Misplaced Pages

In further investigating how much EInsiders has been used on Wiki especially in regards to the .jpg photos, it looks like Wiki is actually pulling bandwidth from Einsiders for those photos some of which go back to 2002. Is this correct? Wiki is actually stealing bandwidth from EInsiders but won't allow EInsiders to be used as a reliable source??? I am floored.Pharaway (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This is discussed on your talk page as it's unrelated to the COI issues. Smartse (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually it may indeed be related since most of those were added by Pharawy

RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 23:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(indent) I'm coming in late into this debacle but since a lot of article are popping up on my watchlist and pointing to this discussion, I'd like to know if anyone plans to actually look for additional sources instead of just up and removing this link because one person appears to have a COI and decided to spam it throughout Misplaced Pages. I can certainly understand if the links the user(s) added were removed but I'm not sure I understand why all the links are being removed. I actually don't think I've cited the website in quite some time, but not all of us that have included the link have a COI or have spammed it throughout articles. Some of the links have been in place for quite some time and to my knowledge, no one has deemed the site unreliable (if there is a consensus that states otherwise, my apologies). If it's not, I think some of the links should be retained because in some cases, no additional sources can be found or else I would've cited something else. Pinkadelica 05:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Pinkadelica, please cite examples of your last point, that "in some cases, no additional sources can be found or else I would've cited something else." This would be very helpful to your point, and to the discussion here.842U (talk) 05:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Pinkadelica and 842U. To recap: there are two issues in play. One is being dealt with here: user Pharaway and their possible COI. The second is whether EInsiders is a reliable source. I think i've linked the second issue twice to date, but here it is again: please see Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#EInsiders.com. My strong view, and that of some others, is that EInsiders does not meet WP standards for reliability. None of us should be using it. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the articles, not all, are articles that really don't get much traffic, so I'm sure that's why this has gone unnoticed for quite a while. Come to think of it, a lot of those articles that she created just to add her website on could probably be removed, per NOTABILITY. Pinkadelica, please give some examples and I will do my best to find some sources for it, since I'm the one that removed it. Thanks. —Mike Allen 05:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point, WP:BIO requires multiple reliable sources to have mentioned someone, therefore if only einsiders has details on them, they shouldn't be included in the encyclopedia. Smartse (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, Pinkadelica: that an editor doesn't have sources to substantiate an article is prima facia evidence that the subject of the article isn't likely NOTABLE.842U (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, User Pharaway has received their REFSPAM Final Warning for Refspam. They deleted the warning from their discussion page, and I reposted it, given the gravity of the situation. A link to that repost is here.842U (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry, again? In removing the offending refspam, there seem to be some obvious contenders for an SPI. I noticed some similarities with this user creating a few articles and using einsiders.com. User Maplewoodrive created this article, similarly Maïa Simon, the editor having been banned as a sockpuppet here. In other words, there is a long history of users refspamming with Einsiders.com. An SPI seems more important.

Not been mentioned as far as I can see but the IP 65.6.145.96 recently made some edits on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard, seems to clearly be Pharaway (forgotten to log in). This IP's edit's are related to EInsiders and seems to have also been the IP of the original EI account as two edits were direct follow ups to edits made by that account . Though thought I'd point this out, nothing concrete but certainly casts doubts on his claims of no COI. Rehevkor ✉ 17:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh..I'm not going to sit and ask a load of questions or argue because it's clear you guys have taken it upon yourself to remove the link because one (or multiple people, I don't know) have taken it upon themselves to spam this link all over the place. If this is the supposed consensus for the link being unreliable, so be it. Pinkadelica 18:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC

I reported Pharaway back in December to AIV, and asked if the website should be blacklisted. The admin said he didn't think so, just warn. Is this grounds to blacklist the website now? —Mike Allen 20:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the best way to proceed with information that essentially proves a conflict of interest. Should this information be emailed to an administrator? Because it's clearly inappropriate to 'out' a person here. This information will potentially block references from ever appearing on Misplaced Pages from the source of interest, and block certain editors from editing. Or do we just lay it out for everyone to see?842U (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I recommend caution since we would not want your efforts to backfire. There is no rule saying that having a COI is bad – there is just a guideline indicating acceptable methods for COI editors to follow (the ideal being that they only add suggestions to article talk pages). I suspect that admin action would only follow actual disruptive editing, such as repeatedly ignoring consensus. If someone turns up and starts re-adding links to the website, I think the next step would be to file a report at WT:WikiProject Spam. Johnuniq (talk) 07:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Just an FYI: The IP address referenced above shows as located in Atlanta, GA; which also happens to be where the headquarters for this company is: http://www.brightnightmedia.com/about-us/who-we-are.html - who just so happens to own einsiders.com - which may - or may not - be entirely coincidental. I would bet on not coincidental though.

RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 07:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with what Johnuniq wrote above in theory, what would cover changing existing refs to einsiders.com? Would that be some sort of policy violation for pushing some sort of agenda or using Misplaced Pages as a tool to increase his/her company's awareness or search engine rankings? Asking because I am rather new at this and interested in the answer in general as well as how it applies to this specific situation.

Best,

RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 08:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a guideline at WP:LINKSPAM, and editors are routinely blocked for violating it. -- Atama頭 16:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Atama! :-) Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 16:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Brandon Paris

Brandon Paris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I found this article today and tagged it-for obvious reasons-but also noticed that its likely the subjects wife/girlfriend, Reneelavigueur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), created teh page and has been main contribtor. _{(unsigned comment by ]) Smartse (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)}

• It's not just likely, she actually added the phrase "Brandon married Renee Lavigueur in July 28th, 2007. Renee has also been involved with the marketing of Brandon's music to this present date." to the article herself. See this diff: . This looks very clear to me. Smocking (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

We should assume good faith on Reneelavigueur's part, they have noted on their userpage that they are here to write about Brandon Paris but not to promote him. Unfortunately there are problems related to their editing though as they are a single purpose account and the articles created have original research and some are not about notable subjects. The bio is now at AfD here. They have also created a number of articles about songs which clearly do not meet WP:NSONG so I've proposed these for deletion. Smartse (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• One the one hand g Good faith is a reasonable assumption, especially because the COI is so easy to see. She's editing under her real name and makes their marriage clear in the article (although not on her user page). It's also largely written in a remarkably neutral tone for an article by a single purpose account with such a major conflict of interest. On the other, I just found out she also tried to turn a good and much more notable article about Shaggy's hit It Wasn't Me into one about another song with same title by Brandon's band . Although she just might not have known how to make a disambiguation page, that's still pretty inexcusable. Smocking (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That was in August 2008, and was immediately reverted by Cluebot. It looks like an honest mistake by a newbie to me - especially as the song wasn't even called "it wasn't me". Smartse (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Point conceded as she also said it was a mistake on her talk page (didn't see that before as it looked like part of the warning), so I guess she deserves the benefit of the doubt. Sorry for the bad faith on my part. The notability of some songs is a discussion for the AfD. Smocking (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Klar sagen

Klar sagen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Just happened to notice an edit by Klar sagen(contribs) to the Medical Imaging article that added a link to http://www.snark09.com/. In addition to placing more of such links on other pages, this user almost exclusively and regularly (>20 occurences) adds references to one particular book on medical imaging (Herman, G. T., Fundamentals of computerized tomography: Image reconstruction from projection, 2nd edition, Springer, 2009), which mentions this piece of software according to . www.snark09.com is affiliated with the Discrete Imaging and Graphics Group of CUNY as evident from the link at the bottom and it appears that Gabor T. Herman is as well . This was probably done in good faith, but it still constitutes refspamming and clear WP:COI continuing despite an earlier warning. Smocking (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I was invited to comment here by User:Smocking. I had previously posted at this noticeboard regarding much the same sort of issue. At the time, the user's substantial contributions consisted exclusively of adding references to books by Gabor Herman to a swathe of articles related to medical imaging. The complaint was ultimately dismissed because no one could find a conflict of interests. Although I do rather object to the summary manner in which the original complaint was dismissed: adding references exclusively to the publications of a single author is a fairly clear indication that one has a COI, is it not? I did not pursue the matter further at the noticeboard, although I would like to comment for the purposes of this discussion that "Klar Sagen" is almost certainly a pseudonym, meaning "say clearly" in German. So the fact that "Klar Sagen" is not the name of the author of the added references means nothing. In connection with my own dispute, I ultimately sought outside input from User:Billlion, an established Misplaced Pages editor whose opinion I trust, and who also at one time or another (I believe) worked on the mathematics of medical imaging. He assured me that the edit to the Radon transform article was a good one. Perhaps someone should again solicit his input, since I am sure he can comment more authoritatively on the overall suitability of these references than I can. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

About the usefulness of his references and comments: I happen to be a graduate student and also used to work in another institute in the same field. Note that I do not have a COI as I do not work there any more since December. It's rather hard to check the references as he never mentions on what page of this 300-page (google books: ) his claims or reason for adding the reference are supposedly verified. In practically the only non-trivial edit beyond adding the suspected refspam, he (after adding the ref to another phrase) outright deleted a sentence that outlined a major limitation (speed) of Iterative reconstruction without much explanation . He only said in the edit summary that it is outdated. As far as I know, this is still a limitation and it is frequently reported as such. In fact, a PhD in the SPECT group of the aforementioned institute always ran these computations over the weekend! There are some newer algorithms that can improve things, but they have drawbacks and none of them are nearly as fast as traditional filtered backprojection. If an algorithm exists for doing this as fast as FBP with all the benefits of iterative reconstruction, making this disadvantage "outdated", I would certainly like to know about it. Gabor T. Herman would definitely know better than to just dismiss this; he really is an established member of the field. This looks more like a student or PhD of his. In any case his affiliation to the Discrete Imaging and Graphics Group of CUNY seems glaringly obvious. Such a COI is just as severe as a corporate COI in my opinion, because groups and institutes often receive funding based on how much their publications are cited. It is also an increasingly widespread practice among researchers to use Misplaced Pages to get a quick glance at a concept and look for related scholarly literature, which may then in turn be quoted in scientific publications. Although it is strictly prohibited to cite without reading the source, such things are alarmingly common and rarely caught by reviewers (New Scientist reported on this trend in 2002 ). Smocking (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to get some clarity (no pun intended, for speakers of German): is the evidence of affiliation to the CUNY group just based on the exchange at Medical imaging: ? Besides referencing the book by Herman, are there any other edits that would suggest an affiliation with the CUNY group? Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Like I explained in the first edit, www.snark09.com (proprietary software that Klar sagen has linked from[REDACTED] several times) is affiliated to the CUNY DIG group as clearly evident from the phrase "Page designed by Joanna Klukowska for Discrete Imaging and Graphics Group (DIG)" on the footer of its webpage (http://www.snark09.com/). His other edits consist mainly of adding the aforementioned references to many different articles and editing Gabor Herman (yes, the very same CUNY DIG researcher), an article full of peacock words. His only edits not directly related to the CUNY DIG group are a few minor changes to Marilyn Kirsch. There might also be a COI with her, but that is not the subject here and there's no evidence beyond her also living in New York. Smocking (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to add that Gabor Herman is the head of the CUNY DIG group, according to his bio . I've copied all these external links from contributions of Klar sagen, so this does not fall under WP:OUTING. Smocking (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible COI?

• DominatorMatrix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Apparently I am violating COI. See here. I do not believe that I am violating COI, but this serves as a second opinion. Dominator Matrix 11:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Self-published blog that the owner wants to use as a reference in an article about a product - not only is it a clear COI, it also fails RS by a mile. The author is not an acknowledge expert in this area, the blog has not been highlighted anyway as reliable and the use in that article is not to document claims about the owner of the blog (which is one of the narrow exceptions for the use of such a blog - for supporting factual claims about the owner and not in a way that is self-serving). --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If we're talking about this as a source, agreed 100% with Cameron Scott. It's not a reliable source as defined by WP:RS, and it's a clear COI for a blog's owner to add a link to it (unless there's a consensus that it's within content polices). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It would never fly under any of our exceptions about blogs because he is using the blog to make claims about a third-party. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine choose as you may. I am no longer active here so I couldn't care less. --Dominator Matrix 22:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

UShareSoft

UShareSoft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - unnotable company currently under AfD

Catherinenuel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - UShareSoft's marketing coordinator and cross-wiki spammer

The following two are suspected meatpuppets (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Catherinenuel). All accounts only made edits related to UShareSoft, its AfD and later its SPI.

Topy_w (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Obourdon38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These two users are also involved, but are much less disruptive and seem to be acting in good faith:

Ejulien34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jgweir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Issues:

• Spamming (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#UShareSoft)
• Obvious WP:COI for Catherinenuel and very likely for the others as well
• Vandalizing the AfD Smocking (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't sweat it. The meatpuppets are pretty obvious in that AfD and their !votes are weak on policy and probably wouldn't be counted by a closing admin. Unless someone finds some evidence of notability for the company, that article will be deleted and it's likely that the marketing folks for the company will move on from Misplaced Pages. -- Atama頭 23:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

For the curious, I've identified more people from above. Ejulien34 is likely Eric Julien, who has spammed a couple of web sites about this software he "found" called UShareSoft. Jgweir is pretty clearly James Weir, Chief Technology Officer and co-founder of the company (I confronted him about that fact in the AfD). Obourdon38 is Olivier Bourdon, another co-founder of the company (and "technology guru"). I haven't figured out who "Topy_w" is, but I don't doubt that they are affiliated with the company as well. -- Atama頭 23:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User Geo-plus, company geoplus.com

Geo-plus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User creating new articles and adding subsections to others about products of geoplus.com. Also, user's user page seems to be a promotional piece for the company. --CliffC (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to add that I deleted their user page as a clear advertisement. The articles they've created should be looked at as well, I don't see any of them qualifying for speedy deletion, but a proposed deletion might be appropriate. -- Atama頭 22:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy action; it's much appreciated. CliffC (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Legalprteam

Legalprteam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user has been making some rather suspicious edits to McKenna Long & Aldridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I suspect that there is some sort of third-party COI issue going on here. Eastlaw  ⁄ _contribs 22:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Definitely suspicious. I softblocked the account, because it seems to represent a group rather than an individual, and is a violation of WP:NOSHARE. They're free to create a new account or request a name change, however. Aside from that, they may be affiliated with the firm but we'll see what happens. -- Atama頭 22:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked for UNC with a warning about COI and NLT. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd meant to unblock but got distracted, thanks for taking care of that. Just a note that the account has been renamed to User:Legalprgirl. I now know for a fact that the editor has a very strong COI with the article, but will not say in what way per our outing rules. I've warned her that her edits have been questioned and informed her of this noticeboard discussion, and strongly suggested that she participate. -- Atama頭 22:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Legalprgirl

• Legalprgirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• McKenna Long & Aldridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editor has admitted on her talk page that she is the "legal PR manager for McKenna Long." She's now edit-warring on the article itself. Admin talking-to and intervention needed. THF (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I sent her an email last night with some advice, and it looks like she's following it. I suggested that she take her issues to the talk page of the article. My advice to her was after the edit war. I think she means well, her intention is only to update the article's information. My concern is that the firm may want to exert some control over the article, and that can't happen. I'm hoping that there can be a compromise worked out. She's a cooperative person but she's new to Misplaced Pages, so we should go easy on her a bit. Sometimes editors with conflicts of interest can actually be of benefit to an article, because they have knowledge of the subject that others wouldn't, but we also have to take care that everything is verifiable. -- Atama頭 17:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree; I don't even object to COI editors editing pages, but just had a preference that someone else approach this editor. The problem comes when there's both COI and either NPOV and/or WP:OWN problems. THF (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Gragg Advertising

This Kansas City ad agency represents a number of for-profit colleges and other educational institutions. They claim to specialize in building websites and using social networks to publicize their schools. We seem to have an editor JohnWhite82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whose only edits have been to create an article about this Ad Agency and some of its apparent clients. The articles have undergone PRODs and AfDs. 64.126.108.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also edits these articles and adds Gragg Advertising to another ad agency's article Becker Media listing Gragg as a competitor. It is possible that this is a case of paid editing. Racepacket (talk) 10:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have PRODed Gragg Advertising and Environmental Technical Institute. Racepacket (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Shamir1

• Shamir1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I'm concerned that Shamir1 may have a conflict of interests editing the Washington Institute for Near East Policy article.

Short version - Shamir1 has been blocked for edit warring and violating 3RR on this same article for the better part of the last few months, and received a 12-month topic ban on this article. He stated that he was "personally familiar" with one of their scholars, and made what I felt was a highly biased statement, describing the group as "prestigious... taken the most seriously by the State Department". He has declined my requests for clarification on those two statements twice now, so I'm bringing the issue here, in the hopes that someone else can maybe convince him to explain his association with the group. ← George 06:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Long version - On October 27, 2009, Shamir1 wrote: "I am personally familiar with one of the scholars". I replied the same day, expressing my concern with the statement. The conversation went back and forth for a bit, but never really got anywhere as Shamir1 was blocked for 48 hours two days later for violating 3RR on the same article, then blocked for 72 hours four days after that for edit warring so soon after his block was lifted (again, on the same article), and then blocked for 3 months about a month later, this time for long-term edit warring, also on the same article. About a month into his 3 month block, Shamir1 had his block replaced with a 12-month topic ban by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. The specific terms he agreed to on this were: 1) You are banned from editing Washington Institute for Near East Policy for a period of one year; 2) You are formally warned to avoid any type of edit-warring or ownership of articles especially returning periodically to revert to a preferred version. Repetition of these behaviours will lead to the block being reinstated.

He returned to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy article shortly thereafter, and began discussing his concerns on the talk page, and filing an RfC - things I support and was encouraged by. However, on February 1, 2010, he wrote: "WINEP is a prestigious think tank and taken the most seriously by the State Department." This struck me as a highly biased POV which, combined with his earlier statement about being "personally familiar with one of the scholars", had me concerned. I expressed my concern, replying: "I'm extremely worried about your assessment that 'WINEP is a notable think tank and taken the most seriously by the State Department', especially in the context of your previous statement that you are 'personally familiar with one of the scholars'. I strongly question if you have a conflict of interest in this article, and ask that you explicitly explain what you meant by being 'personally familiar' with a WINEP scholar." Shamir1 declined to elaborate, stating: "Wow. Way to beat around the bush and twist words around. I will not address your last-resort nonsense. It does not deserve a response." I again requested some clarification, stating: "I'm not sure what I'm supposedly trying to find a 'last-resort' around, but the question still stands, and I'd appreciate if you could describe what you meant when you said you were 'personally familiar' with one of their scholars," and suggesting that I was considering bringing the COI issue up here. Shamir1 again declined, saying "I will not respond to any of the ridiculous statements or analogies, most of which have already been needlessly dragged on." ← George 06:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• I notified Shamir1 of this filing. ← George 19:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Completely unfounded. The trivial sentence he notes (from several months ago) had nothing to do with a conflict of interest as George all of the sudden tries to suggest. It was made in parentheses to demonstrate its insignificance, and I explicitly noted that it had nothing to do with the content of the article or the edits. User:George has been editing tendentiously and other editors have agreed that some of his edits have poisoned the well and violated NPOV. I have made very careful and considerate edits to the talk page of the article that addresses the concerns of the editors (myself included) and that of User:George. His attacking me personally is not justified, and he did not demonstrate that any edit or concern specifically is original research or a conflict of interest. My concerns are on par with Misplaced Pages policy, including reliable sources and neutral point of view.

Erroneous is his idea that it is my personal suggestion that the Washington Institute is the Middle East think tank "taken the most seriously by the State Department." Those are not my words, but from The Guardian: "The Washington Institute is considered the most influential of the Middle East thinktanks, and the one that the state department takes most seriously. Its director is the former US diplomat, Dennis Ross." This source also appeared on the article's page. He falsely claims it was my "assessment" that the Washington Institute is prestigious but I only mentioned that in context of what the lead should say, similar to the notability described in the Heritage Foundation, University of California, Berkeley, and Harvard University. This was in regards to the presence of secretaries of state on the institute's board. I did not under any circumstances suggest that prestigious = great, flawless, etc., and I was very clear about that. My edits include verifiable criticism; George and I do not have a disagreement over the inclusion of that.

All of my suggestions and concerns (largely understandable to other editors) are legitimate and have nothing to do with a conflict of interest. I have been a responsible editor and invited a request for comment. An editor's attempt to intentionally silence or stigmatize another editor for his concerns is not appreciated.

In regards to George's summary of our discussion and chosen words of mine, those had to with different issues on the discussion page, namely, what seemed to be his erroneous summing up of "my" positions that I already carefully explained differently. I declined to wrestle in the mud over his insistence over little things (i.e., his asking that I do not call the paragraph he wrote to be "George's sentence"). I kindly asked to stick with discussion over article content.

--Shamir1 (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me be as clear as I can here Shamir1 - I'm entirely open to working with other editors on neutral compromises, but I'm not interested in working with editors who harbor conflicts of interest, because they lead to inherent biases. Based on your statement that you are "personally familiar" with one of the groups scholars, and given your attachment to this article in particular (to the point of being topic banned from editing it for 12 months), I've asked you - repeatedly - to explain this relationship. I'm well aware you consider the issue to be ancillary, or just don't consider conflicts of interest to be important. I disagree, and find your reluctance to discuss the issue suspicious. ← George 20:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's the deal Shamir1, you voluntarily stated that you were "personally familiar". You opened that door, so being coy about it doesn't help. It will go a long way to inspiring faith in you if you explained it, you don't have to name names or out yourself or anything. But you're playing games here, and that's not good. You're trying to portray yourself as an expert in these matters by "name-dropping" without actually mentioning names. But that's a two-edged sword, once you try to use that as a discussion tool you're inviting suspicion. It's like editing a pop star's article, and then trying to make your point at the talk page that you speak with authority because you're friends with the star. Be careful about pulling out that card.

If you were exaggerating, or want to otherwise retract your statement, that's acceptable. If so I'd suggest that George drop it. Usually with conflicts of interest, if the editor hasn't engaged in any behavior that would warrant a block absent the COI, then the harshest penalty given is to enforce the suggestions made in WP:COI; that the editor refrain from making non-controversial edits to the article and only make suggestions on the talk page. The ban that's in effect is already stronger than what the COI guidelines suggest, so any proposed remedy for the COI would be moot. -- Atama頭 21:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Atama. I retract that statement and apologize if I invited suspicion or tried to bolster my credentials through rather foolish means. It was never played up and made no difference in regards to editing. The erroneous case here solves nothing. Looking for yet another way possible to stigmatize and silence an editor is irresponsible and wrong. I have worked hard to make a reasonable, factual, and comprehensive edit (see talk) that encompasses all of our concerns (including George's) and stands to WP:NPOV. If George is open to compromises as he says he is, I suggest he consider this. --Shamir1 (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't see what else is actionable, as I said before the existing ban is harsher than the usual COI sanctions already. George, would you be fine with just forgetting that one-time remark from before? Do you have any other reasons to suspect a COI? (Keep in mind that a COI does not equate to having a particular POV, though the two are often related.) -- Atama頭 23:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Atama, my suspicions were based solely on Shamir1's own statements and proclivities for edit warring on this article. Given his retraction of the statement above, and his abiding by the existing ban, I'm hopefully that even if he has (or had) a conflict of interests, he won't let it spill over into his edits. Thanks much. ← George 01:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

User:ArtistReport

• ArtistReport (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - has created a long stream of articles about a marginal figure, Nat Christian, and any film, no matter how incredibly obscure, which Christian was involved in; is also editing existing articles to add links to Nat Christian films. All this user (real name apparently "Carey Moreno") seems to be doing is trying to build up this Nat Christian's profile in Misplaced Pages. The articles are lousy: titles in all-caps (I've fixed that), no sources except for links to the IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes. Orange Mike | Talk 16:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Here is where the editor named themselves as "Carey Moreno", so there is no outing on Mike's behalf. -- Atama頭 17:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Showninner888

• Showninner888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making edits to sanitise the biography of Andrew Landeryou. In December, I expanded the article based on sources after it had been at AfD. Since then, a series of IP editors have repeatedly tried to remove mention of details that Landeryou might not like. The article has been semi-protected three times now. Upon the latest semi-protection, this account has picked up the baton, and has now twice removed verified information and inserted peacock phrasing about the article subject, and wording that does not match the sources. This editor and all the anonymous IPs refuse to discuss their editing (and I'm getting pretty tired of it). Fences&Windows 02:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• User has enough unrelated edits to suggest it is not an SPA. Looks more like a few (perhaps biased) users/IPs became involved in an edit war. Their sources are generally pretty crappy, but I think someone's blog is acceptable for "He has said he is not a member of a political party" if it matches the source here . I cannot help but notice that you seem to be an active party in the edit war and are using rollback privileges for reverting edits that do not look like obvious vandalism (e.g. , and ). Use of rollback in the context of an edit war is questionable and has led to RfCs before. I agree that the editors should take it to the talk page instead of continuing the edit war, but perhaps you would do well to stick with the undo feature for a while until another admin has taken a look at it or at least until their COI is established. Smocking (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

User:snowded

• snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing the page Neuro-linguistic programming with an agenda to preserve a hatchet job on NLP. Most recently he has repeatedly opposed the inclusion of a reference to a paper by Diamantopoulos, Woolley and Spann of the University of Birmingham's Digital Systems and Vision Processing group in the journal "Current Research in NLP Vol 1" edited by Paul Tosey of the University of Surrey's School of Management. The relevance of the paper is that it rebuts many of the arguments currently on the page. His justification for this is that the journal is published by ANLP, the professional NLP body in the UK. He has multiple conflicts of interest. Firstly, according to his comments on Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming he was formerly a visiting fellow at Surrey University and is personally acquainted with staff in the School of Management. In his own words: "I have never been impressed with the Surrey group from when I had a visiting fellowship there." Secondly, he is the Editor-in-chief of a management journal, so he is opposing the recognition of one of his professional competitors. Thirdly, he makes his living in Management Consultancy and so is competing with the many NLP practitioners also making a living in this field. AJRG (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

response

This is really tedious, an editor trying to drag a content dispute into this forum.

• The "journal" referenced by this editor (who is largely a single purpose one around NLP issues over the last few months) is published by a NLP advocacy group. Given that I have asked him for additional sources. Its also just a set of conference proceedings not a normal journal anyway.
• As I have already told him I have no personal acquaintance with the members of staff involved, but I do think that Surrey has had a tendency to take up "popular" causes and its claims should be treated carefully as a result.
• The journal of which I am a Chief Editor is a complex adaptive systems journal, and has noting whatsoever to do with NLP
• I do some management consultancy, some academic work and also software development. To my knowledge I have never ever competed with an NLP practitioner. My user page allows anyone to find out who I am and my interests. This is deliberate, I believe in transparency.
• I have a broad range of interests in WIkipedia, one of those is popular management movements which make claims in science that lack substance. A previous such claim (of which this editor is aware) here has already been dismissed. It seems that this is a tactic to remove editors from discussion
• The phrase "hatchet job" is typical of the level of discourse from this editor. I asked him on his talk page to address content issues and his report here appears to be the result

--Snowded 14:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Russian Misplaced Pages

Russian Misplaced Pages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - clear conflict of interest between RuWiki Administrators and other users. SkyBon 16:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• I confirm, that some sysops from Russian Misplaced Pages pushing their point of view.--Rock It! (Prime Jive) (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• There are also reasons to suspect meatpuppetry as all of the party was inactive in the EnWiki until today. SkyBon 16:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's sock/meatpuppetry involved, too. I just blocked Захама Ассотаре (talk · contribs). Rock It!, could you please explain how you suddenly heard about this dispute after being inactive for weeks? JamieS93 16:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• It was the topicstarter (who is ruwiki editor himself) who kept posting his own original research about alleged persecution of dissidents in ruwiki without any secondary sources. BTW, here is 3RR violation: , , , . And Rock It! keeps stalking of another ruwiki user both here and in ruwiki (by single purpose accounts) , , and many more. Actually almost all his edits here were stalking of ruwiki users. Probably that will explain something. --Blacklake (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way you, Track13 and Alex Smotrov were inactive until 16:00 UTC today when COI started. Probably _that_ will explain something. SkyBon 17:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I read about the issue in LJ too. And it was you who gave the link here. --Blacklake (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I read in LiveJournal, that RuWiki admins pushing their POV, and I decided that I should intervene. Of course, you can ask me, do I have any additional accounts? Yes, I have, but I don't used its for sockpuppet-violations.--Rock It! (Prime Jive) (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you please comment on the diffs above? --Blacklake (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Blacklake is one of ruwiki administrators who deleted perfectly normal articles written by Rock It! in ruwiki. These administrators follow the philosophy that they call "Philosophy of border control". According to this philosophy, ruwiki users who come out of favor of ruwiki administrators should be kept out of Misplaced Pages by all possible means, even if they do not violate Misplaced Pages rules. In this episode, Rock It! wrote several very good articles which were all deleted by ruwiki administrators not because the articles were bad, but because they were authored by Rock It! whom these administrators personally dislike. In case the other members of this flash mob show up, here is the list of administrators who deleted Rock It!'s articles: Grebekov, Blacklake, Mstislavl, Yaroslav Blanter, Claymore. SA ru (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You for some reason forgot to mention that the article I deleted had been created by the indefblocked user and contained personal attacks in the edit summary. It has nothing to do with personal preferences, hasn't it? --Blacklake (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit, Blacklake, and you know it. My articles does not cntain any attacks in first versions, but some idiots deleted it only because author is me.--Rock It! (Prime Jive) (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

London Health Sciences Foundation

• London Health Sciences Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Victoria Hospital (London, Ontario) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• London, Ontario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Noitadnuof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 142.158.254.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Several articles edited by several users who may have a conflict of interest. The IP user's conflict is clear, as the IP is registered to London Health Sciences Centre. The other user is less clear, but note that the name is "Foundation" spelled backwards, and the user has only edited on this one subject. I don't quite have the time to unravel all this so some help would be appreciated. Rees11 (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)