Misplaced Pages

:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] 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 Philtweir (talk | contribs) at 21:31, 5 April 2010 (→Knox College, Otago: Resolved template.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:31, 5 April 2010 by Philtweir (talk | contribs) (→Knox College, Otago: Resolved template.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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:Neil Barofsky Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Bell Bank Talk:Bobbie (company) Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Gráinne de Búrca Talk:Cannabis in Germany Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Pamela Chesters Talk:Cloudinary Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Covivio Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dell Technologies Template talk:Editnotices/Page/List of Nintendo franchises Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:Richard France (writer) Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Genuine Parts Company Talk:Dan Gilbert Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Group-IB Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Hilary Harkness Talk:Hearst Communications Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:Scott Kurashige Talk:Andrew Lack (executive) Talk:David Lalloo 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:Metro AG Talk:Modern Meadow Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:Philly Shipyard Talk:Polkadot (blockchain platform) Talk:QuinStreet Talk:Prabhakar Raghavan Talk:Michael Savage (politician) Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:SolidWorks Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko Talk:Sysco Talk:Tamba-Sasayama Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Tencent Talk:Tencent Cloud Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:TKTS Talk:Trendyol Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:Loretta Ucelli Talk:Ughelli Power Plant Talk:University of California, San Diego School of Medicine Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Alex Wright (author) Talk:Xero (company) Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Possible autobiographies found by bot

    • User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult   This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.

    Requested edits

    • Category:Requested edits.  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 undo the {{Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requestor to explain your decision.

    Paul Bedson

    A new editor acting in good faith but creating articles with which he has a personal and financial interest and with a "commitment to reveal this subject to the mainstream". The articles are Kharsag Epics (which I have taken to AfD) and Christian O'Brien plus another which he is working on in his sandbox. I've been advising him but it seems a bit unfair for him to get advice from only one person and that person the one who has taken an article of his to AfD. Dougweller (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

    Thanks for this. My other article is George Aaron Barton who is one of the 2 primary sources for the Kharsag Epics page. I have no financial interest in these articles as Eden Tourism is a not-for-profit venture to help fund research in this field. It is not a functioning company as yet in any case. I have to admit some interest in this subject and it's exposure from having visited Kharsag, but hope that the academic linking articles I have prepared beforehand will show the articles to be mainstream enough for inclusion. Further advice is most welcome on this subject and how to edit the pages correctly, from a neutral position, in line with guidelines and for the benefits of the vast majority of people this affects. Paul Bedson (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

    The editor does seem to have a COI despite his denials. He runs a travel agency whose aim is "promoting tourism in Rachaiya" (where the subject of the article originated). It would be good to get more opinions, but I think he should be following the COI guidelines in this case. Rees11 (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

    I am currently under contract to a UK telecoms company and cannot profit financially from Eden Tourism at the current time or be employed by any other organisation. Hence it is a non-active, not-for-profit venture, any potential future profits will be directed into further scholarly research of the subject. The type of "tourism" that I can arrange is of the archaeological type to encourage the mainstream research this topic requires. I am personally involved after having visited Rachaiya recently, but this is only for experience in the subject. I was not an associate of Christian O'Brien when he was alive and so should not be directly associated with the topic of the posts. I am endeavouring to maintain a neutral point of view and meeting criteria, despite working hard on articles I feel are important, if perhaps controversial. Paul Bedson (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

    Paul, you are heavily involved in the 'Kharsag Research Project', and you told me you have a " committment to reveal this subject to the mainstream." It isn't just the Eden tourism thing, promoting O'Brien's ideas is the reason you are here and creating these articles, which creates a clear conflict of interest. Dougweller (talk) 05:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
    I am not employed by and have not mentioned any ideas or orignial research generated by the 'Kharsag Research Project' and will not do so until they can be verifiably sourced in a major newspaper. In such a specialist subject, I would hope Misplaced Pages values my experience updating subjects upon such an event. I have made some efforts to correct articles in line with a neutral point of view that does not seek to promote any single person or group's ideas and further suggestions to keep in line are always welcome. Paul Bedson (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
    I guess I have a question, has Paul violated any particular policies or guidelines? In particular, is he linking to web sites or other resources he is affiliated with (per WP:SPAM) or trying to put too much of a positive or negative spin on any subjects (per WP:NPOV) or trying to add his personal opinions or research (per WP:OR) or resisting changes to "his" articles that he doesn't agree with (per WP:OWN)? Those are the most common problems that occur when an editor has a COI. We do try to make experts welcome, and I know that I personally try to give some allowances to subject experts when they edit articles in their field. It can sometimes be difficult to find a balance between avoiding conflicts of interest but allowing experts to contribute. -- Atama頭 22:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
    I think this is mostly a case of an over-eager new editor. He's made some mistakes in adding poorly sourced material, and the article itself seems to be borderline wp:fringe, although it's hard for me as a non-expert to tell. But he has not been pushing his travel agency or adding spam, at least not recently. I do think he has a COI and should disclose it on his user page and the article talk page. But in general I think the situation is under control, he is trying hard, is obviously an expert, and should be encouraged. I don't think any kind of admin intervention is required. I should add that I've only looked at Kharsag Epics, not Christian O'Brien. Rees11 (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
    Kharsag Epics went to AfD with result of merge to Christian O'Brien. Should we mark this "resolved?" Doug? Rees11 (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

    RapperDitch/Ditch420

    By their own admission, Ditch420 is a paid PR account for RapperDitch. The spam guideline and conflict of interest guideline come into play here, as well as the policy that Misplaced Pages is not intended as a vehicle for promotion. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

    The COI is obvious, and admitted. I suppose the only real question is whether the Rapper Ditch article and the associated albums meet WP:MUSIC criteria, or should be deleted. -- Atama頭 16:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

    West Shore Community College

    The name is certainly suggestive, and the article looks like a brochure for the school, not an encyclopedia piece. I ran across this doing RC-patrolling. Ray 19:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

    I've blocked the editor for WP:ORGNAME violations, though they can be unblocked to request a username change, or can create a new account that doesn't violate username policies. The article itself should be cleaned up, I've left a COI tag. -- Atama頭 16:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

    User:Sparksmedia @ Metalcallout

    Almost every one of user's contrubutions have involved adding the link to a website Metalcallout. I asked the user if he was affiliated but this was denied by him, see User talk:Sparksmedia#Metalcallout. But looking into the issue, I found some links to the username and the website. User had previously attempted to create an article WebHostDesignPost which has since been speedied, this website suggests Sparksmedia, WebHostDesignPost and Metalcallout are all indeed affiliated. Rehevkor ✉ 23:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

    This looks to me like a clear case of WP:REFSPAM, looking at the list of links to metalcallout.com it seems as though they are all stating that bands will be performing at festivals this summer. I can't exactly see why this would be done but the fact that all of Sparksmedia's edits are using metalcallout.com as a reference, and the link you provided demonstrating that it is hosted on the same server as a site called Sparksmedia clearly indicates a COI. I think that all the links present need to be removed - for starters metalcallout is not a reliable source - if the fact that they are playing at festivals should be included in the articles (personally I doubt they should) then we should use references to the festival site, e.g. replace this with this. Smartse (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
    There is this press release too about metalcallout, which was written by Cody Sparks, the same person who madewww.sparks-media.com. Smartse (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
    Cheers for looking into this, Smartse. I went ahead and removed every link from the articlespace. Most that were "X band will attend Y festival which is awesome" I removed the whole lot, while some that seemed to be used in good faith I fact'ed. In the case of festivals etc they can be re-added, written neutrally with an reliable independent source, or at the very least a primary source. Rehevkor ✉ 21:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
    No problem. Thanks for removing the links, I made a start myself but it was taking quite a while to do! Can we gain a consensus here that Sparksmedia does not add any more links to metalcallout to[REDACTED] without first discussing it on the talk page of an article? Smartse (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
    Considering his conflict of interest and the fact the website is likely an unreliable source, I don't see how the website can add to any articles at all Rehevkor ✉ 13:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
    I've indefinitely blocked. What we have is an editor who is spamming a TON of links all over Misplaced Pages for the Metalcallout web site, and they just happen to name their account (in violation of WP:ORGNAME) after the company who develops web pages and does search engine optimization (in other words, an online marketer) and who also created the WebHostDesignPost article, and all sites are hosted on the same server. The fact that they denied affiliation in face of the overwhelming evidence means that they aren't being honest. I've hardblocked them, which means that they aren't welcome to request a name change or create a new account. -- Atama頭 17:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
    Cheers, Atama. Rehevkor ✉ 04:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

    RationalWiki

    Editor did not declare COI before altering content about Rationalwiki's founder, Peter Lipson. The issue of factual accuracy of Lipson as founder of RationalWiki, as cited in two WP:RS publications, is already under discussion on another page where Sid 3050 stated he is a RationalWiki editor ("The thing that drove tons of members to us (especially after the Great Purge and once we went public with RW 2.0) was Conservapedia itself."} diff nobs (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

    I had made it clear on the Conservapedia talk page (which directly caused the RationalWiki article to be resurrected) that I'm a longtime RationalWiki member. That was before my edit to the RW article, and from what I saw, today's editors of the RW article had been involved in that discussion. After I made the edit, I also made it clear on that talk page that I as a RW member made the edits. And before the COI question came up, I indicated my RW membership on the RationalWiki talk page. All of this has been posted to the RationalWiki talk page following Rob's inquiry, long before he made his complaint here.
    The edit had been to correct a factual (and verifiable) mistake in the article: The article stated as fact that Lipson founded RW while the existing source (and the CP article) contradict this. The only source for this claim (which Rob repeatedly stated as fact!) is a Register article that wrongly paraphrased the article it references. Nobody else is claiming that Lipson founded RW.
    After the events on Talk:Conservapedia, I can't assume Good Faith anymore. Nobs is desperately trying to discredit Lipson and RationalWiki.
    Finally, I find it interesting that, since posting here, nobs found the time to reply on the RationalWiki talk page... and yet failed to inform me of his accusation here. I guess it's not custom to inform someone you just officially accused him of pushing a COI... --Sid 3050 (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
    Okay, unless you assume a lot of good faith and regard "I am asking neutral, non-RationalWiki Admins to oversee RW editors who have shaped content on both entries." (with no link to this section) as a proper notification. Though if I hadn't checked his contribs, I certainly wouldn't have recognized it as such. --Sid 3050 (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
    The question surrounds the factual accuracy of two reputable and verifiable sources citing Peter Lipson as the founder of RationalWiki. It took me four hours today to get a neutral Admin to hang a reverted NPOV tag on an article I clearly declared a COI with. WP:COI#Defending_interests states: it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution, yet the Talk/Conservapedia was incessantly trolled by RationalWiki editors inserting extraneous large blocks of text to confuse neutral Admins. Currently, I am engaging User:Sid 3050 in discussion at the Rationalwiki website, and hopefully we can resolve some of the extraneous issues there. Meantime, I request enforcement of WP:COI policy and other applicable policies as it pertains to the now restored version of the RationalWiki entry. Thank you. nobs (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
    Rob, I will not engage you on RationalWiki to discuss Misplaced Pages matters. I use RationalWiki to vent and Misplaced Pages to discuss Misplaced Pages.
    What two RS claim that Lipson is the founder? The Register article references the LA Times article - but the LA Times just says "Lipson and several other editors quit trying to moderate the articles and instead started their own website", not that Lipson is the founder. So who is the founder? Andy Schlafly and several homeschoolers started Conservapedia, so should I call one of the kids the founder of CP? No. The Register bases its story (or at least that part of it) on the LA Times ("The LA Times explains") but then goes on to paraphrase "Lipson duly enlisted other disgruntled editors and started RationalWiki".
    Lipson denies this. The first-generation RationalWiki members deny this. The LA Times doesn't say this. No other source independently says this. I see no reason to accept the Register article as a good source in this context if it openly contradicts its own source.
    Yes, I think someone disputed the accuracy of the LA Times, but not to move into the "Lipson is founder" direction. So no matter how you twist and turn, I edited something that current consensus agreed was wrong. Worse, you were quick to cite this Misplaced Pages article to back your claim that Lipson DID found it ("Peter Lipson, founder of RationalWiki according to Misplaced Pages") in a discussion that questioned this claim!
    Further, the source of the RationalWiki article was the LA Times (even before my edit), and the LA Times does not say that Lipson is the founder. I merely brought the article more in line with what the existing source actually says, regardless of outside discussion.
    And I invite everybody to read through the Conservapedia talk page discussion. It nicely shows how you keep switching what issue you wanted to focus on. Your accusations merrily switched between Lenski, Lipson, the Hit List (which isn't even part of the article), the founder question, opposing a source, and your Original Research to include an essay posted on RationalWiki. In the end, you claimed that the article section (which merely echoes what a Reliable Source states) violates NPOV because it doesn't include your OR.
    Yes, I opposed you in the sense that I disputed several of your claims and pointed out your OR. I was also the first to ask what you wanted to change when you declared that the section violated NPOV. I assumed as much good faith as I could muster in the face of your increasingly disjointed accusations and tried to work with you on that talk page, but you spent much more time on digging up dirt than on clearly saying what you wanted to change to what. And when you finally did get around to it, it was OR. You dragged this larger conflict to the NPOV and the COI Noticeboards instead of clearly trying to solve your issues on the respective talk pages. In my eyes, there is a troll here, but it's not me. --Sid 3050 (talk) 11:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
    Also, what admin inserted the NPOV tag you first inserted? The only one aside from you who inserted such a tag would be PCHS-NJROTC, who is neither an admin (or is "Rollbacker" WP's term for admin?) nor neutral. And the neutral user ShadowRangerRIT (who got involved when Rob ran to the NPOV Notice Board) didn't include such a tag.
    I wish Nobs would be a bit more careful to get his facts right when stating his case. However, if I overlooked something that proves me wrong, I'll of course apologize when presented with a diff. --Sid 3050 (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

    Editors of a wiki are not conflicted with respect to that wiki. If the individual denies being the founder of the wiki, we err on the side of caution - per WP:BLP - "We must get the article right." Hipocrite (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

    Hipocrite is spot-on. You need some pretty solid sourcing to be able to essentially call Peter Lipson a liar in the body of the article. As an aside, this Conservapedia/RationalWiki feud is tiresome. This has basically exploded all over various noticeboards, with little-to-no action, and I don't care to take a side. -- Atama頭 19:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

    No one's calling Peter Lipson a liar. The issue of the factual accuracy of two WP:RS, WP:V is unresolved, although a concensus has been raolroaded through by editors with WP:COI. nobs (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

    Again, users who edit a wiki do not have a conflict regarding that wiki - further, I have no conflict. Hipocrite (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
    RationalWiki editors made significant changes to WP:RS claims as to the founder of RationalWiki. Further, RationalWiki editors removed the{factual accuracy} tag without independent concensus. nobs (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
    (I've addressed the rest of this comment on the RW talkpage.) The tag was removed by Rees11 - is he a RW editor? I don't remember him saying so, and his username doesn't ring any bells right now... --Sid 3050 (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
    I have no COI. I had never heard of CP or RW before they were brought up here at COIN and have never edited or even visited either one. I removed the tag because the statement in question had been removed from the article. If there are other facts in question, then it would be appropriate to add a new tag, and quote which fact is in question on the talk page. Rees11 (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
    I stand corrected on that. My appologies. The issue of the factual accuracy of the L.A. Times being the source of Peter Lipson as founder of RW I assumed would be resolved where it began with other neutral Admins engaged. This is why I asked for 3rd party intervention, so a situation like this would not develop.
    It will be unfair now for these same COI editors to return to Talk:Conservapedia and claim a concensus was forged on the L.A. Times and Register, and impose changes. As a neutral Admin, how do you propose we proceed? nobs (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
    COI is not a bludgeon to beat people over the head with until they submit. What do you propose, that we ban all CP and RW editors from editing articles related to either Wiki? I don't think that's going to happen. That sanction would apply to you as well. And how do you determine who has a COI, do they have to have a position at one of the Wikis, or just be an occasional contributor, or have openly stated their support for one or the other...? The COI accusations are a smokescreen. Asking for 3rd party intervention is all well and good, but that's not the point of this noticeboard. Dispute resolution is a better set of tools to help. -- Atama頭 17:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
    I have begun that process with one editor already. I'd like to resolve the content issues with serious editors who are concerned about the integrity of Misplaced Pages. But I've also encountered much bullying and intimidation in just finding those Rationalwiki editors who do in good faith do seek to resolve disputes. nobs (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
    As I noted in my new section on Talk:Conservapedia, Nobs' (RobSmith on RationalWiki) "dispute resolution" quickly jumped to ArbCom threats and drifted further and further away from content. My posts to Rob mostly tried to focus on content, but his "dispute resolution" started with the words "Sid, sorry to have to do that, but you violated process and trolled me. WP is not RW or CP where you can troll at will." (in the first link) and "Sid, trolling the WP COI Noticeboard is not the way to go about it." (in the second link).
    In the end, Nobs had well moved on to the point where he openly ignored content concerns (such as pointing out that the things he was focusing on were OR in the first link and my long content-related posts in the second one) and was already making a case to drag to ArbCom ("Heads up" subsection in the first link, "Your contribs at wp:CP hurt the WP project. I'll prove it to Arbcom, if necessary." in the second link, and "contribs" here means my contribs of the last three years: "And tendentious editing covers longtime behavior. you were right there from the beginning in shaping the article ... Do you think that content might have influenced peoples impressions of CP over the years?").
    The new section on Talk:CP is my last attempt at discussing content (Clarification: Nobs' content concerns were focused on the RW section of that article, which largely overlaps with the section in the RW article under discussion here. If he wants to challenge another specific edit in the RW article, he can of course bring up such concerns on that article's talk page). If Rob wants more than just push his agenda as Conservapedia's "Director of Internal Counterintelligence" (his words in the first link), he can engage me there with specific content concerns and improvement suggestions. I have better things to do than being dragged through more and more wikicourts (like "Wanna see your Username on the sockpoppet Noticeboard for the next several years" in the first link and "Ever been through WP/Aribitration? Not pretty." in the second one) just because Nobs desperately wants to smear or silence critics. --Sid 3050 (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
    Whaddya say, Sid, let's get a Mediator, you and the alleged founder of RationalWiki, User:Tmtoulouse, please. nobs (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
    Didn't we have two people come in to mediate the situation, specifically hipocrite and ShadowRangerRT? --EmersonWhite (talk) 04:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
    No. Did you read Notice posted here, Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Conservapedia long before intervention was requested in this article? (This article did not exist at that time). My cause for requesting intervention is stated there. nobs (talk) 08:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
    Nobs, you spent the last few DAYS pestering me on RationalWiki about your view of Dispute Resolution, which included accusing me of trolling this noticeboard, of controlling content, and of not engaging you in content disputes. The truth is that I repeatedly asked you to discuss and specify your content concerns. Your reactions consisted of threatening me with the Sockpuppet Noticeboard and with ArbCom unless I acknowledge that you have (not really specified and often changing) "valid concerns". Not once did you make any sort of visible effort to actually discuss content.
    And right now, you are directly challenging the decision made by this Noticeboard - a Noticeboard whose view you requested. Hipocrite told you directly that "We are not reverting the article to a version that violates BLP. I do not see any conflicts of interest here. Move on, please." and yet you accuse me and other RW editors of bullying on T:RW?
    Both I and Tmtoulouse asked you directly to specify your concerns on Talk:Conservapedia where all of this originated. You did not reply. I asked you to specify your concerns on Talk:RationalWiki, but you are STILL too busy overriding the very Noticeboard you asked for help just because you don't like their decision. As for your conduct on RW (as RobSmith), I just submit User talk:Tmtoulouse, User talk:Sid and Conservapedia Talk:What is going on at CP?. This shows that I and others repeatedly tried to discuss content (or at least to show out that all your digging is either not content-related or plain and simple OR) while you were busy threatening me and others with ArbCom or the Sockpuppet Noticeboard. I'm done trying to discuss this. I have better things to do than to play your games of you mindlessly dragging me through more and more official processes instead of discussing specific content concerns in the open. --Sid 3050 (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
    Edit to add: I have added my unanswered user talk page reply re: LA Times accuracy (which Nobs repeatedly mentioned) to Talk:Conservapedia. Maybe Nobs will at least reply there. Other than that, I'm done. --Sid 3050 (talk) 11:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

    David Gergen


    User Roadrunnerkmh states he is employed as David Gergen's "internet manager" and has made multiple edits on Gergen's entry. If true, likely COF.

    I don't see substantial issues with the content of Roadrunnerkmh's edits. What edits are problematic? Hipocrite (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
    Their most recent edit was actually a very good one, which removed a very negative fact from a BLP which was attributed to a NYT article that was later clarified as having unsubstantiated information in it. I've left the editor some advice on their talk page, but overall I agree with Hipocrite, I see no problems with their edits. -- Atama頭 17:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

    User:Dpyb and autobiography found by aosasti

    • Article about Canadian poet Dionne Brand seems to be in violation of conflict of interest since it seems it is being entirely edited by the author herself or users with few other contributions to Misplaced Pages.

    Gallet & Co.

    This well organized, beautifully illustrated, carefully referenced article, an example of some of our best work in all other regards, appears to have been written by its subject. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

    It's not that good. I've seen worse, but it's full of unsourced peacock words and has a generally promotional tone to it. The user name probably should be changed as it's obviously promotional. The editor has a couple of copyvio notices on his talk page. I'll leave a COI warning. Rees11 (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
    Also, the editor seems to admit to a COI, as he claims to hold the copyright on many of the images used in the article, images that apparently belong to the subject of the article. Rees11 (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

    I'm going to need some help with this. The editor has created a whole slew of few articles connected with his company and edited several others, and I've found one copyright violation so far, in addition to the dubious status of the images. Can someone help look into all this? Rees11 (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

    For the past 30 years I have been working in the capacity of an amateur timekeeping historian and have contributed my personal research to a number of related publications. As the oldest watch and clock manufacturer, Gallet has been of particular interest to me to a point that borders on obsession. Besides having acquired the one of the world’s largest collection of their vintage timepieces, I probably possess the most extensive reference library of documents on the company’s history. As a result, I have found myself in the unique position of providing the bulk of the images and content that appears on the Gallet Company’s website, as well as the Misplaced Pages subject page. As such, the matter of copyrights is not a personal concern in this case. That said, I am relatively new to Misplaced Pages and am still learning the process. The recent issues that have arisen are a blessing, as they have pushed me around the learning curve to quickly become a more effective editor and contributor for Misplaced Pages. I am also addressing the matter of changing my username to better comply with Misplaced Pages policies. Thank you for everyone’s help. Galletgroup (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

    This article was not written by the subject of the article I am not affiliated with the subject in any professional capacity, and have never received any sort of compensation from the subject except for a thank you for the donation of my personally authored works and images for use on both Misplaced Pages and the subject’s website. For over 30 years, I have been an amateur timekeeping historian, even though my words and images have been copied and utilized in numerous publications, both in print and on the web. The assumption that I am closely affiliated with the subject of the article is understandable due to my unusual level of knowledge and enthusiasm with the subject, and I greatly appreciate the concern of others for maintaining the quality and integrity of Misplaced Pages. With this said, I wish to have the COI and advert tags removed from this article. Time Maven (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

    I'm inclined to believe that you don't have a conflict of interest in this case. However, please be aware of our policy on original research. If you want to use your own words that have been officially published, that is allowable per WP:COS, but use caution in doing so. Keep in mind, also, that you don't have to be affiliated with Gallet for what you have written to be considered an advertisement, any information that is unduly promotional either in tone or with specific "peacock words" as mentioned above by Rees11 can be considered advertisement. Other editors should be willing to help you with such problems at the articles you edit. This is, after all, a collaborative project and everyone who edits in good faith is more than welcome, especially a person with expertise who can help us find reliable sources to add more verifiable information to such articles. -- Atama頭 00:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
    So you're not affiliated but you are the copyright holder of trademarks the company used 131 years ago? Rehevkor ✉ 04:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
    I think there are still problems with copyrights on the images. There was also a hunk of text copied from the company's web site, which the editor claims he wrote and contributed to the company's web site. It all seems very suspect but I'm still willing to assume good faith at this point. Rees11 (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

    Bedford School & Chrisdearmer

    This user has a LOT of edits to two schools and not much else looks like a ex-pupil. I am probably 3RR'ed out on Bedford School today removing peacock terms and prases - can someone else have a look. Codf1977 (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

    The editor self-indentified as Chris Dearmer. Chris can be seen here as being a member of a boat club affiliated with the Bedford School. That's a weak connection but a possible COI. As far as the Glebe House School and Nursery, this shows Chris as an organizer for a choir event there. So there does seem to be conflicts of interest at both articles, especially as he's trying to promote the choir in particular. -- Atama頭 17:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
    Update : The COI tag was removed today from the Bedford School by 80.177.186.73 which if you run a whois on comes back as Glebe House School. I have tagged User_talk:80.177.186.73 with the whois info, but looking at the Special:Contributions/80.177.186.73 they have been editing the Glebe House School & Nursery page. Codf1977 (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

    Patricia Hogan

    The article has been written by Pat138hogan (talk · contribs). Despite the long list of publications, I don't really see much notability. Woogee (talk) 07:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

    WP:AUTO applies here. The notability will depend on WP:PROF, if those works of Hogan listed in the article are cited often by peers, then they could be considered notable. -- Atama頭 17:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

    Daniel David Ryan

    sudden massive editing burst on Urethra Gauging and similar topics. Seems to have clear COI, has not yet responded to attempts to communicate. Where now? DBaK (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

    I tried, but I'm close to rolling out {{uw-create}} if he keeps going... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 23:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks, and yes, quite. I am pretty sure it's good faith, but he's not getting it and he's not engaging with attempts to discuss it... he's edited his Talk page quite recently and one assumes must have seen all that stuff ... on the other hand he doesn't seem to be creating new articles either so maybe that has got through a bit ... DBaK (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
    Update: keeps going. Now creates articles including his favored link on talkpages instead of article-space. I've had it. uw-create-3 given. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
    There's a twofold problem here. Daniel doesn't seem able to properly communicate on Misplaced Pages, even on article and user talk pages he only writes external links or text that should go into an article. The other problem is the persistent advertising attempts. Urethra gauge has had the advertising information removed, so it doesn't necessitate a speedy deletion, but I don't know if it has hope as an article going forward. If Daniel makes one more attempt to advertise his device, I'll block indefinitely as a spam-only account if someone else doesn't do it first. I'd block him now if it wasn't for the fact that the urethra gauge article might have a slim chance of being notable. -- Atama頭 16:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
    Thank you. I've been trying to be kind, and AGF, and so on, but it's tricky when there's effectively no communication taking place. And, indeed, there is I suppose the risk that rather than being an innocent new user thinking merely to tell the world of their device (my preferred view) there's also the risk that it's less innocent and more calculating than that and has to do with, perhaps, a desire to drive traffic to the website or manipulate its search engine results or whatever. I hate to be cynical about new people but clearly he can read and edit so he's either really not getting it in a very serious way - which I can empathize with - or choosing not to get it, which is not nice. Hmmm. DBaK (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
    Addendum: having said all that I should add that Daniel has currently stopped again, and has been stopped for a while, so maybe it's over? Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

    Urethra Gauge seems to be a trademark, not a generic term. And Daniel David Ryan has applied for a patent on it. I think the article should be deleted as spam. Rees11 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

    I think an AfD would be the best way to go about it. That way if the article is recreated in any form similar to the original it can be speedily deleted per G4. Although I do stand by my statement about blocking Daniel if he keeps trying to advertise his product. -- Atama頭 19:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

    Digital Asset Management

    This edit in particular is telling, and seems to be a confirmation of the COI. I think that the spam is more of a concern than the COI itself. My suggested response would be to give a final warning if another spam link is added, followed by an indefinite block. An account that is used solely for advertising gets little sympathy from me. -- Atama頭 19:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

    DeRose articles and editors

    Articles
    Accounts

    I've removed DeRose London's edits to other articles as overly promotional edits complicated by a coi, and given him an uw-adv2 warning for his continued problematic edits after he was given a uw-coi message.

    I've given Derosemethod a uw-adv2 warning as well for continuing to make problematic edits after he had been given a uw-coi-username message.

    At this point, I'd like to find some editors fluent in Portuguese to help evaluate these articles against our notability criteria. Hopefully, the editors listed above will respond to the warnings on their talk pages in the meantime. --Ronz (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

    DeRose London has responded , alleviating my concerns. --Ronz (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

    I am willing to help, but I would have to get a good grip on the notability criteria --Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

    Salt Spring Coffee Co. and Cmtremewen

    Resolved – Editor indef blocked. Rees11 (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

    I tried to advise User:Cmtremewen that their various edits and content-additions to Salt Spring Coffee Co. were both SPAM and COI, but the user blanked my message from his/her talkpage - see User talk:Cmtremewen and this edit of that page. Same user had previously removed templates from the coffee company page, which has only survived two AFDs by helpful edits from experienced users such as User:KenWalker and User:Maclean25; the latter recently reversed my re-addition of the {{notability}} tag due to those previous fixes and teh failed AFDs, but since then User:Cmtremewen has continued with Spam/Own/COI edits, including blanking the article's talkpage and, as seen in this reversion by Maclean25, blanked whole sections he/she didn't like of the main article, including fixes and updates by other editors. The gall of the line on the usertalkpage "If content on this page is not authorized or created by the owners of the company then it is spam. This site has been compromised." is, to me, bizarre, and the same sentiment was expressed in the edit comment in this edit which says "Removal of material not submitted by the company". I think both a userban, and a revived AfD, are called for, but then I'm not an admin and, well, not known for my brevity or politesse. The article is, to me, blatant spam for an inconsequential coffee chain with delusions of its own importance, and the user is clearly completely without any sense of[REDACTED] guidelines, or interest in learning or obeying them...and User:Cmtremewen has edited no other article than the coffee company page and its discussion page, clearly a WP:SPA.Skookum1 (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

    Editor is now indef blocked as a spammer. Rees11 (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

    Knox College, Otago

    Resolved – Helpful feedback left on article's talk-page as requested. --Philtweir (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

    While this article (on a New Zealand university college) has been extensively and informatively developed from a historical perspective, it has been left rather underdeveloped with regard to its functioning, idiosyncrasies and human history for quite some time and I've prepared a few proposals for changes to bring it into more rounded and into line with other articles on colleges at other collegiate universities.

    However, as a current resident and recipient of a scholarship from this college (supplementary to a University PhD scholarship), as a consequence of being the nominated "Senior Tutor" (though not formally staff), I would be keen to check whether this brings me into a conflict of interest. I hope to demonstrate through the changes I've suggested and this declaration, that that is not the case and that I just happen to want to improve a Misplaced Pages article on a topic I know something about! While I would like to do something similar for the other colleges, my knowledge there is currently lacking (though please note that I've prepared samples of the Selwyn College, Otago and St Margaret's College, Otago articles using the new templates applied to the proposed Knox changes). If it is felt that this is a conflict of interest, I'll pop a Request Edit template on the talk page. Alternatively, if it felt that, provided I maintain WP:NPOV and edit as I would any other article, there isn't an issue, that would be even better.

    For full details, please see the proposal under my user page or the article's talk page, which links there. Cheers! Philtweir (talk) 10:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

    DarkBlade4658 - GameZone

    This is quite tricky. DarkBlade4658 has disclosed that they are an editor at GameZone and all the edits that I have checked were adding reviews from the site to articles. Whilst GameZone is presumably a reliable source, I'm not happy with an editor with a COI adding reviews all over the place. There are over 1000 links over the project to GameZone and DarkBlade has only made 100 edits so obviously others are adding them. Whatever happens to the links already in place, I would strongly suggest that DarkBlade stops adding more links to GameZone for the moment. Smartse (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

    Medifast1

    Medifast1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a SPA and in violation of the username policy. He clumsily added some content to Medifast in Feb. that probably should have been caught by the edit filter, but wasn't. Cites corporate websites where an independent source would be preferred. It either needs to be cleaned up or simply reverted to the Jan. 11 version. 69.221.163.227 (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

    I've done a quick clean up, the article is still a mess but it is better than before. The username would be blocked if we spotted it when it was created but won't be now. Thanks for posting here to bring it to our attention. Smartse (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

    St. James' Settlement (Hong Kong)

    Came upon this one doing copyright cleanup (as usual), and it looks to be a very sincere and very unencyclopedic article about a charity in Hong Kong. It is being worked on by a series of WP:SPA contributors who are obviously interrelated, given their usernames. I've given them the standard COI notice, but I think the article could do with a look-over by somebody for neutrality and sourcing. I pulled some employee lists () under WP:NOTDIR, but I'm back to the backlog at copyright cleanup. --Moonriddengirl 14:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard Add topic