Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Deskana (talk | contribs) at 14:18, 17 October 2013 (→https://en.wikipedia.org/MV_Seaman_Guard_Ohio: expand). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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:

CV used as reference and external link

A user (contribs) has been changing links to papers he apparently wrote concerning world population figures for Islam. The old links had rotted, and rather than updating them to working urls he has been linking instead to his curriculum vitae. He has done this with both external links (example) and inline references (example). His CV page does link to PDF versions of the papers in question. I have multiple concerns, some of which are beyond the usual scope of this noticeboard:

• The user has an apparent conflict of interest.
• Personal résumés or CVs are always inappropriate links for articles, whether used as references or as external links.
• It's not clear to me that the papers dealing with population statistics, which apparently were submitted as part of the user's participation in an academic conference, meet either WP:RS or WP:EL. (Note that it was an arts and humanities conference and that the papers' author is associated with his university's Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Computer Science.) I am disinclined either to update the urls properly or remove them without resolving these questions.

I initiated a discussion, which I have now copied onto my user talk page. I would be grateful for the opinions of other editors on the points I've raised above. Rivertorch (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• 1. I do not call this "Personal Resume" http://bigcat.fhsu.edu/~kettani/vita.html This is my CV: http://bigcat.fhsu.edu/~kettani/KettaniVita.pdf I linked to the former so that the reader has access to a bank of related papers to the topic in hand and the link is robust to changes, unlike a specific pdf file.
  2. The papers are published in international conferences, journals and a book (by esteemed publishing company) and acknowledged by researchers. FYI: a statistician/engineer can publish in social science and humanities topic, when applying their skills to such areas. So now, by you pointing such insinuations, it begs the question if you have a conflict of interest in editing such page. May be you have an issue with the topic itself! (Islam/Muslims). Hkettani (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm more than willing to assume that you're adding the link in good faith. That you're unwilling to assume good faith in return is unfortunate, but so be it; my editing record is public and will, I believe, withstand any amount of scrutiny with regard to conflicts of interest on any topic. I'm afraid the bottom line is that the link is improper and the pdf documents you propose I link instead do not conform to either WP:EL or WP:RS (the relevant guidelines for external links and reliable sources, respectively). If you wish to challenge my opinion in this regard, I suggest you open a new thread at WP:ELN or WP:RS, two noticeboards that fortunately are busier than this one. Before you do that, you may wish to consult WP:THREAD to learn how to indent your talk page replies. Rivertorch (talk) 04:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
    • 1. I checked the links you mentioned and I still do not see why you keep revoking "conflict of interest"? or "reliable sources"? The work was published in peer-reviewed international conference and was first included by another user who I do not know.
      2. I see you got offended by my response to your point (3) which was nonsense (and I explained why). This led you to the deletion of the article and replacing it by "reference needed". Letting your emotions affect your decision is not objective editing and is a dis-service to WP community.
      3.By the way, I did not add the reference (which I authored) to that article, and it was added several years ago. I only updated the link since I was aware of the existence of a new link (sincere help to WP readers).
      4. No one agrees with your decision, and thus I demand that you undo the deletion. Out of respect, I will not redo, but will ask you to undo.
      5. While you should be commended for your oversight on some WP articles, I believe you got this one wrong. Hkettani (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
      • While I was taken aback by your response, which ended in a demonstrably false insinuation based purely on surmise, I assure you that my actions concerning the link to your CV have not been affected by my emotions. Now, at the risk of repeating myself, if you wish to challenge my opinion in this regard, I suggest you open a new thread at WP:ELN or WP:RS, two noticeboards that fortunately are busier than this one. Before you do that, you may wish to consult WP:THREAD to learn how to indent your talk page replies. In the meantime, thank you for not reverting. Rivertorch (talk) 04:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
        • If it hurts you to add a link from my homepage, the papers are available publicly at http://www.ohio.edu/orgs/muslimst/downloads/World_Muslim_Population_2010.pdf and http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.180.3753&rep=rep1&type=pdf
          As you can tell, my WP editing skills are not sophisticated, as I do not edit that often But it is frowned upon to take a reliable source out without replacing it with another reliable source, then claim "ref is needed!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkettani (talk • contribs)
• As an author on the URL linked sources (example 1) (example 2) cited by Rivertorch above, User:Hkettani has a close personal or business connection with those references. The URL's posted by Hkettani are hidden behind text that does not truthfully inform the reader where the link leads. The links lead to an individual/personal web page having Curriculum Vitae at the top with little to no relation to the topic of the external link. bigcat.fhsu.edu/~kettani/vita.html is a general site that has information about a variety of subjects not related to the Misplaced Pages articles and should not be linked from the articles. See WP:LINKSTOAVOID. The reason give by Hkettani for the URL change is "the reader has access to a bank of related papers to the topic." There is no evidence that this is an aim of Misplaced Pages:External links. Hkettani edits advanced outside interests more than they advances the aims of Misplaced Pages. Hkettani has a Conflict of Interest with regard to URLs used in Misplaced Pages references in which Hkettani is an author and is required to comply with Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest with regard to URLs used in Misplaced Pages references to which Hkettani is an author. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Correct on all points. I'll reiterate what I said on my talk page: I'm willing to help with linking directly to the papers, either as external links or as references, if consensus is reached at the external links noticeboard or the reliable sources noticeboard that they're appropriate to link to. Rivertorch (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Jreferee: your point is outdated, and already well-taken from Rivertorch. The issue at hand now that Rivertorch is disputing the "reliability" of the source (certainly with no valid excuse) and decided single-handedly to delete the source, all reference to it, and mentioned "ref needed" as if the facts in the WP article are disputed. This is done after he got offended when I challenged his insinuations about the authenticity of the articles. Making his actions look more personal retaliation than objective editing. Hkettani (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, removing references as not being a reliable source and COI externally linking to an individual/personal web page are two totally different issues. Rivertorch, in this diff, you linked to this COI discussion to claim the source is not reliable. There is no basis for that. You also have a number of edits where you removed Dr. Houssain Kettani's publications from articles but stated that you were removing the URL. Removing or revising the URL to Dr. Kettani's web page per the COIN results is fine. However, the remainder of the inline references need to be left intact since the COIN discussion does not extend beyond the URL issue. Removal of the remainder of the inline reference requires more. If any of Dr. Kettani's external link references are removed, the edit summary needs to be more specific as to why. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
      • This is getting rather complicated, and it doesn't help that the discussion is happening in two places. Let me try to sort it out as simply as I can. I've removed the external links (which were variously in "External links" and "See also" sections) per WP:EL. Relevant criteria are nos. 1, 4, 11, and 13 under WP:ELNO, as well as the wording of WP:ADV. I decided to remove the references as well, primarily because they contain no valid urls for verification but also because they appear to be primary sources where the use of secondary sources would be indicated, and I was not confident that they were fully compliant with the provisions of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I have informed user Hkettani that I am willing to be persuaded on that point and am willing to reinsert the references (not the external links) if consensus determines that they do meet WP:RS. The offer stands. I'm also willing to be the one to open a new discussion at WP:RSN; although I think the spirit of WP:BURDEN tends to put the responsibility for that on the user favoring inclusion, I'm not one to stand on ceremony. Rivertorch (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Peter Pakeman

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

This article about a guy who played soccer 30 years ago reads like a resume... take a look at the version before I just edited it, which was even worse.

I can't say any more because of the red instruction at the top of this page! Which is confusing... Demon Cat >:3 (meow!) 15:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I may have broken that rule with my edit summary too :( sorry... can an admin fix it? Demon Cat >:3 (meow!) 15:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The edit summary can't be fixed, but I've seen worse. Read over Edit summary dos and don'ts and that should take care of that. As for the article, it visually is hard on the eyes due to so many words using upper case first letters, which seems to try to show subject importance through formal event name dropping rather than his life events. Nice photos, but they do not appear to be free license photos. If the topic does not meet WP:NSOCCER, then a trip to AfD should fix the matter. -- Jreferee (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

There's no diffs posted showing a direct connection between Peter Pakeman and User:205.207.78.4, User:Xave2000, User:InPerpetuity, or User:184.147.37.128. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Jreferee. I was unsure about mentioning those users but I guess it's okay since you've done it. I can't prove any direct connection with the named users but the version of the article before my edit said that Pakeman works for the Canadian Health Information Management Association. 205.207.78.4 belongs to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, so it seems to me that this is a case of autobiography. I see you have also done AfD and PUFC listings, thank you for that. Demon Cat >:3 (meow!) 10:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

This file you tagged was uploaded by Xave2000 then added to an article 28 minutes later by InPerpetuity, I think it is clear they are the same person. Should this go to sockpuppet investigation? Demon Cat >:3 (meow!) 01:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

"Both of them" seem to be trying to blank the article and it will probably be deleted so I imagine this situation will resolve itself without needing to be investigated. Demon Cat >:3 (meow!) 10:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Diane Harper COI editing

It appears as though Diane Harper has discovered her Misplaced Pages page and has created an account whose only contribs are to that page: This isn't really a big deal. The reason I am posting here is that she may have created a sock account to make similar edits (i.e. edits which aim to make Harper look good). That account is User:Cassandraofdelphi, which has also only ever edited the Diane Harper page. User:Softlavender already posted on Cassandra's talk page warning him/her, and I would like to ask for an admin to see if one account is a sockpuppet of the other. Jinkinson (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

This noticeboard is something of a ghost town at present. If you seriously suspect disruptive sockpuppetry, you can request that a CheckUser investigate by filing a report at WP:SPI. Rivertorch (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Much of the written account of Diane Harper's life in the Misplaced Pages Diane Harper article is not independent of Diane Harper. The references in the article in which she is an author are not independent of Diane Harper and the information sourced to those references should be removed from the article. If what is left is not enough for a stand alone biography, then AfD should be considered. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee, this is not the place for such complaints. You've already made this observation, and been answered, on the article's Talk page. Softlavender (talk) 08:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Now another sock/meatpuppet, User:Popcorn66, is making the same edits to the article. Might be time for an SPI for all three users and whatever other socks pop up in the meantime. Then again, she could be using various computers and the SPI checkuser will not show identical sources, but I think it's worth filing. Softlavender (talk) 08:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Softlavender, I have already opened an SPI: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Dianemharper. I didn't request Checkuser though, maybe I should have. Jinkinson (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Protocol

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

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation.

A friend asked me to create a wiki page about himself, and I tried to explain that this was not ethical.

Here's his response:

As you might know, for creating an article, Misplaced Pages recommends (in Tip number 5 of their site: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Starting_an_article): "Please do not create pages about yourself". For this reason, as I explained to you in my e-mail of 30th July, "perhaps it will be more appropriate and have more credibility if is sent in by a third person - somebody with great international respectability … like you!" I thought of you because you are a person that has been in professional contact with me (and not just my buddy) for over 17 years and who knows well my professional development over the years. If you insist on calling this request "unethical", then I admit I am completely confused.

My view is that this is a no-brainer. COI says "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family or your close friends. If you or they are notable enough, someone else will create the article. " https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:COI

But what should I do if he continues? Do I rat him out? What are my options and what's the protocol? Planeta (talk) 18:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• If you believe that he is notable, ie that there has been significant coverage about him by independent third party reliably published sources then you can use Misplaced Pages:Requested articles or WP:AFC to suggest that a someone without a conflict of interest start an article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • and then you should follow up with an assessment of how close you want to be to someone who presses you to do things that you find unethical. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The inverse of Ignore all rules means that if you do not think something would be a good contribution to the encyclopedia, then don't do it, even if you can't find a specific rule. Andrew 15:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

WR Entertainment Group

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

User has made edits relating to WR Entertainment Group. The edits appear to be promotional, or at least POV, in nature. The user's name is the acronym for the group the user is editing about. Reported the username to UAA, but was directed here (though it still suggests WP:ISU imho). This is my first time filling out a COI report, so I apologize if I have made a mistake. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

User should be permabanned as per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.75.111.162 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Claire Perry

• Claire Perry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• ChristopherJones119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GC88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Claire Perry is a British MP. They have been active in calling for tighter controls on teh interwebs. They also had an embarrassing episode recently where their website was hacked and they then chose to publicly blame a prominent political blogger for this in a way that has been widely seen as libelous. A sourced section to this effect is on their article. The crucial point is not "politician makes gaffe" or "politician favours control/censorship/whatever", but the combination of "politician dictating technical policy demonstrates personal ignorance of subject".

Several edits to this article are from single-purpose ChristopherJones119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also the name of one of their staff (a moment's web searching). After a COI note to that account, today we're seeing similar spin control from a new account GC88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Before this turns into edit-warring, I'd appreciate some more eyeballs on the situation. My regular pet troll (who I think is from Wikipediocracy, possibly Vigilant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / Vigilant@Wikipediocracy, as he's done it before) has already emailed me to threaten to have me blocked for outing ChristopherJones119 (talk · contribs) as Christopher Jones. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist. You might consider requesting semi-protection, which would force new SPAs to use the talk page and might head off a potential edit war. Rivertorch (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Requesting help at Accenture

Hello, I'm currently working on behalf of Accenture to make some improvements to their Misplaced Pages article. I've raised some issues over at Talk:Accenture, and although there's been a discussion between myself and two editors, the changes haven't yet been implemented (despite reaching consensus about one of the issues). It's been a couple of weeks now, but the editors don't seem to have had time to come back to the page. Because of the rather involved discussion on the Talk page over there, I'll briefly summarize the two remaining issues here:

• What to do with the Principal subsidiaries section of the article. This list seemed to be acting as a magnet for various bits of incorrect information. After discussion, the solution that arose via consensus was that:

• The Principal subsidiaries section be removed
• A link be inserted into the External links section of the article that points to the complete list of subsidiaries in Accenture's SEC filings
• The one subsidiary that has a Misplaced Pages article, Avanade, remain in the article, but be moved to the History section, under Initial public offering, with language like the following:

Also in 2001, Accenture became the majority owner of Avanade, an IT consulting subsidiary it initially formed in 2000 as a joint venture with Microsoft.

Again, there seems to be consensus amongst myself, FeralOink, and Stalwart111 that this is the best way to move forward, but neither has yet had a chance to make the changes. As an editor with a COI, I don't edit directly, so if someone would be willing to help here, I'd really appreciate it.

• How to describe Tiger Woods' role in Accenture's advertising. Although there was some discussion here, we did not reach consensus. Currently, Tiger Woods is referred to as a "celebrity spokesperson" in the article. I feel that this overstates Woods' role and is potentially confusing to readers, and that it would be more accurate to simply state that he appeared in Accenture's advertising. Among the two editors involved in discussions, one seemed to be amenable to a change along these lines, while the other thought the current language acceptable.

If anyone here has time to take a look at the discussions, and, if everything looks okay, roll out the change re: the principal subsidiaries, and also weigh in on the Tiger Woods issue, I'd sure appreciate it. Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This is  Done. ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 12:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

School District 63 Saanich

• School District 63 Saanich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sd63socialmedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Username and page edited share the same (but abbreviated) name. Mlpearc (powwow) 04:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Art Plural Gallery

• Art Plural Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• CorneliaHTang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vijayaartplural (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Two accounts that have edited almost exclusively the article on Art Plural Gallery and those on artists represented by the gallery, such as Dane Patterson, Tian Taiquan, Fu Lei (Artist), Qiu Jie, Bernar Venet, Thukral & Tagra, Fabienne Verdier and so on. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Establishing the conflict is aided by diffs/links showing a connection between the user behind the user name and the topic of the article. I don't find a COI at this point in time. CorneliaHTang has 108 of the 168 revisions to the Art Plural Gallery article and her talk page shows a desire to contribute, but that she might not be aware to how to go about it. I'll post a note on her talk page. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Right, 100% agreed on the first point. But I can't actually do that, can I, as to do so would be outing? As for the talk page note, many thanks, yours is much better than the one I left her. Let's see if she takes any more notice of yours than she did of mine. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The diffs/links would be those posts that the person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on/in Misplaced Pages. The Art Plural Gallery article is not a troubled article. Vijayaartplural has few edits and the information notice on Cornelia's talk page should be sufficient for now. If she continues along the same lines as before, WP:NPOVN may be a better noticeboard to post at. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm bewildered by your response. Those diffs you mention would only be available in the case of a declared conflict of interest. Here you have two people who are very obviously employees of the gallery (or masquerading as such) adding wholly promotional content about it and about the artists it represents, vast chunks of it lifted direct from the gallery's own website. The fact that they have not declared their conflict of interest does not make it less one. Or is it OK to edit when you have a conflict of interest as long as you don't actually come out and admit it? I don't think so. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. This discussion is to determine whether COIN is going to declare that an editor has a COI for a specific article. CorneliaHTang and Vijayaartplural do not yet have a COIN declared COI. Part of determining whether to declare a COI is to establish through diffs the editor's connection to the topic (see the top of this noticeboard). Editors may post in Misplaced Pages things like ... I work at ..., I maintain a website on behalf of ..., I'm good friends with the owner of ... . Diffs to such posts help COIN determine whether to declare a COI. The Art Plural Gallery article appears to have been cleaned up. CorneliaHTang received a notice and has not posted contrary to that notice. Is there something else that needs to be done? -- Jreferee (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yassmin Ghandehari

Hi, I have recently drafted an article in my sandbox on Yassmin Ghandehari, an Iranian-born interior designer and patron of the arts in the UK. In the interests of transparency I am declaring that I work for Bell Pottinger, a UK public relations agency, and that Yassmin Ghandehari is my client. Please see my talk page for more information. Feedback on the draft article with a view to an AfC submission would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks. GATalbot (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've responded on your talk page. Thanks for being transparent about your connection! --Drm310 (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Gareth, how did you come about writing a draft article about Yassmin Ghandehari? For example, did he contact Bell and the job was assigned to you? -- Jreferee (talk) 01:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Optical Express: more eyes please

I would be much obliged if experienced editors (especially admins) from here could add Optical Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to their watchlists and keep an eye on the article and its talk page. There's a slow-moving but long-running conflict between editors with opposing conflicts of interest, and I don't have the time at the moment to monitor things as closely as I'd like. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like some editors appear to be obtaining negative, but sourced, event information (possible foreclosure, purportedly not closing a deal when they said, closed a subsidiary, pre-tax loss, owner resigned from the board of another company) and adding it to the article with some being removed by other editors. You might want to cross post at WP:NPOVN. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I notice that two editors are specifically cited for COI at the very top of the talk page. Has their conflict of interest been admitted or demonstrated? Coretheapple (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The first one has on their user page. The second one has not declared a connection. --Drm310 (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd say that the first user's disclosure is completely inadequate, as it fails to indicate on the article talk page that he works for the company. The second editor's conflict disclosure is confusing, as it does not indicate what his conflict is. Coretheapple (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bangladeshi Cyclists

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bangladeshi Cyclists (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• drabiralam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The sorcerer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ridwanq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alokito.bd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They are members of the group or sockpuppet of a single user. Rahat | Message 11:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You do realize that now you are going for personal attacks on each of these individuals? You have been asked for clarification but you have declined to clarify either point. You have made some of your own revisions which are most welcome. But your only focus is on deleting the article. Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drabiralam (talk • contribs) 11:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I have handed the issue to administrators. It's not my duty to decide the article's deletion or keeping. An administrator's intervention is not a personal attack. An administrator will decide and check for shockpupettry. - Rahat | Message 12:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Without even bothering to go in a discussion with the creators of the page, you straightway nominated the page for a speedy deletion. Ridwanq (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

No matters who created the article. It's not his/her own property. Deletion or keeping of article will be according to policy and guideline of wikipedia. - Rahat | Message 16:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The users are more likely to be meatpuppets than sockpuppets. AFDs are closed according to the arguments made for or against deletion and are not a simple vote. As other established editors have pointed out already, the organisation appears to be notable so accusations of COI are a moot point. SmartSE (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Rebecca Housel article

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

User:EmpressMatilda posted a request at the Help Desk for assistance with an article of which she created and is the subject. The request is here. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi EmpressMatilda. To determine which one image to add to an infobox, we can use WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE, specifically WP:LEADIMAGE. I listed both the images at graphics lab. Once they do their magic, we should be able to figure out which image to use in the infobox by applying what it says at WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE. Your rights relative to the article about you generally are listed at WP:BLPEDIT. After reviewing these, please list what ever you would like assistance with. Thanks! -- Jreferee (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• EmpressMatilda has not responded and the conclusion is straightforward. EmpressMatilda has a COI with the Rebecca Housel topic and I posted a notice on her talk page informing her of this. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

MV Seaman Guard Ohio

• MV Seaman Guard Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jmartin77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Comeonftw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 81.240.180.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I understand that Misplaced Pages is not a place for business wars, but our competitors are using it as a place to hold such wars with us. I represent a company named AdvanFort, and this article was written to attack our company’s integrity, because it contains many irrelevant and untrue statements.

It is an article about MV Seaman Guard Ohio yet it contains data about “Issues involving AdvanFort”; “2009 Revoked Corporate Licence”; “2011 Allegations of contact mismanagement in Estonia”; “2011 Arrest of Advanfort Texas and Advanfort Alaska”; “2013 guilty plea to illegal acquisition of firearms." Most of this article is not about the subject matter. Most of it is about our company, not the ship, however, most of it is untrue, and we have documentation to dispute every piece of information that has been written about us.

I ask you to look into the author/editor and question their motive. They surely are in the Maritime industry. I urge you: don’t allow your website to be used for business wars as these people are using it. Jmartin77 (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I've expanded this report to include you, Jmartin77, as you appear to have some affiliation to the subject of the article. So yes, since we're not for "business wars", I suggest you stay away from the article. I will likely be cutting the article down heavily, as right now some of it is reads like a PR piece for the vessel, and some of it reads like an angry rant against the owners. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Todd Bishop (2 October 2006). "Seattle tech firm gets big, quietly". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Retrieved 17 September 2013.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution