Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:34, 6 July 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:

User:Erniechen

Created article Ernie chen. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

Artez Interactive and User:Artezinteractive

• Artez Interactive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Artezinteractive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User formed a single purpose account to create an article for the user's company (user name is the name of the company). The user's userpage consists entirely a brochure for the company, complete with the company's logo. The article is a pure puff piece, as is the userpage. The user removes COI and other tags from the article without consensus (the only other editors are the ones who placed the tags). User was warned on user's talk page, did not respond, and persists in un-tagging the article. I found out about this because it is discussed as an example of blatant COI company spam at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Paid editing#Reality and brought it here. Finell (Talk) 20:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me for asking, but is anyone going to look into this? Finell (Talk) 19:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Artezinteractive was blocked for spamming and COI issues. Artez Interactive (the user) hasn't made any edits, or at least no edits on any existing pages. The Artez Interactive article was deleted. Are there any unresolved issues? This was all done prior to your last message. -- Atama 18:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Marking this as resolved, as it clearly is. – ukexpat (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Relisting Sathya Sai Baba and user:Andries

• Sathya Sai Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Andries (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SSS108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Nobody commented, so please do so now. Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_33#Sathya_Sai_Baba. Andries (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I stand by the CoI tag. Not only you, but the second largest contributor of the article, SSS108, were banned from the article for a possible CoI. The tag is more than appropriate, as it only warns the reader that the article was edited by one or more users that may have had a Conflict of Interest. I don't see how the tag couldn't be appropriate. Thanks, Onopearls 20:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

SSS108 and I had opposite opinions, so we balanced each other out. Again, two years and many edits have passed since we last edited this article, so I think the tag is inappropriate. Andries (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You cannot deny that the article most certainly has information that one or both of you added. That alone makes the tag appropriate, as you were both charged with having a CoI. I mean, the length of time since your last edit should have absolutely nothing to do with the CoI tag, unless you can provide diffs where each bit of info that you and SSS108 added was removed or changed. Until then, the tag is appropriate and should remain on the page, as it serves as a warning to each reader of the article that the two largest contributors had a conflict of interest for the two-three years that they edited it. Thanks, Onopearls 03:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The article has been full-protected due to a revert war. There has been plenty of dispute about the article. Four editors are still indef banned from the article including Andries and SSS108. See also:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive544#Concerns regarding removal of info on Sathya Sai Baba
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2
• Currently-running case at WP:EAR (objection to removal of well-sourced criticism)
• Complete list of links to this article from Misplaced Pages space

Is there anyone who wants to check the article for neutrality and make suggestions here for how to fix it? Keeping the COI tag on an article forever is not desirable. EdJohnston (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The text of the COI tag says:

• A major contributor to this article appears to have a conflict of interest with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Misplaced Pages's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page.

The tag is not intended as a warning for readers so much as a notice for editors that there are problems which need to be fixed. It particulrly mentions that the article may may require cleanup in order to comply with NPOV. However the article already has an NPOV tag on it, so it doesn't add much there. The other issue is that the tag is intended to be discussed on the talk page, with specific complaints that can be fixed. Onopearls wrote on the talk page:

• The fact remains that you are the largest contributor to this article. Information that you added remains in the article. That alone justifies adding the tag, as a general warning to readers.

That seems to be saying that the tag needs to stay up indefinitely, or at least until every word added by a COI editor has been removed. That is not a helpful approach. It would be more helpful if the editor would identify the text that is problematic so it can be fixed. If the editor fails to do that then it'd reasonable to remove the tag.   Will Beback  talk  19:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Since no list of the problems to be fixed has been supplied, I went ahead and removed the COI tag from the article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

User Andries maintains a website called Ex-Baba,http://www.exbaba.com/, he is listed on the home page as the main administrator. This site makes many outrageous, unfounded and unproven claims against Sai Baba and continues a high profile smear campaign against Sai Baba even to this day. Please review this website. That being said though I believe the article has reached neutral status so I don't think the tag should be there.Sbs108 (talk) 05:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to remove the tag. And by the way, the article was LESS critical when I still edited it. Andries (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Caspar Henderson

Caspar Henderson (talk · contribs) Many self promotional edits including autobio spam. Triplestop (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but it looks like his autobiography is pretty notable, assuming those references back up the claims made. He hasn't edited it in nearly 4 years. Some notification that he is the subject of a Misplaced Pages article would be warranted, but otherwise I don't see what the COI problem is if he never touches his own article. -- Atama 18:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Npres Media

• Npres Media (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  
• Fort Myers, Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  

This WP:SPA has edited articles solely for the purpose of adding redlinks to a church, a pastor and his grandson. I've attempted to engage the editor in discussion, telling him about the notability standards and pointing him to the guidelines for each man, but he simply keeps adding the info back in, unsourced. A search was conducted, but I can't find anything that would qualify either of them under notability standards. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no evidence of a conflict of interest. The number of edits seem fairly minimal. They stopped just short of three reverts (as did you). It's a shame that they are uncommunicative, but there doesn't seem to be any gross violations made. -- Atama 21:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there were a small number of edits. They were all to mention the endeavors of a single person, Rev. Daymon. Whether mentioning that he founded the church, a school or that another non-notable person was his grandson, they all involved him. There was a second article on a NFL player where the same user inserted an unsourced mention of the players elementary school, which was, you guessed it, the same elementary school that Daymon founded. The account has made no edits since then. Most definately looking like a WP:SPA and I suspected a COI because of the way they were written. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No edits by Npres Media since June 19. It appears that Niteshift36 has cleaned up whatever problems may have been created by this editor in Fort Myers, Florida. I suggest that this report can be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

User palefist

I believe user palefist has COI being an upset customer or competitor trying to edit Bloomex. I believe we need to warn " palefist" from editing this article. See discussion board.Floralexpert (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Evidence is always good. Do you have any? EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ironic. And don't hold your breath waiting for evidence. :-) Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

please ask him to state his real name and email and representetive from the company Jeff Godfrey will run if he placed any orders with company. you may ask him if he ever placed an order with th company. the other evidence is his contribution list-he is writing only about Bloomex.Floralexpert (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I am troubled that User:Floralexpert, a editor with an admitted COI ("I was all my adult life in floral business, owing number of retail outlets in Canada.I live in Ottawa, Canada and I involved in wholesale and bouquet distribution business now"), apparently feels he can edit floral industry articles at will, as do the other "Alex..." etc. accounts. What is the correct solution for this behavior, wholesale reversions? --CliffC (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I lost track. Was a sockpuppet investigation ever started? It sure seems like all these florist users are the same guy. Rees11 (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge, but I'm not an admin so I don't follows such things. Lots of discussion of possible suspects at Talk:Bloomex, though. Based on his edits, I'd guess that User:Bw213 is actually a different person. Perhaps a like-thinking cousin in Florida? --CliffC (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to try to start a sockpuppet investigation (never done that before). As to the request for my personal info, I never used Bloomex and have never worked in the industry. Bloomex started spamming a discussion group I was reading a while back after one of our members reported an extremely bad experience with their service. The spam came in the form of dozens of "positive" reviews written by new members who cut and pasted reviews within seconds of signing up, then never posted again (pretty damning evidence of sock puppets and meat puppets). The bogus reviews were deleted by the admins once someone pointed out they were the exact same "positive reviews", word for word, popping up on other discussion boards. Admins figured from IP info, dates and times that Bloomex employees were searching for negative Bloomex reviews and trying to spam them out of existence with their own phony positive reviews. I added the controversy section to the Bloomex Misplaced Pages article, which was obviously posted by an employee as advertising and used for SEO purposes. It looks like it was Jeff Godfrey(user godfreyj) who posted it, using an alias that he often used elsewhere (polygene). That user didn't edit any other article, and created the article shortly after Godfrey joined Bloomex as internet marketing strategist and SEO dude. They use multiple gray/black hat methods (fake reviews; duplicate blogs containing the same material; multiple domains, including a fake review site registered to Bloomex owner Dimitri, etc., etc.) Pretty dastardly stuff.

The assertion that I've only edited Bloomex is clearly false, based on the publicly available contributions listing on my user page. The Flowermen have a habit of accusing others of what they do themselves. pale (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The SPI case has been filed at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Flowerman11. EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If Floralexpert has been engaged in disruptive behavior, that is certainly bad. If Floralexpert has been inserting their own POV, or been uncivil, or has engaged in sockpuppetry, that is definitely bad. But if Floralexpert is a professional in the floral industry, how is that a COI? On the contrary, a person with first-hand experience in the floral industry is the best person to edit such articles assuming they are able to maintain a neutral POV, avoid original research, and contribute in a positive manner. Misplaced Pages can always use more experts. I'm not at all defending Floralexpert, and if Floralexpert is somehow connected with Bloomex itself that's obviously a COI, but I'm very much disturbed by the insistence that Floralexpert has an "admitted COI". The only "COI" that Floralexpert admitted to is being in the floral industry, and if we start chasing away experts then where will Misplaced Pages be? -- Atama 19:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Check out the article's Talk page and the article's edit history since mid-May. There has been a steady stream of editors, many of whom have 'floral' in their name, who have been trying to remove well-sourced criticism of Bloomex from the article. One might be forgiven for speculating that there is an off-site campaign trying to whitewash this article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A number of accounts who appear to be engaged in sockpuppetry to push a POV, yes, that's bad and the SPI case was warranted. But we have to be careful not to consider a person's real life vocation and/or expertise in a field to be a conflict of interest in and of itself, which has been suggested at least by CliffC. -- Atama 23:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that expertise in a field makes for a de facto conflict of interest, far from it. However, when we combine User:Floralexpert's statement of expertise and experience with his record of edits since he first appeared on May 20, it's hard not to believe that he is likely a Bloomex officer, employee or contractor, or has some other business or familial relationship with the company. I find it particularly laughable that he claims here on another editor's talk page "I came accross arcticle acidentaly", but his first-ever Misplaced Pages edit was to delete a link to the company's negative Better Business Bureau report. --CliffC (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Zicam and Zinc gluconate

Zicam products which contain Zinc gluconate have been ordered off the market by the FDA as hazardous. Cosmic Latte (talk · contribs) keeps trying to minimize this, in 46 edits to those two articles removing parts of FDA statements, adding company denials, and manipulating headings to deemphasize the product recall and reports of injury. It's not clear if this editor has some connection to the company. --John Nagle (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

My edits have invoked policies and guidelines, so I do not see why you are assuming that I might have a "connection" to anything other than Misplaced Pages. And, having assumed such a possibility, you could have simply asked me to confirm it or deny it. In that case I would have denied it, given that my interest in Zicam stems not from any corporate connections, but rather from the fact--surprising though it may be--that I have caught at least a cold or two in my lifetime. If you still are not satisfied, then perhaps you could provide some actual diffs to demonstrate how my edits have been unreasonable, or at least less reasonable than your repeated and largely unqualified accusations (, , , ) of "whitewashing"? Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

See this edit which deleted a quote from the FDA's warning letter. This is blatant whitewashing. Removing the FDA's words "A significant and growing body of evidence substantiates that the Zicam Cold Remedy intranasal products may pose a serious risk to consumers who use them." is a bit much. --John Nagle (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to refer interested editors to the article talk, where I have explained my actions in-depth and where (as opposed to here) this discussion should have materialized in the first place. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I have only looked at the last diff provided by Nagle. No whitewashing at all. Encyclopedias don't contain long passages like that from primary sources unless there is a very good reason. The edit summary contained sufficient justification. The source from which the citation came is still linked as a reference. If this wasn't a US government source, citing excessively like that would even be a copyright violation, since it's clearly not covered by fair use. Hans Adler 18:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hans. I’ve recently edited the Zicam article to correct a “broad-brushing” problem which left the inaccurate impression that all Zicam products were being recalled. I can see no evidence of “whitewashing” (which was what led me to the article) nor which suggests Cosmic Latte has a COI problem. It really seems to be nothing more than a content/style issue, and I would recommend closing this as resolved. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that Rush Limbaugh has been attacking the FDA with claims that the sole reason for the health warning is because Zicam is one of his sponsors. Beware of Dittoheads. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless Rush Limbaugh has been editing the articles I don't see what your statement has to do with this discussion. This isn't a forum, WTWAG. Nagle, you've obviously posted your complaint on the wrong board. You haven't even really alleged that Cosmic Latte has a conflict of interest, you are instead making a neutrality complaint, and honestly it seems to be a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. There are methods for resolving those conflicts and they don't involve reporting someone on a noticeboard (not until you've exhausted all other alternatives). -- Atama 19:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Jorge Bechara

• Jorge Bechara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Georgebech (talk · contribs)

This article reads like a resume and seems in serious need of an overhaul (and it's been that way for almost a year). It may be an autobiography, based on the similarity of username to subject. (I imagine that IP editors in the range 58.178 are likely the same user.) I came upon the article through OTRS, clearing use for an image. I've tagged it for a POV check and will notify the contributor of our COI guidelines, but wanted to list it here in case somebody had time and opportunity to look it over. --Moonriddengirl 13:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. A new WP:SPA came in and removed the tag, possibly inadvertently? I've restored it. Back to copyright matters. :) --Moonriddengirl 20:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the user is the subject of the article, based on the fact that the apparent self-portrait that appears in the article was taken by Georgebech. Rees11 (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed some fluff but was reverted. Added COI and refimprove tags. Rees11 (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've placed a COI template on the anon's talk page as well (and added 58.178.73.241 to the list of parties above). Askari Mark (Talk) 03:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

All of the IP addresses appear to be part of the same dynamic address pool under .dsl.syd.iprimus.net.au. So it's possible they are all the same user getting a different IP address every time they connect. Rees11 (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, yeah ... I got distracted from my computer for a while and forgot what had already been written about that. I removed the note above; as for the talk page, maybe he'll come across it in three more years. Pardon me while I go find a wet trout for self-abuse. :( Askari Mark (Talk) 03:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

One of the 58.178.* IPs left a talk comment at Moonriddengirl's page, which is the first time ever that this editor has engaged in talk. I am leaving a note for Georgebech (talk · contribs) about the discussion here to see if we can get his attention. Though the article is tagged for POV, it looks like it could be fixed without much work. The sequence of edits by the IP suggests he may be getting the message about our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find any reliable sources for what appears to be an autobiography so I have listed it at AfD here. Smartse (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

We deliberately chose a username similar to what was to be our first wiki edit/creation. The subject attracted our interest through the mentioned international media publications and institutions. The included information and images are from Foreign Correspondent's Association and Art Gallery of New South Wales, which we regarded as reliable sources. Understanding the issues discussed on this page we’re trying to fix the article hoping that it's a valid initial contribution. Georgebech (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The Prince Yung D

• Yungd360 (talk · contribs)
• The Prince Yung D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Yung D discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See this discussion. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Alured Faunce

• Thomas Alured Faunce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fauncet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Subject has probably written his own bio, Thomas Alured Faunce (based on editor's username and the tone of the bio - you have to read it), and is inserting references to himself in other articles left and right. I don't know that the bio is notable enough to keep. Since I'm already involved in another conflict with him at Talk:Meditation#Meditation in Hinduism, it would be better if an uninvolved editor (and one more knowledgable about COI) looked into this. User is Fauncet (talk · contribs). Priyanath  21:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suspect this is true considering that almost every reference given in the article is self-published. On the other hand, the subject does seem pretty notable, so it's unlikely that the article would be deleted, but in the future he shouldn't be allowed to edit his own page. Of course there's no problem with him using the talk page to make suggestions or provide information to be added. -- Atama 20:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I left a notice at his talk page. -- Atama 20:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The article on Thomas Alured Faunce reads like a resume and seems a bit fluffy. I wish there were some regular editor who has the time to rewrite it. Checking Whatlinkshere to this article causes some concern that Faunce could be founding an empire here on Wikpedia. For example, the new article on Intellectual monopoly privilege is mostly by Fauncet, and he seems to be one of the two contributors to that new field. I am wondering if Faunce, as an associate professor, has already done such important work that he needs to be cited in Innovation, Intellectual property and Whistleblower. There might be a concern that he has a COI in attempting to add mentions of his own work to other articles. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, I get the impression that he came onto Misplaced Pages without a lot of foreknowledge and started making what he thought were appropriate contributions. I think if he still has interest in Misplaced Pages he might be fine with a little guidance, he has taken the time to explain what he was doing while in my experience an editor who is intentionally trying to push something on Misplaced Pages is much more defiant. I tried to think what I would have done in his situation, where he thought Misplaced Pages had an article on him that was blank, and tried to improve it, and I would probably have done the same thing. -- Atama 23:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Susan Singleton

• Susan Singleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created by and is being edited by Singlelaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)... clear conflict of interest. Teapotgeorge 21:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I tagged it COI, but I would also question notability. Rees11 (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Article is now at Afd. I have reported the user to WP:UAA. – ukexpat (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Cloudruns. I suspect has connections with Wolfram Research the producers of Mathematica

Mathematica is an high-end maths program produced by Wolfram Research. The Mathematica article has always been very promotional - a point that has been made by several different people at different times in the talk page. One of the regular editors JonMcLoone (talk · contribs) admits on the Talk:Mathematica he is employed by Wolfram Research, and as you will note, several have complained out his Mathematica links. But Jon does provide information to the Mathematica page which only an employee would know.

However, my concern here is about Cloudruns (talk · contribs), who I believe is trying to promote Mathematica too much, at the expensive of other similar software. Cloudruns (talk · contribs) edits many different pages on maths software, usually adding material to give the impression nothing can touch Mathematica. Some examples of dubious edits are:

• On a comparison of computer algebra systems, he wrote of Mathematica Ubiquitous system also includes extensive numeric capabilities, statistics, image processing, number theory, boolean computation and is a development environment. It's far from clear the program is ubiquitous
• Cloudruns adds Mathematica to the page on a list of interactive geometry software User Toscha (talk · contribs) later removed edit, correctly pointed out Mathematica is not interactive geometry software. Nobody would buy Mathematica for that purpose.
• Although I would not dispute he was right to remove some hype words from an article on Sage (a competitor to Mathematica), he does tend to add hype whenever he can if it benefits Mathematica, and remove hype when he can if it might be detrimental to Mathematica.
• When I wrote Sage, which aims to be a free alternative to Mathematica, can be used as an interface to Mathematica Cloudruns changed it to Sage mathematics software can be used as an interface to Mathematica.

I have no hard evidence to support my believe he probably works for Wolfram Research, but when asked both in Talk:Mathematica, and User_talk:Cloudruns if this is true, he declines to answer. Drkirkby (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have any comment on this? I'm not sure what is supposed to happen, as this is the first time I have reported anyone for a conflict of interest. Drkirkby (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've left a comment on Mathematica's talk page. I actually agreed with him on that particular issue about the "hype" about Sage, but that doesn't mean I agree with all of his edits. I reminded him that WP:COI strongly encourages editors to disclose a conflict of interest if they wish to edit an article whose subject they are affiliated with. On the other hand, Drkirkby, the question has been raised as to whether or not you are affiliated with Sage, and if so I give you the same encouragement for disclosure. -- Atama 20:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree there was some hype words. I did not write them myself. I agree he was right to remove them. It's just when you look at many of his edits, they seem very biased in one direction.

I do work as a developer on the Sage project (unpaid) - my main interest is improving the port to Solaris. I'll post a bit more info on the Mathematica talk page. Drkirkby (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Does anything else happen when User_talk:Cloudruns still refuses to answer if he has a WP:COI, despite your request? He still edits the Mathematica page in a pro-Wolfram way? Before his last round of edits, which promote the product even more, someone else has said in talk page that FWIW, I'm not particularly vested in any edits to this article, but am a regular Mathematica user. From that informed distance, this page comes across (to me at least) as strikingly Mathematica-biased: the text reads like ad copy... I'm not the only to feel that article is biased, and there are others who made the point in the archived talk pages. One person commented on this, but never edited the article as he disclosed he was a former employee. User_talk:Cloudruns just increases that bias. Drkirkby (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, I don't think anything else happens now. The difficulty is that I don't think you can really show a conflict of interest here. It might be shown that he has a pro-Mathematica bias, but the POV noticeboard might be a better place to try to get that resolved. Honestly, his refusal to answer is suspicious but he's not at all required to answer. WP:COI is a guideline, and doesn't supersede an editor's right to privacy, and you'll notice in reading the guideline that the language is quite careful, talking about what is "recommended" and "suggested". I think it might be worth bringing up in later discussions that he has refused to disclose his affiliation or lack thereof, but don't hound him about it or that could be considered harrassment and could backfire. If somehow it is revealed that he does have those affiliations and refused to disclose them earlier that will reflect poorly on him, but in the meantime what if he says no? If he's lying, you can't prove it. So I'd let this go of this particular angle and if he acts tedentious either report to the POV board or go through regular dispute resolution. -- Atama 22:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much Atama (talk · contribs). Although we both agree the refusal of Cloudruns (talk · contribs) to answer whether he has a conflict of interest is suspicious, I will not ask him any more about it. But I will as you suggest mention in any further discussions that Cloudruns (talk · contribs) has refused to disclose whether or not he has an affiliation with Wolfram Research. I will copy this over to the Mathematica talk page so there is a record of it there. Thank you once again. Drkirkby (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ray Dotoratos

Hi folks. I could use some help with Ray Dotoratos, which is a clear WP:COI and WP:BLP problem. I don't know for certain it is an autobiography, but the author is aggressively removing my requests for sources, and my attempts to engage him on his talk page have only produced a stream of insults and reverts. By the way, Mr. Dotoratos gets very few google hits, so the issue of notability may also be relevant. Thank you for any assistance, Antandrus (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Subject is not notable as far as I can tell. The few news hits that come up are just listings of scheduled performances. Given the promotional text, COI, lack of notability, and absence of sources, it's almost a speedy deletion candidate, certainly AfD. Rees11 (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably a COI, but I'd say delete the article in AfD and deal with his other behavior through normal channels when needed. -- Atama 20:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Rockstar (drink)

• 56ghyv842851654 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - active at Rockstar (drink), appears to be very strongly connected with the company, which has had some recent controversy. Among other things, user is pushing an astroturfing website. Apart from constantly reverting/editing, is there anything else that can or should be done? Perhaps someone else could keep an eye on it at least. Disembrangler (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• I am trying to add correct information about the company. Misplaced Pages was designed to give information about topics and not be used as a trashing ground for political mudslinging. Information on this page is misleading and not entirely correct plus information that I have added that is correct and relevant to the company is being erased as to push other people's agenda. We have no problems with people talking about what has happened but we want it to be correct and be able to share good facts about the company. 56ghyv842851654 (talk) 23 June 2009

Please read WP:SPAM, there is a huge difference between an encyclopedic article and an advertisement masquerading as an article.  – ukexpat (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Information i provided was about the events that Rockstar has sponsored and of the factual information regarding the Company. At no point was i soliciting. This is an article about the company and i provided information about the company. So this does not qualify as spam. 56ghyv842851654 (talk) 23 June 2009

It may not have been your intention, but that was the way it read. Filling an article about a company with minute detail about its activities can give the impression of being promotional and is also not very encyclopedic. – ukexpat (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Doesn't this interesting slip basically say all that need be said? Quaeler (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Good catch, and of course single-purpose and shared accounts are not permitted. – ukexpat (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Then let me ask what information is considered valid? Misplaced Pages cannot be a trash site. Rockstar is entitled to have valid information about the company. This cannot be a trash site. The other articles about the boycott are also fall into COI yet those articles are allowed to remain. There is more to the company story then this boycott but for some reason only the boycott information is allowed to stay. There is a abuse of COI right there. 56ghyv842851654 (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• If I publish a add-on to the article here, can we agree on it before I publish it to the site? 56ghyv842851654 (talk) 23 June 2009

The best place to do that is the article's talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Due to the inherent conflict of interest issues with a shared account created by the marketing department of a company, I have shut down (indef blocked) the user above. I have invited them to create a new, individual account, disclose their relationship with Rockstar on their user page and here, and participate preferably by discussing on the article talk page.

I am also going to go look at the article in more depth to review the concerns they are raising here. Just because their first response was not entirely appropriate does not mean that their article concerns are not necessarily valid. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Danny Mekić

Danny Mekić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I suspect that Twinmate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who created this article may be the subject. Hard to prove or disprove but the article is fairly promotional. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that the article is currently in an AfD. -- Atama 19:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin

Just so you know, I reverted a sequence of edits to my article at Arthur Rubin which contained clear libel. It's possible that some of the other edits in the sequence were consistent with Wikipeida policies and guidelines, but references to cockfighting are clearly inappropriate. If an uninvolved editor wishes to restore the parts of the anon's edit which are in keeping with guidelines, go ahead. I also noted this on Talk:Arthur Rubin, but I believe that self-reporting here seems the best bet in keeping with the guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP who made the 'cockfighting' edit appears to be a vandal-only account. I've given then a 24-hour timeout to reflect on the problem of accuracy in BLP articles. Once somebody like yourself already has an article, adding something about them running for office seems legitimate; other opinions are welcome. EdJohnston (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the other two changes by the anon were well-meaning; the gramatical edit was just inept. Their comment on running for office not being notable is probably an allusion to WP:POLITICIAN, which states that only holding an elected office makes a person notable. However, this isn’t the main thing making Mr. Rubin notable, so you could probably flip a coin on keeping it or removing it. The only thing I saw in the rest of the article that I found problematical is the last sentence of the first paragraph in the lede. It’s peacockery and non-encyclopedic in tone. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to note, it's been about a week and that anonymous editor hasn't resurfaced. In addition, I've added a citation for the state assembly run which the vandal deleted because it wasn't cited. -- Atama 20:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Cindy Cohen

• Cindy Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Gkerkvliet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Paid spamming, see 1 2 3, 4 and 5. I've handed out my standard advert4im/coi for paid adverts, but what do we do with the article? MER-C 06:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The job listing says, "Article should adhere to all of Misplaced Pages's guidelines." Maybe inform the subject that the article doesn't meet guidelines and she shouldn't pay? Rees11 (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that the Cindy Cohen article be nominated for deletion. She has a film credit for Soulkeeper, a made-for-TV movie where she played a role called Green-Eyed Girl. Our article on the film doesn't mention her name. Similarly the IMDB entry for the film doesn't include her. It does not sound that she would meet WP:BIO, unless our article is missing something important about her. EdJohnston (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and nominate for deletion. --Leivick (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Spokeo

• Spokeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article is essentially written and maintained by the company it describes. The company is just another people search engine; only notable for spamming people, and the only sources are some outdated references from tech blogs. I tried editing it, but the CEO of the company changed it back again - after sending me an email offering me a free "premium account" with his site...akaDruid (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy delete. Rees11 (talk) 02:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

And untagged, because I see it has already survived an AfD, although I can't imagine how. The article as it stands is nothing but advertising. Rees11 (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It survived the delete because of the "multiple non-trivial published works" rule which is essentially broken for web2.0 type websites; any and every new site that does a press release gets some chatter on the millions of tech blogs; which count as 'reliable sources' for this purpose.

Also in the Afd, I argued that the article is CofI, OR and misleading, to which the response was 'edit, don't delete'; except I can't edit it because the site owners change it back. Ho hum. I wouldn't care so much, except that the site is so slimy; they are spamming people's contacts, and worse, trying to mine people's personal data and then sell it (to recruiters and such like), which is so unethical it makes me shiver. akaDruid (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

David Jay Brown and Carolyn Mary Kleefeld

Since April the main editor has been 74.220.79.129 (talk · contribs) whose edits have mainly been to this article and to Carolyn Mary Kleefeld, an article created in April by DavidJayBrown (talk · contribs) who has also edited this article 3 times. The article was tagged for potential coi in May but the tag was removed today by the IP. The IP geolocates to an area near where the two subjects seem to live (not together so far as I can tell but they do seem to know each other). I'll replace the tag. Dougweller (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Both of them are written as resumes and are full of peacocking. I don't doubt the COI at all. I've noted some additional concerns on each article's talk page, but boy those articles are a mess. -- Atama 23:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Springer Science+Business Media products - multiple articles

• Neolithic66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - has created spammy articles on a number of products of Springer Science+Business Media (SpringerImages, Springer Exemplar, ‎AuthorMapper, and edited others‎ (Springer Science+Business Media) or inserted Springer product names into other articles (CiteULike); and seems to have no interest in any other topic. Orange Mike | Talk 00:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Many Springer products are notable, and these may be also, but they have just been released. I'm prepared to try to contact the company, because I think they've also used other usernames for some of their articles on journals. I will help them as needed, but they can't do it this way. DGG (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanx, DGG. I can always depend on you to do the right thing in this kind of situation; but please be prepared to use your biggest cluebat. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Truegreta

• Truegreta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - is on the Interim Board of Directors of the Free Gaza Movement. The user is now editing the page without neutrality as a reaction to it being vandalized recently. The user also continues to add inappropriate sources. The user had a discussion with another user last year about a similar subject in which a warning was given. The editor now continues to debate and refuses to follow standards.Cptnono (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

::Follow-up: I have posted as much information as possible on the user's talkpage since the last edit that led me to believe that a mention here was necessary. Hopefully, it was just confusion on their part and no further action is needed. Apologies for cluttering this noticeboard.Cptnono (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC) I am requesting a more experienced editor or administrator to resolve the concern with an editor who has a conflict of interest.Cptnono (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The page FREE GAZA MOVEMENT has been seriously undermined by several posters, in particular Cptnono. The first paragraph of the entry was changed from the original posting more than a year ago, and the page was libelous. We have been trying to fix not only that paragraph, but we have protested that Cptnono is eliminating our references, changing some of the text and reporting our serious concerns by threatening to forbid us to enter legitimate text and sources. We ask that Cptnono not be allowed to make changes (many of them unnecessary and some of them libelous). If he did not add so many of his personal views, none of our changes would have been necessary. And we object to his removing sources just because he seems to think that Middle East/Far East papers are not worthy of being included in Misplaced Pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truegreta (talk • contribs) 20:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Your account appears to be a group account in violation of Misplaced Pages's user name policy and has been reported. – ukexpat (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel that I have to defend myself here as I did on the user's talk page. I did not make the edits with incorrect and inflammatory information. it was another user and it was inappropriate. Please see Trugreta's, mine, or the article in question's if there are further inquiries on to my edits.Cptnono (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is a problem in Truegreta editing this page. As a source cited states the user appears to be a co-founder of the movement. It is therefore difficult to think that her edits are not a form of advocacy, this is strongly discouraged at Misplaced Pages:COI#Campaigning. If both of you could stop editing the article for the moment it would be useful. I disagree that Truegreta is being used my multiple people at present - is there any evidence? I therefore don't think that Truegreta should be blocked. Smartse (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I reverted my previous edit and will hold off until this is resolved.Cptnono (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Truegreta has an indef block now, although I'm not quite certain why. Clearly she was in violation of WP:COI and has had quite a few warnings about her editing and conduct, but the block still seems sudden. It claims a username violation, but what violation? -- Atama 16:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Read the posts above - it's clearly a group/shared name in violation of WP:NOSHARE. – ukexpat (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Why? Because they used the term "we" to describe themself? I actually see that often in Misplaced Pages, it's a quirky thing to do but I think it's a leap to assume that an account is shared because of it. The opposite is true, if a person uses "I" to describe themself that doesn't mean the account isn't shared. Do you have another reason to believe that it's shared? -- Atama 18:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't block them, so don't take it up with me. They can appeal the block if they so wish per the notice on their talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Honestly I'm not in tears over this, I really dislike POV-pushing activists, especially ones who speak with such charged language as Truegreta does (accusing everyone of spreading Zionist lies) but if someone is blocked it would be best if it was done for valid reasons. I've left a comment at the blocking admin's talk page. -- Atama 18:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to mention that an IP address from the group made an edit on the talk page before trugreta really started in. That was done perfectly. They brought up the concerns and I thought that was awesome. That person probably notified truegreta who unhappy about the shenanigans from the malicious edit. Truegreta can appeal and the IP is not blocked so I hope this is now resolved (besides any possible loose ends with the reason used in the block log).Cptnono (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Myself and another user protested to the blocking admin, saying that the "royal we" is not a definitive proof of a shared account. The blocking admin said there were plenty of other reasons to block the user, which nobody seems to disagree with, so I think the indef block will stand. -- Atama 16:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Amway, Quixtar and other MLM articles

• Insider201283 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This editor is a self-described "paid editor" one whose edits seem primarily dedicated to defending the reputation of MLM operations; he admits to operating pro-MLM websites, and has been accused of being a paid shill for them. Orange Mike | Talk 19:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Where has he called himself a "paid editor"?   Will Beback  talk  20:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering this too. He denied it twice in the ACN Inc. talk page. At the same time, his own talk page hints that he's somehow affiliated with Amway (he cites facts about himself that are meant to contrast stereotypes about Amway). -- Atama 23:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to search back, but I recall his professional connection with Amway has been discussed before. He's also a topic of disucssion on non-Wiki, anti-Amway forums.   Will Beback  talk  23:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

In 2007 he wrote:

• To be clear I don't make money from N21 or Quixtar, I do make money from Amway, I just have not been actively involved as an Amway IBO for sometime... ]

FWIW, Quixtar has changed its name back to "Amway".   Will Beback  talk  23:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is his quote: "Excuse me, but may think you can lie all you want about anything here, but I do not appreciate lies being spread about me. I am categorically NOT paid to promote MLM companies (or any particular MLM company) - that is utterly false." -- Atama 05:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible IGDA spam

User

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

Articles related to the user

• Roger E. Pedersen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Game Design Foundations, Second Edition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Combination Lock (game show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Adventure game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user above seems to be closely affiliated with Roger E. Pedersen and has been inserting wikilinks to the Combination Lock (game show) and Adventure game articles above and has been creating Game Design Foundations, Second Edition which has repeatedly been tagged as spam and removed. See http://www.mobygames.com/user/sheet/userSheetId,25684. It is possible that this user may be representing the IGDA in some sort of a spamming operation. MuZemike 05:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the book article is gone and it looks like the biography is on its way out. If they get recreated, they can be deleted and salted. I actually checked his edits to Adventure game and let them stand; they were appropriate as they helped in specifying the page numbers and edition of the book used as a reference. I fixed the "Video Game" portion of Combination Lock which was very spammy, written as a promotional piece. -- Atama 17:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

ACN Inc.

• ACN Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), lots of insider and self-interested editing, both pro and con. Independent review needed. Thatcher 11:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

See "Amway, Quixtar and other MLM articles" above. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wigan Warriors

• WiganWarriorsFan (talk · contribs)
• Wigan Warriors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wigan Warriors are a notable sports team, but, well, if the above user's very name doesn't tip anyone off, s/he has been adding promotional and non-neutral information to the article by the minute without actually backing it up with any sources. I placed a {{uw-coi}} tag on his/her talk page, but s/he doesn't seem to care (especially since the {{coi}} tag I placed on the article's page was removed twice). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be best for the user to familiarise himself with Misplaced Pages's core guidelines by joining a WikiProject. I notice the user hasn't yet joined WikiProject Rugby league. Editing in collaboration with more experienced users on pages other than those relating to the Wigan Warriors may improve user's contributions and attitude towards other editors. I'll send an invite to the user. GW(talk) 10:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Dislecksia: The Movie

• HubbellV (talk · contribs)
• Dislecksia: The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Billy Blanks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• David Boies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Stephen J. Cannell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Worth a check for neutrality: editor name matches movie's director. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Marc H. Tanenbaum

I am a new wikipedia editor so I need a lot of advice! I have been reading the wikipedia guidelines on Conflict of Interest, Neutral Point of View and Copyrights. I recently tried to edit the page of Marc H. Tanenbaum who is the namesake of the Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding, where I am an intern. I have been told that in having “Tanenbaum” as my user name and in being an intern here it is a conflict of interest for me to edit this page. However, I believe that I am capable of editing and expanding the biography of this great man without losing neutrality or advocating for the organization I work for. I tired editing the page and inserting information from a book that was written and published about Rabbi Tanenbaum. (I have been given permission to use this copyrighted information from the publisher).

If I am not breaking copyright rules, because I have permission to use this information can I add information to Rabbi Tanenbaum’s biography? And if I am not actively advocating for the Tanenbaum Center’s cause but simply editing and expanding Rabbi Tanenbaum’s biography will information from a reliable published source will I be allowed to make edits?

Help, please! Tanenbaum (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC) — Tanenbaum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

In one clause (" the biography of this great man"), you've inadvertently demonstrated why we so fervently discourage editors with conflicts of interest from editing articles. With the best good will in the world, it's incredibly hard for you to maintain the requisite neutral point of view to edit this article. Sorry. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if you can get over the COI issues, the copyvio issue remains. With respect, we have only your word that you are who you say you are and that you have permission to use copyright material on Misplaced Pages. That's why we have a formal process for releasing copyright material for use here and that's set out at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I am going through the formal process of getting copyright permission right now-once that process is complete then I can legally use the information within Misplaced Pages's guidelines, is that correct? Tanenbaum (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC) — Tanenbaum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yes, but (and it's a significant but), your edits must still comply with our WP:NPOV requirements and all other policies and guidelines. By its very nature, material from the website probably isn't neutral. Because of your COI, I strongly recommend that you discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page first. – ukexpat (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan King caught POV-pushing his own article

Add Jonathan King, the sometime pop-music figure/TV personality, to the list of people caught trying to own their own articles. In this case the subject had been extensively anon-posting, trying to massage the presention of his underage sex convictions, and to reinflate the article's previous (self?-)assessment of his former importance.

Kudos to Little grape (talk · contribs) for detective work.

See: Talk:Jonathan_King#Rule_879:_'The_subject_of_an_article_shouldn't_edit_it_himself' & recent history

-- Jheald (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish. Most of my edits have been anti-King. Who is Little Grape? Similar to Purples (history)? And Privatemusings? And Expat? I won't be posting about King any more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.253.188.113 (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

But do you have any reasonable explanation for posting from the very same hotel King's staying at in Tivoli? Or are you still claiming you're in Seattle? Little grape (talk) 11:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Little grape: even though the guy is generally reviled, WP:OUTING puts a limit on how far it's acceptable to pursue users' real-life identities, and using IPs to track and identify someone's ongoing location - down to the level of the hotel where they're staying - looks to me to overstep that limit. If a pattern of promotional edits has been spotted, it's sufficient now that the article get increased editorial focus to maintain NPOV. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit that I agree with the anonymous poster; I looked at the edits they were making and they didn't seem all that complimentary of King. They were fairly balanced, I would expect if that really was King that he'd be more aggressive about removing negative information and inserting positive information, but that wasn't the case. -- Atama 17:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow... As it turns out, according to Checkuser about a half-dozen editors of King's article who have been defending him and/or changing the article to remove negative content are confirmed to be sockpuppets, likely of King himself. That's disturbing. -- Atama 17:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It was quite cleverly done - but then he's a Cambridge English grad. At least we can now settle down to starting over, and writing a balanced article. My own view is that he was an extraordinary (in all senses) character in the 60's and 70's, occupying a unique niche in British pop history who then went on to develop and star in an outstandingly good TV series in the early 80's. But he didn't do anything notable for the next ten years - until his convictions. And he hasn't done anything notable since, either. Endless plugging of his latest home-movie, and puffery of non-notable stuff he's done since being released simply detracts from his considerable achievements (even if these *don't* include running Decca Records). Let's have a shot at writing something even he can be proud of? And in my view it's fine for him to come clean and assist in that process - as long as he commits to not editing the main article. (assuming your permission Atama, can I copy this and your comment above to the King talk page?) Little grape (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't need my permission, but I appreciate you asking... Sure, go ahead. -- Atama 19:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Wirtland

• Witizen (talk · contribs)
• Wirtland (micronation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In my view COI notice should be better motivated in this case. Even if a major contributor of article about Wirtland (a micronation) is a citizen of this micronation, should it preclude him/her from writing about it? According to that logic, US citizens cannot edit articles about America. Opinions welcome. Witizen (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Witizen

Your question is moot as the whole article is a blatant copyvio of http://www.wirtland.com/ and I have tagged it for deletion as such. – ukexpat (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that was a crafty move, removing the site's original text and making it look like it's framing the Misplaced Pages article. Your reuse of the article is not, however, in compliance with WP:REUSE. – ukexpat (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused, didn't this article survive an AfD? If so, doesn't that make it invalid for CSD? And also, just to let you know, Witizen referred to him/her/themself as "we" on the talk page (slightly off-topic observation). -- Atama 18:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If it is in fact a copyright violation, that still means it should be speedied (don't know how it snuck by the AfD if that is the case, though), or reverted to a non-copyvio stub if one existed. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear editors. Though a speedy deletion is not exactly what I expected from posting my question here, I have answered to it on my talk page, as requested. I am tirelessly doing my best to comply with all edits and requirements, which come up again and again. I'm not complaining, however, I am thankful for this attention and all your time. I'm just trying to distinguish measurable, clear, and legitimate requests from those which I perceive (maybe wrongly) as subjective and excessive.

Wirtland stated that "As an internet-based community, Wirtland attaches high importance to being properly represented in the internet encyclopedia". Bearing in mind Jimbo Wales' principle "Newcomers are always to be welcomed", I hoped for a welcome, but face lots of resistance. I am ready to cooperate, but really I won't insist, so I will remove Wirtland entry if it indeed contradicts Misplaced Pages's rules. Witizen (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Witizen

Yes we welcome newcomers, but there are also many policies and guidelines that face the newcomer when they participate in this project. The copyright issue for example -- for legal reasons Misplaced Pages cannot accept copyright materials without a clear release verifiably from the copyright owner. That's why the WP:IOWN process exists. No one here is trying to be difficult, we are just trying to ensure that the numerous policies and guidelines are adhered to.  – ukexpat (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

One more point, the Wirtland website now looks like it is framing the Misplaced Pages article, but it really isn't. I am not quite sure what you are trying to achieve by using the Misplaced Pages logo (which by the way is a registered trademark) and the "According to the standard of Misplaced Pages, the 💕" language. – ukexpat (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I see now, on WP:CSD it states, "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations." That certainly applies here. -- Atama 19:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Except that I was apparently mistaken. Other editors have checked the Google cache of the website and confirmed that it looked like it does now on 6/22. However I will say in my own defence that when I checked it just before tagging for G10, none of the Misplaced Pages stuff was there, or at least visible (the logo or the "According to the standard of Misplaced Pages, the 💕" text) otherwise I would not have tagged it. I do have questions though about the purpose of using the Misplaced Pages trademarked logo and the accompanying text and of course the COI issues still remain.  – ukexpat (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe the COI accusation is valid. The defense that Witizen has no more of a COI than the citizen of a country editing their own nation's article isn't valid. The Wirtland "citizenship" is just like any organization that requires voluntary membership, such as a church or club. -- Atama 21:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason the citizen defence isn't valid is because no reliable authority actually recognises Wirtland as a sovereign state anyway. We're only one step removed from outright WP:MADEUP here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh well. My entry is now blanked. My original question about COI has become irrelevant for the time being. Hope copyright permission message will be processed soon. Thanks everybody who was helpful. Witizen (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Witizen.

User:Bkpub and Berrett-Koehler Publishers

• Bkpub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• All Together Now (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Crunch (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Bkpub has entered articles and links relating to books published by Berrett-Koehler Publishers. WP:UAA did not consider this a promotional user-name. I gave the user a welcome note including a pointer to WP:BFAQ and a COI warning, and he has not edited since. I will check out the books and PROD if necessary, though the articles are not excessively promotional and at least the first will probably pass as notable - it seems Obama referred to it in a speech. Posted here in case anyone thinks more action necessary. JohnCD (talk) 10:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Jeez sometimes I despair of WP:UAA - how is that not a promotional user name? – ukexpat (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

First, seeing as I'm going to have to post it here as well, the policy guidelines clearly states that users who "add promotional material or demonstrate a conflict of interest can be reported to the conflict of interest noticeboard or to administrator intervention against vandalism, where further action may be taken." :/ UAA is usually for more extreme cases, such as personal attacks, more obvious promotional usernames (ex. BUYBOOKSAT___), and all that lovely stuff at WP:IU. For cases such as this, you would take it to COIN. Besides, I checked the first article-it seems pretty good. As long as he's not promoting material as set by G11, I think that the worst he should get is a warning and CHU. Cheers, I' 16:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree about the username. Bkpub gives a hint to the COI (fortunately) but it's not explicit. A casual editor wouldn't even think twice about that username. While COI certainly exists if they created articles on notable subjects without adding promotional material, they have been warned about COI, and haven't edited since, I think that there's nothing further to do. Does anyone disagree? -- Atama 16:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Another editor has PRODded Crunch (book). I have now checked out All Together Now (book) and PRODded that, too, because on checking the Obama speech cited as a reference, I find that while he used the phrase "You're on your own now" there is no confirmation of the article's claim that he was referring to a theory coined in this book - he does not refer to the book or to its author. If the articles are deleted, I will tidy up the various links. User has not edited since warning, I agree no further action required unless they come back. JohnCD (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Kevinbrogers and The True Victory

• The True Victory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kevinbrogers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor created the page for The True Victory (also up for AfD), an unreleased, unproduced film he plans to direct. Doesn't see his contributions as conflict of interest or self-promotion, continues to add his film to 2010s in film‎ after being notified of COI. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

He seems to have come around somewhat, he is asking for advice on sourcing and on what to do about the article after deletion, and seems resigned to the fact that deletion is going to happen. He is also very open about his COI, so I'm not sure what other measures have to be taken in his case. -- Atama 20:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Neo Torres

Came across this book cover of a book by Neo Torres in Coyame UFO incident, an article very heavily edited by Noetorres (talk · contribs). Looks like pretty blatant self promotion and the article references Torres and another self-published book almost exclusively. NJGW (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that page should go up for AfD probably; references are very weak. I tried finding online coverage of the incident and I found a single article talking about it. And guess what? It was an article in a Wichita Falls newspaper that was an interview with Noe Torres! Blatant self promotion? I'd say so. -- Atama 16:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I also found that Noe created the Milton Torres 1957 UFO Encounter article. I doubt very much the name similarity is a coincidence. -- Atama 16:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

With whole paragraphs of personal claims presented as factual and sourced to "personal interview" -- greattttt. DreamGuy (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Every contribution this editor has made has been in articles that feature one of his books prominently as a reference (which he helpfully added) or linked to an article of the same. Unfortunately the whole concept of no original research is foreign to him (which is somewhat understandable considering that his original research has been published). -- Atama 19:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User:ITMLONDON = Insanity Talent Management

• ITMLONDON (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Louise Roe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

From the link in the article to www.itmlondon.com, this user is evidently Insanity Talent Management trying to use Misplaced Pages to promote their client. Username possibly not directly promotional, but I suggest should be blocked as an advertiser. JohnCD (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I tagged it for G11 speedy as in my view, from both tone and content, it's a PR piece. Also reported username to UAA, but not holding my breath. – ukexpat (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Given that itmlondon is their website, I blocked it as a blatant spamusername. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Baxter International

Note this edit, and this warning by an account with this user page. This is an account that is dedicated to only contributing to one page, the company's wikipage. I don't think further action is needed, but I do think COIN needs to know about this. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. That has to be the most restrained editor with a COI that I have ever seen. If you look at that Baxter International page, 2/3 of the article is just "controversies". That is a lot of undue weight toward a negative bias. And yet all that the editor did was remove an obviously redundant entry in the lead. If there was a COI barnstar I'd give it to them. -- Atama 08:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Georgianwebteam

Georgianwebteam (talk · contribs) made this edit today to Georgian College. User's first edit was back on February 18. Willking1979 (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Terrymacro

• Terrymacro (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Outing.3F, where it has been suggested that this situation might be more profitably addressed here. JN466 20:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The user has two separate probably conflicts of interest: one regarding Prem Rawat and the other involving Astrological age. However the former is the more contentious issue. The editor in question was a senior national official in the Rawat movement, and more recently served as a director of a major facility owned by the movement. His current biography, which he's linkt to repeatedly, says that his "major passion in life is utlising the techniques of self-knowledge as revealed by Maharaji." He insists that he does not have a conflict of interest when writing about the topic because the particular entity of which he was an officer no longer exists, and therefore he has no financial stake. This appears to be incorrect in a couple of respects. First, apparently the entity is still in existence, only its name has been legally changed from Divine Light Mission to Elan Vital. Second, conflict of interest is not limited to ongoing financial involvement. He was among the early followers of Prem Rawat, he has been a member of the movement for at least 34 years, and he was a senior official in two separate organizations, most recently in the 1990s. The user has edited in issues directly related to his involvement, including commenting about the validity of a legal affidavit involving the organizations of which he'd been an officer and his colleagues. At the time he made those remarks he had given no indication that he was even a member of the movement, much less a former senior official. This is exactly the kind of undisclosed conflict of interest that this guideline is intended to avoid. The editor asserts that he is only interested in neutral editing, but I have not seen any edits by him that do not support a "pro-Rawat" POV. I have requested that he disclose his COI, and that he follow this guideline on Prem Rawat-related articles. Does anyone feel that the user does not have a conflict of interest?   Will Beback  talk  22:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

First the easier one: linking to self-published materials on Astrological age may have been inappropriate, if there was no wider talk page consensus to add the material, and/or the sources are not in line with WP:RS. If any of the editor's publications comply with WP:RS, he should be encouraged to put them on the talk page, disclose his being the author and await talk page consensus for adding them. If he did that, then there is no problem.

That he managed a facility for a faith group ten years ago is a less clear-cut case. WP:NPA says that affiliations should not be held up to invalidate another editor's views, regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or not. Based on this principle, his faith being a minority faith should not weigh in our decision. Judging otherwise lays us open to charges of religious discrimination and stifling free speech ("the encyclopedia anyone can edit ... except members of religious minorities!"). So we have a situation where someone, ten years ago, held a (volunteer?) position in a particular faith group, and now wishes to contribute to WP articles on that faith group. I am not sure that is an automatic COI. JN466 08:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

For reference, here is a recent LA Times article commenting on the free speech issues involved. JN466 08:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

A COI is bad enough, but COI+POV=FUBAR. It seems like he's being dishonest, if he's editing to paint the subject in a positive light, had very strong ties at one time, and yet even now asserts his belief in the teachings while claiming that he can be neutral. That Scientology thing just goes to show that "religious tolerance" shouldn't be an issue; that ship has sailed. If this encyclopedia is going to be neutral it can't cave into every organization (religious or not) that wants an article to be more positive. Besides, that's a straw man argument, who in this issue is bringing that up? -- Atama 08:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a fairly obvious principle that an editor's religious beliefs, sexual orientation etc. should not per se be held against him. So saying that he "even now asserts his belief in the teachings" is about as relevant as saying that an editor "even now says he is gay". If there are specific problems with his editing in this topic area, that is another thing, but those have been merely asserted, rather than demonstrated. JN466 08:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with stating that you believe in something, as long as you aren't evangelizing. It's his direct involvement as a major player in the movement that presents the COI. If he was no longer a part of that movement any longer, that might ease the COI but his statements that he is still "passionate" about it help reinforce the issue. You're trying to change this issue into something it's not, nobody is attacking anyone for their beliefs. -- Atama 17:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I refer you to Durova's comments below. I assure you it is quite normal for people who espouse a religion – any religion – to feel passionate about it. JN466 18:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As you know, Prem Rawat doesn't espouse any religion, so Terry's religious beliefs are *still* not the issue here. Hiding his affiliation and editing a group of articles about someone he's had long relationship with, and pretending not to know about things he was actually involved with, are the issue here I think. -- Maelefique 18:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Atama said it was Terry's feeling "passionate" about his belief in Rawat's teaching that was the problem. I merely pointed out that passionate feelings are commonplace in the religious domain – people feel passionate about Jesus, Allah, sufis, gurus, scriptures, saints, whatever the case may be. Also, let's remember that the direct managerial involvement, such as people have alleged here, was 10 to 25 years ago. We might agree that "Joe Cardinal" in the Vatican has a COI; but does he still have a COI if he comes to Misplaced Pages ten years after he last held an official position, just because he still feels passionate about Jesus? I'd tend to say, No. JN466 19:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This argument still isn't about religious beliefs, so I can't agree with your reasoning in pursuing this line of defense. On the one hand, you are trying to link Terry's "belief in Rawat's teaching" with religion, and in the next sentence you dismiss the argument as a simple case of a manager 10-25 years ago. Which discussion do you want to have? Also, as you already know, Terry was running Rawat's 800 hectare conference center (Amaroo) in the 90's, that wasn't 25 years ago. And I have to wonder how do either of these arguments help explain Terry's "Hiding his affiliation and editing a group of articles about someone he's had long relationship with, and pretending not to know about things he was actually involved with" as I asked above? -- Maelefique 19:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"Atama said it was Terry's feeling 'passionate' about his belief in Rawat's teaching that was the problem." That's just false. I said it was his connection to the organization that was the COI, and I cited the fact that he has drawn attention to the fact that he is still "passionate" about the teachings of the organization to be indicators that the COI isn't just something in the distant past. Please don't try to escalate things here by falsely misrepresenting other editors' comments and trying to derail discussion. Nobody cares about the specifics of Terrymacro's beliefs; heck, I don't even have enough familiarity with "Prem Rawat" to even have an opinion about it. -- Atama 20:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If a guy had a secular management job in the Vatican ten years ago, and says he believes passionately in Jesus' redemption of mankind, and the power of prayer, then that constitutes a POV, but doesn't in my view constitute a declarable COI for every article on Catholicism. I see the present case as a fairly close analogy. JN466 20:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, given the findings against you at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology, I request that you not involve yourself further in this dispute. As for Terrymacro, I think either an indefinite block or a topic ban may be required if the editor does not agree to steer clear of areas where they cannot edit neutrally. Have they been notified of this thread? Jehochman 18:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the Scientology arbcom case has to do with this discussion. As you brought it up, the findings "against me" in that case noted that 17) Jayen466 (talk · contribs) has made many constructive edits in the Scientology topic though this has been offset by edit-warring apparently to advance an agenda. The edit warring concerned the Rick Ross BLP, where I was too eager to retain a mass of sourced material that was unflattering to Mr Ross, a fact I acknowledged in the arbcom case and apologised for. I've been asked to stay away from articles about Mr Ross, which is fine by me, and am free to contribute to the Scientology topic area as before, unlike most other editors who took part in that arbitration – as you know, there were several dozen topic bans.
• However, if you want to bring up arbcom findings, I would have thought the Rawat cases are far more relevant. I have been a named party in both Rawat arbitrations, and am one of the few editors regularly active in that topic area to have been neither admonished or topic-banned in either arbitration, nor blocked under an arbitration remedy. You may contrast that to Will Beback (talk · contribs) and Nik Wright2 (talk · contribs), who are the editors asserting that Terrymacro (talk · contribs) has a COI. Both Will and Nik were admonished in the recent case; Will Beback (talk · contribs) has recently been blocked for edit-warring in the Rawat articles (albeit under exceptionally tough revert rules), and Nik Wright2 (talk · contribs) has in the past received a one-month topic ban for edit-warring in the Rawat topic area. Perhaps you were not aware of this, but I think this information is rather more relevant.
• Looking at the substantive issues, the editor we are talking about may have operated a conference centre related to the movement.
  • Compare that, say, to the retired manager of a prominent Anglican conference facility who wishes to contribute to articles on the Anglican Church. Does he have a COI, because he ran an Anglican conference centre?
  • How about the retired manager of a Catholic boarding school. Does he have to declare a COI before his first edit to a Catholicism-related article? (I note not even the talk page of Catholic sex abuse cases has posts accusing editors of COI because they are Catholic.)
  • How about a lesbian who formerly ran a prominent lesbian and gay community centre in Los Angeles and wishes to contribute to LGBT articles. Does she have to declare a COI before her first edit to the LGBT topic area? While all straight people wishing to contribute to LGBT articles obviously don't have a COI, because they represent the majority?
• If you'd say that none of these editors has to declare a COI before editing Misplaced Pages, then what exactly is different about a former functionary in Rawat's movement? Where do you draw the line – Mormons are okay, but Jehovah's Witnesses aren't? What's the criterion? Whether Jehochman likes the group? The size of the faith group? The visibility of the position the person held? Or would you say that all ex-functionaries of mainstream movements do have a COI? Have there been precedents? Because whether you like it or not, we are very close to religious discrimination when we treat editors differently depending on their religious affiliation, seeing things as a COI for adherents of a minority group, yet treating them as editors' private affair when the faith group is more mainstream. WP:NPA tells us to treat mainstream and non-mainstream affiliations the same. As the blogger quoted in the above LA Times article asked, "Why let Christians edit articles on Christianity?"
• The criterion here should be evidence which demonstrates that this editor has edited non-neutrally, promotionally, clearly putting outside interests above the interest of the project. Yet you are prepared to dish out an indefinite block or topic ban simply based on religious affiliation and the assertion of non-neutral editing by editors who themselves have been reprimanded for their conduct in the relevant arbcom cases (not to mention that one of them has had off-site disputes with this faith group).
• To answer your question, Terrymacro was notified of this thread by Will. Regards, JN466 20:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • To comment in general terms upon the most pertinent issue Jayen raises, yes I support handling COI issues that pertain to religions the same basis for all religions. Jayen seems to imply that new religions are being singled out. Mere adherence to a religion does not constitute conflict of interest. For example, the Joan of Arc vandal was banned for socking, disruption, misuse of sources, etc. but not for conflict of interest--since there was no evidence that he had any official connection to the organizational structure of the faith whose POV he was pushing. Durova 21:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Adding a quick thought here, though. Occasionally the argument does come up in discussion that strong belief in something itself constitutes a conflict of interest. I regard that as a misreading of the distinction between POV and COI, and in my observation that occasional mistake has crossed a broad number of subjects; it doesn't seem to divide down the line that Jayen draws. Although if that did indeed happen, such a thing would be problematic. Durova 21:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I think you're making a nice distinction that it would be well worth keeping in mind. I argued the way I did here because I just cannot imagine indef blocks and topic bans being suggested, absent any examination of editing behaviour, because someone ran an Anglican conference centre ten years ago. JN466 22:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
        • In 2006 the site did ban an evangelical Christian who was trying to build a ministry through Misplaced Pages, and in 2007 the WikiScanner detected edits coming from the Vatican. The latter made news at that time, although I'm not aware of an continued problem in that regard. If evidence arose to that effect I'd pursue it. Yet within a discussion of conflict of interest, religion is only one minor specific case. Suppose a former executive of the mining industry were discovered to have been deprecating mention of adverse environmental and health effects of mining? Conflict of interest is the guideline over which Wikipedians have the least control: often, editors allow themselves to suppose that a nuance in the guideline wording or a local discussion can settle the matter. Really it's a real world concept. Durova 22:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• There is a world of difference between a run-of-the-mill follower of an huge and old religion and a high official in a small new religious movement. It is an incorrect analogy to say that Christians don't have a COI when editing articles concerning their church. "Joe Parishioner" may not have such a conflict, but "Cardinal Joe" would. Likewise, a low-level employee in a company may not have a conflict, but a senior executive almost certainly would. Further, Terrymacro hasn't confined himself to issues where his conflicts are minimal - he interjected himself in a discussion over the reliability of an affidavit concerning the exact organization that he helped lead and which involved people he knew very well. Did he reveal any of those connections? No, he presented himself as an uninvolved and impartial editor. That kind of deception is just what this guideline is meant to prevent. An even more general principle is that advocacy is not allowed. The editor has written in his current biography that his greatest passion is his devotion to the teachings of Prem Rawat. That's a wonderful thing for him, but that is not a suitable frame of mind for someone to make neutral edits to that topic in an encyclopedia.   Will Beback  talk  23:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points that may have been overlooked:

• Terry Macro recently proposed a new, neutral lede for the PR article which contained criticism of Rawat. ] This does suggest that he is able to edit neutrally.
• With all due respect to Will Beback, I don't think he is the best person to comment on another editor's frame of mind. I have worked on two Rawat articles so far. It has been difficult in both cases due to what I consider to be Will's anti-Rawat POV pushing. The most recent violations of edit restrictions were the result of an edit to the lede by Will. See discussion of edit here ]. --Zanthorp (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Zanthorp, according to whom is Terrymacro's proposal neutral? To my view it is not neutral at all. If you would like to address my POV, then I suggest starting a new thread.   Will Beback  talk  02:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Address your POV in a new thread? That's certainly an option. Generally I think its better to try to work in a cooperative, rather than an adversarial way. Maybe I'm being naive. --Zanthorp (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This brief comment is to acknowledge that I am fully aware of the COI against me, and I have read all the above arguments for and against. I will be responding to the above ASAP. Terry Macro (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Jayen also neglects to mention that there are more than 2 editors that feel TerryMacro has a confict of interest here. I have also commented about it on Terry's talkpage. I also find it more than a little too convenient that TerryMacro removed all the links from his talk page that linked him to Prem Rawat *3* minutes before editing on the Prem Rawat articles. That may not prove a COI, but it sure as heck doesn't smack of a lot of honesty either... In my country, our politicians have a saying, "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck"...quack quack. :-) His blatant, and honestly, hard to believe, interpretation of the COI page here (which I corrected here) as well as his attitude after multiple editors have discussed the situation with him here would seem to indicate that he is not willing to do anything about this himself as he sees no COI. Regarding Zanthorp's claim that Terry created a neutral lede, 2 of eight editors thought so if you read the talk page here, coincidentally I'm sure, they were TerryMacro and Zanthorp.-- Maelefique 03:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Not 8 editors, only 5, and the main issues discussed were chronology and Nik's point about the accuracy of sources. Please get your facts straight. --Zanthorp (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Bad math, there were at *least* 8 active editors on the talk page around the time this came up, 2 (you and Terry) liked it. Even if you were correct (which again, you aren't), 2 out of 5 does not make for evidence of your statement that "This does suggest that he is able to edit neutrally.". Please try not to muddy the waters further with claims that it's now about chronology. That's not what we are discussing here and please get your facts straight. -- Maelefique 16:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Nik Wright2 mentions below how TPRF was the ultimate owner of the conference facility of which Terrymacro was director. One of the principle changes that Terrymacro proposed to the "neutral lede" was to expand the material devoted to TPRF, adding that it was established as "a vehicle for humanitarian work and to spread his message." This organization is very obscure compared to the DLM or EV, yet he was seeking to expand the space devoted to it. His proposed text does not, in itself, show that he can edit neutrally on this topic.   Will Beback  talk  10:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The TPRF addition to the lede you are referring to was merely a condensed version of a passage from 1983-2000 section of the article. Your objection noted. Leave it in or leave it out; it isn't a major issue, and somewhat off topic here anyway. The point being overlooked is that his suggested edit included unaltered criticism of Rawat. --Zanthorp (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the original lede proposed by Terry, I see lots of promotional material including a plug for TPRF. Where is this "unaltered criticism" that you refer to? The last sentence, which has been in the lede for over a year, and wasn't even part of the paragraph we were working on? -- Maelefique 17:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Facts Relevant to the Case in Question (Divine Light Mission and Associated pages)

Concern with broader problems of COI policy is obfuscating the issues as they relate to Terrymacro as an editor of Misplaced Pages . The key facts are:

• 1. The focus of the question of COI is the article Divine Light Mission, and from that article Prem Rawat and other related articles in which Divine Light Mission is an integral part.

• 2. Divine Light Mission is not a single entity but the name given to a number of nationally discrete entities. In the US, the organisation (now renamed Elan Vital) is a non profit Corporation, recognised by the IRS as operating as a Church; however there are ample sources reporting representatives of Elan Vital/DLM stating that:it is not a religion.

• 3. In Australia the Divine Light Mission (now also renamed Elan Vital) was created as a membership Association with corporate status, it does not claim religious status.

• 4.The editor Terrymacro has held the position of Director (i.e a publicly and legally accountable person) of a Corporation owned by the Australian Elan Vital/DLM. Terrymacro has made various contributions on the talk pages of the DLM and Prem Rawat articles about the history of the DLM, even claiming that it was a defunct organisation.

• 5. The Corporation of which Terrymacro was a director, operates a Conference Centre, which has been developed at the cost of several tens of millions of dollars, on land, stated by that Corporation’s ultimate owner, to be vested with The Prem Rawat Foundation. TPRF has provided support funding for, and has personnel links with the publisher of a controversial source which Terrymacro has recommended as a reference for articles about Prem Rawat.

• Conclusion: there is no obvious issue of religious freedom or entitlement in this case. The matter hangs on the public and legal position held by an individual who edits Misplaced Pages. Whether the relevance of that position is rendered void by the passage of time is a question to be answered. Additionally, as Terrymacro, in attempts to influence article content, has made some dubious claims about the organisation in question, it might be thought appropriate to at least request clarification from him over any continued association with connected Corporations, their officers and others active in the promotion of those Corporations or of Prem Rawat. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter whether Rawatism is a religion or not. As you know, it is generally classified as a religious movement in reliable sources: , etc. There are multiple reliable sources backing up Terrymacro's assertion that the DLM is "defunct": I'd be prepared to concede that Terrymacro would have a COI with regard to the conference centre he once managed, but am not convinced that it should go further than that. JN466 19:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You're not seriously suggesting that arguing 'sources' is a basis for sorting out a COI ? The fact that 'some' individuals have classified Rawatism a religion, doesn't make it a religion. In this case, is Terrymacro saying his connection to the Ivory's Rock Conference Centre is a religious affiliation, or that Prem Rawat is a religious leader ? The issue is simply one of Corporate record - the Colorado SoS Business listings and the Australian SEC listings provide definitive documentation that the US and Australian Divine Light Missions are still functioning as they were created in 1971 and 1976, in both cases under the name Elan Vital. It doesn't matter how many incompetant or lazy Sociologists of Religion that you quote to the contrary - those Sociologists are wrong and the Colorado SoS and Australian SEC, are right. Quite honestly Jayen I think you've tried to hijack this issue for some other agenda, and what you are prepared to concede is irrelevant. The question is whether Misplaced Pages is going to allow itself to be used by sectional interests or whether COIs are going to be properly challenged.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Nik, as you know, there is exceptionally broad agreement in reliable secondary sources that Rawat led a religious movement. Anything else, even if a DLM spokesman said it, is a fringe view (actually, what the spokesman said was that it was a "church" rather than a "religion"). Your original analysis of two primary sources – one the DLM's articles of incorporation in the United States from 1971, and the other an Australian name change document – concluding that the DLM in the US and Australia "are still functioning as they were created in 1971 and 1978" is contradicted by the entire literature on the topic, which see the "DLM" and "Elan Vital" stages of the movement as distinct, not least because Elan Vital only had a fraction of the staff that the old DLM had, closed all the ashrams where followers lived communally in the DLM days, dispensed with the explicitly Indian religious trappings that marked the DLM stage, etc. Will explained the problems with primary source analysis to you here. JN466 20:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to Allegation of Probable COI by User:Terrymacro Part A

Will Beback alleges two probable COI, one pertaining to the Astrological Ages, the other involving Prem Rawat and Divine Light Mission topics. Though most attention is directed at my involvement in the latter two topics I am first addressing the alleged COI involving the Astrological Ages otherwise it may be used to support by insinuation the alleged COI on the Prem Rawat and Divine Light Mission topics. I have a long term passion for the astrological ages, and I am very knowledgeable in the topic. I initially became a Wiki editor for the purposes of assisting in editing of this topic as part of the Misplaced Pages astrology project. Before I learnt the rules of Wiki extensively, I was made aware that the main aim was producing material with a NPOV. I was not cognizant at the time of the details of COI, as initially there are far too many rules to take them all in and I never discovered the WP:COI section as a new editor. Though I probably would have modified my editing approach if I had my current knowledge when I was a new Wiki editor, the material I produced was a NPOV and any semi alert editor on these topics would have readily seen my strong association with the topic.

For the whole of the period March 2008 to May 2009 my user page clearly indicated my association with the subject. Nearly all of my significant edits occurred in 2008 up until August when any other editor wishing to contest my edits could easily see my historical associations with the subject. However I worked in a non-combative and collegial fashion as, at the time, I believed this to be the spirit of Misplaced Pages editing. I had advised Wikiproject astrology on 20 March 2009 about what I was doing in the topics, and my user page clearly showed my association with the subject matter. There was no excessive self-citation. Any content included that involved me was notable. No peer in Misplaced Pages astrology group has objected to the content and I entered the following information on the Wikiproject astrology page: “My research speciality is the astrological ages and I am widely published on the subject. I also interface with acheoastronomers on the subject.”

In retrospect I probably should have made some appropriate statements on the Talk page but I was unaware of this at the time being a new editor. During and after the period of my most intensive editing, a wide range of editors have also edited the page without edit wars and it was not until Will Beback followed me to this topic that the editorial disagreement intensity has significantly increased. This followed an edit I made on the Prem Rawat topic that was obviously not to Will Beback’s liking.

It is also worth noting as a side issue that Will Beback also followed me to another topic, the Age of Aquarius, and deleted on July 1 2009 a section detailing my published views on the Age of Aquarius. Matching various astrologers in the same section with Age of Aquarius in Google results in an average number of hits to me compared to the other astrologers included in this section. That topic no longer provides the former comprehensive divergent viewpoints on the Age of Aquarius and is missing the inclusion of one notable astrologer in the field. Misplaced Pages will be less due to this.

The only consequence of my editing of the astrological ages (and Age of Aquarius) is that the articles are far superior. Though I was unaware of the details of WP:COI in early 2008, in retrospect I did not contravene the following "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged.”

In conclusion, I don’t believe that the allegation of probable COI made against me in relation to the Astrological Ages topic is anything other than the side result of long term editorial disagreements on the Prem Rawat, Divine Light Mission and related topics. It seems that these editorial wars are common in many Misplaced Pages topics but I did not experience this at the Astrological ages and Age of Aquarius topics until very recently. I think my record at the Astrological Ages (and Age of Aquarius) topics demonstrate that in circumstances where I could have easily abused the situation and produced biased and weighted articles involving self-promotion, that instead I produced balanced, NPOV and far more explanatory material compared to what existed previously. Terry Macro (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding links to your blogs and creating an entire section devoted to your ideas was excessive, but the other, smaller mentions you added were less problematic. I think if you just avoid citing yourself in the future then that'll be fine. The notable views of MackInnell are likeliest to be those that are cited in secondary sources. You can post those sources on talk pages with a request that other editors add relevant material. That's a good approach in any COI situation, including Prem Rawat.   Will Beback  talk  06:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Terry says above that "I was not cognizant at the time of the details of COI,...Though I probably would have modified my editing approach if I had my current knowledge". But just two days ago Terry said that "In my understanding a COI can only exist when someone is presently on the payroll of an article subject, or presently carries functions in this organisation(s).". I doubt you were ever on the "Age of Aquarius" payroll, so why would you "have modified my editing approach if I had my current knowledge"?. After editing since March 2008, you still don't seem to understand the COI page. It makes sense that if you don't understand it, you may not realize you are in a COI. I hope this process can shed some light on this situation. -- Maelefique 17:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Talpert2

• Terri Alpert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - created by User:Talpert2 notability is not in question but the whole tone of the article is promotional and lacking in encyclopaedic tone...could someone advise how to proceed? Teapotgeorge 21:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Peeball

See also Herculous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Peeball (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be the account of a UK brand consultancy (Sweetapple) and used to further the publicity aims of its owners, Elaine and Matthew Sweetapple. The name itself is the name of a product that they're flogging. Some of the ventures include:

• Sweetapple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The consultancy itself.
• Rockford's Rock Opera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - co-written by Matthew Sweetapple. Has added references to this in unrelated articles such as Passenger Pigeon and Great Auk
• Lauren Luke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Made a few edits here, but it's unclear whether she's a client or they're just interested.

Ventures flogged on their user page but not, so far, done up as articles include:

• DogMob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
• GiveSure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -

Calton | Talk 01:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User:NitroMan3941

Meet the Deedles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The Meet the Deedles article was hit with what appeared to be a rash of vandalism a while ago. I was unable to revert it due to my lack of familiarity with the film, but I felt it was clearly both inaccurate and unencyclopedic. I checked back later to find that User:NitroMan3941 had cleaned up the article well, but left much of what I considered to be clear vandalism. Accidentally conflating him with the original vandal, and noting some other suspect edits he had made, I called him out in a heavy-handed way, which I have attempted to apologize for after realizing he was not the original vandal. Since then, and despite mediation by User:Fleetflame, he has been volatile and offensive to myself and other editors. I have attempted to engage the user in discussion, but he seems too offended to deal with me. Finally, I did a heavy revert on the article, citing sources, which he completely replaced today with his original text, removed my sources, and backed up his edit with two low-quality sources (one is a humor site and the other is a comment on an entertainment website, both seem to be based not on fact but on the original vandalism present in this very article.) He has blanked his user talk page. I do not feel. User:Jeff_G. seems to have become disgusted and nominated the article for deletion, but I feel, prior to Nitroman's reverting my edits, the article was sufficiently sourced and accurate. Dabizi (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As always Dabizi is being not being 100% accurate. I was working with Fleetflame but he seemingly lost interest. Also, he's being somewhat nosey, as it shouldn't make much difference to him if i delete old content on my talk page, considering he had no ongoing topic with me. NitroMan3941 (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is there a conflict of interest? This seems to be a content dispute rather than a COI issue. Users can delete content on their talk page if they like too. Smartse (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I call conflict of interest because, after my initial heavy-handedness, User:NitroMan3941 has taken a personal adversarial role against me and my edits. This is documented on the Deedles talk page, on my user talk page, and on his talk page. I understand that there is no problem with blanking one's talk page; I made mention so our interactions there would not be overlooked. I've attempted to make edits and engage NitroMan in discussion to better the article together, but have found it to be fruitless. For instance, I asked him to cite sources, and he initially refused, later explaining, "I didn't want to deal with you on the sources because i think you're just looking for something to complain about because you're bored." On my User Talk page, he has bragged "I didn't even read most of what you sent me." and "I'm only rude when I see fit." Lastly, when I explained why my sources would be valid (TV Guide and Variety) and his would not, I was told to "Stop repeating myself for the sake of impressing other users." I have not been allowed to make an accepted point, let alone a valid edit, because of NitroMan's well-documented animosity to me. On the other hand, since my initial mistake, I have attempted to be civil and straightforward with him this whole process. Dabizi (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest applies to articles, not interaction with other editors. If NitroMan3941 were, say, the director of "Meet the Deedles" or a member of a PR firm trying to promote the picture company responsible for it, those would be conflicts of interest because it would be difficult for him to remain objective and to keep a neutral point of view in editing the article even if he tried. What you have is a personal conflict with another editor, and only in your interactions with him rather than a content dispute over what goes into an article. I suggest reporting him to theWikiquette alerts noticeboard. Just an FYI, it does appear to me that NitroMan3941 has repeatedly reverted the Meet the Deedles page back to one that includes vandalism, unnecessary plot detail, POV/opinion and removed references (even the references section!) and I've restored back to the "fixed" version and will be watching the page. If he continues with the disruptive editing, I'll get personally involved. Oh, another note, a user can blank his talk page if he wishes, it's not uncommon to do so although some might consider it rude and would prefer that a person archive old content instead of deleting it. It doesn't really matter because the history of that talk page is still available for anyone to view. -- Atama 18:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Maulya (moved from UAA)

• Maulya (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) - username itself is fine but it is used for promotion and the "We" indicates that this is purely for spam purposes. -WarthogDemon 04:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Because the username is not the problem, this isn't a UAA issue. Moved to COIN. rspεεr (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Cityzen451

• Cityzen451 (talk · contribs)
• Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dyslexia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Premature and pointless Request for Arbitration that needs nipping in the bud. User Cityzen451 wants inclusion of a book - A Memory Therapy ... by James Rowan - and is disputing the removal. Googling, or internal search of the Amazon.com preview for "Cityzen451", strongly suggests a COI. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Fan edit/User:LoganPublishing

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

Brand new user LoganPublishing has tried to edit warring to include references to a particular website in this article. Possible COI noticed from this page, where a user named "Logan-5" is shown to be a moderator at the contested site. User's first edit was a personal attack on another editor over this dispute. User appears to have continued this edit war from his previous IP addresses - 124.8.111.84, 124.8.72.177, and 124.8.72.192. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

VT iDirect

• User:Photoguy11579/VT_iDirect (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've been trying for some time now to post an article about a satellite communications company in herndon, va - VT iDirect. This page has gone through several different versions. It started with something that sounded very corporate-like and was obviously getting deleted. I've gone through multiple revisions to make the article neutral and added more sources. Before I repost the article, I wanted to get feedback here so I don't have to go through another round of deletions. Many thanks. User:photoguy11579

1. spokeo spam

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution