Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:29, 30 July 2011

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

Gihan Sami Soliman

• Gihan Sami Soliman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Doveye71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor (and quite possibly the same as User:dove.eyes) has created an extensive autobiographical article that clearly contains a lot of material that is not NPOV. External links are repeatedly added within the article text to author's own websites. I have asked her repeatedly, in both edit summaries and via talk page messages, to abide by Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines on COI, autobiographies, reliable references, and external links. She continues to undo these changes and add the information and external links back to this and other articles that she is creating/editing that all represent a COI. The article is currently at AfD, but the author has so far chosen to continue these editing behaviors. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 15:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be using multiple accounts - 'dove.eye' is another one. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be getting out of hand. The article was looking good despite not establishing notability until it was rightfully nominated for an AfD. Since then, the subject of the article has been adding in several links to self-published information that wouldn't establish notability. I've asked them on their talk page to discontinue editing so we'll see what happens. They claim to be an English consultant but their English doesn't seem great (that may just be their written English) so I'm not sure how much is getting through to them. OlYeller 20:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The editor has agreed to no longer edit the article. OlYeller 22:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, she resumed editing it again. Hmmmphh. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 21:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to post this here. I asked them to stop, they agreed, and have since ignored my messages here on their talk page. Last night she left a message on the talk page of the article about her. It seemed like she understood the guidelines then immediately started talking about supporting her cause. It's obviously a COI, that she's here with an agenda, and that she isn't going to stop editing the article even when asked to. On one hand, I suggest a block but on the other hand, the article is going to be deleted soon anyway. The real issue is with the related articles that she's editing at Ahmed Abdel Azeem and Port Said American School. I no longer see how a block can be avoided with such a blatant disregard for of WP:COI and the requests of other editors. OlYeller 21:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. She also added more external links to the article today, then claimed "she didn't know better." That is certainly not true. She had been warned MANY times about this, even at the beginning of this AfD. She cannot grasp the COI issues with this article and the others you mentioned. At this point, further disregard for Misplaced Pages policies should be treated like vandalism, IMHO. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 21:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

She's socking the AfD now. She mistakenly replied as another SPA user then tried to remove the comment after sinebot signed for her. I'm going to initiate an SPI. Lots of people have been jumping through hoops to help her with the article and understand WP policies and guidelines and I think this is way out of line. OlYeller 14:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

SPI can be found here. OlYeller 14:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The SPI has concluded and Doveye71 has been blocked for 48 hours and her socks have been indefinitely blocked. The article was deleted this morning at the conclusion of the AfD. I'm hoping this issue just goes away but I'll keep an eye on things. OlYeller 13:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Rebel Wilson

• Rebel Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I added to the Rebel Wilson article the fact that she is endorsing Jenny Craig. This info was removed by an IP who signed their edit summary with the word "MANAGEMENT". I note that this IP has previously edited the page. Also, the fact that Wilson is Christian has been removed by another IP. It appears to me that Rebel Wilson and/or her management are exercising some type of editorial control over her biography. I request that my original edit stay in the article, but there is a more general problem here of conflict-of-interest, censorship and WP:OWN by the subject herself. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to reinsert the material just yet, but I will suggest that the phrase "is overweight" is not necessary to the sentence you've added. If she's endorsing Jenny Craig, I think it's implied. Dayewalker (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too precious about keeping the 'overweight' part - that's just to put the endorsement in context. However, I don't think that anything should be "implied" on Misplaced Pages. We either say it or we don't say it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Dealing with COI IPs is always hard. With registered accounts you can leave a note on the person's talk page, or invite them to discuss matters at the article's talk page, etc. With IPs, you can try to contact the IP directly but if it's dynamic it's like trying to call someone up who keeps changing their phone number on a daily basis. In this case, 76.169.139.43 has held steady for 4 days, but for two months prior they edited as 76.169.137.168. And I'm guessing from an IP geolocation and the nature of their edits, 99.66.155.198 and 198.228.215.124 are also from Rebel Wilson's management. (The other IPs I checked trace back to Australia, not LA as the management IPs do.) You might just have to deal with the IP edits on their own merits. I don't think the frequency of disruption on the user page warrants semi-protection, and the edits from other IPs on the page have been constructive. -- Atama頭 18:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I thought as well. I am frustrated by her management/her having such influence over her biography. Note that she probably has representation both in the US and Australia, and may well be editing herself. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

COI on astrology pages

• Astrology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Algol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ophiuchus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Robert Currey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Robertcurrey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zachariel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Petersburg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Aquirata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Robertcurrey is an editor who identified himself as being the subject of this article: Robert Currey, see Talk. So off-wiki information can be considered for COI questions. I came across this Facebook page: , where he is asking for "help" and for people who know their way around the WP rules. This suggests a COI, and sounds like a "righting a great wrong" type of mission. Robertcurrey was already mentioned in the context of a previous astrology banning in March: .
When I tagged the Robert Currey article recently, two editors who never worked on the page before came out to remove the tag without addressing the problems on the page. This were Zachariel and Aquirata, an editor who was also involved in the same March bannings. Just see recent history on Robert Currey
Zachariel is making edits which almost invariably bring in references to skyscript.co.uk website. You can try to count them in Dennis_Elwell_(astrologer), a page he edited extensively and is now awaiting peer review. On the Algol page, Robertcurrey and Zachariel took turns to revert my edits that brought the article back to normal format for an astronomy page, even after several other editors pointed out that keeping astrology and astronomy to separate articles is a community concensus. Zachariel refused to put the astrology of Algol in Stars in astrology, and tried to delete that article to further his aim. Same scenario with Ophiuchus, where Zachariel goes on bringing back astrology stuff , even after Ophiuchus (astrology) was voted a Keep (he tried to delete that article as well). Continuing reverts against community concensus, and not responding to common sense questions. See the recent history on Ophiuchus and on the Talk there. And all these edits bring in references to same site. No COI?
Robertcurrey, Zachariel are now very busy on Astrology, where they have been joined by Petersburg, another editor who was involved in the March bannings. It looks like a concerted effort. Can somebody have a look? MakeSense64 (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – I have an interest in astrology (mainly historical), but not a conflict of interest. My subject-knowledge was declared when I started to contribute to the Astrology Talk pages discussions:

“BTW, so you know where I'm coming from - I have an interest in astrology. That interest is mainly in the history and divinatory branches of astrology. The suggestion of astrology being divinatory does not offend my interest in the slightest. But it is incorrect.”

This comment here gives as a clear an explanation as I am able to give as to why I do not have a COI, (for those who have not been able to witness the extent to which my contribution to WP has involved the supply of substantiating references, content with improved reliability, and frequent reminders of the need for consensus on edits based on verifiability through reliable sources).

Makesense64 has failed to inform you that he is the subject of an ongoing complaint on ANI involving, disruptive and tendentious editing, and his COI. The Skyscript site he mentions is notable as a web reservoir of hundreds of authorised articles that have been published in print elsewhere. (With regard to the Dennis Elwell biography, it is the only website which presents his material, including many of his well known articles published in other journals as well as a book-published interview with the subject). It is relevant that Makesense64 commenced his recent WP activity, after a 2-year hiatus, with a suggestion on the notability notice board that the site owner’s biography lacked notability, and that links or references to that site constituted spam. It later transpired this was two days after being banned from the forum of that site, and whilst he was engaging in a web-based hate campaign against the site owner who had banned him. Although presenting himself on WP as a sceptic, it is only western astrology/astrologers that he targets critically, having himself a notable commercial interest in Chinese astrology.

For the details, see the complaint discussed at length in on ANI. The other complaints he raises here have been discussed and answered there. (Robert Currey, incidentally, initiated that complaint saying: “his agenda appears to be to promote his Chinese branch of astrology by discrediting only Western Astrology under the pretence of being a sceptic to disguise his WP:COI (Conflict of Interest). His divisive style seeks to inflame edit war and his frequent editing is disruptive and time-wasting to other editors "

I was unaware of this complaint until just now, and assume the other editors are also uninformed (should they be?). I will make a note about this on the ANI complaint. Zac Δ talk 09:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The only issue where I see our WP:COI guideline being applicable is in Robert Currey editing his own biography (which is already a self-acknowledged COI). Any issues outside of that are beyond the scope of this noticeboard, so if you have any current issues with Robert's actions at his own biography, I'm sure people would be interested in hearing about them (saying "Just see recent history on Robert Currey" isn't sufficient to explain your concerns). If you're alleging that Zac or anyone else has a COI in regards to skyscript.co.uk (because they have a financial stake in the site, or are otherwise affiliated with it) you need to present clear evidence of this (without violating WP:OUTING), otherwise be aware of the bolded statement at the top of this noticeboard that states, "accusing another editor of having a conflict of interest in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited and may result in sanctions against you." If your concerns are unrelated to COI, considering that there is a very active thread on this topic already at WP:ANI, this request could be considered forum shopping. -- Atama頭 21:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

@Atama. Why is the scope of possible COI limited to Robert Currey editing his own biography?

He was warned for possible COI in astrology articles, as mentioned in the context of previous astrology bannings that I referred to.

He identifies himself as this editor who was not banned but warned, in a public facebook note where he is asking for "Help" in a group of astrologers. How does that rhyme with the WP policies? Where are the WP guidelines that explain to me how I can recruit editors on facebook to "Help" me? If this is how WP works then I have to start my own recruiting on facebook. Would that be OK? This is going to set an interesting precedent , if you ask me.

Only you are talking about possible financial stakes in skyscript.co.uk. I simply mention that most of Zac's edits that bring new sources, always seem to have references to the same dedicated astrology website. That's pointing out on-wiki activity isn't it? And once his reference is in, he is defending it with tooth and nail, as he did on Algol and now again on Ophiuchus, both being astronomy pages. If you were to check out all links to skyscript.co.uk on WP, then I guess you would find that more than half of them were added by the same editor Zac. That doesn't raise any red flags for possible COI?

My questions on WP:ANI were not addressed, so I took them here.

Have you seen Robert Currey and Zac address any of my questions? Where?

For example my questions about possible votestacking were never addressed by Robert. Then the artificial "concensus" based on that straw poll was used in the complaint against me. Not bad.

With regards to the ANI complaint Robert filed against me. I now notice that the complaining party invited several editors of their own choice through , who interestingly introduces himself on his User page as "I am a Virgo born in a year.." (probably not the epitome of neutrality in a complaint about astrology). Here you can see the names that were submitted for invitation . Why was I not asked to submit a few names for invitation as well, just to keep it fair?

If I can also give a few names to have a look at this case, then I suggest User:Moreschi, who handled the previous problems on Astrology, which involved several of the names that have now returned to the same scene. He knows what kind of bans were given and whether they are still in effect.

I can also suggest User:DMacks, who has earlier removed Zacs constant rehashings of material related to an OUTING attempt that was deleted months ago, so he may remember something on that side of the story.

My tags on Robert Currey being quickly undone by first Zachariel and then Aquirata cannot be brushed away as meaningless. Both editors had never done anything on that article before, so it is pure coincidence? How did they know about the tags? No MEAT? Just see the page history since July 9th (there have only been 8 edits since, so you can easily see it without me bringing the diffs.)

Awaiting some answers... MakeSense64 (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I have contributed a mass of references and citations from primary sources, secondary sources, tertiary sources, academic works and independently published popular works, as well as the ones from the site that is notable for its large reservoir of specialist articles that have been previously published in independent journals and books distributed by respected publishers. You are the one with the Skyscript hang-up, not me. Given the site owner’s statement that you were banned from this website just two days before you reinitiated your WP editing, and targetted her WP biography negatively whilst simultaneously engineering a hate campaign against her, for no other reason than because she banned you from the Skyscript forum for being a trouble-maker, I think it's clear to see where the issue of COI really lies. The ANI discussion covered all these points in full, and the editor CycloneGU, who I have had no other connection with ever, merely interceded to ensure that fair play was observed. You are foolish to keep trying to raise controversy again, and suspicions of plots (for what? improved verification of WP content?). It seems to me that you cannot help acting disruptively, and will never cease projecting onto other editors who are contributing positively, the dubious motives that underlie your own troublesome behaviour.Zac Δ talk 16:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Rewind noise. Hold on, let's back the train up here.

With regards to the ANI complaint Robert filed against me. I now notice that the complaining party invited several editors of their own choice through , who interestingly introduces himself on his User page as "I am a Virgo born in a year.." (probably not the epitome of neutrality in a complaint about astrology).

Some points:

1. I have not, to my knowledge, edited on a single astrology article. Yes, I say on my userpage that I am a Virgo, but that does not imply any sort of conflict of interest, merely that it's my astrological sign. Yes, I also say I'm a monkey, but that does not signify a conflict of interest, merely that it's my Zodiac sign. Nothing more, nothing less.
2. When Zac first appeared at AN/I indicating he could provide some information, I encouraged him to go ahead and comment while myself having no clue what was going on or what he would reveal. This was the first time I have met Zac on the wiki and since my minor involvement we have not communicated, except him notifying me that you mentioned my name as a possible COI. Even look on my talk page, it's right there, nothing archived yet. He indicated he knew some people who might have been involved with the dispute; I asked him to give me names and I would give neutral notifications of the thread. I have been accused in the past of Wikicanvassing (with one user *LOL*) and didn't want him accused of trying to get people to side with him, so I offered to be tyhe neutral third party. I AM STILL NEUTRAL. One of these editors commented at AN/I that they weren't really involved, so I left another note apologizing if I was in error, and didn't keep up contact with the other five people. Further, other than maybe one or two additional comments at AN/I, I have not even LOOKED at the debate (which is now archived, incidentally).
3. I have not taken a side in this discussion, and I find it ridiculous that you seem to think I have some perceived conflict of interest just because I state on my user page that I'm a Virgin Monkey (so to speak). This is merely looking to create a conflict where none exists, and tends to point out that you are the type of editor who thrives on conflict - not the type of editor we need on Misplaced Pages.
4. I get the feeling also, from your comments, that you are implying that Zac and I are the same person. Go ahead. File an SPI. Prepare to have egg on your face.

I politely demand an apology for the accusation of a conflict of interest on a subject that has very little interest to me, either in profession or in editing patterns. CycloneGU (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Where do you see me accuse you as having a conflict of interest here? Your name was not added to the list, and my only comment about you was "(probably not the epitome of neutrality in a complaint about astrology)", which I think is a fair comment if somebody starts his user page by stating his star sign. Do you agree that I was not asked to suggest a few names as well? Which would only have been fair?

There are too many unanswered questions, and Zac is again not answering anything in his latest comment, just rehashing the same stuff for probably the 15th time. Does he actually know that continuing to repeat material that was removed according to OUTING policies is considered harassment?

Given all these irregularities, possible votestacking should be ruled out , and all I ask for is that some other admin also takes a look at this, not just the names that Zac gave you. Is that too much to ask? Let Atama answer my question, he is the only admin who has shown up for this case so far. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Why raise an issue if you don't intend to make any point of it? I notifed several parties at his request. That's all I did. I never saw such a request from you, so I couldn't exchange the favour. So why bring it up?

You will also note I am currently contacting an admin. regarding this per your request just now. CycloneGU (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think if you want to play an intermediary role, then you should always communicate directly with both sides. That clearly hasn't happened. I was supposed to notice Zac's request in between the long and repetitive rants he was giving there?

Fact is that you notified seven or more names that he suggested to you, without even asking if I was OK with them. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

He was bringing an AN/I case against you and asked in the discussion, "Would it be a good thing or a bad thing for me to contact these editors via their talk pages, and ask if they would be willing to comment here? I'm not sure whether this would be viewed as canvassing." I of course encouraged him to give me the names so he wouldn't be seen as canvassing in the event his memo came off as being slanted on his side (which would be canvassing). You never made any such request that I saw, so if I incorrectly presumed you had no one to invite then I apologize. However, all I did was notify people, I did not provide my own opinion. Even in my first comment I merely asked if "we can get in touch with Ms. Houlding (or the logs, etc.) to verify". CycloneGU (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. I just think you should be more carefully if you pick up a mediator role. Canvassing problems not only come from possibly writing a non-neutral message to invite other users, "posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions" is also a potential problem, so if you just invite the names passed on to you by one of the parties in a complaint, then there can be a problem. Do you agree? Atama now says that I can also notify a few users of my choice, so I will do that.

BTW, you say, "I am still neutral" in capital letters, but this doesn't look like the remarks by a neutral editor to me: MakeSense64 (talk) 08:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I want to note that since my comment to which you reply above, I have looked around and seen some pointy AfD nominations as well as your continued vendetta against anything related to astrology. TBH, I really don't give a damn about what happens as a result of this debate, but I am now taking the side that you are acting out of accordance with Misplaced Pages practices by nominating articles for deletion that should never even be introduced to that area. That is just POV pushing and I recommend you cease creating AfDs in the astrology category for this reason. Your vendetta against another Web site doesn't belong here, and if you can't put it aside, you need to stop editing. CycloneGU (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

(←) So I'd like to address some questions posed to me earlier above by MakeSense64.

1. Robert Currey shouldn't be warned about a COI at all astrology pages. COI doesn't work that way. A conflict of interest can't apply to a whole field of interest. In fact, our COI guideline specifically states, "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." If someone warned Robert of a COI in the past on that matter, I believe that was a mistake. Now, that's not to say that Robert couldn't be warned about problematic behavior in general about astrology-related topics, that's what we have topic bans for. But that's different from having a COI.
2. If Zac prefers Skyscript as a source, that doesn't in itself constitute a COI. We all have our favorite places to use as sources. As long as those sources follow WP:RS, it shouldn't be an issue. If there was any indication that Zac was personally involved with the site in any way, that would be a different story. From what Zac said above, the only COI I can see with the site is yours.
3. If you feel that you had questions at ANI that weren't addressed, then they should be brought to an appropriate venue (including possibly another request at ANI), but this noticeboard is only for discussing COI-related issues. Please note that at the time I posted above (3 days ago) the ANI discussion was still active, and opening up another request at the same time at a different place for the same topic is at the very least frowned upon, and if it looks like you're just not accepting a decision in one venue and trying to find a favorable one in another, that could be considered forum shopping and is potentially sanctionable. (I'm not saying that's what you did but just know that it could be seen that way.)
4. If you have specific questions for Zac and Robert that you feel haven't been addressed yet, ask them again here and I'll try to see that they get answered (even if you don't like the answers).
5. If you're alleging canvassing from Robert for a straw poll, that should be addressed I agree, I don't see that it was when you had asked it before.
6. I think it was obvious why you weren't asked to submit names for invitation to the ANI discussion, the complaint was about you after all. There's nothing unfair or inappropriate about that. ANI isn't like RfA or AfD or RfC where there is some kind of a vote or !vote being held, so if you're asking for people to back you up, there can't be any accusation of "votestacking". The only requirement at ANI is that you notify people who are being discussed, anyone else you choose to notify or not notify is up to the individual.
7. If you want Moreschi to comment here, just ask him. There's nothing wrong with that, it might be helpful. The same with DMacks. It's up to them whether they have the time or desire to respond, of course.
8. My guess about the tags being removed by Zac and Aquirata is that they were checking your contributions, and reverting edits they thought were problematic. There's nothing wrong with that, per WP:HOUNDING, "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." I do it myself for certain editors. If they were doing so just to cause distress for you, and no other reason, then that's considered harassment, but I don't see it that way.

I think those were all the questions posed to me before. -- Atama頭 19:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your time. I will await Robert's comments on the votestacking questions.

These questions I didn't see addressed yet:

* "Where are the WP guidelines that explain to me how I can recruit editors on facebook to "Help" me? If this is how WP works then I have to start my own recruiting on facebook. Would that be OK?"

* What about Zac's constant rehashing of materials related to outing attempt that was removed by admin months ago?

In reply to your comments:

As for Zac adding sources from his "favorite site". At what point does that turn into WP:PROMOTION ? Zac's earliest contributions to WP consisted mainly of adding external links to his "favorite site". He has continued doing so, and now ads them as references in articles, even though several other editors have pointed out that it is not a reliable source in most cases. I have removed a few of his edits where they are completely out of place, for example in astronomy articles.

So, Zac adding 20-30 such links is using a "favorite site", my removing a few of them is seen as COI. That looks like a nice set of double standards to me.

As for possible MEAT. Zac following my edits would not be a surprise. But where does Aquirata come from? I have never met him on any other page before, I only know this name because I saw it in the mentioned March bannings. So, how and why is he following my edit history?

As for this group of editors taking turns to revert my edits on Astrology, here is the latest example: . A very reasonably edit if you ask me, but promptly reverted by User:Petersburg , who went on to add a long list of names, making it look like an exagerated testimonials section.

I will invite Moreschi, DMacks and also Acabashi, who worked on the Dennis Elwell article with Zac and me.

On a related note: Am I the only one who thinks that the WP bureaucracy looks more funny by the day?

On ANI there is the request not to go into side discussions, but when I take my own complaint to COIN, then I am getting warned about "forum shopping". That's a nice catch 22.

Problems like MEAT, COI, harassment and tendentious editing often go hand and hand. But when making a complaint on one noticeboard a rather typical answer is that something belongs elsewhere. If I can only complain on one forum, then how is this supposed to work?

Wouldn't it be much easier and time effective to have one noticeboard for all these complaints, and one for request for comments, and just ditch all these sub departments? Just my POV.

MakeSense64 (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Makesense64 says in his post above: “Zac is again not answering anything in his latest comment, just rehashing the same stuff for probably the 15th time. Does he actually know that continuing to repeat material that was removed according to OUTING policies is considered harassment?”

So let me answer as clearly as I can, because my contribution history is self-evident, and I’m willing to explore any question (in fact I have done this many times but Makesense64 prefers to ignore my responses and direct attention away from them). Also, I am not repeating information removed by the OUTING policy – the removed material revealed Maksesnse64’s off-wiki identity and other information that I have not referred to. I have asked for clarification of this point before and no one has said that referring to the material that has been allowed to remain, or discussing how it points to Makesense64 having a COI himself, is breaking any kind of policy. If someone other than Makesense64 (who was responsible for removing a lot of the relevant discussion himself) suggests it is; then I will cease to refer to it. However, it is hard to see how it is not directly relevant since the entire basis of his complaint against me is that I have provided references that utilise a website which he alone has a problem with (and this information reveals the reason why).

My contribution history shows that my otherwise quiet account became activated with my first discussion page contribution on 2nd June this year, directly in response to Makesense64 giving me a ‘final warning’ for spamming because I placed three relevant links to this site on WP. I was taken aback by the hostility of his notice and explained that I had seen the tags asking for references in support of notability and had placed three links to published interviews with biography subjects that were published on that site. My explanation was given clearly there and on the talk page of the biography of the owner of the site: that web domain is a known and respected source of published articles and book extracts that are not readily available on the web elsewhere. (see also).

To verify that this is the simple fact of the matter, merely take a look at Google Books to see how many independently published books make use of that site in their own references and citations. Also note how it is also used as a reference by many works listed in Google scholar.

So we can be clear that this site is a suitable source for independent reference – and it is convenient to be able to check the content of the pre-published articles online.

I could not understand why Makesense64’s objected to references to that site, or accused me of having a COI from the start, when I asked him to agree that it was not spamming to add an external link to a website which was created by the biography subject – especially when the creation of that website is part of the reason for her notability.

So I consider it very relevant that a few days later the site owner gave a statement to explain how this 'objecting editor' (Makesense64) was someone she had banned from the forum of her website a few days earlier, for creating a nuisance in his astrologcal arguments. Also, that he was perpetuating a hate campaign against her and her website, on off-wiki websites, at the same time that he was arguing here that any link which went to her website from Misplaced Pages was spam. And that his first action on reactivating his dormant WP account was to target her biography with suggestions that it lacked notability.

There has never been any inappropriate use of that site from me, and I have nothing to gain from adding links to it. It is merely convenient because it reproduces articles published in other independently published sources, which are not available on the web elsewhere. The most substantial reference to the site was in the case of the Dennis Elwell biography that Makesense64 has mentioned above – and here only because the site included an interview and reproduced published articles which substantiated the commentary in his biography.

I have never argued in favour of retaining links to Skyscript where other sources could be used instead. Even when I have witnessed Makesense64 disingenuously trying to suggest that the site is not a reputable one – in which case I make the argument appropriately, without revealing my own knowledge of how he has his own personal vendetta against the owner of the site. In these situations I have also not revealed my own knowledge of how his vendetta is rooted in professional conflict which holds a financial interest for him, presenting another COI in the way that he champions Chinese astrology methods, whilst seeking to remove reference to (or retain misinformation about) western astrology. I can qualify that without revealing his off-wiki identity if it is appropriate to do so. I believe it is, since he has raised the issue of COI himself. Or I can submit it privately to arbitration if it sails too close to outing policy concerns.

I have nothing to gain professionally or financially by the contributions I make to Misplaced Pages. I was unaware of the astrology-content problems that needed correction until Makesense64 forced my attention towards them; and my motivation for contributing should be clear enough from the fact that my contributions have been positive ones, which have replaced a lot of unreliable information with clearer explanations attributed to reliable sources (as I said before: primary sources, secondary sources, tertiary sources, academic works and independently published popular works, as well as the ones from the site that is notable for its large reservoir of specialist articles that have been previously published in independent journals and books distributed by respected publishers).

I too feel there is an apology owed to me from Makesense64, for suggesting that I spam, for suggesting that I have ulterior motives for providing the citations I provide, for suggesting that my arguments on the Algol and Ophiuchus pages were anything but legitimate, and for continually obstructing my well intentioned contributions to the extent that I even changed my user-name in the naive hope that it would free me from his ongoing harassment. If there is any reason for pursuing COI concerns here, the attention has to be returned to Makesense64 who has been criticized for being disruptive by many other editors – as the ANI complaint demonstrated. I am not aware of that being the case for any of the other editors mentioned. I also feel it is relevant that he has initiated four groundless complaints against me so far, and despite all the good reasons why I could initiate complaints against him, I haven't bothered to do that because I'm here to contribute and substantiate content not pursue these endlessly destructive, time-wasting, editor-discussions. I only spoke out to support the ANI complaint made against Makesense64 initiated by Robert Currey because there was such good grounds to do so. From everything I have witnessed of Robert Curry's contributions here they have never been anything but constructive, civil, fair, and seeking to ensure neutrality at all times. My experience with Makesense64's 'contributions' is the direct opposite to that. Zac Δ talk 13:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have not expressed my opinion formally before, but now am prepared to do so.

MakeSense64: Using your being banished from another web site to take out a personal vendetta against it on Misplaced Pages is unacceptable. It is considered disruptive editing and is grounds for being blocked, and even completely banned if it continues after that. Further, going around and harassing users innocent of any wrongdoing of having a conflict of interest is entirely unfounded; there has to be some gain by the material being used in the article for them to have a COI. Also, this account above and the information provided in it convincingly shows that you are in the wrong here; not Zac, not Robert, not anyone else here. This is your vendetta.

I'm not going to close this myself (like I might at AN/I right now), but rather will suggest for administrative review having MakeSense64 topic-banned from all astrology articles. Having such a vendetta tells me that MakeSense64 has a COI of the opposite type; he feels wronged by the site and wants to have his revenge. A topic ban seems appropriate. This seems to be another instance of a boomerang being thrown and not noticed on its return. CycloneGU (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You know, Cyclone, I've seen the same people with basically the same dispute at a couple of boards now over the last two months, and I'm beginning to think that you're right. It's a big encyclopedia: there's no need for these people to keep butting heads, and I don't think they would be, except that one of them is trying to (ab)use Misplaced Pages to accomplish a goal unrelated to Misplaced Pages's goals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have tried hard not to add fuel to this thread so far. The reason is that MakeSense64 repeats points and questions without acknowledging the answers already given. When he does this on talk pages, constructive editing becomes impossible for anyone but the most persistent of editors. Most editors simply give up out of exhaustion.

I have never recruited editors on Facebook and I have already answered this on the AN/I. If anyone is recruiting, it is MakeSense64’s practice of tagging pages (approx 93 astrology sites between 9 June - 19 July). Yesterday, he put the biography of Julia Parker, author whose books (which include astrology) have sold over 2 million copies world-wide, up for deletion suggesting that her bio can be merged with her husband a well known author and broadcaster in his own right. Her husband, an established editor on Misplaced Pages has now been dragged into the debate. MakeSense64's objective appears to be wipe western (as opposed to Chinese) astrology off the face of Misplaced Pages, but his methods seem to provoke astrologers out of their apathy into active editing.

Though I have already addressed MakeSense64’s objection to the straw poll in full, it is hard to follow the discussion without lots of references. So I will list it point by point:

1. First, this was a debate starting here with several huge threads effectively debating one word that had dragged on for one month and there were at least ten editors involved. Some dipped in for an odd comment and then disappeared.
2. This discussion was unnecessarily drawn out because of MakeSense64’s intransigence and attempts to polarize the discussion and tactic of making the same point over and over again even when it has been answered.line 612 He showed no interest in dialogue or debate and has shown that he is prepared to endlessly block and revert change even if he is a minority of one.
3. In order to move on with this impasse, I called a straw poll. I had no idea which way it would go but I like most editors wanted to end this endless debate.
4. When an editor suggested that the 48 hour period of the Straw Poll was too short, out of courtesy I notified two editors who had long been involved in this page who had both clearly expressed views that were against my point of view and one who appeared to be favourable. One of whom had actually inserted in the original word that was the subject of the vote.
5. MakeSense64 decided, for reasons we can only imagine, to abstain from the straw poll.
6. The vote result was 5 in favour of the change and 1 against.
7. When MakeSense64 discovered the results had gone against him, he promptly restarted the debate as if nothing had happened. All the regular editors ignored his posts, but two new editors came in to reiterate the case that had already been made over the past month. Two days after the result had come through, MakeSense64 came up a new objection which was that I did not notify every contributor to the debate. I responded on the talk page “What MakeSense64 has either forgotten or omitted to mention was that on 09:49, 15 July 2011 I posted that "I have notified Kwami and Ocaasi who have been sympathetic to your views and Terrymacro who also contributed earlier on. " in my post on 15 July. No one objected to this at the time. I was quite open and even handed about this.”
8. There was no intent to deceive. If I was votestacking I was not effective since I actually invited more editors who were against my views than in favour. It was a courtesy to these editors who were involved in the issues.

The straw poll was to get a feeling of where the debate lay and the result reflected that editors of the page accepted that the superior case had been clearly made. It was a solution to a problem. MakeSense64 was clearly deeply unhappy with the result. A few days after the changes were made; he promptly undid them and after reversion the next day added new text that went diametrically against the consensus. His actions suggest that he has little or no respect for consensus and as in his other edits, he is intent on continually arguing until the result goes his way. I have already made the case for topic banning (astrology and astronomy) ] as this will direct MakeSense64 into subjects where he may be less inclined to tendentious editing. Robert Currey talk 16:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

For MakeSense64, I have some answers for some questions posed.

• "Where are the WP guidelines that explain to me how I can recruit editors on facebook to "Help" me? If this is how WP works then I have to start my own recruiting on facebook. Would that be OK?" - WP:CANVASSING is the only one that comes to mind that's anywhere near what you're looking for, well possibly WP:MEAT as well. But it depends on circumstances. If you're recruiting people to votestack, that's not allowed. If you're trying to bring people to help you win a dispute, either by having more people to perform reverts to prevent running afoul of WP:3RR, that's not allowed. If you're in the middle of, say, a content discussion, that's more of a grey area, and would be situational. But let's say that you're trying to improve an article, and you know some people who aren't yet on Misplaced Pages but might be knowledgeable about the subject, and you go to Facebook to ask them for assistance, why shouldn't that be allowed? So again, it depends on circumstances.
• What about Zac's constant rehashing of materials related to outing attempt that was removed by admin months ago?" - Are the materials being rehashed a way of outing you, or were they peripheral to the outing attempt? If the former, that means that it's a repeat of the same harassing behavior and can't be allowed. If the latter, then there's no harm and bringing up outing is a red herring. I'm guessing here that you're referring to the repeated efforts to point out that you were banned from Skyscript. If you don't deny that claim (and I don't see that you have), and no other information is being presented that would serve to reveal your identity, then I think it's appropriate if people wish to discuss whether or not you might have a COI in matters relating to the site.
• "As for Zac adding sources from his "favorite site". At what point does that turn into WP:PROMOTION ?" - Well, I guess the first question is, is there anything at WP:ELNO that would apply to those sources? Other than that, WP:REFSPAM applies, which specifically includes "the removal of multiple valid sources and statements in an article in favor of a single, typically questionable or low-value, web source". Aside from that, I don't see how it could be treated as spam.
• "So, Zac adding 20-30 such links is using a "favorite site", my removing a few of them is seen as COI. That looks like a nice set of double standards to me." - It's not a matter of quantity. COI is determined by a person's affiliations. It would only be a double standard if Zac had a similar sort of history with the site that you do.
• "But where does Aquirata come from? I have never met him on any other page before, I only know this name because I saw it in the mentioned March bannings. So, how and why is he following my edit history?" - Good question, I think only Aquirata could give an answer.
• "Am I the only one who thinks that the WP bureaucracy looks more funny by the day?" - I assume you've never heard of Misplaced Pages Review if you think that might be the case. ;)
• "On ANI there is the request not to go into side discussions, but when I take my own complaint to COIN, then I am getting warned about "forum shopping". That's a nice catch 22." - This wouldn't have been a side discussion. These matters would have been totally relevant to the discussion on ANI.
• "Problems like MEAT, COI, harassment and tendentious editing often go hand and hand. But when making a complaint on one noticeboard a rather typical answer is that something belongs elsewhere. If I can only complain on one forum, then how is this supposed to work?" - You use multiple boards. For example, let's say you're having a problem at an article. Editor A keeps trying to replace all of the external links on the page to point to a malicious attack site. Editor B stubbornly disagrees with you about how the article's lead should be written and refuses to compromise. You open a thread on ANI saying that you're having problems with the article and asking for help. The likely result is that someone will warn or block Editor A for vandalism. But the problem with Editor B is a content dispute, and you'd be advised to try WP:3O or go to WP:DRN. Whenever you have multiple behavioral issues that require administrator assistance (for blocks, page protection, revision or page deletion, etc.) then ANI is a great place to try. If there's something specific, like a serial vandal or a copyright violation, then there are specific places to take the issue. Generally, if someone tells you that an issue is not appropriate for a particular board they should tell you where it would be appropriate. If all else fails you can take pretty much any problem to WP:DRN and they'll redirect you to the proper place without chastising you, that's one of the main reasons why that board was (recently) created.
• "Wouldn't it be much easier and time effective to have one noticeboard for all these complaints, and one for request for comments, and just ditch all these sub departments? Just my POV." - The advantage of having more specialized boards is that there are people with particular interests who are more likely to frequent them. For example, I spend a lot of time at this board, and I think I've learned a lot about handling COI issues because I've seen so many. If COI issues were just lumped in with everything else at a place like ANI, that wouldn't be the case. Other boards, like WP:CCI, WP:BLPN, WP:RSN, WP:AN3, WP:AIV, WP:UAA, and on and on, those boards are similar in that they are watched by particular groups of people who are very familiar with those kinds of issues. I think you get more accurate and quicker responses the way the boards are currently set up. However, the DRN board I've mentioned a couple of times already was recently created as a sort of consolidation place, and in fact may lead to the dissolution of both WP:WQA and WP:CNB. So you're not entirely alone in that line of thinking.

I apologize if my replies were too wordy here, I just wanted to give unambiguous answers as best I could. -- Atama頭 17:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Because the question of Skyscript links is the only basis of Makesense64's complaint against me, I have actually started to count the number of citations I have added to WP, working backwards through the list of article I have contributed to, which I keep on my user page.

Zodiac - 1 reference to Ptolemy’s Almagest / none to Skyscript.

Urania Trust - 6 independent references / none to Skyscript.

Stars in astrology - 5 independent references (3 primary source refs + 2 secondary source refs) / none to skyscript.

I note however that administrator Ihocoyc added SIX separate references to the Skyscript site from the content on that one page. Does he have a COI too?

Shelley von Strunckel - In response to the request for additional sources, I added 1 external link to the published interview on the Skyscript site – Makesense64 removed it as ‘spam’. (I think it should be reinstated)

Robert Hand - At the same time as the Shelley von Strunckel link I added one external reference to the personal interview published on Skyscript, and later added another to a book on the history of astrology which mentions him.

Ptolemy – 7 references in response to the ‘references needed’ request (4 to recently published academic works; 3 to primary source texts)/ none to Skyscript.

Ophiuchus - 1 Skyscript reference which substantiated a comment I added to that page.

Number - 1 academic reference in response to a ‘citation needed’ tag / none to Skyscript.

Mashallah ibn Athari - 1 ref to a primary source / none to Skyscript.

List of Astrological organizations - 8 reference links / none to skyscript

Do I need to continue this time-wasting exercise when it is clear that Makesense64 has cherry-picked one page which relied heavily on the Skyscript site's republication of previously published articles and book extracts to meet his demand that every single comment be substantiated? He has made groundless accusations against me, purely because of his own COI and personal vendetta against a site that has been used as a source of reference by many published books, scholarly texts and clearly neutral WP administrators.

Three editors have now suggested in this thread that the only solution to these long-running problems is a topic-ban that prohibits Makesense64 from causing further disruption on astrology and astronomy content and talk-pages (here, here, and here). I don't have a case to answer whereas Makesense64 very obviously does, so I want to add my own request for an administrator to action the proposed solution and bring this endless disruption to an end. Zac Δ talk 20:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Admins can't unilaterally ban anyone, but a ban proposal can be created to see if the community at large would support a ban. The best place to do so is WP:AN, WP:ANI often has ban proposals as well but usually they follow on the heels of an already existing discussion, in which first a person's actions are discussed before someone brings up the idea of a ban. I wouldn't recommend a ban on this page, since it has far fewer eyes than a page like the admins' noticeboard. If anyone does propose a ban, however, it should be made clear exactly why it is being done (with evidence) to convince people of the necessity. Linking to this discussion or other previous discussions may help as well. -- Atama頭 21:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by MakeSense64

In response to latest answers by Atama.

1. You say the recruiting of editors depends on the circumstances. The circumstances were pretty clear: Robert describes how six astrologers were banned and he is asking for "Help" how to get around the WP rules, asking people to contact him first. That's quite a difference with somebody simply encouraging others to improve WP outside of any specific context.
2. With regards to the constant rehashing of old materials. The argument is being brought that I have not denied it. But WP:OUTING says that we should neither deny nor confirm the information. Constantly rehashing information from an attempted outing is considered harassment as far as I know. Zac's rehashing of that material has been deleted by admin before, so he was warned, and he once vandalized my user page with it (but he was already blocked before I could put a vandalism warning on his user talk). So?
3. Robert Currey explains his straw poll. As for his first two points, I invite people to read the section in question and count how many words I have spent there compared to some other editors. My comments are brief and I bring arguments on the table and ask questions. So, why am I being painted as the tendentious editor? Just because I disagreed with their opinion? Or because my questions made sense? There was no impasse, just about equal number of editors for and against the proposed change, so clearly no concensus to make the change.
4. Robert's straw poll was questionable, not only because two involved editors in the discussion where not invited, but also because of this: and . I told him that I will be away for several days and back on Monday. So then he created the poll and was quick to close it after two days, because I could have voted after I came back. Now I only made a quick comment when I checked my emails in the morning. Convenient timing isn't it? You have five editors for and against, you wait till one is out of town and "forget" to invite two other opponents of the proposal, and then you predictably get a 5-to-1 "concensus". And next they argue as if that 5-to-1 concensus is set in stone forever, so any editor who questions it is then a tendentious editor.
   

A straw poll is not that important anyway, but it is a good example of what kind of tactics are going on. Then an ANI complaint was filed, but what was the "incident"? My not agreeing with them and asking questions about on-wiki stuff is an "incident" asking for a ban? My keeping large astrology sections out of astronomy articles is tendentious editing that requires a ban? Cleaning up astrology articles or tagging them should not be done? Interesting. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Maksesense64, would I have a need to ‘rehash’ the story, were it not for your imaginary complaints against me? When you pursue such accusations, you give me no alternative but to demonstrate how your complaint is devoid of reason and arises out of your own dubious agenda. You say that you are adhering to policy by choosing not to deny it, but although you have attempted to strike from the record the defense you originally gave, it is still showing on the Houlding talk-page underneath the ‘Show extended’ tag (09:45, 5 June 2011) – (you are not required to explain your activity; ... editors are not required to be neutral ..., and you claimed Houlding’s account was exaggerated and could not be verified, although she said that she was able and willing to verify every point with more evidence if necessary and to provide the two IP addresses logged on her forum to establish her story without any doubt). It seems to me that you have both used and abused the outing policy, since the “vandalism” attempt you refer to is the one and only time that I became proactive, and pointed out the double-standards by which you were publicly speculating the real-life identity of another editor, having taken all steps necessary to ensure that your own remained concealed (rightly in the latter case, but wrongly in the former case I objected to), as I still believe.

I can also say (because I was involved) that your account of the strawpoll is as fictitious as your complaint against me. You distort the reality of what has actually taken place, knowing that it is virtually impossible for outside editors to follow all the long, fragmented discussions that resulted from your disruptive attempts to regurgitate the issue over and over. There was a clear majority consensus to make the change and move on - no tactics, no plots, just an overwhelming desire to end a ridiculously protracted debate over the use of one word, so that editors were able to put the good time that was being squandered in pointless talk-page debates into improving the content of the main article and all of the spin-off articles that relate to it.

I have noted Atama’s latest comment and want to ask you this – are you prepared to accept that the accusations you have made here are hugely exagerrated, based on nagative speculation, and fundamentally groundless? Are you prepared to consider the apologies that have been requested for implying sinister collusions and wrongdoings where none have taken place? If you cannot do that would you at least accept the benefit of working within consensus with the aim of improving and substantiating astrology-related content; and would you therefore consider (just once in a while) the possibility of providing references yourself rather than making disruptive attacks on those that do, and repetitive pointy AdF requests for pages you don't like, some of whose problems would take you less time to rectify than the creation of the deletion request itself? Zac Δ talk 11:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

MakeSense64’s points are as before incomplete and selective. Anyone following this thread will see that all his points, apart from one (see answer below), have been answered in full. If any other editor feels it is necessary or required here, I will go into a full analysis to show exactly how.

MakeSense64 implies that I was tactical by initiating a straw poll when he “was out of town”. This is, of course, false. Had I been ‘tactical’ I might have started the poll after MakeSense64 had left, but I did not do this. He was fully aware of the deadline before he went away since he posted that he would return on Monday over 3 hours after the 48 hour deadline was posted and he raised no objection to the deadline at the time. And though he had the opportunity to vote on an issue he had been strongly advocating, he opted not to vote which he made clear in his post. So by presenting half the story once again, he pushes unfounded after-the-fact points that waste everyone’s time.

Lastly, MakeSense64 I have a request. Now that Zac has presented a solid reference showing that one of Julia Parker’s 31 published books (by well-known publishers like Dorling Kindersley) sold over a million copies, can you withdraw your proposal that her bio page (up since 2005) is deleted? This will give editors time to insert references and it will show that you are willing to be constructive when the evidence shows that deletion would be an error. Robert Currey talk 13:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I would have already closed it (as I did this morning with Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/National Council for Geocosmic Research), but there was a delete !vote. Thus it must run its course, I'm afraid, but if the delete !vote changes to keep eventually it might be speedy closable. I am going to recommend that MakeSense64 stop creating these pointy AfDs for the primary reason that he is not making sense. They are being created due to his reverse-COI caused by hios personal vendetta, and frankly, it's not our job to clean up after him. I want to see him forced to stop. CycloneGU (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Raj Reddy and User:Srinimisha

User:Srinimisha admitted that he is employed by Raj Reddy to edit Reddy's Misplaced Pages page. I have warned him multiple times, but he keeps introducing the same promotional, unsourced, material, removing maintenance templates, and refusing to discuss the problem. What should I do? --Muhandes (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked the editor for 48 hours for edit warring, and given further warnings on promotion and conflict of interest. I will be willing to consider whether any further steps are needed if the problem continues. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Academia

• Academia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is a general article about insititutions concerned with acquiring and promulgating knowledge from ancient antiquity to present times. Miradre (talk · contribs) has suggested that, because he suspects Itsmejudith and me of being employed within academia, this creates a conflict of interest in editing this particular article. Was it appropriate for Miradre to raise such objections? Mathsci (talk) 07:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That is an incorrect and false description. I have certainly not stated that academics cannot edit that article. Rather, I asked them to consider if there may be a COI when academics edit (and in particular want to completely delete) material that are criticisms and or otherwise may have negative implications for them as a group (compare COI for organizations) and/or their employer. Such as this well-sourced material User:Miradre/sandbox everything of which they want to exclude. (Obviously, I have no objections regarding academics editing their area of academic expertise.) Anyway, I just raised this point for consideration and discussion, I have not stated that this definitively precludes editing or made any complaint regarding this..Miradre (talk) 08:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Some diffs. Edits of this kind create a toxic editing environment. Mathsci (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, I just raised this point for consideration and discussion, I have not stated that this definitively precludes editing (as I see it not all COI prevents editing) or made any complaint regarding this. I asked if there may be a WP:COI, not that there is one that prevents editing, as well as asked if you are an academic (obviously no issue at all if you are not).Miradre (talk) 08:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What business is it of yours who my employer is? Your questions are obnoxious and prying. Mathsci (talk) 09:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:COI (My bolding): "COI editing is strongly discouraged. COI editors causing disruption may be blocked. Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Misplaced Pages policies and best practices scrupulously. They are also encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages and also on the talk page of the related article they are editing, and to request others' views, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty." Miradre (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom is fully aware who I am because of recent outing problems. You have made an incorrect assumption about me and my employer (if you were reading about my wikipedia account on Stormfront, the information there is wrong). As far as the message above goes, please read WP:DTTR. Mathsci (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I asked if you was an academic since, as I stated at the time, you describe yourself as a "professional pure mathematician". If you are not an academic, then obviously there is no possible COI regarding this for you.Miradre (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've told you that your double guessing about my employer is flawed. It is also against wikipedia policy. Some people would call anybody with a PhD an academic. Given that, don't you think it's about time to call an end to your failed attempt to WP:GAME the system? I'll give you two marks out of ten for determination with one mark subtracted for poor presentation. Class dismissed! Mathsci (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• The suggestion implicit in "since you yourself are an academic, may there be a WP:COI here?" (that an academic may have a COI when editing Academia) is a total misunderstanding of WP:COI, or is an attempt to use any available technique in a disagreement. The text quoted above ending with "appreciate your honesty" is again misguided or indicative of a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Johnuniq (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You misrepresent me. I have never claimed that simply editing the academia article is COI. Read above. Neither have I claimed that a COI would definitely prevent editing or made such a complaint. But at least a possible COI is useful to know for everyone involved and the policy encourages such a disclosure.Miradre (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

So when you suggest that an academic may have a WP:COI on the talk page of an article, you don't mean it? Again, there is a total misunderstanding of WP:COI, or a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Johnuniq (talk) 11:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no COI for most material in the Academia article. I have certainly not stated that academics cannot edit the Academia article at all. Rather, I asked them to consider if there may be a COI when academics edit (and in particular want to completely delete) material that are criticisms and or otherwise may have negative implications for them as a group (compare COI for organizations) and/or their employer. Such as this well-sourced material: User:Miradre/sandbox. Miradre (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No, there is no COI for an academic if they delete cherry-picked undue material from an article on academia. Johnuniq (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not "cherry-picked" and if it was then that is a reason for adding more balancing material but it is not a reason for deletion. If editing (and in particular completely deleting all the material) was a COI was the issue I wanted to discuss. Miradre (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it OK for academics to edit the article Academia? Someone has suggested that I have a conflict of interest because I am an academic. How about all the articles in the scope of WikiProject Universities? And membership of that WikiProject? Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

See the section above with exactly the same name.Miradre (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I shall see it. I have asked some further questions here. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've just merged this section with the previous one. Hope this is OK. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Mathsci (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see anything that would properly be described as a conflict of interest here, as Misplaced Pages defines the term. Incidentally, one of the hallmarks of COI editing is "a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference." In that light, does an extensive rehash of 21st-century American conservative criticisms of U.S. academia belong in a general article on academia? Shoehorning that material into the general article seems to suggest the sort of myopia alluded to in WP:COI. I mean, since we're here. MastCell  19:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a notable debate in academic sources, major newspapers, and notable non-fiction books. Are you suggesting that these are not acceptable references for Misplaced Pages? Miradre (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Since we're here, I suggested early on that some of it could go into Higher education in the United States. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Before this moves further from the topic note that the issue is discussed here: Talk:Academia Miradre (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed this discussion, and first I want to point out -- whoever is bringing something to COIN, should ideally do a more diligent job of exposing what the debate is about. Please note that there has been very little input from uninvolved editors here; I'd suggest that simply including a diff in the initial posting (like this one, which shows the bulk of the content Miradre added) would make it much easier for others to weigh in.

On the content itself: it appears to me that this substantial content addition is going into the wrong article (though a summary or brief treatment of this topic may be appropriate to Academia); and that regardless of where it is added, it's a delicate subject that should ideally be discussed in some depth as the content is developed.

The accusation of a conflict of interest appears wholly without merit. Furthermore, this this by Miradre seems like an ill-advised step (see the warning at the top of this editing window about the harassment policy superseding the COI guideline). To make such a spurious accusation of COI strikes me as a deeply anti-collaborative step to take; better to address the merits of your fellow editors' arguments, than to question the legitimacy of their participation. I think this situation could benefit from some kind of intervention or informal mediation, but the COI noticeboard isn't the right venue. -Pete (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Everything I added is here User:Miradre/sandbox or here if you prefer a diff: . This version is in all aspects a better version. Regarding WP:COI we obviously have it for a reason. I am pretty sure academics can have COI issues just like everyone else. If nothing else declaring a possible COI is encouraged. As already stated, I took up the issue for discussion. But I have never stated that this prevented anyone from editing or made any complaint.Miradre (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Miradre, you are responding here to accusations I did not make. My first paragraph, above, was not addressed to you, but to MathSci (the person who brought the complaint to COIN). I was merely making a practical suggestion to him/her, about setting up a discussion like this for more participation, not implicating anybody for failing to disclose anything. I've reread my post, and think I was pretty clear; your reaction seems out of proportion with what I said.

Regarding your last point, that you merely "took up the issue for discussion," I think Atama addresses it well below. In my view, there is nothing "mere" about "bringing it up" four times in rapid succession. -Pete (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

See below for 4 times accusation.Miradre (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

For Miradre, two things. First, does being an "academic" (which is such a broad term that it's almost meaningless as a label) mean that someone has a COI at the academia article? Essentially, is a person employed in a particular field considered to have a COI when editing an article about or related to that field? The answer to that question is an unambiguous no. This is very clearly covered in our conflict of interest guideline where it states, with no ambiguity, "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." Aside from the official guideline, though, it would be absurd to suggest there could be. If Misplaced Pages actually discouraged professionals from editing articles that fall under their area of expertise, then Misplaced Pages would be a joke. You want to encourage experts when you can, as long as those experts are willing and able to follow our guidelines and policies in the process (since self-promotion or the advancement of pet theories, biases, or grudges are plausible for such persons). But again, it's not a COI to be a professional in the topic area and you should know that just by reading our guideline.

The other issue is whether or not we can ask people if they have a COI or have a particular employer. If you have a justification for suspecting that a person does, because of that person's actions or other on-wiki information, you most certainly are allowed to ask, respectfully. And if the person declines to answer, or gives an answer you don't like, you need to accept it. Asking it once is reasonable, asking 4 times is harassment. I hope you won't repeat that behavior any further. -- Atama頭 21:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." True, as I stated above. However, this is of course not the same as meaning that all academics are academic experts about the political views of the academia. Regarding asking if Mathsci was an academic I think I did it only once.Miradre (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Then you think wrong. MathSci listed four diffs above. -Pete (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

First diff is not a reply to MathSci. Second and fourth are not questions. Only the third is question which I never repeated.Miradre (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"However, this is of course not the same as meaning that all academics are academic experts about the political views of the academia." That makes no sense to me, did that make sense to anyone else? That seems like a non sequitur to me, and seems to have nothing to do with conflicts of interest, or anything you have previously said on this board. You said, "I asked them to consider if there may be a COI when academics edit (and in particular want to completely delete) material that are criticisms and or otherwise may have negative implications for them as a group". That has nothing to do with whether or not "all academics are academic experts about the political views of the academia". And it doesn't matter if your statements are in the form of a question (this isn't Jeopardy!), just bringing up the fact that you suspect that a person has a COI on a talk page where the person is actively participating counts at least as an implicit question. And yes, there were 4 diffs there showing you doing exactly that. So all I'm saying on that matter is two things; drop it so that you can avoid sanctions for harassment (which I hope you've done by now) and as a general piece of advice, just ask someone and accept the answer or lack of an answer. -- Atama頭 22:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, the basic misunderstanding is that not all academics are academic experts about the academia. The rule you cited only applies to that area of expertise. To make it clearer, one of my sources implies that there may be massive discrimination against women, practising Christian, and conservative academics. This a potentially gigantic problems for the academic institutions (lawsuits and so on) that employ academics. Not to mention to the academics that may have been discriminated (or reversely gained unfairly). Academics are not free from potential COI regarding their employment or employers just because they are academics and have academic expertise in one particular academic area. I only asked once and I repeat that only took this matter up for discussion and never claimed that someone could not edit the article or made no complaint here. I do not plan to do so in the future. Hopefully this will finish the matter.Miradre (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

How is this in any way relevant to me? Here is the relevant sequence of diffs from Talk:Academia and here. Miradre apparently felt justified in making these comments and inferences because of what was written on my user page. Once I had refused to comment, Miradre should have dropped it. Mathsci (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You opened a complaint here and expect me to not defend myself and explain my edits? You cite my explanations of my earlier edits on this page as evidence? Mathsci, for the last 4 days you done little except followed me around Misplaced Pages, including to articles you have never edited before, made complaints and reverted my edits, and made complaints to several different noticeboards. Stop the harassment. Miradre (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Academics are not free from potential COI regarding their employment or employers just because they are academics and have academic expertise in one particular academic area." Anyone, academic or not, would normally be considered to have a COI if they edit an article related to their employer. Editing related to their employment (i.e. the reason they are employed, as in their field) is not a COI. For example, if an MD made a change to the physician article that removed information from the "Physicians' own health" section that said that "doctors make the worst patients", that's not a COI. Any benefit that the MD could personally receive from such an action is so remote that the accusation of COI is pretty far-fetched. Nor do we consider zookeepers to have a COI at articles about zoos in general, unless the zookeeper was editing related to their particular zoo. I want to make sure you understand this, because your statements in the past at the very least suggest a far stricter standard for determining COI than our guidelines suggest, to the extent of bothering at least one editor through repeated insinuations. I know you didn't suggest any sanctions against Mathsci, and in turn I'm not suggesting any against you, but I would really like to make sure we're clear so that you can avoid similar unnecessary disputes in the future. -- Atama頭 00:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. As I said I raised the issue for discussion. Also for clarifying the situation. Thanks for clarifying.Miradre (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci, you opened the discussion, are you satisfied at this point? Miradre isn't going to pester you and I think the subject has been beaten up as much as it can be without getting repetitive. Multiple people in this thread (not just me) have confirmed that there shouldn't be any COI in regards to your edits to Academia so I'd say your question has been answered. -- Atama頭 00:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks. I had already prepared a response, so here is a slighty edited version. Miradre has already been warned by an adminstrator (Atama) to stop harrassing me. Another administrator (MastCell) has explained to Miradre that her claims of COI are without any merit. On WP:ANI, on ArbCom case pages or indeed anywhere on wikipedia, user conduct is subject to scrutiny. Miradre should take stock of what has been said here and move on. That includes ceasing to make bad faith statements about experienced editors in similar circumstances. Miradre's claims of COI prompted me and later Itsmejudith separately and indepedently to open queries at this noticeboard, which I later merged. We were the victims and Miradre would do well to remember that. Mathsci (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Strange as it may seem, I think everybody in this discussion is in agreement on the one point relevant to this noticeboard: there is no actionable COI. I agree that we should consider this matter closed. -Pete (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Exhibition drill

• Exhibition drill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Drill team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• New Mexico Military Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jkmarshall001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Jkmarshall001 inserted the following text, among other things, into the listed articles; the text appears to be conflict of interest at worst, and promotional in nature at best: *John K. Marshall developed and published a complete system (see both, The World Drill Association Adjudication Manual and Rule Book and Continuing Education for the Visual Adjudicator) for judging military drill competitions in 2009. The system can be used for all phases of a drill meet (XD, RD GC and honor guard), as of 2011 is currently used for some XD-only competitions including those hosted by the Exhibition Drill Competition Association . This system was derived from Marshall's extensive work in judging, teaching and/or performing with sister pageantry arts (indoor color guard and percussion, marching band/drum corps and military drill teams) around the world for more than 20 years. While this system is new and not widely used, it is the standard when judging a visual-based performance. -199.173.225.33 (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI, you're not being ignored here, I read this before and looked at the editor's talk page and have some concerns but I won't be able to address anything now, if anyone else wants to jump on it feel free. -- Atama頭 00:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So to follow up... Exhibition drill doesn't seem to have anything self-promotional from Marshall, his involvement at that article is primarily to try to redirect it. I did find that self-promotional material was added to the other two, and cleaned it out from Drill team (it was already removed from New Mexico Military Institute). I left the editor a notice about this noticeboard message and a warning about WP:COI and WP:SPAM. -- Atama頭 17:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Walter De Brouwer

• Walter De Brouwer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lavidat8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This series of SPA edits replicates earlier COI edits made by SPA User:Asterysk and reverted after an earlier COI/N. Jokestress (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I would have taken this to WP:SPI but it's so obvious that it's not worth the effort. Per WP:DUCK these are the same people. Asterysk was reverted in their efforts to change the article, and made appeals to other editors for assistance, but kept receiving the same (correct) advice about following our policies and guidelines, and attempting to use the talk page to work out the dispute rather than repeatedly attempting to change the main page. And so Asterysk completely stopped editing, and Lavidat8 began editing the same article in the same manner, apparently to try to evade scrutiny, since the COI was established for Asterysk. Obviously that attempt was a failure. I've blocked Lavidat8 indefinitely, and blocked Asterysk for a week (I don't feel that these actions warrant an indefinite block). At the expiration of the week I hope that Asterysk begins taking the advice of other editors. -- Atama頭 18:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

ZenQuest Martial Arts Center

Although this article seems to be well written, the primary editor on it even admited to, "creating a page for my dojo." I'm not an expert on this sort of thing but the page seems to be violating the WP:NPOV, notability and advertising policies.(Justinsane15 (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC))

Some observations... First, you were correct to bring this matter to this noticeboard, this is a clear conflict of interest and there certainly have been problems with the article due to that COI as you stated. However, the article is also fairly well-written as you said. The article's creator self-disclosed the COI in the article's creation, which we encourage. The editor in question (3family6) is a prolific and experienced Misplaced Pages editor, with a number of acknowledgements and awards from his contributions. Ukexpat has made a good start in cleaning up some of the biggest problems with the article, though more attention is probably needed (I might have a stab at it myself). I've reminded 3family6 of our COI guideline and notified him of this noticeboard report. -- Atama頭 19:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if someone did go over the article. When it was reviewed there was some mention of promo-like material, and I fixed some of it, and Ukexpat did further work on it, I realize that there could easily be more COI problems. I am fully that my relationship with the subject makes it difficult to notice NPOV issues and the like (and I've noticed that I tend to promote whatever subject I'm doing on Misplaced Pages, no matter my affiliation), so I would actually appreciate it if the article was looked over.--3family6 (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I took a quick look, and I saw no major problems. You may have to deal with the occasional person who mistakenly believes that any page on a business that isn't packed with criticism and lists of lawsuits is "promotional", but I think you're in pretty good shape. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, good. Thank you!--3family6 (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Requested edits

Can we get more editors watching Category:Requested edits please? There's some requests that have been sitting there for months... We ask them to use Template:Request edit and get them to jump through all these hoops and when they do and do their best to follow all our rules and their request just sits there without a response, I'm sure it must be very frustrating for them. I'm totally opposed to promotional editing, but I believe we should be as accommodating as possible when they do follow our guidelines to the letter. -- œ 15:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like maybe someone work has been done today (not many requests left). I removed two that no longer applied but Product Red needs help. At least two editors have repeatedly requested edits and it looks like they've gone ahead and made a few. If anyone goes there to help, I ask that you not template the page with {{COI}}. The editors who have identified themselves as being "from" RED have been very forthcoming and requested changes be made several times so tagging the page now would be a slap in the face, in my opinion.

I never realized requests sometimes took so long to fulfill. I'll keep an eye on that category from now on. I'll try to work on the RED page when I get time but it might be a little while as I've promised my help to some other pages. OlYeller 17:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

A publishing company seems to have own account

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

I came upon Stefan Tegenfalk while new page patrolling. It was a page about an author. It was originally written by Massolitpublishing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Quite obviously, I have concerns about a new editor/editors not understanding Misplaced Pages policy. I will leave a message on the user talk page after I finish writing this, but request assistance in dealing with this situation. --I dream of horses (T) @ 15:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. The user seems to be blocked, now. I dream of horses (T) @ 15:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Karen Gibson Roc

• Karen Gibson Roc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Karengibsonroc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is working on what appears to be an autobiography. I've added COI, REF and notability tags to the article which were removed. I probably should have taken it to talk but since it's a COI matter first and foremost I figured I'd get it here and I will bring up those issues on the talk page when this issue is dealt with (either by block or not, I'm not sure what COI protocol is) I also left COI info on her talk page. Nformation 00:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

User is attempting to remove maintenance templates and add a discogs link for purchasing albums. They're currently on L3 warning for maintenance tag removal. Most disconcertingly, the last time the user removed the templates, they claimed that the issues had been solved when they obviously had not been (falsified an edit summary to remove a COI tag from their autobiography). OlYeller 18:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Issued a L4 warning. The editor made a statement in the last edit summary that, "Changes will no longer be made with this account, all changes have been made to adhere to the guidelines of wikipedia, all information included in this article are verifiable, therefore we have removed the alerts, thank you". I've replaced the BLPRefImprove template and Notability template until those issues can be addressed. I've also left the COI template on the article until the subject is no longer editing the page. OlYeller 18:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that half those templates were unwarranted.

When we're dealing with brand-new editors like this, it's sometimes useful to remember that WP:There is no deadline—not even for putting maintenance templates on an article. New editors often have a short attention span. We can slow and often stop edit warring over maintenance templates merely by waiting until the next day to restore them (and, of course, only restoring the ones that are still relevant). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Mark Friedman

• Results-Based Accountability (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mark Friedman (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Accountability (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Markfriedman28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I stumbled upon Results-Based Accountability and noticed the signs of a COI. Page history shows that the page was edited by an account that shares the name of the person who allegedly invented "Results-Based Accountability". User has also edited other pages related to that person. Has added links to places where the products created by Mark Friedman can be purchased. I'd take care of it but I don't have time at the moment to run a comb through the account's edits and clean up the issues. OlYeller 14:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Maynilad Water Services Inc

• Maynilad Water Services Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MWSI CC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

MWSI CC (talk · contribs), clearly a representative of the company, is repeatedly removing my coi template, despite a request not to do so. They have also made a large number of edits to the article which show a conflict of interest. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That article is a monumental spamfest and I have tagged it for deletion as such. I have also reported the user name to WP:UAA. – ukexpat (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It's also a copyvio and I tagged it as such. I'd like to add to the report that two other accounts (Wicko665 (talk · contribs) and Boogyboy1978 (talk · contribs)) edited the article and are most likely puppets of some variety. OlYeller 17:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Editor is blocked. Article was deleted. Unless they pop back up again, this issue seems to be solved. OlYeller 18:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Richard Ebeling

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

The biography article appears to be mostly being edited by the article's subject. I'm not sure how much inappropriate stuff is in the text of the article, but the writings seem to be pretty radically over-linked. I'd rather avoid working directly on the article because it might be perceived as part of mainstream-vs-mainstream economist conflict. CRETOG8(t/c) 14:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Eva Zeisel

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

Pretty obvious. I doubt this is actually Eva Zeisel (who is 104 years old), though it would be pretty cool if she's online (she is still designing.) --jpgordon 16:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have asked the user to confirm whether or not they are indeed Eva Zeisel. – ukexpat (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty obvious that the user has a connection to the subject, but can you show me the user obviously hurting Misplaced Pages to promote an outside interest? That's necessary to have an actual COI violation. The couple of diffs I looked at show factual corrections, copyediting, and removing information about her current line (which is the opposite of promotional behavior). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Joe Mantello and about 40 others

• Joe Mantello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Danielle Drees (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User adding WP:REFSPAM and internal links to BOMB Magazine. The material added typically describes an interview with the spammed article's subject and is cited to a BOMB article written by Jenefer Shute. User sometimes comes back later to add an external link as well. User page states they are an intern for BOMB. --CliffC (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution