Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:43, 31 May 2009 editTothwolf (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,326 edits →WP:Outing hypothetical question: summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:05, 23 January 2025 edit undoBubbaJoe123456 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers6,295 edits →Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{redirect|WP:COIN|the WikiProject on articles about coins|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Numismatics}}
]
]

] ]
]<!-- ]
]

-->{{Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/header}}<!-- {{Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config

-->{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{archivemainpage|Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard}} |archiveheader = {{archivemainpage|Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 32 |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! -->

New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.

PLEASE REMEMBER TO SIGN YOUR MESSAGE

Copy, do not edit, the below text and paste it below the newest section at the bottom of the page

-->

== Possible ] found by ] ==

* ] &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.''

== Requested edits ==

* '''].'''&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.''

== ] ] ] ==

The AfD discussion and contribution history kind of speak for themselves. The publicist article was created by this editor. Then we have the May 9 addition of wikilinks at other articles to the publicist by the same editor. Then we have the noting of "what links here" in the AfD discussion about the article. And the Sabrina article probably warrants some scrutiny too. ] (]) 05:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
*I'd like to chime in with CoM's observation--to me, it's as clear as day that there's fishy things going on here. I've gone through earlier and removed a bunch of the wikilinks to Jonathan Hay, and I called it wikilink spamming in my edits--I hope that was OK. ] (]) 05:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I am re-posting this here, from the AFD page, so it does not get overlooked: Please do review my history. You will see my diligence and attention to detail. I will agree that I am relatively new to Misplaced Pages and have made several mistakes (as most do) learning along the way. But I do know that you are to assume good faith. And assuming I am the person in this article and am using it for my own purpose is not assuming ]. I am NOT the person in this article, nor am I related to him in any way. I simply chose this article as a starting point before I ventured on to other articles, and I have gone to great lengths to improve, learn and research. It can be very confusing learning to navigate around Misplaced Pages at first, so please assume that any mistakes on my part are not intentional. I am still learning. You will see that I have ASKED for help many times. As far as the "what links here" links, I understood that I was to go to other articles that included his name and link them to his page.

And if you would kindly take a closer look, you will see that I was NOT the one to move Jonathan Hay (publicist) to Jonathan Hay (songwriter) and will note my reply to editor that did so, . I do not know who this editor is and had to remove a lot of things he added to the article, such as changing his middle name and some random words at the end of the article. But since he did remove the AFD, I assumed it was okay to continue working on the article.

I assure you, my only intention is to better Misplaced Pages, not add useless or spam-filled articles. I still feel strongly that Jonathan Hay is a good article for Misplaced Pages. (By the way, if you do a regular Google search for him, you will see page after page of coverage. I hardly think he needs the publicity from a Misplaced Pages page.)--] (]) 08:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

:I have already commented on Jklein212's talk page about how he is a single-purpose account who has done nothing but spam himself and his clients since he started here. ] (]) 16:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

:: Agreed, ] does not meet any of ] so I've nominated it for speedy deletion. ] (]) 16:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

:::I saw your speedy was declined so I did an AfD. I couldn't find any references. The whole Jonathan Hay article and moves and problems with all of that has been cleaned up. ] (]) 04:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

== COI/Spam/Self published ? Peter norton ==

{{resolved|All links in articles have been removed ] (]) 15:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|Peter norton}} - These are old - but still there - he has created 39+ links to his own company website under the guise of being educational but his website also sells the projects pictured. Certainly feels like SPAM/COI. Tried to start cleaning them up but they are buried deep (and old) in many pages so hoping for an admin bulk revert. List of 39 links here: ] &nbsp;<span style="padding:2px;background: #cccccc; color: #0000cc; BORDER-RIGHT: #6699cc 3px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #6699cc 3px solid;">]</span><sup>&nbsp;]|&nbsp;]|</sup>&nbsp;&nbsp; 09:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
::I have removed all remaining. &nbsp;<span style="padding:2px;background: #cccccc; color: #0000cc; BORDER-RIGHT: #6699cc 3px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #6699cc 3px solid;">]</span><sup>&nbsp;]|&nbsp;]|</sup>&nbsp;&nbsp; 22:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I had removed some but forgot to finish or make a note here, that's why you didn't see 39. ] (]) 02:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
::Thank for getting started on it, I removed the rest... was just being lazy hoping for an admin to come along and mop it up with a mass reversion of all the users edits. &nbsp;<span style="padding:2px;background: #cccccc; color: #0000cc; BORDER-RIGHT: #6699cc 3px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #6699cc 3px solid;">]</span><sup>&nbsp;]|&nbsp;]|</sup>&nbsp;&nbsp; 02:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
:::I removed an extra 'User:' from the userlinks template above. ] (]) 19:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

== ] and ] ==

{{resolved|Article deleted ] (]) 07:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)}}
] Created article ], and seems to be affiliated with the company, as evidenced by his username and the blog post . ] (]) 22:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

: Now at AfD :] ] (]) 19:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

== Hatashe ==

* {{userlinks|Hatashe}}

{{User|Hatashe}} has recently created two articles ] and ]. It seems he's an editor in both those electronic publications and he has put his own articles as references to those articles. After a quick look at his contributions, I saw he is adding his own articles as references to a lot other articles as well. Does this constitute self-promotion under ]? --] (]) 23:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

:I added spam and COI tags to his talk page. From his user page I would think that he is genuinely trying to contribute in a positive way and not just maliciously spamming. Regardless, there is a conflict in interest being indulged by linking to one's own work; it is plainly self-promotional. ] (]) 23:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

:: I've PRODd ] but ] may be more notable but I'm not too sure. ] (]) 19:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

::: PROD removed by anonymous IP in Bangladesh (possibly Hatashe) - now at AfD: ] ] (]) 15:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The IP {{userlinks|123.49.40.164}} has removed the AfD notice on American Chronicle - their edit history shows that they have edited articles on subpages of Hatashe's userpage - I think Hatashe needs to be warned over this (I imagine that it is also very likely that he removed the PROD) but I'm unsure in what way to do so as there's no direct evidence. Any suggestions? ] (]) 14:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
:Though this IP is also from Bangla Desh, my guess is that the editor is not Hatashe. I've semiprotected the article for one week to prevent any further removal of the AfD banner, in lieu of blocking the IP, who seems inexperienced with our policies and may be well-intentioned. We still need to decide on a good response to Hatashe's insertion of links. ] (]) 14:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
:: Ok, I'm inclined to disagree but lets give them the benefit of the doubt. As shown at the AfD the website is clearly not a ] and any links should be removed. There are an awful lot of links (397) that need removing however: . Just to clarify the American Chronicle can be edited by anyone as shown by the disclaimer on their website. Can they all be removed quickly or does it need to be done manually (I hope not!!). I've tried to encourage Hatashe to explain their POV on this but as yet they are silent - not sure what action to take considering this. ] (]) 15:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
:::It looks to me that ] should also be sent to AfD. Regarding the 397 spammy links to those two websites, I suggest leaving a report at ] and ask for the best way to get the links removed. Somebody who runs AWB could probably do it in a jiffy if they were sure of consensus for the removal. The posting at WPSPAM would probably be enough to justify it. The excessive redirects to ] will qualify for speedy deletion if the main article is deleted at AfD. I've left a {{tl|uw-spam3}} warning for Hatashe. ] (]) 04:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

::::That's been done here: ] I'll look take a deeper look at Modern Ghana later. ] (]) 11:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

:::::] has just been speedily deleted as a copyvio.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] (]) 18:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{unresolved}}
*{{userlinks|‎Pattysuesmith}}
*{{article|‎American Digger Magazine}}
*{{article|‎American Digger (magazine)}}
*{{lf|Premiercover.jpg}}


Consistent spamming of this magazine, in which she is the website administrator of (see bottom of ). ] 02:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

:Article has been deleted and I added a warning template to her talk page. ] (]) 02:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
::She has had at least three COI warnings on her talk page. She has also now created ] to shirk the deletion process. ] 02:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
:::I've tagged ] as spam.] (]) 09:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
:::: That was declined (somehow) so I've prodded the article. ] (]) 10:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
::::: The prod was also removed so it is now at AfD: ]. ] (]) 20:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The AfD result was "no consensus". The article currently states it has a "current circulation of over 2000". {{userlinks|Mccomas1}} appeared and Pattysuesmith disappeared as soon as PROD was placed on the article. suggests that they may also have a COI. ] (]) 00:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{resolved|Article deleted and user hasn't edited since 5.5.09 ] (]) 00:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)}}
* {{userlinks|Arimasa}} - User has been posting at ] with denialist propaganda that breaks ] and ]. The material added by him comes from ] (]) 15:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

== Balance of Power (forum game) ==

{{resolved|article deleted and redirected ] (]) 00:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)}}
* {{article|Balance of Power (forum game)}} - {{User|Mrdie}} is the administrator of a similar forum and does not wish to have "competition" from a "rival" forum so he has twice, using two IP addresses and , removed the link to another forum. This "rivalry" extends beyond the Wiki and is spitefully trying to get back at another forum by constantly removing it from Misplaced Pages. There is not a monopoly of the forum game and making it out to look that way is malicious, and thus vandalism. Thank you ] (]) 04:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

::Neither forum should have a link per ] rules, and the article in question is not encyclopedic as there are no ] and the topic has no notability. Whole thing goes away now. Thanks for bringing it to our attention so it could be dealt with in the way most appropriate to our standards. ] (]) 16:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
:::Agreed. I think sending it to AfD might have been a better course since the redirect amounts to a de-facto Speedy Delete of the original. I think the outcome of the AfD would very likely have been the same, though. ]] 17:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The article was deleted (rightfully IMO, neither you or I created the article). To clear things up, Sonny's forum was created due to a split on Diplomacy (the forum linked). I included Diplomacy because it is a professional (paid-for) forum and is by far the most active BoP forum (and oldest) whereas Sonny's forum is a basic, free forum closed off to everyone except those who register. I also wanted to substantiate the claim that it was being played in both various topics online (which I did, like 8 citations) and on a forum-wide basis (which I did, by citing ). As noted however, the article shouldn't have existed. --] (]) 16:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for forum drama reaching the wiki. I saw a link to that forum and believed that people should see what other versions of the game are like. I totally respect this decisions. I came here to prevent an edit war. Looking over ] contributions he seems to be embroiled in several revert wars and did not want that to happen. Thank you for your decision. ] (]) 01:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

== Radialpoint ==

*{{article|Radialpoint}}
*{{userlinks|Radialpointpr}}
*{{userlinks|Prrp}}
*{{userlinks|Radialpointfan}}
*{{userlinks|Paigemce}}

The page ] was just by ]. The COI is clear but the information added appears more encyclopedic and in-line with our standards than with most COI cases. I tagged the page but didn't revert the edit. I'd like feedback to see if this was the proper move. ''']]]''' 15:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

: I've tried to save what was remaining. There might be some more stuff that should be removed or other info from previous edits that should be reincluded. It would be useful if someone else could take a look. ] (]) 13:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

:: It looks like it wasn't just this editor - others have edited the page before who also seem to have a COI. I've added the usernames to this page and will warn them too.

:::Pruning of the promo and peacocking looks good. There was a bit of press-releasey type stuff that was removed which might not have been too objectionable, but hopefully the user(s) will read up the COI links provided and edit accordingly if they think that info really serves the article by inclusion. ]] 17:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

A new user ] has appeared and added the same information back. There is strong evidence to be found through google that they too have a COI - the edits have been reverted but I was wondering whether this merits firmer action (i.e. checkuser)? ] (]) 15:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

== ] continually deletes Yves Carbonne entries in favor of promoting Garry Goodman ==

{{resolved|The evidence suggests that the COI was the opposite way to that suggested ] (]) 13:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|121.220.36.117}}
*{{la|Extended-range bass}}
*{{la|Bass guitar}}

Continues to vandalize any entries made about Yves Carbonne, in favor of Garry Goodman, both bassists. All Carbonne entries have valid supporting links, whereas the Goodman entries 121.220.36.117 continually reinstates (either while replacing Carbonne entries or while adding to Goodman entries AND replacing Carbonne entries) have excessive promotional value, no links or supporting references, etc. In addition, the information 121.220.36.117 continually reverts (wipes out Carbonne, replaced by Goodman) has very detailed information about Garry Goodman's strings (he is more of a string maker than a noted bassist), information possibly only Garry Goodman or a representative of his would know, and promote in an effort to sell strings. This person follows me around, makes very few edits to anything else, and is literally stalking any pages with information about Yves Carbonne, who is not receiving a "lack of consensus" as 121.220.36.117 alleges, but spreading bad information and making accusations he cannot support. There were Carbonne entries that did not receive a consensus a while back. Since then, the correct type of third party links were added, and there seems to have been a change in consensus, to Carbonne's favor. However, 121.220.36.117 continues to write the same derogatory comments over and over, although he has absolutely no proof of his allegations. He has now reverted information added by a second editor on the extended-range bass page, and reverted my last entry on the "bass guitar" page. It should be known, there were about 20 editors in the middle of my entry, and his revert, and at no time did anyone object to the Carbonne information being present. As soon as something goes up about Carbonne, he is there, usually immediately or by the next day, to remove it and add information about Garry Goodman. I have given him 2 warnings, and an admin gave him a third. Please see all the revisions he made to "Carbonne" here ----> http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/121.220.36.117. It is abundantly evident that he has a definite conflict of interest, and is trying to prevent information from being shared on Misplaced Pages, which is very relevant to the history and future of the sub-extended-range bass guitar, because I suspect, absolutely, that he fancies himself as a competitor. Please block him from continuing his vandalism and stalking, and using Misplaced Pages as a promotional venue for Garry Goodman. Thank you.] (]) 17:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
{{collapsetop}}
:I modified the header of this report to follow the conventions normally used at ]. ] (]) 17:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. First timer over here. ] (]) 17:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
*I don't see evidence of a COI, other than 2 camps very intent on their opinions. This looks to be a content dispute more than a COI. While the IP does remove your Carbonne paragraph often, I only see 2 edits by IP-121 that add info on Goodman (one of which was a couple of lines just mentioning the different number of strings in one of his basses). The recent edit to Bass Guitar did add a fair amount of Goodman related info. Reading through the talk pages on the 2 articles in question, it does seem like the general feeling is not to have Carbonne's info in there (I count 3 opposed, and only yourself in favor). As ] mentioned on the locked page, you should work with the others on that page to arrive at an agreement as to whether Carbonne should be on there. Several claims are mentioned about Carbonne that may or may not support his inclusion; that is up to the discussion on the talk page though. (Unfortunately I am unable at the moment to view the cited articles on bass-musician-magazine.com to offer an opinion there... the site seems to be having problems pulling article text). ]] 17:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Really? You don't see evidence of a COI, when ip 121..., as his ] contribution on here (without being a registered user) deleted Carbonne? And then did it 10 more times, on 3 different pages, including the Michael Manring page, on which Carbonne played on a collaboration with Manring? You don't find it odd that another 20 or so editors on the bass page didn't object to Carbonne infomation, but lo and behond, 121 removed his information yesterday, put up the reason that Carbonne was not notable, and just HAPPENED to conveniently enter unsupported information about Goodman (no sources)? You don't find it odd that every time a change to Carbonne has been made, my me or someone else, that he goes in right after, and deletes it? That's really interesting. Looks like a big gaping COI to me. ] (]) 19:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

::I have notified the IP editor of this discussion. For additional background, see ], which closed with Delete on 5 April. There have been other relevant discussions at ]. It would be helpful if TLCbass would disclose how he happens to be concerned about this issue, since he used 'bass' in his user name. He is here at COIN suggesting that the IP editor has a conflict of interest, while he himself might have a business or professional connection to this topic. ] (]) 18:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
That is the most absurd thing I ever heard. Go on the bass dicussion: every other person on there has bass in their name. Boy, you are reeeealy reaching here. I use the name "bass", because I love bass. For people asking me why I have an interest this, there seems to be a lot of people on here who have a lot of opinions, and voice them unduly. My interest is as follows (you could have just asked, instead of beating around the bush): I do not accept the fact that an outstanding musician and pioneer is being dissed on here, and the information about how he has created an instrument and a concept which will further the expansion of the instrument - is being bullied off of here because of people with conflicting interests and suspect motives. Furthermore, I am the one who brought the complaint against 121... He is the one removing Carbonne entries (mine or other) to replace them with Goodman entries. The Carbonne entries are supported by Bass Musician Magazine. The Goodman entries contain enormous amounts of promotional and opinionated information, and in addition, is not sourced or supported. I already said - when I first put up information about Carbonne, I was new on here, and included inappropriate links according to your site. I have since corrected that, and another editor with whom I am not affiliated in any way, shape or form, took it on himself to write a very educated, factual blurb about Carbonne's bass, which he conceived. I am getting very very tired of being put on the defense, when I, as an editor, who has spent MANY MANY hours on here, continues to be questioned. This while you have someone with a blatant conflict of interest getting away with doing everything that is against your policies. I am not following 121 around and removing HIS entries... I am not stalking 121... I am not targeting anything that he holds an interest in. But, he is doing that to me and another editor. This is really to the point of being beyond ridiculous. ] (]) 18:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:Not trying to put you on the defense, we're just trying to impartially gather the facts here. I'll respond to your previous couple of posts above in one spot here, as I'm sure you can see that breaking them up would start to get hard to follow.

:On the COI: In order for there to be a conflict of interest, IP121 would have to have a close connection to the topic (in this case, Goodman), and/or benefit in the real-world by the way the article is written on-wiki (such as a business promoting itself to drive up sales). I have not seen a COI demonstrated in this case using that definition. Thus far, I see IP121 as being a bass enthusiast who happens to not think Carbonne should be included. Just as you are a bass enthusiast who thinks he should. If either of you have a closer connection to Carbonne, Goodman, or indeed any of the manufacturers named in the article, or otherwise stand to benefit from the shape of the article, then you/he/they have a COI. Just being an editor who edits in one field, from one point-of-view does not automatically prove a COI.

:On the notability of Carbonne: Please see ] for specifics on what constitutes notability on Misplaced Pages. Again, we are just using the criteria as defined here. The notability policy even states "topic notability on Misplaced Pages is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic". The criteria that determines notability is ]. If a topic has been covered significantly (not just passing references) in multiple independent sources, then it is likely notable as Misplaced Pages defines it. I still can't bring up the bass-musician-magazine.com articles so can't comment on the sourcing aspect, but if Carbonne is covered in other independent sources, then notability should not be a problem. I do note that the article on him was deleted precisely because nobody could or would add such sources.

:On IP121's deletions: I am not sure why he is so intent on deleting the Carbonne paragraphs, but this topic is not my forte. If the paragraph claims are supported by the cite (dang bass-musician-magazine.com again) then the question becomes: Does including the paragraph improve the article? That determination is made by ] on the article's talk page. My advice would be to enter into a more detailed dialog about just why that information seems to be inappropriate in the IP's eyes. The only explanation I've seen for that was "We said we weren't going to list everybody" which may be fine if Carbonne is grouped in with "everybody", in which case I might want to know why if I was the one who wanted that information in. A more friendly discourse, rather than accusatory, might end up with you convincing the others that he should be in there.

:Sorry for the length of this post. Please do reply below if I can be of additional service. ]] 21:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
::Just using the search function at http://bass-musician-magazine.com brings up 38 hits for 'Carbonne' and 4 hits for 'Goodman.' This suggests that the magazine found Carbonne more noteworthy. Someone would still have to read the actual articles to see how they rate the importance of these guys. ] (]) 22:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Response: If you read the exact text IP121 put in under his changes when adding info about Goodman, it is clear he is connected with the subject. I have not been able to find any of the info about Goodman he added on the web. In addition, his deletions of Carbonne are always directly after someone adds him, and always make reference to the fact that he isn't notable. That was never really established. His article was deleted because '''I''' finally demanded that it was deleted, because I am the one who made the mistake of adding information other wikipedians found to be containing praise. That was MY mistake, not Carbonne's. He had nothing to do with it, and had been on here for approx. 2 years - with his own page - before I added information about him, that sadly, ended up in a long, drawn out argument. After editors continually reverted the information back to outdated and incorrect information, instead of making positive suggestions as to how I could change it so it would be "Wiki-appropriate", it turned into a battle I no longer had the time or inclination to continue fighting. If you look at the "battle", you will see that it was suggested that someone else pick up the reigns to add info about Carbonne. Now, someone has, because is a HUGE force in bass development, and is an outstanding musician. That is not my opinion by the way, that is a fact. I added numerous links to independent sources, but it was too late. To have this perverse interest in now eliminating a one sentence addition by an editor unknown to me is just persecution. I am truly firm in my belief, based on ip121's pattern, he definitely has ulterior motives to do what he is doing. Carbonne does meet notability. I am not retying all of that here. You are free to look at my talk page or the article's talk page for support of that statement. ] (]) 12:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I have no problem whatsoever getting into the Bass Musician Magazine Articles. Not sure why you do? He has also received positive reviews in Bass Player Magazine (Hard copy, not on line), The International Institute of Bassists, and ALL of the Bass Forums online. If you look at his myspace page (which has become the new standard for reviewing a musicians notability, at least in the music industry it is: record companies go there to see how an artist is doing), you will see, of ALL the bassists on the site, he is second (in both song plays, page views, and fans) only to Marcus Miller. Every other bassist on the site (which actually has a page for ANY bassist you have ever heard of) has less song plays, fans, and pageviews than Carbonne. Feel free to verify that information.
http://www.myspace.com/yvescarbonne

] (]) 12:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

:Ed, thanks for notifying me of this discussion. I have been wanting to start a COI discussion regarding Carbonne but just haven't had the time and so I am very grateful a discussion has been opened here and I welcome an examination of this issue. Arakunem: Just to clear things up, I'm not a "bass enthusiast who happens to not think Carbonne should be included". I'm not even a bass enthusiast. I'm simply a Misplaced Pages enthusiast and I've been trying to protect Misplaced Pages from a SPA who is on a promotional mission with 100% of her edits directed to trying force Misplaced Pages to include information about Yves Carbonne.
:As way of background, I became aware of this issue when the ] article was nominated for deletion. I did some research, checked the links TLCBass had provided and then came back to comment on the AFD only to find it had already been closed. Before the article was deleted, though, I noticed that TLCBass claimed repeatedly in edit summaries that she was here as Carbonnes "authorized" representative. The article has been deleted now so unfortunately I can't check the exact wording, but administrators can look at the deleted edits of that article and see that she repeatedly claimed she was authorized to make edits regarding Carbonne. Also, when I followed some of the links she added to the article and the talk page, I very quickly realised who she was, what her username means and she has a very significant conflict of interest and I believe she should not be the one to decide what, if any, information Misplaced Pages has about this man. Now, I personally don't care if we have information about him or not. An editor at ] said he feels that a brief mention of Carbonne may be appropriate in the extended range bass article. If he, or another experienced user, were to make such an edit, I would accept whatever they considered appropriate. My objection here is that we have a SPA with a very significant COI and that person should not be the one to decide and then enforce what Misplaced Pages says about Carbonne, especially when the Carbonne subject has been rather contentious (I am not the only one who has reverted TLCBass's edits about Carbonne).

:TLCBass accuses me of "using Misplaced Pages as a promotional venue for Garry Goodman" and of adding information that only Goodman or his representatives would know. To be clear: I have absolutely no connections to Goodman or any other musician in any genre of music (if only TLCBass could say the same thing). The truth is, I have never made any content edits regarding Goodman and the information about Goodman which TLCBass blames me for adding to the article was ''not'' written or contributed by me! It just happens that TLCBass replaces the Goodman content with her information about Carbonne and when I reverted her Carbonne edits, the Goodman material is restored as an effect of the reversion. I don't even know anything about Goodman beyond the information I have read in the article and I don't care if we have information about him or not. Her accusations are ridiculous and not grounded in fact.

:TLCBass refers to "(my) first contribution on here (without being a registered user)". Being a registered user or not is beside the point. Editing as an anon is a right protected by the and should have nothing to do with content disputes or how a user is treated. I do have an account and I've contributed thousands of edits to Misplaced Pages over around five years. I've been on an extended Wikibreak since last year and over the last few months I have gradually begun editing again as an anon. I am not editing simultaneously with my account and I'm not avoiding a block, ban or other sanctions (and would be willing to prove this privately to an administrator if necessary) so I'm entitled to edit anonymously if I wish. My IP is dynamic and it changes on a regular basis, varying from every few days to every couple of months, so all my anonymous edits are not under this IP as TLCBass seems to suggest. Anons have been welcome on this project since its inception and they aren't supposed to be treated as second class citizens and I really object to the snark and abuse that TLCBass has hurled my way.

:TLCBass claims I am stalking her edits, following her around, reverting all her edits. I have not been following her, but I have been watching the articles involved. It's unfortunate that 100% of her edits to Misplaced Pages are about Carbonne because if she edited on other subjects instead of just trying to force information about Carbonne into the encyclopedia, she would quickly see that I'm not following her and that I'm not interested in her beyond trying to protect the integrity of the project. Had I been stalking her, I would have found her complaints about me to AN3, Sockpuppet investigations, and here and commented on all of them already, but I didn't even know about this until Ed notified me and I only found out about AN3 and SI a few minutes ago (TLCBass, it's considered good manners on this project to notify users when you make complaints about them). TLCBass is a SPA with a significant COI and I ask the administrators on this page to take a close look at what is going on here. She is also highly incivil and takes an attitude that anyone who is not on her side is against her and she uses bullying tactics, false accusations, threats to have the other party blocked if they don't yield to her and general aggression as a means to try to intimidate other users and get her own way in regards to content. Also, I see that she's still bothering the user who nominated her Carbonne article for AFD by following him to an unrelated AFD to pester him about the Carbonne AFD.

:Finally, TLCBass's accusations of vandalism are untrue and offensive. By definition, good faith edits are not vandalism. All my edits to Misplaced Pages are made in good faith and with the best of intentions for Misplaced Pages and therefore under the ] cannot be classed as vandalism - "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism." Also, under the same policy, a content dispute is not vandalism - "edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism". So I ask TLCBass to stop making false accusations, accusing me of vandalism, COI etc and instead be honest about her own Conflict of Interest and then follow the recommendations laid out in the COI guideline and leave the content decisions up to other users who are not invested in Yves Carbonne and his inclusion/exclusion in this encyclopedia. ] (]) 14:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Also, TLCBass is trying to mislead above when she states that the ] article was deleted because she requested it. It was deleted as a result of the AFD as anyone who reads the AFD can see and the AFD is cited as the reason in the deletion log - . ] (]) 14:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

:: I must admit that after looking at ] it does seem as though TLCBass may have a COI with regard to Yves Carbonne. 121.220 whilst it is your right to remain anonymous it is also worth pointing out that having an account actually increases you anonymity and tends to garner respect (rightly or wrongly) from other editors. Can an admin confirm the claims 121.220 has made about TLCBass having a COI with Carbonne? Also a quick request to please keep comments short and to the point if possible please. :) ] (]) 15:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
:::My apologies for the long reply but TLCBass has made so many accusations about me on multiple noticeboards that I did not know about until after they were archived because no one ever bothered to notify me and thus I've never had an opportunity to respond. Anyway, I've tried to cut my post down a little to respond to the key accusations on this page. Also, I do realise a user has more anonymity with an account and as I stated above I do have an established account. I am not editing anonymously because I am seeking anonymity but for personal reasons that I won't elaborate on here but would be happy to discuss this (and to identify my account and my real world identity) with an administrator privately if there are genuine concerns that I have a conflict of interest regarding this subject area. Thanks Smartse for looking into this. I appreciate it. ] (]) 03:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC) (121.220.36.117, sorry my IP has rotated again ] (]) 03:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)).
:: Hmm, a quick look at ] would seem to back this up. The first sentence in the deleted Yves Carbonne (presumably written by TLCbass, as they've kept it on their talk page) article read "''Yves Carbonne is the most listened to French instrumentalist on the internet to date"'' and was unsourced. There is also a note from ] with regards to a COI. ] (]) 16:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Ganging up me again? GOOD! Except I have better things to do with my day than argue on here.
Yes, I deleted that because it was sourced back to myspace, which is the considered the record industry standard for determining an artist's popularity. But, of course, Misplaced Pages did not approve that, so I removed it. And 121... perhaps if you didn't act like a stalker, you wouldn't be accused of being one...] (]) 17:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
: I've looked at lots of pages involved with this and I'm starting to think that maybe neither of you have a COI and that this is just an edit war. TLCbass definitely appears to be a fan of Yves Carbonne (at least judging by Yves Carbonne's myspace page) but this doesn't constitute a COI. 121, you accuse TLCbass of being Carbonne's partner do you have any evidence? (be careful not to ] though if you do-a diff would be the best way to do this). It would also help if you knew what your IP was before 121 so we can all look at your previous edits. From your history at 121 you haven't added the info on Garry but I can't tell whether you did before. Let's please try and resolve this. Thanks ] (]) 19:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
::No, look, I'm not going to write anymore here. I have said enough about this and provided enough clues (starting with the deleted revs to ] where she admitted it in edit summaries) and this section is long enough as it is. In my experience on Misplaced Pages the longer threads become, the less and less likely it is that the right people will actually read them. I could provide every IP I've ever used and it still wouldn't prove that I didn't add that information about Garry Goodman so it's really pointless. I mean, I could have used an account to do it, open proxies, public IPs etc, right, so it's pointless expecting me to prove that I wasn't the one who added it. Really what it boils down to is that as an anon I have no credibility unless I sign into my account and prove that I'm an established and trusted user on this project, which is something I am unprepared to do at this point. So instead I will contact an administrator privately, identify my account and my real world identity and address this with them. Thanks, ] (]) 02:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
:::As an admin viewing the deleted revisions, I can confirm that there are several deleted revisions on the "Yves Carbonne" article where TLCbass specifically, unambiguously refers to themselves as an "authorized party". Edit summaries include "I am absolutely authorized to put ALL information on this page. Whoever keeps changing it - STOP RIGHT NOW!" (used twice in an edit war on, get this, ] 2009), and on the same day, "Correcting and updating information. I am an authorized editor.". This was the same day they first started editing the page, adding almost 80% of it. Some of the contents included unencyclopaedic passages such as: "One might infer from the sounds heard on Seven Waves, the instrument when in played in France, sounds as if it has the potential to register on Richter scales in the Americas." and "What Carbonne captures in this recording is the powerful rock solid, bass register underpinning of a brew of all these elements, with musical intuition that renews familiar conventions with a freshness and emotional intensity that at once seems as genuinely felt as it is intelligently composed." The user created their account 4 minutes before their first edit to the Yves Carbonne article which added 5k to its length, with the edit summary "Added accurate, up to date information 3-30-2009". Their AfD comments on their third day of editing showed a disgraceful lack of regard for Misplaced Pages policy and for fellow editors and users. ] 04:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
: Myspace is considered a record industry source? Somebody should have a read of ] and ], methinks... ] 03:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

::::(moved from above for visibility) I can vouch for the identity of the IP address as being a long-serving user and administrator in good standing, who has not significantly edited from their main account for some time - in fact they've resolved some contentious issues at BLPs between warring parties in the past 12-18 months on a number of occasions. I also agree that it's insane that someone should have to sign into their account to have any credibility - that isn't the principles on which this project was based, and I myself edited as an anon for nearly a year before registering and, back then, was never challenged once or treated any differently for it. The behaviour of ] should be separately investigated in my view. ] 03:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok that settles it then in my opinion, thanks for revealing that ]. There is absolutely no evidence of the IP having a COI and yet there is strong evidence for TLCbass having one. I think this is now resolved although the ] article needs to be changed accordingly. ] (]) 13:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Who are you?? Nothing is settled and no one has heard anything from the contributor (not me) who's info was removed again. You people really do conduct yourselves like a lynch mob...

''Even though Yves Carbonne has an astronomically larger fan base, substantially more references, is praised all over every bass forum online, has been recognized by the International Institute of Bassists, has been reviewed and interviewed several times in Bass Musician Magazine, has been reviewed in Bass Player Magazine, etc. And Gary Goodman has not. Interesting.''

''Furthermore, to go into Michael Manring's page, and actually remove part of HIS discography because you all apparently have a vendetta in play here, is reprehensible. Perhaps I will write to Michael Manring and let him know that you have defaced HIS page, IP121. There is something VERY underhanded going on here, about the viciousness involved of people ganging up to remove Carbonne. It is actually sick. I am not ruining my holiday arguing with you people who are evidently clueless re: the bass world. I will wait until the luthier whose entries you removed, 121, has a say in this. He's probably just disgusted at what he sees, and doesn't want to bother arguing with you people. And if Carbonne's fans get wind of what is going on here, you can be sure you will be hearing from them as well. Really, at this point, what you are all doing is just plain twisted. I have better things to do with my time than getting aggravated arguing with people who are obviously involved personally in making sure that Carbonne is not on here, i.e. persecuted (because of clear conflict of interest... I suppose that is why you are all turning everything around, and accusing me of a COI) and promoting Gary Goodman, who has apparently taken over the page as his personal promo page, although he has few if any fans out there. But it's apparently OK that his name is mentioned a whopping 6 times on there - without ONE source. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, smartse... It's clear: wiki rules apply selectively, not impartially. At this point, I am all out of tact. I suspect there are several sock/meat puppets involved, several people with a COI, and I think there is something '''VERY''' wrong going on relative to the blatant persecution and favoritism going on here. And if the shoe fits, wear it. In fact, what you all are doing by outing a notable, widely respected artist, and preventing interested parties from accessing information about him on this particular site, is just out and out perverse. So keep promoting metalheads and Garry Goodman and out widely respected artists with huge fan bases, and see how quickly your credibility as a site goes down the tubes. Perhaps you should have read the articles I wasted my time putting on here for your review, instead of finding excuses as to why you couldn't because your internet connections didn't work. If this wasn't so pathetic, it would be laughable. ] (]) 18:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

: Please note my use of ''in my opinion'' others are welcome to say whether they agree or disagree. Please do disagree anybody, if you think that my last post is incorrect. Are you accusing me of being a sock/meatpuppet and adding info RE Garry Goodman?! Who am I? I'm a student who first and foremost respects[REDACTED] for the fact that information on it is not added by people with a COI. That's why I look over the cases posted here. Your COI is singing out to me loudly, as illustrated by the above discussion. ] (]) 19:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
: I don't even *play* bass so I don't see how I could have a vendetta (I'm a six stringer myself). About all I know about bass is that the guys from Red Hot Chilli Peppers and Faith No More are pretty good and that I can sort of do an acceptable effort trialling them in a music store. As for 121, who is from the other side of the world from Carbonne and had never heard of him until the AfD last month, I'm pretty sure they don't play any instrument, and neither 121 nor myself had ever dealt with Smartse or any other person here prior to this incident. ] 14:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
:I have confirmed my Misplaced Pages username and my real world identity to the administrator Orderinchaos and I'm sure that he can confirm that he is more than satisfied that I do not work in the music industry or any remotely related field. I do not have a conflict of interest but you do. I think the fact this upsets you so much and makes you so angry and abusive highlights why you should step back and leave this up to other people who are not invested in Carbonne. Also, have you ever heard the saying that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar? It goes double on Misplaced Pages. You will find that people here are far more amenable if you are polite and treat them with respect rather than abusing anyone who doesn't instantly agrees with your opinion of Carbonne and launching into false and laughable accusations of every wiki-crime you can think of without a shred of evidence in an apparent hope that if you sling enough mud eventually some of it will stick. To now accuse uninvolved people like Smartse and Orderinchaos of having a COI or being socks is just ridiculous. ] (]) 03:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
*Sorry, I was taking the long weekend off. A couple of points now that I'm caught up on the above. I am able to view the bass-musician-magazine.com articles now. The "About Yves Carbonne" article seems a bit promotional, but the section on tuning the sub-bass frequencies, which is what was cited from that article, strikes me as ok. Combined with the Jerzy Drozd link, the inclusion of that info in the article does not seem problematic to me, as it contained the cited fact on that tuning, and left out the promotional tone ("a pioneer in electric bass development") that the articles contain. The "Why Fretless" article was written BY Carbonne, so may not appropriate as it is a ].
:Secondly, TLCBass, please stop accusing everyone of a COI, Sockpuppetry, etc. Misplaced Pages has a very specific definition of COI, and repeatedly accusing people in the absence of any solid evidence can be considered a ]. "Why else would they be doing this" is not considered solid evidence. So far, the closest thing to COI proof was yourself stating you were authorized to make edits, which suggests a close relation to the topic, which IS the Misplaced Pages definition of a COI.
:Lastly, IP121, you stated that the Carbonne info may be ok in the article, as long as TLC is not the one adding it due to a perceived COI. According to the COI guidelines here, a COI-affected editor may still edit the article they may be in conflict with, as long as they maintain a ]. Regardless of TLC's COI or lack-of-one, the Carbonne edits don't seem promotional or biased to me (admittedly not anything close to an expert in this area).
:I AGAIN encourage the parties to discuss constructively on the talk pages of the articles, rather than slinging COI accusations, posting vandalism reports, and so on. If TLC wants X in the article, discuss why. If IP121 does not want X there, discuss why. Discuss how this roadblock can be worked around. Build a consensus. ]] 15:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
::No, what I'm saying is that I personally don't care if Carbonne is mentioned in an appropriate article or not (but I don't think he should be discussed in all the articles TLCBass wants him in) but because this topic has been so contentious - the material has been removed by several people, not just by me, the concerns about his notability raised at and around the AFD and in other discussions, and the discussion on various talk pages like ] and ] where no one but TLCBass has supported inclusion of Carbonne, any content decisions regarding this should not be made by someone who is so patently and clearly partial, invested and compromised as TLCBass. I'm personally not at all convinced of this fellow's notability under the ], but as I've said on the talk page of ], I would accept an uninvested, established editor making a content decision, but I do not accept a self-admitted representative of the artist making such a decision in the face of an active lack of consensus amongst other editors and then returning regularly to enforce the content. TLCBass has no edits outside Yves Carbonne and really appears to come here just to police Carbonne content in those articles and I absolutely do not accept her editorial judgment in this matter. Also, I find that a rather superficial description of the Conflict of Interest guideline. While the guideline states that COI isn't reason enough on it's own to reject edits, it also states that general policies must be adhered to and clearly there are a variety of policies and guidelines that TLCBass is violating (], especially, plus ], ], ], are just a few policies that come to mind). As a conflict of interest editor, it was fine for her to add the material but once it was clear that Carbonne's inclusion was contentious and that there was no consensus, under both the COI guideline and general Misplaced Pages policies, she should have stopped, discussed it, and reached a compromise with others on those articles. And she was asked to do this many times by different editors and administrators. Instead, she edit warred and tried to police and enforce the content against an active lack of support and without a consensus. (Not saying that I'm faultless as I recognise that I should have pursued WP:DR and I regret not filing a ANI/AN3 report because although she didn't violate 3RR in a 24 hour period she has violated other aspects of the policy as well as CIV and NPA and reporting it may have helped resolve this earlier). ] (]) 03:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
{{collapsebottom}}
*''Also, I find that a rather superficial description of the Conflict of Interest guideline.'' Quite right, I forget that you are an experienced Wikian. I'm a tad used to simplifying the guidelines for those situations where it is asserted that COI=Barred from editing (]). :) I think we've about wrung this issue out though. The COI does appear to be on the other side of the argument, and the consensus in the article talk pages is for non-inclusion of the Carbonne info. I would once again invite TLC to discuss the content she wishes to add on the talk pages, and perhaps arrive at a consensus with the other editors as to the exact wording. There's no conspiracy against Carbonne, just a conspiracy to keep Misplaced Pages conformant to its policies. ]] 14:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::Yes, I agree. Thank you Arakunem, Smartse and Orderinchaos for the time and effort you've all spent looking into this issue. I appreciate your time, effort, advice and assistance very much. ] (]) 14:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{resolved|users blocked and articles permanently semi-protected ] (]) 00:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)}}
*{{article|Canadian Children's Rights Council}}
*{{article|Parental alienation syndrome}}
*{{article|Parental alienation}}

*{{userlinks|S-MorrisVP}}
*{{userlinks|Smith research}} (blocked until 25.05)
*{{userlinks|JaniceMT}}

In addition to egregious POV pushing and a ], I believe I've just recieved a notice that there is a conflict of interest problem . ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 20:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

: Yes, a blatant COI issue here. S-MorrisVP has also complained that other users have "taken control" of the article on her organisation - in clear contradiction of ]. All their edits so far have been adding links to the ]'s website and the user has been blocked twice before and been warned about the COI before yet continues to edit as before. The article listed here seems to be taken care of but I think some other articles may need a look over. I gather from the ] that this is not an isolated user. I've added some other users and articles to the top of this. ] (]) 22:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
::I've blocked the editors involved and indefinitely protected CCRC; see ]. -<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 05:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{resolved|Not a COI issue, but I think it's resolved anyway with consensus removal of advert tag. ] (]) 03:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)}}
Could someone at this noticeboard take a look at ] and see if this article still has an advertising tone? The article initially had some advertising elements but I think I've cleaned it up. {{User|Quartermaster}} has added an {{tl|advert}} tag to the article because they believe that this article is still promotional. I disagree, and we are discussing this at ]. Please comment there as to whether or not the article is promotional. Thanks for taking a look at this, ] (]) 06:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
:The tone is ok, but the article strikes me as overly detailed. It reads like a brochure, not an advertisement. So while I've seen worse, I think you're not quite there yet. ] (], ]) 13:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

== ] is a Single Purpose Account ==

{{resolved|QuotationMan has agreed to a topic ban. ] (]) 01:16 31 May 2009 (UTC)}}

* {{article|Libertas.eu}}
* {{article|Declan Ganley}}
* {{userlinks|86.45.196.61}}

* {{userlinks|QuotationMan}} - appears to be a Single Purpose Account, editing on Declan Ganley and Libertas.eu ] (]) 11:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
: I suggest a checkuser ] (]) 02:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
::He had been removing well-sourced critical material from the two articles, suggesting he was editing in support of his personal POV. QuotationMan was blocked 24 hours on 21 May and has not resumed since the block. An IP editor, ], started removing text and references from ] on 23 May with no edit summaries, so I've semiprotected that article. ] (]) 03:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
::: Wise to semi protect I should have asked earlier. ]

started that pattern of editing out of references and I assume that they are related IPs. The latter is most likely Rivada Networks/Libertas based at Mr. Ganley's house in Tuam, Co Galway. That presents another ] issue.
91.189.71.198 - Geo Information, IP Address 91.189.71.198 Host ptr-71-198.knr.ip.airwire.ie, Location IE, Ireland City
Tuam, 10 Organization
Airwire.

The latter Ip removed most of quite a good page that had begun to get hit with weasel words and silly edits but was more or less stable. Footnotes had been at 58 well sourced references. The issue would be to rebuild without violations of ] esp. as the subject is running for election. ] (]) 13:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

===Not a single purpose account===

This is not a single purpose account. Aside from writing about Libertas, Ganley and on related pages, I also write about the Democratic Deficit and Judicial Activism.

Like everyone else editing Libertas, Declan Ganley my point of view is not neutral. However, it is allowed for people without a neutral point of view to make certain edits on Misplaced Pages, in order to defend the privacy / reputation of a private person or organisation. I am with my non-neutral point of view allowed to defend Declan Ganley's and Libertas' privacy and reputation on Misplaced Pages.
:Political parties and movements have '''''no''''' right of privacy to protect; don't be absurd. Your obviously non-neutral POV is showing. --] &#x007C; ] 17:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

:::'''indent'''
:::] is a pan-European political party with aspirations to become a ] that has attracted the support of , the former , elements of the , has at least seven member parties, approximately twenty-six affiliate parties, (there's a question mark over Lithuania) and is running ] in sixteen countries for the ]. ''Whatever'' it may be, a "private organization" it is ''not''. Regards, ] (]) 13:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
:::'''indent ends'''

Catalpa, Truthinirishpolitics and Gerfinch do NOT have neutral points of view and must not be allowed to add controversies, change nationality to English, label Rivada a military contractor etc. When your point of view is NOT neutral you are allowed to defend reputation, privacy - NOT attack it.


--] (]) 09:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

: Mr Ganley's nationality has been the subject of a lot of press coverage it is clear he was born in the UK and claims Irish citizenship. can you point to the diffs that assert I have said anything else?

Rivada is a military contractor as its contracts are with the military see or

It is also clear that you are only editing on the Ganley Libertas pages ] (]) 10:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
:Since ] has returned to the article and continued to delete well-sourced criticism, without waiting to get support for his changes on the talk page, I have blocked him for a week for disruptive editing. A ] that his block can be lifted early if he will agree to stay off the ] article and limit himself to the Talk page. I welcome review of this block by other editors. ] (]) 14:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
::] is now unblocked, subject to a promise to stay off the Libertas and Ganley-related articles and to limit himself to the talk pages. ] (]) 16:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
:::On my talk, that three editors here ''are all related to a blog called PeopleKorps... which is a semi-professional campaign against Libertas.'' I have not seen any evidence of fishy editing by people who oppose Libertas, but there is actual evidence that PeopleKorps wants to affect the Misplaced Pages article on Declan Ganley. you see this comment: ''If you edit on Misplaced Pages you might like to add some of the sources and info back in. If you don't edit do sign up and help stop Libertas employees destroying an open source resource.'' ] (]) 16:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
::::I need to point out that the is unusable as a wikiresource: it's a blog and a somewhat erratically phrased one at that. I've certainly never used it as a source (please, ''please'' feel free to go thru my edits), and I suspect (given the timings) that ''it'' uses ''us'' as a source. To preempt accusations, I now need to point out that I am not related to that blog and I have never edited it. Regards, ] (]) 22:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I have to concur, it would appear that
uses this site as a source. It has not been used as a source on main page edits as a reference/source. I believe I have once used a link on a talk page as a ref to some ] sources that were posted there with links. The issue that I was disturbed about recently was several IPs and then newly registered users removing the substance and sources from pages. Those sources being all complying with . I have maintained a scrupulous NPOV policy in my edits ] (]) 23:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That is true, there are to PeopleKorps blog. The accusation made by ] doesn't really add up. and are both experienced editors and the articles they've been involved with about Libertas look fine to me. I also found which certainly raises the possibility that somebody with a COI may have been editing ] to give it a favourable spin. ] (]) 00:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

: I think that this is resolved for the moment - ] has agreed not to edit articles related to ] and at least for the moment they are keeping to their word. Judging from the press coverage the articles need watching however to make sure no new editors appear removing well sourced but controversial information. If any suspicious editing occurs I suggest that it be reported immediately. ] (]) 08:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

*{{userlinks|Flowerman11}}
*{{article|Bloomex}}

Adding three other pro-Bloomex SPAs: ] (]) 16:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|Floralexpert}}
*{{userlinks|Alexflorist}}
*{{userlinks|64.230.12.82}}

{{userlinks|Flowerman11}}'s edits on ] suggest he is in some way related to the company. He continually reverts cited criticism and has just added "Some consumers and business rivals are trying to use this fact to discredit Bloomex business." to the article. (ignore part of my edit summary, I was getting confused about who did what, Bloomex does in fact ignore BBB complaints, but that is not the only reason for its unsatisfactory rating). ] (]) 13:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
:Watch out for ] too. It's definitely original research to try to spin criticism by juxtaposing unconnected citations dissing the critic. ] (]) 17:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
::Flowerman11 was blocked 24h, and has not continued since. The IP listed above hasn't edited in 2009. The other two are new accounts and can't edit due to semiprotection. The ] seems likely to end in Keep, since there are press mentions of this company. Anyone who has some spare time could look at the article and see if the criticism that is still included there comes from reliable sources. The BBB reference looks legit but the others may need examination. ] (]) 17:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Flowerman11 is back, has removed most of the disputed material again, and appears to have admitted to a COI ("i did some contract job for them"). ] (]) 01:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
:The includes some two valid items but two others that seem inappropriate. The BBB rating is OK. Ellen Roseman's blog comment should also make the grade, since she is a Star columnist. The two others are not reliable sources by Misplaced Pages standards. The comments at redflagdeals.com and ripoffreports.com are *forum posts* from individual Bloomex customers. ] (]) 02:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
::Agreed, that's what I've been arguing on the article talk page. ] (]) 02:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
:::Flowerman11 was indef blocked by ], but Floralexpert continues to edit. He had previously changed the ] article to remove reference to the company's low BBB rating. His most recent change is at ]. I will notify him that he has been mentioned here. ] (]) 14:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

We might add 5alextheflorist, who just blanked much of ]. --] (]) 18:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|5alextheflorist}}

== User:Levanteditor, User:Nora abazed, et al. ==

* {{userlinks|Levanteditor}}
* {{userlinks|Nora abazed}}
* {{userlinks|Quinn56}}
* {{article|Abdulsalam Haykal}}
* {{article|Transtek}} article was speedily deleted and has since been restored
* {{article|Forward Magazine}}
* {{article|Compass ERP}} speedy delete requested and declined
User:Levanteditor appears to be a ] that has solely contributed material related to Abdulsalam Haykal since its creation in 2008. Such articles include Haykal's, which was created by this account, along with Transtek (a Haykal company), Compass ERP (a Haykal product) and Forward Magazine (a Haykal Media publication). This user edits in close harmony with User:Nora abazed, an account that was created within a day or so of User:Levanteditor and occasionally with User:Quinn56, an account created on the same day. I've tagged Transtek and Abdulsalam Haykal articles with <nowiki>{{COI}}</nowiki> a total of 6 times, but one or another of these accounts has eventually reverted 5 of them. I've posted on article and user talk pages and tried to establish a dialog ( and , for example), but without ever receiving an answer as to why the accounts revert the <nowiki>{{COI}}</nowiki> tags. This could use some community attention. ] <sup>(]·])</sup> 02:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

:*N.B. ] was nominated for speedy deletion on 2009-05-24 by ] under A7, was subsequently deleted and has since been restored. ] <sup>(]·])</sup> 16:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

:Since my original post above, ] has twice vandalized ] by blanking most of the page. I've reverted each change and coincidentally posted ''<nowiki>{{uw-delete}}</nowiki>'' warnings on the user's talk page, much to the of the user. ] <sup>(]·])</sup> 15:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

:Once the ] article was restored, two of the accounts cited above added bogus citations supporting the claim that "Transtek is the largest business software firm in Syria." The first was a video-blog interview with Transtek's president, the second was a reference to Transtek's own web site. The restored article also contains a citation to an article about Transtek's anti-money laundering software, but the article appears in a magazine published by Transtek's president.

:This case could become a poster child for prohibiting COI-editing on Misplaced Pages. ] <sup>(]·])</sup> 16:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

] has revealed the basis of their COI on ]. They interviewed the somebody, I assume ] and is using this interview as a reference. I think the claims made about being Syria's biggest software company are probably credible but there aren't any reliable sources for this claim. I'm not sure how to proceed. ] (]) 13:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

:Good morning, Smartse. The conflict at issue hasn't anything to do with whether this user interviewed someone; that's ] and tangential to this ]. The core of this is captured above: 3 accounts that prosecute the interests of one individual. Add to that, this user has thusfar refused to discuss any of the ''actual'' conflict issues or explain why he or she has removed ''<nowiki>{{COI}}</nowiki>'' tags. ] <sup>(]·])</sup> 15:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

:: I am not sure how many times I have to mention that I removed the COI tags out of ignorance. I spent the morning with someone I don't know on wiki chat, trying to learn about things. However, Mr Jim Ward has taken this from good vigilance to harrassment. By the way, Forward Magazine is a very reliable source. And when Mr Ward decideds to discredit its content so easily, it only attests to my claim that his arguing in a very deffensive manner. Just for the information of anyone reading this, I have done minor edits to about 400-500 articles relating to Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Lebanon, and Syria. And I still do that without signing my name. I have no relation to the other two editors that Mr Ward mentions. I think they are watching the pages. But enough is enough. I think this vigilance should be taken somewhere more deserving in Misplaced Pages. A lot of articles include a lot of bias, but Mr Ward's major business today is my edits. I rest my case.

Needless to mention, I owe a big debt of gratitude to all those who spent time looking at this matter, and I apologize for having wasted their precious time trying to find out what the story is all about.

] (]) 16:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

:::] has grossly confused persistence with persecution and has chosen an '']'' rather than focusing on the facts surrounding this issue. It has crossed the ] line.

:::Nonetheless, I stand by each of the observations and analyses in my ] at the top of this section. The 3 accounts at issue have ''never'' communicated via user talk pages, though have edited the aforementioned articles in close synchrony and with common goals. An example? ] created the category ; the accounts cooperatively added Misplaced Pages articles to those categories. No other Wikipedian has worked on this category. Coincidence? Only if you believe in the ]. U:Na's claim of no connection to these accounts fails ] – even when viewed apart from his or her admittance of . A ] would likely clear this up, though I think these cards are sufficiently face-up on the table.

:::Claims to náiveté ("ignorance") above in response to deleting 5 ''<nowiki>{{COI}}</nowiki>'' tags and blanking article talk pages don't wash well, either, considering that the user, who first appeared in July '08, claims 400-500 anon edits alongside 280 edits attributed to the 3 topical accounts. Moreover, the user the legitimacy of my conflict claim and significance of the COI tag when telling me that I should AfD an article rather than flagging it COI. Curiously, that acknowledgement at was posted 12 minutes after U:Na removed a COI tag on ]. Another unlikely coincidence.

:::By my reckoning, one user + three accounts + one common agenda = conflict. Even when heavily dosed with ], I can't make the math work out any other way.

:::Fwiw, I stumbled onto one of the articles at issue while reviewing new pages; I added improvement tags and persisted in follow-up, leading weeks later to this point. While I'm disinterested in the subject matter, I am motivated to see our community's standards upheld. ] <sup>(]·])</sup> 15:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

:::: I may have done mistakes but definitely they are out of naivity. Now that I know better, they won't be repeated. It's up to you to remove all my entries, however. Ward mentions all these incidents. However, he never mentions the other users editing these pages too. I'm sick of this, I apologise, and rest my case, for the embarassment this has caused you, Misplaced Pages, other users, and the subject of these articles. It's definitely not in their interest that this conversation is taking place!!!!] (]) 16:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

== User:AskMissA ==

* {{userlinks|AskMissA}} -
* {{article|Andrea Rodgers}}
* {{article|The Courage Cup}}
* {{article|Late Night Shots}}
* {{article|Gregory R. Ball}}

User created autobiographical page ] and also created ] with links to her; subsequently has modified existing references within ] and ] to include positive/peacock words linking to her. Notability may not be an issue, but the conflict of interest is very visible and is degrading the quality of the other articles. ] (]) 07:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
::Agree with the above. User is obviously the subject of the ] article, from which I removed multiple ] from, as well as hiding a potentially defamatory statement about another living person that had no source. User was <s>warned</s> notified about COI <s>twice</s>, and does not respond to any attempts to discuss issues on their talk pages, but continues to edit the article(s). User also (placed by someone else) on the articles they have created. (This is not a judgment of whether the deletions should occur, but simply that one should not remove CSD tags from articles one created themselves.) User's history shows they are also inserting themselves into a multitude of other articles, back-linking to the new autobiographical article, and giving themselves undue weight in those other articles. It would be much more helpful if the person were open to dialog, rather than continuing to edit articles about themselves. It also appears there may be another ] with COI involved, or more likely, the same person with another name, judging from the that was made. <small>]]]</small> 11:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

AskMissA has continued to edit articles despite requests to discuss the COI here. ] is now at AfD ]. ] (]) 19:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

: AskMissA has been blocked for having a promotional username by ]. ] (]) 19:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

:: The Courage Cup is now also at AfD: ] ] (]) 19:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

== Dispute in ] ==

*{{article|Yeng Constantino}}
*{{userlinks|Iloveyengconstantino}}

Had to report this one, as there is an incident of COI in that article, with at least one user, ], along with several IPs, adding point-of-view content on the page. He/she was warned recently but he/she seems to have ignored it. Username suggests a possible COI/single-purpose fan account. ] (]) 09:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

== Stop Climate Chaos ==

*{{userlinks|Stopclimatechaos}}
*{{userlinks|Timystic}}

A few weeks ago ] started spamming links to www.stopclimatechaos.org into the articles of numerous organizations said to be members of the campaiging group Stop Climate Chaos Coalition (over 100 members). The user was blocked as a role account and spammer, and an unblock ]. They seem to be back with a rather more subtle approach: new user ] has created ] and is busy adding that to dozens of articles. I'm in two minds whether this is spamming in contravention of ] and ] or just about acceptable - what do others think? ] (]) 15:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

: I would just like to explain my actions. I am not trying to spam at all, just trying to create a category (similar to that of Greenpeace) to show the members of the Stop Climate Chaos coalition. I will halt if you prefer. ] (]) 15:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well the real issue is whether you have a COI with regard to Stop Climate Chaos. I can see that creating this category is perhaps sensible but the organisations are already listed on ] so having a separate category does seem a little unnecessary. Links between Stop Climate Chaos and other organisations should probably only be added to the organisations' articles if there is a notable reason to do so (i.e. more than just being a member). It would help if ]could reveal whether they have a COI. ] (]) 15:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

: I am a member of one its many subsidary organisations, ]. I was researching campaigning organisations, and found that the Stop Climate Chaos page little reflected what I have understood of it. I created a category because I was looking at Greenpeace earlier this morning. If this counts as COI, which I am uncertain it is, then by all means, my edits are removable. I was using the www.stopclimatechaos.org.uk as my source of information on editing and creating a category. ] (]) 16:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

== User:Dana smk ==

{{User|Dana smk}} - see above: ]. This is the same person, and admits to be. --] (]) 09:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

== STATISTICA / StatSoft ==

{{Resolved|User has shown good faith and any missteps are out of ignorance to guidelines . --] (]) 04:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)}}
* {{article| STATISTICA }} - Employee(s) of StatSoft have been contributing to their products and companies page. Several efforts have been made to help correct the NPOV nature of the articles. The user REDACTED is open to some discourse. However, after two years of being informed of the article's contradictions to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines sufficient changes still have not been made. For a clear example of the NPOV nature see ]. ] (]) 16:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

:I'd also like to note: I do not have experience in dealing with ] or ] issues. So, I did not want to take any actions with COI/NPOV tags. ] (]) 17:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added a db-spam template to the page. While it's possible this software package really is notable, I see no assertion of notability, no references, and no doubt that it "would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic." I did not look at the COI issue, which is a separate problem. ] (]) 18:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

: The speedy was declined - I agree a google news search doesn't exactly reveal notability but a scholar search of does at least show that scientists use it - I guess newspapers aren't too interested in stats! ], what evidence do you have that these editors are employees? Please provide any ]s that show that they have admitted being employees. Please be aware of ] if they have not said so directly. Alternatively provide diffs of blatant edits that could only be known by employees. Cheers ] (]) 21:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

::], after re-reading the outing policy the editor in question did not specifically state their employment with Statsoft. I'm not sure I can provide diff's... this would lead to the implication the person is question is an employee of the company. I'm kind of at a blank here and not sure how to proceed. I redacted the editor's Name in the original comment.] (]) 00:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I do think it would be more effective to pursue this as POV, advert, and maybe even AfD than as COI. Also check for copyright violations, as much of the text looks like it might have been copied from a sales brochure. I would certainly start with an advert tag. ] (]) 23:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

== ] hypothetical question ==


== John Ortberg ==
there is a user who apparently is the lead developer of a certain type of software, but develops under an obvious pseudonym, and not a real name. this user also edits the[REDACTED] article about the software under the same pseudonym. would it be outing the user to point out this direct COI? As far as I can tell, no real names or real identification is being being revealed, just a link between the same distinct pseudonyms. this user is also using sockpuppetry, which I'm going to file a SPI report about, but i am not sure if the details of the COI should be mentioned. ] (]) 20:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
:It's possible to argue that there's a COI without having to name names. If the editor disputes that he is involved then it gets harder. I suggest discussing the COI guidelines on his talk page as a first step. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 20:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
::i sent a COI notice to his talk page, and he reverted it as vandalism, then reverse warned me for false warnings... he really shouldn't be edit warring and making personal attacks on an article about a product that he's the lead developer, but i have no idea how to approach this further. ] (])
::: I agree with Will, you can probably show it without using this evidence. That being said, often here, people may point out that googling the username and article may provide some interesting information. I can't see what is wrong with this. Why not tell us what the article is so that more people can take a look? ] (]) 21:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
::::I checked your contributions list and I only see a sock puppet notice. Regardless, the reason we have a COI policy is that COI editors tend to have problems following core WP policies, like NPOV and V. If an editor has been briefed on the COI guidelines and then edits in an exemplary manner then there's little reason to pursue it further. However if they use improper sources, engage in original research, or fail to present information in a neutral manner then those problems can be dealt with in the usual ways. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 21:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Pages:
:::::the article is ] and the user is ]. I believe that he is using improper sources, and edit warring to include a wiki as a source. after i attempted to remove the wiki as a source, . ] (]) 21:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|John Ortberg}}
::::::A wiki might be used as a convenience link. It could be tolerated as a source for 'what they say they do', but not for controversial assertions. Was someone trying to use the wiki for more than that? ] (]) 21:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Users:
* {{userlinks|Timothydw82}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Timothydw82 is a ] which is used solely to promote, defend and censor valid information about ]. Timothydw82 admits to consulting with Ortberg about the article on ] and has also used that page to make disparaging comments about Ortberg's son, Daniel Lavery. This is both a serious COI and POV problem. He has been warned before by other editors. My most recent warning (for POV editing) was met with what seems to be feigned incomprehension and "Do you work for Misplaced Pages?". I think it is time to put an end to this farce. ] (]) 02:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


:Thanks for sharing your concerns. I’d like to address the points you’ve raised to clarify any misunderstandings about my contributions and intentions.
] says:
:First, while my account may appear to have a narrow focus, my goal has always been to ensure that articles on Misplaced Pages adhere to its principles of neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sourcing. My edits related to John Ortberg and related topics are aimed at upholding these standards, not promoting or censoring information. If there are specific examples where you believe I’ve violated these principles, I welcome a constructive discussion to address them.
*''Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.''
:Second, regarding my consultation with John Ortberg: I acknowledge that I have communicated with him, as I’ve disclosed on my user talk page. However, my involvement has been strictly limited to ensuring that edits align with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines and reflect accurate information.
I checked the wiki in question and it appears to be open. There is no apparent restriction on creating an account or editing. Depedning on the type of information being sourced, it's conceivable that it could be usable, such as the circumstance that EdJohnston mentions. Separately, the user in question is making a cross complaint that Theserialcomma is harassing him, so I suggest that for the time being Theserialcomma refrain from dealing with the COI issue directly. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 22:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
:Third, concerning the comments about Daniel Lavery, I understand how sensitive these matters are. My intent was not to disparage anyone, and if any of my remarks were perceived as inappropriate, please bring them to my attention.
:I'd also like to express my disappointment in your accusing me via direct message of treating you like "idiots". That felt like a curt, uncalled for accusation with little to no dialogue or support. You have not engaged in a discussion with me but clearly expressed your desire to see me blocked for little to no good reason I can discern.
:Finally, regarding warnings from other editors: I value feedback and strive to learn from it. I am more than willing to engage in dialogue to resolve disputes and improve the quality of articles. If there are ongoing concerns about my edits, I encourage the use of formal dispute resolution processes so we can work collaboratively toward a solution. ] (]) 02:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Is that AI generated text? I ran it through a few different detectors and most thought that it was at least partially AI generated. ] (]) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Unbelievable. Indeffed. Thank you, ]. ] &#124; ] 20:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC).


== Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation ==
I asked the editor directly if he had a conflict of interest but he dodged the question, which I take to be an implicit acknowledgement. I've asked him to stop editing the article directly, per ], and to use the talk page to propose changes instead. The edit warring over a dubious source is of particular concern. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 22:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
:Looking at the article ], I have to admit - looking from a real-world, Planet Earth, point of view - I can't imagine why this thing is viewed as worthy of an article. Looks like a product of systemic bias: over-representation on Misplaced Pages of people who think internetwank is notable. Worth an AFD?] (]) 22:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
::Google Scholar finds 55 references so a AFD would likely fail. More reliance on scholarly sources may resolve the editorial dispute. ] ] 23:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
:::If you search Google Scholar for ''"eggdrop" "IRC"'' instead of ''"eggdrop" "internet relay chat"'' you'll get a lot more hits Outside of Misplaced Pages, "IRC" is usually the preferred name. ] (]) 05:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
(outdent)<br />I would ask that the people who have been commenting here check the now closed SPI that ] opened at ] shortly before posting on COI/N. Specifically see the links I provided. ] opened a false SPI and posted here after the discussion on ] did not go in their favor. ] has been targeting articles I've worked on and this one just happened to be at the top of ]'s edit counter on toolserver . Multiple admins are aware of the disruption ] has been causing after I called them out on their pointy nominations at AfD. See the links I provided on the SPI page, ]'s contrib history and my contrib history. No edit warring took place on ], the history link will clear that right up. I made ''one'' revert and also added references for the section of text ] had removed in an attempt to be disruptive that ] had restored.<br />--] (]) 02:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Pages:
* {{pagelinks|Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation}}
* {{pagelinks|Park Hyeon-joo}}
Users:
* {{userlinks|Channy Jung}}
* {{userlinks|203.239.154.130}}
* {{userlinks|Chisu1020}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Suspected undisclosed COI editors. Single-purpose accounts used exclusively to edit on this person and his foundation. All of the edits are complimentary, and almost entirely unsourced.


I warned Channy Jung () and 203.239.154.130 () but both have continued editing ] and have ignored the warning (, ). Chisu1020 has been inactive for a while though, but same pattern of behavior.
::Tothwolf: the COI issue has nothing to do with the sockpuppet issue or the activities of Theserialcomma. You clearly have a conflict of interest with the ] article, which you have failed to acknowledge, as strongly encouraged by the ] guideline that you've said you're familiar with. Can you give a reason why you need to continue editing the article, despite being strongly discouraged by Misplaced Pages guideline? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 03:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::Will, Actually it has everything to do with the SPI and Theserialcomma. I've contributed to 100s of open source software projects over the years, including a huge number related to IRC. As I've already mentioned, my edits when dealing with Misplaced Pages articles are always from ] and I'm very much aware of how important ] are. My intentions are to write accurate articles, I have no reason to write "junk" as it would serve no purpose. As I've also mentioned previously, Theserialcomma has been an instigator here as no one previously had any issues with edits I've made to any of these articles. You might want to check out ] as well. The "wiki" Theserialcomma took issue with is not even related to Eggdrop, although Theserialcomma certainly implied that it was. ] and the history link on the ] article are both quite telling. I certainly ''did not'' edit war with anyone as Theserialcomma also claimed. Check the history on the article for yourself. Also, Theserialcomma has been attempting to locate my personal info online and yesterday hit a number of webservers including my personal site and I have the apache webserver logs from those activities. In their first post to COI/N Theserialcomma made it quite clear they had been attempting to dig into my personal matters, including my name, which as far as I'm concerned was highly inappropriate. I don't think I've actually added too much text to the Eggdrop article either. The main thing I've done is add references and refactor much of the existing text. At some point it would be good to expand it, but as the article would easily survive AfD as it is, I'm more motivated to fix some of the more neglected articles right now. You can clearly see this from the edit history on the ] article itself as well since I've not done anything substantial to it in quite some time. All that said, again I'm well aware that I need to be cautious when editing articles and I ''always'' attempt to do so from a NPOV.<br />And Will, the way in which you approached me was not very welcoming and I can only assume you did not first check into my full contrib history and took what Theserialcomma was claiming at face value.<br />--] (]) 03:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::::liar. i never ever tried to track down your personal info, nor would i ever care to do so. have you even read the thread? i posted this thread for the purposes of showing how i did not want to do come anywhere near violating ]. at first, i didn't even mention your[REDACTED] username name in this coi report, but an admin said it would be ok to do so. i honestly couldn't care less about your real name, your fake name, or anything about you. no need to be so paranoid. i've only googled 'tothwolf eggdrop' to discover that you have a COI and took it no further. everything else you're claiming about me trying to find you is a lie or a delusion. back off. ] (]) 06:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:Here's the article link to assist readers of this COI report:
::{{la|Eggdrop}}.
:Theserialcomma seems to be a relative newcomer to the Eggdrop article (first edit 26 May) but that shouldn't prevent him from pointing out problems with an article and getting them discussed in a calm manner. The situation seems to have gone into red alert very quickly, and one suspects that these editors didn't like each other even before they interacted on the ] article. The eggdrop.org wiki seems to fulfill the role that a company website might occupy for commercial software products. Generally we allow just one link to a company website in the article about the company, unless there is something of great interest that needs to be called out specifically. I'd suggest that ] would be a better article if all the links into eggdrop.org were reduced to one. The items that are 'referenced' to eggdrop.org probably are of minor importance to an encyclopedia article, and they are so detailed they would be better placed on a website dedicated to the product. There is a section of regular third-party references in the article that is useful and should be kept and expanded. I agree with Walter Siegmund that additional references should be sought using Google Scholar. ] (]) 02:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::Ed, there is no eggdrop.org wiki or "Eggdrop company". Eggdrop is an open source software program supported by community members who volunteer their time to write code, bugfixes, and documentation using an open model not too unlike a Wiki (the main difference being patches and changes do get peer reviewed). There is no commercial activity by this project whatsoever. Also, the ref that Theserialcomma complained about is to the ] wiki, which is an officlal wiki for the ] developers. It is unrelated to Eggdrop. See the discussion on ] for the details. Theserialcomma popped up in that article simply to be disruptive after checking my contribution history. I hadn't actually done any substantial editing on it in quite some time. The last thing I did looking at the history was fix something minor in the infobox. ] (]) 03:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::Oops, my mistake. I modify my suggestion: eliminate all the items in the current 'Reference' section, since there are no reliable sources there. Then, take what's currently in the 'Books and publications' section and make those be the references. Provide convenience links (under External Links) to one or two well-known forums or places where Eggdrop help or information is often provided. Regarding what you say is your limited current role in the ] article, if you are willing to take a holiday from editing the article, this COI complaint can be closed. ] (]) 03:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::::Actually the inline citations in the References section should be just fine, those are not ''external links''. When dealing with software articles in general it is very much accepted to cite the official documentation for details and information about the software itself, see ]. Of course addtional independent sources are generally still needed for an article to meet Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines. In the case of ], it has been covered substantially in print and other reliable sources so ] is certainly not a problem here. As for the current External links section, the links it contains are very much on-topic and are pertinent to the subject of the article. That article really hasn't had too much trouble with link spammers, most likely because there would be little gain from spamming commercial links there. As for my role with that article, right now I'm waiting for the situation with Theserialcomma to be resolved. I see no reason why I can not work on that article, as long as my edits are in keeping with ]. Also, I forgot to mention above that the reason Theserialcomma seemed to be calling me "the lead developer" is due to a sarcastic comment someone made on one of the websites that they scoured yesterday. A number of people would very much ''like'' me to be a "lead developer", but the truth is right now I spend most of my free time improving articles on Misplaced Pages. The way this played out with Theserialcomma's trolling and disruption is certainly causing me question my original goal of improving articles on Misplaced Pages though. ] (]) 04:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::] "strongly discourages" editing by editors with a conflict. Is there a reason why Tothwolf needs to edit the article despite the guideline? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 04:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::No, it strongly discourages editing to "promote your own interests". Writing about what you know isn't automatically a conflict.--] (]) 04:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::And, in a nutshell: "Do not edit Misplaced Pages to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, '''unless you are certain that the interests of Misplaced Pages remain paramount'''."(emphasis mine) If Tothwolf can confidently make that assertion, there's no issue here.--] (]) 04:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::Will, ] does not ''prohibit'' editors from writing about subjects with which they are familiar and I have made ''no'' controversial edits. It has been recommended by another editor that I add something to my User/Talk page (I may add a template box to the top of my talk page as I do not wish to have a user page) noting that I've worked substantially with open source software and IRC related topics. ] also states ''"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."'' I think it is ''quite'' clear given what I said above in that my goal is to improve Misplaced Pages. Heck, I've been spending all my free time improving articles vs other projects that I might otherwise devote my free time to ;)<br />Now, Theserialcomma has absolutely violated the ]. This is very much apparent to anyone looking at their contribution history surrounding these articles, the SPI and COI/N report. ] (]) 04:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::filing a SPI against a suspected sockpuppet is not harassment. filing a COI against someone with a COI is not harassment either. however, a contributor/developer for eggdrop, editing the eggdrop article, and calling another user a ] for removing a link to a wiki, which is an unreliable source, is inappropriate editing behavior. furthermore, you claiming harassment without providing diffs, is a personal attack. ] (]) 05:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::::I strongly suggest that editors avoid making unnecessary personal remarks about each other. This thread is just about managing a COI situation. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 06:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::ok, i'm here to verify that i'm fully disengaged from this argument. i do ask that if anyone is going to make claims about others, that they provide diffs. otherwise, such claims really serve no purpose other than to incite more unnecessarily uncivil discourse. ] (]) 06:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::We do need to clear up one thing here. I did not call Theserialcomma a "vandal" in that reply, I said: ''"Please stop vandalizing this article."'' <br />Which I believe was right on target given these edits, particularly when multiple editors and admins had requested that they take to the talk page instead of removing text.<br />--] (]) 06:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


I recently rewrote ] entirely to get rid of the unsourced promotional-like writing . State of article before the rewrite: .
:::::::::Will, there is no COI situation here. No conflict of interest exists between my Misplaced Pages editing and the numerous projects I've contributed to over the years. ] (]) 06:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:Calling the good faith removal of an improper source "vandalism" is an indication of a lack of neutrality. Please see ] before accusing another editor of vandalism. There are over 2 million articles on topics and project that Tothwolf hasn't worked on, so there's no lack of things for him to work on. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 06:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::Based on the trolling, wiki-hounding, and other outright disruption unrelated to this article, as well as the edit summaries used for this article, ] indicates that the complete removal of text was not meant to be constructive, it was meant to ]. ] (]) 07:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::If harassment is a problem then bring a complaint about harassment. We're here to deal with the complaint of conflict of interest. In my short dealings with you I've seen that you've failed to disclose your interest in Eggdrop, that you've dodged questions about your invovlement, and that you've asserted that there's no conflict. Looking over the history I see that you've edited the article aggressively, including a self-described rewrite of the whole thing. If you'll commit to stop editing the article directly and using the talk page instead, per ], then we can close this thread. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 08:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::::''"If harassment is a problem then bring a complaint about harassment."'' Sounds like a good idea to me, that's the next step then.<br />''"We're here to deal with the complaint of conflict of interest."'' No, we are here because Theserialcomma intended to cause disruption.<br />''"If you'll commit to stop editing the article directly and using the talk page instead, per ], then we can close this thread."'' Absolutely not, there is no actual COI in '''any''' of my edits both for this subject or others. That said however, I have no intentions of edit warring with someone who wishes to cause disruption, so I'm not going to touch this particular article until after the issue of Theserialcomma's disruption is dealt with, which as you are aware, now includes another removal from the article which is a ] (Wired Magazine), See and ]. The talk section actually does need to be refactored as a footnote, but for now that can wait.<br />--] (]) 13:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::Tothwolf: Would there be any problem with your placing a note on the eggdrop talk page explaining your exact role with that project, and inviting any editor who thinks there may be a non-neutral COI problem with a ''specific'' article entry of yours to bring it to that talk section for further discussion? I think that would respect your professionalism and WP’s COI requirements, and this overly drawn-out COI report could be closed. ] <small>]</small> 22:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::I suppose that's an option. I don't really have a defined roll within that project, it has a completely open development model and people are encouraged to contribute however they can. I do intend to add something to my user talk page, although I'm not exactly sure what just yet. I've contributed to a lot of projects so to help head off any future "OMG COI" drama I think that is probably a good idea anyway. ''If'' I'd had a User: page something of that nature would have gone on it long ago, but for a number of reasons I just don't wish to have a user page. Honestly, I don't think this would have been nearly as big of a deal had someone such as ] approached me without all the drama and presupposition of wrongdoing too. ] (]) 19:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


Also worth noting the is similarly fluffy. I suspect Park/his foundation are watching these articles.
(outdent)<br />Here is a summary of what has transpired with ]:
*] was very uphappy with my comments about a couple of pointy/disruptive AfD nominations.
*They Googled my username and/or checked the contrib graphs and came up with ].
*About 5 minutes after the AfD comment above they made this edit to ] in an attempt to be disruptive (which was the ''only'' small section of text without some sort of inline citation).
*They then checked my recent contribs and saw that I'd added refs to ] and made these edits to that article:
*They then left these comments on ]'s talk page
*They then made this edit to ] with the edit summary ''"before nominating this article for deletion, hopefully some real sources can be added"'' knowing full well that ] had just withdrawn an AfD nomination.
*They then made a threat of a block against me on ]'s talk page
*They argued some more on one of the AfDs ''(If you read nothing else I've linked here, read these diffs)''
*''(Note that I was very much aware of what they are attempting to do on ] and ] and had decided not to touch either at that point because I knew they were attempting to be disruptive as this is ]'s typical MO, check their past contribs and you'll find much more of this. )''
*] restored the section of text ] removed from ] and said to discuss it on the talk page.
*I attempted to add refs (which used in this specific context were in fact perfectly acceptable)
*] removed my changes and still refused to take it to the talk page.
*I then attempted to move this to the talk page and I undid ]'s removal of the refs I'd added and said in the edit summary to discuss it on the talk page.
*] made this reply on the talk page (which included a veiled COI threat), removed the refs from the article again, ...and then removed the entire section from the article
*It is at '''this point''' where ] begins attacking me with "COI"
*When the discussion on ] didn't go the way ] wanted, they opened a COI/N and SPI against me which I believe may also have been in retaliation for my ''proper'' use of a uw-tempabuse1 for their earlier "COI" template abuse on my talk page
*''(Note that I was not previously aware of the COI/N against me until I began investigating where this message that ] left on my talk page had originated from.)''
*...and even after all this and after having been told to "disengage" by ], a day later ] removed another reference and the html comments that referred to the article's Talk page from ]
Now, would someone more neutral than myself please start an AN/I thread for ]'s obvious disruption? This is not the first time they've done this exact sort of thing to other editors. They've done this at least twice before, all of which can be seen in their contribs. Note that this is ''just'' the on-wiki stuff.<br />--] (]) 19:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


] (]) 05:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== Warren Kinsella ==


:Those accounts, as well as ], all seem to be SPA/COI accounts which are not responding to multiple discussion attempts, and should be blocked for some period of time to get their attention. The "foundation" article seems like it would also fail GNG, and should probably be either deleted or merged into the Hyeon-joo article. ]&thinsp;] 06:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{iplinks|216.191.220.178}}
:I BOLDly redirected the foundation article to the main Park Hyeon-joo article. ] (]) 19:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{iplinks|99.231.137.97}}
*{{article|Warren Kinsella}}


== Misplaced Pages Writers Marks a Milestone with 1,000 Successful Misplaced Pages Page Publications ==
There's been an issue with ]'s article again, though it's a different one this time: now, two different anonymous IPs which have both claimed to be Kinsella himself are repeatedly ''removing'' sourced content from the article without explanation. I'd like to request that a neutral party — having been indirectly involved in this article's edit disputes in the past, that isn't me — take a look at the situation. Note that I've also posted a request to ] for review of whether the article as it stands is valid or needs to be revised. Thanks. ] (]) 22:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


Well, that's what they ''say'' on openpr.com. For the interested. I was going to link it, but my edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a ] or ]. Despite that, it seems to have some WP-presence: ] (]) 12:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I've added the IPs to this. ] (]) 00:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
:{{re|Gråbergs Gråa Sång}} That's just a press release site. The company that published it is already listed on ] at ]. ] (]) 15:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


== Paul Devlin (footballer) ==


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


== ] ==
{{Resolved|No evidence of COI; several editors have worked to fix other problems; see talk page. ] (]) 16:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)}}
{{pagelinks|User:SHEJO VARGHESE}}
Undisclosed COI editor writing an autobiography at ].<span id="LunaEclipse:1736800296227:WikipediaFTTCLNConflict_of_interest/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 20:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
:With the page in draft space and placed for CSD, and the copious user page warnings, with a grand total of 3 edits by this apparent COI editor, I would caution ]. I think no further action is likely necessary as their draft page will either be deleted under CSD but failing that would most certainly fail a formal AfD. ]&thinsp;] 20:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::], my bad :( I had no intention to come off as overly harsh.<span id="LunaEclipse:1736801352397:WikipediaFTTCLNConflict_of_interest/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 20:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
:::Just remember to have good faith -- when they have only made three edits and stopped editing at 16:52, and then subsequently 4 consecutive posts to their talk page is a bit overbearing. It would be one thing if they were editing between your posts (so it appears they are ignoring you), but in this case, zero edits since the first notice, there's not a huge need to escalate unless they continue to persist in unconstructive behavior after the notifications. ]&thinsp;] 00:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


== Gilles Epié ==
* {{la|Casale Media}} - Casale Media is the company that plants pop-unders on computer screens nationwide. They themselves claim they reach half the U.S. population every month. (I believe they are basically legalized spammers, but that's beside the point).


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
Anonymous users systematically delete all negative information, links, and references from this article within a few hours of its being put up. The article looks like one big ad for Casale Media.
* {{pagelinks|Gilles Epié}}
* {{userlinks|Epie2020}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Epie2020 has acknowledged a personal connection to Gilles Epié on their ] but does not seem to consider this a conflict of interest. They were most recently warned about this behavior on 20 December 2023 but to make edits to the Gilles Epié article. ] (]) 22:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


:It's been nearly a year since this user's last contribution, unless there are edits to deleted pages. I don't think there's any action to be taken here given that a COI notice has been on the page since 2023. Maybe some work could be done on the article itself? --] (]) 02:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Today a named user, Mendaliv, deleted my negative references with a possibly valid argument: "v content sourced to unreliable sources, see WP:V". My own argument is that there is no possible way to show that a company irritates people without using references from subjective sources. However I will defer to the Wiki experts.
::Unfortunately I don't think the article has a version in page history that doesn't suffer from ] issues. I've gone ahead and trimmed it down a bit. --] (]) 03:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::This seems like a reasonable approach to me. They've been off and on editing the same article for years now, so I wouldn't be surprised if they come back at some point. Hopefully this notice will dissuade them from directly editing the article. Thank you for your work on this. ] (]) 15:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


== Burning River Buckets ==
I am not associated with Casale Media or any of its rivals. I just hate having unasked-for popups on my computer screen, like most people. The irritation caused by popups is similar to the annoyance of spam, but worse because harder to get rid of. The information that Casale Media irritates people is just as important as "facts" the company has planted in the article.


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
HELP PLEASE! I don't want to get into an edit war, this is far from my field, but I also don't want to let this company get away with advertising its annoying products on Misplaced Pages with no countering information. ] (]) 00:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|Burning River Buckets}}
:To note, the contentious sentence in question was being sourced simply to forums. I made a ] effort to find ''any'' ] to back up the claim being made. If what I did was wrong, then I apologize, but my general understanding has always been that web fourms are in almost no cases acceptable sources. &mdash;/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 01:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|C.A. Buttons}}
::I feel the irritation, but I would leave the article as it is after Mendaliv's edits. The reader will recognize the company for what it is easily enough, and adding negative statements without proper sources would only serve to cloud that. ] (], ]) 02:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
::I believe this report is inappropriate. I have reviewed the history, and it appears that Evangeline is assuming bad faith and accusing a conflict of interest about every editor who removes poorly sourced statements. Evangeline, I suggest that you assume good faith in the future, and further suggest backing away from this article which you obviously feel strongly about. ] (]) 17:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
] has identified himself as the owner of the ] basketball team on , on , and on . I've tried over a period of months (and on each of those talk pages) to share information on the COI policy and the need for reliable sources, to no apparent avail. Perhaps others could give it try. -- ] (]) 01:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


:I've posted a on their talk page. For now I think it's worth letting their changes to the page more or less stand; their ''actual contributions'' in the latest round of edits consisted of deleting some unreferenced information and accidentally removing one reference. --] (]) 20:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::I see no evidence of COI. Suggest marking this "resolved." ] (]) 17:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
::Went back and restored the external links section as well. --] (]) 20:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Link to a ] thread from 2024 regarding an IP editor claiming to be the team's owner: ] --] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 16:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


== User:Marcpage == == ] ==


User appears to be/is part of a (self-published) substack publication called ''Shatter the Standards'' and since joining on January 13 2025 have been adding the publication's reviews to album articles (]). For example/recently, on Mac Miller's '']'' (today). // ] (]) 20:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
{{userlinks|Marcpage}} - Promotional account that is promoting the ] (MARC). Likely sock of blocked ] ] (]) 15:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
: {{u|Chchcheckit}} The top of this noticeboard clearly says {{tq|This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue}}. Why wasn't this done first? I have now left a COI notice on the user's talk page. ] (]) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:This editor's only contributions are to an article called ] (now deleted as a G11). I don't see a big deal here, and I don't see the need for a block, unless he tries to recreate the same thing. That Center is a unit of ], and the article could have been potentially interesting if trimmed. If this editor had been willing to discuss their plan, we might have coached them towards an acceptable article. My suggestion is to take no action for now. Spam is not trivial, but this editor may just be inexperienced. ] (]) 03:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
::my bad. i rushed / wasn't thinking {{facepalm}} // ] (]) 22:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::: No wirres {{u|Chchcheckit}}, thanks for responding. Hopefully they will respond either here or there. ] (]) 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{linksummary|shatterthestandards.com}} ] (]) 16:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


== Alexander H. Joffe ==
== {{userlinks|Mr.Submarine Limited}} ==


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
Blatant COI account used to edit ] article. They posted their address, menu contact information and other stuff in the article. Haven't Edited since December but account is still valid. --] <small>(])</small> 00:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|Alexander H. Joffe}}
* {{userlinks|69.121.25.122}} Claims to be Joffe in a 2007 edit
* {{userlinks|71.249.231.9}} Edited the article only a day after the above IP to remove a notability tag, has only edited the Joffe article, Joffe's area of expertise of ] and ], Joffe's former employer per here.
* {{userlinks|74.88.198.179}} Claims to be Joffe in this talk page edit
* {{userlinks|24.191.44.177}} Claims to be Joffe in the same talk page as above
* {{userlinks|31.154.131.245}} Single edit on the page promoting Joffe's podcast, IP is from Israel where Joffe has done work in the past. I find it rather unlikely some random Israeli wants to add a link to a minor academic's podcast.
* {{userlinks|67.82.155.243}} Made 2 edits to Joffe article, has ] IP, only a few miles from ] where Joffe formerly taught.
There are other IPs which have only one edit to Joffe's article that could well be him as well but I don't think that's enough evidence to go by, nor would it be worthwile given how much Joffe's IP seems to change. ] (]) 03:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


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


== Earth System Governance Project ==
*{{la|Ladder Golf}}
{{Resolved| Discussion should remain at ] ] (]) 16:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
*{{user|Laddergolf}}
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
*{{user|72.197.188.57}}
* {{pagelinks|Earth System Governance Project}}
I think we have a good faith contributor here, but I am concerned about the direction of events.
* {{userlinks|EMsmile}}


Backstory: There was previously an article about the generic version of this game under "ladder golf." This contributor objected and overwrote it with content about his trademarked version of the game. (See the history in ]) The question of how to handle this was raised at WT:COI, ], and I recommended moving it to a generic version of the title. The trademarked version was mentioned in the new location, and the old title became a redirect. The contributor objected, creating an article about his company and leaving me a note at ]. Research suggested to me that the game might be notable, if not the company, so I altered the article to be about ''it'', but the more I looked the more I discovered that the name "ladder golf" is frequently used in reliable sources generically. I have included that information in the article Ladder Golf. I'm also not sure about some of the sources for the trademarked title I found, and I have a question out about that ].


<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
I'd be grateful for extra review. My sense is that it would be inappropriate to omit reference to the generic use of this name, but I can understand this contributor's concern about genericizing his trademark. Thoughts? --] <sup>]</sup> 01:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Pinging {{ping|EMsmile}}. See the extensive discussion on ]. Would like a subject matter expert/COI expert to figure this out. ] (]) 18:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:What change are you suggesting? Since of the Ladder Golf article is by you, I assume you are happy with it. Are you just asking for a change of title? This sentence seems fair: ''Although the title is a registered trademark in the United States and should only be used to refer to the specific game produced by Ladder Golf, LLC., the term is also sometimes used generally to describe the game.''. Can you say if the contributor ] objects to this wording? Although he is blocked, and is talking about his lawyer, he seems rather cooperative. ] (]) 22:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


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


:Just a note here that EMsmile also wrote 98% of ], the founder of the ESG Project. I'm not sure what question this COIN thread is supposed to be answering. What are we supposed to be figuring out here? ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 18:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{article|Barnegat Fund Management}}
::no clue. never posted anything to COI/N. Just trying to get folks who know how to handle it or similar situations' take. ] (]) 19:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|Djbarnes}}
:::OK, since you don't have a specific question for COIN, I suggest that people who are interested comment at AN/I instead of here. Having a discussion take place in two different pages is very stressful, especially for the person whose conduct is being discussed. ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 19:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


== Mockbul Ali ==
Article was created by ], who, according to http://www.linkedin.com/in/derekbarnes, is the head trader for this company. Article currently under AFD (see ]), where there have been several ] accounts who have showed up to support retention of the article. However, I am not convinced of the users' relations to this company, so I have not posted them. ] 02:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
{{Resolved|Page has been deleted and salted ] (]) 16:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{pagelinks|Mockbul Ali}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Article had been deleted after prior WP:COIN , has now been created again. I've tagged for deletion. ] (]) 13:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


:The page in question complies with all of Misplaced Pages’s criteria and is factual with no commentary. There are references also included. The page is also identical in form to dozens of other pages for British diplomats. The UK diplomatic service has only a handful of diplomats from ethnic minority backgrounds, therefore it is worthwhile having a page on one of the very few ethnic minority British Ambassadors (of which there have been less than a dozen in the last 100 years). The aim surely has to be to improve the page and not delete it. ] (]) 16:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
== User:Charliekingham ==
::Long history of puffery and sock puppetry. Probably does not meet our notability guidelines and we strongly suspect it's an autobiography. ] (]) 08:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


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


:The page in question complies with all of Misplaced Pages’s criteria and is factual with no commentary. There are references also included. The page is also identical in form to dozens of other pages for British diplomats. The UK diplomatic service has only a handful of diplomats from ethnic minority backgrounds, therefore it is worthwhile having a page on one of the very few ethnic minority British Ambassadors (of which there have been less than a dozen in the last 100 years). The aim surely has to be to improve the page and not delete it. ] (]) 16:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Charliekingham has regularly uploaded photographs whose copyright belongs to Graham Thomas. In addition he seems to have created (now deleted articles) on (i) Graham Thomas, (ii) a vanity-published book written by Graham Thomas, (Extremes…), (iii) a Tokyo art gallery opened by Graham Thomas (The Gallery Saatchi & Saatchi), (iv) an arts festival of which Graham Thomas is (or was) a trustee (CIAO!) as well as a still existing article (Selsley) which is essentially original research copied from http://www.grahamthomas.com/history2.html. Further, he listed Graham Thomas’s birthday (“leading advertising guru”) in the entry for 1954. 194.202.130.3 appears to be a sockpuppet. There is a high correlation in subject matter and (now-deleted) entries have been posted for (i) Graham Thomas’s (“leading ad-man”) childhood address in Risinghurst, (ii) ABM – an advertising agency where Graham Thomas worked http://www.grahamthomas.com/biography2.html and (iii) abusive comments about a Mark Evans – an employee of Dunnhumby, where Graham Thomas works or worked - http://www.naymz.com/search/peter/gleason/1421722.] (]) 14:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


== EnterpriseDB ==
== ] and ] ==


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
*{{article|Dressed to Kill (book)}}
*{{userlinks|64.75.165.244}} * {{pagelinks|EnterpriseDB}}
* {{userlinks|EDBWiki25}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Repetitive edits with promotional and unsourced content. Article has a history of seemingly paid editors and/or closely affiliated editors. ~<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span><sup>]{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}]</sup> 22:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


:User hasn't responded to any talk page messages or made any other attempt to communicate besides two very short edit summaries. A block might be needed to get their attention (and also per ]). See also ]. --] (]) 22:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
This anonymous editor has repeatedly made edits to the ] article. Research into the IP address indicates the editor is from Hawaii, the same state of the authors of the book . This anon editor has only edited this article and has focused on minimizing critiques of the books underlying theory. Moreover, this editor editorial comments in the article critical of its content , and . Overall, a scan of this editor's contributions are consistent and speak for themselves. Repeated warnings have failed to change this editors focus. Perhaps a permanent block is warranted given this editor has only one purposes.] (]) 16:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
:They've been blocked for spam. ] (]) 08:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


::I listed all the potential COI/undisclosed paid editors in the article's history on the article talk page. Not a single one ever disclosed a connection to the company, but a bit of searching found that the majority were rather obvious. As the blocked editor is the only one recently active, there's no point in notifying any of the others. --] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 14:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:Considering and edit, which constitute vandalism, I think ] would be the more appropriate venue for dealing with this SPA. ] <small>]</small> 23:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
::The IP editor has been warned that he may be blocked for disruptive editing if he continues to change the article with no regard for consensus. If he is willing to stay on the talk page then there is no problem. ] (]) 00:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
:::May want to bring it up on ] noticeboard as well? There may very well be slanted POV regarding the subject that they might have more experience handling... ]] 00:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:05, 23 January 2025

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Numismatics.
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:2020 United States Postal Service crisis Talk:Academy of Achievement Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Anaxam Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:Aspen Dental Talk:Atlantic Union Bank Talk:AvePoint Talk:Edward J. Balleisen Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:Neil Barofsky Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Bell Bank Talk:Bobbie (company) Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Gráinne de Búrca Talk:Cannabis in Germany Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Pamela Chesters Talk:Cloudinary Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cognita Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Covivio Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dell Technologies Template talk:Editnotices/Page/List of Nintendo franchises Talk:EnterpriseDB Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:Richard France (writer) Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Genuine Parts Company Talk:Dan Gilbert Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Group-IB Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Hilary Harkness Talk:Hearst Communications Talk:Jo Ann Jenkins Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:Elizabeth Koch (publisher) Talk:Scott Kurashige Talk:Andrew Lack (executive) Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:List of PEN literary awards Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health Talk:Anne Sofie Madsen Talk:Laurence D. Marks Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Modern Meadow Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:Ornge Talk:Parexel Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:Philly Shipyard Talk:Polkadot (blockchain platform) Talk:QuinStreet Talk:Prabhakar Raghavan Talk:Michael Savage (politician) Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:SolidWorks Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko Talk:Sysco Talk:Tamba-Sasayama Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Tencent Talk:Tencent Cloud Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:TKTS Talk:Trendyol Talk:Trócaire Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:Loretta Ucelli Talk:Ughelli Power Plant Talk:University of California, San Diego School of Medicine Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Alex Wright (author) Talk:Xero (company) Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    John Ortberg

    Pages:

    Users:

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

    Thanks for sharing your concerns. I’d like to address the points you’ve raised to clarify any misunderstandings about my contributions and intentions.
    First, while my account may appear to have a narrow focus, my goal has always been to ensure that articles on Misplaced Pages adhere to its principles of neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sourcing. My edits related to John Ortberg and related topics are aimed at upholding these standards, not promoting or censoring information. If there are specific examples where you believe I’ve violated these principles, I welcome a constructive discussion to address them.
    Second, regarding my consultation with John Ortberg: I acknowledge that I have communicated with him, as I’ve disclosed on my user talk page. However, my involvement has been strictly limited to ensuring that edits align with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines and reflect accurate information.
    Third, concerning the comments about Daniel Lavery, I understand how sensitive these matters are. My intent was not to disparage anyone, and if any of my remarks were perceived as inappropriate, please bring them to my attention.
    I'd also like to express my disappointment in your accusing me via direct message of treating you like "idiots". That felt like a curt, uncalled for accusation with little to no dialogue or support. You have not engaged in a discussion with me but clearly expressed your desire to see me blocked for little to no good reason I can discern.
    Finally, regarding warnings from other editors: I value feedback and strive to learn from it. I am more than willing to engage in dialogue to resolve disputes and improve the quality of articles. If there are ongoing concerns about my edits, I encourage the use of formal dispute resolution processes so we can work collaboratively toward a solution. Timothydw82 (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Is that AI generated text? I ran it through a few different detectors and most thought that it was at least partially AI generated. DanielRigal (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Unbelievable. Indeffed. Thank you, Daniel. Bishonen | tålk 20:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC).

    Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation

    Pages:

    Users:

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

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

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

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

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

    Those accounts, as well as 203.239.154.131, all seem to be SPA/COI accounts which are not responding to multiple discussion attempts, and should be blocked for some period of time to get their attention. The "foundation" article seems like it would also fail GNG, and should probably be either deleted or merged into the Hyeon-joo article. TiggerJay (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I BOLDly redirected the foundation article to the main Park Hyeon-joo article. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

    Paul Devlin (footballer)

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

    Their stats look correct for what they are, per the sources in the career stats table lower down the article where they appear in the totals columns, but they include data for matches that don't belong in the infobox. The editor has removed all but big-league clubs from the infobox, lumped together separate spells with the same club, and included statistics for cup competitions; I've explained to them that conventionally we don't do that. The editor also suggests there are errors and omissions, which could well be true, but they haven't yet elaborated. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    They are now blocked from making changes to that article. They are more than welcome to suggest changes on the article's talk page. Jauerback/dude. 20:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:SHEJO VARGHESE

    User:SHEJO VARGHESE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Undisclosed COI editor writing an autobiography at Draft:Shejo Varghese. — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 20:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    With the page in draft space and placed for CSD, and the copious user page warnings, with a grand total of 3 edits by this apparent COI editor, I would caution WP:BITE. I think no further action is likely necessary as their draft page will either be deleted under CSD but failing that would most certainly fail a formal AfD. TiggerJay (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Tiggerjay, my bad :( I had no intention to come off as overly harsh. — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 20:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Just remember to have good faith -- when they have only made three edits and stopped editing at 16:52, and then subsequently 4 consecutive posts to their talk page is a bit overbearing. It would be one thing if they were editing between your posts (so it appears they are ignoring you), but in this case, zero edits since the first notice, there's not a huge need to escalate unless they continue to persist in unconstructive behavior after the notifications. TiggerJay (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    Gilles Epié

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

    It's been nearly a year since this user's last contribution, unless there are edits to deleted pages. I don't think there's any action to be taken here given that a COI notice has been on the page since 2023. Maybe some work could be done on the article itself? --Richard Yin (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Unfortunately I don't think the article has a version in page history that doesn't suffer from WP:PROMO issues. I've gone ahead and trimmed it down a bit. --Richard Yin (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    This seems like a reasonable approach to me. They've been off and on editing the same article for years now, so I wouldn't be surprised if they come back at some point. Hopefully this notice will dissuade them from directly editing the article. Thank you for your work on this. Vegantics (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Burning River Buckets

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

    I've posted a personalized explanation on their talk page. For now I think it's worth letting their changes to the page more or less stand; their actual contributions in the latest round of edits consisted of deleting some unreferenced information and accidentally removing one reference. --Richard Yin (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Went back and restored the external links section as well. --Richard Yin (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Link to a WP:COIN thread from 2024 regarding an IP editor claiming to be the team's owner: Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 207#Burning River Buckets/ABA --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:Thebosullivan

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

    Chchcheckit The top of this noticeboard clearly says This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue. Why wasn't this done first? I have now left a COI notice on the user's talk page. Melcous (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    my bad. i rushed / wasn't thinking Facepalm Facepalm // Chchcheckit (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    No wirres Chchcheckit, thanks for responding. Hopefully they will respond either here or there. Melcous (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    shatterthestandards.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com SmartSE (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Alexander H. Joffe

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

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

    Earth System Governance Project

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


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

    Hello User:Bluethricecreamman, that ANI thread has become crazy long, should we (or someone) perhaps summarise what the COI question about me is exactly, for the benefit of the people watching this noticeboard? You might be in a better position to do that than me. - My question would be: is the COI management explanation that I give on my profile page at the top under "disclosure" sufficient/correct? The ANI got started by someone who claimed my edits at solar radiation modification were adding "PR" because I am a paid editor and have a COI. I have rejected this claim and believe I have followed procedures correctly. I have however said in the ANI thread that I would be happy to ban myself from editing the Earth System Governance Project article in future due to the various connections between that alliance of academics and my client, the "Earth System Governance Foundation". EMsmile (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Just a note here that EMsmile also wrote 98% of Frank Biermann, the founder of the ESG Project. I'm not sure what question this COIN thread is supposed to be answering. What are we supposed to be figuring out here? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    no clue. never posted anything to COI/N. Just trying to get folks who know how to handle it or similar situations' take. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    OK, since you don't have a specific question for COIN, I suggest that people who are interested comment at AN/I instead of here. Having a discussion take place in two different pages is very stressful, especially for the person whose conduct is being discussed. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    Mockbul Ali

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

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

    The page in question complies with all of Misplaced Pages’s criteria and is factual with no commentary. There are references also included. The page is also identical in form to dozens of other pages for British diplomats. The UK diplomatic service has only a handful of diplomats from ethnic minority backgrounds, therefore it is worthwhile having a page on one of the very few ethnic minority British Ambassadors (of which there have been less than a dozen in the last 100 years). The aim surely has to be to improve the page and not delete it. 2A02:C7C:F349:3A00:7507:2D93:8FC:5D8F (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Long history of puffery and sock puppetry. Probably does not meet our notability guidelines and we strongly suspect it's an autobiography. Secretlondon (talk) 08:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

    EnterpriseDB

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

    User hasn't responded to any talk page messages or made any other attempt to communicate besides two very short edit summaries. A block might be needed to get their attention (and also per username policy). See also User talk:Bilal Ibrar at EDB. --Richard Yin (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    They've been blocked for spam. Secretlondon (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I listed all the potential COI/undisclosed paid editors in the article's history on the article talk page. Not a single one ever disclosed a connection to the company, but a bit of searching found that the majority were rather obvious. As the blocked editor is the only one recently active, there's no point in notifying any of the others. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions Add topic