Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:16, 12 March 2008 editPiotrus (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers286,447 edits →Richard Tylman ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 19:05, 23 January 2025 edit undoBubbaJoe123456 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers6,295 edits →Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation: ReplyTag: Reply
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{redirect\|WP:COIN\|the WikiProject on articles about coins\|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Numismatics}}
	]]{{Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/header}}
			]
			]
			]
			]
			{{Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Header}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{archivemainpage\|Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard}}		\|archiveheader = {{archivemainpage\|Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard}}
	\|maxarchivesize = ~~250K~~		\|maxarchivesize = 150K
	\|counter = 22		\|counter = 217
	\|minthreadsleft = 4		\|minthreadsleft = 4
	\|minthreadstoarchive = 1		\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	\|algo = old(~~10d~~)		\|algo = old(14d)
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/~~Archive_~~%(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
	}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__		}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__
			<!-- All reports should be made at the bottom of the page. Do not modify the above when reporting! -->

			== John Ortberg ==
	<!-- New entries go down at the BOTTOM of the page, not here. -->
	<!-- PLEASE REMEMBER TO SIGN YOUR MESSAGE -->
	<!-- Copy, do not edit, the below text and paste it below the newest section at the bottom of the page -->

			<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
	== Possible ] found by ] ==
			Pages:
			* {{pagelinks\|John Ortberg}}
			Users:
			* {{userlinks\|Timothydw82}}
			<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
			Timothydw82 is a ] which is used solely to promote, defend and censor valid information about ]. Timothydw82 admits to consulting with Ortberg about the article on ] and has also used that page to make disparaging comments about Ortberg's son, Daniel Lavery. This is both a serious COI and POV problem. He has been warned before by other editors. My most recent warning (for POV editing) was met with what seems to be feigned incomprehension and "Do you work for Misplaced Pages?". I think it is time to put an end to this farce. ] (]) 02:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			:Thanks for sharing your concerns. I’d like to address the points you’ve raised to clarify any misunderstandings about my contributions and intentions.
	* ]   ''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.''
			:First, while my account may appear to have a narrow focus, my goal has always been to ensure that articles on Misplaced Pages adhere to its principles of neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sourcing. My edits related to John Ortberg and related topics are aimed at upholding these standards, not promoting or censoring information. If there are specific examples where you believe I’ve violated these principles, I welcome a constructive discussion to address them.
			:Second, regarding my consultation with John Ortberg: I acknowledge that I have communicated with him, as I’ve disclosed on my user talk page. However, my involvement has been strictly limited to ensuring that edits align with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines and reflect accurate information.
			:Third, concerning the comments about Daniel Lavery, I understand how sensitive these matters are. My intent was not to disparage anyone, and if any of my remarks were perceived as inappropriate, please bring them to my attention.
			:I'd also like to express my disappointment in your accusing me via direct message of treating you like "idiots". That felt like a curt, uncalled for accusation with little to no dialogue or support. You have not engaged in a discussion with me but clearly expressed your desire to see me blocked for little to no good reason I can discern.
			:Finally, regarding warnings from other editors: I value feedback and strive to learn from it. I am more than willing to engage in dialogue to resolve disputes and improve the quality of articles. If there are ongoing concerns about my edits, I encourage the use of formal dispute resolution processes so we can work collaboratively toward a solution. ] (]) 02:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Is that AI generated text? I ran it through a few different detectors and most thought that it was at least partially AI generated. ] (]) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Unbelievable. Indeffed. Thank you, ]. ] \| ] 20:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC).

			== Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation ==
	== Requested edits ==

			<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
	* '''].'''  ''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 {{tl\|Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requestor to explain your decision.''
			Pages:
			* {{pagelinks\|Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation}}
			* {{pagelinks\|Park Hyeon-joo}}
			Users:
			* {{userlinks\|Channy Jung}}
			* {{userlinks\|203.239.154.130}}
			* {{userlinks\|Chisu1020}}
			<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
			Suspected undisclosed COI editors. Single-purpose accounts used exclusively to edit on this person and his foundation. All of the edits are complimentary, and almost entirely unsourced.

			I warned Channy Jung () and 203.239.154.130 () but both have continued editing ] and have ignored the warning (, ). Chisu1020 has been inactive for a while though, but same pattern of behavior.
	== ] ==

			I recently rewrote ] entirely to get rid of the unsourced promotional-like writing . State of article before the rewrite: .
	* {{article\|Nick Schwellenbach}} - was created by a user named Schwellenbach
	<small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> 28 February 2008
	:I believe the subject is borderline notable. Though he created the article himself, he appears not to like the current version, since he tried to blank it, though his change was reverted. The article is at present tagged for notability, which seems correct. A thorough search might bring forth new references to show his notability, though that has not been done yet. Anyone who wants to propose an AfD is of course free to do so. I suggest this be closed as a COI item, since the article is reasonably neutral and very short, and it is appropriately tagged for its remaining issues. ] (]) 22:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Well the current version is nearly identical to the version this fellow started, except the current version lists the subject as deceased. So its either actually him disagreeing with his life-status or a relative/fan. Maybe a COI tag to the user's page. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::Done. Left a uw-coi for the editor, and put {{tl\|Notable Wikipedian}} at ] as warning of the possible autobiography. ] (]) 07:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

			Also worth noting the is similarly fluffy. I suspect Park/his foundation are watching these articles.
	== ] ==

			] (]) 05:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{resolved\|user blocked, COI removed or tagged. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 06:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)}}
	* {{article\|National Policing Improvement Agency}}
	* {{article\|Serious Organised Crime Agency}}
	* {{article\|List of Special Response Units}}
	* {{userlinks\|Bamford}}
	(See accounts and IP's below) is making many, many, many, many changes without leaving comments or edit summaries and clogging up ] and the ] of ] - (created by Amcluesent), ], ] and others.

			:Those accounts, as well as ], all seem to be SPA/COI accounts which are not responding to multiple discussion attempts, and should be blocked for some period of time to get their attention. The "foundation" article seems like it would also fail GNG, and should probably be either deleted or merged into the Hyeon-joo article. ] ] 06:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{hat\|reason=Complete list of accounts}}
			:I BOLDly redirected the foundation article to the main Park Hyeon-joo article. ] (]) 19:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Accounts'''<br>
	{{MultiCol}}
	{{vandal\|Bamford}}<br>{{vandal\|Amcluesent}}<br>{{IPvandal\|204.245.42.164}}<br>{{IPvandal\|64.210.144.214}}<br>{{IPvandal\|83.92.187.138}}<br>{{IPvandal\|84.66.192.148}}<br>{{IPvandal\|84.69.100.236}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.202.1.166}}<br>
	{{IPvandal\|90.204.211.188}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.106}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.108}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.11}}<br>
	{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.110}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.113}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.117}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.120}}<br>
	{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.122}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.132}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.135}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.136}}<br>
	{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.141}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.147}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.149}}<br>
	{{ColBreak}}
	{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.153}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.161}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.162}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.165}}<br>
	{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.169}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.187}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.193}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.195}}<br>
	{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.198}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.20}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.200}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.201}}<br>
	{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.209}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.216}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.218}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.219}}<br>
	{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.221}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.223}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.234}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.236}}<br>
	{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.245}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.247}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.249}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.28}}<br>
	{{ColBreak}}
	{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.3}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.32}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.33}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.36}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.39}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.4}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.41}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.45}}<br>
	{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.51}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.52}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.54}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.56}}<br>
	{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.63}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.64}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.67}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.71}}<br>
	{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.78}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.79}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.8}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.85}}<br>
	{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.90}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.207.93.66}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.240.35.89}}<br>{{IPvandal\|92.12.114.52}}<br>
	{{EndMultiCol}}
	{{hab}}
	Claims he works for the ], see . All the accounts and IP's have similar edit patterns. --] (]) 20:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

			== Misplaced Pages Writers Marks a Milestone with 1,000 Successful Misplaced Pages Page Publications ==
	:Good work finding all the IPs. Probably a nice notice about COI and maybe an intro to editing template would be good. If anyone is thinking of blocking any of these IPs, it would probably be nice to report them to ] since these seem to link back to official UK national police departments. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 03:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::It is not inconceivable that WP might need to work with the UK police on some occasion, so let's be a little bit nice.

			Well, that's what they ''say'' on openpr.com. For the interested. I was going to link it, but my edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a ] or ]. Despite that, it seems to have some WP-presence: ] (]) 12:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	::The only currently-active logged-in user in this group is {{userlinks\|Bamford}}.
			:{{re\|Gråbergs Gråa Sång}} That's just a press release site. The company that published it is already listed on ] at ]. ] (]) 15:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Paul Devlin (footballer) ==
	::We need to get the attention of ], to persuade him to moderate this editing. I suggest semi-protecting both of the articles listed above and all the related UK police articles, to prevent the clogging up of recent changes. Bamford was recently blocked for six hours. Until we can abate the flood of changes, it will be hard to discuss article improvement. The usage of so many IPs is very peculiar by WP standards. My guess is that a number of police employees have been asked to add information, but only Bamford has created an account. I suggest we ask Bamford to agree to some conditions:
	::* Ask all his colleagues to create an account before editing
	::* Identify (by account name) all the other editors who have affiliations with his organization
	::* Provide edit summaries for all changes
	::* No editing under an IP address
	::* No reversion of anyone else's edits without a Talk discussion
	::* Participate in discussions in good faith, and listen to the responses
	::* No more than 20 edits per day on UK police articles (per editor) until this COI item is resolved.
	::I suggest semi-protection until this is closed. I welcome your comments on this idea. ] (]) 03:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

			<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
	:::Good suggestions. Although I might not list it as directly, say "If you could try avoid editing under an IP address". Also, edit summaries are important, but for many new users, I suspect their easy to forget. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
			* {{pagelinks\|Paul Devlin (footballer)}}
			* {{userlinks\|Pdfc2025}}
			<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
			The editor claims to be the subject of the article and is repeatedly adding altered statistics, replacing ones which appear to be referenced. I and {{u\|Struway2}} have made suggestions at the editor's talk page. I am reluctant to continue reverting in the circumstances (for all I know the edits are correct, if unsourced), but on the other hand it could be a hoax or subtle vandalism. What's the best way forwards? ] (]) 12:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Their stats look correct for what they are, per the sources in the career stats table lower down the article where they appear in the totals columns, but they include data for matches that don't belong in the infobox. The editor has removed all but big-league clubs from the infobox, lumped together separate spells with the same club, and included statistics for cup competitions; I've explained to them that conventionally we don't do that. The editor also suggests there are errors and omissions, which could well be true, but they haven't yet elaborated. cheers, ] (]) 13:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			::They are now blocked from making changes to that article. They are more than welcome to suggest changes on the article's talk page. <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 20:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] ==
	Please don't block or protect. "Clogging up recent changes" is not a reason to pull out the administrative tools. Leave messages for everybody and explain site standards to them. Coach them how to do things the right way. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
			{{pagelinks\|User:SHEJO VARGHESE}}
	:::I strongly support this point of view. ''Very'' strongly. ] (]) 19:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
			Undisclosed COI editor writing an autobiography at ].<span id="LunaEclipse:1736800296227:WikipediaFTTCLNConflict_of_interest/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 20:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
	:Why not? Editing in a manner that messes up the tracking infrastructure and confuses ongoing review of changes is a form of disruptive editing. ] (]) 13:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
			:With the page in draft space and placed for CSD, and the copious user page warnings, with a grand total of 3 edits by this apparent COI editor, I would caution ]. I think no further action is likely necessary as their draft page will either be deleted under CSD but failing that would most certainly fail a formal AfD. ] ] 20:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::No, it isn't. It means our ''systems'' haven't handled it properly. It isn't disruptive in and of itself. ] (]) 19:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
			::], my bad :( I had no intention to come off as overly harsh.<span id="LunaEclipse:1736801352397:WikipediaFTTCLNConflict_of_interest/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 20:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
	::::In this context, I don't see the difference. It's an edit pattern that's damaging the purpose of cooperatively creating an encyclopedia. It's academic whether this arises by directly impeding other editors or interacting badly with "the system". ] (]) 20:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
			:::Just remember to have good faith -- when they have only made three edits and stopped editing at 16:52, and then subsequently 4 consecutive posts to their talk page is a bit overbearing. It would be one thing if they were editing between your posts (so it appears they are ignoring you), but in this case, zero edits since the first notice, there's not a huge need to escalate unless they continue to persist in unconstructive behavior after the notifications. ] ] 00:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Perplexing situation, there has been multiple attempts at dialog with little or no results. The latest response is a bit concernining, .--] (]) 16:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

			== Gilles Epié ==
	:::I'm not surprised. Have a look at the three edits that he was blocked for. (After scores of normal ones.) He's blanked the page twice, which is fine, he receives a warning. But in heaven's name, look at the , which he was blocked for. Sheesh! ] (]) 20:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

			<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
	:: Just for clarfication as some editors seem to be confused about this - the NPOA is an govt administration and advisory body set up to assist and give direction to Police forces in a number of areas - they are not connected to operational policing as carried out by UK police forces. --] (]) 20:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
			* {{pagelinks\|Gilles Epié}}
	:::Guess he's decided against . --] (]) 01:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
			* {{userlinks\|Epie2020}}
	::::Article talk vandalism ..--] (]) 01:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
			<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
	::More:<br>{{IPvandal\|204.245.42.164}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.56}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.51}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.141}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.51}}<br>{{IPvandal\|90.205.89.11}}<br> I've protected the page due to the Anon switching IP's to remove the COI tag--] (]) 18:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
			Epie2020 has acknowledged a personal connection to Gilles Epié on their ] but does not seem to consider this a conflict of interest. They were most recently warned about this behavior on 20 December 2023 but to make edits to the Gilles Epié article. ] (]) 22:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

			:It's been nearly a year since this user's last contribution, unless there are edits to deleted pages. I don't think there's any action to be taken here given that a COI notice has been on the page since 2023. Maybe some work could be done on the article itself? --] (]) 02:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:: removed the COI tag, and added 5 links to npia.police.uk.--] (]) 13:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
			::Unfortunately I don't think the article has a version in page history that doesn't suffer from ] issues. I've gone ahead and trimmed it down a bit. --] (]) 03:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::More COI tag removal.--] (]) 14:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
			:::This seems like a reasonable approach to me. They've been off and on editing the same article for years now, so I wouldn't be surprised if they come back at some point. Hopefully this notice will dissuade them from directly editing the article. Thank you for your work on this. ] (]) 15:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::] --] (]) 16:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Created another sock account {{vandal\|Konemannn}} --] (]) 17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::'''Comment.''' ] was indef blocked, and controversial editing of the main articles seem to have stopped a week ago. How do we feel about removing the COI tags? Does anyone see a current problem with their neutrality? To refresh your memory, here are the articles concerned (add others if you see any that were edited significantly):
	:::*{{la\|National Policing Improvement Agency}} ''(COI tagged)''
	:::*{{la\|Serious Organised Crime Agency}} ''(COI tagged and semiprotected)''
	:::*{{la\|List of Special Response Units}}
	:::*{{la\|Durham (HM Prison)}}
	:::*{{la\|Low Newton (HM Prison)}}
	:::*{{la\|Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases}}
	:::*{{la\|Police Staff College, Bramshill}}
	::] (]) 02:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I'd say another week would be good. There were 5 days between the creation of his last 2 accounts. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 02:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
	::'''Close?''' The week has passed. I looked over the articles listed above and noticed no serious problems. I added a notability tag at ]. Though the issue of American bases may have significance in British politics, the article doesn't show the notability of this particular organization from reliable sources. ] (]) 06:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::Agreed and done. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 06:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

	== ~~Enterprise~~ ~~architecture~~ ==		== Burning River Buckets ==

			<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
	Articles:
			* {{pagelinks\|Burning River Buckets}}
	* {{La\|Enterprise architect}}
			* {{userlinks\|C.A. Buttons}}
	* {{La\|Enterprise architecture}}
			<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
	* {{La\|Zachman framework}}
			] has identified himself as the owner of the ] basketball team on , on , and on . I've tried over a period of months (and on each of those talk pages) to share information on the COI policy and the need for reliable sources, to no apparent avail. Perhaps others could give it try. -- ] (]) 01:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	* {{La\|John Zachman}}
	* (perhaps others)

			:I've posted a on their talk page. For now I think it's worth letting their changes to the page more or less stand; their ''actual contributions'' in the latest round of edits consisted of deleting some unreferenced information and accidentally removing one reference. --] (]) 20:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	]s
			::Went back and restored the external links section as well. --] (]) 20:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	* {{Userlinks\|Metaframe}} (Nov 2007 - Feb 2008)
			:::Link to a ] thread from 2024 regarding an IP editor claiming to be the team's owner: ] --] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 16:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	* {{Userlinks\|Lockezachman}} (Jan-Feb 2008)
	* {{Userlinks\|Len Morrow}} (Feb 2008)
	* {{Userlinks\|Phogg2}} (Feb 2008)
	* {{Userlinks\|Ron Gaba}} (Feb 2008)
	* {{Userlinks\|Brandy Downs}} (Feb 2008)
	* {{Userlinks\|Greg Zorne}} (Feb 2008)
	* {{Userlinks\|Tom Corn }} (Feb 2008)
	* {{Userlinks\|MatthewFordKern}} (July 2007)
	* {{Userlinks\|Mkernatmkerndotcom}} (March 2008)
	* (perhaps others)

			== ] ==
	Metaframe as Stan Locke, managing director of Zachman Framework Associates (note similarity in Lockezachman username).

			User appears to be/is part of a (self-published) substack publication called ''Shatter the Standards'' and since joining on January 13 2025 have been adding the publication's reviews to album articles (]). For example/recently, on Mac Miller's '']'' (today). // ] (]) 20:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	COI edits, which for some reason included removing references and templates, were brought to my attention ] by ]; he will probably have more to add here. — ] ] 06:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			: {{u\|Chchcheckit}} The top of this noticeboard clearly says {{tq\|This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue}}. Why wasn't this done first? I have now left a COI notice on the user's talk page. ] (]) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::my bad. i rushed / wasn't thinking {{facepalm}} // ] (]) 22:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::: No wirres {{u\|Chchcheckit}}, thanks for responding. Hopefully they will respond either here or there. ] (]) 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{linksummary\|shatterthestandards.com}} ] (]) 16:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Alexander H. Joffe ==
	:Neither John Zachman or Stan Locke is Lockezachman and we detest the comments being entered as ours but in our initial protest of this userid Ronz pointed out there was nothing we could do to stop the use of this ID.{{unsigned\|StanLocke}}

			<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
	;Related discussions:
			* {{pagelinks\|Alexander H. Joffe}}
	* ]
			* {{userlinks\|69.121.25.122}} Claims to be Joffe in a 2007 edit
	* ]
			* {{userlinks\|71.249.231.9}} Edited the article only a day after the above IP to remove a notability tag, has only edited the Joffe article, Joffe's area of expertise of ] and ], Joffe's former employer per here.
	--] (]) 16:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			* {{userlinks\|74.88.198.179}} Claims to be Joffe in this talk page edit
			* {{userlinks\|24.191.44.177}} Claims to be Joffe in the same talk page as above
			* {{userlinks\|31.154.131.245}} Single edit on the page promoting Joffe's podcast, IP is from Israel where Joffe has done work in the past. I find it rather unlikely some random Israeli wants to add a link to a minor academic's podcast.
			* {{userlinks\|67.82.155.243}} Made 2 edits to Joffe article, has ] IP, only a few miles from ] where Joffe formerly taught.
			There are other IPs which have only one edit to Joffe's article that could well be him as well but I don't think that's enough evidence to go by, nor would it be worthwile given how much Joffe's IP seems to change. ] (]) 03:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

			:Not really actionable directly as all of these account edits are from several years ago. IP addresses span multiple networks and we wouldn’t block them broadly without good reason. Only thing at the moment is to keep an eye out on this article. If new IP edits become persistently disruptive you could request page protection, but one or two anonymous edits once a year wouldn’t even qualify for that unless there were serious BLP concerns. Use revert instead. ] ] 05:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	Lockezachman claims to "represent a group of about 60" . --] (]) 16:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	: Anyone else think it's time to semi-protect these articles, given all these new accounts joining in? --] (]) 18:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:: Enterprise architecture is protected because of the edit-warring there. --] (]) 19:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

			== Earth System Governance Project ==
	I have been editing the Zachman Framework article for the past couple of weeks in an effort to clear up its problems and clear the tags. A few others have made some contributions, but they have been constructive in my opinion. I don't think that article needs to be protected at this stage.
			{{Resolved\| Discussion should remain at ] ] (]) 16:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
			* {{pagelinks\|Earth System Governance Project}}
			* {{userlinks\|EMsmile}}

	] (]) 20:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

			<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
	Ronz: I have only just noticed that you restored important material on the Zachman Framework that users LockeZachman and Len Morrow had deleted for no reason that I could tell. Thank you. --] (]) 01:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
			Pinging {{ping\|EMsmile}}. See the extensive discussion on ]. Would like a subject matter expert/COI expert to figure this out. ] (]) 18:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

			:Hello ], that ANI thread has become crazy long, should we (or someone) perhaps summarise what the COI question about me is exactly, for the benefit of the people watching this noticeboard? You might be in a better position to do that than me. - My question would be: is the COI management explanation that I give on my profile page at the top under "disclosure" sufficient/correct? The ANI got started by someone who claimed my edits at ] were adding "PR" because I am a paid editor and have a COI. I have rejected this claim and believe I have followed procedures correctly. I have however said in the ANI thread that I would be happy to ban myself from editing the ] article in future due to the various connections between that alliance of academics and my client, the "Earth System Governance Foundation". ] (]) 11:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:You might add ] to the list, he contacted me after I semi protected Enterprise Architect to complain about the Wrong Version I believe. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

			:Just a note here that EMsmile also wrote 98% of ], the founder of the ESG Project. I'm not sure what question this COIN thread is supposed to be answering. What are we supposed to be figuring out here? ] (] <nowiki>\|</nowiki> ]) 18:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	This tag-team edit-warring is getting tiresome. --] (]) 17:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
			::no clue. never posted anything to COI/N. Just trying to get folks who know how to handle it or similar situations' take. ] (]) 19:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Curiously, an editor named ], who is probably the same person as ], made a very sensible contribution over at ], including a new image of the Zachman model. It is at ], ] and ] that he seems uninterested in paying any attention to our policies. ] left a warning over at ] that included a big picture of a stop sign. Apparently this editor feels that only those references that are approved by his company should appear in Misplaced Pages. (We are not allowed to entertain any opposing points of view). Since he doesn't own Misplaced Pages, I'm not sure how he expects to make this happen. ] (]) 18:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
			:::OK, since you don't have a specific question for COIN, I suggest that people who are interested comment at AN/I instead of here. Having a discussion take place in two different pages is very stressful, especially for the person whose conduct is being discussed. ] (] <nowiki>\|</nowiki> ]) 19:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	::] continues to revert out the TOGAF reference. I just left him a blatant vandalism warning. Would welcome some advice on how best to proceed. ] (]) 03:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I think it's time for an uninvolved admin to consider an initial block for Lockezachman. --] (]) 17:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
	::There appear to be grounds for a block on a particular editor, but while we're still meditating on that option, I see there is movement over at ]. A couple of editors have been trying to remove the POV issues with the article. Phogg2 appears knowledgable in this area and (though he is still included in the COI list above) he has made some useful edits. Ronz has removed the notability tag from ] in response to the edits by Phogg2 and ]. I'm still hoping that someone can improve ], which is really the parent article for this whole area. ] (]) 04:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::I'm hoping that the recent progress is a sign that this is coming to a resolution. --] (]) 18:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

			== Mockbul Ali ==
	{{vandal\|StanLocke}} just edited Athaenara's comment <br>--] (]) 16:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
			{{Resolved\|Page has been deleted and salted ] (]) 16:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
			* {{pagelinks\|Mockbul Ali}}
			<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
			Article had been deleted after prior WP:COIN , has now been created again. I've tagged for deletion. ] (]) 13:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

			:The page in question complies with all of Misplaced Pages’s criteria and is factual with no commentary. There are references also included. The page is also identical in form to dozens of other pages for British diplomats. The UK diplomatic service has only a handful of diplomats from ethnic minority backgrounds, therefore it is worthwhile having a page on one of the very few ethnic minority British Ambassadors (of which there have been less than a dozen in the last 100 years). The aim surely has to be to improve the page and not delete it. ] (]) 16:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	May want to look into these;<br>
			::Long history of puffery and sock puppetry. Probably does not meet our notability guidelines and we strongly suspect it's an autobiography. ] (]) 08:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{UserSummary\|Svtveld}}<br>{{UserSummary\|Jclouse}}<br>{{UserSummary\|Yogishpai}}<br>{{UserSummary\|Metaman1}}<br>{{UserSummary\|Graham Berrisford}}<br>{{UserSummary\|Mbwallace}}<br>{{IPSummary\|59.180.191.55}}<br>{{IPSummary\|71.79.123.117}}<br>{{IPSummary\|80.36.91.222}}<br>{{IPSummary\|87.60.223.12}}<br>{{IPSummary\|81.82.136.70}}<br>--] (]) 17:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

			Pinging {{Ping\|Jay8g}} and {{Ping\|Axad12}}. ] (]) 14:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] ==

			:The page in question complies with all of Misplaced Pages’s criteria and is factual with no commentary. There are references also included. The page is also identical in form to dozens of other pages for British diplomats. The UK diplomatic service has only a handful of diplomats from ethnic minority backgrounds, therefore it is worthwhile having a page on one of the very few ethnic minority British Ambassadors (of which there have been less than a dozen in the last 100 years). The aim surely has to be to improve the page and not delete it. ] (]) 16:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	→ ''<u>See also</u>: ] (result: redirect to ])''
	* {{La\|Hydrino theory}}

			== EnterpriseDB ==
	{{userlinks\|TStolper1W}} has written what is essentially a vanity (i.e. self)-published of ], an entrepreneur working in an area of unconventional physics. There is a legitimate question of whether there is a ] generated by promoting the target of his work. In his defense, he claims that he has published the book on Amazon free from royalties and claims no other financial ties to Mills or his company, Blacklight Power. He has been asked to refrain from contributing to ], the main page on Mills' work, but shows no interest in stopping. Is there a case to prevent him from contributing at all based on this history? I'd appreciate some expert opinion on this. ] (]) 02:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Additional information: Stolper is running a ] - he has only edited regarding Mills. Stolper was blocked once for edit warring on ], and also continues to push his own personal POV on the article. Stolper's POV is in direct contradiction to the ], which makes the edit warring and COI problems somewhat worse. ] (]) 19:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Admin note: awhile back, I restricted {{user\|TStolper1W}} from editing the article ], requesting that he limit himself to making suggestions on the talk page given his evident COI and related issues. However, now the Randell Mills article has been merged/redirected to ], where TStolper1W ''is'' editing, and rather heavily at that. One option is to extend the sanction I placed on the Randell Mills article to ] now that the Mills article has been redirected there. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 23:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
	:It's clear (at least to me) that ] has a COI when contributing to either the original article ] or to the article where it now redirects, ]. MastCell banned Stolper from directly editing the ] article , and his notice to Stolper can still be seen on the latter's Talk page at ]. If editors who have a COI respond combatively to suggestions from regular editors that they be cautious, this inclines us to limit their editing to the article's Talk page, which is exactly the remedy that MastCell has established in this case. After perusing ], and noting his approach when he receives comments and suggestions about his COI, I believe the situation fully justifies extending his ban at ] to include ]. Ronnotel already notified him about the ] report, but if he does choose to offer comment, we should listen carefully to what he has to say. ] (]) 21:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I concur. Provided Tom respects WP basic editing protocols I see no reason not to allow him to try to influence debate on the talk page. However, I would also like to hear more from Tom on this matter. ] (]) 01:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
	My paperback book isn't a biography of Mills. It's an extensively documented and footnoted study of the reception of his work, in historical and contemporary context. The paperback book is available from Amazon for $10.25 + shipping. At that price, there is no profit. Writing such a study and making it available is a credential, not a COI. Mills is a real and original scientist. No pseudoscientist has ever been able to do all that Mills has done: found a company, direct it himself for over 16 years, raise over $50 million for it, recruit and retain scientists and engineers with standard degrees and research backgrounds to work with him and for him, make presentations at scientific meetings, and publish dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles about his work. ] (]) 15:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Thanks for joining the discussion. You were invited to contribute here because an administrator, ], is planning to extend your existing article ban on ] to include ] as well. Your blanket defence of Mills's wonderful work doesn't give us much reason to take you seriously, since you didn't make any reference to obeying Misplaced Pages policies. Please explain how you plan to moderate your editing in the future so that you don't continue to deserve a ban from the Mills-related articles. ] (]) 18:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
	We seem to be far apart. Michaelbusch has been biased in the extreme against Mills from the word go, as one can see from what Michaelbusch has done and has written in the discussion elsewhere. In this section, he added a charge against me of running a single-purpose account (see above). It’s illogical to ask me to edit articles about which I know less in order to edit the article about which I know the most. As even Ronnotel conceded at the bottom of my User talk page, I know as much about that material as anyone (other than Mills himself). Refusal to allow a defense of Mills proportionate to the attack on him in the Misplaced Pages would be very unneutral. ] (]) 15:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
	:TStolper, you seem to misunderstand the purpose of this COI discussion. This is not about your views of Mills, or your mis-understanding of my enforcing Misplaced Pages's adherence to the scientific consensus. Here we are trying to determine if your block from editing of ] should be extended to ], nothing more. As Ed noted, you are not helping yourself. ] (]) 18:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
	It’s not a COI to have studied, since 1991, the reception of Mills’ work, nor to have written and made available an extensively documented study of that reception. It’s a credential. The Misplaced Pages wasn’t founded to enforce orthodoxy. Enforcing orthodoxy by silencing other views stunts the progress of science and always has. Refusal to allow a defense of Mills proportionate to the attack on him in the Misplaced Pages would be unneutral at best. ] (]) 13:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

			<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
	:: Actually that IS what[REDACTED] is suppose to do - we take the mainstream view on things using published sources - the "progress of science" is irrelevant to wikipedia. --] (]) 13:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
			* {{pagelinks\|EnterpriseDB}}
			* {{userlinks\|EDBWiki25}}
			<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
			Repetitive edits with promotional and unsourced content. Article has a history of seemingly paid editors and/or closely affiliated editors. ~<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span><sup>]{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}]</sup> 22:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

			:User hasn't responded to any talk page messages or made any other attempt to communicate besides two very short edit summaries. A block might be needed to get their attention (and also per ]). See also ]. --] (]) 22:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Let's do this: TStolper1 may comment freely on the ]. However, he is limited to 0RR in editing the ''article'' ]. This means that he may make an edit (as proposed text), but if it is reverted for any reason, then he may not reinsert it, in any form. This is an alternative to a complete ban from editing the article which would allow TStolper1 to contribute text suggestions directly, but not to edit-war. Expertise is welcome, but where there is a clear and well-documented connection as exists here, that expertise should be used persuasively on the talk page rather than by editing (or edit-warring) on the article directly. I'll open this for comment before imposing it. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
			:They've been blocked for spam. ] (]) 08:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::Sounds OK to me. It does depend on him knowing how the 0RR works. I assume you'll be the one enforcing it so you'll be able to explain it if he winds up violating the ban due to misunderstanding. ] (]) 14:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Perhaps a ] would give him enough leeway to avoid being blocked out of unfamiliarity yet have the same practical effect of preventing him from engaging in edit warring. Zero reverts seems akin to a topic ban. ] (]) 14:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
	MastCell, what is the connection to which you currently object? ] (]) 16:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
	:MastCell, I like the idea of your proposal above, but I'm afraid Stolpher has considered it license to add ] back to the article - which I have just reverted. Please see ]'s page history. ] (]) 18:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
	:And again yesterday evening (revert by Athaenara). ] (]) 18:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
	::] has updated TStolper1W's article ban to a 1RR on ] . ] (]) 03:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Based on his editing history, Stolper will likely not change his editing habits with a 1RR/24 h ban - in the past week he has logged on three times, blanket-reverted to one version of his unacceptable content, accused the editors that removed it previously (three different editors) of having a personal grudge against Mills, and then gone away for roughly two days. Unless something stricter than 1RR/24 h is implemented, this will presumably continue. I may be overly cynical, but Stolper has demonstrated persistence. ] (]) 18:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

			::I listed all the potential COI/undisclosed paid editors in the article's history on the article talk page. Not a single one ever disclosed a connection to the company, but a bit of searching found that the majority were rather obvious. As the blocked editor is the only one recently active, there's no point in notifying any of the others. --] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 14:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] ==

	{{Resolved\|The article was fixed up and the promotional tone was removed by a helpful member of ]. ] (]) 21:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC) }}

	* {{La\|Cleveland Museum of Art}}
	* {{Userlinks\|LAndrewsCMA}}

	], a communications assistant at the Cleveland Museum of Art, recently made some edits to the article. She substantially expanded it, added pictures, etc. Her edits were as being inappropriate in tone. She emailed me, confused, asking what had happened. I'd like someone (or several someones) willing to work with her to make this article better. ] (]) 18:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
	:The edits by ] did create an article with a promotional tone. Unfortunately, there is no relevant conversation happening on the article's Talk page. Since this article is causing so much trouble, maybe stubbifying is the right thing to do. Promotional edits keep on being made, and then policy-enforcers sweep through and revert them, so we need a genuine improvement (even if it's only a stubbification) to stop the cycle of reverts. Any volunteers? :-) ] (]) 02:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

	::I will leave her a message and try to help.--] (]) 01:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

	:I can't really see the problem - she has not edited it for over a month. If she wants to be useful, releasing low-res images of star works of theirs we have articles on like ] and ] would be a sensible way to boost their PR. ] (]) 02:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Johnbod, thanks for your improvements. Can other editors look at to see if they agree it's sufficiently neutral? ] (]) 02:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::Thanks - feel free to keep adding artist links after I got fed up doing so ... :) ] (]) 03:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

	== COI tag on ] ==

	{{resolved\|Apparent consensus at ] that the COI tag should be removed. The disputed passage mentioned earlier is now out of the article. ] (]) 21:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC) }}

	* {{La\|Leon's}}

	Over the past 18 months, an IP user ({{IPuser\|207.188.94.238}}) has made less than 10 minor edits to an article which, as of a few days ago, s/he was revealed as being connected with (via the Helpdesk edit in the history). Now two editors have added the COI tag, which says, "The creator of this article, or someone who has substantially contributed to it, may have a conflict of interest regarding its subject matter.". This doesn't seem to fit with the minor contributions of the IP editor - is this correct use of the tag? ] '''·''' ] '''·''' ] 08:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Per of a paragraph of criticism by the IP editor I think the COI tag is justified. The at the Help Desk should be carefully listened to, though, since under ] the subject of an article is allowed to remove what they believe to be factual errors. It needs an investigation to see whether the removed paragraph is truly justified, since it may not be relevant to an article about the furniture store. (Misbehavior by a relative of the store owner seems remote, unless his activities are blessed by the store management in some way). Consider inviting the IP editor and the person who restored the COI tag to join this discussion. ] (]) 18:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

	== Naseba ==

	* {{La\|Naseba}}
	* {{La\|Scott ragsdale}}
	* {{Userlinks\|125.16.229.162}}
	* {{Userlinks\|Veena.ammadu}}
	* {{Userlinks\|Indira.ravi}}
	* {{Userlinks\|Sachinuppal}}

	{{user\|125.16.229.162}} who is trying to remove fact tags and resisting clean-up on ] and associated articles such as ], doesn't communicate. IP resolves to Naseba so clear COI. Also likely that {{user\|Indira.ravi}} and {{user\|Veena.ammadu}} are same editor. --] (]) 13:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Persistant little IP isn't he? Has he hit 3RR yet? Didn't look too closely at the others, but ] might be the best place. Do you think the article needs semi-protection at this point? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

	:: I added {{tl\|userlinks}} above for users Veena.ammadu, Indira.ravi, and Sachinuppal. — ] ] 17:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

	== Gamers: The Movie ==

	For nearly three months, {{user\|Encyclopedia Mike}} has made dozens of edits across multiple articles that all promote a small independent film, '']''. The same user created the movie's article and an article on its director, ]. Many edits are trivial insertions to promote the film, such as , and . As far as I can tell, the user's entire edit history has been a campaign to promote the film throughout Misplaced Pages. ]? ] (]) 20:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Whoville, are you saying that any of those edits were inappropriate? COI requires bad edits. It doesn't matter if the contributor only cares about one thing, ''in itself''; if he's ''merely'' self-promotional, then it's COI (and I suspect that's what you mean). I don't want to follow all the links unless you are asserting that some of them are bad edits, right? ] (]) 21:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
	::The links above are examples of where the film or its director have been inserted into articles with a non-notable connection. I don't think it's notable that '']'' is an example of a "mockumentary" and needs mention in that article, or that because the film features a Loverboy song it requires a mention in the band's article. Or that '']'' is in any way to ''Gamers: The Movie''. That's the type of COI I'm concerned about. I've since found other edits from a that inserted Folino's name into articles connected to his , and lists of genuinely notable and . A separate discussion is whether ''Gamers: The Movie'' and Chris Folino meet Misplaced Pages's notability criteria in the first place. ] (]) 21:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::These look like examples of spamming which needs dealing with; but unfortunately it only comes under the conflict of interest brief if there's solid evidence (e.g. self-identification, IP address) showing the editor(s) to be connected with the movie. ] (]) 22:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Help me out, then. Is there a different process for reporting this kind of spam? I figured it would be rejected as ''vandalism'' which is why I didn't report it at ]. Since there seems to be some consensus that these edits are inappropriate, I'd hate to think they'll be ignored because of a procedural technicality. ] (]) 22:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I am the author in question. The movie in question was critically acclaimed by several movie websites. Both the author and the movie were covered by major media outlets for film like CNN, ABC television and the Hollywood Reporter. All the facts are verified. I swear on a stack of bibles that I am not doing this to promote the film and I am receiving no financial gain from it whatsoever. I find this to be a talented up and coming director who made a very good acclaimed movie. As far as the links go, I am new on Misplaced Pages. I thought you were supposed to link your work. If it came off as overexuberant, I apologize. (Although I would say that linking a movie voted BEST FILM OF 2006 by two sources to LOVERBOY is hardly undermining LOVERBOY.) But I honestly want to follow and respect Wiki's rules. Most importantly, I would hate to see a notable subject penalized for my lack of procedural knowledge. I hope the articles in question stay. I believe this is an artist of merit. I would very much like make this an Misplaced Pages insertion considered scholarly and proper. Thank you. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->--] (]) 06:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Whoville, if it helps you resolve this faster, I will refrain from making any further edits regarding Folino or the film in the future. Being new to Misplaced Pages I thought everything had to be cross referenced. Again, I will happily leave further authorship on this subject to others to avoid the appearance of conflict. Thank you.--] (]) 07:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	* {{La\|Peter Smith (painter)}}
	* {{Userlinks\|Stainlesssteel666}}

	Fairly obviously a self-promoting account, since he's responsible for just editing ] and adding a massive, spammy section to ] advertising the same. Is he even notable? ] (]) 10:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
	:No, he is not. AfD it, adding to ]. ] (]) 03:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

	== Politician Dean A. Hrbacek ==

	* Article: {{La\|Dean A. Hrbacek}}
	* {{Lat\|Dean A. Hrbacek}}

	]s with apparent ]:
	* {{Userlinks\|Watchingthedog}}
	* {{Userlinks\|Qp10io1011}}
	* {{Userlinks\|Jbgtx}}
	* {{Userlinks\|99.128.112.102}} removed "Photoshop controversy" three times (so far). — ] ] 23:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

	Various users have been ]ring on the article about Hrbacek, a politician who is a current congressional candidate in Texas.

	User {{Userlinks\|JamesMLane}} has attempted to engage the other users on the article talk page. The issues came to my attention on the ] project. — ] ] 18:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

	== Common Cause article may need attention again ==

	→ <u>See also</u>: ] (two sections) and ].

	* Article: {{La\|Common Cause}}
	* User {{Userlinks\|Dbarnold1}}

	] user Dbarnold1 expanded the article four-fold today. Earlier discussions of COI edits to this article are in more than one COI/N archive; the difference this time is that quite a few references to independent sources (in addition to several citations of the organization's own website) were added. I'm posting here to draw the attention of impartial editors to it again. — ] ] 20:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

	The article has been in the ] since 2004 (). User Dbarnold1 removed it today (). I invited discussion on ]. — ] ] 17:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

	: I am a student volunteer for this organization. However, I do not feel that I have a conflict of interest that would require me to withdraw from editing this article. I volunteer for their media and democracy department, which I made sure to not comment on as to avoid bias. I also made sure to cite credible sources for each statement made, pulling only from the organization's website for the mission statement, membership/funding data, and only two references to issues. — ] (] • ]) <small>—Preceding ] was added at 00:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	::A well-known organization like Common Cause that is active in public issues should be heavily covered in the press. We prefer to reflect what outsiders say about an organization rather than what the organization says about itself, unless the facts involved are quite simple and uncontroversial. Someone who works in the media department of Common Cause should have access to lots of press clippings, I would assume. The current opening of the article sounds promotional, and we don't usually include multi-sentence direct quotes of somebody's mission statement as in:<blockquote><small>''Common Cause’s mission is: “To strengthen public participation and faith in our institutions of self-government; to ensure that government and political processes serve the general interest, rather than special interests; to curb the excessive influence of money on government decisions and elections; to promote fair elections and high ethical standards for government officials; and to protect the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans'' </small> </blockquote>It would be OK to address some of those topics in our article, but we should obtain reasonably neutral and balanced press sources for the quality and extent of Common Cause's work in each area. We should not just report Common Cause's own opinion on how well everything turned out. ] (]) 03:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

	: Just a note that I've taken this article off my watch list, where it had been since the first COI/N discussion nearly a year ago. — ] ] 13:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

	== Edits that promote company by the supposed new key person ==

	* {{La\|Intown Suites}}
	* {{Userlinks\|Collierdaily}}

	{{Intown Suites\|Intown Suites}} - I have discovered several edits within the last month on the page ] (which I initially created) by a user named ''']'''. These edits, for the most part, have changed the content of the article from a near neutral point-of-view to a promotion of the chain (some of these changes I have reverted). One of the changes that has been made is that the "key people" section of the template has been changed from "David Vickers, Cheryl Vickers" to "Scott Griffith, '''Collier Daily'''." Not that doing this is anything wrong, but that the user who has been making the changes that promote the chain is one of the key people of the company. This user's contributions now list just 6 edits, all of the Intown Suites article.] (]) 20:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

	'''Follow-up''': A Google search of "Intown Suites" and "Collier Daily" produces just 5 hits, one of them which is the Misplaced Pages article on Intown Suites.] (]) 04:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	;Article:
	* {{La\|FreeLife}}
	;Editor:
	* {{Userlinks\|Freelifelegal}}
	: Freelifelegal has been informed of WP:COI and WP:U, but could still use some help getting a new username as well as assistance with editing ]. --] (]) 17:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

	::I restored this complaint from Archive_22, since the debate is heating up. ] has been . Looking at ], that page shows a history of not-terribly-cooperative editing going back to April, 2007. There have been complaints about company supporters removing negative information at several points during the last 11 months. ] has lately been doing some useful cleanup work on the article. In its current form, the article looks OK to me, but we may have to persuade ] to edit more carefully in the future. Though Freelifelegal's user name may appear promotional, I wouldn't suggest blocking for username unless further issues appear. Anyone who has the time is urged to leave messages at ] if you notice any further edits that seem worrisome. At this point, we can't consider the COI-affected editors to be newbies any more. ] (]) 00:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

	:{{UserSummary\|Jsteelefreelife}}<br>{{UserSummary\|Jody Steele}}<br> Not sure if these are related, but may be.--] (]) 01:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

	I took me a while to get anyone to even comment on my edits. Finally Barek will be working to help create a balanced entry. I chose this username so that there would be no question that I was associated with FreeLife (a the suggestion of Jimbo Wales to our company). One of my first posts on the discussion page was that I was associated with FreeLife, was a newbie to Misplaced Pages, and would appreciate any help I could get to ensure I was not violating the COI rules. I received absolutely no responses until all my edit were recently removed without any explanation on the discussion page. There seems to be a tendency to immediately jump to the conclusion that anyone associated with the company cannot possibly make edits without violating the COI rule. I respectfully disagree. I am thrilled that Barek is now involved and I will work within the rules with his help to get this entry to where it should be.] (]) 16:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	;Article:
	* {{La\|XBRL}}
	The page ] could use some attention. Almost all recent editors seem to have COI issues, large or small (including Lancet75, Colcomgroup, Mike Willis, and myself). I include myself in this category since I have been an editor of the XBRL specification, and I'm asking for some advice about the quality of my editing on the page and the talk page. Thanks!
	] (]) 03:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Since ] is an open standard, that argues in its favor. But nearly all the information provided in the article is from proponents. Isn't there any press coverage? Who needs XBRL, exactly? Who invented it? Does anyone agree with them? What's the extent of its adoption? Does it have disadvantages? Are there alternatives to XBRL? Our readers might like to know these things. ] (]) 21:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

	== user ] ==

	* User {{Userlinks\|Crlittle1}}
	i see no other edits besides inclusion into many dozens of articles 'references' and 'see also' promoting author's own book, with 'helpful' link to amazon page for same. i left a notice on user's talk page, no response. if there's a way to blanket revert all of these i think it would be appropriate. ] (]) 05:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

	:I agree. They can't be "references" if he wasn't actually adding content to the article, and most of the other entries were under "further reading", with links to amazon.com. Rolling back now. --] \| <sup>]</sup> 16:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

	::thanks kindly. ] (]) 17:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	{{report top\|'''No action required or taken.''' ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)}}
	User Jossi had that he will not be abusing his administrative power's for promoting cult view, as it is established beyond doubt that he is promoter of cult view's on wikipedia, and abuses his administrative power to delete pages without any scope of discussion, attempt to discuss matter with him result in response as a latest example he himself was involved in and then deleting the page himself. Under normal circumstances if an admin is acting as editor, he must not abuse his admin power's in those article's, especially when it is well known and accepted by himself that he will stay away from editing or abusing cult related topic's on wikipedia. --] (]) 16:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
	: With a user-name such as ], that contravenes ], and with accusations that are ], such as calling me a "cult member", you should know better than to continue ] and trolling my page. If you have any issues with my admin actions, feel free to report them at ]. ] <small>]</small> 16:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
	: The page you refer: ] was deleted by ], and not by me. ] <small>]</small> 16:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


	I have responded to above statement on Jossi's talk page, but he has removed it, --] (]) 17:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

	:And also on my --] (]) 17:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


	:::'s (aka ) stated purpose is to create a cult free world. This strong POV bias even appears in his user name. He name-calls and harasses any person he thinks is practicing an eastern spiritual tradition with a guru. He is not here to create valid Wiki articles but to promote this POV (consider his user name).

	:::Are there some sanctions available for this type of behavior? It is slanderous to run around calling everyone who has expertise in eastern spiritual traditions cult members. It's like someone running around and calling every German a Nazi. ] (]) 18:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

	::::] has declared a COI regarding Prem Rawat and related articles. It's appropriate for him to avoid editing those articles and he has committed to doing so. While he may have a POV on articles concerning cults in general, he does not have a conflict of interest with that broad topic. This request is inappropriate for that reason. Further, the article was properly deleted. Jossi is free to remove items from his talk page just as ] may also remove material from his own talk page. I don't see any legitimate issue here. ]] ] 18:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
	{{report bottom}}
	== ] ==

	* {{Userlinks\|Tnspdr}}
	* {{Userlinks\|Shearwater63}}
	* {{article\|Affinion Group}} - Two accounts, ], whe has edited from an IP belonging to the company in question, , and ], who admits to being an employee of the company, are tag-teaming to remove negative information from the article. Tnspdr, who had been inactive since before Shearwater63 began editing, returned to revert warring after Shearwater was blocked earlier today for ] and then warned for . In particular, the editors are interested in keeping the several other names under which the company has done business out of the intro. They also generally blank some or all of the section on complaints that have been made against the company. -- ] \| ] 21:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

	== ] removing content from ] ==

	* {{La\|Citizens Commission on Human Rights}}
	* {{Userlinks\|CCHRInternational}}

	Also adding poor content, probably copied from CCHR materials. ] (]) 06:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

	: ] blocked the account indefinitely 3 days ago. — ] ] 04:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

	== ] appears to be advertising books by an Italian publisher ==

	{{userlinks\|212.183.163.237}} edits seem to be adding lots of book references to material published by Zecchini Editore who appear to specialise in classical music books.--] (]) 14:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Failure to understand the term "references" is a dead giveaway. Don't think there's a COI here but it's definitely spam. Reverted. ] 12:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Thanks. I thought it might be COI as it was adding disproportionate weight to this publisher as a source. How should I report such incidents in future?--] (]) 15:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::] - ] ] 20:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

	== Request for opinion about myself ==

	I have been accused of having a conflict of interest. Since I develop real estate on the island of Bonaire, and used to own a hotel there, it has been suggested that I should not have made . By extension, I would think that my edits to the ] article would be called into question as well. I think that that is on the level of claiming that someone from Boston can't edit an article about ], but I am airing the accusation here so that I can see the consensus.] (]) 14:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
	:In terms of the deletion of the reference to Holloway from the Aruba article, I see no conflict of interest there - I believe that there is no need to mention her in the body of the article (see ]).
	:For the Holloway article itself, most of your edits look fine, although I'm not so sure about . Why delete a link to a news article from a point in the article where a citation was explicitly requested? - ] ] 19:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Stylistic, I guess. The ''citation needed'' flag seemed to be on the concept that there was coverage on Aruba (which really seems to be kind of a pointy flag in the first place), not on the fact that Aruba has Dutch, Papiamentu, and English newspapers.] (]) 20:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::Hmm. To me, the sentence says both 1) there was coverage on Aruba; and 2) Aruba has Dutch, Papiamentu, and English newspapers. Since this is an example of such local coverage (although Amigoe is based in Curaçao, Aruba still appears to be within the paper's circulation area) I think it is worth inclusion. Apart from that, I saw no other problems with your conduct, unless anyone who disagrees can provide a diff that proves the contrary. - ] ] 21:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::: No harm here, but that you for being careful. ] (]) 20:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

	== User:ArborBooks ==

	{{user\|ArborBooks}} is a ] responsible for ] (along with {{user\|FeareygroupPR}}) and ]. The latter has had speedy declined under db-bio, and there is a potential notability argument, but in present form the article is pretty much ], and the Oasis article isn't a lot better. --] \| ] 00:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

	== John Saldivar ==

	Article: {{article\|John Saldivar}}<br />
	User: {{userlinks\|Jsnyc79}}

	A self-penned article that has been tagged for various things since Feb 2008. {{user:Jsnyc79}} continually removes the tags, the main one being lack of references for which he doesn't seem inclined to provide. There is also a smattering of ] terms. It's debatable as to whether this article should go to AfD but I'd be grateful for other eyes on it first. ]''' 03:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
	:I cleaned up this article, formatted the references and reduced the promotional tone. Can others look at it and decide if the tags can be removed? If the article creator reverts the improvement, we might consider other measures. Since the article is neutral now and is quite short, I don't see the need to keep a COI tag on the front. Perhaps the 'Notable Wikipedian' banner is enough warning of possible autobiography, and it goes on the Talk page. References seem to show just enough notability to have an article on him. Your opinion is welcome. ] (]) 05:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

	== ] and ] ==

	* {{La\|Channing Tatum}}

	See ]. {{user\|Wcfirm}} has spent the last year here doing almost nothing but squeezing mentions of his own site into the article for actor ]. He (she?) is now claiming his site is official (despite being a blogspot.com site) and therefore is more appropriate - but an entire paragraph?! Thread at ] and recent ] report have led to a week-long block. —] (]) 12:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
	:I Googled for it and found another site that claims that the blogspot site is the official site. It could well be, because blogspot is easy to mantain and Google gives good search engine ranking to its own domain. Now a days the upcoming actors and musicians use free Web platforms like blogspot, facebook, and myspace to promote themselves. ] (]) 13:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

	* {{Userlinks\|Laquishe}}
	: MaxSem for a week at 05:54, 6 March 2008 UTC. At 06:31 UTC, another ], Laquishe, began editing. Same? — ] ] 21:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

	:*{{spamlink\|channingtatumunwrapped.blogspot.com}}
	:*{{spamlink\|channing-tatum.com}}
	:--] (]) 21:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::. That account has been indefblocked and Wcfirm's block has been doubled to two weeks. —] (]) 22:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

	Although I am not an admin, I would say that his block needs to be extended again, as he continued to sock puppet even after he was warned not to. is an edit by his new blocked sockpuppet to my userpage. ] (]) 22:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Already done. A month now although I don't expect it will end there. —] (]) 04:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

	== Millennium Pharmaceuticals ==

	* {{La\| Millennium Pharmaceuticals}}
	* {{Userlinks\|Millenniumpharmaceuticals}}

	I rescued this article from deletion, because the company is clearly notable, but User Millenniumpharmaceuticals keeps insisting on changing the article into a piece of marketing blurb rather than an encyclopedia article. My patience is running out, and I'm sure I will end up being ] if I carry on trying to sort this out, so could someone please help out? ] (]) 19:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
	: I have soft-blocked the user for having a promotional user name. ] (]) 20:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

	== Article for Eve Wyrwal ==

	→ ''<u>See also</u>: ]

	* {{la\|Eve Wyrwal}}

	It seems that a person or persons believing to be in contact with or running a site about Eve Wyrwal have been editing and/or vandalizing this page with conflicting information. They have not cited a source, but have alluded to a website that has questionable credibility in their edit summary. A portion of the information they edit is conflicting when checked against her published word in Nuts Magazine. ] (]) 00:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

	: you have the wrong link. that lijnk goes to a polis model named Iga. ] (]) 03:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
	:: If you look at the page history, you will see that there have been several ] and ] page moves, with the pages alternately serving as redirects to each other ... — ] ] 06:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
	::: Yeah that is part of the problem, Iga A is just one of her nicknames, the usage of Eve Wyrwal is more wide spread. The page should be Eve Wyrwal. ] (]) 22:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

	:::: We have an infobox that notes if a woman has natural breasts? --] (]) 18:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::You learn new things every day on this Noticeboard! Can anyone figure out of ], which seems to involve an ] complaint? It appears that the administrator ] had to intervene to impose move protection on one of the articles. Someone in the edit history is complaining about ] adding incorrect information, but I have no idea who is right. An edit like should only be done with consensus. Various IP editors have been indignantly reverting the changes by ]. ] (]) 20:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Possibly an easier way of handling this: is this Eva/Eve/Iga notable enough for inclusion per ]? ] (]) 21:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: Well, there are many un-notable women in that category. I would say it is "the" un-notable category, and when weighed against others in that category I would say yes, notable. The complaining editor threatened to "take over the wiki" if I did not comply with his point of view. Then after claimed he filed a ticket. My case is that they have not cited a source, even an un-credible source. When they did imply a source, asking anyone who would disagree to contact an admin at what appears to be a fan site; one of the many fan sites with incorrect and conflicting information. The information I keep reverting to is information from a well know magazine that is publishing words from her mouth. ] (]) 22:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::Too complicated. I've passed it to AFD. ] (]) 01:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
	For the Record I have been correcting the article. The website refered to is the official site for Iga Wyrwal, currently under development. FlieGerFaUstMe262 has cited nuts as his source, for the americans amongst us this is akin to somone saying "It must be true i read it in The Enquirer". These Lads Mags are notorious for making things up. The daily Star for example will change her age every time she is on page 3. My Source is Iga Herself. I can provide concrete proof of this but i'm not prepared to publish it on a public forum, (i have although sent it as an attachemt to the OTRS Complaint) If anyone can email me then i will do so. As for the name, Before coming to the UK Iga used her real name, The Daily Star used the name Eva & Eve without her consent, as they decided that this would be easier for people to pronouce this as you can see causes much confusion. For the Record She would prefer to be refered to as IGA or IGA A. All Iga & myself want is for the correct information to be displayed. Whilst i understand the difficulty you have in verifying information you must understand the sheer annoyance of somone trying to change incorrect information about themselves only to have it reverted ] (]) 02:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

	== Paul Wall ==

	A user editing under name {{userlinks\|Otherbrothergideon}} claims to be the father of the rapper ] and is changing the birth name and date of the biographical article contrary to what ] have cited. I have tried finding whatever claims that "Otherbrothergideon" has put up, and so far no reliable source relays them. Thus, I have warned the editor about the "conflict of interest". Chances are that this user may be an impersonator. --] (]) 07:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Did the right thing. Given he's been at this over a year and seems persistent, I might point him towards OTRS which can better evaluate his identity, etc. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 08:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

	== Murdo MacDonald-Bayne ==
	* {{La\|Murdo MacDonald-Bayne}}

	I stumbled on this after a posting to the ]. It seems there is a disagreement about external links on this page that may be fueled by conflicts of interest by (I think) all currently involved parties. More eyeballs and comments from established editors could be useful. -- ] 10:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Considerable lack of sources too: all I can find are bios on a handful of tribute/promotional sites. ] (]) 00:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

	== Richard Tylman ==
	{{article\|Richard Tylman}}

	This biographical article on a Vancouver illustrator is almost exclusively the product of {{User\|Poeticbent}} and a number of IP addresses tracing back to the Vancouver Public Library. In the course of an with Poeticbent concerning copyright and verifiability issues, I came across a on Richard Tylman’s website. This list matches those originating with Poeticbent. My queries to the user as to whether he and Tylman might be one and the same have gone unanswered. To be fair, Poeticbent has that I email him concerning this issue. I prefer discussing Misplaced Pages matters within the pages of the encyclopedia itself and have . Thus far, no email exchange has taken place. I am concerned by the presence of references which either fail to support associated statements or – supported only by Tylman’s writing on his website – do not meet the verifiability policy. Poetricbent has removed my citation requests without explanation. I am particularly troubled by a new source which was added to , then linked to shortly after I questioned the lack of sources for the associated claim. ] (]) 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
	:I've copied this over to ], where they have experience of what counts as acceptably sourced from an artist's own site and what demands external sourcing. That said, Poeticbent comes across strongly as wikilawyering on the matter of inclusion. If a detail is unsourced, or there's a discrepancy between what different sources say, it's well within policy to remove it pending verification. ] (]) 17:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
	:The subject seems notable as verified by independent sources. I see no bias or self-promotion; if a subject is willing to provide additional information (such as the document uploaded above) the better for our project. With regards to copyright, if the artist wants text (images, etc.) from his website to be used on Misplaced Pages, he should license them under a compatible free license. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 00:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

	== Order of the Arrow ==

	{{article\|Order of the Arrow}} - Editors and a number of administrators who are also members of the Order of the Arrow are violating ] policies by prohibiting verifiable OA “secrets” from being included in the Order of the Arrow entry. To get around disputes on policy they have created a unilateral concensus that so-called "safeguarded" OA literature and information is off limits for inclusion in the article. however, such a concensus should not be allowed to stand since it a) was arrived at by a group that self-identifies as OA members b) that OA membership carries with it an oath not to reveal this "safeguarded" information c) creates a defacto ] of the Order of the Arrow entry. ] (]) 18:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
	:I understand what you are saying and agree why the circumstances as described might create the appearance of collusion. But I fail to see how that can be extended to assume that a COI exists. I see no harm in allowing members of the Order of the Arrow to continue contributing to that page. If verifiable and notable information is being kept of the page (please cite diffs), then that might reasonably be a matter for an ]. ] (]) 18:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
	::A COI exists because the editors are under obligation by the Order of the Arrow to keep certain information secret. They take an oath affirming as much. While I have no objection to their not revealing such information themselves, it becomes a conflict of interest when they enforce this "safeguarding" on the[REDACTED] community at large. They have literally reached a consensus to censor and entire body of verifiable information.--] (]) 18:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::If you can provide diffs that support your claims of censorship of well-sourced information then it would be easier to establish that something inappropriate is going on. However, I'm still not sure this is a COI issue. I think it might be more appropriate at ]. The more evidence you have, the easier time you will have in getting someone to intervene. ] (]) 20:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

	*Related cases:
	**]
	**]
	:--<i><b>— ]<font color = "darkblue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b> - </i> 20:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

	This was opened by a indefinitely blocked disruptive sockpuppet. ] <small>]</small> 22:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:05, 23 January 2025

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Numismatics.

v t e 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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)

Shortcuts

Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge)

This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Misplaced Pages to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution procedural policy.

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

Additional notes:

This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:

1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.

2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.

3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.

Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline.

Are you in the right place?

An editor can be biased without additionally having a COI. Issues involving bias may be more suited to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.
Issues involving the biographies of living persons policy (BLP) may be more suited to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.
Commercial usernames should be reported to Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention.
Obvious cases of corporate vanity can be tagged with {{db-spam}}.
Articles written about a person, group, club or band by such a person, group, club or band with no assertion of notability can be tagged with {{db-bio}} instead.
This page is not for reporting simple vandalism, material that can easily be fixed or removed without argument, or non-conflict of interest breaches of the neutral point of view policy.

Notes for volunteers

To close a report

Add Template:Resolved at the head of the complaint, with the reason for closing and your signature.
Old issues are taken away by the archive bot.

Other ways to help

All editors are encouraged to help resolve reports of COI editing. More problematic articles can be found in Category:Misplaced Pages articles with possible conflicts of interest.
Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests. Editors who believe they have a conflict of interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should edit the parameter of the {{edit COI}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requester to explain your decision.

To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

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:2020 United States Postal Service crisis Talk:Academy of Achievement Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Anaxam 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:Cognita Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Covivio Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dell Technologies Template talk:Editnotices/Page/List of Nintendo franchises Talk:EnterpriseDB Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:Richard France (writer) Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Genuine Parts Company Talk:Dan Gilbert Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Group-IB Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Hilary Harkness Talk:Hearst Communications Talk:Jo Ann Jenkins Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:Elizabeth Koch (publisher) Talk:Scott Kurashige Talk:Andrew Lack (executive) Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Kewsong Lee 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:NextEra Energy Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:Ornge Talk:Parexel 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:Trócaire 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

John Ortberg

Pages:

John Ortberg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users:

Timothydw82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Timothydw82 is a Single Purpose Account which is used solely to promote, defend and censor valid information about John Ortberg. Timothydw82 admits to consulting with Ortberg about the article on User talk:Timothydw82 and has also used that page to make disparaging comments about Ortberg's son, Daniel Lavery. This is both a serious COI and POV problem. He has been warned before by other editors. My most recent warning (for POV editing) was met with what seems to be feigned incomprehension and "Do you work for Misplaced Pages?". I think it is time to put an end to this farce. DanielRigal (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your concerns. I’d like to address the points you’ve raised to clarify any misunderstandings about my contributions and intentions.

First, while my account may appear to have a narrow focus, my goal has always been to ensure that articles on Misplaced Pages adhere to its principles of neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sourcing. My edits related to John Ortberg and related topics are aimed at upholding these standards, not promoting or censoring information. If there are specific examples where you believe I’ve violated these principles, I welcome a constructive discussion to address them.

Second, regarding my consultation with John Ortberg: I acknowledge that I have communicated with him, as I’ve disclosed on my user talk page. However, my involvement has been strictly limited to ensuring that edits align with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines and reflect accurate information.

Third, concerning the comments about Daniel Lavery, I understand how sensitive these matters are. My intent was not to disparage anyone, and if any of my remarks were perceived as inappropriate, please bring them to my attention.

I'd also like to express my disappointment in your accusing me via direct message of treating you like "idiots". That felt like a curt, uncalled for accusation with little to no dialogue or support. You have not engaged in a discussion with me but clearly expressed your desire to see me blocked for little to no good reason I can discern.

Finally, regarding warnings from other editors: I value feedback and strive to learn from it. I am more than willing to engage in dialogue to resolve disputes and improve the quality of articles. If there are ongoing concerns about my edits, I encourage the use of formal dispute resolution processes so we can work collaboratively toward a solution. Timothydw82 (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Is that AI generated text? I ran it through a few different detectors and most thought that it was at least partially AI generated. DanielRigal (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Indeffed. Thank you, Daniel. Bishonen | tålk 20:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC).

Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation

Pages:

Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Park Hyeon-joo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users:

Channy Jung (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
203.239.154.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Chisu1020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Suspected undisclosed COI editors. Single-purpose accounts used exclusively to edit on this person and his foundation. All of the edits are complimentary, and almost entirely unsourced.

I warned Channy Jung () and 203.239.154.130 () but both have continued editing Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation and have ignored the warning (Channy Jung edit, Channy Jung second edit IP edit). Chisu1020 has been inactive for a while though, but same pattern of behavior.

I recently rewrote Park Hyeon-joo entirely to get rid of the unsourced promotional-like writing . State of article before the rewrite: .

Also worth noting the kowiki version of Park's article is similarly fluffy. I suspect Park/his foundation are watching these articles.

seefooddiet (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Those accounts, as well as 203.239.154.131, all seem to be SPA/COI accounts which are not responding to multiple discussion attempts, and should be blocked for some period of time to get their attention. The "foundation" article seems like it would also fail GNG, and should probably be either deleted or merged into the Hyeon-joo article. TiggerJay (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I BOLDly redirected the foundation article to the main Park Hyeon-joo article. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Writers Marks a Milestone with 1,000 Successful Misplaced Pages Page Publications

Well, that's what they say on openpr.com. For the interested. I was going to link it, but my edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Misplaced Pages's blacklist or Wikimedia's global blacklist. Despite that, it seems to have some WP-presence: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: That's just a press release site. The company that published it is already listed on WP:PAIDLIST at Misplaced Pages:List_of_paid_editing_companies#Hire_Wikipedia_Writers. SmartSE (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Paul Devlin (footballer)

Paul Devlin (footballer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Pdfc2025 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editor claims to be the subject of the article and is repeatedly adding altered statistics, replacing ones which appear to be referenced. I and Struway2 have made suggestions at the editor's talk page. I am reluctant to continue reverting in the circumstances (for all I know the edits are correct, if unsourced), but on the other hand it could be a hoax or subtle vandalism. What's the best way forwards? John (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Their stats look correct for what they are, per the sources in the career stats table lower down the article where they appear in the totals columns, but they include data for matches that don't belong in the infobox. The editor has removed all but big-league clubs from the infobox, lumped together separate spells with the same club, and included statistics for cup competitions; I've explained to them that conventionally we don't do that. The editor also suggests there are errors and omissions, which could well be true, but they haven't yet elaborated. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

They are now blocked from making changes to that article. They are more than welcome to suggest changes on the article's talk page. Jauerback/_dude. 20:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

User:SHEJO VARGHESE

With the page in draft space and placed for CSD, and the copious user page warnings, with a grand total of 3 edits by this apparent COI editor, I would caution WP:BITE. I think no further action is likely necessary as their draft page will either be deleted under CSD but failing that would most certainly fail a formal AfD. TiggerJay (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Tiggerjay, my bad :( I had no intention to come off as overly harsh. — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 20:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Just remember to have good faith -- when they have only made three edits and stopped editing at 16:52, and then subsequently 4 consecutive posts to their talk page is a bit overbearing. It would be one thing if they were editing between your posts (so it appears they are ignoring you), but in this case, zero edits since the first notice, there's not a huge need to escalate unless they continue to persist in unconstructive behavior after the notifications. TiggerJay (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Gilles Epié

Gilles Epié (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Epie2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Epie2020 has acknowledged a personal connection to Gilles Epié on their talk page but does not seem to consider this a conflict of interest. They were most recently warned about this behavior on 20 December 2023 but continue to make edits to the Gilles Epié article. Vegantics (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It's been nearly a year since this user's last contribution, unless there are edits to deleted pages. I don't think there's any action to be taken here given that a COI notice has been on the page since 2023. Maybe some work could be done on the article itself? --Richard Yin (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think the article has a version in page history that doesn't suffer from WP:PROMO issues. I've gone ahead and trimmed it down a bit. --Richard Yin (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable approach to me. They've been off and on editing the same article for years now, so I wouldn't be surprised if they come back at some point. Hopefully this notice will dissuade them from directly editing the article. Thank you for your work on this. Vegantics (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Burning River Buckets

Burning River Buckets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
C.A. Buttons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:C.A. Buttons has identified himself as the owner of the Burning River Buckets basketball team on his talk page, on my talk page, and on the article's talk page. I've tried over a period of months (and on each of those talk pages) to share information on the COI policy and the need for reliable sources, to no apparent avail. Perhaps others could give it try. -- Pemilligan (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I've posted a personalized explanation on their talk page. For now I think it's worth letting their changes to the page more or less stand; their actual contributions in the latest round of edits consisted of deleting some unreferenced information and accidentally removing one reference. --Richard Yin (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Went back and restored the external links section as well. --Richard Yin (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Link to a WP:COIN thread from 2024 regarding an IP editor claiming to be the team's owner: Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 207#Burning River Buckets/ABA --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Thebosullivan

User appears to be/is part of a (self-published) substack publication called Shatter the Standards (their about page makes this fact very obvious) and all of his edits since joining on January 13 2025 have been adding the publication's reviews to album articles (WP:PROMO). For example/recently, on Mac Miller's Balloonerism (today). // Chchcheckit (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Chchcheckit The top of this noticeboard clearly says This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue. Why wasn't this done first? I have now left a COI notice on the user's talk page. Melcous (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

my bad. i rushed / wasn't thinking

Facepalm // Chchcheckit (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

No wirres Chchcheckit, thanks for responding. Hopefully they will respond either here or there. Melcous (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

shatterthestandards.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com SmartSE (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Alexander H. Joffe

Alexander H. Joffe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
69.121.25.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Claims to be Joffe in a 2007 edit
71.249.231.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Edited the article only a day after the above IP to remove a notability tag, has only edited the Joffe article, Joffe's area of expertise of Levantine archaeology and The David Project, Joffe's former employer per here.
74.88.198.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Claims to be Joffe in this talk page edit
24.191.44.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Claims to be Joffe in the same talk page as above
31.154.131.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Single edit on the page promoting Joffe's podcast, IP is from Israel where Joffe has done work in the past. I find it rather unlikely some random Israeli wants to add a link to a minor academic's podcast.
67.82.155.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Made 2 edits to Joffe article, has New Rochelle, NY IP, only a few miles from SUNY Purchase where Joffe formerly taught.

There are other IPs which have only one edit to Joffe's article that could well be him as well but I don't think that's enough evidence to go by, nor would it be worthwile given how much Joffe's IP seems to change. Gazingo (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Not really actionable directly as all of these account edits are from several years ago. IP addresses span multiple networks and we wouldn’t block them broadly without good reason. Only thing at the moment is to keep an eye out on this article. If new IP edits become persistently disruptive you could request page protection, but one or two anonymous edits once a year wouldn’t even qualify for that unless there were serious BLP concerns. Use revert instead. TiggerJay (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Earth System Governance Project

Resolved – Discussion should remain at WP:ANI BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Earth System Governance Project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
EMsmile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Pinging @EMsmile:. See the extensive discussion on Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Non-neutral_paid_editor. Would like a subject matter expert/COI expert to figure this out. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello User:Bluethricecreamman, that ANI thread has become crazy long, should we (or someone) perhaps summarise what the COI question about me is exactly, for the benefit of the people watching this noticeboard? You might be in a better position to do that than me. - My question would be: is the COI management explanation that I give on my profile page at the top under "disclosure" sufficient/correct? The ANI got started by someone who claimed my edits at solar radiation modification were adding "PR" because I am a paid editor and have a COI. I have rejected this claim and believe I have followed procedures correctly. I have however said in the ANI thread that I would be happy to ban myself from editing the Earth System Governance Project article in future due to the various connections between that alliance of academics and my client, the "Earth System Governance Foundation". EMsmile (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Just a note here that EMsmile also wrote 98% of Frank Biermann, the founder of the ESG Project. I'm not sure what question this COIN thread is supposed to be answering. What are we supposed to be figuring out here? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

no clue. never posted anything to COI/N. Just trying to get folks who know how to handle it or similar situations' take. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, since you don't have a specific question for COIN, I suggest that people who are interested comment at AN/I instead of here. Having a discussion take place in two different pages is very stressful, especially for the person whose conduct is being discussed. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Mockbul Ali

Resolved – Page has been deleted and salted BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Mockbul Ali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article had been deleted after prior WP:COIN discussion, has now been created again. I've tagged for deletion. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The page in question complies with all of Misplaced Pages’s criteria and is factual with no commentary. There are references also included. The page is also identical in form to dozens of other pages for British diplomats. The UK diplomatic service has only a handful of diplomats from ethnic minority backgrounds, therefore it is worthwhile having a page on one of the very few ethnic minority British Ambassadors (of which there have been less than a dozen in the last 100 years). The aim surely has to be to improve the page and not delete it. 2A02:C7C:F349:3A00:7507:2D93:8FC:5D8F (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Long history of puffery and sock puppetry. Probably does not meet our notability guidelines and we strongly suspect it's an autobiography. Secretlondon (talk) 08:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Jay8g: and @Axad12:. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

EnterpriseDB

EnterpriseDB (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
EDBWiki25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repetitive edits with promotional and unsourced content. Article has a history of seemingly paid editors and/or closely affiliated editors. ~Darth Stabro 22:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

User hasn't responded to any talk page messages or made any other attempt to communicate besides two very short edit summaries. A block might be needed to get their attention (and also per username policy). See also User talk:Bilal Ibrar at EDB. --Richard Yin (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

They've been blocked for spam. Secretlondon (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I listed all the potential COI/undisclosed paid editors in the article's history on the article talk page. Not a single one ever disclosed a connection to the company, but a bit of searching found that the majority were rather obvious. As the blocked editor is the only one recently active, there's no point in notifying any of the others. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: