Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:06, 30 April 2014

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:

Dawoodi Bohra

• Dawoodi Bohra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mufaddal Saifuddin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Qutbi Bohra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

:

‘The much cited ghadir khum incident was not a succession deed (Nass) but rather to resolve misunderstandings between a group who complained about Ali to the prophet , and the prophet said "Whoever takes me as his patron , should also take Ali as his patron" and this was said in ghadir and not in the final Haj. If there had to be a succession then it should have been made at a place where all people gathered and not ghadir khumm. In short the prophet did not say that after me some person like Abu Bakr, Ali etc would be the caliph\Imam. The fatimid bohras like dawoodi bohras are a minority group who have invented their own religion and mainstream Islam does not recognize them as Muslims’... Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 03:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

' Comment:'This is a Serious allegation against Islam as whole. Summichum should be strictly restrained in interest of integrity of Misplaced Pages and prevention of Vandalism.Rukn950 (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The user user:Summichum as per above, has gone up to the extent of making allegation on community invention and recognition. This fellow is attacking on faith of a community,and joined Wiki after the declaration of claim by Khuzaima Qutbuddin. This editor is only editing article related with dawoodi Bohra especially where claim of Mufaddal Saifuddin is described. He wants to forcefully add his favourable material and delete unfavourable material he can.

This editor was blocked recently twice in this period for disrupting the editing. This is clear-cut case of conflict of interest and strong action requested to control the editor.--Md iet (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• • this is a bad faith view , M_iet himself has conflict of interest and I had already reported him for COI noticeboard with detailed proofs that he belongs to the dawoodi bohra group and is using wikipedia to advertise some members of that group using highly unreliable sources and self published sources or even original research without any citations. This user had been pushing unsubstantiated POV and a closely knit group of people from that group were pushing their agenda and got me blocked after as I only reverted unsubstantiated claims , hence I even sought the help of third party experienced wikipedians User:Anupmehraand admin User:Crisco 1449to check their their behaviour and they agreed to it and reverted all the uncited claims and false statements added by the above user. You can check Mufaddal Saifuddin how these users (including rukn) had added false statements which were reverted , the talk page has all the details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 14:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Md iet You can verify from history about his edits. And also from his article 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra).Rukn950 (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

On the basis of a chat platform , where anybody can say anything, all fatwa and whatever anybody likes are discussed, is the source selected by Summichum for making blatant allegation that 'DB invented their own religion and mainstream Islam does not recognize them as Muslims'. This is not just a original research but clear cut violations of all the limits anyone can think off. When Misplaced Pages's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline., this fellow has crossed all the limits, harassing complete community, declared them a non Muslim and made allegation of inventing a new religion. DB are on real sunnat of Muhammad and follow the deeds of their Imams as principles of working, on the basis of Al-Qadi al-Nu'man's most prominent work, the Daim al-Islam.--Md iet (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Please look into the case , where Summichum has tried to force his POV and deleted the administrator decision itself. I don't want to give notices for every thing, please take action accordingly.--Md iet (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
• Please look at , this user is repeatedly adding material even after decision of removal by admin twice.
• The user is reverting the language at to suit his POV. The fact is that Khuzaima has not claimed for his right in last 2-3 years after the demise of late Syedna, when he was alive. At that time late Syedna could have easily clarified ,who is the successor, as he was the appointer. After matter was public for Mufaddal to be successor 3 years ago, there was no point in making his claim secret and there was ample time that mass Bohra public or media/authority would have made the case clear to the extent possible. Now Khuzaima is making claim that he had kept it secret as he had promised to late Syedna and was abiding his oath. The fact about report of Hindustan Times on former chief justice of India, make the things clear that Khuzaima family approached CJI well before Late Syedna Daith, hence keeping thing secret was just an scapegoat.

This User want to put the report in such a way that the thing is not explicit and don't clash with his POV. We don't want to add any original research, but put forth this important information in such a way that fact is directly clear in addition of quoted statemnent.

• As per WP:BLPFIGHT, More generally, editors who have a strongly negative view regarding the subject of an article, just like editors with a strongly positive view of the subject, should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally if they choose to edit it at all. I am not supposed to disclose other person identity, but in present case it is a persistent and rigorous amendment done by the user; using all the means he can; devoting his full time in the activity; searching all the possible sources; rigourously searching all the Wiki rules; not bothered even blocked twice; Joined specifically after this incident of succession and doing editing only on this specific topics and raised the issue on basic principles/faith of Dawoodi Bohra. The user is claiming as a third party, neither from community nor born into it. It means he is not likely to be from independent group like Progressive Bohra who are born in Dawoodi Bohra. As reported above his statement 'DB invented their own religion and mainstream Islam does not recognize them as Muslims' make this thing further clear that he can’t be from any Bohra or Fatimid subsect or a Shia even as he has questioned even Ali’s nass . This means it can be a very serious case of “editors who have a strongly negative view regarding the subject of an article” and not at all considered as third neutral party and doing deliberate editing to defame community as whole. May please examine the case keeping this in mind.

• Myself and Rukn has already accepted that we belong to DB, we are regular editor from last 7-8 years. We are fan of wiki and respect Wiki regulation and try to abide and learn as much as we can. Respect fellow editors. Myself was doing more good faith editing, supposing that truth and facts will be accepted and prevail and improvement can be done as reliable sources are available. But while facing this succession case, I learnt many lesson any how the original research even if true and fact, can be contested like anything if they clash with other party interest. And as agreed by me above, I have restrained myself of doing any further edit in sensitive articles, if it is undone by anybody and not complying Wiki rules even though it is true and fact. Although I have some bias toward DB, as every human have some bias, but never tried to oppose fair criticism or well sourced , encyclopedic material.--Md iet (talk) 06:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• This is false accusation , the user Md iet has himself changed my edit war request which i newly made with more diffs. May be he was confused as i made a new edit war request adding more diffs or he did that purposely. He did it purposely as he copy pasted the old request contents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 06:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
• Don't try to be smart Mr. Sumchum, If you wanted to have new edit war request, why you have deleted old decision of administrator. You will do whatever you want and nobody can reinstate the factual things. I did it purposely to show your way of thinking to hide the facts.

You were already added your material, why didn't you waited for administrator reply? You could have raised new edit war request, just below it, instead you have tried to overrule and hide the previous judgment. Don't try to make fools of other and desist from poking your nose in others matter, if you don't like it. Behave in Wikipedian manner, it is just a request pl and Sorry for using harsh words.--Md iet (talk) 07:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Summichum has not desisted of his COI activities. As per advice of admin at some material which was removed from Mufaddal Saifuddin article was added at controversy article. Rather amending, this fellow is reverted the complete material twice, just on one of his plea and stopped only after my warning for avoiding block for 3rd consecutive revert.--Md iet (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Banc De Binary

• Banc De Binary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• HistorianofRecenttimes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It appears that this user has a bias against Banc DeBinary and is using Misplaced Pages as an outlet to bash the company.

Parts of the article are referenced with unreliable sources (sources which are affiliated with the company's competition), and on the article's talk page, the user seems incredibly hostile.

List of difs / statements:

• - Dif of talk page where the user begins to make false allegations
• User's contribution log which is focsed soley around Banc De Binary
• Dif where user first attempts to introduce NADEX into the page about Banc De Binary

There are many more examples, but in my opinion this user is an agent of a competing company attempting to do some very "dirty" marketing via Misplaced Pages.

BDBJack (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The SEC issued a statement reading "The SEC alleges that Banc de Binary Ltd. has been offering and selling binary options to investors across the U.S. without first registering the securities as required under the federal securities laws. The company has broadly solicited U.S customers by advertising through YouTube videos, spam e-mails, and other Internet-based advertising.". Then the SEC followed up with a lawsuit.. This is a scam. A negative article is appropriate. John Nagle (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

A section explaining the case with the SEC would suffice, but a "negative" article doesn't seem in line with the NPOV policy of wikipedia. Broad statements such as "this is a scam" also seem rather out of character with Misplaced Pages's NPOV guidelines. BDBJack (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission also shut them down in the US. John Nagle (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

How is that relevant to the fact that the article is written from a non-neutral point of view? It's like saying that because the CEO of NADEX is the chief witness in the CFTC's case against Banc De Binary, we should start writing negative content about NADEX too!

BDBJack (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

BDBJack (presumably Banc du Binary Jack) is merely the latest in a series of single-purpose accounts dedicated to whitewashing this Israeli company masquerading as a multinational, and hiding behind a Cypriot flag of convenience. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Orangemike:, yes I am an employee of Banc De Binary as noted on my user page and in my user name, however I fail to see how this is relevant to the request to investigate the COI of user HistorianofRecenttimes.BDBJack (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@BDBJack: A few points:

• No evidence has been presented that even suggests that HistorianofRecenttimes (HoRT) has a COI of any kind. Jack, you may feel that HoRT is biased against the company, but a conflict of interest as Misplaced Pages defines it is when an editor has a real-life connection to an article subject (positive or negative). You'd have to show that HoRT is working for a competitor, or is a member of an activist group against BDB, or was personally hurt by the bank and wants retribution, or something along those lines. That information has to come from self-disclosure by HoRT, or through an evaluation of the editor's statements and actions, digging up information outside of Misplaced Pages or speculating on their real-life identity violates WP:OUTING. A bias may lead to violations of WP:NPOV but isn't a COI.
• You yourself clearly have a COI. This isn't a slam against you, you're very open about it (even your username shows it) which is commendable. But it does mean that you're going to have a pro-BDB bias. That is going to hurt your argument, thought it doesn't invalidate it. A person with a COI making a valid claim of disruption isn't going to be ignored, even if removing the disruption is in favor of your POV.
• Our neutrality policy does not dictate that every article has to present an article subject neutrally (in that it includes nothing that reflects negatively or positively on the subject, or perfectly balances such information). That's not what its purpose is. We write articles from a neutral point of view. We don't insert our own analysis, we don't try to make judgments as editors. We neutrally present the facts as we can ascertain them from reliable secondary sources. If those facts end up reflecting negatively on the article subject, then the article as a whole may appear to be negative. But it's not our place to try to omit anything that reflects negatively or positively on an article subject, or to try to come up with a balance between negative and positive information. We present what we can verify through sources regardless of how it reflects on the subject. I hope that makes sense. -- Atama頭 17:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Atama: Thank you for taking the time to give me a clear and concise explanation about the differences between bias and COI. While I still believe that the user does have a COI due to being from a competing company, I have neither the evidence nor the tools to prove it at this time.BDBJack (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

More on Banc de Binary at Banc de Binary is an "associate" of Spot Option Exchange. There are many other "associates" (Banc de Swiss, etc.), about 20 of them. Their sites all look very similar, because Spot Option Exchange runs them as part of their hosted service. Reliable sources for Spot Option Exchange other than its own site are hard to find, and there's not enough info for a Spot Option Exchange article. Yet that would be the right article to have; their associates/brands/domains/etc properly should be sections in the Spot Options article. John Nagle (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Cdrtools

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

Schily has been making controversial edits to the Cdrtools article for a long time. He has repeatedly self-identified as the author of that software package (here for example -"on my request"-, but see the whole Talk:Cdrtools), and has been including unsourced personal opinion as references, failing to assume good faith by accusing editors of wanting to attack his software, and otherwise unwilling to work towards consensus. He was blocked recently at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit_warring.

I have repeatedly asked him to avoid making edits to the article directly and to discuss everything at the talk page, but today he has just added this unreferenced content after this conversation at my talk page. I would like that Schily is given a formal warning to make him aware of what WP:COI entails, so that he will avoid making controversial edits to the article. Diego (talk) 12:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry to see that User:Diego Moya did not follow the rules that we introduced for the cdrtools article and instead made own highly controversional edits that have not been agreed before. He even treated me, see: this edit. Please encourage Moya] to first discuss planned edits on the talk page and not to make controversional edits. Collaborative work is only possible if all involved people follow the rules. Schily (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I have stated what I require in order to make agreements: that you provide links to references that support your claims. You have provided none, so there's no way to reach any agreement. Diego (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

What "rules" were "introduced for the cdrtools article"?! Misplaced Pages doesn't work that way. Unless some exception (like discretionary sanctions) has been set up by the arbitration committee that refers to an article (or more commonly an article topic), all articles follow the same guidelines and policies. One of the most important is verifiability. I see that much of these problems have been discussed publicly here. I'll point out that in that discussion, Diego was one of your biggest defenders. Yet a week later, here you are. -- Atama頭 14:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Because the cdrtools article has several authors with COI, we agreed on not to make edits that are not in a consensus in order to avoid future conflicts. Unfortunately User:Diego Moya recently made edits without previously asking whether the related edit could be seen as neutral statement. Several of his edits would have no problems to get an approval, but there also have been edits from him that will not get an approval for being neutral. The problem is that the Cdrtools article is an article that needs to mention that there have been some conflicts caused by Debian in 2004 and following. This is why the article has a high conflict potential. I see no other way than to agree on a collaborative way of editing. For this reason, I made the proposal that other people may make proposals (and thus keep the privilege to control the wording) if they do not edit the article unless thare was an approval before. If there was only User:Diego Moya, I am sure that there was a way to get to an agreement in a simpler way but there are other authors with a high level of COI that usually only make biased edits. The problem in the article is that there are a lot of claims that are not correctly verified because they have pointers to unrelated "proving". The best way to deal with this problem seems to be a common agreement that nobody is allowed to make changes without previously discussing the intended text. Schily (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

In theory most contested edits require consensus to settle any disputes. So in principle what you're saying isn't unreasonable. But it's also true that unverified information in an article that is contested should not be in the article. So there is also that. I'm concerned with your approach at the article. I understand that you are an expert, heck you WROTE the software. But that naturally gives you cause to try to edit the article with original research, because of what you personally know (not what you believe, or what you think, but what you know to be true). Unfortunately Misplaced Pages just doesn't work that way. That's for a number of reasons, one of which is that it helps objectivity when we are restricted to writing only about what information we can accumulate from reliable sources. But another, more important reason, is that Misplaced Pages itself isn't reliable, and any information is only as good as its sources. That's what I tell people who use Misplaced Pages for knowledge, especially for research; don't go by what's in our articles, go to whatever we're using as sources and use that. When we write articles based on our own research and knowledge, people can't do that.

There have been suggestions that you be banned from editing cdtools and related articles, at least from editing the article text directly. Given that you're not the only person with a conflict of interest, I don't think that's fair. But I do think it would be fair if such articles (especially cdtools itself) had an article space ban against all editors with conflicts of interest, both positive and negative. I don't often make such suggestions, I've been an advocate for allowing COI editing in most situations (as long as the editor avoids disruption) but I think that it would ease the situation here greatly. Identifying who should be included in such a ban may be difficult, determining the scope of the ban could also be difficult (just the cdtools article space?), and I don't think this board is the best place to initiate such a ban. It can be, it has been done here before, but I'd suggest WP:AN might be a better venue to get a wider community input. This is just a suggestion from me, it's not something I plan to implement yet. -- Atama頭 15:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

People who write scientific papers avoid using secondary sources and prefer primary sources. This is in conflict with the WP rules that disallow primary sources, so information on Misplaced Pages in the first attempt is information from hearsay. Using only primary sources is of course not a good idea either - you should rather only use information that can also be verified independently. I am a primary source in the case of cdrtools (and in many cases that are e.g. related to the UNIX history). This frequently causes disputes when people compare my statements with statements from unreliable second level sources. This is why I avoid to make edits that are only reproducable from my memory. In a recent case, I could e.g. correct a false claim from a Siemens Web site related to the first telephone system in Germany, but in this case I have been lucky and could present a copy from a book from 1882 that verifies that there have been more than ten-thousand of telephone exchanges in Germany before Siemens believed that the first exchange was installed. There are other cases where I cannot disclose my sources to the public because of Copyright problems (but I of course have the proof that I could present people in a private meeting) and there are cases where it is not possible to present a single pointer to verify a claim. I can e.g. definitely prove that the claims from Debian related to cdrtools are wrong, but this can only be done by checking many unfakable time stamps in order to verify that what Debian claimes to be cause and reaction is wrong as the so called reaction from Debian happened before what Debian declared to be the cause. As you see, with the current rules from WP, it may be easier in some cases to deliver something that can be seen as a verification than to prove the same claim to be false (where the latter would be the truth).

I don't believe that a bann is the right way to go unless you have people that deny a fact based discussion. WP needs people that write the articles and if we woud have such a bann, the result would be that the current unbalanced state of the article would stay until forever. I hope that it is possible to find a way where interested people all follow the proposed rules. I however fear that it will be the same as it was the last time: people wait for some time and do nothing and then one of the users again starts with edits that have not been discussed before.

What should be taken into account is that we have a person in the list of recent editors, that is related to my question here. I am not shure whether there is an easy way to deal with this problem. Schily (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Schily, I have repeatedly asked that you provide those links to public repositories so that we can evaluate them for ourselves. Maybe we could include one or two of them in the article, allowing readers to reach their own conclusions. Or you could compile all those links and publish them on your own blog, together with your conclusions about them, and maybe we could link to that, thanks to our neutrality policy; your conflict of interest prevents you from changing the article, but also gives you a unique spot in it as a primary source for your point of view on the subject.

But for reasons which entirely escape me, you refuse to provide us with those links, fighting every attempt we make to improve the article according to our own criteria, and insist in injecting your conclusions directly in the article as facts, which is forbidden.

Why do you insist in breaking our standards of quality at every step, and will only agree to solve the problem in the exact way that you like? Does everything have to be "your way or the highway"? Why can't you agree to collaborate and follow the rules that other find acceptable, and compromise a little in order to gain a lot? We have rules in place that would allow for a neutral and balanced account of the facts; if you are unwilling to follow those rules, don't blame them for arriving to an article that you don't like. Diego (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

If you verify that you are interested to follow the rules I am happy to help you. So let us remove the biased text from the article and when you make a proposal for text you wish to add (including a link to prove the correctness) I'll tell you whether your proposed text is OK. Please note that your recent edits verified that you also have a conflict of interest and for this reason are not allowed to edit the article. Please understand that you don't have more rights than others and that you also need to follow rules. Schily (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@Schily: "Please note that your recent edits verified that you also have a conflict of interest and for this reason are not allowed to edit the article." Can you give examples of Diego disclosing a conflict of interest? Diffs would be preferable, but even just explaining your reasoning here would be helpful. -- Atama頭 15:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

This change can be seen unfriendly as it is easily verified by reading the man page. This change is a big problem as it removed comments that have been added in order to make extremely problematic claims understandable as incorrect. The removal from Diego left over extremely biased or false claims with pseudo references (references that are not related to what they claim to prove). Trying to discuss this with User: Diego Moya resulted in a treat from him and I could not see a will to even understand that the left over claims need to be removed as well when their explaining counterpart is removed. With the same edit, Diego did also add own false claims as he tagged a pointer to GPLv3 (which does not apply to cdrtools) and as he indirectly made a false claim that is seen as own research: By adding his "own research" statements to a previously present statement he intended to use this as a "prove" for a verifyable false claim from Debian (that says that the GPL claims "the scripts used to compile" must be under the GPL), see: a guide to the book Die GPL kommentiert und erklärt check section "Die Definition des Source Codes in Ziffer 3 Absatz 2 GPL". Note:book page 85 is PDF page 61. Relevant is the last section on the page. In short: The GPL is very obvious about the fact that these scripts may be under any license, they just need to be present together with the source. So Diego entered a verifyable false claim and was not willing to discuss this. Some lines later (in the same edit), he added a circular reference to WP wich is forbidden to prove something, so in fact he added another unproven claim related to static vs. dynamic linking and in place removed a well proven statement (verified as reference #26 in the current version of the article). As he did also make several correct edits, he must be seen different from other people that only add problematic text. I hope this helps to understand the problem. Schily (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

A conflict of interest on Misplaced Pages is present when an editor has a real-life relationship to whatever they are writing about that can "undermine their role" as an unbiased, independent editor. You definitely have a conflict of interest with the cdrtools article, and editors who work for/with competitor products/organizations have a COI. If you're accusing Diego of being generally unfriendly and adding false statements, that has absolutely nothing to do with our COI guideline and your warnings above are invalid. -- Atama頭 17:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

So you like to tell me that User:Diego Moya may happily continue to add false claims to the cdrtools article and I am not allowd to correct this? Given the fact that he tried to confirm claims from Debian even though these claims are wrong, I assume that he has a relation to Debian and thus a COI. Anyway, if he did not make this intentionally, the best signal from him would be if he did not make edits before they have been discussed on the talk page. 17:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schily (talk • contribs)

I'm not saying that Diego is given carte blanche to make whatever edits he prefers to the article, I'm just saying that there is no basis for a COI claim or any warnings based on it. And using Debian as a reference does not in any way imply a connection to Debian, that's absurd. If you have a dispute with material that Diego is modifying and you cannot settle it by discussing it with him, the dispute resolution noticeboard can help in that regard. Otherwise, most of the disruption I've seen is from you. Some of your edits and claims may be correct, but regardless you rely far too heavily on original research and you are very heavily influenced by your own bias as the creator of the software. This is understandable, but at the same time it is still problematic for Misplaced Pages. -- Atama頭 18:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

When discussing the problem, it is of course imprtant to know that the disagreement (when looking at User: Diego Moya) seems not to be a general disagreement but is rather related to correct or incorrect information on the licensing activities and that the license was changed after Debian started to attack the cdrtools project 10 years ago and after Debian enhanced these attacks 9 years ago with the claim of alleged license problems with cdrecord. For this reason, a person with a closer connection to Debian definitely has a COI. I am convinced that User:Diego Moya has such a closer connetion to Debian. Using your interpretation, this alone would be a reason for him not to edit the cdrtools article. Using my interptretation, this alone is just a challenge, but Diego seems to be unable deal with this challenge.

See above: the incident where he removed a hint on what is in a paper from professor Determann and added own research on license compatibility and an unrelated pointer to GPLv3 that does not apply to cdrtools. There was another incident, where he removed a pointer to a paper from the faculty of law at the university of Washington that explains that OpenSource licenses do not grant the right to publish modified variants of covered OSS to be published under the the original name. So this cannot be seen as an accidental mistake, as there is a common pattern behind these unaceptable edits.

As mentioned before, I am OK with allowing him to make proposals on the talk page, but I do not agree when he likes to make edits that did not first get a review. Schily (talk) 12:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

So far I only see you attack Debian (and some people who did something in 2004 by name) as well as various Misplaced Pages authors “Note that recently the following users did make edits with conflict potential: User:Diego User:Chire User:Tzafrir User:LFaraone.” The edits by User:Diego Moya to me seem to be backed by wikipedia policy NPOV, as do most others except yours. Can you please elaborate what is “conflict potential” in the two edits by User:LFaraone? It was suggested to AfD this article. I start to believe this is a good idea... 38.123.136.254 (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Various article (science)

• Trajectory (fluid mechanics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Peteymills (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sea ice emissivity modelling‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sea ice thickness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sea ice growth processes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Uncertainty coefficient (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Isoline retrieval‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Collocation_(remote_sensing) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sea ice concentration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Chaotic mixing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Contour advection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editor creates secondary (niche) articles to promote own work. Articles always include what appears to be some snippets from his own work, but presented as the standard method or even suggested as the better solution (ie. "While Cox and Weeks assume thermal equilibrium, Tanboe uses a more sophisticated thermodynamic model based on numerical solution of the heat equation." link - Tanboe is the paper he is part with). Often references are weak. Work appears to be non significant or average/standard (Not from the experts on the field). Even after years articles draw little attention, possibly because terms are already covered in main articles. I'm not sure about the motives here but the editor should stop promoting his own research and some articles could be deleted, especially in the case of sea ice which has to much articles. I had a discussion recently with him. prokaryotes (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Update: Subsequently i asked here on the RS noticeboard for more input. prokaryotes (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, this charge deserves a more detailed response, but in the only example you cite: by "sophisticated", I mean "complex" (actually I've just changed it). There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches and I even state when the more complex approach is advantageous. Peteymills (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Peteymills (talk · contribs) FYI, something is screwy with the grammar there. I don't know what you tried to say.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

There are even more articles he created and subsequently added his references, see user page. prokaryotes (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

However, the other articles appear to be either merged or without added references, directly attributed to him, but some at least to team member G. Heygster. prokaryotes (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Question Have you successfully elicited comment from any other editors at any of these article's talk pages on any of your allegations about Peteymills edits? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It should be clear that articles mentioned here are used to promote own work and that this isn't an isolated case. Also i noticed that you recently begun to follow my edits, and that by your own admission, you do not intend to read up on particular topics discussed here. Therefore i suggest you start looking into the science at hand or focus on something else. prokaryotes (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

What about the question I politely asked? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Even after years articles draw little attention, possibly because terms are already covered in main articles. Some articles do not have a talk page. I don't see how your question is relevant to the report here. As pointed out, the articles are mostly edited by Peteymills. prokaryotes (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

(A) It's a simple question, why can't you just say "No" and then explain as you see it?

(B) Even though I participated in a discussion not mentioned above, suggesting your criticisms are best at article talk or AFD, you didn't ping me. At the risk of someone saying I'm violating AGF, it feels kinda like a stealth WP:FORUMSHOP. Why is this relevant? Because if you're going to attack an editor instead of his edits, you really ought to have Clean hands to avoid the boomerangs.

(C) All that said, I'm only in this because Prokaryotes' contribs make clear he's a passionate climate change editor, and that's my primary area also. I'm participating to try to address process issues as they arise, to try to help smooth the future waters to produce a graceful compliance with WP:ARBCC. It is quite possible all the listed articles should be deleted. I'm not qualified to render an opinion on those technical subjects' articles. I just think we should be talking about the edits, rather than the editor. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, i brought attention to the articles and the specific content parts. I've no idea what all the rules are for you just posted, but to my understanding is your question and everything you posted here so far, irrelevant. Shall we discuss the specific "potentially promotional content" now?? And to answer your question, No, i did not thought the input from other editors from these various articles, since in my opinion it is pretty obvious that there is a COI issue here. prokaryotes (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Since I haven't dealt much with COI, I'll let the regulars respond. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Please point out where i attacked the editor? My intention is not to attack an editor, by no means. I tried to reason with the editor on the talk page linked above, but it wasn't successful. I think it is interesting what he posts but to technical, and sorry but criticizing edits or articles doesn't equals an attack. prokaryotes (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

So..... this complaint is actually Plan B, after you got into a content dispute and found it slow going? I think you would be better served reviewing your dispute resolution options but hey, that's just me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

So, you make an allegation (suggesting i attacked the editor) and now you claim i didn't followed the options? What is it? Or better yet, focus on something else, since your intervention here is off topic. prokaryotes (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Since you ask, you said in post #1, "Editor creates secondary (niche) articles to promote own work....I'm not sure about the motives here but the editor should stop promoting his own research....". You came here with this complaint after being unsuccessful discussing article edits with him. Usually people take content disputes to WP:DR. So, yeah... looks kinda like a shortcut on a slow going content dispute, at least to me. And I note you haven't got any other eds making similar complaints about either the content or the perceived COI, but at least the regulars here are starting to weight in. Good luck figuring out the dispute resolution things we do. Note to self, WP:DROPTHESTICK. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC) PS. I am no longer watching this page, so if I should be aware of anything, someone please explicitly ping me, thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk, from the start i cited COI issues based on one particular article, when i later realized that there are many more articles i filed this report. And yes this is exactly the way this is done. There was nothing wrong on my part, concerning the formality of this report, since i tried to reason with the editor on the talk page, but when he showed no interest i saw no reason to further engage in a discussion there. Hopefully you understand this now. prokaryotes (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@Prokaryotes: Please help me out here. You're claiming that Peteymills is engaging in self-promotion. But I'm not finding it. You gave a single example, quoting something about a Tanboe paper at Sea ice growth processes. Yet looking at that article (which is pretty static, it has only had 5 edits since 2012) that language doesn't appear anywhere. Even if it did, what is linking this editor to the paper?

Please understand how this noticeboard (and all noticeboards on Misplaced Pages) work. When you bring an issue to a noticeboard seeking help, you need to prove your case. You can't claim a problem and let others deal with it. Notice how the top of this board states: "Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the What is a conflict of interest? list." Myself and others who volunteer here have no idea who Peteymills is, and we have no idea what he's done or what disputes he's been involved with. You need to show that. So how did you determine a conflict of interest? What led you to that? Can you show diffs or link to specific discussions (not just pages) that show the editor claiming these works as his own? Do you even have anything with "Peter Mills" as an author? (I checked a few of the articles you linked to and don't see his name attributed in any of the references.)

@Peteymills: Just an FYI, I removed a link on your user page that linked to a Sourceforge page where you are asking for PayPal donations. You're showing a low level of class with what amounts to panhandling on Misplaced Pages. I understand wanting support for your science work, but seriously, what made you think that Misplaced Pages would allow you to use your user page to solicit money from people? Your user page is not your personal web page. -- Atama頭 15:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Am I? I think you're showing a low level of class by removing it. Look, I'm currently not employed by a university or other scientific institution. I'm trying to work as an independent. It's not just editing Misplaced Pages that I do for free, most of my scientific work is also currently unpaid. I can't run off the ether. Don't you find it hypocritical that Misplaced Pages regularly canvasses for donation yet somehow expects their editors to work on a strictly volunteer basis? Sorry, but this doesn't fly, at least not in my book. Peteymills (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see it so much as hypocrisy that Misplaced Pages solicits donations from people on the page and doesn't allow others to do it, so much as it is self-serving. I can understand being annoyed by that, but think of it like a department store that won't allow people to pester people for money at their front door, but has charity donation boxes at the registers. The Wikimedia Foundation owns these servers so they reserve the right to do that. We're trying to determine if you're at Misplaced Pages to be self-serving, and you're really hurting yourself by insisting that you keep a link to a donation page in violation of WP:ELNO. I'm removing it again, if you reinsert it, I will block you, because that is proof that you're not here to improve the project, but to promote yourself. -- Atama頭 16:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Each of the linked articles above has in the reference section of that article page a paper cited, associated with the author/editor and consequently parts of this paper used in the article. The author name is often "P. Mills", or "Petey Mills, or "Peter Mills". If you still want me to list all pages with cites etc please say so, otherwise i think that this is pretty obvious (when you loook at the refs and then the related content, often articles are almost entirely sourced from these references). prokaryotes (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You're right, that was my fault, I'd missed that. In that case, yes the COI is pretty clear. The relevant section of our guideline is at WP:SELFCITE, which says the following:

Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion.

So yes, in citing himself as a reference, that is a COI. It is definitely not prohibited per our guideline, but should be done with discretion. There are a few things to consider here.

• Should Mills' works be considered as reliable sources? Our guideline shows how to determine whether or not a scientific work is reliable, at the WP:SCHOLARSHIP section. I have to admit that I'm not well-versed in judging scholarly works for reliability. You could ask for assistance at the reliable sources noticeboard to help make that determination, and to build a consensus either in favor of or disallowing this work for references. It wouldn't be forum-shopping to do so, since I'm making the suggestion myself. :) If these references aren't reliable, then they shouldn't be used on Misplaced Pages and should be removed. (And this would be done on a case-by-case basis, you won't necessarily say that Mills himself is unreliable, it depends on how each of his works have been received by the scholarly community.)
• If these works should be considered reliable, then determine if each source is relevant to the article it's included in and if the article relies too heavily on such works. If so, then the sources should be augmented by other sources, and/or replaced with other sources to avoid the appearance of self-promotion by Mills.
• Finally, if the article body itself seems unduly self-promotional, especially if it is unsourced or poorly-sourced, then it should be given additional scrutiny and promotional language should be modified or removed. If it's determined that Mills is acting mostly to promote himself and his work, he can be sanctioned to include editing restrictions (page bans, revert restrictions) or even a block. Though I don't see a need for any of that at this point.

Of course, if there are articles that just don't meet our inclusion criteria (especially for notability) they should be taken to articles for deletion unless they meet one of the criteria at categories for speedy deletion. -- Atama頭 16:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this now. I will wait a little and then probably will ask at the reliable sources noticeboard for advice. prokaryotes (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Changed my opinion Edits at Peteymills' user page alerted me to another dimension I had not previously considered, and in light of his defiant attempts to solicit donations on his user page, I suddenly have a very dim view of his position in all this.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

What does this have to do with COI in the articles? The user page is not an article. The two are separate issues and should be treated as such. As for the issue of COI the only reason it is an issue is because I am open: all my work and affiliations are linked to for everyone to see. Many (most?) of the other editors are anonymous so you don't know what conflicts-of-interest they might be hiding. prokaryotes seems to be having a great time gutting all the articles relating to climate change. Is this because he is paid by some conservative think tank? We don't know because his user page is anonymous and his affiliations unknown.

I've said it once and I'll say it again: true objectivity or "neutral-point-of-view" is a fiction. It is not attainable. This is why I keep my affiliations and identity public: so my work is accountable. You can check my work for yourself and see if my methods are sound and my intentions good. Almost all of the software I used to derive the results in my papers are freely available online. You can download it and run it and check the source code. This is the model of science that I'm striving for. What is our source for authority in knowledge? In a world where even "respected" publications consult Misplaced Pages, and yet Misplaced Pages claims to have stringent guidelines for "notability" what else can we offer? Check it for yourself. That's the philosophy I'm using here. Peteymills (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You admitted at your talk page that soliciting money for editing is more important to you than improving article content. Good bye. PS, as for Prokaryotes (talk · contribs) I disagree with a lot of his wordsmithing and a fair bit of technical nuance, but I'm laughing at the inane suggestion his personal POV is anything other than hawkish on climate.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Peteymills, being open is one thing, putting up many small articles on sea ice and adding to each of them your own work is something different. I'm willing to discuss with you edits i made (ask on talk page) but we need to bring more balance into the different articles from you or maybe merge some of them, and we need to add or modify content so that it is understandable to a broader audience. This doesn't mean there can't be highly technical talk in those articles, but not primarily. Even if your additions turn out to be good and reasonable, there is currently undue weight given to your papers. I will ask for some more input on the reliable sources noticeboard. prokaryotes (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Your transparency and disclosure is commendable, and appreciated. And you are correct that true objectivity is impossible. But we still try as best we can to meet it. It's generally acknowledged that everyone has a bias of one kind or another, it's a consequence of free-will and sapience. It only becomes a problem with that bias skews articles away from neutrality, and cause an editor to serve interests outside of Misplaced Pages to the detriment of Misplaced Pages. Everyone is expected to try to compensate for whatever bias they have, and if they are editing in an area where the bias makes it difficult or impossible to act within our normal standards of behavior, they shouldn't edit there. (There are certain topics on Misplaced Pages where I'm uncomfortable editing too, as I consider myself too biased or too close to the subject to be reasonable.) -- Atama頭 18:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I've been forced to block Peteymills, per his own admission his primary goal at Misplaced Pages was to promote his own work and to raise revenue via the donation page on his user page. He was very forthright about it, and I had to give him credit for it. But at the same time I can't allow a person to edit the encyclopedia in that manner. With all that being said, that doesn't invalidate all of his contributions. Any article he created, or edits that he made, should be considered by their own merits whether or not they should be deleted or reverted. The discussion at WP:RSN can continue to determine the reliability of the self-cited references he added, but the discussion will have to proceed without his input. -- Atama頭 22:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and input, it was a rather no brainer outcome. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Comodo Group

A plethora of related articles have been subject to years of editing that shows strong indications of COI, such as creating separate articles on trivial products, dozens of citations to the company website, promotion, etc. with the latest wave coming from 178.255.86.1 and user:UKAmerican. user:Codename Lisa has been doing some watching over related articles, resulting in edit-warring, and I have been watching over the article on the CEO. I've also started prodding some of the individual product articles, but they could really use more editors to cleanup all the primary sources to the company website, decide which articles to PROD or AfD and watch over the ones we keep.

• Comodo Group
• Melih Abdulhayoğlu
• Comodo Endpoint Security Manager
• Comodo Internet Security
• Comodo Mobile Security
• Comodo SecureDNS
• Comodo SSL
• Comodo Dragon
• Comodo IceDragon

CorporateM (Talk) 21:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I concur with CorporateM about the edit warring point: I tried to reason with UKAmerican and did number of reverts that at the time of doing, thought to be uncontested. But I was wrong and as a result it became more than I liked. I disengaged for the fear of a full-blown edit warring and have not edited those articles for a long time.

But the issue of the conflict of interest is a serious one Comodo Internet Security:

• On 29 May 2013 I restored a gross instance of censorship: Someone had gone through the article, removed every instance of negative review and left only the positive ones.
• On 22 July 2013 UKAmerican deleted all mentions of reviews by established reputable magazines and expert sources, with the following edit summary: "make the page less promotional and advertising like, removed 3rd party reviews which appear to be self servin" The edit itself is vandalism (content removal without a plausible reason) and the edit summary is an instance of falsehood.
• On 24 July 2013, UKAmerican's tag-team buddy, counter-reverted, saying "rv corporate vandalism by evidently paid editor Codename Lisa". Again, the edit itself is vandalism (content removal without a plausible reason) and the edit summary is personal attack plus falsehood.
• On 27 March 2014, UKAmerican changed the infobox URL from the more neutral homepage address to less informative and more advertising-like promotional page and added "Major Releases" section that contrary to its name, is an editorialized news report. Actually, I am going to revert this right now.

I am not ready to say that UKAmerican has a COI but I think this person is definitely very smitten about the grandeur of Comodo and its products, has no respect for Misplaced Pages policies and the Manual of Style and hates talking to others, let alone going through dispute resolution.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

American Scientist

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

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Katieh5584 (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

User has admitted on my talkpage that they work for the organization. They keep adding content to the page which is copied exactly from their own website, it makes the article read like an advert. Katieh5584 (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the edits up to date weren't helpful. The issue is that they were promotional, the tone wasn't encyclopedic, and the external linking wasn't warranted. But as the article is in need of expansion, I would be fine with Kcorder editing it in a scholarly (nonpromotional) matter. The Scientific American magazine article is a good example of a well-written article about a related subject. It doesn't brag about anything or give out a bundle of links back to its website. Kcorder, if you want to improve the American Scientist article, that is a good template to work off of, in terms of writing style and appropriate content. ThemFromSpace 20:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I concur with using Scientific American as an example. That's a tactic I try to use with COI editors (or even non-COI editors with problematic articles); rather than just telling them what is wrong and what should be done, show them what a good, related article looks like. I always try to make the provision that it can take time to get a new article up to the level of quality that the better article has, and that it may require input from multiple experienced editors. Which is why it's important for them to be cooperative and willing to collaborate with others (including having to make compromises and concessions on certain points). -- Atama頭 20:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra

• Deepak Chopra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• SAS81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (formerly editing under ChopraMedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has a self declared conflict of interest .

as can be seen by the article talk page, they have filled it numerous times with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT repetitious discussions on such topics as asserting that Chopra must be identified as an endocrinologist in the lead sentence and in unending bouts of declaring that we must discuss what "neutrality" means, rather than accepting that Chopra's fringe medical theories will be treated as fringe theories because our WP:NPOV policy does NOT mean that we present every claim under a "neutral" light, but rather we frame things as they are seen by the mainstream academics in the area WP:BALASPS / WP:VALID / WP:FRINGE.

the tendentious editing has now spread beyond just the article talk page and the users page to another tl;dr post at WP:BLPN.(Misplaced Pages:BLPN#Deepak_Chopra_representative._Biographical_bias.2C_overtly_critical.2C_UNDUE_BLP_concerns)

The tl;dr circular discussions by someone who is working on behalf of the subject and known to be editing the article (of which Chopra himself has publicly stated he disapproves of) means that the SAS81 cannot edit neutrally because of the risk~ of their archiving project. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

I'm not here to edit on Dr. Chopra's article. I am here to represent the concerns of Dr. Chopra per BLP and participate in talk discussion only. SAS81 (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

also, this feels a little like retribution for me posting a BLP noticeboard which are exactly the required steps I am to take as a BLP representative. I've encouraged TRPOD to try to engage with me in a more productive manner - and these sort of things just make me feel harassed, regardless of his intentions. SAS81 (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The article Talk page is indeed too long to read, but I have been looking in on it from time to time. I see numerous proposed article edits discussed in detail and relevant policies thoroughly explained both in general terms and as they specifically relate to the proposed edits. Contrary to what's asserted here, I see no evidence that this COI editor is being stonewalled or brushed aside, or that the BLP is written using unfair negative bias. The community needs to carefully consider that a promised campaign of polite but constant filibustering by a Chopra employee (supported by their dedicated project team) is not in the best interests of the encyclopedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe this is a COI noticeboard and not a place to discuss BLP. SAS81 (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I also don't appreciate the many aspersions this editor has charged my way since I have arrived. When I ask him for evidence of his aspersions, he provides nothing. I've revealed my COI, informed the community of my direct representation of a living person and have raised very reasoned and pragmatic concerns regarding the article in relationship directly to WP Policy only. We're archivists, not PR or marketers. SAS81 (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

All of that being said, as an open COI acting as a direct representative of the subject matter, I'm willing to work within whatever the restrictions for COI are. If I have somehow overstepped them, I hope someone can kindly and specifically point out where so I dont make the same mistake twice. I'm signing off for the day. SAS81 (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

SAS81 has declared a COI and is operating with in the boundaries set out by the Misplaced Pages per COI. He has declared his intention to operate within NPOV. That he asks for specifics on what others consider to be neutral is an act of good faith given that he is dealing with a group of self-declared skeptics who believe the neutral middle point of this article is to label Chopra in pejorative terms. I believe he has a right to request a discussion on establishing what is the center point of neutrality before trying to go on. With out that information the editors on this article have been talking past each other. He has also posted on the BLP Notice board requesting input. This is a BLP and a request for uninvolved eyes is an appropriate step in dispute resolution. (Littleolive oil (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC))

Agreed that SAS81's COI prevents them from editing the article, but have they? There seems to be some uncertainty on that issue, butI don't see any edits on the article. As far as being a filibusterer, let's WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH until we see evidence of intentional disruption. I offered on the BLP noticeboard to help mediate the sourcing issue; I'll check out the references and we'll see if/how many are workable. That way we don't have a flood of citations (how many are we talking about, actually?), SAS81 doesn't get involved in inappropriate editing and everyone has someone to yell at if they don't like the references on the page. I'd prefer to avoid that last part, but I also don't want to see honest editors get blocked if there's a resolution. The Cap'n (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Askahrc: I can confirm that SAS81 has never made a single edit to any article space page, either through deleted or non-deleted edits. Every edit has been to user space, user talk space, article talk space, or Misplaced Pages (noticeboard) space (and one edit to WT:FRINGE). They have faithfully avoided all direct edits to any article. I can also assert that SAS81 did not make any article space edits when they had accidentally logged into the redundant account created after their initial username change request. -- Atama頭 19:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Advice for SAS81. Before you again complain about the lack of "neutral" editors who will help implement your proposed changes to the article, you may want to read this. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo's opinion is just that and does not give us permission to do anything except what our policies and guidelines dictate including to behave in a civil way to other editors. This comment by Jimbo has been brought up three times so far, so....(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC))

But it illustrates well what wikipedia thinks of woosters, and is well worth bringing up again and again. Our policies and guidelines forbid us from framing woo as anything other than what it is. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 23:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No, Jimbo's comment does not speak for Misplaced Pages's editors. It only speaks for him and those who agree with him. And this is a BLP article first. We do have to keep that in mind.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC))

There are no "BLP issues" in framing a woo meister as a woo meister when the framing is well supported by mainstream academic sources. BLP rests body and soul on NPOV which clearly advises us to present such framing: WP:UNDUE / WP:BALASPS / WP:VALID .

Now back to whether the perpetual tl;dr and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT editing by a COI editor is appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

While this particular paid by the article subject COI editor still hasn't got their head round even the most fundamental of WP policy and guidelines, they have had the decency not to edit the article under their two usernames. They also now appear to have mastered the basic procedures of logging into a WP account, always a big bonus. As suggested by TRiPoD, they should now work on IDHT, and perhaps recognise that Chopra's notability lies in his woo beliefs, where he may well be a "thought leader", and his ability to promote unproven medical ideas and sell them. It would also be nice if they could recognise that an avalanche of unreliable sources (Clinton? Gorby?) is worthless against the sources we already have. I am not optimistic that this editor will ever lose their COI approach. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 09:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

There does come at point IMHO at which politeness is by WP:IDHT indicated by repeatedly making similar requests on talk pages, WP:FORUMSHOPPING and posting polite but WP:TLDR requests on talk pages that essentially either ignore policy or try to WP:WIKLAWYER out of them. I'm sure we will reach this point sometime sooner or later. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• I think that any serious discussion needs to start by acknowledging the asymmetry of the situation. On one side, you have an editor paid by Deepak Chopra to edit his Misplaced Pages article. On the other, you have a bunch of unpaid volunteers whose interests are not focused on Chopra. Since joining Misplaced Pages, SAS81 (talk · contribs) (the Chopra employee) has posted a near-daily barrage of material on the article talkpage and/or assorted noticeboards. Those of us who are not paid to look after this article are then required to spend substantial amounts of volunteer time evaluating this material. Again: we've put a bunch of unpaid volunteers in the position of having to sort through a daily stream of Chopra PR posted by a dedicated, paid employee. This situation is perhaps technically "legal" according to WP:COI, but in order for it to work, SAS81 needs to show a bit more restraint. There is no deadline on Misplaced Pages, at least for those of us not being paid to edit here. Slow down, post less, listen more. Recognize that this is a hobby, not a job, for the rest of us. Pick one content issue and work through it until it's resolved before moving on. Limit yourself to a handful of posts a day - it's a good habit which allows for greater participation in the discussion by those of us who aren't being paid by the article subject. Finally, I can't prove this, but I think if you weren't pushing quite so hard to get all of the Chopra PR talking points into the article at once, you'd encounter less resistance. MastCell  18:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved editor (with no intention of involving himself) I have to say that there's a problem where SAS81 is up against a bunch of involved editors with clear bias against the subject, judging by the repeated use of pejoratives here and elsewhere. That is not to say I disagree with the systemic bias we have in this particular case - I also think that Dr. Chopra is a snake oil salesman on any good day. But that's exactly the reason I would never involve myself in editing his biography. But we need to come up with a better solution than having a user with a declared COI and valid intentions go up against a small army of vociferous skeptics and wiki warriors. This should be handled neutrally from both ends. We can't ask SAS81 to be "nice" to us when they are assailed at every turn because they have a COI (!), or because we don't like his boss. As to how to do that... I have no idea. Maybe there's a kind soul amongst our more experienced editors that doesn't think badly of Chopra and can help out SAS81. But this situation tends to reflect badly on us as a community. And MastCell has a point, but all that excessive posting and forum shopping might simply be a reflection of SAS81's frustration at running into the same walls over and over. §FreeRangeFrog 18:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• What relevance does the status of "Involved administrator" have to this discussion, exactly? Perhaps the paid PR editor should stop running at walls if he wants to stop running into them? For instance, for the low, low price of $1,000, I'll agree with anything he says for a period of 7 days. I mean, that's pretty much his impetus, right? Why can't I get mine? Hipocrite (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with FreeRangeFrog's assessment; it seems like there are a lot of very strong opinions on this topic that aren't terribly conducive to neutral editing. I also agree that SAS81 has presented a huge pile of information, but as long as they're not making corresponding edits to the actual article this doesn't seem disruptive to me. WP is a hobby and the editing is done by volunteers, but that doesn't mean we get upset at the people who are able to spend more time on it than others, whether paid or not. I mentioned on the BLP of this topic that I'm willing to step in and work on the sources, see which are relevant and try to build some consensus on the article. That said, given that I have limited free time for WP SAS81 will need to be patient with the progress, assuming there is a good faith effort to examine their sources and arguments. I don't particularly care about Chopra one way or the other, but I do feel like his rep is acting in the way we'd want paid editors to act (openly, honestly and without editing), and I'd like to encourage that kind of behavior. The Cap'n (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in Askahrc. And you've made some excellent points above. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC))

Yes, thanks Cap'n. Unfortunately your assessment of Sassy's sources on the article talk page leaves an awful lot to be desired, and I'm not certain is helpful. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 20:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I think MastCell's assessment of the situation nailed it. It should not be surprising to anybody that a Chopra employee and their team whose job it is to come up with sources to facilitate the insertion of puffery like "best selling author", "thought leader", "prominent endocrinologist" into the article lead are encountering some stiff resistance. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog, I understand there's still a lot to be done with these sources, but I'm just taking it one step at a time. I have limited time on WP, so for now I'm working on a few source categorizations, then I'm going to try to get consensus for a best practice for establishing source reliability so that we can narrow down the scope of material and curtail meaningless sources. I welcome any feedback/help on the page. The Cap'n (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I've just completed reading this thread and made an effort to listen to the concerns here. I'm going to make an effort to pace things slower. I think the actual ratio on the talk page is a number of editors, 5 or so against me, so naturally I have more editors to respond to making my posts more numerous. I actually felt all of you were overwhelming me so a bit relieved it was the other way around.

Thank you FreeRangeFrog for sharing your thoughts, I was relieved to read them. I would like to ask Mastcell, LuckyLouie, Roxy the dog, and hipocrite to extend good faith towards my participation. This is challenging. I think a few of the things riling everyone up is the assumptions that this is a PR list and my contributions are PR motivated. I would ask that you stop referring to my participation this way, not only is it not true, it probably riles up other editors and then everyone just assumes I am a marketing rep. I am a researcher responsible for an archive and for building Dr Chopra's biography along with a number of others. I also have very strong ethics and the ethics of building the archive are just as conservative if not more so than Misplaced Pages. I think if you could come to see me as more of a biographer and less of a alternative medicine practitioner, it will probably be easier to focus on content and not the people discussing it. Also very very much appreciating the help from the The Cap'n who just joined. SAS81 (talk) 05:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Add some critical material, also, then, as opposed to just the PR spin you are attempting to wheedle in. Surely you have some in your archive, right? What negative sources have we failed to find? Hipocrite (talk) 11:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

SAS81, a "biographer" employed by his subject is essentially indistinguishable from a PR agent. You are paid by Chopra, directed by him to collect material, and meet with him frequently to discuss how he'd like this material presented to the public. If you dislike the term "PR", then I will try to find a different but semantically equivalent term for what you're doing. But "biographer" is not it. (By the way, public relations is not an inherently unethical enterprise. No one is impugning your personal ethics by using the term, only exploring the obvious conflict between your goals and the goals of this encyclopedia). MastCell  15:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm acting as an archivist. By a 'biographer' I mean as in building an account of historical facts around a subject matter in a repository, not as an author writing a book. I'm sorry if that was confusing. The point was that 'biographical' information is not 'autobiographical' information and I am responsible, just as much as any editor here, for building the repository with primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. As an archivist and as a repository, we of course have ethics and we do not build archives with PR spin or marketing spin. The process is an academic one and to refer to our motives and work as PR is, I believe, putting aspersions on our work where they are not warranted. I meet with Dr. Chopra to obtain sources for an archive and yes of course I consult with him to discover his narrative of his history, but our archive is not formed for the purposes of presenting Dr. Chopra's 'side of the story'. Our job is to collect and archive all historical facts and then represent them. Just like Misplaced Pages, we archive ALL the information on the topic through quality sources. Secondly, I am employed by the archive, and the archive has a grant from the Chopra Foundation but we are also fundraising from other sources and are equally responsible, as a repository, for representing that knowledge on Misplaced Pages and elsewhere, including other notable subjects other than Dr. Chopra. I did assume this was more common on Misplaced Pages and such a position is not controversial but rather appreciated. SAS81 (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

SAS81 I don't think anyone here sees you an alternative medicine practitioner. It's likely that you're seen as the media representative you initially described yourself as. Can I assume that the "We" in "We believe the nature of this article is to serve to the discredit not only of Dr. Chopra - but to discredit the philosophy and practices of world religions, worldviews, and millions of people of all different cultures" means Chopra and his corporation? - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The archive is responsible for representing this knowledge to the media - and I take responsibility for any confusion that my introduction may have caused because at the time I was not able to mention anything about the archive and I had to get sign off to just give you all a courtesy heads up before we make official announcement. By "we" I mean specifically the archive team, and of course Dr. Chopra - who is not apart of our team but he informs our team. We also informed Dr. Chopra that we can only represent this knowledge to the encyclopedia to the standard of our ethics as well as Misplaced Pages's, i.e. as researchers and collaborators of an encyclopedia. He was informed that we are not a PR company who hires paid wikipedia editors to prop up articles. If I am making an argument here on Misplaced Pages, it's because I genuinely believe my argument is informed by my ethics and Misplaced Pages's, not by a PR agenda that I was not given and that I do not provide. I can tell you, personally (and this has been interesting) is that before we started working with Dr.Chopra, I don't believe he or his organizations actually understood how Misplaced Pages works. Once we explained how it works, he actually became very interested in Misplaced Pages and somewhat impressed with the principles. As you know he has been vocal about his problem on Misplaced Pages along with Rupert Sheldrake. Personally I am proud that we were able to diffuse a possibly contentious situation and Dr. Chopra is 100% on board with our approach. We are genuinely here as contributors. I understand you're suspicious, but I am hoping over time we can come to build some trust and help the encyclopedia gain more respect by handling these very sensitive issues responsibly. I dont just want to work with you - I want us to build a great article and hopefully use that as a standard to diffuse allot of the contention out there floating around. We're here to help this situation, not enflame it. SAS81 (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

break

What I find unwarranted is the over-focus on the opening words of the article. I'd expect any half-decent PR team to work very hard to change the first few dozen words into favourable ones, because thanks to Google's Knowledge Graph these words now show up under pictures at the head of a Google search for "Deepak Chopra". Since captions draw the eye, it probably the case that these words are currently the most read words about Chopra on the planet. The lede should simply reflect the article body content. I'd be less inclined to question SAS81's interventions if they weren't focused on trying to spin these opening words: currently, that's essentially all we're seeing. Alexbrn 07:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm focusing on the lead section to begin, yes. I focused on the first sentence first because I was requested to show a sentence where the problem existed. Naturally a first sentence frames not only the entire article, but also the individual and is therefore the most obvious. But the problems I have are all over the article, everywhere. So I am focusing on the lead sentence because it seems more expedient that way. Work with me on the page to find a better approach, I'm willing to follow your lead too. SAS81 (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

News America Marketing, et al

• News America Marketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• NinaSpezz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Posting here because the pattern of conduct has been ongoing for several years. The pattern goes like this: User:NinaSpezz working in their capacity as a Public Relations manager, suggests flattering edits for an article related to one of their clients. In doing so, the user (usually) notes the conflict but then indicates they will edit the page directly, incorporating their own suggestion, within a short amount of time if no objections are raised. This seems to violate WP:NOPR which permits edit suggestions and requests when conflicts exist, but does not permit paid advocates to directly edit Misplaced Pages by accepting their own edit requests.

From a practical perspective, most of the talk pages User:NinaSpezz edits appear obscure and relatively low-traffic, and so the user's 'deadline' is likely to pass (and their edits be incorporated) without serious scrutiny. This might be less concerning if the edits were objective, but in most cases they plainly are not.

If this is an accepted custom or I have misinterpreted the COI rules, then I apologize for my ignorance.

Omaharodeo (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

For those researching, I have corrected the username in the userlinks above (NinaSpezz, not NinaSpazz). --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the typo. I corrected the other references to "NinaSpazz" as well. --Omaharodeo (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Multiple editors related to U of SD School of Law

• University of South Dakota School of Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lawschools (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nativecultnlaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sdgovt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sdpolitico (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jungleneetwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Logic4bott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Seems to be an editing campaign by COI users related to University of South Dakota School of Law. Frankly too many COI for me to try to handle individually via talk pages so making this COIN. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

So basically your are being lazy and expecting this to done by someone else? Do the articles create a conflict of interest for you as well? I do not have the time either to figure it out but I will be surprised if there is not a conflict of interest on Evergreens part as well. Seems to me the editor came here to quick. Editor reports way to often when it is convenient for their purposes and has admitted that they did not take the necessary steps before bringing it here. 172.56.11.196 (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

5 editors is to many to address on talk pages? But bringing it here before doing that it is the right way of doing things? Unfounded accusations of COI is a better method? They may all be lawyers or not. They may all be from SD or not. They may all be Native Americans or not. Where is the COI other than they are improving an article at the same time. The Wiki Gestapo may jump on this but any non POV editor is left wondering WTH this is here for. 172.56.11.196 (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Further investigation has revealed edit war here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Frank_Pommersheim&action=history between COI initiator and one of the editors above. The plot thickens. Also Evergreen just prior recommended an article of same editor for speedy delete when it did not meet speedy delete criteria. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Nativecultnlaw#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Frank_Pommersheim I am now seeing a COI but it appears to have Boomeranged. 172.56.11.196 (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

And the CSD was denied. Not a big deal. Yes, 5 is a bit much to deal with COIs. All are new accounts related to South Dakota and editing on articles related to the law program. Your presences brings the smell of socks in here too. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

For note, IP editor warned for not agf and personal attacks EvergreenFir (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Restarting this discussion...

@172.56.11.196: I'm an admin and I keep an eye on COIN. If you want an admin's involvement, I'm here. I closed the thread on ANI because it was unnecessary (that was an opinion shared by another editor) but I can address whatever concerns you have. I will say this... Throwing around phrases like "lazy" and "Wiki Gestapo" aren't going to help your cause. Try to tone it down just a bit, please.

@EvergreenFir: I know you said on your user talk page that the edit-warring template was unwarranted because you hadn't violated 3RR. Well, you don't need three reverts for an edit war, generally if you revert someone twice I consider it an edit war (some admins may even consider a single revert an edit war, or at least the start of one). That being said, it wasn't much of an edit war, and I wouldn't block you for it.

As to the COI, EvergreenFir you have the burden to make your case here just as you would at any noticeboard. It says at the top of this board, "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." Have you tried that? It also says, "Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the What is a conflict of interest? list." Where is that evidence? The COI noticeboard isn't a place to dump a bunch of usernames and say "I think they may have a COI, someone figure it out".

Some of these editors may have username issues. Sdpolitico and Sdgovt are a little worrisome, though I'm not sure they violate WP:ORGNAME or WP:ISU. (The names seem to indicate interests; South Dakota politics and South Dakota government, not actual groups.) Logic4bott is worrisome because we don't allow usernames that end in the word "bot", even the extra "t" isn't enough in my eyes to clear up that confusion so I'll be having a talk with that account and may block it if they don't respond and/or request a username change. Lawschools and Nativecultnlaw also show their interests but not in a way that suggests an affiliation with a particular school or other organization so that doesn't concern me. Jungleneetwiki has absolutely nothing wrong with it whatsoever; including the word "wiki" in a name is fine, our policy only restricts names with "WMF" or "Misplaced Pages" or the names of other specific Wikimedia projects that imply some official connection with the WMF.

As to the COI itself, though, I'm seeing 6 different accounts that have an interest in the University of South Dakota School of Law. I see nothing that suggests an affiliation with it. Maybe they are students? Maybe their participation is part of a school project (which is something we not only allow, but encourage, and have WikiProjects to support)? What diffs do you have that show that any of these editors are claiming a connection to the school? Absent any of that, I don't see any actual evidence to suggest a real COI exists. If you look at my edit history, you'll see that there are certain articles I've spent a lot of time on, I used to be a major editor to the World of Warcraft game because I used to play it) and I've edited the iPhone article since it was pretty new (and I still edit it, though not as much as I once did). That doesn't mean I have a COI with either subject (and I don't, unless you count owning an iPhone to have a COI). So again, the burden of evidence is on you, EvergreenFir, and if you don't have anything I'm willing to say that there is no indication of a COI with any of these editors. -- Atama頭 16:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Atama: Thank you for the reply. My main concern was 6 new accounts all making similar edits and similar pages and the usernames indicates a COI. I frequently watch the user creation log and am never sure what to do when I see a worrisome/suspicious pattern like this. I didn't want to AIN or SOCK, so I thought here was best. But like you said, I don't have much evidence. I'll be sure to report here only if there's a more serious issue. That said, is there anything I should do in the future when I see patterns like this? Just watch them for a bit? Thanks again. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, watch them and see if anything they're doing is actually disruptive. Also, see if anything they're doing seems to declare a COI, such as someone saying on a user page, discussion page, or edit summary that they are affiliated with a person and/or group. And as I said, at least one of these editors clearly has a username that they shouldn't so it's not like I'm not doing anything with this group. But in the future, yes I'd say just keep an eye on them. Really, even if someone truly does have a COI that has been confirmed, at the most that just merits extra scrutiny unless and until their actions lead to some kind of disruption. -- Atama頭 17:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Sarah Morris

• Sarah Morris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Blackbow17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Webows111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vandayam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikigc23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• FcHQ10R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Inflst198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HighRise1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Parallaxcorp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It was established in a past discussion archived here that Blackbow17 had a COI at Sarah Morris. For reasons that I can no longer recall, the discussion of Vandayam and Webows111 got split off from that discussion. In any case, all three were monothematic WP:SPAs, and all three have ceased editing. Since then there has been a steady stream of other monothematic SPAs making a few edits each at the article, including Wikigc23, FcHQ10R, Inflst198, HighRise1 and, most recently, Parallaxcorp. This last is particularly interesting in view of remarks by the subject of the article in this document, where she says "I made this company called Parallax Corporation". Almost all of the 193 edits by Blackbow17 are to Sarah Morris (and all relate to that subject); among the six other articles edited by that account are Parallax (diff) and The Parallax View (diff). Thoughts, anyone? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution