Misplaced Pages

:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hamilton83 (talk | contribs) at 21:44, 2 May 2012 (→Vandalism of Jack Welch article: Responding to a question). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:44, 2 May 2012 by Hamilton83 (talk | contribs) (→Vandalism of Jack Welch article: Responding to a question)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) See also: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Paid Advocacy Watch Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    ShortcutsSections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge)
    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Misplaced Pages to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution procedural policy.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page.
     You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Additional notes:
    • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
    2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
    3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
    • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline.
    Are you in the right place?
    Notes for volunteers
    To close a report
    • Add Template:Resolved at the head of the complaint, with the reason for closing and your signature.
    • Old issues are taken away by the archive bot.
    Other ways to help
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

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

    Paul Burston

    I suspect the entry on Paul Burston probably constitutes a "puff-piece" with lists of "glowing" book reviews etc. There also appears to be some sort of editing battle going on.

    The only puffery I can see is a mention that the NYT had "praised" his first novel, which should be easy to fix. I don't see lists of "glowing" book reviews or other reviews, just a bibliography and 2 links to interviews. I've left a COI welcoming template for Paul Burston. -- Atama頭 16:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

    Maria Dinulescu

    Username indicates they are the person the article is about. Edits have added unsourced information and lots of promotional quotes. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

    Left a COI welcome message. -- Atama頭 13:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

    Vijay Antony

    Username indicates they are the subject of the article (fc stands for film composer). Edits have changed name, date and place of birth (all unsourced) and removed the References and External links sections. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

    I'd delete it per G11 but his body of work suggests that he really is notable so I'm reluctant to do it. The article itself is almost totally an advertisement. This article could be a poster child for why we discourage COI editing. -- Atama頭 14:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

    climate change capital

    I noticed that the Climate Change Capital article was registering an error regarding a major contribution to the article being closely linked to the company. So I tried to edit it, adhering to the best policy article and maintaining a netral point however i haven't had any luck in removing the warning.

    I guess somebody from the company tried to write the article in the first place.

    I've removed the COI tag since there's no accompanying discussion on the talk page to justify the tag. There isn't even a talk page to have a discussion on, yet. If that changes, the tag can be reinserted. -- Atama頭 14:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

    Ministry for Primary Industries (New Zealand)

    At least as far back as 2007, the NZ government admitted to Parliament that they were editing this article (the ministry had a different name back then). This is still an advertisement for how the ministry wants to be seen, and shamelessly lacking in NPOV. Orange Mike | Talk 14:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

    External links to the Encyclopedia of Life

    An editor who openly states on their userpage that they work for the Encyclopedia Of Life is adding EOL external links to quite a few articles. I'm unsure whether this is an issue that needs addressing from a conflict of interest point of view. There is also the issue as to whether such external links are contrary to WP:ELNO; I'm thinking they probably are, which might have some bearing on the COI question? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

    Please identify the user in question. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
    It is User:Csparr. Should she be informed of this question? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
    Here are the user links for Csparr:
    I have notified User:Csparr, who is Cynthia Sims Parr. She provides a link to her resume on her user page, and she is an actual biologist. The Encyclopedia of Life is connected with the Smithsonian Institution, but I have some doubt on whether it could be used here as a reliable source. Here is Gastropoda at EOL. Compare our Gastropoda article which has a lot more references and is more thorough. In my opinion the links to EOL should not be routinely added, but EOL has a lot of nice images which we unfortunately can't use here. Their copyright policy is explained here. Some of their content is CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, which we could use. We can't use CC-BY-NC. There are between 250 and 500 links to EOL already on Misplaced Pages. I notice that User:Magnus Manske created the {{eol}} template for linking to this Encyclopedia, and I'll notify him of this discussion. There may already be some collaboration between the WMF and the EOL, but I don't know if there is any notion that our articles should link to theirs. EdJohnston (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
    Encyclopedia of Life appears to be a redundant project to Wikispecies which, along with Misplaced Pages, is a wiki-based online project supported by the Wikimedia Foundation. See Signpost/2008-03-03. Misplaced Pages Signpost 2010-12-13 notes that the "Encyclopedia of Life (a project to document all known species, announced in 2007 and estimated to cost over $100 million) incorporates Misplaced Pages articles in its entries, and has them classified as "trusted" or "untrusted"." Also, Misplaced Pages got $3 million that is connected with Encyclopedia of Life.
    Throughout the years, academics working for the Encyclopedia of Life were vetting Misplaced Pages articles on biological species. See Signpost/2011-01-03. EOL Encyclopedia of Life verbatim copying CC-BY or CC-BY-SA is fine. For example, if a Misplaced Pages editor is "an expert on a subject" and having trouble getting other Misplaced Pages editors to accept his original research or even his less than popular point of view on a topic, there doesn't seem to be anything to prevent that expert editor from posting the material at Encyclopedia of Life, release it CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, and wait for someone else to verbatim copy it into Misplaced Pages. Also there doesn't seem to be anything to prevent Misplaced Pages editors from copying their Misplaced Pages material into the Encyclopedia of Life -- (content can be copied from Misplaced Pages into the EOL) -- to give more weight within Misplaced Pages to their expert opinion on a topic over another Misplaced Pages's expert opinion on a topic. Misplaced Pages supposedly isn't a reliable source for Misplaced Pages article yet, the Misplaced Pages articles listed at User:Magnus Manske/Books/EOL apparently were posted at and vetted as "trusted" by EOL (see Signpost), and those EOL articles apparently can be used as reliable sources within Misplaced Pages. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

    The Haskell Company

    Promotional puff piece, with coi editor. Theroadislong (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

    I think it would make a better starting point for a neutral non promotional article but that version also has problems.Theroadislong (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
    Notification made at User talk:Haskellnewmedia. —C.Fred (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't believe a revert would be appropriate since the data is very dated. COI editor has attempted to take out the puff, and replace with facts. please review and let me know what needs to be changed. Added references to important parts about influence in design-build model. Founder of the company was the original thought leader behind design-build. He founded the Design Build Institute of America. So thought that was an important factual point. A reference was added to document this fact. The leadership of the company takes public service as a responsibility, this is why this piece contains as much info as it does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haskellnewmedia (talk • contribs) 17:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
    The facts may have been updated, but the tone was significantly changed as well. What was written in a very neutral tone now has a very promotional sound to it. —C.Fred (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

    Edubb

    Jdobypr is the PR agent for Edubb, a band. The article is currently up for deletion. TeaDrinker (talk) 07:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

    User name blocked.--ukexpat (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

    EnCor Biotechnology Inc.

    Encor Biotechnology is a small Florida biotech firm. Our article is virtually entirely the creation of the company's founder and owner, Gerry Shaw, and much of the material is essentially word-for-word identical to the company's website (). Shaw has stated that he hopes to sell the company in the next year or two. The tone and style of the writing needs work—it's rather chatty and promotional-sounding. I suspect it's questionable whether or not the company meets WP:CORP's standards (the only independent sources so far are a couple of short articles from the Gainesville Sun, and Shaw reports annual sales of less than $1 million: quite a small company), though I haven't nominated the article for deletion.

    Shaw has been repeatedly removing a {{coi}} tag yesterday and today (he's technically in breach of the 3RR with these edits, though I'd rather not see the book thrown at him , , , ). He was notified on his talk page by another editor of Misplaced Pages's guidelines regarding editing with a conflict of interest a couple of weeks ago: . He has continued to remove the COI tag from the article even after I explained my concerns in response to his comments on the article talk page: Talk:EnCor Biotechnology Inc.#Conflict of interest.

    Some extra eyes would be appreciated. Am I off base in thinking that the {{coi}} tag is appropriate in this instance? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

    help me please an article damaging to my family

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    The Conflict of Interest issues applicable to this noticeboard have been resolved. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

    This article from the link above quepongo damages directly to my 3 year old daughter as she is called Zariel and I do not know where this information the author sack but just are not true stories please help to delete the article, I am desperate.. Enojada (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

    I guess the article you are referring to is Zariel I can't see any problem with it or why it should affect your daughter?Theroadislong (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
    Taking a look at Zariel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), it seems quite generic to me. If we have missed the point and you have specific concerns of a confidential nature, please raise them by writing to info-en@wikimedia.org rather than posting on public noticeboards. Thanks Fæ (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
    I suspect that the issue is that the OP's daughter has the same name as a character who is an archdevil. I am not sure there is much we can do about that. My name is frequently the name of English villains in movies...--ukexpat (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
    If the name Zariel bothers the parents, in most instances they can change the name of the child accordingly, or perhaps even vary the spelling slightly, such as adding another vowel or two r's or something like that. But us Wikipedians can not change the name Zariel since it was established as a character in pop culture and we have no control over that.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, our apologies to Enojada, but we can't delete an article simply because your daughter shares the same name as this fictional creature. Note that the fictional creature existed before your daughter, so I don't think there's really anything to be done at this point.JoelWhy (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
    I'm intrigued by this, and was wondering if we as a community, could look into renaming the article, as an act of goodwill? Perhaps something along the lines of Zariel (video game character). That way the child's parent will realise the article isn't about her daughter. Only a suggestion. Wesley☀Mouse 18:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
    Or, since the subject is of dubious notability, we could nominate it for deletion or turn it back into a redirect as it was when it was first created. I'm going to boldly do the latter. SmartSE (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
    I'd say that's fine if you think the article deserves to be a redirect because of its content, but not if it's being turned into a redirect because one guy complained. --Onorem♠Dil 21:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
    Actually, I didn't notice that references had been added. I'm against the redirect. --Onorem♠Dil 21:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
    The articles content has been completely lost, seems like a backwards step to me.Theroadislong (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

    I can fully understand where everyone is coming from on this. Just because a mother of a child has lodged a complaint about an article which shares the same name as her daughter, and the fact the article refers to that character as an archdevil; shouldn't be a reason for redirecting. However, we should also see things from the perspective of the distressed mother here. Put yourselves in the shoes of a parent... what if it was one of your children who has an article sharing the same name, which was referring to a fictional evil character; would you be a little upset about it? Only a parent would be able to understand where this mother is coming from. That was why I suggested to the community, perhaps a slight tweak of the article name as an act of goodwill, would be a reasonable compromise. Afterall, doesn't the community like to pride itself on compromising? Zariel (fictional character); or Zariel (videogame character) would be a justified compromise all round IMHO. Wesley☀Mouse 21:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

    Ok, should have maybe explained a bit more. First, I did that because I think it is the right thing to do regardless, and in many other cases it wouldn't be right to remove the content. It just so happened that this coincides with what Enojada wanted. The references in the article were shoddy, and when I followed WP:BEFORE it looked as if the subject failed WP:GNG, so reverting it back to a redirect seemed like the easiest way to deal with things. If I was too bold, then feel free to revert and I'll take the article to AfD, unless someone can come up with some more sources. SmartSE (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
    This is nonsense. I happen to have the same name as a well known film star and a rapist and murderer from near my city. I deal with it. (It's not hard.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    Everyone deals with things in different ways. Some people are thick skinned and can laugh off issues like this; but some can't, and we shouldn't be criticizing those people. Unless you're a parent yourself, you probably not understand where this parent is coming from; so to say you can "deal with it, it's not hard" is a little over-sensitive in my honest opinion. A simple compromise in a tweak of the article name isn't exactly going to cause that much harm all round is it now? Wesley☀Mouse 10:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    Ummm. I AM a parent. Next? And please show me the Misplaced Pages policy that says that we modify the obvious names for articles for super-sensitive, overly protective parents. HiLo48 (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    I assume in good faith that the bold and enlargement of the word AM was in humour? lol. But back to the matter at hand, Misplaced Pages and the community within prides itself on compromise and goodwill. A slight tweak of a name to keep everyone happy would be a noble act of goodwill. Many a times in the past, I've been snared at for having a slight resemblance to Nosferatu; and at the time yes it did upset me a little, but then I started to giggle it off. And nowadays it just gets monotonous hearing people say it. But this parent is obviously upset that an article has the same name as their daughter. Sure, the character Zariel was thought of well before this child. But to highlight that its a fictional character isn't exactly going to cause that much hassle is it? It would show the parent that the Misplaced Pages community do have a heart, and also stipulate that its a character and nothing to do with their daughter. Wesley☀Mouse 10:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    Oh dear. I almost give up when such an inability to communicate is on display. You obviously assumed that my opinion was as it was because I wasn't a parent. I have no idea why you thought that. The emphasis was to highlight firstly your false assumption about that, and secondly,the accompanying assumption that all parents would think just like you. Sorry, but the world is not that simple. I happen to disagree, and you may never understand why. HiLo48 (talk) 10:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    • "After all, doesn't the community like to pride itself on compromising? " Err... No, actually - the WP community always favours a howling lynchmob, based on the narrowest and least helpful interpretation of the sainted Policy that is possible. Just look at Jim Hawkins (radio presenter). 8-(
    In this case, I'd suggest, per Wesley Mouse, renaming (without redirect) to Zariel (video game character). It preserves that which should be preserved and it reduces the most obvious impact of a search on the name. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    Dungeons and Dragons isn't a video game. 86.** IP (talk) 10:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

    I was looking at this issue on a broader spectrum, and not aiming at you personally. I suppose my choice of words weren't the best at the time, and I do apologise for that. You did ask before if there where any policies about modifying things. Well I have found a few that may be worth a look at - WP:CENSOR, WP:DISC, WP:PROFANE, and WP:PG. From the way the OP has worded their distress, then for us as a community to ignore it isn't acting in good faith towards them as an individual. We shouldn't be behaving as the judge, jury, and executioner towards them, just because they are clearly upset over a minor thing. And if you read my other comments above too, you'll also note that I agree with the other view that an article shouldn't be altered on a whim - but as this may be a one-off incident, then perhaps as an act of goodwill, we should look into the possibilities of a small tweak. We want to encourage new users, not scare them off by saying "blah who cares, get a grip". Wesley☀Mouse 10:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

    If I might butt in; Dungeons and Dragons is a tabletop roleplaying game, which has a large, very detailed world, meant for creating adventures in. This article, so far as I can tell, is about one element put out there for people to hang their own stories on; it doesn't appear to have been used in any official stories, and, indeed, while mentioned on this page of the Dungeons and Dragons wiki, she doesn't have her own page there, and looking at Bel_(Dungeons_&_Dragons), it appears that, by the time Zariel was named, she had already been displaced from any notable role in the Dungeons and Dragons cosmology: "He was first identified as Avernus's ruler in Dragon #223 (November 1995), a role he retained in later appearances. That source explained that he had wrested control of the layer from the unnamed previous ruler (noted only to not be Tiamat) thousands of years ago. His predecessor was first named as Zariel in Guide to Hell (1999)."
    As such, while the original poster's reasoning for the article being a problem is completely fallacious, the article in question shouldn't be a standalone. However, it should be directed to Bel_(Dungeons_&_Dragons), where information about her appears. I shall do so.
    Now, admittedly, there's probably an argument that a number more Dungeons and Dragons articles on our wiki deal with aspects of the setting that have never rose to much prominence; but that's an argument to have another day, I think, per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.
    You may now return to much less geeky lives. 86.** IP (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks for the Zareil lesson, 'twas interesting. I applaud your suggestion though, nice one! So I suppose that closes this one down then? Are we all off to the pub for some beers and a few games of pool? I'll get the first round in. Wesley☀Mouse 11:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    No worries. It's not a part of D&D I'm expert on - rather before my time playing, to be honest - but I know enough to at least know that the sources for Zariel weren't a good guide to notability, and a quick google of "Zariel dungeons dragons" confirmed my suspicious, and led me to the target article. =) 86.** IP (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    Whether Misplaced Pages deletes the article Zariel, uses a redirect to a different article, or even writes an (incorrect) article saying that Zariel describes an angel -- regardless -- there will still be a linkage between the word Zariel and the fictional archdevil character out there in the Internet. Somebody googling Zariel will come across the meaning of the term regardless of what Misplaced Pages does. We here at Misplaced Pages can not do anything about this. It is out of our control. Our job is not to give or take away meanings of words. Misplaced Pages is not a clearinghouse for the meaning of names. Our job is to say what Zariel is, whatever that may be, and to examine the subject in the same way that we would examine any other subject in Misplaced Pages. Deleting information about this topic may hinder the needs of other people who wish to learn about this fictional character, possibly to play a video game; further, removing the Zariel information may hide the Zariel-archdevil link from future parents who are thinking of naming their child "Zariel" and they choose this name unaware of the full connotations; in such a case, removing the information could cause more problems in the future. Rather, what is necessary for us as Wikipedians is to follow Misplaced Pages's excellent rules. We must disregard superstitious requests. What IS under somebody's control is the decision by the parents about what they wish to name their child; IF the name Zariel really bothers them that much, they can simply change their daughter's name. Problem solved.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    I agree, but realise that we're talking about a character that, so far as I can find, has never had more than two pages written about her, ever (at least, in notable sources: playing Dungeons and Dragons is a little like writing fanfiction, so someone may have at some time used the idea - but that would add no more notability than me making up a story around... I don't know, the 73rd name in I Chronicles would make that person suddenly notable, if they aren't already.) For a third link I didn't put up yet: . The original poster's argument has long since ceased to be relevant, the non-notability of the subject is what's relevant 86.** IP (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    If the topic Zariel is non-notable, then follow proper channels such as WP:AfD or WP:PROD and let the community decide. What people have done here with these redirects is a violation of Misplaced Pages's rules.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    Which rule? 86.** IP (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    Applicable rule is here which says Sometimes an unsuitable article may have a title that would make a useful redirect. In these cases, deletion is not required; any user can boldly redirect to another article. If the change is disputed, an attempt should be made on the talk page to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect. I am one of those here disputing the redirect; please achieve consensus on the talk page of Zariel first before reducing it to a redirect.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Actually, on second thought, this is not an important enough issue for me to fuss with, and frankly I do not know much about such characters or games.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    There was no need for consensus before 86.** IP implemented a redirect. I don't see that you objected to implementing a redirect before the redirect was done. Even if you did object, that doesn't prevent someone from doing it in the first place (which is why our policy suggests that people can be bold with implementing redirects as a deletion alternative). -- Atama頭 13:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    It was actually me who reverted it back to a redirect, but as I stated above I'm happy to discuss it at AFD if someone feels it's necessary. (I wish so many people were this interested in discussing other article listed here!) SmartSE (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    One Horse Gap

    Article is looking more and more like an advert due to conflict of interest edits. Theroadislong (talk) 08:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

    Structured_Dynamics

    On his Talk page, the article notes he's the CEO of this company (plus, his user name is Mkbergman, and the CEO name listed on the page he created is Michael Bergman.) I suspect he is not aware of the COI policy, as he has made no attempts to hide this (but he did not overtly attempted to reveal his COI on the company page he created.)JoelWhy (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

    BeijingWest Industries

    Appears to be promotional material masquerading as a series of articles with some suspicious removal of material and amendments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mighty Antar (talk • contribs) 21:47, 1 May 20 (UTC)

    Vandalism of Jack Welch article

    Yesterday, I placed a message on the Talk page of Jack Welch's article regarding some current issues with the article content. A short while later I noticed there was some vandalism of the article by an anonymous editor, who added the following:


    And he is also a vegetarian and has involved in himself in the sale of barbituates.


    This vandalism is still in the article today and although I'd like to remove it, I have a conflict of interest with Jack Welch as a subject because I work for Strayer University, which runs the Jack Welch Management Institute. If anyone here is able to help remove this vandalism, that would be appreciated. Perhaps editors here could also be of assistance with my request on the Talk page there? Thanks in advance, Hamilton83 (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

    Just after I posted this, I checked the article again and see that the vandalism has now been reverted, so please disregard my note about that. However, if anyone here is able to help with my request on the article I would really appreciate it. Thanks, Hamilton83 (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    Outright vandalism—say, someone replacing the entire article with "I LOVE CHEESEBURGERS!!!!!!!!"—or libelous claims can generally be reverted by anyone at least once, even people with a close connection to the subject. When what's in your best interest is obviously also in Misplaced Pages's best interests, then there's no "conflict" of interests. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    Not just "generally" but "always" see Misplaced Pages:COI#Non-controversial_edits for details. Hamilton83, if you don't mind me asking, why did you think you couldn't edit it yourself? Was it due to all the recent coverage regarding PR editing of Misplaced Pages and Jimmy Wales' advice (WP:BRIGHTLINE)? Cheers SmartSE (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks for your replies, WhatamiIdoing and SmartSE. The reason that I came here rather than edit myself is that, although I'm aware of the guidelines, I would prefer not to make any edits to articles where I have a COI. It may seem overly strict to some, but my concern is to ensure that no editor has any cause to say that I (on behalf of my employer) have been acting improperly in editing articles where there is a conflict. I should also say, I've been receiving advice from User:WWB Too, who follows this "bright-line" rule too.
    I actually noticed the vandalism because I am trying to address—via a Talk page request—some other issues with the Jack Welch article: in particular, plagiarism of sources and inaccurate material. Again, while I'm aware that the guidelines say I could make these edits directly, I would rather involve other editors to ensure that any changes are neutral and acceptable to the Misplaced Pages community. If you're able to help here, I would appreciate it. Thanks, Hamilton83 (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

    Craig Graham

    Editor is a PR agent who works with subject of BLP. Lied about COI, then admitted it. WP:SPA. Disruptive editing on article - repeatedly removed AfD template despite warnings, refuses to edit other articles despite multiple COI warnings, repeatedly making controversial edits (peacock terms, unverified claims), will not admit to edits as IP (AGF by error) but still no dialogue, so cannot change behaviour. Widefox (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

    USACK

    Removal of templates, ownership of article, introduction of content copied or closely paraphrasing that of organization's website. WP:SPA, with intent only to promote the subject. 99.168.84.134 (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

    American Legislative Exchange Council

    I am not really familiar with how the COI/N works, but am posting a notice here hoping that a neutral editor could take a look at the American Legislative Exchange Council article and suggest action, or take action, regarding the series of edits by user 209.6.69.227 which may be COI editing. SaltyBoatr 21:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

    Categories: