Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:19, 10 September 2009 editBenjiboi (talk | contribs)50,496 edits →Benjiboi COI - how do we move forward: c← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:12, 19 January 2025 edit undoBluethricecreamman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,296 edits →Earth System Governance ProjectTag: 2017 wikitext editor 
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 = 36 |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.''

== User:DrewSchofield ==

This user is editing a page which is about himself ]. For various real world reasons I do not want to deal with him. The only bone of contention I have is wether or not Kirkby is in Liverpool. Technically it never has been.--] (]) 21:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
:He made a single edit to the page, which only reverted the change you made, he declared who he was (even said "I was born in Kirkby"), and hasn't done anything since. He's sticking pretty close to the ] guidelines. It sounds to me like if your only concern is the discussion of where Kirkby is, that's a content dispute. Forum shopping isn't going to help you. -- ''']'''] 17:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
::Kirkby was in ] not Liverpool and never has been keeping the geographic description of place consistent is important. Misplaced Pages has a definition of ] both current and in the past Misplaced Pages will be far more acceptable if it maintains consistency across all articles. Mr Schofield may feel his allegiance is to Liverpool and that perhaps should be in the article whoever on a strict geographic basis he is not from anywhere that actually was in Liverpool. I also draw you attention to ] which strongly discourages editing articles about yourself.--] (]) 18:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Again this is not the place to debate the content of the article. Andrew made a minor edit once and never made another edit. He would certainly have a conflict of interest regarding his own biographical article but it has been almost a week since his edit and I don't think there's anything to be concerned about. He hasn't objected to your removal of the Liverpool category that was done since his sole edit. He's been warned about conflicts of interest and editing his own biography, so what else needs to be done? -- ''']'''] 20:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Nothing else needs to be done but as I said. I have a real world problem for not dealing with him. So if I monitor it then I will have a conflict of interest. I just making sure people know the situation.--] (]) 13:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::So you're declaring your own potential COI, well that's very conscientious of you to do so. If you like I'll keep it on my watchlist so that there's another pair of eyes on the article if that helps. -- ''']'''] 19:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

== Jean Matter Mandler ==

*{{userlinks|Gmandler}}
*{{article|Jean Matter Mandler}}


Aside from this article looking like it was copied and pasted from another source, the user above appears to have a possible conflict of interest here, considering the similarity between his/her name and the article's subject (and speaking of that, the notability of the subject herself is debatable). Other editors and I have brought the possible COI issue to the editor's attention, and s/he responded by saying s/he doesn't have a conflict of interest but I wonder if s/he really understands exactly what a conflict of interest entails. ''']''' 21:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
:I think you'd have a lot of trouble debating notability on this one, per ] she very clearly meets Misplaced Pages's inclusion standards for an academic professional.

:As for the COI, I think is pretty telling. Not trying to ] anyone of course, but choosing an account name like that is pretty much broadcasting his ]. Notice on history of the George Mandler article, there is an editor named ]. Coincidence? Although it's possible that these professors have fans (or admiring students) who have chosen usernames in their honor. -- ''']'''] 22:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
:Oh and by the way, if this editor really is the distinguished Professor Mandler I would hope that these questions about conflict of interest don't scare him off. An expert with his credentials editing the encyclopedia would be fantastic. -- ''']'''] 22:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
::'''Side note:''' I changed your wikilink to ] because ] means something totally different. ''']''' 00:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Haha, that it does. Thanks for the correction! -- ''']'''] 02:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Re: Conflict of interest - I am her husband, but in conformity with instructions I have been very careful to be objective. The material is not copied from anything else. And if she better be classified as an academic rather than a notable, that is perfectly reasonable. George Mandler <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:: She'd fly past WP:PROF so no problems there - I'm snowed under or I'd have a go at the article - if there are still problems, someone ask me in October and I'll take it under my wing. :-) --] (]) 15:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

*] seems to be respecting the COI guidelines and maintaining NPOV quite well. Acknowledging the connection, to me, is evidence of good faith on his part as well. ]] 18:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

*Anyone have any issues, or object to me closing this and removing the COI tag from the article? It's not supposed to be a "scarlet letter" to remain forever, if the potential COI editor is staying in-bounds, which he seems to be in this case... ]] 15:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
::Well, let's see what the tag says. ''"A major contributor to this article appears to have a conflict of interest with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Misplaced Pages's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page."'' To dissect this... First, the tag declares that a person might have a conflict of interest and yes in this case that could be said. Then it says it may require cleanup, but looking at that article there is nothing that should be cleaned up, certainly nothing violating ]. Finally, it says to discuss this on the talk page of the article but it looks like the discussion on the talk page is settled aside from the identity of Gmandler (which has now been cleared up). So I don't see any reason to continue using that tag. -- ''']'''] 17:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

== Editor being sent material by subject to add to article ==

{{resolved|Deleted. ]] 22:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)}}
You can see that at ] the editor Megaeclipse, blocked for a notional 12 hours by me for copyvio after being warned, is asking for an unblock because "actually the author himself told me to us the material,but he latter realised that it was copyrighted and sent me the original material,so please unblock me as this is a matter of great impotrance, and i have to upload the material". This is to do with the ] article which has attracked some of Herschel's fans. What's the COI position here if this editor is acting as a proxy for the subject, which appears to be the situation? Thanks. ] (]) 16:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we treat them as a meatpuppet and as having a conflict of interest when they use words like "this is a matter of great impotrance and I have to upload the material". --] (]) 16:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

:Agreed, there's a COI any time the editor's concerns are split between writing a good article, and any other real-world concern as appears here to be the case. Copyvios aside though, the previous text was massively POV, which is its own problem beyond the motivations of the editor. Watchlisting this to see how it fares after the block expires, or if other fans follow suit. ]] 17:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks. I've had email from two of his fans today!. ] (]) 18:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{userlinks|JeanDelaporte}}

The above user created an account on 31 August. shows that he has exclusively edited two articles: ] and ]. For those who don't know, Farouk Hosny is Egypt's Minister of Culture, and is the leading candidate for the post of UNESCO Director-General. ] is actively engaged outside Misplaced Pages in a campaign to oppose Hosny's election. See and . He even has an devoted to this cause. All of this user's edits have consisted in adding extremely negative statements about Hosny, to the point where the "Controversy" section now represents two thirds of the article's content. Several issues are at stake here, namely ], ], ]. The aim of the user is thus to influence in some way the outcome of the UNESCO elections, which are due to take place this month, by using Misplaced Pages to portray Hosny in an extremely negative light. It is impossible to assume good faith here. --] (]) 17:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

:Particularly when he adds defamatory material not in the source to a quote. I've just reverted all his last edits because of that and warned him. ] (]) 18:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

::There also seems to be a lot of ] being given to the Controvery section on the Hosny article. The "Achievements" section is 1 paragraph of rattling off a comma-seperated list, while the Controversies section is 4 paragraphs full of POV and speculation... ]] 18:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

== Wayne Herschel ==

{{resolved|Article deleted at AfD. ]] 22:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)}}
*{{article|Wayne Herschel}}
*{{userlinks|AstronomerPHD}}
As this is a slightly different issue I'm raising it in a separate section. This article keeps getting new users on its talk page saying how great he is. Now I've found this on ] facebook page, a comment from Herschel:

"WIKIPEDIA WARS DAY 2 - AUTHOR AND SOLOMON KEY TO BE DELETED

If there are any wiki subscribers out there we need numbers... some have tried to help already but the manipulators there will not allow two important uploads complete the page to be an accep...table author page.

I have just been talking to Nirman... and he tried uploading my bio and periodical references as the wikipedia page requests and some malicious group is deleting them.

1)The two periodical references are on record here:
http://www.thehiddenrecords.com/press_release.htm

2)Biography text
http://www.wayneherschel.com

There is a full barage there of people (discussion page) manipulating the uploads that wiki are saying they need... any wiki members out there please can you intervene if possible. I am so tied up trying to save my book as well... I am not managing at all with this crazy stuff.

HERE IS THE CRAZY DISCUSSION PAGE... WHO CAN FIGURE A WAY TO FIX IT?
http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Wayne_Herschel"

] (]) 19:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
*Not good.... I put some words of wisdom on the talk page. If any of the facebook users can improve the article within the 5 Pillars, then great. I tried to paraphrase what it takes to do so... hope I wasn't too blunt. ]] 19:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
::If they can't contribute positively and don't cooperate, it might be best to go to ] and request semi-protection. These off-wiki "calls for help" usually lead to chaos in my experience so my hopes aren't high but it's best to give them a chance. -- ''']'''] 19:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Absolutely. We give them a chance, explaining exactly how to contribute productively. If it doesn't go well, then Semi-prot is definitely called for. ]] 19:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
::::I was just about to report this situation. Looks like I got beat to the punch. I am concerned that Mr. Herschel has said on his talk page he has no intention of learning how to contribute effectively to Misplaced Pages.] (]) 12:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::This is a quote from his talk page. It is unsigned but it is Herschel speaking:

:::::"It is you that are implying the issue. If it does not meet up with regulations will you please present a case for it be changed. It is a user name. I am author and not a computer programmer '''and do not intend trying to learn the ropes here,''' I am simply getting the page right and doing what is fair. I will proceed with caution and see that the said page follows all requirements. I am getting the feeling the deletion group involved so far with my work has a hidden agenda and I will need to follow up on any false information or malicious unverified deletions of important text is followed up and questioned as you question me, but with media that will be here on this site of the 15th September."

::::Bold for emphasis is mine.] (]) 12:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

::::::More from ]:

::::::This little gem was just posted by Mr. Herschel on the AfD page:

:::::::"The page has just been Reverted to next to nothing... the false claim by Ove von Spaeth is back and it is not true.

:::::::there is somthing drastically unbalanced here and it is about to go online on where others can see the manipulation is rife here!

:::::::I will give moderators here an hour to provide a solution to this then i have no other choice other than taking astand against the moderators names who claim all is fair here. I have a full page put together that will upload in an hour... if I have already been blocked it will come from another party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AstronomerPHD (talk • contribs) 12:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)"

::::::This matter is getting somewhat out of hand. There is a clear CoI on the ] profile.] (]) 12:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

From the Dan Brown facebook page,

"I ask please all those other wiki folks out there to contact me because i have found a way to beat this nonesense. We are being watched by the destructive group here so I cant discuss the plan. Please write to me at XXXXXXXXX and I will share the solution" --] (]) 13:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

:And yet ''we'' are accused of being a cabal. LOL ] (]) 14:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

:: I'm afraid it's the usual pattern of behaviour that we expect to see in those sorts of cases 1) if I explain it to the administrators, they will ban the people removing my article, 2) if I keep reposting it, eventually it will stick, 3) if I get people to say I'm nice or interesting, it will stick. I really don't understand what is that difficult to understand about verification or the use of reliable sources. --] (]) 14:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

:::The disconnect is that Mr. Herschel wants to use Misplaced Pages as part of the platform for his book. As the book is a self-published book on a fringe subject it has '''not''' garnered attention aside from local newspapers saying "gee whiz, this local has some odd ideas that he put into a book". And so he doesn't ''have'' any verification and there aren't reliable sources according to Misplaced Pages criteria. Because Mr. Herschel is '''not''' familliar with Misplaced Pages (as he has said) and because (also he has said) he has '''no interest in becoming familliar''' with Misplaced Pages he is not playing out of the same playbook. It seems to me that he just wants free publicity.] (]) 14:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
::::I've removed the von Spaeth thing as it wasn't properly sourced - ironically it was put there by the article's creator who may support Herschel. As an aside, this article is a recreation of a speedied article in 2007 if I recall correctly. I'm bothered by the username Herschel has chosen, as he is not an astronomer with a PhD - in fact he's neither. ] (]) 14:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

:: Which is not actually a requirement of our username system is it? --] (]) 14:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
:::He could call himself ] in his username if he wanted. It doesn't make him an ancient pharoah. I do think it's a little bit gauche that he is trying to present himself as if he had an academic credential that he doesn't but I'm more concerned with the off-site activism, the CoI edits and the lack of constructive conversation on the AfD and talk pages affected than I am with his username.] (]) 14:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
::::The username isn't a problem. Calling himself a PhD isn't a big deal, all our ] requirements state is that you can't falsely claim to have authority in Misplaced Pages, and a PhD, real or not, gives you no more authority in this project than anyone else. It's tacky but that's about the worst of it. In any case it looks like the AfD is heading toward a snowball deletion so this will probably all blow over soon. -- ''']'''] 17:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::I agree, it's tacky but not forbidden. I was mainly hoping he'd explain it which is why I asked about it - if I'd had serious doubts about it I would have sent it to UAA. Bad idea of his I think as it doesn't make him look good. ] (]) 17:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an explanation. He's made a whole career around wild claims, why stop with a username? Look how he has asserted on his user talk page that he has contacted "top people" about the deletion of his biography, when it's clear he doesn't know much about Misplaced Pages itself, let alone how to pull imaginary strings. (He frequently refers to non-existent "moderators".) -- ''']'''] 00:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The lastest from facebook

''Hi Nirman... wrote to top exec at wikipedia UK... investigating page and will report back shortly with a possibility of a full upload of the page how it should be, which I prepared yesterday with 20 references. Also chance of locking the page if the listed instigators are verified and identified :)'' Verified and identified? --] (]) 09:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

:Won't be too hard to identify me. I am rather open about my real life identity.] (]) 14:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
::And even later latest from Facebook:

::''After making contact with Wikimedia authorities in the UK, an over seeing moderator has now offered to upload the wikipedia full page and references to the real finding and will verify that I am the author, perhaps checking out the periodicals I use for references. Having said this it will be still be open to discussion and the page hopefully frozen for a short period of time during its evaluation. The previous 'delete frenzy' editors in question there also tried to remove my copyrights on the carefully redrawn detail of the Hebrew pictogram cipher puzzle, for the (Key of Solomon), claiming they had the right to make it free. The old listing of my work there has almost no meaning and the listing will be there for a day or too before starting from scratch. I just wanted to say special thanks for support in this matter as the inquiry there was seen in better light and not just me versus a group of biased editors.''
::] (]) 06:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

:::Article deleted so I imagine that should resolve Mr. Herschel's (odd) concerns over free use of his diagram. I still think that the page needs to be ] as this quote suggests Mr. Herschel intends to re-post the article in a few days. As an note, I don't know much about South African copyright law but I do know that in Canada you can't claim copyright on a public domain symbol just by re-drawing it. You could claim fair use on a copyright for a piece derived from a public domain symbol if you could demonstrate a substantive change to the underlying meaning of the symbol in some way but the original symbol would remain in the public domain and if it was unchanged your redrawn copy would likewise be public domain.] (]) 16:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

::::What diagram is he referring to? I don't see any upload from the one known account. ]] 20:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

:::::I think he may be referring to the picture of the "solomons key" (actually a plate of a circle diagram from within the book) that was removed from the page a few days before the AfD was concluded. The removal was on the grounds that a) the picture was doctored and b) the picture likely violated free use criteria. As seems de-rigeur for Mr. Herschel he got things bass-ackwards and thought we were trying to claim he didn't have copyright when, in fact, the opposite was being proposed - that the picutre should not be up because we did '''not''' hold a copyright for it. This is only a guess.] (]) 20:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

:::::: Latest from Herschel on Dan Brown's Facebook:

:::::::Wayne Herschel
:::::::WIKIPEDIA UK AUTHORITY DEMAND REMOVAL OF AUTHOR AND SOLOMON KEY FINDING

:::::::I have been told by the UK Misplaced Pages authority <name redacted by SimonM due to ]> Re:Ticket#2009090210032671 that I must be removed. Other authors with less status than my own have the right to be on ...wikipedia but due to the material concerned, I have absolutely no right to be there. All that is left there is the image that I rendered on a separate page... and even my copyrights as the artist have been removed too for the Solomon Key cipher now to be public property. They are out right lying that it has expired. (it was only there two months and copyright text on it now removed) I am releasing all documentation to the media for next week with the other attacks to try and stop my book project that are underway right now. I presented all the third party references they asked for, TV coverage, Coast to Coast radio, many newspapers covering my findings as discoveries, not just an author, two periodicals on the Solomon key and more.

:::::::Authors like David Ike that self published, had no media covered historical discoveries, and claims the Queen of England is an alien has a full page spread.

:::::::Here is the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wayne_Herschel

:::::::Here is my image:http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Hebrew-solomon-key-parchment-pictogram-cipher-puzzle-clavicula-salomonis-wayne-herschel.jpg

::::::Now this strikes me as just about the worst case of ] I have ever seen. Furthermore Mr. Herschel still is making bizarre copyright claims. I can't actually make heads or tails of his reasoning... it seems like he thinks that because he is the copyright holder we can't delete his picture... or something. But that would be the same as suggesting that a janitor who uses a high-pressure water spray to blast the graffiti off a public wall was breaking the copyright of the tagger. Anyway, still hoping we can get this article ] to avoid future flareups. How do we go about seeing to that?] (]) 04:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

*'''LOL- BHA ''': wow, apparently wikipedia is held in high regard among these people as this seems to have become a big deal to them. I would offer, in his defense, one explanation for his comments that sound similar to some of my own in many contexts. He has an agenda or set of objectives that may or may not match wikipedias, the benefit of free assembly of course is that lacking in mutual desire to associate everyone can part ways and you need not learn what everyone is doing, just determine if there is an empirical match where everyone says "ok". Presumably this is what he would prefer to learning the ways of wikipedia. An encyclopedia or other objective is not for everyone. Sorry I don't have much to contribute beyond that but this is a humorous story. ] (]) 01:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

== User Leveque ==

* {{userlinks|Leveque}}
* {{userlinks|Loulou 50}} An older account he no longer uses.
* {{userlinks|58.175.169.39}} An ip address he's used.
* {{userlinks|58.175.170.104}} An ip address he's used.
*{{article|Mauritius}}
*{{article|Rodrigues}}

:Levenque is a ]. As Loulou 50 and through his initial edits as Levenque , he sought to incorporate published articles written by Alain Leveque into Misplaced Pages articles and use Misplaced Pages as a soapbox for his beliefs. After discussions (], ], ]) he changed his approach to spamming links to his articles instead, and was warned ]. During this time, he also had discussions about his conflict of interest in ] and ].
:All of that happened over two years ago. Since then he has continued to spam his article links, making accusations of vandalism when his links are removed.
:My recommendations:
:*Block Leveque for continued spamming against a conflict of interest after multiple warnings.
:*Erase both user pages (] & ]) and ] per ] and ].
: --] (]) 16:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
::Forget the conflict of interest. He's a self-promotional spam-only editor. You've offered a final warning, one more violation and report to ]. Be sure to link to his former account to have it blocked (so he doesn't use it for socking) and a link to this COI noticeboard report would be helpful too. I'd wait until his next violation before reporting, though, just to be sure, but I'm pretty confident that he'd be facing an indefinite block. -- ''']'''] 00:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I've reported him to AIV, mentioning that he's been adding these self-promotional links for years (at least as far back as 2007), mentioned his other account, and this COI noticeboard report. -- ''']'''] 05:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
::::I'll discuss this with the editor. Remember that AIV is only for simple, clear vandalism. ] - ]</sub> 08:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::You're right. ] would probably have been a better venue. Thank you for looking into this. -- ''']'''] 17:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::He's added the link back three times since he was given a final warning. He's ignoring this report and the comments by Master of Puppets. Based upon this, I've reported him to AIV. If he's not blocked there, I'll post to ANI. --] (]) 00:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
:'''Blocked''' for one day. Would be appropriate for blocks to increase dramatically if this continues. ''']''' (]) 00:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
::I agree with Cirt on this one, seeing that he outright ignored my attempt at conversation. Notify us if you see any socks being used to evade the block. ] - ]</sub> 01:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
:::His to the block:

:::''"Block all you like. But no spiteful zealot will EVER stop me from adding a link about Rodrigues history to an entry about Rodrigues. To let you do that is to acknowledge that Misplaced Pages belongs to zealots like you."''

:::It doesn't look like he used any sockpuppets during the block (I checked the articles he has edited before). -- ''']'''] 20:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
::::He's back and immediately restored links to his articles. I've requested another block at AIV. --] (]) 02:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::He has pretty much promised to sock in the future. ''"We'll see how many people and how many computers you can block in the years ahead."'' -- ''']'''] 18:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::] has the block of ] through 14 September. I have not noticed any sock accounts evading this new block at either ] or ]. ] (]) 18:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

== New Chronology (Rohl) ==

*{{article|New Chronology (Rohl)}}
*{{userlinks|David Rohl}}
Occasional problems here but probably ignorable until by {{user|David Rohl}} - it would be useful if someone who hasn't been involved stepped in to help. He has had a lot of advice about COI issues and I don't think he should have made this major edit himself. He is heavily involved in editing this page and ], usually just on the talk page however. Thanks. ] (]) 08:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
:Perhaps he shouldn't, but I don't see any problems introduced, and Rohl had (per my suggestion) drafted the edit at ], and posted the link on the talk page, which produced no objections to the content. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
::I've been trying to stay out of it myself, but this was too much. I hadn't been following the talk page closely and hadn't noticed that he was drafting something in userspace. The edit appears to me to be one of Rohl arguing his case for his chronology which is completely inappropriate and original research. ] (]) 10:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Doug, while I agree that this material could be better sourced, and that Rohl shouldn't have made the edit himself, I doubt that it is original research - as far as I can tell, it is mostly a summary of arguments Rohl has made in his published work. Rohl's published work is obviously a reliable source for what the New Chronology says, so I think the issue here is that we need to be more detailed in our sourcing, not that this is ''verboten'' OR. The language could probably also stand some editing for POV, and we might put more input from dissenting voices, if we can, but I think that, overall, it's not so bad, and is an okay starting point. ] (]) 13:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
::::I really would as I said like someone uninvolved to comment. Rohl has now accused me of malice and of having a COI myself - his response was just a personal attack but he did say that it wasn't "theoretical OR, but 'implications' - although this aspect should perhaps be taken to the NOR (but would that be forumshopping?). As I wrote on the talk page, we have the phrase 'indirectly challenges' with no source, and then two new paragraphs where the sources don't discuss the New Chronology and then more about Rohl's ideas. Ok, I missed the fact that it was on a userpage (I wasn't blaming anyone for that), but it should have been on the talk page and someone else should have added it (or not, as I don't think a lot of it is appropriate). And what do you think Rohl's response will be to me if I start editing the article and add cn templates or remove stuff I think is OR? I really don't want the hassle which is why I've stayed away, it's just unpleasant. Rohl should not be editing the article. ] (]) 13:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

: Well I just spent an hour or two reading the entire talk page, & the discussion there could be far worse. While I admit I am not totally uninvolved, I do have enough distance to see that progress appears to be made on improving this article & I think the three of you all deserve praise for that. Especially since this is a hard task -- it concerns an esoteric aspect of a technical issue (i.e. ancient Egyptian chronology) & this article easily could have led to an ArbCom case or OTRS issue. I believe the chief challenge has been -- & still is -- this subject is David Rohl's baby, & he can't help but react to any criticism as if his baby is being knifed. However, he has been trying to be objective, & I feel he has provided some useful input into the article. If a way could be found to keep him a bit further removed from the article -- not unable to participate, but to give the rest of the people a little more space to work in -- this might allow the article to improve at a quicker pace. -- ] (]) 17:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

::Ideally, he should confine his editing to the the talk page of the article, and everyone involved should get together there and discuss each change incrementally before making any changes to the article. Since, as you rightly said, any change or criticism, however small, is likely to be controversial in his eyes, the changes should proceed slowly and incrementally, with discussion to a consensus:
:::"I propose we change paragraph 3 to read <x>"
:::<discussion back and forth>
:::<Consensus!>
:::<Change made>
:::<Move to paragraph 4....>
::It may seem like it is progressing slowly, but this way it is sure to be something everyone can agree on. And as this methodology proceeds, it will likely get quicker as the parties get to know each other. ]] 18:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
::: You are right about that, but it appears that (1) he was concerned that none of the errors he felt in the article were being fixed, so (2) on the advice of one of the people involved, he wrote his own version of the article in his own userspace, then (3) asked if he should move his text to the article, & when no one spoke up (4) did so. It has happened elsewhere that people with a COI asks for a change in an article, but no one responds; what should that person then do? David Rohl, right or wrong, for lack of a better option decided to be bold (as in ]). Following that model, the next step should then be for someone -- say Doug Weller, who obviously objects to this change -- to revert & then discuss. -- ] (]) 18:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Yep, his discussing on the talk page is only half of the equation. Any/all editors who have differing opinions also need to participate as well, otherwise "silence equals acquiescence" is not an unreasonable assumption for him to make in this case. ]] 18:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::I agree it would have been a good thing if I'd participated more. My hand operation has been holding me back since the 27th which seems to be when this all started, and I didn't notice the mention that it was being worked on off the talk page. What I think I'd like now is for someone to raise the OR issues I've raised at NOR - if I raise them I'll also raise Rohl's ire I think. It needs to be cleared up how much the sources need to actually mention Rohl's NC. ] (]) 19:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::I'm a somewhat uninvolved editor (I've never edited that article to my knowledge or gotten involved in any discussion regarding its content). But this is the 3rd time I've seen David Rohl appear on the COI noticeboard in the last month or so and I've looked at his participation at the New Chronology article, and for the most part he's pretty good about discussing things on the talk page rather than editing the article itself. -- ''']'''] 19:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Which is more or less what I was trying to say at the start of this. He definitely started off on the wrong foot though edit warring like mad, but except for his tendency to take things personally and insult others he disagrees with, he could be worse. But I still think he should have waited to let someone else post it, there is no deadline. ] (]) 19:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

* {{userlinks|Transilluminate}} -- very likely to be ], hard at work fluffing up that page with unsourced material, has not heeded COI notice. ] (]) 12:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
:They are either the artist himself or a very dedicated fan (maybe PR person?). An avalanche of edits in the first day of the account, and all of them either editing the artist's page or adding info to other pages about the artist. I would say give them a chance to communicate, if they do, but if they don't they may be looking at a block sometime in the future. In the meantime we shouldn't treat them too harshly. -- ''']'''] 22:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
::Have you had a look at the user's talk page? There have been multiple attempts to communicate, all ignored... thanks, ] (]) 22:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
:::They are also most likely a brand-new user on a mistaken flurry of editing. The account was created earlier today and edited for about 7 hours and stopped. I don't know if they have ever looked at their user talk page. They've never made an edit outside of article space. That is why myself and NeilN urge a bit of caution per ], there's no evidence so far of ill-intent. -- ''']'''] 23:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
: I've done some cleanup on the article and removed some ]. I also tagged it for ] since some of it seems to be lifted from other websites. Might be the individuals standard bio. Probably worth keeping an eye on but nothing showing signs of intentional abuse or gross negligence. ] (]) 02:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
::From they have admitted to being "official employees" of Brian Clarke and asked for page protection to be established on ] so that only they can edit it in the future. That request is the one and only time they've made any kind of communication with someone on Misplaced Pages that I can see. I think that ] has been stretched too far, plus they are violating ] already by sharing the account so they're due for an indef block. I wonder if a ] report is necessary now. -- ''']'''] 18:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

== Islamic marketing ==

* {{userlinks|Alserhan}}
* {{article|Islamic marketing}}
I am in doubt what to do about this. It appeared as an announcement of "''Islamic marketing, a new social science founded by Dr. Baker Ahmad Alserhan''" and of a journal he plans to publish next year. Dr Alserhan clearly thought, quite innocently, that Misplaced Pages was the right notice-board to publicise his new journal. So far, so ]; but I thought not quite blatant enough for db-spam, and instead PRODded it as ]. The PROD has been removed and the article further edited by a number of IPs (probably Dr Alserhan editing without logging in). There is now some discussion of the subject as well as the journal, and references to several books, which suggest that, rather than "''a new social science founded by Dr. Alserhan''", "Islamic marketing" may be an already-existing subject worthy of an article. So do we:
*send this article to AfD as self-promotion and original research, or
*cut out the promotional bit about the "new social science" and the yet-to-be-published journal, and leave a stub in the hope that it can be an expanded to an article - which could, in due course, refer to Dr Alserhan's journal when that is published. Dr Alserhan himself might very likely be able to develop such an article - what guidance should he be given about how far he is allowed to mention himself and his forthcoming journal?
] (]) 21:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
: Looking at the article and after googling "islamic marketing" I've decided to send it to AfD ]. ] (]) 21:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

== User:Tonye Irims and ] ==

{{Template:resolved|Indef blocked as a spammer. -- ''']'''] 00:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)}}
* {{userlinks|Tonye Irims}} - This user kept on adding COI information about his "Wiki" brand Dual SIM phones, and the fact that his contributions reek of being an SPA, as well as his userpage, made me think of reporting him here. I already warned him about a possible breach of guidelines, but he doesn't seem to care about what he did. ] (]) 00:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
: User has been indef blocked by ]. ] (]) 04:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

== User:Ombudswiki ==

* {{userlinks|Ombudswiki}}
* {{article|Sathya Sai Baba}}
Ombudswiki is currently expanding on an edit about an autobiographical book "Love is My Form". His edits contain little direct biographic information on the subject, Sathya Sai Baba, yet the paragraph continues to grow with facts about the book. I have tried to add the informational to another section so it can be expanded on but he reverts it back to its previous edit and continues to elaborate. It seems suspicious to me and "does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article."

Editor Onopearls states "I must agree that many of Ombudswiki's replies are somewhat condescending"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba</ref>
Radiantenergy has already brought this issue for arbitration<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=307807198</ref> <br />
Ombudswiki states his name as Brian Steel.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Ombudswiki </ref> Research on Google finds an anti Sai Baba writer named "Brian Steel" with many web pages http://www.briansteel.net/index.html<br />
http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/storiesclaims08.htm<br />

Both persons share an interest in Sathya Sai Baba, Spanish and share a similar online name ( his wiki name is Ombudswiki and the email address for Anti Sai Baba Brian steel is ompukalani@)
Thank you.<br />
] (]) 00:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
: I notified the user and they wrote back on my talk page: ] (]) 05:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

::"Hello! Is this where I respond to your invitation for a comment?
::In a complex series of tiring exchanges on the (endless) Sathya Sai Baba Discussion pages (14 Archives already), I have been trying to establish my right to be judged by what I publish on Misplaced Pages. On my User Page I choose voluntarily to offer my real name for anyone who wishes to check up on me.
Please ask the complainant (who has recently retracted unfounded charges of vandalism against me) to show, coherently and specifically, which of my postings on this Misplaced Pages article show clear evidence of COI.] (]) 03:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)"

:::More background:
Recently, on the Discussion page and in the article, I presented information about an important 600 page biography of the early years of Sathya Sai Baba (published in 2001), which, although far more detailed than the first volume of the standard hagiography by N. Kasturi, has (inexplicably) not been considered for this article. When “challenged” by J929, I gave full publishing details and explained that this was part 1 of a planned series, researched by a team of devotees or sympathisers, headed by R.Padmanaban (SSB’s former photographer), which was intended to be the first of a long series on SSB’s life. When further challenged by J929 on who the researchers were, I posted the long list of researchers and collaborators and the (relevent) Acknowledgements from the book itself (on the SSB Discussion page). Instead of welcoming the new source of valuable information, J929 has continued to try to limit the coverage of this book to the Beliefs Section (rather than the Biography one, which is the logical place for it). To give an idea of the discussion exchanges between us, in a recent post I responded to his/her protests with the following:

:J929: Can you please present more coherent points for consideration?
What are we to make of thoughts like the following?
"the rest of the paragraph covers the number of proposed books and description such as "600 page volume", etc and who the published was. This doesnt seem like it is of a biography of Sathya Sai Baba."
(Later you contradict yourself on this issue: "Love is My Form is a biography, i think we are in agreement on that."

:And what does this mean?
"the paragraph as it is, discusses more on the "book" rather than the "biography". i dont think you have adressed this issue, as more alight to that the book is a biography."
Have you had a look at a copy yet? Ombudswiki (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that a reading of the SSB Discussion page will confirm that J929’s contributions to this article (and another connected with SSB) include continual evasive, aggressive – and I think, unhelpful - replies and ploys on this and other topics). I suggest that J929 must now present a list of specific accusations of COI infringements which he has found in my '''Misplaced Pages contributions'''. ] (]) 07:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
::I'm not convinced that there is a conflict of interest here. There is possibly a bias, but has Ombudswiki tried to link to his own web sites or anything he has published himself? Otherwise this just seems like a content dispute. -- ''']'''] 18:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


The issues raised are in concern for the Sathya Sai Baba article.
In relation to my statement quoted in the discussion page, "This doesnt seem like it is of a biography of Sathya Sai Baba." The information Ombudswiki keeps expanding on ie. information on the 'Love is My Form' book, ie facts about where it was published, and as can be seen now on the Sai Baba page, several references to fact it is 600 pages long etc... ARE NOT A BIOGRAPHY. Facts about the subject, Sathya Sai Baba constitue biographical information. The book (although it is itself a biography) when elaborated on is NOT A BIOGRAPHY. this is what i meant in the provided quote, " this (information on the Love is My Form book) does not seem like a biography of Sai Baba"

i have tried to help Ombudswiki with edits and on good faith made changes requested by him (which were dictated by his opinion and no wikipedia body) only to be met with more complaints and patronising comments... Myself and other editors have been met with such comments as
*" I applaud your willingness to cooperate in this matter "
*"The extraordinary ad hominem allegations against the BBC by J929 and Sbs108 "
*" ... offer here the necessarily lengthy answer to put his mind at rest "
*"Perhaps the last three contributors (who seem to be both energetic and hasty)"
*and more recently " continual evasive, aggressive "
Editor Onopearls states "I must agree that many of Ombudswiki's replies are somewhat condescending"

In reference to changes i made to his edits, they were to allow the subject (Love is My Form) to be expanded on in a different context. He made two points (about records and local knowledge about Shirdi Sai Baba) that directly linked to the biography section of the page. The rest is just information on the book itself. Based on his writings it seemed that there was alot of effort put into this book so i moved it to the "Beliefs and pratcises of Devotees" section and presented it as a form of devotion as the author himself wrote the book was his meditation, penance and prayer... Ombudswiki complained that the paragraph was "hijacked" and rewrote the paragraph and continued to write more. (and at the same time deleted my paragraph concerning the book, although my edits did not need his work to remain.)

Again he states, "Have you had a look at a copy yet?" Why all the refernce to one book. Read it, get the relevant information and write those findings in the biography section on the Sathya Sai Baba page.
This is why i wrote, "It seems suspicious to me and "does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article."" No content has been added from the book. You can't go to a restaurant and eat the menu. (well, maybe you can...)

My concerns were further raised when research into his name found many anti Sai Baba writings, blogs and websites associated with the person "Brian Steel". Ombudswiki's name is also Brian Steel. Is this a coincidence?
If Ombudswiki is the same Anti Sai Baba writer, Brian Steel, then a concern arises for his neutrality on the edits he provides.

His edits (and behavior) "does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article."

As per his request...
*Misplaced Pages states.. "COI editing involves contributing to Misplaced Pages in order to promote your '''own interests''' or those of other individuals, companies, or '''groups'''. Brian Steel belongs to a group of anti Sai Baba writers and Ex-devotees, ie Robert Priddy etc... see web apges for links to each other. This group has an agenda and it is clear. How can they then profess to write in a "neutral tone" for the Sai Baba page.
*Please also note the dischord on the Sathya Sai Baba discussion pages, it seems a reflection of these 'agendas'. This is also in conflict with wikipedia policy "When editing causes '''disruption''' to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as '''neutral point of view''', what Misplaced Pages is not, and notability, accounts may be blocked." This can be seen now in the current state of editing on the Sathya Sai Baba page. Is erasing my contribution on 'Love is My Form' as a devotional work a "disruption"?
*" Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and '''on the talk page of any article they edit''', particularly if those edits may be contested" Ombudswiki has stated his name, but not his interets. ie does he host several anti Sai Baba websites? if yes, then a Conflict of Interest becomes clear. as seen with his writing, attitude (as editor Onopearls states "I must agree that many of Ombudswiki's replies are somewhat condescending") and, as wikipedia states, "interests."

i started on wikipedia only a few monthes ago as i saw what shame the Sathya Sai Baba page was. I knew no other editors and added to the page based on avaiable resources. Any 'relations' developed were from a desire to improve the article, not make it a ground for my opinions and agenda.
The Misplaced Pages Sathya Sai Baba page is a 'Biography Of Living Persons' the respect of/to the subject should be maintained, not the interests "of other individuals, companies, or groups."

"Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." as Misplaced Pages states, "We must get the article right."

I hope i have adressed all the relevant concerns...

] (]) 20:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

::I am an uninvolved editor. I have not (as I recall) ever edited the Sathya Sai Baba page and have no vested interest. If I may venture an opinion I see {{user|J929}} who appears to be a Sathya Sai Baba ] account upset over potentially controversial edits made by {{user|Ombudswiki}}, who appears to edit a broad variety of subjects. Looking over the edit history I wouldn't necessarily have made the same edits as Ombudswiki but I see no compelling evidence of a COI.] (]) 20:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
:::''"Brian Steel belongs to a group of anti Sai Baba writers and Ex-devotees, ie Robert Priddy etc... see web apges for links to each other. This group has an agenda and it is clear."'' Again, is Ombudswiki linking to his own sites? If not, I don't see what the COI is here. COI does not mean having a bias. Is Ombudswiki directly promoting a particular group that he belongs to? That is what the portion of ] that you quoted above refers to. Or do you ''suspect'' there is such a group in existence because he shares the views of other editors? It looks to me like you've confused ] and ] which is a common mistake to make. The purpose of identifying a COI is to show that there is a reason to doubt that an editor is trying to get some sort of personal gain out of editing Misplaced Pages, whether that be through financial gain or general promotion. But everyone has biases and we don't take the time to note every single bias every editor has. I played ] for a long time, and I'm a fan of the game, do I have a conflict of interest regarding the edits I've made to that article? I would hope not. If I were to mention my former guild in the article or try to link to their web site, that would be a COI.

:::If you feel that Brian is trying to insert bias into the article, then that is a violation of Misplaced Pages policies and should be reported to the ]. But as long as he's not promoting himself or some other "group" in the article I don't see the COI. -- ''']'''] 21:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


Thank you again for the clarification. i will look into the POVN noticeboard...
i do have a question...
Misplaced Pages states "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested" If Ombudswiki is the same Brian Steel; who holds multiple websites with Anti Sai Baba views, and does as Misplaced Pages asks and declares who he is, (on his user page and the Sathya Sai Baba discussion page) with relation to his websites) then will a COL exist?
to what extent can an editor be asked to "declare their interests"?
If Ombudswiki says he operates the anti Sai Baba sites, then is that a COL by affiliation or does he have to actually state his own website on his user page?

] (]) 22:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

:"Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested." You are asking if Brian says that he owns and operates anti-sai websites that he has ''not'' attempted to promote in any way on any of the Sai articles, that will make him have a Conflict of Interest? No. "COI editing involves contributing to Misplaced Pages in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. '''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'''." Can you offer any proof where Brian has attempted to advance an outside interest? I don't believe so. His edits to the article are, from what I have seen, adequately neutral. His edits on the talk page, while condescending, are not proof of a CoI either. Without any ''actual'' proof, I would be inclined to agree with the other editors in that Brian Steel, aka Ombudswiki, does not have a Conflict of Interest on this article. That being said, if you believe he is editing without a NPOV, I would take it up with the NPOV noticeboard. Thanks, ] <sup>(]/])</sup> 23:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested." i'm saying if he runs the anti Sai Baba sites, does he have to "declare ..his.. interests" ie that he is already associated to Sathya Sai Baba by running an entire website with Sathya Sai Baba as the subject and he himself having written several books on Sai Baba. (it seems safe to say he has made some money off Sai Baba with book sales)<br />
Three names seem to be linked with the anti Sai Baba sites, Brian Steel, Robert Priddy and Barry Pittard. Does that constitue a "group" with "interests". Personally i would say 'yes'.<br />
They are linked as seen in ProEdits latest contribution, citing http://www.rfjvds.dds.nl/ex-baba/engels/shortnews/bbcbroadcastsecretswami.html as a source. Closer inspection finds that the site is authored by Barry Pittard. Essentially one of them can author a page and the other can site it as a source to write in wikipedia. That seems like a 'group' with an 'interest' or 'agenda'. (and a means to propogate their views.<br />
So with that as an example 'groups with interests can edit --without declaring their interests--a Misplaced Pages article'<br />
The fact that 2 of these 3 writers are known to be active on the Sathya Sai Baba page seems like "promote(ing) your own interests."<br />
"When editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view..." i agree Ombudswiki does not cause the disruption ProEdits does (ie rewriting the BBc paragraph although it has already been deemed a BLP violation), but patronising words do not induce harmony. Both are linked outside of Misplaced Pages and together use Sai Baba as a subject to promote their own interests.<br />
As Brian Steel states in his blog, "This only leaves me, and you, ... alongside those millions who have preceded us and already tried to stake their claim for public attention. Others can remain aloof for a while longer if they wish, but I have finally decided, after dragging my feet for a year or more ...that I may as well keep up with the cyberJoneses by '''joining in this colossal competition for attention."''' A competition for attention seems like an agenda and his user page does say, "waste decent contributors' time and energy on unnecessary edit wars... sometimes in the cause of propaganda - '''or just for fun'''"<br />
i dont feel the Sathya Sai Baba site should be a forum for 'attention seeking' editors, in whatever medium they strive for it ie. comments about other editors, "hasty, agressive"..., as a individual or a group.

] (]) 00:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

:Can you offer any proof that the three men mentioned above have had any contact with each other outside of Misplaced Pages, or that they have some sort of elaborate system in which they cite the websites of the others in Misplaced Pages in some sort of scheme to discredit Sathya Sai Baba? I ''highly'' doubt that. Misplaced Pages is not in the business of jumping to conclusions when there is no evidence.

:"The fact that 2 of these 3 writers are known to be active on the Sathya Sai Baba page seems like 'promote(ing) your own interests.'" The mere fact that they are active in editing the articles is inconsequential. "Both are linked outside of Misplaced Pages and together use Sai Baba as a subject to promote their own interests." And the key word there? ''outside'' Misplaced Pages.


== Chris Antonopoulos (footballer) and Fort Lauderdale Strikers ==
:"'''joining in this colossal competition for attention."''' A competition for attention seems like an agenda" I did not see any mention of using :Misplaced Pages to seek attention. I seek attention outside of Misplaced Pages on occasion. Does that make me have an agenda? I don't think so.
* {{pagelinks|Chris Antonopoulos (footballer)}}
* {{userlinks|Amplifyplantz33}}


] and numerous ] related articles, which Antonopoulos appears to have been a player for, have been edited by ]. The user seems to be Antonopoulos and received a notice to disclose their conflict of interest on December 4 by @]. The user did not respond and does not appear to have made an effort to disclose a conflict of interest as they are required to. The user also created the Antonopoulos article and is responsible for the majority of the content added to it. The only indication the user appears to have made to disclose their potential conflict of interest was to write "Chris Antonopoulos" on their user page. ] (]) 07:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:It appears that you are attempting to get an editor that has done nothing wrong punished and/or banned from editing the SSB article because you disagree with his work outside of Misplaced Pages. This is not how Misplaced Pages works, and bringing up false accusations (as I have become convinced that this is) to do so constitutes ], and is not tolerated. I would also remind you that this CoI section is about Ombudswiki (Brian Steel), Not ProEdits (Robert Priddy). So please stick to offering some evidence other than speculation that proves that he does indeed have a CoI. Thanks, ] <sup>(]/])</sup> 22:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


:I've removed a lot of unsourced material from the Antonopoulos article, but clearly the problems here extend rather further than that. ] (]) 15:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
== ], ] and their clients ==
::The user has now denied on their talk page that they are Antonopoulos. It must be admitted, however, that they appear to be a ] dedicated solely to promoting Antonopoulos and mentioning him on as many articles as possible.
::It seems unclear whether the user has a COI or is just a fan who is unaware of the policies on sourcing and promotion.
::Any thoughts on whether Antonopoulos satisfies ] and whether detailed info on beach soccer activities is usually considered suitable for inclusion? ] (]) 15:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It seems unlikely that they would be so obsessed with Antonopoulos if they were not either him or someone closely associated with him, and their response is quite odd. There does appear to be a Chris Antonopoulos who signed a professional contract with the Fort Lauderdale Strikers, and to me that satisfies notability as the beach soccer and pre-professional soccer contract section of his career would not make Antonopoulos notable enough to have an article alone. It is of note that Antonopoulos does not appear to have been the primary goalkeeper during his tenure and that the primary goalkeepers were Jorge Valenzuela, Mario Jimenez, and ] at this time. It appears Antonopoulos only made two appearances between 1993 and 1994 which is when he was apparently signed to the team. From the perspective of someone who was not directly involved with the Strikers but would want to write about them, Valenzuela and Jimenez would probably be higher on the priority list than a goalkeeper who only made two appearances. The only parts about Antonopoulos in the article that are specific to him are praising his accomplishments. ] (]) 22:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Agreed 100%. ] (]) 22:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Additionally, the appear to indicate that whoever is writing the article had close connections with Antonopoulos throughout his career if they in fact have the right to upload them. ] (]) 23:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::The user continues to obsess over this article and to add large amounts of trivial non-encyclopaedic detail and generally promotional material. Are we really sure that the subject satisfies ]? ] (]) 00:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I generally go by pro athletes being notable enough to have an article, but Antonopoulos appears to have barely been a pro athlete, and like I brought up with the writer before they accused me of acting uncivil, it would make more sense to write articles about Antonopoulos' teammates. I'm not in favor of having an article on Misplaced Pages who's express purpose is to promote someone, even if they may meet the requirement of general notability. This is the first time I've dealt with an issue like this, so I apologize if I am not understanding things correctly as to what makes someone notable enough. ] (]) 01:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Article is notable. And I deem there's a consensus to proceed with option #1 - tag the 2 pages. ] (]) 22:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== Marc Jorgenson ==
* {{userlinks|Mcarter13}}
{{atop
* {{article|Artery Foundation}} - deleted G11
| result = No edits since 2008. No need for action. ] (]/]) 01:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{article|List of Artery Foundation artists}} - PRODded
}}
* {{article|Artery Tours}} - deleted G11
* {{article|Broadway (FL)}} - deleted A7
* {{article|Kingdoms (album)}} - redirected to Broadway (FL) and deleted G8
* {{article|The Color Morale}} - at AfD ].
* {{article|We All Have Demons (album)}} - deleted A9
* {{article|Of Mice & Men (band)}} - deleted A7
This user has input ], described as ''an artist management label'', and a ], and now appears, despite a COI warning, to be steadily adding articles about their, mostly non-notable, clients. ] (]) 16:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
:These are spam as far as I can tell. I tagged them and their list for speedy. ] (]) 17:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|Marc Jorgenson}}
::User was given a level 4 warning yesterday and has not edited since. Once the last two articles are deleted, maybe problem over. ] (]) 17:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|Plus3db}}
:::Just a note, I don't think the two remaining articles are likely to be speedied. ] doesn't seem to fit G11 because it's nothing but a list of artists, there's nothing overtly promotional about it. In ] they ''claim'' to be in an upcoming national tour, so they would be ineligible for deletion per A7. I expect you'll need to either ] or ] those articles. -- ''']'''] 19:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|Lexicon480}}
::::There's an unsourced claim that they ''will'' be part of someone else's tour ''as a supporting act''; that doesn't meet ] #4 - I suppose it ''might'' lift them out of A7 - we'll see what an admin thinks. ] (]) 21:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|Bunny & J-Zone}}
:::::Guess you're right, Atama: I have PRODded one and AfD-ed the other. ] (]) 13:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|24.82.146.94}}
* {{userlinks|24.82.146.152}}
* {{userlinks|24.86.250.211}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Blatantly promotional article and severe failure of ] with puffery removed by users before. 3 single-purpose accounts as well as 3 IPs of close proximity have edited the article in around 2008. There definitely is signs of paid editing or people connected with subject editing the article, so a block of these users and IPs should suffice alongside the deletion of the article. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: coral; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 06:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== State University of New York at Geneseo ==
== User:ProEdits ==
{{atop
| result = Soft blocked for promotional username representing Geneseo's Communications and Marketing (CommMark) team. ] (]/]) 01:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{userlinks|ProEdits}}
* {{pagelinks|State University of New York at Geneseo}}
* {{article|Sathya Sai Baba}}
* {{userlinks|CommMark1871}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
This editor has only edited the college's article, their username indicates a potential connection ("Comms" may indicate a role in communications at the college and 1871 is the date when the college official opened), and they have not responded to a brief but direct question on their User Talk page about this potential connection. Their edits are not objectionable but ] is not optional and our ] exists for good reasons. ] (]) 23:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Kathryn Babayan ==
User ProEdits states on his user page, "I am the webmaster for the following site:" http://robertpriddy.com and also http://www.saibaba-x.org.uk/ and the blog robertpriddy.wordpress.com Anyone interested can view the Wiki biographical page http://en.wikipedia.org/Robert_Priddy"
Robert Priddy is well known (and vocal) about his anti Sai Baba views. (as stated in the web sites)
He edits for the Sathya Sai Baba page. With such a negative opinion how can edits be considered "neutral"? (as seen in his latest edits. Adding material about the BBC, after it had been deemed a BLP violation and removing information from a source, which he says "is a pro-Sai site full of massive attacks on critics" yet if he is a critic then there is an "agenda") Using information from his website has been banned. Why then is he allowed to directly write for the Misplaced Pages Sathya Sai Baba page? The concern is his "agenda", and does that conflict with the goals/interests of Misplaced Pages?


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
] (]) 17:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|Kathryn Babayan}}
* {{userlinks|2601:401:100:46E0:B919:9891:DF5D:FC9F}}
* {{userlinks|2601:401:100:46E0:E169:2FC9:4E47:B104}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Kathryn Babayan was an academic article I made two weeks ago. As of the past 24 hours, there is an IP editor on a rotating IP address that has been making wholesale wording changes to the article. Some of the changes are okay, more detailed than I had been, but I'm wondering if they're edging into promotional territory for her books. I tried asking the first version of the IP editor if they were Babayan themselves, which I feel is likely, but I received no response. And they're back to making changes just now with a different IP.


Suggestions on what should be done? ]]<sup>]</sup> 22:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
J929, it seems you understand little about neutrality. A person can be neutral on many issues but biased on others. There is something knowm as freedom of speech, which also has relevance for Misplaced Pages no less, when that freedom is exercised with full grounding and source references, as I have done. You exercise your freedom of speech to show you are very clearly biased against me and other reasonable and measured critics of Sathya Sai Baba such as Andries and Ombudswiki. Your bias is witnessed by your massive pro-Sai baba editing and removals of ad much critical material as you presumably think will stand. I think the Sathya Sai baba page is far, far worse in its adulatory attitude than it ever was, and it will hardly ever be accepted as 'objhective' when you have added links to so many subjective pro-Sai websites.] (]) 18:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
:The BLP is bloated with puffery and sources. It should be shortened substantially. ] (]) 00:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
:: is how it was before the IP changed things, which I think was a good summary of her work. No idea what you're talking about with the sources however. There are technically only 9 in use in the article, with only one of which being a primary source from her university page. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Just revert to the last good version before the IP started editing. If the user continues to edit the article then revert them again and request page protection at ]. ] (]) 01:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::K. I've gone ahead and made the revert, though I kept the lede change the IP made. Since I think that was actually an improvement. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Article has now been protected to prevent further disruptive editing . With thanks, ] (]) 17:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


== Captain Beany ==
the fact information from your own site is not allowed on the Sathya Sai Baba page and then removing sources with critical views on critics consistitues an agenda. The sources you removed were not deemed inappropriate by any wikipedia body. so it is your opinion at work and we all know what that is. how is that neutral? please explain...<br />
which pro Sai Baba websites are you refering to? i rewrote any edits of mine that refered directly to those sites. any content you removed was not from me.


*{{user3|CaptainBeany}}
] (]) 18:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


User:CaptainBeany has been editing the ] article a few times over the past 16 years, as well as other edits related to the subject's novelty political party and former museum. They've made no edits outside of this.
"You exercise your freedom of speech to show you are very clearly biased against me" may i point out you run an entire website to crticising Sathya Sai Baba, a living person...


In 2010 they and asked for a sourced paragraph about a fraud conviction to be removed from the article. Discussions in response at
] (]) 18:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
] and ] decided that this was appropriate biographical content and should not be removed.


:This isn't so much a COI issue as POV. I suggest you both stop the personal attacks and concentrate on the article. Stick to reliable secondary sources, no blogs or web sites that are not owned by mainstream news organizations. Remember, everyone has a POV, and that's ok. The problem arises when POV sneaks in to the article. ] (]) 21:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I posted a belated COI message on their talk page last year, after noticing the issue's history when working on the article: User:CaptainBeany had removed the paragraph in 2016, with nobody realising. The user didn't respond to the talk page template, and today they . ] (]) 13:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


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


== Science of Identity Foundation ==
::ProEdits is continuing to rebuild a segment of the article that has already be deemed a BLP violation... http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=304058770&oldid=304057209#Question At what point does a POV become a COI?
{{archive top|No substantial evidence indicating a conflict of interest has been presented in this complaint. As such, I am closing this discussion as groundless/.{{pb}}When filing at this board, {{u|Sokoreq}} is reminded to explicitly state the reasons that they believe a conflict of interest (as defined in ]). In particular, it is important to to avoid ] by making complaints here while failing to state a reasonable case to conclude that a COI exists. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 04:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
::Thanks for your time...
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
::] (]) 21:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|Science of Identity Foundation}}
* {{userlinks|Hipal}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
This senior editor reverting my constructive edits repeatedly, in which I created a new section to simplify the content and cited reference. However, it appears that the editor is maintaining the article and may have a conflict of interest. Even though I have warned the editor, but now editor has started an edit war. ] (]) 18:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:@], why haven't you attempted to discuss this at ] first? ]&nbsp;] 18:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::Agreed. Looking over the talk page and edits, I don't see anything suggesting Hipal has a COI. Nor do I see anything to evidence that Sokoreq has a vested interest in editing the article, although it is curious that they went straight to the noticeboard without participating in the talk page. —''']''' (]) 18:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@] You are right, I was surprised that the editor keeps reverting my edits. This behavior suggests editor may have ] or feel a sense of ownership of the page. ] (]) 19:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Reverting your edits is evidence that they disagree with you, which is allowed. Disagreeing with you is in no way evidence of a conflict of interest. ] (]) 19:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::@] Yeh, I agree with you, but how many times ? And why? did you check my edit ? The editor was doing endless reverts, even after I requested clarification about their concerns on the talk page. ] (]) 20:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::You were also 'doing endless reverts'. Do you have a conflict of interest? ] (]) 20:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Did you check my edit? What is wrong with that edit? I would like to know so that I can improve myself for next time. Please be specific. Thanks ] (]) 20:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::You can improve yourself for next time by recognizing that reverts are a normal part of Misplaced Pages's editing process (see ]), and by refraining from making unfounded accusations towards other editors just because they reverted you. ] (]) 20:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I followed ], but the editor didn't adhere to the discussion part: 'Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement.' Anyway, did you check my edit that the editor reverted several times? That would be really helpful. ] (]) 20:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::No, you began edit warring after you were reverted. That is not following ]. And you still have not posted at ]. ] (]) 20:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::The editor reverted my edits without any explanation and did so repeatedly. I am still waiting for your insight. Did you check my edit? What mistake did I make? I want to understand; any help would be appreciated. ] (]) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Some of the mistakes that you made were edit warring and posting spurious talk page warnings (and now a noticeboard entry) rather than discussing your edits on the article's associated talk page. I'm not going to contribute to compounding those errors by debating the content with you here. If you want to continue with this, I would suggest that you withdraw the allegations you have made against Hipal, including the spurious vandalism, COI, and harrassment warnings you placed on their talk page, apologize to Hipal, and then go to ] where active discussions are currently taking place without your participation. ] (]) 20:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::You are trying to make it seem like it's my fault only, and you are missing the point. Anyway, thanks; I have already explained my COI concern below. ] (]) 21:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] Already, there is a lot going on in that talk page. ] (]) 18:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@] I agree that it's daunting. However, you don't get to override discussion by jumping straight to a noticeboard, and especially not COIN.—''']''' (]) 18:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@] I apologize, but the editor's behavior was strange and did not make any sense. Now, after seeing the article history, it looks like the editor has a sense of ownership or maybe a conflict of interest. other than that, I don't have any other evidence to prove the COI. I leave the final decision to you, but now I am feeling Anxious about whether I should touch that article because it seems like that editor owns it. This is strange! ] (]) 19:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:I think this can be closed as a groundless complaint. Sokoreq has continued to edit since opening this complaint but has yet to try to discuss the edits in question at ]. No evidence has been provided for conflict of interest, other than the OP's apparent assumption that there is no other possible reason that their edits would be reverted. ]&nbsp;] 21:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


== ] ==
::'''Comments by Radiantenergy''':
* {{userlinks|Kateblau}}
::* ] is no one other than Robert Priddy. His contributions and his userpage serves as evidence to this fact.
::* Next question is Who is Robert Priddy?
:::* Robert Priddy owns negative defamatory attack websites on Sathya Sai Baba in the web and he is ex-follower of Sathya Sai Baba.
::* Robert Priddy websites were banned by Second arbitration commitee. They stated the following
Arbitration commitee stated that "Priddy maintains several web sites: http://home.no.net/rrpriddy/Nos/index.html is a conventional author's web site with links to many of Priddy's works. http://home.chello.no/~reirob/ titled SATHYA SAI BABA stories, myths and deceits http://home.no.net/anir/Sai/ and http://home.no.net/abacusa/ are attack sites containing large amounts of opinion and what appears to be personal experience and unverifiable original research.". http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Robert_Priddy
::* The same 'Robert Priddy' whose websites were banned by second arbitration commitee is edit-warring and causing disruption to the article. His ] with the subject 'Sathya Sai Baba' is well-known. Why is he allowed to edit the Sathya Sai Baba article?.
::* The following evidence to show his disruption to the article several times in the last 2 weeks trying to push his negative agenda on Sathya Sai Baba into the article.
:::,
:::,
:::,
:::.
::* Robert Priddy has been edit-warring and trying to add more and more defamatory material from old 2004 BBC documentary inspite of the ] board here - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=304058770&oldid=304057209#Question declaring the BBC material should be removed as its a clear BLP violation to the subject - Sathya Sai Baba.
::* As per the ] recommendation I removed unneccessary gossip and presented BBC material in neutral tones but Priddy has been adding back more and more defamatory material from the BBC and there by clearly and repeatedly violating ] decision again and again.
::* Robert Priddy editing is definitely detrimental to this article due to his strong ] with the subject Sathya Sai Baba. Please also note that this article already went through 2 arbitrations and may likely go into third arbitration if his edit-warring and disruption don't stop.
Thanks. ] (]) 02:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I'd like to answer this question, ''"At what point does a POV become a COI?"'' The answer is, never. While ] and ] are related they are distinctly different. Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy relates to editing an article to insert bias, either negative or positive, and applies to the '''actions''' of any editor. The COI policy relates to an editor who is editing in a manner that provides a conflict of interest because of their relation to the article subject or their edits. A conflict of interest is just a way of identifying when an editor might possibly be editing Misplaced Pages with ulterior motives because they might get some personal gain out of it (generally of either a financial or promotional nature). Often a person with a COI does have a particular POV when they edit, but there is no point that a POV "becomes" a COI. There seems to be some assumption that a COI is just a strong POV but that's not the case, in fact while a COI can often be harmless, editing to promote a POV is always negative. There is a ] for NPOV violations that is separate from this one.


Multiple draft creations of spammy company articles in a relatively short period of time:
:::Also, if this editor has been editing in violation of ArbCom restrictions, ] is the place to report those violations. In this case, if Proedits is Robert Priddy then there '''is''' a COI because he is adding links to his own writings which could be seen as self-promotion. But I would recommend arbitration enforcement instead of reporting it here, because I believe that violating ArbCom restrictions is a more serious problem. -- ''']'''] 19:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
Received a COI notice January 5th but has continued to edit without declaring any COI. ''']'''<sup>]]</sup> 02:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:здравствуйте! я создаю статьи о компаниях по киборгизации и автоматизации, научных деятелей в этой области, это будет сделано в короткий промежуток времени, потому что проделана большая аналитическая работа по данным компаниям и я загружаю уже составленную ранее информацию, это не реклама, я допустил несколько ошибок, потому что впервые на википедии как автор, пожалуйста, я могу дальше создавать страницы? ] (]) 18:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your time, effort and advice...
:Hello! I am creating articles about companies in cyborgization and automation, scientific figures in this field, this will be done in a short period of time, because a lot of analytical work has been done on these companies and I am uploading previously compiled information, this is not advertising, I made several mistakes, because this is my first time on Misplaced Pages as an author, can I please continue to create pages? ] (]) 18:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::It appears that you are using a LLM like ChatGPT to create these drafts, and that your own communications are machine translated. Is that true? ] (]) 18:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*I've deleted some of these; they all seem to be on the same pattern, making roughly the same claims. I assume LLM use at minimum. ] <small>(])</small> 20:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== John Ortberg ==
] (]) 20:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


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


:Thanks for sharing your concerns. I’d like to address the points you’ve raised to clarify any misunderstandings about my contributions and intentions.
i'd like to offer the latest edit from PoEdits citing the source http://www.rfjvds.dds.nl/ex-baba/engels/shortnews/bbcbroadcastsecretswami.html for validity. Please note '''ex-baba''' in the title...<br />
: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.
Misplaced Pages policy states to "produce a neutral, '''reliably sourced''' encyclopedia"<br />
: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.
If edits with such sources that state "Don’t miss the chance to see it and, above all, to record it!!!" are allowed (from a Misplaced Pages editor with ties to anti Sai Baba websites) can Misplaced Pages policy be upheld?
: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 ==
] (]) 20:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
::If the reference is that the BBC is airing a documentary called "the Secret Swami" that would be a RS. There was certainly nothing particularly pro or anti-sai baba on that website.] (]) 21:00, 8 September 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.


I recently rewrote ] entirely to get rid of the unsourced promotional-like writing . State of article before the rewrite: .
please reduce the website address and something begins to become apparent...<br />
http://www.rfjvds.dds.nl/ex-baba/engels/shortnews/


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


] (]) 05:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Barry Pittard<br />
Related<br />
http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/shortnews/foetus.html
http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/80bdayanand.htm''' <br />
the article is by Barry Pittard , another known anti Sai Baba writer...
(At Call For Media and Government Investigation of Sathya Sai Baba. http://barrypittard.wordpress.com )<br />
the page is further linked to another anti Sai Baba site (under Brian Steel)<br />


: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)
further more the entire page is from http://www.rfjvds.dds.nl/ex-baba/ an anti Sai Baba site...<br />
this was all added by Robert Priddy who holds his own anti Sai Baba websites, which are linked to Brian Steel and Barry Pittard.
Misplaced Pages BLP "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, '''not a tabloid paper'''; '''it is not our job to be sensationalist''', or to be the '''primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives'''"<br />
is this edit using wikipedia as the "primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives"?
how can the source be reliable if one anti Sai Baba writer (Robert Priddy) simply quotes another 'friends' anti Sai Baba website? <br />
what about this 'editing' does wikipedia policy adhere to?
] (]) 22:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


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


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)
{{hatnote|moved from ]}}
:{{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)
] acknowledges he is Michael Smith, also posting to Usenet as with the email address "parellic@". Most of his edits relate to {{la|John Alexander Symonds}}. He appears to have RL connections with the subject (both spying and interest in police corruption, see for example). I have looked over the Symonds article and removed anything which dod not seem to me to be directly supported by the sources. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 07:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


== Paul Devlin (footballer) ==
== Benjiboi COI - how do we move forward ==


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
Without rehashing the whole debate again - It is clear that user Benjiboi has a clear conflict of interest on a number of articles and has been using wikipedia in a promotional manner - two of which are going to be deleted via AFD and do not need to be discussed further. There are also problems with ] which needs eyes and checking to ensure that the material is not promotional and the sources are good. Indeed, Benjiboi's first edits were promotional/COI as they relate to promoting themselves and this was back in 2006 - so eyes are need to check articles they have contributed to significantly and ensure that they are COI free. --] (]) 16:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|Paul Devlin (footballer)}}
*What problems are there with Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence regarding a COI? I don't think a person's edits that are over 3 years old are relevant to the noticeboard. Alleging a COI and not providing any support for it isn't all that helpful. And yes, I'm personally aware of who Benjiboi is, I doubt too many regular editors wouldn't be, but I'm wondering what the specific complaints are. If you don't want to "rehash the whole debate" why post here? -- ''']'''] 21:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|Pdfc2025}}
**That the article references his activity in his Sister personia, has photos of him stuck all over it (that he uploaded), has a sister talkpage where when the conflict of interest was raised and quickly removed by him, under an edit summary of - I dunno I guess it's all in my head and it's not even worth checking to see if there are problems with the article or his other edits. Naw, let's just assume with two promotional articles about to be deleted that he was acting like the driven snow on the third. Let's not bother seeing what else he was upto in the last three years when his first edits here were promotional - I'm sure it's all fine and not worth looking into. --] (]) 21:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
***So you're saying "I think this guy has a COI, please look at everything he's ever done with a fine-toothed comb". Generally noticeboards don't work that way, COI or others. You provide diffs or give some other evidence to make your case. If you're asking for help you're doing a pretty poor job of it with the tone you've taken. -- ''']'''] 01:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
****Actually, containing notices for general attention ''is'' how ''noticeboards'' often work. If you want something specific to get your teeth into, then start by reviewing the discussion ''in the archives of this very noticeboard'', at ], in light of the ''independent'' assertions of a conflict of interest that have now been made, and that cannot be summarily dismissed as the activity of a "stalker" as was the case before.<p>And when you're done with that, try looking at ] where you'll find completely overlooked by the regular editors of the article (q.v.) and talk page (q.v.) a note that ''most of the content of the article is copied verbatim from a press release''. ] (]) 03:24, 10 September 2009 (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)
* '''Comment''', first off, when starting threads about another editor on an admin board you should notify them. Secondly, you're assuming you know my identity and this seems to be entirely based on a ] posting deliberately intended to reveal my identity - they just might have their facts wrong but based on this drama I'll likely change my username to help ease the drama. Third, thank you Uncle G, unfortunetly that blows my cover for neither confirming nor denying if I'm a paid editor but, oh well, it does show a pattern of harassment against me and; in that case other editors cleaned up, I think, one reference in the R Family Vacations article. That same IP had harassed me on the ] article which several of us essentially rewrote from scratch to ed the drama. I think they went on to harass another editor at ]; I believe they were targeting her article more than me but we may never know. The current case might be targeting the Sister Kitty article rather than me as well but I really don't care. As for the press release bits on the Hot House article? You'll likely find but . I think this is Atama's point and if not consider it my point. Please demonstrate what content is actually COI-affected rather than generalizing user x is bad. ] 12:19, 10 September 2009 (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)


== Copied from ] == == ] ==
{{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 ==
I write for a music review site called . While the reputability of the site has never been questioned, I've been a bit afraid of citing my own single and album reviews in articles. The closest I've come so far to adding my own review is in ], where someone else added my review and I trimmed a little so that it didn't look like my review was receiving undue weight. WP:COI says "Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies." The site seems to conform to the policies — it has a somewhat bloglike format like , which was also declared reputable by various other editors; in addition, main Roughstock editor Matt Bjorke has reviewed for other publications such as ], and guest editor Michael Sudhalter also writes for '']'' magazine. I think that the use of my review on "Joey" is neutrally worded. Would it be acceptable to cite my own reviews on song and album articles in a similarly neutral fashion? <span style="color:green">Ten Pound Hammer</span>, his otters and a clue-bat • <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 20:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
== Conflict of Interest with the Peaberry Coffee article ==
* {{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)
I have been editing the Peaberry Coffee article tirelessly over the past several days. Peaberry Coffee, Inc. closed its doors. You can see the Denver Post article . A user named javalover100 keeps undoing the changes which make reference to Peaberry closing. I have commented on javalover100's page, and have gotten no response. I believe there is a definite conflict of interest here, as my information is factual and straight from the cited article. I believe Misplaced Pages should be factual and up to date, not biased and false.
::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 ==
To add insult to injury, javalover100 doesn't use links correctly. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:It's certainly possible that there's a COI (probable even) but regardless of the COI or not, this person is clearly attempting to ] the article. I'm leaving them a 3RR warning and will watch the page and revert, if they revert again it's getting reported to the ]. Thanks for bringing this up. -- ''']'''] 15:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
::Sure enough, they reverted again, so I went ahead and made a report at ]. -- ''']'''] 16:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
::Javalover100 has been blocked for 24 hours, which is the standard for a person who has been reported for edit-warring for the first time. I'm hoping that either they will start talking about their edits on the talk page of the article or will give up what they're doing. I'm keeping the article on my watchlist (and I've also made some major edits to the article just because I thought they were needed). -- ''']'''] 18:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
:::New update, the article has been reverted twice by a brand new user, so I've started up a sockpuppet report ]. -- ''']'''] 23:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
::::The article was reverted once again, by a new user. I reverted to the changes made by Atama. When would it become appropriate to lock the article from all edits? ] (]) 01:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::I wouldn't request page protection at all, and I don't think it would be granted if asked. Page protection is usually for an article being abused by numerous anonymous or brand new accounts (semi-protection) or for an article that is being heatedly warred over by established editors (full protection). When an article is being abused by a single editor over and over, you block that editor. In this case the editor appears to be using sockpuppets to avoid the block, but I'm hoping the sockpuppet investigation report will take care of that. I'm keeping an eye on the page, and while I won't revert the new editors (I don't want to violate ] myself even though it could be argued that these reverts are vandalism) I'll continue to add any new puppets to the report if needed. I'll say this editor is making the job easy, all they are doing is making the same revert over and over again, so it's blatantly obvious who they are. -- ''']'''] 01:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::To elaborate on why the article shouldn't be protected, look at the history of the article and look at all of the ''positive'' edits made, often by anonymous editors. I'd like to think that my edits to the article helped it somewhat also. Protecting the page might stop the abuse but it will also stop good editors from making it even better, so it's something that's only done as a last resort if nothing else will help. -- ''']'''] 01:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
== ] and ] ==
* {{pagelinks|Burning River Buckets}}
* {{userlinks|C.A. Buttons}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
] 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)
The user at ] may have a conflict of interest at ], which appears to be the only article this account actively edits. From the username, it can be interpreted that this account is being used by an office of an establishment, possibly for promoting purposes. User is frequently adding unverifiable and unreferenced material, and ''cites himself as a reference'', in direct violation with ]. User also has no intent on proper use of WikiSyntax and correct template usage, and much of the text appears to be copied off an essay from another website, and is written in a oddly subjective manner. --<span style="border:1px solid yellow;padding:1px;">]</span> | <small>—] ] ]</small> 04:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
::Went back and restored the external links section as well. --] (]) 20:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] and ] == == ] ==


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)
The user at ] has a conflict of interest at ]. User is Cheryl Claypoole Beall, the ex-wife of the proprietor of a particular quizbowl tournament, who still owns a financial stake in said tournament. After her attempts at washing the ] page of all critical information led to that page's deletion, she has now moved on to the general ] page. This user has an unavoidable ideological and financial COI in articles related to high school quizbowl. ] (]) 12:39, 9 September 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)
:*Note: The user had self-identifed here:. I can't see the edits from the National Academic Championship article, but the edits on Quizbowl so far have been her removing uncited and ]ly phrases from the article. (e.g. "Most" player consider buzzer-beaters bad, "Most" question companies omit those questions, HS tournaments "tend to attract stronger teams", that sort of thing). The user may very well have a COI in this area (though it could also be argued that she is a Subject Matter Expert), but as long as her edits are neutral and do not promote the entity she is affiliated with, nor are adverse to her competitors, then she is allowed to edit these types of articles, per the COI guidelines. As I said, I did not see the NAC article edits, but whitewashing criticism is certainly not allowed. In the case of the quizbowl article however, her edits all seem to be tempering some rather leading sentences that by all rights could have been deleted entirely as unsupported. ]] 15:09, 9 September 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 ==


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
*{{userlinks|ARRTAF}}
* {{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)
*{{article|Ralph Petty}}
I first reported this user at ], but the report was denied due to the admin not seeing a connection between the username and the content the user was creating, so the admin suggested I bring the issue here. I feel this user is using WP for promoting an entity. ] (]) 18:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


== Earth System Governance Project ==
: I've added links for the user and the only article that they have edited so far. I've removed a speedy deletion tag as I think that the article does assert notability onto the person. I can't quite see the COI issue either. Can you explain why there is one?{{unsigned|Smartse}}
:(ec) I agree with whoever denied the UAA report. I can't find anything that "ARRTAF" would be representing. There is an organization called ] but I don't see any relation between that organization and the edits that ARRTAF has made. What entity are they supposedly promoting? I see that their contributions (at least undeleted ones) are to the ] article, but do you have any evidence or reason to suspect that this editor is personally connected to Mr. Petty aside from being a ]? -- ''']'''] 18:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
::I do not have any further evidence, no. Like I stated above, I felt AARTAF was promoting someone. I also don't see many third-party sources on the article page that establish notability. I initially thought he was part of the famed Petty racing clan. I also have not found any reliable sources as far as coverage goes for his artwork - maybe I am misinterpreting something? ] (]) 18:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Generally the COI noticeboard is for editors who have an obvious connection to whatever their edits are about, such as someone confirmed to be an employee of a company whose article they have removed criticism from, or a person who created an article about a person whose name matches their username (just a couple of examples). There should be some clear connection, not a suspicion (and I'm not even sure why you'd suspect, the article isn't overly promotional). If you think that someone is editing Misplaced Pages only for promotional purposes but you aren't sure, your best bet is to ] until you have reason not to.


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
:::If you have specific concerns with the article itself, those concerns are best taken care of on the article's talk page. I see that you have a lot of experience in fighting vandals (awesome) so you should be able to recognize what is real vandalism and what isn't, and if this editor crosses the line into actual ] give the proper warnings and report to ] if necessary. -- ''']'''] 18:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|Earth System Governance Project}}
::::Yea, I can pretty well recognize vandalism on the spot, but some isn't so obvious. :) But as I said, another admin recommended coming here for this issue as he didn't see the same thing I did, so I thank you for your response. ] (]) 20:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|EMsmile}}


== ] ==


<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
{{user|Davedolphin}}, a ], has been attempting to remove the claim that ] is a ] from the article . I believe that this claim is both well-attested by two reliable secondary sources (in my preferred version of the article) and factually supported by the publisher's own web site (a vanity press is a press that asks authors to pay for or "invest" in their own books rather than paying authors for the privilege of publishing their books; Tate's web page states that they ask for such investments; therefore despite their denials they are a vanity press). I'm coming here because it seems likely that this account's non-] edits are due to a conflict of interest — whether it's as someone associated directly with the press or an author in denial seems irrelevant. Anyway, more eyes would be appreciated. —] (]) 04:57, 10 September 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)
:PS I just did a little more research. lists Dave Dolphin as Director of Book Production. —] (]) 05:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:12, 19 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:Academy of Achievement 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:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Pamela Chesters Talk:Cloudinary Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dell Technologies Template talk:Editnotices/Page/List of Nintendo franchises Talk:Alan Emrich Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:Richard France (writer) Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Genuine Parts Company Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Group-IB Talk:Hilary Harkness Talk:Hearst Communications Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:Scott Kurashige Talk:Andrew Lack (executive) Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:List of PEN literary awards Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health Talk:Anne Sofie Madsen Talk:Laurence D. Marks Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Modern Meadow Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:Philly Shipyard Talk:Polkadot (blockchain platform) Talk:QuinStreet Talk:Prabhakar Raghavan Talk:Michael Savage (politician) Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:SolidWorks Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko Talk:Sysco Talk:Tamba-Sasayama Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Tencent Cloud Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:TKTS Talk:Trendyol Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:Loretta Ucelli Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Alex Wright (author) Talk:Xero (company) Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Chris Antonopoulos (footballer) and Fort Lauderdale Strikers

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

    I've removed a lot of unsourced material from the Antonopoulos article, but clearly the problems here extend rather further than that. Axad12 (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    The user has now denied on their talk page that they are Antonopoulos. It must be admitted, however, that they appear to be a WP:SPA dedicated solely to promoting Antonopoulos and mentioning him on as many articles as possible.
    It seems unclear whether the user has a COI or is just a fan who is unaware of the policies on sourcing and promotion.
    Any thoughts on whether Antonopoulos satisfies WP:GNG and whether detailed info on beach soccer activities is usually considered suitable for inclusion? Axad12 (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    It seems unlikely that they would be so obsessed with Antonopoulos if they were not either him or someone closely associated with him, and their response is quite odd. There does appear to be a Chris Antonopoulos who signed a professional contract with the Fort Lauderdale Strikers, and to me that satisfies notability as the beach soccer and pre-professional soccer contract section of his career would not make Antonopoulos notable enough to have an article alone. It is of note that Antonopoulos does not appear to have been the primary goalkeeper during his tenure and that the primary goalkeepers were Jorge Valenzuela, Mario Jimenez, and Jim St. Andre at this time. It appears Antonopoulos only made two appearances between 1993 and 1994 which is when he was apparently signed to the team. From the perspective of someone who was not directly involved with the Strikers but would want to write about them, Valenzuela and Jimenez would probably be higher on the priority list than a goalkeeper who only made two appearances. The only parts about Antonopoulos in the article that are specific to him are praising his accomplishments. Raskuly (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Agreed 100%. Axad12 (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Additionally, the photos that the user have all uploaded appear to indicate that whoever is writing the article had close connections with Antonopoulos throughout his career if they in fact have the right to upload them. Raskuly (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    The user continues to obsess over this article and to add large amounts of trivial non-encyclopaedic detail and generally promotional material. Are we really sure that the subject satisfies WP:GNG? Axad12 (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    I generally go by pro athletes being notable enough to have an article, but Antonopoulos appears to have barely been a pro athlete, and like I brought up with the writer before they accused me of acting uncivil, it would make more sense to write articles about Antonopoulos' teammates. I'm not in favor of having an article on Misplaced Pages who's express purpose is to promote someone, even if they may meet the requirement of general notability. This is the first time I've dealt with an issue like this, so I apologize if I am not understanding things correctly as to what makes someone notable enough. Raskuly (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Article is notable. And I deem there's a consensus to proceed with option #1 - tag the 2 pages. RememberOrwell (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Marc Jorgenson

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

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

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

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

    State University of New York at Geneseo

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

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

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

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

    Kathryn Babayan

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

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

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

    Captain Beany

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

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

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

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

    Science of Identity Foundation

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

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

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

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

    User:Kateblau

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

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

    здравствуйте! я создаю статьи о компаниях по киборгизации и автоматизации, научных деятелей в этой области, это будет сделано в короткий промежуток времени, потому что проделана большая аналитическая работа по данным компаниям и я загружаю уже составленную ранее информацию, это не реклама, я допустил несколько ошибок, потому что впервые на википедии как автор, пожалуйста, я могу дальше создавать страницы? Kateblau (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hello! I am creating articles about companies in cyborgization and automation, scientific figures in this field, this will be done in a short period of time, because a lot of analytical work has been done on these companies and I am uploading previously compiled information, this is not advertising, I made several mistakes, because this is my first time on Misplaced Pages as an author, can I please continue to create pages? Kateblau (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    It appears that you are using a LLM like ChatGPT to create these drafts, and that your own communications are machine translated. Is that true? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    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)

    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)

    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


    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)

    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions Add topic