lobbyist group. I'm a published academic who's fortunate enough to have a job where I don't have to grade papers. THF (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, THF, a professional lobbyist, will try to turn his conflict of interest issues into a personal matter against anyone who disagrees with him. He is not a collaborative editor, and is unfit to engage with others in this area. Editors will see on the Talk:Tort reform page the lack of issues before he arrived, shoved up the neutrality tags, demanded a complete rewrite, could not say what was wrong, and then went ahead. On the contrary, the article was attempting to encompass a more global view of tort reform, not just US tort reform. Wikidea 22:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears that you're the one turning it into a personal matter several times over by personally attacking him. Consider this a warning. Cool Hand Luke 22:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution