Misplaced Pages

:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:45, 11 November 2015 view sourceHarrias (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators49,113 edits →Ɱ: r← Previous edit Revision as of 22:43, 11 November 2015 view source Widefox (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers107,077 edits →Ɱ: do you really believe an invisible disclosure is OK?Next edit →
Line 648: Line 648:
:::::]/COIN guideline is explicit that it must be visible (for exactly this example - it was 3 clicks away!). Paid editors have to abide by more than just ToU here, so PAID and COIN etc matter. You may now be at the start of the same journey I went through to understand this lot (ToU being "or", but the community wanting a "preferred or" or stronger). That started for me at ]. Some of us consider this is just an intermediate step, as clearly the difference between ToU and anything else is wikilawyer-able (and as a legal requirement, together with incentives, is may be a good source of it). <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span>; ]</span> 20:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC) :::::]/COIN guideline is explicit that it must be visible (for exactly this example - it was 3 clicks away!). Paid editors have to abide by more than just ToU here, so PAID and COIN etc matter. You may now be at the start of the same journey I went through to understand this lot (ToU being "or", but the community wanting a "preferred or" or stronger). That started for me at ]. Some of us consider this is just an intermediate step, as clearly the difference between ToU and anything else is wikilawyer-able (and as a legal requirement, together with incentives, is may be a good source of it). <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span>; ]</span> 20:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::I agree that PAID is an important guideline, but as I said above, until your edits to it on 6 November, ''after'' the start of this discussion, it was not explicit that it must be visible, and it did not state that more than one of those three criteria must be met. I do, actually, agree with the changes that are being made to PAID, but I would recommend that the work there is completed and a fair consensus gained (be it by strength of numbers, or stability over a time period) before the guideline is over policed. {{u|Ɱ}} made changes to meet the guidelines as they were at the start of this discussion, it is unreasonable to expect that user to adhere to the changes you have made to PAID during the term of this discussion instantly. {{u|Ɱ}} has shown good faith through most of this conversation, and made efforts to make their COI editing more transparent. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC) ::::::I agree that PAID is an important guideline, but as I said above, until your edits to it on 6 November, ''after'' the start of this discussion, it was not explicit that it must be visible, and it did not state that more than one of those three criteria must be met. I do, actually, agree with the changes that are being made to PAID, but I would recommend that the work there is completed and a fair consensus gained (be it by strength of numbers, or stability over a time period) before the guideline is over policed. {{u|Ɱ}} made changes to meet the guidelines as they were at the start of this discussion, it is unreasonable to expect that user to adhere to the changes you have made to PAID during the term of this discussion instantly. {{u|Ɱ}} has shown good faith through most of this conversation, and made efforts to make their COI editing more transparent. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Come on, "it was not explicit that it must be visible" - factually correct yes, do you really believe an invisible disclosure is OK? Want to get another opinion on that LAWYERING?!
:::::::The issue of more than one seems resolved - legally it's one per ToU, policy - whatever gets decided by normal process. I just bandaid-ed ''policy'', ''guideline'' and ''template'' to be in-line with the letter (and a bit of spirit) of the ToU to make all this more obvious - the ToU is the only firm ground and it applies to drafts.
:::::::My personal feeling is that Ɱ is good faith, but as per ] has misjudged this. Personalising doesn't help - this section starts with me asking for clarification, not all guns blazing. It is not ''my job'' to ensure about legal compliance - it's ''none of my business''. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span>; ]</span> 22:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


== ] == == ] ==

Revision as of 22:43, 11 November 2015

Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    ShortcutsSections 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-wp@wikipedia.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?
    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
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests Talk:260 Collins Talk:Academy of Achievement Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:Aspen Dental Talk:Atlantic Union Bank Talk:AvePoint Talk:Edward J. Balleisen Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:Neil Barofsky Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Edi Birsan Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Bunq Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Pamela Chesters Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Computational topology Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Adela Demetja Talk:Doncaster College Template talk:Editnotices/Page/List of Nintendo franchises Talk:JJ Eldridge Talk:Alan Emrich Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:Richard France (writer) Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Genuine Parts Company Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Group-IB Talk:Hilary Harkness Talk:Hearst Communications Talk:International Motors Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:Scott Kurashige Talk:Andrew Lack (executive) Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Luis Laplace Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:List of PEN literary awards Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health Talk:Anne Sofie Madsen Talk:Laurence D. Marks Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Roland Mertelsmann Talk:Metro AG Talk:Mike Savage (politician) Talk:Modern Meadow Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:QuinStreet Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:SolidWorks Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko Talk:Sysco Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Tencent Cloud Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:TKTS Talk:Trendyol Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:Loretta Ucelli Talk:Unique games conjecture Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Alex Wright (author) Talk:Xero (company) Talk:Zions Bancorporation


    D0kkaebi

    Edit warring around François Asselineau involving a leader of his party

    (last 3 users separated for clarity: Oliv0 (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC))

    D0kkaebi recently started a thread on Administrators'_noticeboard/Incident. The ensuing discussion led to the conclusion that the underlying Conflict of Interest should have been reported here, which I am doing now (even though I am totally new to such requests).

    To sum it up:

    Azurfrog (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC) Signature copied here by Brianhe for clarity

    Discussion of problem by Azurfrog and Oliv0, 11 September 2015–13 September 2015
    • Reasons for this suspicion:
    • Now, this has extensively been discussed on the French WP, on which Lawren00/D0kkaebi was very active at a time on the same articles; but this is not the point. The problem here is that D0kkaebi has taken a rather aggressive stand on these articles without ever disclosing his - highly probable - affiliation with UPR, leading to overdeveloped (and initially overblown) articles, the bias of which is all the more difficult to correct as most editors are unfamiliar with these subjects and largely unable to extensively read the French sources.

    I am at a loss how to deal properly with the matter: reaching a consensus on the talk pages could be reasonably easy, but D0kkaebi/Lawren00 repeatedly gave us to understand that only the edits approved by him were legit on these articles (here, for instance), resorting to a lot of edit warring and a wide array of procedural actions.

    Azurfrog (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

    To help answer the question of a COI or not, I note that in the Facebook page mentioned above (written by "François Asselineau - Union Populaire Républicaine", exactly the relevant WP pages here), at the end under the title "What does the position of Delegate consist of?" (en quoi consiste le poste de délégué) there is a list of "areas of activist work" (axes de travail militant) and the 4th point is "developing the notoriety of PRU globally" (développer la notoriété de l'UPR de façon globale), as opposed to doing so in the same country in the first points — and this can include Misplaced Pages. Oliv0 (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

    Please note: I tried my best to explain how a few basic queries on the web would permit to reasonably ascertain that a conflict of interest existed, without ever revealing a name or any other personal information that wouldn't be obtainable through these basic queries.
    However, as this is the first time I ever placed such a request, I may have erred. So please delete as need be anything that would not comply with WP policy: my purpose is not to out anyone, just to show that readily available public, unredacted information leads to the belief that a conflict of interest does exist.
    I must add that I find all this rather tricky: how can anyone complain about any conflict of interest without explaining why, with enough specific details to show that it is not an idle complaint? --Azurfrog (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

    Amplification by Francis Le français, 14 September 2015
    Very very funny, shall I open a new case for outing? The 4 users totally ignored the comment written in bold and red at the top of the edit page "When investigating possible cases of conflict of interest editing, editors must be careful not to out other editors. Misplaced Pages's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline". A relent of habitual behavior from the French Misplaced Pages? Azurfrog (talk), let me give you an advice, you have to prove that my contributions to the article are not neutral and obviously bias in favor of the party. The other accusation will have to go through email. Admins will correct me if I am wrong.
    Regarding my contribution to the article, let's divide that into 2, since I am accused of being non-neutral on 2 topics.
    1. Francois Asselineau Article: Note that it is been a year that I did not write a line in the article. The special task force made of French wiki admins organized into a crew ruined my willing to enrich the article. When 5 users of the French admins started their modification without prior discussion, I ask them to discuss the changes on the talk to find consensus since other experienced and neutral user Ravenswing advised to do so. My suggestions were received with personal attacks. Please note that their attitude ruined the willing to contribute to the article to many neutral contributors such as Ravenswing or Aya Laglare.
    2. UPR article: I am certainly the user who bring the most contribution to the article. And since this article is a very "hot" topic in France, it receives constantly the visit of vandals either from UPR militants like here or here and anti-UPR militants like here or here. So I spent lot of my time protecting the article against both of them. Sometimes, some neutral users try to really improve the article. And I always welcome the change. I will give you a full example, so that you can understand the way I act. Regarding the positioning of the party, majority of sources were indicating "neither Right nor Left (wing)" and this is what I wrote in the article. Then, someday an IP suggested to change into "syncretic". I honestly did not know the meaning of the term, but after checking it, I was thinking that it may be a more concise summary of "Neither right nor left", so I left it in the article. Then, Ravenswing brought a change in the article by indicating that "centrism" would be a better translation for English native. Since I disagree, I brought the change on the talk page to explain why I think it might not be the proper term. As I failed to convince him, I was ok to stick to his suggestion, because I know this user is undoubtedly neutral. But Azurfrog and his crew, in line with their usual method of doing, just removed that from the article, and justified that change with personal attacks. It leaded to an edit war and of course a notice for edit war where you can see all the explanation on this Azurfrog's crew way of doing. I guess it gives an idea on who is neutral and who is not. D0kkaebi (talk) 04:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
    D0kkaebi lies (i know it's a strong word) about history and the sources. I demonstrate that on the talk page several times. D0kkaebi don't respect the wikipedia's rules about sources (WP:NEWSBLOG WP:VERIFY etc ) and he tries to have a "false-consensus" on bad source not reliable...
    1. he invites on talk page but his (weak)reponse goes by 4 months after.
    2. he calls vandalism everything !
    3. he protects bad sources
    4. WP:OR
    5. & & POV and addition of bad sources, redundant information, lie ("nearly" say the source named valeurs actuelles, he writes "more" it's a POV lie)
    6. addition of bad sources (one doesn't speak of the subject)
    7. removes a critical source
    8. lie and POV about the source + false explanation cause no consensus on talk/discussion page = second lie
    9. all the same with false explanations that change each time = war edit & & & & & & removes a critical source, canceling , addition of bad sources. lies again, "notably" and "one of" are not in the source = POV lie.
    All information on PRU talk page. He selects only positive informations about his party (PRU / asselineau) and tries to erase the criticism sources. I think it's a big big conflict of interest.

    --Francis Le français (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

    rebuttal by D0kkaebi, rebuttal to rebuttal by Francis Le français, 15 September 2015
    Just for information, Francis was blocked for a day for edit war and since that did not contain him from making same changes in the article, another case in on-going. So let me answer point one by one:
    1. Removal of 4 sourced information without explanation: Of course I revert and invite to discuss on talk page.
    2. Same change, same revert.
    3. Same change + removal of political positioning (neither right nor left) which is sourced here, here, here, here and here + questioning about validity of Radio Quebec source which is answered on the talk page here
    4. Request of "citations" for an already multi sourced information (neither right not left)
    5. Same changes as above, no justification
    6. Suppression of Lamayenneonadore local news website sourced information, no justification
    7. For that, I opened a new section in the talk page
    8. Removal of Dauphine source because Francis claims the article does not mention the political positioning even though the conclusion of the article is "We are beyond the right and the left" (nous transcendons la gauche et la droite). Of course, I revert.
    9. Here Francis claims Asselineau is member of UMP party when the source is saying that at the counsel of Paris, Asselineau sits with the UMP party. In France it is possible to sit with a party without being member of the party like Gilbert Collard is sitting with FN without being a member of FN.

    D0kkaebi (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

    More lies of a new genre: use a subject to hide all others, giving inaccuracies, making diversions. Your POV and WP:OR or bad sources (Lamayenneonadore) aren't legitimate justifications.
    1. IP open a subject on talk page with explanation - you revert for 4 months without any
    2. you calls vandalism a perfect change by ip with explanation on talk page !
    3. a source that didn't match to WP:VERIFY (choq fm) you doesn't respond.
    4. Your explanation are WP:OR (original research) already warning. A information multi bad sourced is none, is wrong and is bad. Do you understand ?
    5. lie ("nearly" say the source named valeurs actuelles, he writes "more" it's a POV lie). You don't explain that and hide beyond some other subject..
    6. Lamayenneonadore isn't a reliable source. this was explained to you several times.
    7. open a new section of talk page don't give you the right to erase all criticism...
    8. The source doesn't contain the word "centrist" = Lie. Your POV and OR are wrong and lie.
    9. lies again, "notably" and "one of" are not in the source = POV lie. explain on that ?

    --Francis Le français (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

    More information and request for action by Oliv0, 18 September 2015–9 October 2015 – part 1

     Note: I am back and I see this is going the same way as the absence of decision on WP:AN/3RR (added: and WP:AN/I), so let me summarize. The articles about François Asselineau and his party PRU are subject to PRU's activism on all Wikipedias (at one time the article about Asselineau existed in 102 Wikipedias), keeping them neutral needs more time than these little-known party and party leader are worth (this was one of the main points in the French AfD). Now

    • Determining D0kkaebi's WP:COI (shown by Azurfrog above) will clarify things about his predominant role on the corresponding talk pages and will thus help keep the articles neutral, even if the arrival of new PRU activists is predictable.
    • His accusations of "outing" when showing his COI, made here and at WP:AN/I, are probably groundless, else admins would already have removed the corresponding descriptions and links, but anyway if the limits of "outing" have been reached when saying he is a local party leader and using Google links that may lead to his legal name (interviews and social network accounts which he of course willingly published), then the solution is easy: remove and oversight these words (including mine now) and send them to functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org, which would not mean any change in the reasons for this COI/N. Oliv0 (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

    Evidence for COI

    by Oliv0 – part 2

    Let me summarize again the evidence given above for D0kkaebi/Lawren00's COI:

    • "A quick research on the web linking Lawren00 and UPR ("UPR", Popular Republican Union, "Union Populaire Républicaine" in French) will lead to a Facebook account introducing the UPR delegate in Korea" (Azurfrog, 09:16 UTC, 11 September 2015), and this Facebook page answers the question "What does the position of Delegate consist of?" with a list of "areas of activist work" among which "developing the notoriety of PRU globally". (Oliv0, 13:14 UTC, 11 September 2015) → so far no Lawren00 except in Google's associations but wait;
    • The UPR delegate mentioned on this Facebook page also appears unsurprisingly "in the organization chart of this small French political party (under the tab listing the "Delegates abroad", "Délégués à l'étranger")" (Azurfrog, 09:16/10:45 UTC, 11 September 2015) with a contact email starting with "lawren00@" → first link between the UPR delegate and the name Lawren00;
    • "Another very basic search simply linking "Twitter" and "Lawren00" leads to a Twitter account in Seoul, Korea, under the username of the UPR delegate and Lawren00" (Azurfrog, 09:16/10:16 UTC, 11 September 2015) → second link between these;
    • Lawren00/D0kkaebi's contributions show "a single-purpose account contributing nearly exclusively to articles centering on François Asselineau or his party. His only other significant contributions seem to be about Korean subjects" (Azurfrog, 09:16 UTC, 11 September 2015) → link between name Lawren00 on the Internet and on WP.

    Also note that the topic here is determining the COI, the actual bias is off topic here as per WP:COI "Conflict of interest is not about actual bias", as WP:COIBIAS explains in detail. Oliv0 (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

    Evidence for bias

    by Oliv0 – part 3

    I can see nothing will happen here if I do not follow Huon's advice on my talk page, so it seems I am forced by COI/N rules to show the actual bias, though I am sorry to worsen tensions this way and I thought the evidence for COI would be enough as explained in WP:COIBIAS.

    • 21 February 2011: "patriotism", a positive word without a source
    • 6 March 2011: making "Popular Republican Union" a disambiguation page with Popular Republican Union (2007) instead of keeping the name for the "dominant party in Alsace during the Interwar era"
    • 9 March 2011: in the source added (now on archive.org) no mention of "the second highest honors"
    • 27 March 2011: "patriotism" again for PRU though not in the source given (at the time this text on archive.org), which is the PRU website
    • 9 March 2012: Asselineau in the ENA article among "famous alumni", all much more famous
    • 25 March 2012: hiding the poor result (17 signatures out of the 500 needed) behind the need for secondary sources, the source removed is a video of Asselineau himself giving this number in his official declaration, a correct source since he cannot be suspected of giving a worse result
    • 4 April 2012: same thing, now unsourced after he removed the source
    • 9 April 2012: PRU in list of French parties with political position "gaulism, euroscepticism", gaullism is a positive word without a source
    • 29 October 2013: Asselineau's thoughts on vocabulary in article Euroscepticism are hardly relevant
    • 2 November 2013: "Gaullism" added (would need an independent source) and at the same time removal of PRU website source about not claiming to be gaullist and still being most gaullist of all
    • 30 March 2014: removing as "vandalism" several good changes: the poor result of 17 signatures whose source he previously removed, the removal of "the second highest honors" not present in the source, the removal of "thoughtful" as a bad translation of the source sérieux ("serious" candidates, as opposed here to fantaisistes "fanciful, strange ones")
    • 2 October 2014: removing as "no connection with political platform" a passage with a source (Le Plus, collaborative but here edited by a journalist Louise Pothier) about Asselineau's accusations against Le Pen/Front National, Bush and Marianne
    • 12 October 2014: undoing as "ultra bias" (and trying to control through "expose your changes one by one" on talk page) a rewrite with some correct sources and in a rather neutral style
    • 20 February 2015: reintroducing "neither right nor left" without an independent source (only the party PRU says so) and membership figures quoted from the party (though maybe all parties do so) - many similar changes follow in an episodic edit war with IPs and then with User:Francis Le français
    • 8 July 2015: removing newspaper Sud-Ouest showing doubts about membership figures (which also says Asselineau is "anchored at the right of the right")
    • 24 July 2015: insisting with a ref ("the last sentence of the article") on "centrist", a bad translation of the source where Asselineau says (primary source, insufficient here) "we are beyond (transcendons) right and left"
    • 30 July 2015: "Gaullism" back, and moderating PRU's claim they are "the most visited French political party website" by "one of" not present in the source (le plus consulté) - many similar changes follow in an edit war with User:Francis Le français
    • 9 September 2015: undoing my changes, though I explained them and then checked about the COI with Lawren00 and warned about it on the talk page, which brought me to WP:AN/I for "personal attack" and "outing", and then here.

    Oliv0 (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

    Restart

    Pardon me for folding the big discussion above, but this needs a restart. It seems reasonable for an uninvolved editor to ask D0kkaebi if he is a PRU party official, given that his former username on Misplaced Pages is the same as the name of a Twitter handle used by a party official, plus I'd call this self-outing by giving the full name of the real-world person involved. The COIN process can go from there. – Brianhe (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

    There's a new template, based on Jytdog's way of handling COI questions: Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Question (includes documentation). This has been posted to User talk:D0kkaebi which seems to be as much as needs to be done at the moment. He hasn't edited since a month ago. - Brianhe (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
    IMHO we should let sleeping dogs lie... Vrac (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
    Answers by Oliv0 to calls for inaction, all off-topic of whether D0kkaebi has a COI
    Some of them never sleep. Oliv0 (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
    Interesting, so could a francophone tell me, is this Groupe Wiki de l’UPR – Cybermilitantisme an active group/force on the French Misplaced Pages? Maybe what we've seen here is essentially spillover from a wider issue. – Brianhe (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
    Have you seen the (most recent) ANI thread? This battle has been going on for about 5 years and has spilled over into most of the wikiverse. There is a lot of history here. Vrac (talk)
    Also see my conclusion after your analysis there: "after determining D0kkaebi's COI will have clarified things about his predominant role on the corresponding talk pages, now keeping the two articles neutral against the predictable arrival of new PRU activists will suppose keeping constant watch", meaning that your suggestion to "bury the hatchet" (WP:DEADHORSE) cannot solve the problem.
    And to answer Brianhe's question: that "PRU wiki group" was only an ad-hoc group reporting on how Misplaced Pages is unfair and biased about Asselineau, I was hinting at their "national manager for Internet activism" (last sentence says Internet helps against Asselineau's "ban from the media", no details but WP is not the primary goal). Oliv0 (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
    You (collectively, the frwiki editors) have been on this crusade for years (absurd, absurder, absurdest) so I'm not likely to dissuade you. I'll leave you with a sentence from the German AFD as food for thought: Lehrreicher Fall von Cross Wiki Anti Spam Spamming. Wiki Jagdfieber (translation: Instructive case of "Cross-Wiki Anti-Spam Spamming". Wiki witch-hunt fever.) Vrac (talk) 11:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
    This is something I mentioned above (beginning of the closed box "part 1"), the article about Asselineau once in 102 Wikipedias, now 20 after a cross-wiki action warned about the French AfD, which may have been spam against spam but was helpful to the 82 (!) WPs that deleted it. Anyway, anything else than the COI report is off topic here. Oliv0 (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not so sure it is off-topic. Perhaps the COIN case is just another angle to continue the same crusade. Vrac (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
    Whoever reports it, it is useful to determine whether there is a COI because of WP:COI "COI editing is strongly discouraged". Oliv0 (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

    (off-topic part folded) No answer yet, @Jytdog and Brianhe: what is next in this way of handling COI? Note that D0kkaebi has frequently been absent for 3 or 4 months in a row, last time in Nov-Dec-Jan 2014/2015. And as I suggested Azurfrog on AN/I, the only thing I request here on COI/N is some community approval to use COI-related templates.

    I think what I would use would only be {{Connected contributor}} on Talk:Popular Republican Union (2007) and Talk:François Asselineau/Archive 1 (maybe also the AfDs for François Asselineau, but this template is probably not intended for AfD pages). These are the talk pages where user D0kkaebi/Lawren00 has a predominant role and generally directs discussions, telling others about the rules. The aim is that unsuspecting editors reading them would not be fooled by his pretended neutrality, and could use talk pages normally without the influence of the COI. Oliv0 (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

    This is a question for Vrac too isn't it? Anyway I'm not in a hurry to get into this. What's the rush? – Brianhe (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
    I did it so now my question is clear, no rush to answer, there can be implicit approval. If D0kkaebi does not come back within 3 months (limit for RCU data, at least on the French WP), it may also help remembering he may use a new account. Oliv0 (talk) 10:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
    @Oliv0: Let's assume good faith and not jump to the conclusion that he will be back socking. However, I'm realistic and know that sometimes COI editors do this. We have ways of taking care of that if it becomes necessary. Can I have your permission to archive this case now? – Brianhe (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    Can I have at least some approval by experienced COI/N contributors like you for my two diffs I give above, that is the template {{Connected contributor}} on the talk pages of the two articles involved, so that in its "|U1-otherlinks=" parameter the link to this COI/N case could be a reasonable justification for it and could avoid its removal? So far the closest I have seen is your mention of "the same as the name of a Twitter handle used by a party official, plus I'd call this self-outing", and your allusion to "sometimes COI editors" just above. All opinions are welcome. Oliv0 (talk) 07:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
    I have been asked by @Oliv0 (talk · contribs) to weight in. Based on reading links posted here by OlivO, I came to the conclusion that, on one hand, accused user (D0kkaebi) is most probably a follower of UPR party (enthusiast, member or whatever) but also, on the other hand, that he has been both civil and trying to reach consensus. His interest is certainly a fuel for his writing and editing. It is no surprise people giving hard work on a small page like this will be either followers or opponents. In choosing to talk and find consensus he has proven he was willing to avoid conflict of interest from his part. On the other hand, his opponents also have interest (whatever it may be) in this page and hope to hide it... which in the end, sorry, didn't work with me. Nobody can hide behind neutrality. Nobody is neutral. Neutrality is to be reached together. Witch-hunting is also a conflict of interest. Now it is easy to judge. On one side an alleged follower on the other side alleged witch hunters. One tried to reach consensus together with opposing party. The others retorted to cheap tactics, deleting and calling themselves authority. What matters is less the "possible conflict of interest" of one side than the "conflict of interest at work" of the other. Now, I think it would be better people burry the hatchet... Or leave it to new contributors (english-speaking ones if it is not too much to ask). Tl;dr : not guilty. 82.227.169.24 (talk) 10:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
    On the talk pages I mentioned I do see he directs discussions so as to reach in the articles what is #Evidence for COI, finding rules to oppose all other contributions even with correct sources, and his style is generally far from being "both civil and trying to reach consensus". It makes a sharp difference with people like Azurfrog and me who are really neutral (Francis Le français is less experienced on WP and may have done things in haste). As I said above, my {{Connected contributor}} on these talk pages means he only pretends to be neutral and nobody should be fooled, and approving this template or not is the only thing I am requesting here: do you mean it should not be there? What do others think? (@Brianhe, Vrac, and Jytdog:) (Note: the IP is French but I feel the command of English is far above all French users so far including me.) Oliv0 (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
    You said: "his style is generally far from being "both civil and trying to reach consensus"." I honestly have to disagree. He was indeed calm and civil at least until Azurfrog came in. And, I am sorry, but there is no way I could defend Azurfrog's behavior on that one. As much as I can agree there is a sharp difference between them two I rather saw benevolence on the accusee's side than on Azur's side. This said, he also seems a far less experienced user, as is also shown in his attachment to his contributions, which might have contributed to the situation. Finally, I rather separate Azurfrog's contribution from yours, as I noticed you at least have been correct with me, though I didn't side with you. I hope it is a sign you are not afraid of consensus yourself. P.S.: I indeed live in France and I begin to think this Asselineau page better be edited by people far from here. 80.215.170.172 (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
    "Azurfrog came in" here, doing as I said in #Evidence for bias "a rewrite with some correct sources and in a rather neutral style" one year ago (trying to use only the best secondary sources found in the ongoing French AfD), D0kkaebi tried to stay in control of François Asselineau ("expose your changes one by one") but failed and stopped editing it, so D0kkaebi's patronising style and control of that talk page is not after but before Azurfrog came in. Oliv0 (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
    Writing in a patronizing style while trying to find common ground is still civil (however unpleasant the patronizing might feel to some). Attempting to block articles and deleting other's work together with lack of communication is not, whatever write-style is used. Just my two cents... Anyway, I can't comprehend how this debate moved here. This is not French Misplaced Pages. Anyway, about the {{Connected contributor}}, if it is indeed necessary, I think it should come from him, not us. For me, at this point it is both unproven and useless. 82.227.169.24 (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
    This is what this page COI/N is for: determination of the COI coming from us, not him. #Evidence for COI is above. Oliv0 (talk) 07:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
    What are we talking about? A global corporation? An all mighty lobby (like pharmaceutical, weapons or GMOs)? Is a small party like this even able to pay anybody? What is at stake? That a party that small, that broke and with so little means of expression be labelled leftist, rightist or neither? It would have to be very important for me to support violating someone's privacy and anomimity on the net just for that. I think it's not and I stand by these values. It's the usual question of security against freedom. Respect for privacy and anomimity on the net are precious tokens of freedom. Let's not retort to fascistic methods. Let's try to find a better idea. And once again, it is clear some people who wrote about this party are in a COI from an opposing source (not to mention anybody here out of courtesy, but Rudy Reichsdadt, seriously???) and these sources are both able and willing to pay for it (e.g. the French socialist party has a notorious history of doing just this). Neutrality in politics is a fragile thing. The accusee would maybe better admit his links (if any) on the condition he would be protected from consequences. History taught us finding the common good is key. P.S. Aren't we all blowing this thing out of proportion? 82.227.169.24 (talk) 08:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

    Charter School Growth Fund

    It appears an employee edited the page. The account name includes a name.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalina3112 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 20 October 2015

    Kitchen remodeling companies

    This whole area is just full of problematic articles, with clear signs of hit-and-run paid editing. It doesn't seem to be related to a specific editor, but just endemic to the category. One article PRODded for starters.

    A recently posted anonymous Rewards Board posting for a $2 job might be related.

    More input is invited. Brianhe (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

    I've speedied Johnny Grey (designer) as unambiguous advertising or promotion, and prodded Kitchen & Bath Industry Show, Binns (company), Dahlia Mahmood and Danny Seo. I left Peter Ross Salerno alone, because he seems to be perhaps notable (the references tend to be dead links, though). Home improvement is indeed a honeypot for linkspam — not a candidate for deletion, of course. Bishonen | talk 19:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC).
    It should be noted that the recently posted anonymous Rewards Board posting for a $2 job might be unrelated, as well. - 2601:42:C100:9D83:D139:E3C0:4FBC:7F82 (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
    IP editor, in reply to your question on my talkpage "I'm curious what you think might be the connection between the recent Reward Board offering ($2) and the home remodeling COI epidemic?". Cash rewards for editing were controversial to start with, and their outright elimination has been discussed. Now you come as an anon editor offering a cash reward to contribute to an area with extensive documented conflicts of interest. Obvious issue to me. You really don't see the problem? - Brianhe (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
    How would posting a "before and after" photo (with no branding mentioned at all) of a home improvement project possibly yield some sort of conflict of interest? - 2601:42:C100:9D83:20B4:1DBF:A120:2522 (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
    I have rewritten National Kitchen & Bath Association, which I believe to be notable. I have no actual COI on the topic although I have attended a few of their events. Opinions of other editors are welcomed. Cullen Let's discuss it 21:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

    Update: the IP posting the reward (User:2001:558:1400:4E:1599:26AF:B1BB:CE4A) was found to be a sock of a blocked editor formerly named MyWikiBiz; see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Thekohser. Brianhe (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

    Electronic ticket

    Resolved: Involved users blocked, got extra help with watching the article.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Users are always trying to promote the patent US 5724520, and Joel R. Goheen as the inventor. I've explained in my edit summary that WP:PATENTS and WP:USERGENERATED content are not reliable sources, but received no communication from these editors. SecurXX is a company founded by Joel R. Goheen .

    I think this just needs a bit of banhammer doctoring. -- intgr  08:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

    intgr, have you considered opening an SPI? I think they would probably do a checkuser given this stuff. – Brianhe (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    @Brianhe: I created Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Securxx. -- intgr  15:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    Huh, strikeout again. Just goes to show I don't really understand SPI, but I thought I did this time. - Brianhe (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

    I just looked into the underlying content dispute, which involves attempts to add the following to the article:

    "A patent application for Electronic Ticketing and Reservation System and Method was filed on Nov 21, 1994, and a Publication Number was issued on March 3, 1998 (US5724520) recognizing Joel R. Goheen as the Inventor."

    While researching this, I ran across , which says in part:

    "A review of the prosecution history further confirms that Plaintiff's proposed construction is inappropriate. During prosecution, the examiner focused on two pieces of prior art: u.s. Patent No. 6,067,532 issued to Lucas Gebb ("Gebb") and u.s. Patent No. 5,724,520 issued to Joel R. Goheen ("Goheen"). Both Gebb and Goheen pertain to ticketing systems. Gebb discloses that the ticket buyer "can use a ticketless entry into the event, such as, for example, by an e-token on a smart card." (0.1. 51, Exh. B at 7:12-13.) Goheen discloses that airline passengers can access an airplane using "an identification plastic card" that has a "card number encoded onto a magnetic strip at the back" and that, if the card is lost, passengers can gain access to the airplane using identification 'such as a driver's license or the like'"

    This calls into question the claim that Joel R. Goheen is the inventor of the electronic ticket. Certainly we need a better source than a patent, which is simply Joel R. Goheen claiming that he invented something.

    Joel R. Goheen himself may be notable enough for a BLP article, based on sources like this. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

    Diego Grez-Cañete

    Diego marked himself as retired (not the first time that's happened). El Marino and Pichilemunews deleted at AFD. Vrac (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User
    Other accounts

    A conflict of interest has already been established and admitted between Diego Grez Cañete and his website El Marino. El Marino (online newspaper) was a redirect that he recently turned into an article that is a REFBOMB of self-published, self-written, and hyper-local sources. The user has stated that this is ok because COI editing "is discouraged, but not prohibited". It could use some more eyes. Vrac (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

    A similar concern was already up in 2014 when Diego's site Memoria Pichilemina was discussed. There must be much more conflicts of interest related to this user but since he has moved around 5 different usernames since 2008 or so it is difficult to track all activity. There also reason to believe most Pichilemu people and newspapers/radio stations he wrties about have some relation to him since the town has only 13,000 inhabitants and Diego is very interested in journalism. Sietecolores (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
    I wasn't aware of that history; in light of recent developments I would say that AndyTheGrump's analysis at the time was spot-on: he isn't going to stop this gross abuse of Misplaced Pages facilities for the purpose of personal gratification until forced to - by topic-ban and/or block, as necessary. Vrac (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
    • The issue with Diego is that he tries to promote himself or subjects very close to himself (his newspaper, his school, or his schoolmates?). He has tried to do so over a long period of time. He should by now know the rules, otherwise he is just gaming the system. Another problem is that Diego tries persistently to cover Pichilemu with such a depth that is not compatible with WP:GNG. Do not mistake me. Diego is good editor, who can if he wants create really good content. He just need to stop editing about topics too close to himself and way to local to be relevant. Sietecolores (talk) 09:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Doctors and surgeons

    Consumers' Research Council

    This looks like a fake consumer interest group often referenced in promo doctors bios on WP. External links search: . I'm listing here all articles & drafts that use this source without further comment at this time. Brianhe (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

    Looking at its criteria page, it seems to evaluate by adding up the years of experience and number of professional association memberships. Neither correlates well with notability. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
    @Doc James: There's some unusually aggressive addition in 2014–2015 of what looks like COI material at Sudip Bose from anon editor/s; you have removed some recently with the edit summary "scam per http://skepticalscalpel.blogspot.ca/2015/07/how-to-pick-leading-physicians-of-world.html". Could you cast any light on what's going on here?
    To all, these IPs are odd in that they're all static IPs from the same provider apparently geolocating to Hyderabad. Static IPs aren't supposed to rotate like this. - Brianhe (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
    @DGG: Your speedy of Sudip Bose was quickly contested by 182.156.70.120 and Sitaray calling himself "we". – Brianhe (talk) 06:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
    Well Sitaray and the IPs have now reintroduced the same fake source "Leading Physicians of the World" identified by Doc James, at least three times over Doc, me and DGG . Anyone else want to take a swing? – Brianhe (talk) 06:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
    @Brianhe: Why "Leading Physicians of the World" is a fake source? See Here. Sitaray (talk) 07:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
    @Sitaray: You pinged the wrong person. It's Doc James' source that says so. He's a real doctor, by the way. While we are here, do you need to disclose paid editing for this article? Brianhe (talk) 07:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
    Yes a few light searches and lots of refs that they are a scam appear
    Yes you can pay people to write good stuff about you on the internet and to tell you how great you are.
    Likely efforts to pick up others who are working on this would be useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
    International Association of Healthcare Professionals
    Added SPAs on Devi Nampiaparampil – the article smells like a glorified press release. Note the NYT article is basically a wedding announcement. – Brianhe (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
    Other
    I have just made a first pass at editing most of the articles; I think I've removed every use of this source. The very inclusion of it in an article indicates writing by an inexperienced editor here who does not realize what is significant and reliable, or by a press agent or other coi editor adding whatever is available in an attempt to show importance. Most of the physicians in this group actually are notable, as proven by references or positions or citations to their work. Not all of the articles are from the same source--the one on Devi Nampiaparampil is clearly different from the others. But there is in my opinion at least one paid editor or group specializing in physicians. I am currently trying to look critically at all articles in this field, and would appreciate being notified of additional ones that partcularly need checking. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

    European Graduate School

    While reading the WP article on the European Graduate School I noticed that a previously-existing paragraph on this institution's lack of academic accreditation in the United States had been deleted with very little explanation. I restored the paragraph in question, which is thoroughly sourced to several government websites indicating that this university lacks accreditation. While reviewing the history of the article and its talk page I discovered that this is not the first time this paragraph or similar lines of text have been deleted. They go back as several years in what seems to be a long-running but slow-moving battle between various editors who add lines about the school's lack of accreditation, followed by mass deletions with what strike me as specious or insufficient explanations. For example, they keep deleting sourced references to this school's inclusion on multiple US government-published lists of unaccredited institutions and replace them with a generic claim about European Union accreditation, which does not automatically transfer over to the US.

    It appears that somebody connected to this school is periodically "scrubbing" the article of all information about its lack of academic accreditation in the United States as if to hide what could be potentially unflattering information about its degrees from prospective students. It's a very slow pattern of what appears to be every couple of months, but as you can see on the talk page and in the edit logs it has been going on since at least 2007. I'm flagging it here as one that WP administrators should probably keep an eye on. Kizezs (talk) 05:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

    Saint Mary's College of California

    Hi, Saint Mary's College of California appears to be mostly/somewhat maintained by User:SMCOCC (contribs). Check that acronym :). I left a message on their talk page but I thought it'd be best to inform here as well. Advice/assistance welcome (it's my first time helping with COI issues really). Thanks! Greg G (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

    Trimmed some of the brocure-like material. The part about being near a Safeway was a bit much. John Nagle (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

    Bill Carmody and others

    Looks like a paid editor or a team who's been flying under the radar for a year. Most of the article titles speak for themselves but this one's particularly noteworthy: Bill Carmody (Digital Marketer) is a bio for an SEO consultant. Not sure where even basic bio facts like his birthplace and date came from; appears clairvoyant since the bio sourcing is incredibly weak with stuff like entrepreneurwiki.com. This one's just less than a month old so efforts to remediate maybe should start here. Brianhe (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

    Abe Issa

    Two SPAs+one company+one CEO=smells like undisclosed paid editing. Compare to this Elance job which is probably not this one but looks really similar, we should be on the lookout for it too.

    Was also sourced to entrepreneurwiki.com. Meaningful? – Brianhe (talk) 06:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


    Hi There Brianhe (talk), I am still very new to Misplaced Pages so I actually don't know if this is how I respond. I can assure you that I am not an ELance or other pay to play type job. Again, really new to wiki and definitely thought EntrepreneurWiki was affiliated with actual Misplaced Pages. If that is indeed suspect I would be more than happy to delete it and anything else that seems suspect. Really just looking for guidance. Thanks!

    Vinny009 (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

    Serban Ghenea

    For a long time, I have been trying to fix this article which is presented as nothing more than PR fluff for a music artist. The article is very poor - there is no neutral tone, and many edits are made by unregistered users and a SPA account. One particularly bad issue is the format of the selected discography. There is no consistency to it and it just has splattering of various different accolades to present the subject in an inappropriately positive light (e.g. whichever Billboard chart makes the achievement look most favourable). The editor above makes no other contributions to wikipedia and refuses to engage with any policies about SPA and COI. The wikipedia page is used for self-promotion here: http://www.aaminc.com/clients/detail/serban_gheneaRayman60 (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

    Cavalino's edits are indeed problematic and it is always worrying to see people linking to Misplaced Pages articles from their website. I'll need to look at it further, but at first glance it looks like a candidate for AFD since there don't appear to be any sources discussing the subject in detail. SmartSE (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
    See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Serban Ghenea. SmartSE (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
    Also adding this article and user. Hannahgracevc stated they work for AAM here. SmartSE (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
    Shane Stevens (songwriter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Hannahgracevc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Looking through a random selection of their other clients there are also a large number of SPAs over the years with similar editing habits e.g:
    I'll try to get some input from WT:MUSIC. SmartSE (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
    Sigh. There's severe ownership going on here and a new user who's admitted a COI is reverting our attempts to clean up: Johnhanes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Anyone care to assist? @SpacemanSpiff: SmartSE (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
    Taken from my post at the sockpuppet investigation, I've been informed it's more appropriate here:

    With regards to the third editor Hannahgracevc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), they have declared that they work for the management company. You can google the company and see the list of artists - she has made some edits on other artists' page in what is clearly a paid advocacy role. You can google her and the company's name to get her role (presently Director of Communications at said management company). There is a serious COI issue with her edits too, and I also believe she was alerted and entered this debate by the same person who recruited the new editor John Hanes. If you look at her past edits - Shane Stevens is a client of AAM. The article is terrible, just a poorly written press release with unreferenced sentimental backstories etc. Andros Rodriguez and Mozella are also clients. The only other edits are to insert Trion (another client of theirs) into the credits of other pages. This editor has not made a single edit that isn't related to clients of her employer. There is no doubt in my mind that this person has flagrantly, knowingly and willingly breached several serious rules on COI and paid advocacy over the course of 2015 and has no intention of making any positive contributions to the project other than those that result in direct financial benefit to themselves and/or their paymasters. I fully support extending the ban to this person and warning them not to attempt to edit related articles in the future.Rayman60 (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

    Rayman60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I was not aware of the strict COI policy, but I can assure you I only added factual information. I did not knowingly and willing breach these rules. That is your opinion, however, that is my error for not doing further research.
    Regarding Shane Stevens account, everything was factual and cited, so no need for your harsh opinions. I put it up for review and it was approved. It was not a PR move, just simply to create a Misplaced Pages page for a notable person. If you don't think a songwriter for Selena Gomez is notable, then you are ridiculous.
    Your opinion is spewed all over anything you touch and this is a prime example: "The article is terrible, just a poorly written press release with unreferenced sentimental backstories." All of this information was factual, so your opinion is irrelevant.
    To go as far as look at my LinkedIn page and report about this is completely uncalled for and makes me feel extremely uncomfortable. You already knew I worked for the management company, no need for your further "investigation" and report my job title. My job title was never discussed on Misplaced Pages therefore is a violation of my privacy. According to WP:OUTING, "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Misplaced Pages. Personal information includes... job title and work organisation..."
    By the way, I was not instigated by anyone to comment on Serban Ghenea's page. I did that on my own free will. So again your "opinion" is incorrect.
    I apologize for being unclear of the guidelines but I can assure you I only put out factual information. For me violating these rules without proper knowledge, I'm going to back down. Please, do not write information you have found about me outside of Misplaced Pages ever again.
    You have made me lose all faith in Misplaced Pages. Try saying your opinion less, constructive edits more, and stop harassing editors. No need to waste anyone's time with this issue and no need to comment back as I will never be using Misplaced Pages ever again. --Hannahgracevc (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

    Lucas Secon

    The subject of this article uses this page as their personal vanity page. I have tried to wikify it many times in the past - i.e. introduce a neutral tone, focus on referenced and encyclopaedic facts, have some structure and format to the article, including aesthetic presentation and so on. These changes have been constantly resisted in a variety of ways (mainly unregistered IPs or SPAs with no other edits reverting my edits). I have posted on here about 2.5 years ago and they rode out the storm then. I raised the concern of lack of references, and they've just added a blanket, cover-all link to a page they control. Statements such as 'is a Grammy Award, MTV Award and Emmy Award-nominated record producer, songwriter, Golden Poets Award winner, DJ, rapper, singer and artist/conceptualist.' is straight off a press release and not a valid introduction for wiki once you understand the person's true achievements (there is too much fluff to give the illusion of grandeur, and the very fact that it exists here gives it some false credibility). 'countless multi-platinum, platinum and gold singles and albums' is not a wiki style statement. The thumbnail violates copyright issues. The discography is excessively long, relies on a single reference from the subject's website (one controlled by a party close to them), is of a poor format, does not accurately detail subject's involvement, and includes statements like 'Alex Newell upcoming single Deep Well Music/Atlantic Records US & The Gabriellas upcoming single "Lookalike" RE:A:CH Records 2015' as though this website is a cheeky radio plug for someone's future releases. This subject is in the habit of jumping on any computer (i.e. diverse IP contributors) but only ever interested in this article and entering their involvement in the corresponding article (e.g. if they produced a britney song, they'd add it to their personal discography, then add themselves to the britney page, the album page and the single page). Whilst some of these edits may be factually correct, away from the COI issue, there is an issue with the manner in which they're done - often not following formatting guidance so the overall look of the articles doesn't look up to standard. Most of the info comes from this source https://milocostudios.com/client/lucas-secon/ as you can see, subject is a client of theirs and is therefore able to manipulate the content of that page. This page is the predominant source of info for the wiki page (9 out of 10 references used link back to this page). This page appeared and was referenced to after the last challenge to this page in early 2013. Subject also uses their wiki page for self-promotion by linking to it on their twitter bio https://twitter.com/lucasproduction Rayman60 (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

    As with the above, I share your concerns and am unable to find any sources providing substantial coverage. I'm not so familiar with the ins and outs of WP:NMUSIC for producers and songwriters, but this also looks like an AFD candidate to me. SmartSE (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
    He did have a song which charted on the Billboard Top 100, which is notable per WP:MUSIC. I took out much of the peacocking and the list of projects with which he was associated in an unspecified capacity. John Nagle (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, he's also had a top 5 album in the US, so there is definitely enough notability to make this article a keep. It does need better referencing though, most of the text is lifted wholesale from a biography on the website of a recording studio, not the best RS. Richard3120 (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
    I'm now satisfied the article content is suitable. In my past experience, the subject or their lackey has returned at various intervals and resisted change/reverted edits stubbornly. *hopefully* this won't be the case this time, however I'll continue to monitor the article if it does happen.Rayman60 (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

    Kirtida Gautam

    Series of promotional edits by single-purpose accounts, on behalf of the eponymous author and her new book. Articles on both the writer and the publication have been nominated for deletion via AfD process. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

    The first two articles are at AFD and heading for deletion. The other edits have been reverted and the accounts were all blocked per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kirtidagautam. Thanks for posting, but I don't think there's anything left to do. SmartSE (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

    dogfoodselector.com

    Dora Mancha Vet is repeatedly adding links to dogfoodselector.com. All content added is referenced to blog-like posts on this website. The website appears to be a self-published site and all articles are written by "Dora Mancha". This appears to be a case of editing Misplaced Pages to promote one's own external website. The edits to Dog have been reverted, but all others remain. TimBuck2 (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

    I'm adding well founded information to Misplaced Pages. I'm a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine and I write to the Dog Food Selector page, but I don't own the web page. I always add other valid references to my contributions to Misplaced Pages. I even wrote a complete article about dog food allergies and my intention is to complete it in a near future. I add references from Dog Food Selector because I write the articles and they are reliable and contain scientific information that can help people. If Misplaced Pages decides this is a conflict of interest, please tell me what shall I do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dora Mancha Vet (talk • contribs) 17:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

    Dora Mancha Vet Yes, adding links to blogs that you yourself have written is a conflict of interest, such links are considered spam. The relevant Misplaced Pages policies are WP:COI and WP:NOTPROMOTION. See also WP:RS, I don't see how dogfoodselector.com could qualify as a reliable source for Misplaced Pages's purposes, although if you feel strongly that it should be considered a reliable source you can take it to WP:RSN which will offer an opinion. What you should do is stop adding such links to Misplaced Pages articles. Regards, Vrac (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
    Ironically I just came across this quote from Misplaced Pages's founder last night:

    Misplaced Pages for a lot of people hearkens back to what we all thought the Internet was for in the first place which is, you know, when most people first started the Internet they thought oh, this is fantastic, people can communicate from all over the world and build knowledge and share information. And then we went through the whole dot-com boom and bust and the Internet seemed to be about pop-up ads, and spam, and porn and selling dog food over the Internet.

    — Jimmy Wales on C-Span, 2005
    I guess now you don't have to choose between the two. - Brianhe (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
    Some things (like dog food and porn) are just too important to let speed bumps like ideals or ethics get in the way... Vrac (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
    Dora Mancha Vet, if you have a science background, then you'll know that if you are writing scientific articles your references need to be from publications considered to be reliable and trustworthy, such as peer-reviewed scientific journals... you wouldn't reference a blog in your PhD thesis, would you? Richard3120 (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:cdrtools

    Came across this while dealing with an administrative matter around this article. Everybody is accusing everybody of COI and bias. Could use some fresh eyes. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

    Batteriser

    LakshmiNarasimhan batteriser clearly wants us to believe that the account has a conflict of interest given the username. I don't think this new editor is aware of WP:COI or the messages about it on the editor's talk page.

    The edits from this editor look like cut-and-paste from some marketing copy, violating WP:SOAP. Ronz (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

    I agree with Ronz that LakshmiNarasimhan batteriser is (thankfully honestly) representing themselves as a COI account. A quick search on Google for Lakshmi Narasimhan batteriser will verify. I believe that LakshmiNarasimhan batteriser is not here to build an encyclopedia and should be blocked permanently. SageGreenRider (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

    Fashion model articles - possible conflict of interest and socking ongoing

    Fashion model articles - possible conflict of interest and socking ongoing:

    Please see sock investigation, at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/LauraLeeT.

    Any help with article cleanup and/or sock investigation would be most appreciated.

    Thank you,

    — Cirt (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

    Popping in from my wikibreak—checkuser confirmed, listed above. Interesting personas they created, reminiscent of a past case; one described self as "Soccer mom with a Fashion Merchandising degree." Also performing "good hand" edits at Zaqistan, displaying more sophistication than usual. This, plus high degree of English proficiency, plus geolocation of User:108.195.157.94 may be useful clues to the nature of the COI here. — Brianhe (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
    More Checkuser confirmed: Checkuser confirmed socking at this page: David Gandy (likely many other articles) Please see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/LauraLeeT and Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Walterlan Papetti/Archive. Likely related to promotional / paid editing. Result is violations of WP:NPOV. — Cirt (talk) 07:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
    Adding more to above list, all confirmed by Checkuser as socks of LauraLeeT (talk · contribs), the sockmaster account which has a self-disclosed conflict of interest per DIFF, thus, they all do. — Cirt (talk) 07:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

    Above are a handful of the articles created and/or maintained by the above Checkuser confirmed socks. — Cirt (talk) 07:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

    Indian fashion models and contests

    I came across some apparent promo stuff related to beauty pageants and contestants and suspected some sort of collusion and COI editing and filed Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sky Groove as I also expected some sort of socking related to the PR agency for the contests. I did not expect such a huge set of socks and associated articles. Not being fashionable, I haven't a clue about this industry and don't know what's what, I hope somebody else can take a look at this -- maybe The Banner?. I am only notifying one of the sock accounts as they are all blocked. —SpacemanSpiff 13:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

    As far as I know there are multiple sockfarms active in the pageant world. There are also a multitude of meat puppets and SPAs active. But what it makes difficult: there are also genuine editors active. I guess the only to clean out that polluted pond is by fishing with help of the check users. Unfortunately, that is not allowed. So in effect I have no clue how to solve this expect running behind them and file SPI after SPI. But you will always be five steps behind. The Banner talk 20:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
    See for instance Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas/Archive, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Riza1234/Archive, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jcchard/Archive, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Dosmil2011/Archive, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Cesaro2012/Archive. The Banner talk 21:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
    The pageant articles are so bad, it's hard to find a legitimate editor in, for instance, Miss World 2015. I did some analysis you can find here: User:Brianhe.public/Beauty pageants. My gut feeling is there's at least three sockfarms at play, one for Asia/Philippines, one for Latin America, one possibly specializing in Miss World. Brianhe.public (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
    Addendum: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas/Archive gives some useful background. Obviously there's a ton of socking and/or meatpuppetry going on. Look at Maria Harfanti, if you dare. One contributor said that Mrdhimas has a real-world connection to the pageants without further explanation. Checkusers have said there's extensive proxying going on that makes it hard to tie individual actors together. I had a look at contributions from a certain ISP since October and they are almost 100% related to this area (93.110.x.x contribs). - Brianhe (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
    Second addendum. A brief web search leads to the blindingly obvious conclusion that there's an Indonesia based publicity company at play here. It may be just one person. I suspect the 93.110.x.x range is the agency acting through a proxy (since December 2014 clumsy AfD notice removal), and have requested an open proxy check. - Brianhe (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
    Third addendum. Based on the links at Miss World 2015, I suspect that Blizz Infotainment (angelopedia.com, bollypedia.in) may be conducting SEO on these topics. If angelopedia.com were blacklisted, this problem might abate considerably. – Brianhe (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Colombiabeauty/Archive, another three confirmed sockpuppets. The Banner talk 08:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

    Investor Application

    Query answered, article cleaned by 1Wiki8... – Brianhe (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 204.148.13.62 (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

    I am the owner of a business that would like to be listed along with other similar businesses in a section of Misplaced Pages called Investor Application. I will not be promoting our compnay, rather just adding its name and description, similar to how the other businesses are presented.

    Is this possible? Am I keeping inside th COI boundries set by Misplaced Pages?

    Regards

    Chris Muldoon ShareholderApp

    Wow, I think the article Investor Application needs to be looked at urgently. I'm sure when it was created in 2012 it was with good intentions to explain the various types of applications, but it seems to have grown since into a list of every man and his dog adding essentially to long lists of companies who have iPhone or Android apps, which is effectively promotional content. I think all the lists should go and just leave the text. Richard3120 (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
    Someone just deleted the list of apps. The article probably should stay that way, per WP:NOTCATALOG. John Nagle (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Verona Area School District / Verona Area High School

    Based on edit summaries and wording of edits, Kkloepping / Kelly.kloepping appears to be affiliated with the Verona Area School District. Edit summaries and edits have included wording such as: "adding our mission and supporting action goals", "added two programs we are offering", and "69% of our population is white/caucasion" (sic).

    After Kkloepping's first two edits, (adding an inappropriate mission statement to Verona Area School District), the editor was warned about conflict of interest and the need to disclose any paid affiliation with the school district. The editor simply opened a new account (Kelly.kloepping) and reverted the removal of the inappropriate mission statement. The user was warned again, this time about sockpuppetry. An additional talk page message stressed the importance of following WikiProject Schools guidelines, of heeding policies regarding conflict of interest and disclosure when doing paid editing, and of sockpuppetry. The editor continues unabated, adding unsourced and inappropriate content to Verona schools' articles.

    Please help in dealing with this. 32.218.41.143 (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

    On closer inspection, most of their additions were copyvios from this. Vrac (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
    Nice catch! Still, the edit summaries ("our mission", "we are offering") suggest a connection to the school district. 32.218.32.45 (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
    I don't doubt the connection. Copyvio is an easy angle to pursue if they keep it up though. Vrac (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

    Mudar Zahran

    82.3.238.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit warring over the page Mudar Zahran for several months now. They have been repeatedly warned on their talk page, and the article in question was protected for one week at one point. Despite this, the user continues to edit the page by removing information about the subject, claiming that it is defamatory. Their latest revision was annotated with the following claim: "Legal Warning to Misplaced Pages: You are using an untrusted source to describe me as a Mossad agent which could get me killed. You are inciting against me and I am considering legal action." Given the pronoun usage, this editor is clearly violating WP:SELFPUB and should be blocked from editing this page. ♜♞ parrotz1461 ♞♜ 15:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

    He has a potential sockpuppet account if anyone's interested InternetNavegadora --Makeandtoss (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
    Clear legal threats and should be reported to ANI. Ravensfire (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
    This is really a biography of a living person WP:BLP issue. Moving this discussion to Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mudar_Zahran. The biography noticeboard is better at dealing with defamation-type issues. John Nagle (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

    Coalition for a Secure Driver's License

    User CSDLKIDSeditor made a huge addition to the article here. I reverted, and posted the standard COI template and additional advice on this user's talkpage. Now MichaelBJones21 (either the same user with an improved username per WP:ISU, or one of their colleagues) is re-posting the same content. That content violates WP:NPOV (as a biased self-description from the organization), WP:WEIGHT in it's length and excessive detail, and WP:RS (mostly uses self-published mission statements and affiliated sources with a clear bias on their own). I could use some help from experienced editors in evaluating and fixing the situation, currently the article is blatantly misused as publicity platform for the organization and its goals. Note, that I am not against concise additions of some of that content, as I tried to explain on CSDLKIDSeditor's talkpage. GermanJoe (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

    Ɱ

    (minor point - there's stale drafts under User:sandboxXX)

    This is a technical question to clarify, but with a specific editor: Is a COI disclosure on a subpage User:Ɱ/COI, not easily accessible from userpage where one must uncollapse and uncollapse a second time to reach it a valid disclosure? The editor also has a link in light blue on dark blue on their talk, and there's disclosures on the article talks. They seem to be good faith but claim to be justifying this is OK per the essay WP:COIDEC . The editor considers it hounding for me to continue discussion of COI, so I post here for others.

    The WP:TOU only uses "userpage" and from what I can see, policy too. COIDEC is out of line, and I've removed the seemingly most out of line, and escalated for deletion (or fixing) Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:COI declaration. Widefox; talk 19:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

    Please close this discussion. I previously had a link to User:Ɱ/COI on my main userpage, this should be sufficient and the rules are unclear. However, I now have it directly on my userpage. I don't want to continue this any further, we all have better things to do.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 20:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    You were hounding because you came into conflict on me with another issue and decided to create this one due to it. That is hounding, basically the dictionary definition.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 20:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    I am an uninvolved editor (who warned both parties about edit warring). Don't distract. If someone like me objects to your COI disclosure, which is seemingly not easy for me as an advanced editor to quickly see. Justifying with an essay rather than TOU and policy as I pointed out. No indication has come forth yet, so somewhere neutral like this seems appropriate, rather than accusing an uninvolved editor of hounding, and removing COI templates from the articles (during discussion). Widefox; talk 20:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    --ɱ (talk · vbm) 20:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    The good news is the essay is being recognised as needing attention/deletion. Thanks for that. Care to provide any justification for involvement in any article with you, or why a COI disclosure shouldn't be looked at by editors talking to you? Widefox; talk 20:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    I won't converse with someone who's harassing me on different unrelated issues. If other editors have concerns with my work, they should open the proper channels. If you pursue criticism of once more, I will open an ANI discussion on your conduct. ɱ (talk · vbm) 20:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    So, you're being paid to write User:Ɱ/sandbox23 but you have no disclosure in the draft, or linking to that draft. Your only disclosure is not correct per the clear WP:TOU and policies. What isn't clear about that? The correct place to discuss that is here. Widefox; talk 20:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    According to the clear terms, they need to disclose on their user page, the talk page of the article OR in the edit summary of any such edits. There's nothing there saying they have to disclose on the draft or link to the draft. They could say "Paid by X to edit on behalf of Y. There isn't anything in the TOU or the Meta FAQ that requires explicit linking to a draft or article. Ravensfire (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

    Yes, but almost right

    That's a bit shy of the word and missing the spirit of it. It's 3 clicks from the userpage! Several partials is not a full (per ToU or PAID)

    • No disclosure on a draft is something I have mentioned, I have also taken that up on the PAID talk, but the ToU is clear - "the talk page accompanying any paid contributions" - this should cover drafts. Widefox; talk 23:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    @Ɱ and Ravensfire: need to read the policy Misplaced Pages:Paid-contribution disclosure. It is definitely and not or for where to place the disclosure. The hiding of the disclosure in a double-hidden box is just astounding - please correct that immediately. Also you need to disclose employer, client, and affiliation in the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template. All paid contribution need to be disclosed, including drafts Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    Did some cleanup on the Interactive Brokers article. Added history and litigation sections, removed product section. It now looks less like an ad and more like an article. The company is a major brokerage, there's good press coverage, and it passes WP:CORP. John Nagle (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    That's not cleanup. I didn't mention history because I went into great depth with the full entity's history at Interactive Brokers Group. As well, please put the products section back. There's absolutely no promotional wording there, I merely stated tools that Interactive Brokers gives customers. And I know very well that they're not things offered by other online brokerage firms. How much do you know about online brokerage?
    On another note, I'm saddened by all of the sickening assumptions of bad faith. I am 90% a volunteer editor, and I strive as much as possible to write in a neutral and encyclopedic tone. Please look at the articles I've written, which include the two FAs Briarcliff Manor and Elliott Fitch Shepard. My user sandbox page is a personal userpage. Users are perfectly allowed to put nearly anything on their userpages, especially sandboxes. It's not a formal draft at all, and still has some way to go before I request publication. I don't see anywhere that I need to mark that I have a conflict of interest on a personal sandbox in my userspace.
    As for the COI disclosure, per a previous essay it seemed acceptable to post a link to my extensive COI declaration so prominently on my talk page. I don't know why people think that's hidden. As for my primary userpage, I have always appreciated minimalism and the use of blank space, so I have things collapsed. There's no rule against that, stop pretending that there is. Regardless, I'll make it a bit easier for y'all.
    I dislike how none of you have addressed that Widefox has been hounding and harassing me. This conversation shouldn't have even started, he's basically picking on all my faults right now.
    If I didn't address any of the so many things above, please let me know.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 08:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    One thing I didn't address was Frank Shiner's notability. I was at first skeptical, however he has two songs top five on national music charts. Your cited WP:NMUSIC has pretty close to the top of the list: "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." So do your research by reading the very top of my draft and very top of this before such accusations. The fact that you cited NMUSIC as Shiner being unnotable just tells me you're trying to have my work deleted.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 08:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry, that was me, Nagle, editing, but I forgot to sign the edit. I haven't touched the Frank Shiner article. As for the product list, when something looks like an ad, it's routine to remove ad-like material such as a feature list. The general idea for company articles is to mention the sort of thing Bloomberg or Reuters would mention, not what the company itself would mention. This is a neutral way of dealing with promotional material. The end result tends to be a bit dry, but that's Misplaced Pages's house style. It's an encyclopedia. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    The ToU is T or U or E. PAID is more strict, it was T and U. I've fixed PAID to include E: it is now (T or when not possible E) and U.
    The letter of PAID is now explicit that all contributions (that covers articles, drafts etc) shall have a disclosure on their talk page. User:Ɱ has yet to declare on their sandbox23. (they have even removed the userpage tag I put there, which they are not meant to do)
    The letter of PAID is now explicit that a list of all paid contributions (clearly visible) shall be made on the main user page. Ɱ has yet to declare.
    The letter of PAID is that full disclosures are required on each article. Ɱ has yet to declare.
    The baseless accusations of Ɱ, removal of COI tags, removal of userpage tag from a draft, are not the spirit of COI. If the full disclosure I've clarified about is not made, I will escalate this. If there is any doubt about what a paid editor must do for legal compliance, then it is their job to ensure they are compliant rather than attempt to shut down any complaint about inadequate disclosure. Ɱ must also disclose at all places, which includes this page. Widefox; talk 10:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    Having had a look through this, Ɱ needs to apply the tags and disclose as mentioned above by Widefox samtar 11:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    Yup, now that's clear, COI goes further - stating that editors are discouraged from editing an article with a COI. The way I see it, is if someone drags their feet doing the legal minimum, the content needs a check, hence the COI tags on them (which really shouldn't have been removed by Ɱ. Also, the other COI stale drafts mentioned above were commented out by Ɱ against talk page refactor guidelines (now restored). Why should normal volunteers have to put up with this? ANI seems the appropriate escalation venue. Widefox; talk 11:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, AN/I would be the appropriate next step should the editor refuse to follow guidelines samtar 11:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

    (←) I'm so confused here. Point out a guideline I'm refusing to follow, please! As well, as I commented, my other sandbox pages were just out of personal interest. If I was paid to write them, they'd look much more done. Anyone who knows me knows I work quickly; I only got the Shiner job two or three weeks ago and look at the article. So that's why I hid the irrelevancy, that apparently Widefox blew up over. Jeez, calm down people.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 17:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

    Also, it may not be obvious, but I'm trying to cooperate here, and you all keep assaulting me with whatever rules you happen to find that you can stretch to fit. I changed the placement of the COI disclosure. I added about the sandbox. However, I removed the COI tags from my articles because, as I stated on the edit summaries, per the template: "if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning." You never started a discussion, so I had EVERY RIGHT to remove those tags.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 17:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    Can I remind you, Widefox, that I'm just as much a 'normal volunteer' as you are? Why do I have to put up with so much prejudice? I write good and featured articles, I linked two above. I revert vandalism. I take photographs. I scan photographs. I've done months worth of research for Misplaced Pages articles. As an objective observation, you seem primarily focused on formatting, vandalism removal, and other tasks, and seems to include very little of any of the above listed items. Perhaps you'd appreciate my work more if you were more of a content creator? Please look at the photos I've taken or found and digitized over the past few years: link. I hope this helps you all realize I'm not the enemy, I'm not some faceless PR guy, I am first a Wikipedian, and second one who needs money for living. My work here has helped with that. I could care less about promoting Shiner or IB; sometimes either entity has been pushy about wanting promotional material and I've done my best to tell my employers 'no'.--ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 18:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    User:Ɱ (ignoring the characterisation of my contributions)... your claim "as much a 'normal volunteer' as you are" is factually incorrect - you're not 100% volunteer so you must disclose per ToU (including in conversations like this) - rather than make claims like that to the opposite. (let's just let that go for a moment, as we all deserve just equal treatment and AGF etc)
    Now I've looked into the paid editing documentation, I can understand your viewpoint, which seems close to mine - one of frustration!
    You asked for a "guideline" you're not following, and added "I don't see anywhere that I need to mark that I have a conflict of interest on a personal sandbox in my userspace." (also adding a disclosure on a draft in protest that it doesn't need doing)
    I will do better than that - the ToU are a legal requirement to edit here, stronger than a policy, stronger than a guideline. It states "on all contributions" "any paid contributions" - so after double checking this I can report back definitively that the consensus is this covers not just "all articles", but "all contributions" "any paid contributions" - so your sandbox is included. That could be construed (as is) that you are required to disclose on this talk page too (although editors will care less than that unless you claim otherwise as you are asserting).
    The best practice (as detailed by policy WP:PAID and links from it) says that your paid COI disclosure must be "clearly visible" on your "main user page". Note that wording has been put in my me with feedback from others to prevent the hiding that your user page disclosure still has. As such, feel I need to separate my role of writing that wording from someone asking you to comply, but several others have so I can point out that you still haven't complied with that best practice, which others have characterised as completely unacceptable.
    You would do wise to see WP:PAYTALK, which advises us volunteers not to spend too much time discussing with paid editors, before the paid editor is deemed disruptive. It is your paid job to disclose, not mine.
    Why the attempt at offwiki communication? and the L3 harassment warning on my userpage? They've been challenged but not explained. Widefox; talk 16:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
    Widefox, I have come over here from the ANI thread, and I must admit, while I think you are trying to work for the best, I have some concerns. You are claiming to quote from the terms of use, but nowhere in the whole of the terms of use does the phrase "on all contributions" appear in any context. What the terms of use actually say is:

    "You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:

    • a statement on your user page,
    • a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
    • a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions."
    As you have accepted, you have been instrumental in recent changes at WP:PAID, to tighten the guideline, and Ɱ does appear to fall short of the current text. However, as that has only been in place for a day or two, and by your own admission (here), "we've got limited consensus here", I think it is over the top to expect Ɱ to have been adhering to those guidelines, particularly as you are referring to events that occured before you even changed them. Harrias 19:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
    User:Harrias thanks for pointing out essentially a typo of misremembering my own editing (which is just a copy of the ToU wording)! "any paid contributions" is of course correct. Please point out if I've misquoted myself with "all contributions" elsewhere (the context being paid editing I might add)! The point is that it covers drafts. So User:Ɱ and User:Ravensfire were corrected above (by not just me). I'm mindful of separation of legislation from enforcement, so please note other's comments, not mine. Widefox; talk 19:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, but what the ToU says is "at least one". By having a statement on Ɱ's userpage, this is met, irrespective of the other two points. Harrias 20:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
    WP:LAWYERING Maybe yes the letter of ToU but not the spirit - the disclosure is still hidden - has gone from three clicks away to now one click from visible - and that's despite others saying that's outrageous! It's not an emergency, but I've not taken this to ANI.
    WP:PAID/COIN guideline is explicit that it must be visible (for exactly this example - it was 3 clicks away!). Paid editors have to abide by more than just ToU here, so PAID and COIN etc matter. You may now be at the start of the same journey I went through to understand this lot (ToU being "or", but the community wanting a "preferred or" or stronger). That started for me at Misplaced Pages talk:Paid-contribution disclosure#Disclosure contradiction. Some of us consider this is just an intermediate step, as clearly the difference between ToU and anything else is wikilawyer-able (and as a legal requirement, together with incentives, is may be a good source of it). Widefox; talk 20:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
    I agree that PAID is an important guideline, but as I said above, until your edits to it on 6 November, after the start of this discussion, it was not explicit that it must be visible, and it did not state that more than one of those three criteria must be met. I do, actually, agree with the changes that are being made to PAID, but I would recommend that the work there is completed and a fair consensus gained (be it by strength of numbers, or stability over a time period) before the guideline is over policed. Ɱ made changes to meet the guidelines as they were at the start of this discussion, it is unreasonable to expect that user to adhere to the changes you have made to PAID during the term of this discussion instantly. Ɱ has shown good faith through most of this conversation, and made efforts to make their COI editing more transparent. Harrias 21:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
    Come on, "it was not explicit that it must be visible" - factually correct yes, do you really believe an invisible disclosure is OK? Want to get another opinion on that LAWYERING?!
    The issue of more than one seems resolved - legally it's one per ToU, policy - whatever gets decided by normal process. I just bandaid-ed policy, guideline and template to be in-line with the letter (and a bit of spirit) of the ToU to make all this more obvious - the ToU is the only firm ground and it applies to drafts.
    My personal feeling is that Ɱ is good faith, but as per WP:COIBIAS has misjudged this. Personalising doesn't help - this section starts with me asking for clarification, not all guns blazing. It is not my job to ensure about legal compliance - it's none of my business. Widefox; talk 22:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

    Whacked Out Media

    Socks involved:

    There are a lot more articles, I've just added a small selection up above. The PR agency involved above is Whackedout Media as is evident from the draft above. There's a slightly different modus operandi in this one. They've been trying to spam around Nithya Menen by creating a website for her (copying over her facebook page and news quotes etc as a blog) and claiming it as being updated by her. This is a ruse to probably get customers by saying we've got a notable actress on our client list and manage her Misplaced Pages page or some such thing. I've found no evidence to say that the Menen's actually using them, in fact, what I see indicates the opposite. The focus is all sorts of Telugu productions. @DGG, Ponyo, and SuperMarioMan: pinging you as you've attempted some sort of clean up in this area in the past. —SpacemanSpiff 04:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

    I'm not sure of the m.o., but I've listed for deletion a number of these where I would do so in any event--usually because not yet notable, or not yet produced without substantial pre-release discussion. Everything in this field needs screening. I tend to distrust all Indian sources for films, including major newspapers--this is one field where we need objective data, like major prizes. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    We could pass this to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force, but not much happened the last time I tried that. We need some list of reliable sources for Bollywood. John Nagle (talk) 08:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    This one isn't related to Bollywood, this is linked to Tollywood :); the sources wary by the wood version and we don't have any "regular" editors in here unlike with Bollywood or Kollywood. —SpacemanSpiff 08:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

    My pessimistic suggestion is to leave locally Indian subjects to Indians. Do you really have a zeal to battle over 1,000,000,000 potential POV/COI pushers? I have no idea why, but Indian topics are in stark contrast with Chinese topics in terms of wikipedia quality. For some time I myself wasted lots of energy cleaning up unreferenced Indian names, deities and geograaphy, but gave up. When I mentioned the state of affairs at WikiProject India, I was quickly dunk in shit: why, Indian is the best, how dare you. Therefore I say, unless an article is of some international importance, post the issue at Idian WikiProject, tag the article, and let them clean heir own mess. - üser:Altenmann >t 23:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

    Altenmann, I have to disagree on that. The regular editors at WP India are always the ones highlighting problems at WT:IN. Just take a look at WP:DSI and see who brings in the "systemic bias" arguments or WP:SOFIXIT. For every regular editor on the project who attempts to keep things in check there are 10-20 drive-bys who want to promote their religion, film star, village, and what not. I'm not sure when you got this pushback at WT:IN, but I doubt most of those who have tried clean up in that area would agree with you. The drive-by editors are high and blocking them is like cutting the head of the Lernaean Hydra, but I doubt that WP India regulars exhibit the attitude you assign. —SpacemanSpiff 02:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
    I was going to express the same view. We need to establish and maintain clear standards in this area not subject to press releases and sources indisguishable for press releases. DGG ( talk ) 06:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
    AFAIK "press releases" are explicitly excluded by WP:GNG WP:ORG. So I guess "maintain" is the operational word in this case. - üser:Altenmann >t 17:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
    Distinguishing a news-domain article as "press release" doesn't always happen well on India related articles. What web-hits should be used to establish notability and what should only be used to write content but not establish notability in itself is a tough task to explain to Indian editors; you might include me also in that at times. What @DGG: proposes to do with establishing and maintaining clear standards is a good way to start with it. But this requires mending of various polices and guidelines of Misplaced Pages itself to tighten up and not be lenient. For example, WP:TVSERIES says that television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a television network with a national audience and that is one loose end. Similarly, WP:NAWARD is defunct and its revival hasn't attracted many editors. These are all long-cuts, of modifying global guidelines but if small-scale guidelines are to be made, that too would be welcome. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
    The problem with that Dharmadhyaksha is the film/TV afds get flooded with alphabet soup of essays that are neither policies nor guidelines. I invite anyone to take a look at film AfDs at WP:DSI, ignore the pre-2000 films for now (those are not promotional but just have verifiability issues -- a painful statement to make) and take a look at 2012+ films or actors listed at WP:DSI. —SpacemanSpiff 13:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

    Massive infusion of references from a single author

    The following edit popped in my watchlist: "These authors' papers have been entered into so many WP pages (wo justifications) that the effort represents more of an advertisement for their papers".

    I decided to double-check, and this is what I wrote to User:Iss246:

    Hi I noticed your edits and I double-checked what's going on. On one hand, Vikas Mittal claims to be notable in the area of marketing research. On the other hand it seems to be a major campaign tnow o spam wikipedia with Mittal's references:

    I don't have time now to think how to handle such situations. At the first glance, the additions may be relevant, but I feel uneasy at such massive infusion of a single name. Which discussion boards do you think will be relevant to notify? WP:COI comes to my mind.

    Google gives about 200 hits in wikipedia. Does this guy really that notable? Contribs by SPA IPs smell COI to me. Does anybody have an experinece/advice in handling such situations? - üser:Altenmann >t 22:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

    • Mittal is unquestionably notable by WP:PROF, and someone should write the article, someone without conflict of interest: Mittal holds a named professorship at a major university. I gather from his official web page at Rice that his work is indeed considered seminal, as proven by it having won a prize, and some of his papers are liekwise important. It is possible that their insertion here might be justified--I'll need to look at it further. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC) .
      • Edit like this:
    • Participant observation techniques are different than self-report techniques such as focus groups and in-depth interviews ref>Mittal, Vikas, Qualitative Research for Customer-Focused Insights (November 1, 2015). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2682846</ref."
    • A longitudinal study in healthcare setting showed that job satisfaction affected actual turnover behavior through turnover intentions <WTF does this mean;>
    • have several problems: they look more like promo than something useful: this is just as claim of opinion without any insight; they are randomly slapped at the ends of paragraphs with some trivial fact giving false impression of well-referencedness they come mostly from primary sources; many of them make overgeneralized statements based on very specific research; clearly WP:COI issue: adding triwial factoids into 200 articles from a handful of SPA IPs. WP:NOTHERE in my book. - üser:Altenmann >t 17:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

    However my question is more general: do we have any policy to handle this kind of behavior? Besides WP:COMMON? - üser:Altenmann >t 17:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

    As always, follow the money. I suspect that Fox Learning Systems+Debra Fox may have something to do with this. Note Debra Fox is listed as coauthor on at least a 2003 paper and one in 2012 . Haven't gone digging for more. @DGG: you interacted at the FLS AfD, maybe you want to look at this. Brianhe (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

    Refspamming included healthcare related subjects listed above. Brianhe (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

    Big Yellow Group

    Hello there,

    I am getting in touch on behalf of Big Yellow as I have noticed some inaccuracies in the original post. These are as follows:

    1) Under "Big Yellow Group" In line 1 of the first paragraph, replace "London and the South East of England" with "throughout the UK".

    2) In the same section in the second sentence please replace, "The company is ranked third largest self-storage company in UK " with "Big Yellow is the most recognised self storage brand in the UK.(Self Storage Association UK Annual Survey published by Cushman & Wakefield 2015)"

    3) Under the "History" section on line one please replace, "the company has 55 storage sites in UK" with " the company has 70 storage sites in the UK"

    4) In the information box on the right of the page called "Big Yellow Group plc", Replace "Revenue: £72.2 million (2014)" with "Revenue: £84.3 million (2015)"

    5) In the information box on the right of the page called "Big Yellow Group plc", Replace "Operating income: £67.9 million (2014)" with "Operating Income: £114.2 million (2015)"

    6) In the information box on the right of the page called "Big Yellow Group plc", Replace "Net income: £59.5 million ( 2014)" with "Net income: £105.6 million (2015)"

    I have tried to get these changed in the past but been rejected - is there anything else I can do?

    Blencs (talk) 10:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

    Sydney59

    All editing here is promotional editing based around Matthew Wills.

    Matthew Wills (born in Sydney in 59) is a teacher who, according to Sydney59 "is responsible for the creation and establishment of several unique and international educational initiatives including the Dialogue Australasian Network, Philosothons and the Ethics Olympiad." Draft:Matthew Wills. Editing is dedicated to promoting Wills and those three initiatives. Even it that one sentence you can see the obvious peackocking. Wills is

    The drafts for Matthew Wills and Ethics olympiad have been repeatedly declined ( ) so Sydney59 just ignored that process and created the articls himself, both first runs were speedy deleted G11. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

    This notification is a blatant case of harassment in that the Dialogue Australasian Network article and the Philosothon articles were written over 7/8 years ago and received B and C rating respectively. They are plainly about encyclopedia worthy topics and have been written and revised to reflect Misplaced Pages standards. I am not sure why suddenly someone calling themselves "Duff Beer for Me" sees themselves as being in a position to challenge the integrity of these articles. I am an academic that is well placed to see the worth and quality of these articles. These articles are important go to places for schools around Australasia and the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydney59 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

    @Sydney59: This is definitely not harassment - it is about maintaing the project's integrity. All of your edits are related to this set of articles which are all related to Matthew Wills. Considering that Mr. Wills was apparently born in 1959 and resides in Sydney, it doesn't require a great deal of deduction to come to the conclusion that you have been writing about yourself. Put simply, that is not the purpose of Misplaced Pages. While it's not forbidden, attacking other users who point out concerns related to this as you have done above is not going to do any favours. Please disclose any conflict of interest that you have and in future only request edits to be made on the talk page of articles. Thank you SmartSE (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

    100 years of women in transport campaign

    Could somebody please review 100 years of women in transport campaign which is definitely suffering from WP:CITEKILL and WP:OWN. It was accepted at AfC and the main contributor is AnaFerreira (talk · contribs) who changed her Username from 100yowit. She seems to have a COI with the campaign and London Transport, so I would like to have others review please. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

    If you read the referenced articles you will realise that the campaign celebrates women in transport in general, and not only in the UK. The number of women that entered the transport industry because of the First World War is a UK number, though, as I couldn't find an overall number. Happy to be reviewed and for the article to be changed, if the information is still correct. AnaFerreira (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

    Another batch of Orangemoody accounts

    See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Xenoradixde. I've dumped the entire account list so far to Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Accounts#Blocked after 10 November. I think I've deleted everything. I have automatically generated a list of potential spam links added this time at . MER-C 21:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

    Vu Digital

    Need folks to help clean up this article found by links from a recently blocked Orangemoody sock. Also wonder what DamcoGroup is about; see this promo stuff. – Brianhe (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

    I took a shot at cleaning it. The company's current product is still basically vaporware with buzz but no coverage on actual implementations. TOOSOON in my opinion. I would have redirected it to its parent company C Spire Wireless (incidentally, also written like an ad, with a history full of SPA's), but Vu Digital has already survived an AFD. Vrac (talk) 04:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

    From where to what language evolution theory

    The editor first expounded this theory at Origin of language, but was repeatedly reverted per clear WP:UNDUE, WP:N, WP:V issues and a suspected WP:COI (same username as the name of the theory's creator, Oren Poliva), and didn't take part in the talk page discussion.

    He later admitted on my talk page that it is, in fact, his own (published) theory. Since he was getting reverted and was past WP:3RR, he decided to create a separate From where to what language evolution theory. All of the editor's contributions so far have been about this theory, making it an WP:SPA among other things.

    The situation has been explained to him.

    LjL (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

    @PolivaOren: to answer your question on your talk page: users who want to create articles on a topic with which they have a conflict of interest are directed to Misplaced Pages's Articles for Creation feature, where drafts are reviewed by uninvolved editors to ensure that they meet Misplaced Pages's guidelines before they are published to the main article space. Since you created the article directly, it is a little late for that now. As a user with a conflict of interest, you are requested to no longer edit the article directly, instead limiting your contributions to the article's talk page where you can make suggestions for improvement, suggest sources, etc... A deletion discussion has been started where other editors will give their opinion on this article's admissibility. You are welcome to give your opinion there, but your conflict of interest will be taken into consideration when determining consensus. Regards, Vrac (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

    Maus

    Issue currently being dealt with at ANI. Vrac (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    (I apologize if this is in the wrong place, this is my first report!).@Curly Turkey: has insulted and threatened me several times and cursed like a sailor, all while violating many Wiki rules and being antithetical to the spirit of this site. I have attempted to defend my position with objective sourcing, but CT seems to prefer his own ownership of articles and logical fallacies and accusations over truth. All I tried to do was say that, much like Hakuna matata is clarified as not literally meaning "no worries" in Swahili, it is not "righting great wrongs" to put "ethnic groups" instead of "races" in the Maus article, and I already have three non-cherrypicked objective sources defending me. I have more, and he has nothing but being aggressive. I don't know why he's so stubborn when I have more defending me. Please help. I have cited some of the rules CT has violated on his talk page, he also seems to curse and be aggressive a lot to many other users on his talk page. Sığe |д=) 02:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

    Sigehelmus This appears to be a user conduct/content dispute, the thread (WP:ANI#POV-pushing abuse of sourcing at Maus) at ANI is the appropriate place to deal with this. This COI noticeboard would be appropriate if you suspected that Curly Turkey was the author or publisher (for example) of Maus, that is what is meant by conflict of interest. You don't seem to be suggesting anything of the sort so I'm closing this thread for now in deference to the ANI thread (unless you think there is a COI of the type I mentioned, if so let me know). Vrac (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    The Danse Society Misplaced Pages Page

    "In" faction
    "Out" faction
    Prior noticeboard activity

    I have been a long time fan of the Danse Society way back to the early/mid 80s, and was thrilled when they reformed in 2011. However the Wiki page is not reflecting the true nature of things as they currently stand. While it states that there was a split in the 'Alternate Danse Societies' it fails to state that there are now two The Danse Society bands. I remain a fan of both and so to me it is a little disingenuous that he current page - edited and maintained by two of the band members listed in the 'Current Members' section - excludes the other Danse Society, who continue to tour and record.

    I have researched both, and they both appear to have equal claim to the name, despite both insisting they are the only one. The one controlling the wiki page holds the domain names for the www site with conventional (com and co.uk) TLDs, whilst the other band have the limited company and it would appear rights to the band name.

    As with all these things they are never straightforward, however the page does not reflect the current situation and I believe that the ability of one set of band members to completely exclude the other is a definite COI, and needs to be remedied.

    I am willing to edit the page to correct the situation, along with the correct and proper references to back this up. However currently any edits to reflect this position are being removed by the two band members as can be seen in the page edits.

    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Ianvenner (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

    Ianvenner I see a number of single-purpose accounts editing this article. Which ones are the two band members that you are referring to who are "controlling the page"? I see that your only Misplaced Pages edits are to this noticeboard, have you previously edited while unregistered or under a different account? Vrac (talk) 10:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
    Vrac The prime one is the Paulnashuk1 who is guitarist for the band, I think the other is the Journalist Astonomist account. THe TArnhall account I believe is associated with the excluded band, but again is a COI ianvenner (talk) 10:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
    With the exception of the above-listed IP address, none of these accounts have edited the article for about a year. The contributions from the IP were reverted by an automated bot that looks for vandalism; while it isn't exactly vandalism I can't blame the bot since the content is clearly promotional and sourced from things like Facebook. This appears to be a very stale content dispute. I recommend that you post your intended changes and sources to the article's talk page and see who shows up. You haven't answered my question about your prior editing history. I will point out that this noticeboard is not intended as a means to gain the upper hand in a content dispute by claiming COI on the other party. (By the way, you are supposed to notify the users that you suspect of COI that this discussion is taking place, see the instructions at the top of this page.) Vrac (talk) 12:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
    Vrac I will post as you suggest. I have not edited a page previously under my name, but have been an 'over the shoulder' source for people who have, one of whom I believe was a reviewer, if that is the correct term. I will also inform both sides that this is happening and point them to the talk page. There is no intention to gain an upper hand, just to reflect what is happening at this point in time. I have already seen the lineup that is represented on Wiki in concert and am going to see the other in 2 weeks, so just looking to be fair. Thanks. ianvenner (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

    Stuart Styron

    Three WP:NOTHERE accounts

    Behavioural evidence:

    See also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stuart Styron (2nd nomination), Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_80#Bert_Martinez_(2) , Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 79#Bert_Martinez

    Widefox; talk 15:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions Add topic