Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:59, 20 March 2009 editSkipsievert (talk | contribs)13,044 edits →Sustainability article and Sustainable gardens, landscapes and sites: comment← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:02, 8 January 2025 edit undoRichard Yin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers4,382 edits →Captain Beany: 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 = 30 |counter = 217
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(7d) |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! -->
== ] on ] ==


I am trying to cut promotional content from ]. ] seems like a "reliable source". However, looking at the content they've published, I'm concerned that this newspaper may have a conflict of interest when it comes to her/her billionaire family.
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.


*
PLEASE REMEMBER TO SIGN YOUR MESSAGE
*
*
*
*


In fact, many of the sources used in the article seem like the kind of thing a billionaire in a country like Nigeria probably paid someone to write but I am not sure how to handle this. ]] 08:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Copy, do not edit, the below text and paste it below the newest section at the bottom of the page


:Maybe best to raise the issue at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (]). Users there may be able to confirm your concerns or perhaps could point you in the direction of a list of ] and non-RS sources within the Nigerian media. Hope this helps. ] (]) 12:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
-->
::Just a brief follow-up to say that there is actually a current thread at ] in relation to the reliability of Nigerian newspapers (here ) which may be of assistance to the user who opened this thread. It seems that the existence of sponsored content in Nigerian newspapers is a widespread problem. Regards, ] (]) 04:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I have run across a new editor who has created many articles based on these Nigerian sources. At first I thought it was a conflict of interest but now I am not so sure (but probably a conflict of interest with at least one of the subjects). I have moved the new articles to draft. ] ]] 17:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


== Special:Contributions/213.8.97.219 ==
== Werner Krieglstein ==


{{iplinks|213.8.97.219}}
Here is another connection were the writer is relationed person he is writing about by blood. ( ) ] (]) 10:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
:My COI on these two pages was previously noted by ] among a few other editors. A COI in wikipedia does not out right prohibit edits from said user, it only very strongly discourages them. Solid and meaningful discussion of my COI with ] led to review of my edits and a note of my COI which notifies other editors of my edits on these pages so that they may be reviewed. Thank you for helping to keep Misplaced Pages professional, ] (]) 00:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


{{articlelinks|Israel Football Association}}
== Tom Krieglstein ==


IP user to being employed by the subject of the article, but to blank the article's Controversy section after being of policy regarding paid editing. --] (]) 13:50, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
This article was written by a member of the person's nuclear family, therefor there is a conflict of interest in the page authorship. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


] (]) 10:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC) :] is likely to be a sock made by the IP. I'm going to add a paid edit disclosure to the article. ] (]) 18:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


== Lyal S. Sunga/Long-term (two-decade) COI abuses ==
== Possible ] found by ] ==
{{Article links|Lyal S. Sunga}}


The article ] was created by 217.210.145.175, which is located in Sweden, in 2005, when Lyal S. Sunga just became a lecturer at the ]. Later, the article was edited by 81.234.192.235, 90.224.52.72, 81.234.194.194, 90.231.183.154, among others, all located in Sweden, from 2005 to 2009.
* ] &nbsp;&nbsp;''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.''


Then, the article was edited by 93.41.230.58, 93.40.187.104, 93.47.142.126, among others, all located in Italy, when Lyal S. Sunga moved to Italy for UNODC.
== Requested edits ==


In 2014, the article was edited by 83.166.225.44, which is located in Moscow, Russia, when Lyal S. Sunga was an OHCHR-Moscow Consultant.
* '''].'''&nbsp;&nbsp;''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.''


In 2016, the article was edited by 83.84.186.217, which is located in the Netherlands, when Lyal S. Sunga was at the Hague Institute for Global Justice.
== ] ==


In 2017, the article was edited by 93.48.243.70, which is located in Italy, when Lyal S. Sunga returned to Italy for The American University of Rome.
<div style="margin: 1em;" class="resolved"><span style="border: 1px solid #aaa; background: #f9fcf9; margin-right: .5em; padding: 6px;">] Resolved. </span>{{#if: Stale. User is not active and offending edits have been removed. Workaround for OR provided. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 13:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)|<span style="font-size: 85%;">Stale. User is not active and offending edits have been removed. Workaround for OR provided. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 13:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)</span>}}</div>
{{article|Edwards Rail Car Company (1997-2008)}} is being edited by {{userlinks|Steve torrico}}. Mr. Torrico is or was president of this organization, and continually removes content without explanation or edit summary, despite evidence presented on the articles talk page of why this information is relative to the articles subject.


In recent years, the articled has been edited mostly by IPs located in Italy, where Lyal S. Sunga has been living.
Specifically, he removes content relative to ], which is clearly a company related in some manner to Edwards ''(see articles talk page for evidence))''.


He had previously received a COI warning, and has just received a warning about removal of content without explanation. ] (]) 15:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC) It is fair to say that more than 95% of the edits in this article were made by Lyal S. Sunga himself. I am unsure if the article should be kept or deleted for its advertising nature. ] (]) 23:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{re|Eyer}} has gone in and cleared out a lot of puffery and cruft. ]&nbsp;] 00:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:The editor in question has already been warned, so I'll watch the page for any more suspicious edits. ] (]) 21:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
::Thank you. ] (]) 21:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Upon looking over the edits, although the account's intentions might not have been the best, Misplaced Pages articles do generally tend not to discuss other companies than the one in the article. I have reremoved the mention to the company in the lead. This can be interpreted as undue weight and/or promotion. I'll still watch the article for any suspicious editing. ] (]) 22:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
::::Would the inclusion of this information at another point in the article ''(near the end?)'' be more appropriate? ] (]) 21:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::I don't believe it would be appropriate unless there has been adequate coverage of this similarity in the press. ] (]) 22:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


== User:Taeyasu/Sample page ==
''(outdent)'' These 2 firms have received very little press.


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
After much checking, the only 3rd party reference to the companies interrelation I can find is a company profile that lists the address for '''Edwards''', which is the exact same address that '''EIKON''' lists on their website as their physical address ''( I believe we can trust a company to be truthful as to their own address)''.
* {{pagelinks|User:Taeyasu/Sample page}}
* {{userlinks|Taeyasu}}
* {{userlinks|Trendalchemy}}
* {{userlinks|Dpatrioli}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->


3 accounts with no contributions except to write promotional-sounding article ]. Notably:
Would this finding be ''Original research''?


* "Trend Alchemy" appears to be the name of a PR firm in Italy
If not "Original Research", would this, and the 2 companies extremely similar lines of products and services, be enough 3rd party reference to tie the 2 together? Would it at least qualify for a ''see also'' as a company with a very similar product line?? ] (]) 20:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
* The {{conam|Trendalchemy}} account became inactive after being informed of paid-editing policy
:Yes, it would be considered original research, since it requires a synthesis of information that requires logic to put together. Misplaced Pages can not report that 2+2=4 in an article unless it's already been documented, no matter how logical the conclusion is. I don't think it would qualify as a "see also" link either, since Misplaced Pages generally does not link to other articles until a connection has been established by sources. ] (]) 20:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
* The {{conam|Dpatrioli}} account was created afterward and has not disclosed COI status.


I'd take this to SPI but the third account hasn't made any edits since I posted on its talk page. Thought I'd get a few more eyes on this in case the pattern continues. --] (]) 01:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:: statement ("''] appears to be a related or successor company.''") is ]. This statement ("EIKON emerged in 2008 as Edwards Rail Car Company ceased production of railcars at the Montgomery location.") is not, but should be referenced nonetheless.


:I recently attempted to get the material speedy deleted under ] but this was declined due to the material not being considered "unambiguously promotional".
::It does appear the ] has a COI and is attempting to conceal a link, but it could also be true that the original research is in fact false. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 14:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
:Presumably an attempt will be made at some point in the near future to introduce the article into mainspace. At that point, at a minimum, the elements of the article which clearly are promotional should be removed, and an undeclared PAID template added. Possibly the material should be draftified.
:However, what concerns me is that it seems reasonable to assume that the Trendalchemy account (plus the other accounts above) appears to have links to a PR firm and the draft material is currently titled "Sample page". The material is not in the user's sandbox or being curated as a draft, it appears to be a sample of the work of a PR agency ''displayed on the user page of that PR agency''. That being the case, I do personally believe that deletion under G11 would have been appropriate as a userspace clearly should not be being abused in this way, as per ] (i.e. prescribed material includes {{tq|Advertising or promotion of business}}). I'd invite input from ] on the grounds for them declining the G11. ] (]) 13:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::G11 is for ''unambiguous'' promotion which it isn't. COI is not a rationale for speedy deletion either. ] is thataway if you want it to be deleted. – ] (]) 13:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I agree that it is not unambiguous promotion of the company which is the subject of the article (a company called "Translated").
:::However, it is most definitely unambiguous promotion of the PR firm who created the material because the material is titled as being a sample of the work of that PR firm and it is presented on the userpage of that PR firm.
:::Or do you believe that PR firms post samples of their work online for reasons other than unambiguous self-promotion? ] (]) 14:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::UPDATE: I resubmitted the material for speedy deletion and it was deleted by a different user. ] (]) 15:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
: '''Update''': See {{conam|Dpatrioli}}'s message and my reply on my talk page ]. --] (]) 11:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::As just replied to @], and to give here with some more elements for your evaluation, this is what happened:
::1) ] , ] are not representing any PR Agency, they both work at in the Communication department. You may find evidence
::2) @] is an independent writer, and he has been hired to help us to write this article about Translated. He is not representing a PR agency but he is been paid by Translated for this task.
::3) The main reason for the "speedy delete" request of the page was that the author/contributors were suspected to be a PR agency promoting itself with this page; the material, as I see in the talk history, has not been considered "unambiguously promotional".
::We are new to produce contents here. But we decided to write this page and we made a draft, this wasn't finished. The page was meant to describe what has been the contribution of Translated in the last 20 years in the development of the Transformer applied to the AI and, more specifically, to Machine Translation advancements. The company developed a number of technologies available to the public, some of them free, and we believe it's notably and there is a huge number of third parties sources to mention that.
::Thanks for the input, in case we publish again material we'll sure specify the proper COI. ] (]) 14:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The draft was not considered to be "unambiguously promotional" but elements of it were certainly highly promotional in intent.
:::I see the evidence that Dpatrioli works for Translated, but no evidence that Trendalchemy works for Translated. Trend Alchemy is a PR firm. ] (]) 15:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::@] Trendalchemy is not actually a company, is a laboratory, and the founder is Patrizia Boglione. Check this page on where it's written: "''I am now the Brand & Creative VP of one of the most innovative tech-companies in the translation industry that combines the best artificial intelligence with a network of 200,000 translators." Patrizia is the same person mentioned in the website of Translated.''
::::As far as "but elements of it were certainly highly promotional in intent", I understand where you come from, and we'll try to make it right, but I believe we can make a page where there's a relevant story for the audience (and I think there's one), then if I write something wrong, questionable, or with inappropriate sources, well it will be the public to correct or to modify it. From my side, I can write what I know from my angle (including declaring COI), it would be odd if I write something with the intent of discredit the company I work for. ] (]) 16:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::The Trend Alchemy website states that {{tq|Our products and services include Trend Report, New Brand Narratives, Future Brand Strategies, Brand Coaching, Custom Brand & Trend workshops, Trend Talks.}} There can therefore be little doubt that it is, broadly speaking, a PR company.
:::::Also, Misplaced Pages is not about making {{tq|a page where there's a relevant story for the audience}}. This is an encyclopaedia, not an opportunity for marketing operatives to install a narrative. For further info on this please see ]. ] (]) 17:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::That's very useful, thank you ] (]) 19:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)


== Chris Antonopoulos (footballer) and Fort Lauderdale Strikers ==
:::Stale? -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 14:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|Chris Antonopoulos (footballer)}}
* {{userlinks|Amplifyplantz33}}


] and numerous ] related articles, which Antonopoulos appears to have been a player for, have been edited by ]. The user seems to be Antonopoulos and received a notice to disclose their conflict of interest on December 4 by @]. The user did not respond and does not appear to have made an effort to disclose a conflict of interest as they are required to. The user also created the Antonopoulos article and is responsible for the majority of the content added to it. The only indication the user appears to have made to disclose their potential conflict of interest was to write "Chris Antonopoulos" on their user page. ] (]) 07:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==


:I've removed a lot of unsourced material from the Antonopoulos article, but clearly the problems here extend rather further than that. ] (]) 15:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
{{archivetop}}
::The user has now denied on their talk page that they are Antonopoulos. It must be admitted, however, that they appear to be a ] dedicated solely to promoting Antonopoulos and mentioning him on as many articles as possible.
{{Resolved|moot, editor has been topic-banned from related articles, see ] below}}
::It seems unclear whether the user has a COI or is just a fan who is unaware of the policies on sourcing and promotion.
* {{user|PJHaseldine}} is a proponent of one or more theories covered by {{article|Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories}} (article previously named "Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103"), and also repeated in related articles such as {{article|Bernt Carlsson}}. His COI over these articles goes back to a ] over this article as well as ]. A COI case was opened back then, which resulted in him being blocked for a period, as well as agreeing with WP administrators to abide by WP guidlines for making COI edits. However it seems that the agreement has now been ], as we're back in a situation where he is making COI edits to the Pan Am Flight 103 related articles. Part of the issue is that he's been partially successful in the past in using WP as a ] - for example, the Scotsman newspaper cut/paste his POV content from ] verbatim some months ago, thereby giving it some mileage (which was promptly ] in the article in an attempt to meet WP's ] requirements). However his theory is not published or referenced by any reliable sources, and therefore is being given undue ] as well as being ]. In other words, he has a very strong COI to keep pushing his theory via this article here at WP, as is evident by his track record of ignoring repeated requests/reminders on associated talk pages to follow COI guidlines. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva"><font color="black"><font size="4">Socrates2008 (<font size=3>]</font>)</font></font></font> 22:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
::Any thoughts on whether Antonopoulos satisfies ] and whether detailed info on beach soccer activities is usually considered suitable for inclusion? ] (]) 15:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:If there is an ongoing COI issue with the ] and ] articles, it is one that {{user|Socrates2008}} himself has to address. He is a South African editor who does not want to acknowledge the possibility that ] could have been responsible for the ]. My recent edits to these articles followed his wholesale for which I congratulated him.---] (]) 22:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
:::It seems unlikely that they would be so obsessed with Antonopoulos if they were not either him or someone closely associated with him, and their response is quite odd. There does appear to be a Chris Antonopoulos who signed a professional contract with the Fort Lauderdale Strikers, and to me that satisfies notability as the beach soccer and pre-professional soccer contract section of his career would not make Antonopoulos notable enough to have an article alone. It is of note that Antonopoulos does not appear to have been the primary goalkeeper during his tenure and that the primary goalkeepers were Jorge Valenzuela, Mario Jimenez, and ] at this time. It appears Antonopoulos only made two appearances between 1993 and 1994 which is when he was apparently signed to the team. From the perspective of someone who was not directly involved with the Strikers but would want to write about them, Valenzuela and Jimenez would probably be higher on the priority list than a goalkeeper who only made two appearances. The only parts about Antonopoulos in the article that are specific to him are praising his accomplishments. ] (]) 22:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::To anyone who may not understand the insult made above, Mr Haseldine is attempting by his comment above to portray me as (]) ]-lover. Please don't let him distract you from his self-stated COI over this article and others related to it. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva"><font color="black"><font size="4">Socrates2008 (<font size=3>]</font>)</font></font></font> 10:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
::::Agreed 100%. ] (]) 22:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
''From ]'':
:::::Additionally, the appear to indicate that whoever is writing the article had close connections with Antonopoulos throughout his career if they in fact have the right to upload them. ] (]) 23:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:I have no COI over this article. However, ] appears to have one - see ---] (]) 20:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::The user continues to obsess over this article and to add large amounts of trivial non-encyclopaedic detail and generally promotional material. Are we really sure that the subject satisfies ]? ] (]) 00:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
OK, let's quickly summarise your lack of COI, shall we:
:::::::I generally go by pro athletes being notable enough to have an article, but Antonopoulos appears to have barely been a pro athlete, and like I brought up with the writer before they accused me of acting uncivil, it would make more sense to write articles about Antonopoulos' teammates. I'm not in favor of having an article on Misplaced Pages who's express purpose is to promote someone, even if they may meet the requirement of general notability. This is the first time I've dealt with an issue like this, so I apologize if I am not understanding things correctly as to what makes someone notable enough. ] (]) 01:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*You have a personal alternate/conspiracy theory that you have been pushing in multiple WP articles (], ], ], ], ], ], ], ), via , , from the UK government petitions website (<nowiki>http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/UNInquiry/</nowiki>) and .
*You've been using Misplaced Pages as ], by maintaining the primary content here that you continue to link to from multiple Internet websites. You therefore have a very strong COI in keeping this content up for all these external links you've created, and for the subject matter to reflect your own ]. Some of this info you have been publishing at WP has been driven from main article space by other editors, but you continue to flaunt WP policies by publishing it on the talk pages instead. (e.g. External links from and to ] and from the UK government petitions site (<nowiki>http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/UNInquiry/</nowiki>) to ]).
*You and your theory are not mentioned by any ], ] sources. (Try searching Google books - nothing). So there are issues of ] and ] over your theory vs others that are well-published.
*You've been representing your theory as fact in the WP articles you've been editing.
*You added and defended citations to the Scotsman newspaper, despite knowing that they had cut/paste your WP edits.
*You've used multiple accounts in the past to try to hide your edits and to give the impression of consensus when your POV has been challenged. Yes, the socket puppetry now appears to have stopped, but it still illustrates the depth of your COI.
*You continue to make to your own theory in articles such as ] and ], despite repeated requests (], ], ], ], ] ) to follow COI guidlines.
*You have been edit warring with other editors when your COI/POV content has been removed. (e.g. )
*You are the only person who has been expanding your theory in various WP articles over the past 24 months.
*You have now gone back on in a previous COI case where you agreed with Administrators not to make further COI edits.
*You my first post above to replace ] with ], in an apparent attempt to limit the scope of this COI case.
*You have been ] other editors such as myself that are pointing out your COI, in an attempt to distract attention away from yourself. (e.g. and )
So, do you still say you have no COI over the Pan Am 103 conspiracy theories? In answer to your allegation of my own COI, I challenge you firstly to provide the edits; secondly I call your bluff - I will happy sign up for a topic ban across '''all''' Pan Am 103 related articles if you do... <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva"><font color="black"><font size="4">Socrates2008 (<font size=3>]</font>)</font></font></font> 06:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
:Between 23 and 25 February 2009, ] made a total of to the ] article. His ] of the article was necessary and long overdue, and I


== Adolph Jentsch ==
:However, Socrates managed to misrepresent - whether deliberately or not - the In particular, he was wrong to say "More recently, the theory has been expanded by ] from the original version where the ] had only been forewarned of the bomb, to one were they were actively involved in its placement. The alleged motive was to assassinate ], ], and thereby prevent the transitioning of Namibia to independence. Haseldine cites the following unconnected events to explain his theory


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
:As is clear from this discussion on my alternative theory was first publicised on 7 December 1989, thus pre-dating many of the perhaps more aptly named ].
* {{pagelinks|Adolph Jentsch}}
* {{userlinks|username}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
There is an IP editor who is repeatedly entering non-encyclopedic text, such as . I've reversed him once but he then sent me several abusive emails accusing me of article ownership, so I don't want to reverse him again. I cannot give him a COIN notice because he uses different IPs every time he edits. Can someone other than me please remove the edit and perhaps protect the article from IP edits? Thanks! ] (]) 05:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


:You can request page protection at ]. -- ] (]) 14:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:I therefore corrected Socrates' edits to the South-West Africa (Namibia) section, as follows: "According to another theory, ] was responsible for the sabotage of ]. The theory is rooted in an allegation made in the film the ] and by ] that the United States government knew of the bomb and warned staff from its embassies in ] and ], as well as a high-level South African delegation, to avoid the flight. Someone allegedly contacted the US embassy in Helsinki, Finland 16 days before the bombing, warning of a bomb on a Pan Am aircraft departing Frankfurt for the US; none of the staff at the Moscow embassy took the flight, despite it being a popular route for them over Christmas. The allegation prompted a strong statement from the then South African Foreign Minister, Pik Botha, (made by his private secretary in November 1994) stating: 'Had he known of the bomb, no force on earth would have stopped him from seeing to it that flight 103, with its deadly cargo, would not have left the airport'."


== Conflict of interest - Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra Article ==
:"Initial allegations of South African responsibility for the bombing were made in a series of letters by former British diplomat, ], that were published in '']'' newspaper between December 1989 and December 1993. Haseldine did not accept that the South Africans had simply been forewarned of the bomb, but were actively involved in its placement. The alleged motive was to assassinate ], ], and to frustrate Namibia's progress towards independence from South African rule. Haseldine cites a number of related events to support his theory:
* {{pagelinks|Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra}}
* {{userlinks|Anurag Palutla}}


], I think there is a conflict of interest here. The director himself has created an account and working on the article - ] (]) 08:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
* Signing of the ] independence agreement on 22 December 1988 (the day after the ]) at ].
* Cancellation at short notice of a booking on PA 103 by a 23-strong South African delegation, headed by foreign minister ], and including defence minister ] and director of military intelligence General C J Van Tonder.
* The last-minute change of travel plan by Bernt Carlsson. Instead of flying direct from ] to New York on December 20, Carlsson was persuaded by a representative of ] to stop over in London the following day and to join the PA 103 transatlantic flight."
:"He also links a version of his South-West Africa (Namibia) theory to the Joe Vialls "radio detonation" theory."


The Article was intitated by @udaywrites and is getting expanded by @anuragpatla. Who are the crew of the film. ] (]) 08:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:I stand by this version of the South-West Africa (Namibia) theory in preference to the incorrect one made by ] (to which ] has reverted).


== Vanskere ==
:Misplaced Pages editors each have their own subjects of interest and expertise. As a British Wikipedian, my main subject of interest (and expertise) is the ]. As befits a South African editor, and in ]. His compatriot, ], also concentrates on Neither editor seems to accept that he could have a ] in editing in his own subject interest areas, nor in their


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->* {{pagelinks|Vanskere}}
:In summary, I accept that ] prevents me from editing my own ]. However, I should not be restricted from editing elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, just as ] should continue to edit articles such as the and ] can edit without restriction.---] (]) 13:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|Evans Akere}}
* {{userlinks|Iamtoxima}}<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->


This editor is screaming conflict of interest to me. Both articles have been tagged as promotional utilizing ], I have nominated them for deletion. As you can see on the user talk page, they have been asked about conflict of interest without a response. They also posted asking about how to make Google index their brand's article. Their primary other edit was to add the brand to ]. ]] 18:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::Final response:
:*You've failed to address any of the COI complaints raised against you.
:*], with which you are already familiar from your biography, would allow you to express any concerns over your own theories via the relevant talk page.
:*My "collaboration" 18 months ago with ] was limited specifically to rooting out the 4 socket puppet accounts that you were using to edit your own theory and bio.
:*Your attempt at painting me as an apartheid racist/militarist is not working. Kindly refrain from making further attempts at guessing my politics, as they are insulting far off the mark. Unlike you, I am not forwarding any original fringe theories or politics of my own here at WP. (I edit a wide range of articles, and have submitted a number of ]) PS: Nice try once again trying to deflect the attention off yourself.
:*As above, you should absolutely be restricted from editing your own theories on WP - that is EXACTLY what the WP ] policy is all about adressing. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva"><font color="black"><font size="4">Socrates2008 (<font size=3>]</font>)</font></font></font> 13:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


:Upon further investigation looking at the user's linked social media, the brand page in question is listed as one of their clients. ]] 18:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::Now would be a fine point at which an Admin could review this case and take decisive action. Thank you. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva"><font color="black"><font size="4">Socrates2008 (<font size=3>]</font>)</font></font></font> 13:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


== Marc Jorgenson ==
:::The problem here is that it is only the South African Misplaced Pages editor, ], who has raised this plethora of what he calls "COI complaints" against me. I have replied to his catalogue of criticism in a perfectly reasonable way, but he responds by unjustifiably accusing me of painting him "as an apartheid racist/militarist".
{{atop

| result = No edits since 2008. No need for action. ] (]/]) 01:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I would hope that when an Admin does come to "review this case and take decisive action", he will take action against both ] and ] for ---] (]) 16:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Yes, I'm sure it must have felt like a "concerted attack" to have all your ] closed down. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva"><font color="black"><font size="4">Socrates2008 (<font size=3>]</font>)</font></font></font> 06:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::And I'm sure it has not gone unnoticed that your partner ] awarded you for all your diligence in that respect! In fact, your ] has been recorded by no less an authority than ---] (]) 11:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

: This sounds like ] and/or ] issues rather than ] (which would <s>require</s>be obvious if there were off-wiki direct financial, professional, or marketing interest on a topic, none of which appear to be present). Is there any reason why this would not be better handled in another forum? -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 11:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
::Sam, from ]:
::*'''Citing oneself''' - PH regularly cites his ''own letters'' to the Guardian when he details his own theories. There are no reliable secondary sources for these letters or for his theory.
::*'''Campaigning''' - PH is campaigning for a UN investigation into his theory that Pan Am 103 was downed in order to assassinate Bernt Carlsson. (See <nowiki>http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/UNInquiry/</nowiki>, which contains a link to ], which redirected to ] before it was deleted.) <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva"><font color="black"><font size="4">Socrates2008 (<font size=3>]</font>)</font></font></font> 12:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Sam, I agree with you about the inapplicability of ] to this case.

:::This ] article, headed demonstrates that ] is wrong on both counts.---] (]) 13:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

:::*An interest is not a conflict of interest. Citing oneself is more relevant to academic papers and the like - citing letters to the editor is an obvious violation of ] (specifically ]), much the same for circular references (which you can discuss specifically at ]). As for campaigning, I don't see an off-wiki direct financial, professional, or marketing interest here. In any case this is not the forum for discussing such issues as the late Mr Carlsson's last minute travel changes. As this appears to be a dispute between two editors how about keeping ] and getting a ]? -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 13:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

::::Sam, can you point out where in the COI guidelines that "off-wiki direct financial, professional, or marketing interest" is specified for determining whether somebody has a COI? Obviously a COI is much clearer where this is evident, but I believe that campaigning and advocacy of this sort are covered by the guidelines; indeed campaigning has a subsection there, and the guidelines specifically states that "COI editing involves contributing to Misplaced Pages in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." --] (]) 14:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::The point is that the individual derives no benefit despite clearly having a ''strong'' interest in the case and a specific point of view (which can be articulated in the article along with others provided it's verifiable). The point where a strong interest crosses over to a conflict of interest is where there is a benefit (e.g. money, votes, popularity). As there is no such evidence we need to ]. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 14:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

:::::::The guidelines are clear here that it isn't just the individual's benefit that counts; it is even bolded "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages, that editor stands in a conflict of interest". This may involve personal "off-wiki direct financial, professional, or marketing interest" including money, votes, popularity, or it may involve "getting the word out" about a cause, organization or group. I see the confusion about the term "campaigning", but campaigning doesn't just refer to political campaigns. I haven't looked very closely at this specific case, but a cursory glance suggests that the originator and promoter of a ] about the Lockerbie bombing could be very much be in COI when editing WP articles on this subject, since there would be a strong (and natural) desire to advance your pet theory. --] (]) 15:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Policy goes on to say "If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest" and there is no such organisation for the user to be 'involved with', rather a ]. As it's not clear I'm commenting on the content rather than the contributors (per ]) and suggest they should try to do the same - particularly when it comes to nationality/race. ] is a good reference, as are ], ], and ], which explains "article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue".

::::::::I am however concerned about which contradicts the of the European Court of Human Rights relating to his dismissal (personal COI) and this more recent which show the {{tl|OR}} tag being repeatedly removed (potential ] violation). -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 16:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::I think that the above continues to be a very narrow interpretation of what constitutes a COI; campaigning may be for organizations or not, but the COI guideline (including the nutshell) makes clear that "COI editing involves contributing to Misplaced Pages in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups", while ] (which ''is'' actually policy, while the COI guidelines are not) make clear that WP is not the place for "propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise". I agree that the focus needs to be on whether the edits show that an editor is not editing from a NPOV, including using unreliable sources etc. I appreciate that you have identified some areas of editing concern that indicated that there may indeed be an issue here. In my view, other examples provided above by Socrates, also suggest that there is cause for concern.--] (]) 17:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::Whilst not in any way condoning potential ] violations, I offer the following discussion starting with ] categorising me as a in mitigation. This is the category about which ] has today taken issue with ], whom he accuses of archiving in order to ---] (]) 21:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

::::::BTW, I sincerely doubt that a posting on ] qualifies as a reliable source, but that is a question for ]--] (]) 14:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I can only comment to a pattern of behaviour, which includes
*the use of sock puppets (], ], ])
*COI edits to article of himself (]) and
*canvassing support for an external petition (petitions.number10.gov.uk/UNInquiry/) relating to the Lockerbie bombing via:
**
**external links in six articles related to the topic: , , , , ,
His conflict of interest stems from his real life public support for these conspiracy theories and his dismissal from the British diplomatic service for –amongst other things– his public criticism of Margaret Thatcher's handling of South African agents at the time of the Lockerbie bombing. —&nbsp;] (]) 20:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

:---] (]) 21:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to respond to Sam's comments above:
*I agree with Slp1 that your interpretation of not deriving benefit is too narrow. There is considerable "financial benefit" to be gained as the currency of politics (Mr Haseldine is active in British politics) is fame, notoriety and votes.
*The underlying issue for me - the one that prompted me to re-open this case, is ] ]. If Misplaced Pages is happy with someone writing an article about something controversial, citing only themselves as a source, giving their ideas more space than other well-published and reviewed points of view, using the talk pages to publish when ideas are removed from main article space, then we're done here.
PS: I find the "dirty tricks" employed here (e.g. , who hasn't edited any of the related articles for at least a year, then crying wolf when he comes to defend himself) to be quite distasteful, but I sincerely hope he is not succeeding in diverting anyone's attention through it. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva"><font color="black"><font size="4">Socrates2008 (<font size=3>]</font>)</font></font></font> 21:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

::Permit me to correct ] on a couple of points:
::#Since standing down in 1995 as the first elected ] parish councillor for ], I have not even been ''involved'', let alone been ''active'', in British politics.
::#] did not come guns blazing to "defend himself". He came to do ---] (]) 22:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

::::I did in fact come here to defend myself against more personal attacks. Mr. Haseldine, you have been warned before against linking to external sites making personal attacks (suggesting I might be an apartheid era general etc.), because that is in fact considered a personal attack (]). —&nbsp;] (]) 12:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

===No changes in the pattern===
over PH's personal theory in the ] article. Furthermore, neither the section in article itself nor the on the talk page meet ] criteria. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva"><font color="black"><font size="4">Socrates2008 (<font size=3>]</font>)</font></font></font> 21:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
:Not the case, as ] well knows! This is the full talk page edit:
''Discussion pasted here by ] from ]''
{{quote box|quote=
===Special Representative of the Secretary-General===
Had ], '''Bernt Carlsson''', lived to see the signature of the ] on 22 December 1988, he would have been appointed ], and would thus have overseen ]'s transition to independence. Carlsson would not have stood for all the ] that the ] got up to. For instance, he would not have authorised the deployment of ] units and ] against the alleged incursion of ] "fighters" from ] on 1 April 1989, as his replacement ] was persuaded to do by ] and ] (see ).

The South Africans knew that Carlsson would not tolerate any interference with Namibia's progress towards independence. And it would have been an independence election with SWAPO achieving well over the 66.6% vote that was necessary for them to revise their "imposed" independence constitution!---] (]) 19:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
:Namibia successfully transitioned to independence, with SWAPO the majority party, so the outcome would not have been any different. Your assertions need ], as they are only conjecture. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva"><font color="black"><font size="4">Socrates2008 (<font size=3>]</font>)</font></font></font> 21:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
::How's this? "In July 1989, ] and ] of the ] visited Namibia and reported: 'There is a widespread feeling that too many concessions were made to South African personnel and preferences and that Martti Ahtisaari was not forceful enough in his dealings with the South Africans.'{{cite book
|title=Namibia: Birth of a Nation
|author=]
|publisher=Quartet Books Ltd
|year=1990
|page=19
}}"---] (]) 21:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
}} }}
===Proposed restrictions on ]===
{{archivetop}}
{{Resolved|Topic ban enacted at ] and ]. ] (]) 03:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)}}
*I recommend that admins impose a topic ban on PJHaseldine that will restrict him from editing any articles related to Pan Am 103, or the Lockerbie disaster. The articles he should not edit would be:
:*]
:*]
:*]
:*]
:*]


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
*The topic ban would include articles about people who died in the Flight 103 crash, such as ], and on people who have written about the Lockerbie bombing, such as ].
* {{pagelinks|Marc Jorgenson}}
*Many COI cases are settled by discussion and mild warnings. Mere discussion isn't going to work in PJHaseldine's case. He is a one-man Lockerbie industry and he persists in inappropriately adding material to articles that he is personally connected to. I would welcome comments on this plan. ] (]) 22:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|Plus3db}}
**I propose the following wording: "{{Userlinks|PJHaseldine}} is prohibited from editing articles relating to ], broadly construed. This topic ban includes, but is not limited to, the following articles: ], ], ], ] (person on the flight crash), ] (person who wrote about flight crash)." EdJohnston, do you have any issues with this? I've assumed you don't want to include talk pages and related discussions; if you would like to include that in the ban, please let me know so I can tweak it in a couple of spots. ] (]) 10:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|Lexicon480}}
::'''Comment''' How would you like to handle articles on the periphery that have from time-to-time also been involved, albeit less so? e.g. ], ], ], ], ], ] <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
* {{userlinks|Bunny & J-Zone}}
:::I don't object to any reasonable rewording. I never intended that Patrick be banned from Talk pages. @Socrates2008: I believe that all the articles you mention are included in the ban under the new wording of Ncmvocalist, as 'articles relating to Pam Am Flight 103, broadly construed.' ] (]) 15:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|24.82.146.94}}
::::I support Ncmvocalists's wording, with a clarifying note that this applies to article not talk space. I believe we have a working consensus (nobody other than PJHaseldine opposing, multiple experienced users and admins agree unanimously). I also support Samj's comment below regarding other editors close to the situation being requested to edit with caution during the period Haseldine is topic banned. NCM, if you want to do the honors, go ahead, or I or another uninvolved admin can later today... ] (]) 21:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|24.82.146.152}}
:::::All {{done}} ] (]) 03:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|24.86.250.211}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Blatantly promotional article and severe failure of ] with puffery removed by users before. 3 single-purpose accounts as well as 3 IPs of close proximity have edited the article in around 2008. There definitely is signs of paid editing or people connected with subject editing the article, so a block of these users and IPs should suffice alongside the deletion of the article. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: coral; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 06:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Ilyas El Maliki ==
:If such a wide-ranging topic ban were to be imposed on me, surely "equality of arms" would require that ] and ] be restricted from editing any articles related to ].
:As an example of Socrates' COI over that subject area and specifically over the ] article, he has this morning craftily and unjustifiably moved the
:Deon Steyn made a to the ] article on 5 March 2009. As noted in the above subsection, I responded fully to his edit at after which Socrates reinserted Deon's patently wrong edit
:It seems to me that ]'s proposal is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and could even be interpreted as advocating a form of ]. I do not have a ] on ]-related articles. All that is necessary is to challenge and correct any edits that are not in accordance with ] and ].---] (]) 12:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
::] - the old article name is not the most commonly used - ]. A request for ] is not censorship as this is an encyclopedia, not ]. You have been requested numerous times to provide reliable ]s for your theory, but have thus far not been able to, even throughout this disussion.<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva"><font color="black"><font size="4">Socrates2008 (<font size=3>]</font>)</font></font></font> 21:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Poor ]'s spelling of "discussion" lets him down (twice). And 35 paragraphs ago, Socrates said it was his "final response"!
:::Don't forget that I was the one who said "All that is necessary is to challenge and correct any edits that are not in accordance with ] and ]." I did not equate ] with ]: Socrates did.
:::Thus, it is abundantly clear that Socrates has lost this whole COI argument, and when he talks about reliable ]s: where is his secondary source to confirm that ] is a ]?---] (]) 22:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
:'''Support''' There is now considerable evidence on this page to demonstrate the lengths that PH will go to in order to defend his one-person POV conspiracy/alternate theory and to prevent a topic ban being implemented over his COI related to it. Most importantly, please note above how requests for ] ]s are met with ], anger, denial, accusations, decoy arguments, but not the requested sources that would simply end any dispute on the spot. I would therefore welcome this plan and encourage others to support it too. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva"><font color="black"><font size="4">Socrates2008 (<font size=3>]</font>)</font></font></font> 21:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
:'''Support'''. A conflict of interest is not by itself a problem, but the editor is regularly violating V, NOR, NPOV, and WEIGHT to promote his own fringe ideas in the articles, and it is disruptive. (I don't understand why Haseldine is in the article at all, given that it is only citing to his blog posts and letters to the editor; the inclusion seems to violate ]'s warning against the inclusion of idiosyncratic views held by noone else.) If he has a complaint against other editors' COI, raise it in a separate section, but I see nothing defending Haseldine's own editing. ] (]) 21:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
:'''Reject'''. As ] has quite rightly said above: "An interest is not a conflict of interest. Citing oneself is more relevant to academic papers and the like - citing letters to the editor is an obvious violation of ] (specifically ]), much the same for circular references (which you can discuss specifically at ]). As for campaigning, I don't see an off-wiki direct financial, professional, or marketing interest here." Sam Johnston also said that this is an ] issue rather than a ] one. In short, I (]) have no pecuniary interest (ie no ]) in this article. However, others such as the South African editors ] and ] may well stand to benefit financially by rubbishing the South-West Africa (Namibia) theory. I would '''Support''' restrictions that might be placed upon ] and ], for COI editing if appropriate.---] (]) 22:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
::I am happy to have the topic ban on Haseldine be based on persistent violations of NPOV rather than COI. If Haseldine wishes to make a separate complaint about other editors, he should feel free to do so in another section on this page. Samj is quite frankly confused about the policy: self-promotion in mainspace in violation of FRINGE violates COI as well as other policies. ] (]) 22:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
::] might be the one who is confused, rather than ]. Where are all of THF's "persistent violations of NPOV" that he imputes?---] (]) 22:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
::*Actually I disagree that there is necessarily a conflict, and I don't think it matters since regardless of the cause there '''are''' violations. Thus:
:'''Support''' per my reasons explained above; violations of ], ] (]), ], etc. (that is, generally ]). It was that really tipped the scales for me. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 23:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
::Sam, the edit that really tipped the scales for you sought to correct my disputed entry as a ] ("British 'FSO' official" changed to "British diplomat"). It was ] who originally categorised me and was challenged by ] to explain ]. I have consistently opposed Socrates' insult and others have sought to remove the category from my biography but have so far been prevented by what appears to be some aggressive editing from ] and ]. In the edit immediately preceding the voting above, I asked Socrates to provide reliable ]s to confirm that ] is a ]. I think that you will agree that if Socrates cannot provide a secondary source, the category should be removed.
::I'm not sure how you can describe my editing as generally ] when my edits are mainly uncontroversial and always fully referenced.---] (]) 14:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
::: The offending (still visible) edit added an ] reason as to why you were "dismissed by the Thatcher government in 1989": "''for writing a letter to The Guardian on 7 December 1988''", which is in direct conflict with the referenced ] findings which explicitly state "''The Commission finds that the applicant's dismissal was based on his breach of the Diplomatic Service Regulations, and that no sanction was imposed in respect of the opinions which he expressed as such''". If this is representative of your edits relating to this topic then I think a topic ban is a fairly light punishment.
:::As ] said, "''If a complaint against other editors' COI, raise it in a separate section''". -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 19:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Actually, the ] findings did not — and were not required to — address the reason that I was dismissed. On the other hand, ]'s edit As did the following references removed from the biography by ]:
:::*''The Guardian'' ] ] - Letters:
:::*''The Guardian'' ] ] - page 24, Richard Norton-Taylor and David Pallister: ''Commons test for SA arms row'' - Letters:Clive Ponting ''The burden of conscience in the civil service''
:::*''Observer'' ] ] - ]: ''splendid kamikaze attack on Mrs Thatcher''
:::*''The Guardian'' ] ] - Letters: ] ''Shabby manoeuvres that aid and abet Botha''
:::*''The Guardian'' ] ] ]
:::*''TIME'' ] ] - page 22: ''Sour Land of Liberty''
:::*''The Guardian'' ] ] - Richard Norton-Taylor: ''Thatcher's Whitehall critic to appeal against loss of job''
:::*''The Guardian'' ] ] - Richard Norton-Taylor: ''Thatcher critic faces dismissal''
:::*''The Guardian'' ] ] - Editorial: ''Just out of court'' - David Pallister: ''FO to dismiss official in Pretoria row''
:::*''The Daily Telegraph'' ] ] - Alan Osborn: ''Foreign Office sacks Thatcher attack diplomat''
:::As regards ], he made He has thus effectively rendered the whole of this COI discussion nugatory. I am commenting ] about THF's other recent activities.---] (]) 21:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
::::FWIW I believe the two events ''are'' intrinsically linked (and I think that comes through clearly in ] now), however an encyclopedia reports ] facts. ]'s reverts a link that is at best ] (stating the link as fact: " resulted from ") to one that ''is'' fact, leaving the reader to fill in the gaps (" followed "). There is a subtle but critical difference even if ]. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 13:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' is it customary for those involved in the dispute to vote on it? I see this as 3 supports thus far, ignoring the participants. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 23:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


* {{pagelinks|Ilyas El Maliki}}
:'''Support''' as a temporary ban pending closer review. (A closing admin should take responsibility for the duration, it should not require return to this forum, and if the closing admin becomes unavailable, any admin should be able to lift it.) The editor should be encouraged to propose edits to Talk pages, and should be cautioned against incivility. Misplaced Pages is a cooperative project, and being "right" is no defense against being disruptive. My support here makes no assumption that the behavior of other editors is free of fault; however, the subject editor clearly needs to work toward better dispute resolution. If a topic banned editor believes that suggestions are unreasonably being ignored, that editor can seek assistance from other editors. Pecuniary interest is a clear form of COI, but others exist. The basic issue on that is outside affiliation that might impair neutrality. However, the topic ban may be justifiable without any reference to COI. --] (]) 18:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|Draft:Ilyas El Maliki}}
::I would happily support these limitations and would suggest that other editors who are close to the situation (] and ]) exercise caution in making potentially contentious edits during this period. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 13:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|IMDB12}}
:::I would be very happy to keep an eye on the PA-103 releated articles without editing them if that will assist the administrators in this case. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva"><font color="black"><font size="4">Socrates2008 (<font size=3>]</font>)</font></font></font> 22:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|Saileishere}}
{{archivebottom}}
I think the two users are the same person and probably work for El Maliki to write the article. ]] 22:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


:The photo of El Maliki was uploaded by ] ]] 22:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
===Proposed restrictions on ] and ]===
{{archivetop}}
{{Resolved|No action needed. The nomination may be a ] violation by a naive editor, whom I have been advising at his request.--] (]) 21:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)}}
In accordance with ]'s suggestion above, and subject to the same limitations in respect of ],
*I recommend that admins impose a topic ban on ] and ] that will restrict them from editing any articles related to Pan Am 103, or the Lockerbie disaster. The articles they should not edit would be:
:*]
:*]
:*]
:*]
:*]
*The topic ban would include articles about people who died in the Flight 103 crash, such as ], and on people who have written about the Lockerbie bombing, such as ].
*Many COI cases are settled by discussion and mild warnings. Mere discussion isn't going to work in ] and ]'s case. They are a combined Lockerbie industry and they persist in inappropriately adding material to articles that they are potentially in ].
*I propose the following wording: "{{Userlinks|Socrates2008}} and {{Userlinks|Deon Steyn}} are prohibited from editing articles relating to ], broadly construed. This topic ban includes, but is not limited to, the following articles: ], ], ], ] (person on the flight crash), ] (person who wrote about flight crash) as well as articles on the periphery that have from time-to-time also been involved, e.g. ], ], ], ], ], ]."
I would welcome comments on this plan.---] (]) 20:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' - Just as the topic ban imposed on me is based upon alleged ] and ] infringements (rather than ] as defined by ]), this proposed topic ban should be imposed on ] and ] for their disruptive behaviour, such as:
:*
::For anyone interested, PH was using the talk page of his bio to publish ] (now archived), which he was trying to keep in place so that inbound links from sites such as would not be broken. (]) <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva"><font color="black"><font size="4">Socrates2008 (<font size=3>]</font>)</font></font></font> 12:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
:*
:*
:*
:*
* To assist the admins, I will happily patrol the Lockerbie-related articles to ensure compliance by ] and ] with the proposed topic ban.---] (]) 11:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
:Perhaps I missed something, but how do Deon Steyn and Socrates2008 have a conflict of interest? I doubt that being South African is considered a conflict under any Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]) 20:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
::I see no evidence of conflict of interest. A point of view is not a conflict of interest. I don't even see a single diff where they have violated policy. This is frivolous, and I hope administrators take action to deter such disruption--PJH has now issued complaints in multiple forums against every editor who has dared to point out he is violating policy. ] (]) 20:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
:::This case is about your editing, not anyone else's. As per the advice above, suggest you open a new COI case if you have evidence to support your thus far unproven allegations against another editor. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva"><font color="black"><font size="4">Socrates2008 (<font size=3>]</font>)</font></font></font> 22:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
:::*Per ] the only conflicts I have identified here are ]'s edit that fails verification with the EUCHR reference (discussed above) and a weak link with validating a theory publicly associated with ]. As such I prefer to focus on the policy violations and those are clear as day (also discussed above). I'd suggest that this case be closed and a new concise case be opened with clear, relevant evidence should ] wish to proceed against the other two editors. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 13:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - The examples of disruptive behaviour cited above make the case for the proposed topic ban on ] and ].---] (]) 14:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per other users who've commented above. ] (]) 08:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
{{archivebottom}}


::See ]. --] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 13:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
===Conspiracy theorist===
{{archivetop}}
{{Resolved|No action needed. Wrong forum. --] (]) 21:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)}}
Now that ] has deleted the Haseldine "conspiracy theory" from both the and the logic requires that the be removed from the ] biography and his entry be removed from the ] article. Could we please have a vote on this issue?---] (]) 21:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


== Lindy Li ==
*'''Support''' - Remove the category on the biography and his entry on the ] article.---] (]) 21:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - The category was added to the biography by ] as evidenced by the following extract from ]:
:*"] recently added ] to this page. I think this requires a reference within the page. Either a self-identification, or a reliable source referring to Haseldine as a conspiracy theorist. Since I'm new to this area, maybe this is something well-known, but it still needs a cite. If this follows automatically from some rule that is observed on other Misplaced Pages pages, please specify how it follows. ] (]) 02:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:*I agree. Labelling someone a conspiracy theorist is certainly POV:- it is a pejorative term used to discredit the theories expressed by that individual (and I'm not expressing support for his beliefs.) In contrast his position as a diplomat is fact. The link recently given by Socrates2008 on the talkpages of ] in support no way proves Patrick Haseldine is happy to be labelled a conspiracy theorist. All it shows is that someone who registered as PJHaseldine, and linked himself to this article, did not change the description. This is not support as anyone could claim on Misplaced Pages to be him, and it is policy that Misplaced Pages is not used as its own reference. Also Misplaced Pages cautions about comments about a living person - WP:BLP. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:*Thanks for your comment. No inference should be drawn from Patrick's non-removal of the term 'conspiracy theorist,' since he has agreed to stay off the article to avoid COI issues. We appreciate his cooperation. ] (]) 22:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)"
*It now behoves ] to explain this insult and to apologise.---] (]) 12:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Disagree with reasoning''' - Notability is not reciprocal. That a relationship between A-and-B is notable enough to include in Article B does not mean that the A-B relationship is notable enough to include in Article A. Thus, ] is mentioned in the ] article, but ] is not in the ] article. But I agree that the Haseldine article needs some real scrubbing for ], which may or may not include the Guardian letters: I leave that editorial decision to others. ] (]) 21:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
:*I have scanned the article for issues and find the guardian letters acceptable as a primary source for describing Haseldine's opinions, but not for establishing notability for inclusion in other articles in the absence of other reliable sources. If anything I find the article rather critical of Haseldine, albeit largely justified thanks to his own EUCHR filing. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 14:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Disagree''' - THF's reasoning is spot-on. The category is not "Conspiracy theorists who are widely discussed in the media" or "People with conspiracy theories that are discussed on Misplaced Pages." ] (]) 05:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - there's an element of ] here, but per ] should we not require this statement to appear in a reliable source? After all we've just sanctioned ] for same offense. On the other hand the conspiracy theory itself is supported by ]'s own primary sources. <s>As such I would be inclined to '''Support''' removal of the pejorative ] category but '''Reject''' the removal of the reference in the ] article per ] above.</s> -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 13:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Reject''' both removal from the category and removal of the content on the grounds that the category "''specifically only includes articles where the subject is mentioned in their article as actively defending one of the conspiracy theories''" (which is ]) and the content itself is supported by ]'s own primary sources. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 13:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - There is a suggestion to refine the category inclusion, as follows: ---] (]) 17:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - This has nothing to do with ]. Make a {{tl|request edit}} at the two articles in question, since you're bound to relitigate this there anyway since there's not a snowball's chance you'll get the result you want at this board, where we're already familiar with your case. ] (]) 09:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
:Please take this content dispute elsewhere. This long ago stopped being a COI issue. ] (]) 16:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
''Discussion pasted here by ] from ]''.] (]) 10:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
{{quote box|quote=
*'''Comment''': ]'s case is an interesting one. He has a primary source on his bio (]) - the letter(s) to the editor discussed in ] - which is adequate for verifying his opinions but inadequate for inclusion in articles related to the theory itself. Now that an indefinite topic ban has been imposed at ] he seeks to remove these references (and this category), even if it means redefining "conspiracy theorist".


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
:Initially I too called for ] stating that he is a "conspiracy theorist" but then I retracted this after reviewing the current category requirements which seem fairly reasonable; in my opinion the ] test passes so he belongs in this category. If this were a list then the existence of the reliable (if primary) source would likely justify his inclusion independent of his bio.
* {{pagelinks|Lindy Li}}
* {{userlinks|Napoleonjosephine2020}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
User Napoleonjosephine2020 has been registered since 2020 and has almost exclusively edited Lindy Li's page. Since Kamala Harris has lost the US Presidential election, Li, previously a stalwart Biden/Harris partisan has made multiple appearances on TV attacking the Democratic Party and has seemingly declared she has left the Democratic Party. Several users (including myself) have edited Li's page to include these recent news stories. Napoleonjosephine2020, whose edit/user history shows her praising Li in laudatory terms, has repeatedly objected to inclusion of this information, deriding it as minor and irrelevant. Napoleonjosephine2020 has also engaged in personal attacks against other users and acted combative. Multiple unregistered IP addresses starting with 2601:41:4300:9370 (presumably coming from the same location) have also removed these edits, with a writing style similar to Napoleonjosepine2020, accusing other users of bad faith and using the same rationales for why this information should not be included. Napoleonjosephine2020 has been subject to temporary editing restrictions due to their disruptive editing, I suspect these unregistered IP addresses are Napoleonjosephine2020 making edits outside their account so that their registered account is not subject to further sanctions for disruptive editing.


Given this pattern of behavior, I think the evidence points to Napoleonjosephine2020 having a personal connection to the subject, with an interest in violating NPOV leading them to repeatedly engage in disruptive editing/edit warring.] (]) 01:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:If someone can be verified to be a proponent of a conspiracy theory then they are by definition a conspiracy theorist (they need not be a proponent of many such theories either - usually there is on ly one). The real grey area then is in defining what exactly is a conspiracy theory, but that's a topic for another article. In summary, ] applies as always but in my opinion there need not be an overt "X is a conspiracy theorist" statement (these are rare anyway). -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 10:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


:{{ping|Vosotros32}} Prior to your filing report here, the article was already semi-protected until March 2, and the editor in question was indefinitely ] from editing that article. I'm not sure what more you think this report is going to accomplish. --] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 13:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::I have another take on this: there's no doubt about his association with a theory about PA-103, that it's his own invention, that he's been campaigning for supporters for it and that there are primary sources that back this up. So if the duck test is so obviously satisfied, then what's the problem? Looking at his own wording in the content he's created around this, he prefers to ] call his theory an "alternate theory" rather than a "fringe theory" or "conspiracy theory". While I'm quite sure he will be quick to differ when he chirps in, my interpretation is that he's trying to keep a positive "]" on his story while trying to gain public support for it (i.e. he's concerned that the word "conspiracy" may have negative ]s for his campaign), and secondly, that he absolutely believes his own theory, so that from his POV, it is fact. In other words, this is a form of COI, as the subject's objectives and perceptions in respect of his theory differ from those of uninvolved editors, who simply see this as another of many ]. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva"><font color="black"><font size="4">Socrates2008 (<font size=3>]</font>)</font></font></font> 11:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


== State University of New York at Geneseo ==
:::My so-called ] was shared by all editors until less than 3 months ago when the title of And it was Socrates' pal, ], who put the '''Alternative theories''' article into the ] in the
{{atop
:::Didn't their ---] (]) 14:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
| result = Soft blocked for promotional username representing Geneseo's Communications and Marketing (CommMark) team. ] (]/]) 01:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
}} }}
{{archivebottom}}

=== Edits by alleged ] ===
{{archivetop|report was archived as withdrawn by reporter ==] (]) 01:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)}}
*Just over a year ago, the ] commentator, ''tarantino'', alleged that the South African editor ] had through his edits to ]-related articles. The same commentator went on to say: "I also think the theory of ]'s involvement in the ] is more compelling than that of ]'s. I'm now very curious about the motivations and identity of Socrates2008 and his ] partner ]. Their edits show an interest in South Africa military history and weapons."

*This is what ] told ] two days ago about ]:
:"As an SPA, you are vulnerable, and need take special care. SPAs are sometimes effectively topic banned as to the article, there is no clear boundary between ] and ]. From the other side, experts in a field are often SPA or COI, so my view is that, while the community should set and maintain strict behavioral boundaries for such editors, we should also actively invite their participation in Talk pages, and attempt to moderate the disputes which arise. In my view, much damage has been done to the project and its reputation because of a lack of understanding of this, and experts have been rather badly treated. Many or most experts have, as a result of their extensive knowledge, a strong POV, as viewed from a general perspective, though not necessarily from within field. (When I've special knowledge in a field, I've been accused of POV-pushing when I've simply expressed what is well-known in the field, as I know through extensive off-wiki communication with others even more knowledgeable than myself, but which is not necessarily easy to prove from reliable source; without supporting ], I can't incorporate such knowledge into articles, generally, but I should definitely be able to mention it on a Talk page without sanction.)"--Abd (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

*From the above, I believe that South African editors ] and ] are both ], and should be restricted from editing any articles describing people and events where ] has been accused of responsibility for what happened. This restriction should clearly apply to ] and all its related articles such as ]. Just as clearly, they should stay away from: ] and ]; ] and ]; and also ] (because the flight was said to have been carrying sanctions-busting munitions). The two South Africans should be cautioned against editing articles such as ], ], ] and ] for example: if in any doubt, Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn should refrain from editing, and stick to the relevant Talk pages.---] (]) 17:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
::I think you'd be hard pressed to convince anybody to agree that either ] and ] are ] when less than 2% of Socrates' article edits and less 1% of Deon's article edits are to the Pan Am article.. Nor are they inappropriately focussed on South African topics. These accusations () are becoming more and more pointy and inappropriate. Please stop.--] (]) 17:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

*Another SPA — who may or may not be linked to Deon and Socrates — is ] whose has been focused on the ] biography.---] (]) 18:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' I urge Mr Haseldine to focus on improving some articles rather than pursuing this disruptive attempt at retaliation against other editor for initiating the COI complaints that resulted in him being topic banned and having his socket accounts uncovered. The two cases against him, unlike this allegation, had considerable evidence to back them up, and were reviewed by a cross section of administrators and experienced editors before appropriate action was taken. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva"><font color="black"><font size="4">Socrates2008 (<font size=3>]</font>)</font></font></font> 22:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
::That's pretty much how I would expect a South African ] to respond when challenged over the clear ] edits that he made to the wide range of articles listed above.---] (]) 22:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

*'''Comment'''. This allegation (without a single diff of an allegedly problematic edit) is plainly frivolous, retaliatory, and violates ] and ]. I hope admins take action, and that the falsely accused editors don't feel the need of wasting time responding. ] (]) 23:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
:I'm also troubled by this "clear COI" claim which lacks supporting policy violations, a demonstrated conflict of interest and proof by way of specific edits - frivolous reports aside this to me constitutes a ] and I too would like to see ] supporting these claims with the best two or three offending edits he can find before we consider taking any further action. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 02:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
::Subsection re-attached to parent section to provide context and to demonstrate COI through cited specific edits above.---] (]) 10:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
:::It is an extension of the same case.---] (]) 10:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' - Although I'm still waiting for a specific smoking gun for ] and ], ] has a and does indeed to be an ] for ]ing and/or ]ing ] for almost a year - it is not surprising then that he might suspect others are up to no good (indeed it seems ''somebody'' is). -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 11:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
:Agree with the SPA verdict, and would be happy for an admin to run a ] against my account if that would help to narrow down the possibilities. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva"><font color="black"><font size="4">Socrates2008 (<font size=3>]</font>)</font></font></font> 12:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
::Good idea (to run a checkuser, ] necessarily against your account). See ]. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 12:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
:::I reckon the ] for ] is lurking ].
:::] is more subtle, and probably attaches a ] to reduce sound and smoke emissions, but his efforts as an SPA apologist for ] are evident ---] (]) 16:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::PJH, '''Stop it!''' You seem to have seriously lost your balance. Those two edits you point out as making "evident" the editor being what you asserted, quite simply, don't. That is, suppose he is. Those edits don't show it, and that you would make such an accusation without carefully providing proof could show that you are unaware or incapable of following community norms regarding civility and personal attacks, in which case, ''there will be no option but to block or ban you.'' I'm not threatening you, I don't have the tools to block, and, indeed, I'm trying to protect you (and the project) from this outcome. If you think that an editor is a POV-pushing SPA, you will have to be much more careful and thorough and patient to deal with the problem. What you are doing is essentially committing wiki-suicide. This discussion does not belong here, insufficient grounds have been established to file a COI complaint. --] (]) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
::::'''Comment''' First edit about Tambo is unreferenced ]. The second edit, which was discussed at ] as well as ] and on this very page, meets the criteria for inclusion in the category and furthermore has nothing to do with "apartheid". I agree with admins that this case is a ]y form of ] in retribution for my initiating the two earlier COI cases that resulted in ]'s socket puppet accounts being closed and a topic ban being enforced by the community. I suggest Mr Haseldine is cautioned about ], ] and ] in his comments in which he continues to direct at editors rather than content, and where he alludes to other editors being (apartheid) racists. ] is evidence that he believes he does not have to comply with these core WP policies unless the topic ban imposed by the community is lifted first. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva"><font color="black"><font size="4">Socrates2008 (<font size=3>]</font>)</font></font></font> 21:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Mr. Haseldine has unfortunately misinterpreted what I wrote about SPAs, and I seriously dislike being quoted as part of an attack. Being SPA isn't being COI. A complaint about editors being SPA is not in order here. Indeed, being SPA isn't anything actionable in itself. However, if an SPA edit wars or is disruptive, SPAs are more likely to be blocked quickly, for lots of reasons. I've clearly advised him to stop pursuing controversy here, and to start doing what he could do well, even in the presence of the topic ban: as someone very knowledgeable about the topics of interest to him, he can advise us, on Talk pages, pointing to sources with which he may be familiar, providing background, etc. However, this utility presumes civility. If he's uncivil, if that continues, he will do more damage than good, and my efforts to rescue his participation here will have failed. But I will note one positive thing. I suggested to Mr. Haseldine that if he has a ''simple'' edit to make to an article under the ban, he make it, noting that he will self-revert because of the ban, and then revert himself. He did it. This shows intent to help the project without controlling it, and it shows cooperation with the ban. So, on that, I congratulate him, it is, at least, a first step toward fuller cooperation. I checked his edit and reverted it back in, this was much more efficient than it having been proposed on Talk. --] (]) 22:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
{{archivebottom}}
{{archivebottom}}

== ] ==

* {{userlinks|Dcourtneyjohnson}}

Every edit this user has made has been self-promotional except for the ones that have simply been unsourced POV-pushing. He threw a fit and accused me of being part of a right-wing conspiracy to silence him when I pointed out some ] and nominated his ], so if other editors who are not part of the right-wing conspiracy can be the ones to explain Misplaced Pages policies to him, it would be useful.

In addition, this is a good opportunity to ask whether Mr. Johnson is subject to the same ''de facto'' topic ban that I am; every time I edit a tort-reform-related article, there is a gigantic fuss, no matter how ]. I'd like standards to be uniform here, given that Mr. Johnson claims his expertise in tort reform in his autobiography, and given that he is not even attempting to follow the rules about neutral and self-promotional editing. ] (]) 03:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
:Diffs couldn't hurt. ] ] ] 21:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

::Sorry -- when I made the report, he had many fewer edits, and they were all pretty self-evident. The entire ] article content is written by Dcj. He also made this to ] adding a non-notable Commonweal Institute report, and a to ]. His to ] (putting himself at the top of the page as the most important Dave Johnson) has been reverted, and his creation of an autobiography was ] by ]. ] (]) 21:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I just discovered this complaint about me here, was not notified of it, and am a new user so I didn't know to look for this. I appear to be accused of having a conflict of interest on the Commonweal Institute article. I am an unpaid Fellow there so this is correct. I did not know that Misplaced Pages prohibited me from editing articles where I have a conflict of interest and I have stopped all editing on the Commonweal Institute article as a result, and have let others involved with the Institute that they should also refrain from editing. (After I stopped, I was told that am should be "tending to the article," so am left confused.)

However, I did not make "self-promotional" entries and if you look at the edit record you will see that.

Here is background of all this: Someone emailed me that I should have a bio at Misplaced Pages, so I started an account and added one, and while I was at it and learning the wiki protocols I also added a Commonweal Institute article because it should be here. A short time after I started I was told I could not add a bio about myself, so I got back to the person who had suggested I add it and said I couldn't do that. That person added it, and a couple of other people did some edits. Shortly after that everyone received a notification that they were going to be banned from Misplaced Pages. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dcourtneyjohnson and PLEASE read the entire discussion there. Everyone else involved is likely never to be seen at Misplaced Pages again, which you can understand is a natural reaction to the hostility here. I think Misplaced Pages is a good project so I am sticking around in spite of this, as well as to defend myself from the multitude of accusations that are lodged against me in the short time I have been here.)

This was quite a surprise, and the comments and actions were quite hostile, so I checked out what was going on and discovered that the person involved may be associated with a "Tort Reform" blog. Since I write on the subject of tort reform I pointed that possibility out and the person involved said yes it was him (self-outing), so I suggested it might be inappropriate for someone in that line of work to be trying to remove from Misplaced Pages a bio and an article of opponents of corporate-backed tort reform. I was then accused of "trying to out" that person. I didn't know about the policy and have not referred to his outside identity (which appears to be well known here) since.

Subsequently that person started to show up everywhere I made edits or left a user a message at Misplaced Pages, often within minutes, removing the edits, leaving disparaging comments, etc. If I mentioned this I was accused of "making personal attacks." I was unable to disengage anywhere I was on Misplaced Pages, and this hounding continued. Also the person is question has set up new articles here, existing only to mock Commonweal Institute. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Articles_with_wikipuffery

So in the short time I have been involved at Misplaced Pages I have been accused of "sockpuppetry", "meatpuppetry", "outing", "personal attacks" and a number of things, all by the same person.

My own bio was removed before there was any chance by others to improve it (notification on a sunday evening, removed by Monday morning) -- I of course had stopped working on it because of the accusations.

Please review the edit records (some seem to have disappeared, I don't know how that works) and draw your own conclusions.

Thinking about this, I would like to make a suggestion for a "professional advocates conflicts policy" at Misplaced Pages. Please let me know what you think. This is broad-based and not targeted at any particular person but Misplaced Pages should protect itself and police itself from negative consequences of professional "advocates." To me it is a positive contribution if a professional advocate works on a project like the Misplaced Pages insofar as he or she ADDS to the project. Adding new articles and discussions opens up items for people to start to contribute to, and eventually enough people can join in and a good article results. So such professional advocacy ends up as a net positive for the project in that it can lead to a positive conclusion. But when the professional advocate prowls the wiki for things that oppose the viewpoint he or she is paid to promote, and works to get them removed from the wiki, that is a very different thing. When the professional advocate harasses and intimidates users (especially new users) who try to add stuff that he is paid to oppose, this is bad for the wiki, because it inhibits the open flow and eventual perfection of the information that is made available to the public through the project. So the policy I recommend is that if a person is a professional advocate the person be restricted from suggesting that articles about the subject of the person's profession be removed, restricted from removing edits on those subjects, and restricted from suggesting that people who write opposing viewpoints be banned. That would be a start. ] (]) 02:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:It should be noted that both ] and ] are binding on opponents, as well as proponents, of a particular organization or movement. --] &#x007C; ] 15:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there's an element of ] going on here but it seems ] better understands policy now and is on improving the article. I would suggest that when he's done he pings us here to verify and remove the tags. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 14:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

== Ray Brown (Magician/Illusionist) ==

<div style="margin: 1em;" class="resolved"><span style="border: 1px solid #aaa; background: #f9fcf9; margin-right: .5em; padding: 6px;">] Resolved. </span>{{#if: Deleted by AfD. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 01:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)|<span style="font-size: 85%;">Deleted by AfD. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 01:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)</span>}}</div>
{{article|Ray Brown (Magician/Illusionist)}} - AFD'd autobigraphical article. COI notice has been placed on authors talk page but he continues to edit including removal of AFD tag. ] (]) 02:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
:I find the significantly more troublesome. While they've been , they were ] before that point. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 15:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

== Promotion of Microsoft ideas at ]? ==

{{resolved|1=Potential ] identified but not serious. Noting it on talk page, warning user and reffering reporter back to article/talk page. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 14:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)}}
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ribbon_(computing)&diff=next&oldid=261681851 by ] ip range ownerships should be researched on these type of things, this one lasted 2 months. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned2 -->
:The offending passage is only two sentences of that article. Why not try to revise that passage to make it neutral? There is no harm in including Microsoft's own theory of why their ribbon is different, so long as we don't imply that their opinion decides the matter. ] (]) 05:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
::but there was a deliberate changing of "] developer Jarosław Staniek notes" to "some critics contend", which is not in good faith. That is what irked me.] (]) 05:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
:::A quick google search reveals this guy is () likely a Microsoft employee, which would certainly be a ]. That said the offense here is fairly minor. Potentially contentious go back years but none of them appear to have been egregious. I'm going to mention this on the talk page and warn the user, but otherwise agree with ] above. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 14:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Give me a break. I haven't worked for Microsoft for seven years. I don't know anyone who works on Office, and I don't know anyone involved in the implementation of this feature. My "conflict of interest" here is no greater than that of any of the legions of FOSS devotees who write articles about programs and features they use and know and like, which is exactly what they should be doing.

:::If you have a problem with the accuracy of what I wrote, then let's hear it. Don't use this noticeboard as a cudgel to intimidate people into not following your particular party line. I don't appreciate being made the target of false and unfair accusations, and I sure as hell do not appreciate having my commitment to good faith questioned without foundation. Try a little ] sometime and you may find that it pays off. —]&nbsp;(<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 16:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
::::An editor complained about a specific edit that has obvious (if mostly benign) ] (]) and ] issues. Given you're a former Microsoft employee then their complaint about ] may well be justified, but it's irrelevant given there were other policy violations. If there are indeed FOSS developers editing the article (and I mean ''developers'', not ''devotees'' because ]) then they would be subject to exactly the same rules as you are. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 16:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::Well, if an interest is not a conflict of interest, then none of this applies to me, now does it? Explain to me again why we're wasting everyone's time with this? —]&nbsp;(<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 16:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::Even sometimes. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 17:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::And sometimes they don't. Regardless, we certainly wouldn't want to take any radical actions like ], would we? —]&nbsp;(<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 18:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

==]==

Some of the links he writes for;
:*{{LinkSummary|matthewkeegan.com}}
:*{{LinkSummary|saycampuslife.com}}
:*{{LinkSummary|thearticlewriter.com}}

User only edits to insert links, whick he wrote. this is an ongoing issue. Back in August of 2007 he , yet he continues to use wikipedia to promote his work.--] (]) 20:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
:Holy minnesota canned meat company batman! I'll happily '''Support''' whatever punishment is deemed necessary, right up to an indefinite block. 0% signal to noise ratio. "''The duties of the original stewardesses went far beyond providing cabin services''"?! -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 03:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
:Have ] the sites for blacklisting. Should wait for result before starting any cleanup. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 14:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
::Links to the first two sites are essentially gone from articles. I have warned MattKeegan that he may be blocked if he continues. (He has not edited since 10 March). Is there anyone who has time to check out a number of the links to thearticlewriter.com and see if they should all be removed? If the answer is yes, consider reporting at ] and there could be someone there who can remove the links using AWB or a bot. There was already a response given at the spam blacklist that blocking should be tried before blacklisting. ] (]) 14:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{Resolved|First account has admitted to being an employee of SMA, a p.r. firm specializing in "investor relations"; both have been spamusernameblocked ] &#x007C; ] 18:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)}}

* {{userlinks|CRanjiSMA}}
**{{userlinks|SMAir2009}}, f/k/a ] - These two s.p.a.s edit only this article and related topics. They represent, I believe, Sharon Merrill Associates, a p.r. firm working for the subject firm. http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS209005+17-Jul-2008+BW20080717 ] &#x007C; ] 18:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
::If you examine my talk page, you will see that the first account has just admitted working for an "ir" (i.e., "investor relations") firm. --] &#x007C; ] 18:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

<div style="margin: 1em;" class="resolved"><span style="border: 1px solid #aaa; background: #f9fcf9; margin-right: .5em; padding: 6px;">] Resolved. </span>{{#if: Speedy deleted A7 -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 01:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)|<span style="font-size: 85%;">Speedy deleted A7 -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 01:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)</span>}}</div>
Self-promotion
Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates.

== ] ==
<div style="margin: 1em;" class="resolved"><span style="border: 1px solid #aaa; background: #f9fcf9; margin-right: .5em; padding: 6px;">] Resolved. </span>{{#if: Speedy deleted A7. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 01:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)|<span style="font-size: 85%;">Speedy deleted A7. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 01:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)</span>}}</div>
Self-promotion
Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates.

== ] ==

User: {{UserSummary|Medianyc}} is a SPA that is solely adding borderline references to observer.com . Username seems to indicate a COI. An inquiry at their talk has been ignored. ] (]) 02:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
:User seems to do nothing but add references to the NY Observer. In the examples I checked, about half his edits were reasonable. I reverted the others, and left him a notice of this discussion. At first glance he *does* seem to be promoting the NY Observer. If he'd propose his changes on the article Talk pages, nobody would mind, but that's not what he's doing. On the principle that an account which is 50% spam and 50% not spam will still be blocked, I think we need to get his attention and persuade him to change, or take some action. ] (]) 05:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

::This is one account. How many other accounts have been adding links to the Observer? ] (]) 12:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

::: The (few) edits I have sampled were all about adding references in places where fact tagging would not have seemed inappropriate. ''A priori'' that is a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia; certainly the bar should be much lower than for non-reference ]. The relevant inquiry should be (1) is ] a ]? Judging from its article, it probably is. (2) Do the references in fact source the claim they attach to? I did not check that. However, if both answers are "yes", I fail to see any ''conflict'' of interest. We do not have a policy that calls for any particular "balance" in the selection of WP:V references. I wouldn't even see a problem if the NY Observer openly contributed the time of one of their employees to Misplaced Pages for improving sourcing based on an in-house article database. That would be a win-win exchange: we get better verifiability; they get goodwill for helping out Misplaced Pages. But it certainly would look better as a declared relatio. (Also, Medianyc ought to use {{tl|cite web}} more). –] (]) 15:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
::::The ] were substantive, but sometimes they were not appropriate. In two cases he included a review of the wrong book (a Cheever review added to an article about Yates, for example). I am concerned that he may overlook his duty to edit Misplaced Pages accurately. At both ] and ] he added a review that was mainly about other people and was of little value to their articles. A 50% error rate is too high. We can't assign a person to clean up after his edits. ] (]) 16:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::: OK, so your answer to my question (2) is "no". That is fine by me. I just wanted to prevent a consensus that adding lots of (otherwise good) references to a publication one is affiliated with is, in and of itself, a bad thing. –] (]) 00:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::I never read ], but I have no reason to question its reliability. What I *believe* is happening is that ] is an agent of the publication, taking the most recent weekly issue and finding the subjects' wiki articles to link from. I bumped into all this at ]. ] (]) 20:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

== Vexus Puzzle Design ==

<div style="margin: 1em;" class="resolved"><span style="border: 1px solid #aaa; background: #f9fcf9; margin-right: .5em; padding: 6px;">] Resolved. </span>{{#if: User <s>warned and reported</s>blocked indefinitely for ] violations. Articles nominated for deletion. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 01:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)|<span style="font-size: 85%;">User warned and reported for ] violations. Articles nominated for deletion. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 01:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)</span>}}</div>
{{userlinks|Vexuspd}}

SPA created to promote some puzzles made by someone dba Vexus Puzzle Design. Created articles about new logic puzzles he created and is trying to sell to people and linked other articles to those. ] (]) 21:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
: user. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 01:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
: Promoted prod to ]. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 01:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
: ] violation. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 01:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

User has also been blocked indefinitely. ] (]) 14:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

== Eveda ==

<div style="margin: 1em;" class="resolved"><span style="border: 1px solid #aaa; background: #f9fcf9; margin-right: .5em; padding: 6px;">] Resolved. </span>{{#if: Article listed for AfD. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 17:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)|<span style="font-size: 85%;">Article listed for AfD. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 17:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)</span>}}</div>
* {{userlinks|Eveda}} - User with name of product all the user's edits have been to promote, creating own article ] (which looks like it was deleted at some point ni the past and then recreated again by same user) and links to that article in other articles. ] (]) 15:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
:*Article listed for AfD (user already warned for ]): ] -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 17:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

== Son of musician writing eulogic articles ==

* {{userlinks|Pjs012915}} - Main writer asserted "I am one of the composer's son." about his eulogic articles ] and ] Articles seem salvageable but understandably full of POV and OR (I only tagged and cleaned leads). ] (]) 15:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
:*See also ] -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 17:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

* {{userlinks|pjs012915}} is the main writer and one of the composer's sons as identified by Richard Arthur Norton who submitted the article for approval as a biography. The article is well researched and documented with ample references to major periodocals and published books. It was written not as a eulogy but as a balanced accounting of the contributons made by the composer to the advancement of the free bass accordion as a legitimate concert instrument during the evolution of classical and jazz music at the start of the 20th century in America. It should be of interest to researchers who wish to investigate the development of this neglected concert instrument in the United States during this period as well as to musicologists and historians in general. The major compositions listed in the article have been archived for research purposes at a major music conservatory and accepted for instructional purposes by faculty members at the University. With this in mind I have removed the conflict of interest flags.

pjs012915 March 18, 2009

== ] external link ==

I removed a from the ] article as it violated several points of ], namely points 1, 4, and 11. The IP became indignant and attacked me because I am a college student, which somehow means I can't grasp what he's saying in the article. He has persistantly called me a vandal and has not assumed good faith. On several occasions he has stated that the essay is his own and has not responded to my suggestion that he read and follow ]. I'd like some more help trying to deal with this guy. ''']]]''' 14:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
:I think there may well be grounds for semi-protection and/or sock warnings, since there's a user clearly edit-warring from multiple IPs:
:*{{user|59.95.10.47}}
:*{{user|59.95.13.234}}
:*{{user|218.248.79.4}}
: ] (]) 19:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
::Would anybody mind removing this link if they agree with my assessment? I don't want to be labelled a "vandal" agaiin as this guy thinks I'm biased against him. ''']]]''' 15:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Done. I've also asked ] to get an account and stop the false accusations of vandalism. ] (]) 16:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
::::The editor has now been sufficiently warned. If the link continues to be added, in my opinion semi-protection of the article is justified. To block a rotating IP is not worth the bother. ] (]) 17:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

== ] article and ] ==

* {{article|Sustainability}} - An editor ] wrote a book. He is a member of a ''team'' editing the article Sustainability, led mostly by editor ]. I seems to me like a person writing a book that did not disclose that he is the author of said for profit commercial book... and then using that book as a reff/citation in the mentioned article and also the other mentioned article in the title here is in a c.o.i.- The inclusion is being defended on the talk page of said article.
Editor admits he is author, but editor did not disclose previously that fact when disclosure was important. The book was just published. I have tagged the Sustainability article with the coi tag suggested above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sustainable_gardens,_landscapes_and_sites#Original_research_and_unverified_claims

All of these Reffs in this diff go to editor's book in article he created.
::Skip naming the book is equivalent to naming GT, not sure how OK he is with that so have removed it, also doesn't seem very relevant what book it is....--] (]) 11:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sustainable_gardens,_landscapes_and_sites&diff=prev&oldid=277643838

Sunray reverting my taking away Granitethings book reference from the article in ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sustainability&diff=277864633&oldid=277817578

Discussing conflict on talk page... and getting no where with Sunray who is defending his ''team'' member.
http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sustainability#Possible_conflict_of_interest_in_team

] (]) 01:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

:The test of a conflict of interest set out in ] is "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Granitethigh's editing of the Sustainability article has been incredibly valuable. A subject matter expert in botany, he has devoted years to the problem of sustainability. He has contributed selflessly of his time and expertise in improving the article.

:I've been aware of his book for some time now and have a copy. Out of 164 citations we have used in the article, there are two to ''Sustainable Gardens'' (one of which Skipsievert has now removed in connection with his complaint of "conflict of interest"). I had planned to add several other citations to the book, as it is a high-quality source that is a compendium of the issues and solutions related to sustainability.

:This is the latest in Skipsievert's disruptions of the Sustainability article FA project. This is not the place to elaborate on his actions, but suffice it to say, he seems unable to ] and edit collaboratively. I find this sidetracking particularly distressing since we are in the middle of a peer review process to prepare our submission for FA. ] (]) 02:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

::How is it that you are attacking another editor here? I have brought up a conflict of interest by an editor who has referenced their commercial book without telling anyone. You and he may be friends but this commercial capital to be gained enterprise of selling books seems at base at least to me to be a c.o.i. Why was it not made known that an editor was promoting a book? - ] (]) 02:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

:::I'm calling it as I see it, Skip. If others wish to get a feel for your credibility, they need look no further than ]. ] (]) 06:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

::I am also involved in editing the ] page although I confess most things in my life are more fun at the moment, for reasons which will be immediately clear from the ] discussion.

::As well as this post, this same "issue" is the subject of lengthy posts ] and ]. Effectively ] is being accused of COI in regards to editing in the area of Sustainability on the grounds that he is co-author of a book on sustainable gardening.

::] also regularly ] on another editor in this topic area on the basis that he is doing some work for the UN decade of education for sustainability.

::If the accusation is that ] is an expert with multiple links to this subject as a result of a lifetime of hard work then I'm sure he would have to plead guilty. But this is not the China of the cultural revolution - being expert enough to have a book published isn't necessary (which is great) but surely it doesn't prevent one editing in the field? And if the book is published by a reputable publisher (which it is) then citing it is fine too?--] (]) 07:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

:::I would have thought that a given person who wrote a book on sustainability in gardening would be one of the best editors to contribute such information on WP. GT may make a bit of money from a few editors running to the local book shop to get a copy of a book cited in the article, but this would most likely be very limited and irrelevant to his contributions in the article, which, might I add, have thus far been entirely unbiassed in such matters, if anything, biased against his specialised interests (the topic of the book he has written. Needless to mention, the CSIRO is unbiased also, interested primarily in scientific research. It should also be clarified that the ''team'' is actually assembled of editors who have taken on the collective responsibility of ''re-writing'' the article, which was in dire need of a re-write. The team is not exclusive, nor are it's numbers limited by it's existing members, it is very informal and entirely democratic in an entirely non-capitalist way. ] (]) 11:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

::::''If the accusation is that User:Granitethighs is an expert with multiple links to this subject as a result of a lifetime of hard work then I'm sure he would have to plead guilty. But this is not the China of the cultural revolution - being expert enough to have a book published isn't necessary (which is great) but surely it doesn't prevent one editing in the field?'' TravelPlanner end quote. Lets not confuse things. I never said he should be precluded from editing the article.. only that he is in a conflict of interest by concealing that he is an author of a book that he linked... and the book may not be notable... and that there may be a bias in the team toward the team also.

::::Why was it hidden before, that he is the author? How is it that apparently the ''team'' knew about this, and are now defending this ... and did not share the information as to disclosure on the Sustainability article? The ''team'' has a long running overly close relationship to the U.N. also... and Granitethighs book also revolves around that. This has been an issue also with the article http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sustainability&diff=next&oldid=275093091 and it is a fact that a team member above worked or works for the U.N. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Nick_carson&diff=prev&oldid=275742185 ... but this is not the issue that has been brought here.

::::The issue is that ] wrote a book that apparently his fellow team members are aware of and that this information was not disclosed... in effect it was hidden from other editors and the public... and now only after the fact of this discovery is an attempt to justify an author placing his capital project in a prime advertising spot on Misplaced Pages being made. Add to this now attacking the messenger, who is trying to point out what they perceive may be a conflict of interest thereby. To me this means a p.o.v. among a narrow team is not good, as it has meant too much control of editorial and material presentation thus a closed consensus.

::::The author fully admitted he is the author here http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sustainable_gardens,_landscapes_and_sites#Original_research_and_unverified_claims
::::So Travel planner please do not remove information that I was trying to give for the panel here. They admitted this... but only when asked. It is a fact that editor Granitethings used his book by his own admission ... after it was overtly questioned on the talk page, he made his book the backbone of an entire article, that he created from scratch on Misplaced Pages: ^ a b c d e f Cross, R. & Spencer, R. (2009). Sustainable Gardens. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. ISBN 978-0-643-09422-2.
::::http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sustainable_gardens,_landscapes_and_sites&diff=prev&oldid=277643838 - ] (]) 14:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

:::::"it was hidden from other editors and the public." Absolutely and categorically not. Editors have user names and are in no way obligated to reveal their identities. However, a modest amount of investigation would allow anyone to determine Granitethigh's background. He hides nothing. Skipsievert is out of line in pointing to Granitethigh's identity, IMO.

::::: The real issue here is whether the addition of a reliable source by its author is ''necessarily'' a conflict of interest. A review of the policy in light of Granitethigh's contributions to the article clearly do not support the conclusion that there is a conflict of interest, IMHO. ] (]) 17:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

::::::Stop attacking an editor for reporting a possible violation. This article was secretly sourced to his book without associating his name to it. This only came out after the fact... when another editor tagged the article ... not myself. ] Selling books is an issue and promoting a book as something notable on Misplaced Pages which was done without revealing a conflict of interest possible... without allowing people to decide for themselves about that. He also is promoting the outfit that sponsored the book. The book promotes them also. ''However, a modest amount of investigation would allow anyone to determine Granitethigh's background. He hides nothing.'' Wrong... he did not reveal that he was sourcing an entire article to the book he wrote http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sustainable_gardens,_landscapes_and_sites&diff=prev&oldid=277643838 How am I pointing to his identity? He revealed, on a discussion page that he is the author
::::::http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sustainable_gardens,_landscapes_and_sites#Original_research_and_unverified_claims
::::::after the fact of his reffing his book in the two articles.] (]) 21:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
:The citation of a specific book doesn't worry me, and this complaint is not very exciting as a COI case. At present both articles seem to be far from neutral, since they are promoting sustainability as an ''Obvious Good Thing'', and then planning how to achieve it. (The editors seem to be enlisting Misplaced Pages as a partner in the crusade). If the articles were neutral and factual, they would just be giving a balanced account of what various proponents and opponents have said. It's hard to see this as a matter needing COI enforcement. The neutrality issues that remain are mostly a ] problem that could be solved by a change of tone, or by getting input from a broader range of editors. There has already been a concern about NPOV expressed in these ], under the heading 'Assertion versus verifiable fact.' ] (]) 22:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

::Since there are a multitude of actual science and expert studies does it make sense to use one of the ''crusaders'' books, and a member of this close looped team? Especially in the gardening article this seems like http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:VSCA they... and apparently team members knew that the article was reffed by a just published ... probably non notable book published at the exact same time that said editor came to edit on Misplaced Pages. This same group over reffed and linked U.N. material through out the article. The same group attacked me for bringing up these issues. Is it better safe than sorry, to not include a clandestinely placed book by a 4 person team into the article... just to be on the safe side of c.o.i.-- or would inserting this book be a neutrality issue.?.. being it is an ax grinding account of the U.N. and a promotional tool of said author... and it also is promoting a group he is affiliated with?

::Reffing an entire article with an editors book that did not disclose that he was the author... seems way over the top. Would it not be better if this book which is straight pov., not be presented on the two articles given neutrality issues and conflict issues? ] (]) 23:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
:::It's not clear if your concern is only with including the book as a reference, or if you think the article is slanted. The 'conflict' only matters if it results in the article not being as good as it could be otherwise. ] (]) 02:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Both. Originally just the book ... but since the team showed up here to bad mouth me for my good faith questions... both. Seems to me it is slanted. Overtly so. Example of reffing U.N. material http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sustainability&diff=next&oldid=275093091 Granitethighs book is written out of the lens from U.N. One team member identified themselves as working with or for that group. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Nick_carson&diff=prev&oldid=275742185 then erased it as it became an issue. People in this team are darn right hostile to another editor. I have added outside information that is neutral and mostly they have protested and fought every single little aspect all the while baiting and being generally hostile. The book... is published yes.. but notable, no. A coincidence of the thousands of books that are known and notable a team of four editors is promoting this one into the article which is also a kind of advertisement for the authors employers?

::::Very difficult to edit with these people. They have controlled the article for months on multiple sub pages. Very unfriendly bunch. Seems they are on a mission to control the article. I can see the U.N. material covered in a credit or two or three maybe... now the article revolves around the U.N.- It did not before they got hold of it in their team... which you sign up for... and which is controlled very explicitly. I am not pro or con U.N.- It just seems kind of ridiculous the extent to which reffing to it has gone... and other social political commentary call to action admonitions are promoted by the ''team''. That includes the recently published and non notable... to my knowledge, book by editor described. The team will also not allow me to tag the article recently as to neutrality, which I believe it needs other and more eyes and editors working on it... so that is a problem also. ] (]) 02:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

* {{userlinks|Overturewiki}} - User has been editing ] and the films connected with the production company. ] contains numerous problems, including an inappropriate, ad-like tone; copyvio issues; unsourced statements, etc. An IP address, {{Useranon|66.151.166.5}}, has also been editing ] (among other articles), inserting promotional material. A on the IP address reveals that the edits are coming from ], a subsidiary of Overture Films. <small>]</small>] 03:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

== Query ==

I note COI is usually considered as a COI in favor of the subject of an article, -- but dpes COI apply for an editor who owns a .org website which is directly antithetical to the interests of the subjects of the articles he edits almost exclusively ? The .org's only ad is for Amazon.com -- is that sufficient to make it "commercial" in any sense? Sort of iterating -- is there such a thing asn an anti-COI? Many thanks! ] (]) 12:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
:COI doesnt apply just to the articles subject it can also apply to anyone that benefits from the existance of the article. IF as an example a museum has an article then employees of the museum have a COI. Like wise if an organisation is funded by the museum then the organisation also has a COI as does anyone who represents the organisation. COI doesnt necessarily mean a positive spin the family of a murder victim would have a COI if they were to edit the article about the person convicted of the murder. Bank manager Mr Xyz would have a COI if he edited article about competitors, so yes anyone can have a COI because they gain from the article content whether its positive or negative is just perspective. ]] 12:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
::Would an SPA from an owner of a site which is specifically anti "cult" be a COI if he writes (usually in a negative vein) on every religious figure he has edited on, and has written for various ezines (including ones which are specifically anti "biblical America")(though they do not indicate whether he has been paid as such). He was able to get two editors booted for less of a COI than this may be if what you say is true. Whois is a wonder -- he also owns one of the ezines -- the one which is specificlly against "biblical America". A double COI? ] (]) 12:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

== Nasal irrigation ==

{{userlinks|Grockl}}

This is a long-term, low-key problem centred at a single section of {{article|Nasal irrigation}}. User is unwilling to collaborate and often reverts to their own preferred version, in the latest instance undoing removal of a spammy mini-lede to the section, completely irrelevant references and proper reuse of references. (Section was improved by WhatamIdoing, then removed by 67.170.1.167, then reinserted in an old version by Grockl .)

User now resorts to meatpuppeting and personal attacks. See ] for extensive evidence of the long term problem, and ] for today's personal attack. --] (]) 12:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

:Hans Adler is simply trying to own the article. He is neither an expert nor authority on the subject. I have provided many published medical references on the efficacy of nasal irrigation. If you folks want to settle this once and for all simply have an authority review the peer review published medical reports and this can be resolved once and for all by educated well respected medical professionals and not some ego driven academic that is attempting to own an article. I would suggest that this type of practice would be better suited for the communist version of Misplaced Pages where I am sure censorship is respected. There is no commercial aspect of my posts simply an effort to advise consumers of an alternative more effective method of nasal irrigation much more so than the anecdotal reports on the benefit of neti irrigation which has not changed in 5000 years. I find it ironic that many of the studies referenced under Neti have been sponsored and promoted by physicians and their companies that manufacture and promote neti pots. Others actually used pulsatile irrigation on test subjects in their studies but are being used to promote neti pots. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:As far as personal attacks I simply brought up the fact that the poster is a math teacher and an academic which he posts himself and not an MD. I am questioning his role as an academic and his lack of knowledge and authority in this area to unilaterally censor material I posted. Maybe this is the way they conduct themselves in the UK but I am an American and have the right to post relevant informative material every bit as much as Mr. Adler.

:As far as using my IP or my login when did that become a requirement? Instead he is looking for red herrings and deception where none exists. Based on some of the comments I have seen it is Mr. Adler and his unilateral censorship that appears to have upset the common folk--] (]) 21:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

::Not true. Hans is doing good work here. Grockl's identity is fairly easy to discern. He is the physician that created the product that he persistantly advertises on wikipedia. Look at his edit history and it will become clear. Also do an IP lookup on him and other suspicious posts, and you will notice an interesting trend. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::Sorry to say I am not a physician, but my mother would be pleased you think I am. You are ridiculous. I am obviously biased I believe in this but no I am not who you think I am. I thought it was improper to assume someone’s identity on Misplaced Pages. Perhaps you should sock puppet yourself. To resolve this matter I have requested that a medical authority figure rule on the matter and the relevency of pulsating nasal irrigation within the article on Nasal Irrigation. I will abide by the decision as long as you folks will.--] (]) 07:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
::::67.170.1.167: I have told you before not to speculate about the real-life identity of Grockl. There is precedent that it can get you into trouble even in a COI investigation. Grockl: Your long-term obsession with a product that is the object of an astroturfing campaign elsewhere (notice the user id in this case) is so obvious that it is very hard not to make the obvious connection. --] (]) 11:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|State University of New York at Geneseo}}
* {{userlinks|CommMark1871}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
This editor has only edited the college's article, their username indicates a potential connection ("Comms" may indicate a role in communications at the college and 1871 is the date when the college official opened), and they have not responded to a brief but direct question on their User Talk page about this potential connection. Their edits are not objectionable but ] is not optional and our ] exists for good reasons. ] (]) 23:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Kathryn Babayan ==
== employee of car company removing faster cars from the Nurburgring article. ==


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
Editor Sauron22 ] has been removing faster cars from the ] article. Upon looking at his edit history, I noticed that he only edits this article and the Dodge Viper article. (removing the Radical SR8 would make the Dodge Viper the fastest production car around the Nurburgring)
* {{pagelinks|Kathryn Babayan}}
* {{userlinks|2601:401:100:46E0:B919:9891:DF5D:FC9F}}
* {{userlinks|2601:401:100:46E0:E169:2FC9:4E47:B104}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Kathryn Babayan was an academic article I made two weeks ago. As of the past 24 hours, there is an IP editor on a rotating IP address that has been making wholesale wording changes to the article. Some of the changes are okay, more detailed than I had been, but I'm wondering if they're edging into promotional territory for her books. I tried asking the first version of the IP editor if they were Babayan themselves, which I feel is likely, but I received no response. And they're back to making changes just now with a different IP.


Suggestions on what should be done? ]]<sup>]</sup> 22:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
To me that is wrong, it is mildly disruptive - but overall nothing more than an OR and edit dispute..no big problem.
:The BLP is bloated with puffery and sources. It should be shortened substantially. ] (]) 00:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
:: is how it was before the IP changed things, which I think was a good summary of her work. No idea what you're talking about with the sources however. There are technically only 9 in use in the article, with only one of which being a primary source from her university page. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Just revert to the last good version before the IP started editing. If the user continues to edit the article then revert them again and request page protection at ]. ] (]) 01:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::K. I've gone ahead and made the revert, though I kept the lede change the IP made. Since I think that was actually an improvement. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Article has now been protected to prevent further disruptive editing . With thanks, ] (]) 17:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


== Captain Beany ==
Well it was not a problem until the editor failed to log in and edited the talk page with his IP, instead of his account.
Upon running whois on his IP, I found that the IP is registered to Chrysler Motors Corporation, the company that makes the Dodge Viper, the car that he is trying so hard to keep as the fastest on the list. One of the edit summaries used by the IP states '''# 04:34, 12 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Chrysler Headquarters and Technology Center ‎ (I changed the square footage from 4.4 million square feet to 5.4 million square feet. I work here and its posted everywhere.) '''


*{{user3|CaptainBeany}}
The IP in question is ] and the whois result is here


User:CaptainBeany has been editing the ] article a few times over the past 16 years, as well as other edits related to the subject's novelty political party and former museum. They've made no edits outside of this.
I am not suggesting that there are any sock puppet/IP issues, there have been no attempts to use the IP to get around editing restrictions, form false consensus etc, however there is a clear conflict of interest and seeing that the Sauron account has only made edits to this article and the article of the Dodge Viper it is clearly a single purpose account with a clear agenda and an equally clear conflict of interest.


In 2010 they and asked for a sourced paragraph about a fraud conviction to be removed from the article. Discussions in response at
] (]) 12:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
] and ] decided that this was appropriate biographical content and should not be removed.


I posted a belated COI message on their talk page last year, after noticing the issue's history when working on the article: User:CaptainBeany had removed the paragraph in 2016, with nobody realising. The user didn't respond to the talk page template, and today they . ] (]) 13:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] ==


:The user to the COIN notification, though exactly what they're trying to communicate is beyond me. --] (]) 05:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Article ] is currently subject to a deletion review. Had previously been deleted as ] and got restored out of process by Dana French himself. There is currently an edit-war in which Dana French (as ] and IPs beginning 12.) and the main opponent have both violated 3RR, though both have been warned and thus shouldn't be blocked unless they re-offend. It does however need more eyes, which is why I'm bringing it to notice here. Cheers, ] (<small>]</small>) 22:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


== Science of Identity Foundation ==
:At the moment I'm about 1/3 through documenting the defects in the page. More eyes (and fingers) would be useful to get the material to where a deletion review would make sense. ] (]) 01:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
{{archive top|No substantial evidence indicating a conflict of interest has been presented in this complaint. As such, I am closing this discussion as groundless/.{{pb}}When filing at this board, {{u|Sokoreq}} is reminded to explicitly state the reasons that they believe a conflict of interest (as defined in ]). In particular, it is important to to avoid ] by making complaints here while failing to state a reasonable case to conclude that a COI exists. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 04:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{pagelinks|Science of Identity Foundation}}
* {{userlinks|Hipal}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
This senior editor reverting my constructive edits repeatedly, in which I created a new section to simplify the content and cited reference. However, it appears that the editor is maintaining the article and may have a conflict of interest. Even though I have warned the editor, but now editor has started an edit war. ] (]) 18:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:@], why haven't you attempted to discuss this at ] first? ]&nbsp;] 18:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::Agreed. Looking over the talk page and edits, I don't see anything suggesting Hipal has a COI. Nor do I see anything to evidence that Sokoreq has a vested interest in editing the article, although it is curious that they went straight to the noticeboard without participating in the talk page. —''']''' (]) 18:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@] You are right, I was surprised that the editor keeps reverting my edits. This behavior suggests editor may have ] or feel a sense of ownership of the page. ] (]) 19:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Reverting your edits is evidence that they disagree with you, which is allowed. Disagreeing with you is in no way evidence of a conflict of interest. ] (]) 19:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::@] Yeh, I agree with you, but how many times ? And why? did you check my edit ? The editor was doing endless reverts, even after I requested clarification about their concerns on the talk page. ] (]) 20:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::You were also 'doing endless reverts'. Do you have a conflict of interest? ] (]) 20:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Did you check my edit? What is wrong with that edit? I would like to know so that I can improve myself for next time. Please be specific. Thanks ] (]) 20:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::You can improve yourself for next time by recognizing that reverts are a normal part of Misplaced Pages's editing process (see ]), and by refraining from making unfounded accusations towards other editors just because they reverted you. ] (]) 20:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I followed ], but the editor didn't adhere to the discussion part: 'Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement.' Anyway, did you check my edit that the editor reverted several times? That would be really helpful. ] (]) 20:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::No, you began edit warring after you were reverted. That is not following ]. And you still have not posted at ]. ] (]) 20:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::The editor reverted my edits without any explanation and did so repeatedly. I am still waiting for your insight. Did you check my edit? What mistake did I make? I want to understand; any help would be appreciated. ] (]) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Some of the mistakes that you made were edit warring and posting spurious talk page warnings (and now a noticeboard entry) rather than discussing your edits on the article's associated talk page. I'm not going to contribute to compounding those errors by debating the content with you here. If you want to continue with this, I would suggest that you withdraw the allegations you have made against Hipal, including the spurious vandalism, COI, and harrassment warnings you placed on their talk page, apologize to Hipal, and then go to ] where active discussions are currently taking place without your participation. ] (]) 20:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::You are trying to make it seem like it's my fault only, and you are missing the point. Anyway, thanks; I have already explained my COI concern below. ] (]) 21:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] Already, there is a lot going on in that talk page. ] (]) 18:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@] I agree that it's daunting. However, you don't get to override discussion by jumping straight to a noticeboard, and especially not COIN.—''']''' (]) 18:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@] I apologize, but the editor's behavior was strange and did not make any sense. Now, after seeing the article history, it looks like the editor has a sense of ownership or maybe a conflict of interest. other than that, I don't have any other evidence to prove the COI. I leave the final decision to you, but now I am feeling Anxious about whether I should touch that article because it seems like that editor owns it. This is strange! ] (]) 19:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:I think this can be closed as a groundless complaint. Sokoreq has continued to edit since opening this complaint but has yet to try to discuss the edits in question at ]. No evidence has been provided for conflict of interest, other than the OP's apparent assumption that there is no other possible reason that their edits would be reverted. ]&nbsp;] 21:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


== ] ==
:: Just delete the page, it is self-promotional uncited un-notable crap. The only references to Dana L French online, are a self submitted resume and the wikipedia page. ] (]) 05:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|Kateblau}}
:::The result of ] was that the article was restored, but anyone who wishes may nominate the article at AfD. If a proper AfD is launched, that would put off for a while the need for any investigation at this noticeboard. I agree that there is a lack of 3rd-party sources that comment on his work. ] (]) 14:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
::::I've put it up for AFD: ] on grounds of the sheer absence of third-party sources demonstrating notability. Most of the citations are just entries in linkfarm directories.
::::BTW, we should add
::::*{{article|Shell curses}}
::::*{{user|65.203.91.35}}
::::*{{article|Business continuity}} (interesting - ''other'' people's self-links are spam apparently ).
:::: ] (]) 15:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


Multiple draft creations of spammy company articles in a relatively short period of time:
== ] ==
*]
]'s editing of ] and their ] shows a conflict of interest. In particular see ] where an entry for a non-notable website applicanttree.com was added on 12/12/08 and on 2/2/09 and a deleted page ]. These web sites are operated by a former associate of Lou Pearlman's. Subsequently, Startstop123 removed a large amount of material on 3/19/09, including a reference to the owner of applicanttree.com. The edit history shows a connection to Orlando, the same city that applicanttree.com operates from. I conclude that Startstop123 has a personal interest in removing material from Lou Pearlman's bio. ] (]) 19:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
Received a COI notice January 5th but has continued to edit without declaring any COI. ''']'''<sup>]]</sup> 02:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:02, 8 January 2025

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Numismatics.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    ShortcutsSections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge)
    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Misplaced Pages to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution procedural policy.

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

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

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests Talk:260 Collins Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:Atlantic Union Bank Talk:AvePoint Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Edi Birsan Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Bunq Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Casualty Actuarial Society Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Michael Dell Talk:Adela Demetja Talk:Etraveli Group Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire Talk:Group-IB Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Insight Meditation Society Talk:International Motors Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:List of PEN literary awards Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician) Talk:QuinStreet Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Thursby Software Systems Talk:Trendyol Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    This Day on Bella Disu

    I am trying to cut promotional content from Bella Disu. This Day seems like a "reliable source". However, looking at the content they've published, I'm concerned that this newspaper may have a conflict of interest when it comes to her/her billionaire family.

    In fact, many of the sources used in the article seem like the kind of thing a billionaire in a country like Nigeria probably paid someone to write but I am not sure how to handle this. 🄻🄰 08:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

    Maybe best to raise the issue at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (WP:RSN). Users there may be able to confirm your concerns or perhaps could point you in the direction of a list of WP:RS and non-RS sources within the Nigerian media. Hope this helps. Axad12 (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Just a brief follow-up to say that there is actually a current thread at WP:RSN in relation to the reliability of Nigerian newspapers (here ) which may be of assistance to the user who opened this thread. It seems that the existence of sponsored content in Nigerian newspapers is a widespread problem. Regards, Axad12 (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have run across a new editor who has created many articles based on these Nigerian sources. At first I thought it was a conflict of interest but now I am not so sure (but probably a conflict of interest with at least one of the subjects). I have moved the new articles to draft. Special:Contributions/Akpakipoki 🄻🄰 17:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Special:Contributions/213.8.97.219

    213.8.97.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    Israel Football Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    IP user admits to being employed by the subject of the article, but continues to blank the article's Controversy section after being informed of policy regarding paid editing. --Richard Yin (talk) 13:50, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    User talk:Ron2999 is likely to be a sock made by the IP. I'm going to add a paid edit disclosure to the article. DACartman (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    Lyal S. Sunga/Long-term (two-decade) COI abuses

    Lyal S. Sunga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The article Lyal S. Sunga was created by 217.210.145.175, which is located in Sweden, in 2005, when Lyal S. Sunga just became a lecturer at the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law. Later, the article was edited by 81.234.192.235, 90.224.52.72, 81.234.194.194, 90.231.183.154, among others, all located in Sweden, from 2005 to 2009.

    Then, the article was edited by 93.41.230.58, 93.40.187.104, 93.47.142.126, among others, all located in Italy, when Lyal S. Sunga moved to Italy for UNODC.

    In 2014, the article was edited by 83.166.225.44, which is located in Moscow, Russia, when Lyal S. Sunga was an OHCHR-Moscow Consultant.

    In 2016, the article was edited by 83.84.186.217, which is located in the Netherlands, when Lyal S. Sunga was at the Hague Institute for Global Justice.

    In 2017, the article was edited by 93.48.243.70, which is located in Italy, when Lyal S. Sunga returned to Italy for The American University of Rome.

    In recent years, the articled has been edited mostly by IPs located in Italy, where Lyal S. Sunga has been living.

    It is fair to say that more than 95% of the edits in this article were made by Lyal S. Sunga himself. I am unsure if the article should be kept or deleted for its advertising nature. JIanansh (talk) 23:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    @Eyer: has gone in and cleared out a lot of puffery and cruft. Schazjmd (talk) 00:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:Taeyasu/Sample page

    3 accounts with no contributions except to write promotional-sounding article User:Taeyasu/Sample page. Notably:

    • "Trend Alchemy" appears to be the name of a PR firm in Italy
    • The Trendalchemy account became inactive after being informed of paid-editing policy
    • The Dpatrioli account was created afterward and has not disclosed COI status.

    I'd take this to SPI but the third account hasn't made any edits since I posted on its talk page. Thought I'd get a few more eyes on this in case the pattern continues. --Richard Yin (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    I recently attempted to get the material speedy deleted under WP:G11 but this was declined due to the material not being considered "unambiguously promotional".
    Presumably an attempt will be made at some point in the near future to introduce the article into mainspace. At that point, at a minimum, the elements of the article which clearly are promotional should be removed, and an undeclared PAID template added. Possibly the material should be draftified.
    However, what concerns me is that it seems reasonable to assume that the Trendalchemy account (plus the other accounts above) appears to have links to a PR firm and the draft material is currently titled "Sample page". The material is not in the user's sandbox or being curated as a draft, it appears to be a sample of the work of a PR agency displayed on the user page of that PR agency. That being the case, I do personally believe that deletion under G11 would have been appropriate as a userspace clearly should not be being abused in this way, as per WP:UP#PROMO (i.e. prescribed material includes Advertising or promotion of business). I'd invite input from SD0001 on the grounds for them declining the G11. Axad12 (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    G11 is for unambiguous promotion which it isn't. COI is not a rationale for speedy deletion either. WP:MfD is thataway if you want it to be deleted. – SD0001 (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    I agree that it is not unambiguous promotion of the company which is the subject of the article (a company called "Translated").
    However, it is most definitely unambiguous promotion of the PR firm who created the material because the material is titled as being a sample of the work of that PR firm and it is presented on the userpage of that PR firm.
    Or do you believe that PR firms post samples of their work online for reasons other than unambiguous self-promotion? Axad12 (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    UPDATE: I resubmitted the material for speedy deletion and it was deleted by a different user. Axad12 (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    Update: See Dpatrioli's message and my reply on my talk page here. --Richard Yin (talk) 11:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    As just replied to @Richard Yin, and to give here with some more elements for your evaluation, this is what happened:
    1) Trendalchemy , Dpatrioli are not representing any PR Agency, they both work at Translatedin the Communication department. You may find evidence here
    2) @Taeyasu is an independent writer, and he has been hired to help us to write this article about Translated. He is not representing a PR agency but he is been paid by Translated for this task.
    3) The main reason for the "speedy delete" request of the page was that the author/contributors were suspected to be a PR agency promoting itself with this page; the material, as I see in the talk history, has not been considered "unambiguously promotional".
    We are new to produce contents here. But we decided to write this page and we made a draft, this wasn't finished. The page was meant to describe what has been the contribution of Translated in the last 20 years in the development of the Transformer applied to the AI and, more specifically, to Machine Translation advancements. The company developed a number of technologies available to the public, some of them free, and we believe it's notably and there is a huge number of third parties sources to mention that.
    Thanks for the input, in case we publish again material we'll sure specify the proper COI. Dpatrioli (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    The draft was not considered to be "unambiguously promotional" but elements of it were certainly highly promotional in intent.
    I see the evidence that Dpatrioli works for Translated, but no evidence that Trendalchemy works for Translated. Trend Alchemy is a PR firm. Axad12 (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Axad12 Trendalchemy is not actually a company, is a laboratory, and the founder is Patrizia Boglione. Check this page on trendalchemy website where it's written: "I am now the Brand & Creative VP of Translated, one of the most innovative tech-companies in the translation industry that combines the best artificial intelligence with a network of 200,000 translators." Patrizia is the same person mentioned here in the website of Translated.
    As far as "but elements of it were certainly highly promotional in intent", I understand where you come from, and we'll try to make it right, but I believe we can make a page where there's a relevant story for the audience (and I think there's one), then if I write something wrong, questionable, or with inappropriate sources, well it will be the public to correct or to modify it. From my side, I can write what I know from my angle (including declaring COI), it would be odd if I write something with the intent of discredit the company I work for. Dpatrioli (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    The Trend Alchemy website states that Our products and services include Trend Report, New Brand Narratives, Future Brand Strategies, Brand Coaching, Custom Brand & Trend workshops, Trend Talks. There can therefore be little doubt that it is, broadly speaking, a PR company.
    Also, Misplaced Pages is not about making a page where there's a relevant story for the audience. This is an encyclopaedia, not an opportunity for marketing operatives to install a narrative. For further info on this please see WP:BYENOW. Axad12 (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    That's very useful, thank you 2.236.115.127 (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    Chris Antonopoulos (footballer) and Fort Lauderdale Strikers

    Chris Antonopoulos (footballer) and numerous Fort Lauderdale Strikers (1988–1994) related articles, which Antonopoulos appears to have been a player for, have been edited by Amplifyplantz33. The user seems to be Antonopoulos and received a notice to disclose their conflict of interest on December 4 by @Sammi Brie. The user did not respond and does not appear to have made an effort to disclose a conflict of interest as they are required to. The user also created the Antonopoulos article and is responsible for the majority of the content added to it. The only indication the user appears to have made to disclose their potential conflict of interest was to write "Chris Antonopoulos" on their user page. Raskuly (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    I've removed a lot of unsourced material from the Antonopoulos article, but clearly the problems here extend rather further than that. Axad12 (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    The user has now denied on their talk page that they are Antonopoulos. It must be admitted, however, that they appear to be a WP:SPA dedicated solely to promoting Antonopoulos and mentioning him on as many articles as possible.
    It seems unclear whether the user has a COI or is just a fan who is unaware of the policies on sourcing and promotion.
    Any thoughts on whether Antonopoulos satisfies WP:GNG and whether detailed info on beach soccer activities is usually considered suitable for inclusion? Axad12 (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    It seems unlikely that they would be so obsessed with Antonopoulos if they were not either him or someone closely associated with him, and their response is quite odd. There does appear to be a Chris Antonopoulos who signed a professional contract with the Fort Lauderdale Strikers, and to me that satisfies notability as the beach soccer and pre-professional soccer contract section of his career would not make Antonopoulos notable enough to have an article alone. It is of note that Antonopoulos does not appear to have been the primary goalkeeper during his tenure and that the primary goalkeepers were Jorge Valenzuela, Mario Jimenez, and Jim St. Andre at this time. It appears Antonopoulos only made two appearances between 1993 and 1994 which is when he was apparently signed to the team. From the perspective of someone who was not directly involved with the Strikers but would want to write about them, Valenzuela and Jimenez would probably be higher on the priority list than a goalkeeper who only made two appearances. The only parts about Antonopoulos in the article that are specific to him are praising his accomplishments. Raskuly (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Agreed 100%. Axad12 (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Additionally, the photos that the user have all uploaded appear to indicate that whoever is writing the article had close connections with Antonopoulos throughout his career if they in fact have the right to upload them. Raskuly (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    The user continues to obsess over this article and to add large amounts of trivial non-encyclopaedic detail and generally promotional material. Are we really sure that the subject satisfies WP:GNG? Axad12 (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    I generally go by pro athletes being notable enough to have an article, but Antonopoulos appears to have barely been a pro athlete, and like I brought up with the writer before they accused me of acting uncivil, it would make more sense to write articles about Antonopoulos' teammates. I'm not in favor of having an article on Misplaced Pages who's express purpose is to promote someone, even if they may meet the requirement of general notability. This is the first time I've dealt with an issue like this, so I apologize if I am not understanding things correctly as to what makes someone notable enough. Raskuly (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    Adolph Jentsch

    There is an IP editor who is repeatedly entering non-encyclopedic text, such as this diff. I've reversed him once but he then sent me several abusive emails accusing me of article ownership, so I don't want to reverse him again. I cannot give him a COIN notice because he uses different IPs every time he edits. Can someone other than me please remove the edit and perhaps protect the article from IP edits? Thanks! Ratel 🌼 (talk) 05:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    You can request page protection at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection. -- Pemilligan (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Conflict of interest - Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra Article

    Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra, I think there is a conflict of interest here. The director himself has created an account and working on the article - Herodyswaroop (talk) 08:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    The Article was intitated by @udaywrites and is getting expanded by @anuragpatla. Who are the crew of the film. Herodyswaroop (talk) 08:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Vanskere

    This editor is screaming conflict of interest to me. Both articles have been tagged as promotional utilizing WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA, I have nominated them for deletion. As you can see on the user talk page, they have been asked about conflict of interest without a response. They also posted asking about how to make Google index their brand's article. Their primary other edit was to add the brand to Fashion in Nigeria. 🄻🄰 18:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Upon further investigation looking at the user's linked social media, the brand page in question is listed as one of their clients. 🄻🄰 18:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Marc Jorgenson

    No edits since 2008. No need for action. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Blatantly promotional article and severe failure of WP:NOTPROMO with puffery removed by users before. 3 single-purpose accounts as well as 3 IPs of close proximity have edited the article in around 2008. There definitely is signs of paid editing or people connected with subject editing the article, so a block of these users and IPs should suffice alongside the deletion of the article. MimirIsSmart (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ilyas El Maliki

    I think the two users are the same person and probably work for El Maliki to write the article. 🄻🄰 22:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    The photo of El Maliki was uploaded by User:MoroccanEd 🄻🄰 22:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/MoroccanEd. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    Lindy Li

    User Napoleonjosephine2020 has been registered since 2020 and has almost exclusively edited Lindy Li's page. Since Kamala Harris has lost the US Presidential election, Li, previously a stalwart Biden/Harris partisan has made multiple appearances on TV attacking the Democratic Party and has seemingly declared she has left the Democratic Party. Several users (including myself) have edited Li's page to include these recent news stories. Napoleonjosephine2020, whose edit/user history shows her praising Li in laudatory terms, has repeatedly objected to inclusion of this information, deriding it as minor and irrelevant. Napoleonjosephine2020 has also engaged in personal attacks against other users and acted combative. Multiple unregistered IP addresses starting with 2601:41:4300:9370 (presumably coming from the same location) have also removed these edits, with a writing style similar to Napoleonjosepine2020, accusing other users of bad faith and using the same rationales for why this information should not be included. Napoleonjosephine2020 has been subject to temporary editing restrictions due to their disruptive editing, I suspect these unregistered IP addresses are Napoleonjosephine2020 making edits outside their account so that their registered account is not subject to further sanctions for disruptive editing.

    Given this pattern of behavior, I think the evidence points to Napoleonjosephine2020 having a personal connection to the subject, with an interest in violating NPOV leading them to repeatedly engage in disruptive editing/edit warring.Vosotros32 (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Vosotros32: Prior to your filing report here, the article was already semi-protected until March 2, and the editor in question was indefinitely pblocked from editing that article. I'm not sure what more you think this report is going to accomplish. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    State University of New York at Geneseo

    Soft blocked for promotional username representing Geneseo's Communications and Marketing (CommMark) team. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    This editor has only edited the college's article, their username indicates a potential connection ("Comms" may indicate a role in communications at the college and 1871 is the date when the college official opened), and they have not responded to a brief but direct question on their User Talk page about this potential connection. Their edits are not objectionable but WP:PAID is not optional and our conflict of interest guideline exists for good reasons. ElKevbo (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Kathryn Babayan

    Kathryn Babayan was an academic article I made two weeks ago. As of the past 24 hours, there is an IP editor on a rotating IP address that has been making wholesale wording changes to the article. Some of the changes are okay, more detailed than I had been, but I'm wondering if they're edging into promotional territory for her books. I tried asking the first version of the IP editor if they were Babayan themselves, which I feel is likely, but I received no response. And they're back to making changes just now with a different IP.

    Suggestions on what should be done? Silverseren 22:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    The BLP is bloated with puffery and sources. It should be shortened substantially. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
    This is how it was before the IP changed things, which I think was a good summary of her work. No idea what you're talking about with the sources however. There are technically only 9 in use in the article, with only one of which being a primary source from her university page. Silverseren 01:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Just revert to the last good version before the IP started editing. If the user continues to edit the article then revert them again and request page protection at WP:RPPI. Axad12 (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    K. I've gone ahead and made the revert, though I kept the lede change the IP made. Since I think that was actually an improvement. Silverseren 01:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Article has now been protected to prevent further disruptive editing . With thanks, Axad12 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    Captain Beany

    User:CaptainBeany has been editing the Captain Beany article a few times over the past 16 years, as well as other edits related to the subject's novelty political party and former museum. They've made no edits outside of this.

    In 2010 they identified themselves as the subject and asked for a sourced paragraph about a fraud conviction to be removed from the article. Discussions in response at Editor Assistance and BLPN decided that this was appropriate biographical content and should not be removed.

    I posted a belated COI message on their talk page last year, after noticing the issue's history when working on the article: User:CaptainBeany had removed the paragraph in 2016, with nobody realising. The user didn't respond to the talk page template, and today they removed the paragraph again. Belbury (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    The user replied to the COIN notification, though exactly what they're trying to communicate is beyond me. --Richard Yin (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Science of Identity Foundation

    No substantial evidence indicating a conflict of interest has been presented in this complaint. As such, I am closing this discussion as groundless/failing to state a case.When filing at this board, Sokoreq is reminded to explicitly state the reasons that they believe a conflict of interest (as defined in WP:COI). In particular, it is important to to avoid casting aspersions by making complaints here while failing to state a reasonable case to conclude that a COI exists. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    This senior editor reverting my constructive edits repeatedly, in which I created a new section to simplify the content and cited reference. However, it appears that the editor is maintaining the article and may have a conflict of interest. Even though I have warned the editor, but now editor has started an edit war. Sokoreq (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Sokoreq, why haven't you attempted to discuss this at Talk:Science of Identity Foundation first? Schazjmd (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Agreed. Looking over the talk page and edits, I don't see anything suggesting Hipal has a COI. Nor do I see anything to evidence that Sokoreq has a vested interest in editing the article, although it is curious that they went straight to the noticeboard without participating in the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    @C.Fred You are right, I was surprised that the editor keeps reverting my edits. This behavior suggests editor may have conflicts of interest or feel a sense of ownership of the page. Sokoreq (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Reverting your edits is evidence that they disagree with you, which is allowed. Disagreeing with you is in no way evidence of a conflict of interest. MrOllie (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    @MrOllie Yeh, I agree with you, but how many times ? And why? did you check my edit ? The editor was doing endless reverts, even after I requested clarification about their concerns on the talk page. Sokoreq (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    You were also 'doing endless reverts'. Do you have a conflict of interest? MrOllie (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Did you check my edit? What is wrong with that edit? I would like to know so that I can improve myself for next time. Please be specific. Thanks Sokoreq (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    You can improve yourself for next time by recognizing that reverts are a normal part of Misplaced Pages's editing process (see WP:BRD), and by refraining from making unfounded accusations towards other editors just because they reverted you. MrOllie (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I followed WP:BRD, but the editor didn't adhere to the discussion part: 'Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement.' Anyway, did you check my edit that the editor reverted several times? That would be really helpful. Sokoreq (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    No, you began edit warring after you were reverted. That is not following WP:BRD. And you still have not posted at Talk:Science of Identity Foundation. MrOllie (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    The editor reverted my edits without any explanation and did so repeatedly. I am still waiting for your insight. Did you check my edit? What mistake did I make? I want to understand; any help would be appreciated. Sokoreq (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Some of the mistakes that you made were edit warring and posting spurious talk page warnings (and now a noticeboard entry) rather than discussing your edits on the article's associated talk page. I'm not going to contribute to compounding those errors by debating the content with you here. If you want to continue with this, I would suggest that you withdraw the allegations you have made against Hipal, including the spurious vandalism, COI, and harrassment warnings you placed on their talk page, apologize to Hipal, and then go to Talk:Science of Identity Foundation where active discussions are currently taking place without your participation. MrOllie (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    You are trying to make it seem like it's my fault only, and you are missing the point. Anyway, thanks; I have already explained my COI concern below. Sokoreq (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Schazjmd Already, there is a lot going on in that talk page. Sokoreq (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Sokoreq I agree that it's daunting. However, you don't get to override discussion by jumping straight to a noticeboard, and especially not COIN.—C.Fred (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    @C.Fred I apologize, but the editor's behavior was strange and did not make any sense. Now, after seeing the article history, it looks like the editor has a sense of ownership or maybe a conflict of interest. other than that, I don't have any other evidence to prove the COI. I leave the final decision to you, but now I am feeling Anxious about whether I should touch that article because it seems like that editor owns it. This is strange! Sokoreq (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think this can be closed as a groundless complaint. Sokoreq has continued to edit since opening this complaint but has yet to try to discuss the edits in question at Talk:Science of Identity Foundation. No evidence has been provided for conflict of interest, other than the OP's apparent assumption that there is no other possible reason that their edits would be reverted. Schazjmd (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Kateblau

    Multiple draft creations of spammy company articles in a relatively short period of time:

    Received a COI notice January 5th but has continued to edit without declaring any COI. Spencer 02:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Categories: