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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:47, 13 May 2021 view sourceLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,198 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 172) (bot← Previous edit Revision as of 10:35, 13 May 2021 view source Ritchie333 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators125,314 edits →Craig Chaquico: 2cNext edit →
Line 602: Line 602:


:: I've done some work on the Chaquico article, mainly to clean up Cheryl's work, and I've written to Cheryl in the past. It's been a while, but she seemed to be learning the rules and heeding advice. I concluded at the time that she was a fan or maybe a relative. There's been too much cheerleading, esp. for someone who is a relatively minor figure, though this is not to slight Chaquico's ability in any way. As long as she sticks to the facts, avoids cheerleading and verbal inflation, and uses reliable sources I don't see that there is a problem. A couple things. He's a celebrity with some charities, like many celebrities, and it's wrong to red-link those, because they probably won't become notable charities. Another thing I dislike, which came up before, and comes up in many music articles, is the "instruments" section. Although some guitarists do have affection for certain guitars, these sections often get technical and have no relevance to people other than guitarists. I can see why some readers want to know that information, having played guitar myself, but I would like to see such sections eliminated. The bigger concern is that many musicians have "signature models" named after them. These involve agreements with companies to have special models made in their name. It's an honor, but it's also a way to sell guitars. We're not here to elevate sales, people, or agendas. Combine that with mentioning the other guitar brands, and these sections easily become promotional. Another reason is that some guitarists have a large collection of guitars, amps, and pedals during a career. It's not important to know every guitar of every guitarist. For most readers, this information is meaningless. Misplaced Pages is here for ''all'' readers—the public interest rather than special interests. I don't know what "legally retired" means or why it has to be mentioned. We usually don't mention when people retire. Encyclopedias exist in an eternal present.<br />] (]) 03:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC) :: I've done some work on the Chaquico article, mainly to clean up Cheryl's work, and I've written to Cheryl in the past. It's been a while, but she seemed to be learning the rules and heeding advice. I concluded at the time that she was a fan or maybe a relative. There's been too much cheerleading, esp. for someone who is a relatively minor figure, though this is not to slight Chaquico's ability in any way. As long as she sticks to the facts, avoids cheerleading and verbal inflation, and uses reliable sources I don't see that there is a problem. A couple things. He's a celebrity with some charities, like many celebrities, and it's wrong to red-link those, because they probably won't become notable charities. Another thing I dislike, which came up before, and comes up in many music articles, is the "instruments" section. Although some guitarists do have affection for certain guitars, these sections often get technical and have no relevance to people other than guitarists. I can see why some readers want to know that information, having played guitar myself, but I would like to see such sections eliminated. The bigger concern is that many musicians have "signature models" named after them. These involve agreements with companies to have special models made in their name. It's an honor, but it's also a way to sell guitars. We're not here to elevate sales, people, or agendas. Combine that with mentioning the other guitar brands, and these sections easily become promotional. Another reason is that some guitarists have a large collection of guitars, amps, and pedals during a career. It's not important to know every guitar of every guitarist. For most readers, this information is meaningless. Misplaced Pages is here for ''all'' readers—the public interest rather than special interests. I don't know what "legally retired" means or why it has to be mentioned. We usually don't mention when people retire. Encyclopedias exist in an eternal present.<br />] (]) 03:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

::: I've tried to work with Cheryl and others on cleaning up ] and resolve a long-standing dispute with ] on the talk page, but I ended up dropping out of the discussion through sheer exhaustion. I've taken quite a number of music-related articles to GA, sometimes in collaboration with other editors (waves to {{u|JG66}}) and occasionally resolving disputes on them, and I have never seen somebody without a conflict of interest generate as much discussion as has happened here. As Vmavanti says, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter if Cheryl has a direct association with Chaquico or is a huge fan of his work, as long as she can stick to the relevant policies and guidelines and avoid getting into lengthy arguments with people. ] ] ] 10:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


== Dave Bautista == == Dave Bautista ==

Revision as of 10:35, 13 May 2021

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

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

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

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests Talk:260 Collins Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:American Speech–Language–Hearing Association Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:Aspen Dental Talk:Atlantic Union Bank Talk:AvePoint Talk:Edward J. Balleisen Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Edi Birsan Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Bunq Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Connie Chan (politician) Talk:Chyanne Chen Talk:Pamela Chesters Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Adela Demetja Talk:Doncaster College Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:Richard France (writer) Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire Talk:Group-IB Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Insight Meditation Society Talk:International Motors Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:List of PEN literary awards Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health Talk:Anne Sofie Madsen Talk:Laurence D. Marks Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician) Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:QuinStreet Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:SolidWorks Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko Talk:Sysco Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Tencent Cloud Talk:Tiger Global Management Talk:Trendyol Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Scott Wiener Talk:Alex Wright (author) Talk:Xero (company) Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Benjamin Smith (executive)

    I came across Benjamin Smith (executive) after seeing this request for help posted on Misplaced Pages Commons. The article’s recent history shows some edits made by two WP:SPA IP editors in November 2020 and April 2021 which might be connected to the subject in some way, possibly even undisclosed paid editing. Prior to that, some other IPs appear to have by trying to add content related to a bonus controversy to the article since April 2020; so, the most recent edits could be an attempt to try and remove that. The edits made by Ben.lipsey trying to add a photo aren’t too much of a COI issue, but only registered account user’s can upload photos to Commons. So, it’s possible that the IPs and Ben.lipsey are one and the same and the IPs’s edits do appear to be COI related.

    Would some others mind taking a look at this and assessing whether there’s anything to be concerned about here? The image copyright issue will be resolved over at Commons; it’s the edits made by the two IP accounts which need some assessing. —- Marchjuly (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

    Commons request now archived at Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/04#File: Benjamin Smith - Air France.jpg. TSventon (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

    Thank you for taking a look at this Neutrality. I would've gone to the article's talk page first, but the three accounts mentioned above appear to be one-off SPAs and the article doesn't seem to be one that is very highly watched by others. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    Hello - the edits are factual and cited/sourced, I was just trying to clean it up and add some context. I also sent a copy of the photo to photosubmissions email with a copyright release template, as requested, so hopefully that resolves that issue. Nothing was edited/removed regarding any bonus controversy. Could you please kindly help me understand what is necessary to resolve this issue and remove the 'deletion' flag?
    Thank you
    Ben.lipsey (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
    Ben.lipsey thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest (COI) on your talk page. The article has been nominated for deletion by scope creep because they were unable to find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject (see WP:GNG). There is a link to the deletion discussion in the notice at the top of the page. So to show the article should be kept you need to find more in depth coverage in reliable sources and post a list of the best three or four at the deletion discussion. The Paris-Match article looks like a start. Deletion discussions can be closed after a week so if you need a few days to find sources you could explain in the discussion, with a disclosure of your COI. TSventon (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
    I have added Cagatio and MezzG to the list. The editing history of Cagatio, the article creator seems odd. They made 74 edits between 2016 and 2019, creating two articles, Terrazas de los Andes in 2017 with 8 references and Benjamin Smith (executive) in 2018 with 7 references. Their edits to other articles added 0 references. They also added the photo File:Benjamin_Smith_AirFranceKLM.jpg as their own work. MezzG is a single purpose account, with one edit to the en article and eight to the fr article. TSventon (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

    Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation

    This page has been purged of information by an anonymous user several times over the past few months, seemingly to protect the reputation of the Institute which is the subject of the article. Any revision which reintroduces information having to do with the School of the Americas is deleted not long after on the grounds of "spreading misinformation". 2600:1700:4EBC:1000:A5AE:F4EE:9347:C12 (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

    RELX, Elsevier

    Articles
    Users
    • Some Yoodaba plus many distinct IPs all using the same proxy network.

    For more context, see Talk:Elsevier § Undisclosed paid edits. An undisclosed paid editing company is doing reputation management on Elsevier and RELX, removing criticism, etc. Help with clean up is appreciated. Most of the activity uses rotating IP proxies, so there's not much more to be done in terms of blocks. This affects many other other articles about companies, but opening this thread at the moment while I gather more evidence on others. MarioGom (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

    Maybe the concerned articles could be semi-protected? That should prevent IP socking (and force user account socking instead, which is much harder). Casspedia (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    I'm not sure page protection is needed, at least for Elsevier. It has many active editors watching and part of the UPE edits were quickly reverted even before I reported them. The IP socking is annoying, but it's not really fast-paced. I think we can handle it without protection as long as we are aware of what's going on, and a few editors keep an eye on these articles. MarioGom (talk) 07:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
    My expectation is that this sockfarm changes tactics now. They expected this proxy network to be undetectable, and they used that for the sensitive part of their operation. Now that they know it is widely detectable, I don't expect them to continue using it any much longer. But who knows, it will take some time to confirm. MarioGom (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
    @MarioGom: If I'm following the breadcrumbs properly, the proxy network appears as ordinary residential ISPs when they were editing logged out. In other words a residential proxy. Is this a new development? - Bri.public (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
    Bri.public: Yes. These networks are usually marketed as residential proxies. They are characterized by highly rotating IPs from residential ISPs. Endpoints are usually mobile phones with dodgy apps or malware. Some of the habitual users at WPOP, including me, are now using a private service to identify these residential proxies. The one used here is a "premium" network that is relatively hard to get an account with, so it's usually used by more established companies. This is different from other proxy networks that accept many SEO users, and the malware proxy networks that are mainly about criminal activity.
    I'm somewhat reluctant to specify some of the technical details, because I don't want to publish here a guide on "how to sock for UPE and get away with it" (BEANS), but on the other hand, I think at some point we need wider community awareness of this phenomenon. MarioGom (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
    This is very disturbing and I think I found a well known security blogger describing this residential proxy network or one just like it. The worst thing is it appears at least some of the 4G/home broadband providers are effectively in cahoots selling their IP ranges. I agree we need more awareness ... maybe someone would like to do a Signpost piece? I could help sponsor, copyedit, other gnomish things if needed. - Bri.public (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
    The pattern was pretty obvious: the employees stopped trying to get their edits performed by asking on the talk page. Random unregistered users are unlikely to come out of the woodwork and suddenly get interested in updating financial details on an article like this, so I suspected it was just Elsevier employees editing logged out. I'm not sure there's such an urgency as to justify semiprotection.
    Someone should however find a way to contact whoever is responsible for this pattern of edits. I hate to say it, but the most effective method may be Twitter: some of users most active in Elsevier-related discussions are @tomreller, @ClaudioElsevier and @paul_abrahams. Nemo 16:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
    Sure. If they fire the marketing agency it would be great. It's one of the most active UPE sockfarms. MarioGom (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Just for the record: it looks like a couple of days after opening this thread, Yoodaba has completely stopped using the proxy network I mentioned. I think they are testing other proxies and VPNs, so probably we'll be back at this after some time. MarioGom (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

    IP editor at J. D. Mesnard

    IP pBlocked with warning.--- Possibly (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2021 (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.

    The IP editor User:184.182.32.239 is scrubbing the pages of Arizona state legislators again. The account was previously given a temporary block. I highlighted the blatant COI nature of the account in November 2020 (along with other IP accounts). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

    • I issued a partial block, for a year, for those two articles. IP, if you're going to do more of this, I'm just going to block you altogether. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2021 (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.

    More Lesbianadvocate sockfarm creations

    Lesbianadvocate UPE sockfarm has created these, in addition to managing or creating the stuff in #Smithfield Foods above. Some are really bad and may be g5 eligible. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

    I believe this IP is acting for the sockfarm as well. Note edits on Steve Starks , created by the sockfarm; and recent and typically promotional edits at Vista Outdoor and Federal Premium Ammunition , which are probably being managed by Lesbianadvocate. Administrator attention would be welcome, because WP:WPOP deemed the technical data inconclusive , and did not block. - Bri.public (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

    In the arms cluster, they have also edited CCI (ammunition) and Savage Arms. MarioGom (talk) 09:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

    More proxies, blocked yesterday. Have edited the arms cluster and other stuff consistent with LA sockfarm. - Bri.public (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

    Another Astrill VPN batch used by LA (reported to WP:WPOP already):

    There is also a lot of activity from various Hong Kong IPs. I think that's not proxies, but the possible location of the sockfarm or a team related to it. MarioGom (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

    Shinjiru colo webhost, blocked. Looks like same sockfarm. - Bri.public (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

    It is an Astrill VPN node. It's definitely them. MarioGom (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

    Please review my edit

    I have added a citation to my academic article to a Misplaced Pages policy page which made an unreferenced claim that my research cofirms. Per best practices, I am self-reporting here for a review. Diff to my addition. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

    I reverted the addition:
    1. No references are required for Misplaced Pages policy
    2. As a reference it was malformed on several levels (repetitive content; reference text not in a proper section...)
    3. The paper is not free-access
    4. From the free-access abstract I understand that a key aspect of the study is its survey of "... the importance of interpersonal conflict as an understudied yet highly significant factor": the reference was added to a section that did not mention in any guise such "interpersonal conflict" aspect. If you would like that this aspect is mentioned in the policy section (which might be a good idea but might need some thought), please propose it on talk and find consensus for it.
    --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    ...and I've reverted your revert, since the objections are silly. Policy pages don't need references, but there's no prohibition on them, and it's common to use footnotes to link to related reading. Imperfect formatting is easily fixed. Sources don't have to be freely accessible. The full text specifically discusses harassment and directly supports the text it's attached to. – Joe (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

    Priyamvada Gopal

    PostcolonialLitNerd is a WP:SPA that is making promotional edits to Gopal, removing controversies, writing in a non-neutral manner, and adding numerous external links. In the space of their editing career, PostcolonialLitNerd made 86 edits to Gopal and the talk page and one edit to their own talk page. Nothing else. When queried at User talk:PostcolonialLitNerd#Priyamvada Gopal on a possible relationship they denied such a relationship. This denial is not credible to me, and User:Xxanthippe and User:Atchom have raised concerns as well. Pikavoom (talk) 07:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

    Feel free to initiate an independent review of the neutrality and veracity of my edits in the Sewell and 'Controversies' sections. Happy to keep reverting edits that are malign and foolish. PostcolonialLitNerd (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    I confirm that I regard the conduct of spa User:PostcolonialLitNerd as highly suspicious. It might be appropriate to investigate if there is any connection with User:Sidra2311. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC).
    I second this. PostcolonialLitNerd has only edited that single article since they joined Misplaced Pages in 2019, with a marked bias in favour of the subject. They have since engaged in one-side canvassing, been rude and dismissive, and refused to engage in good faith discussion more generally. Atchom (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    Atchom, do you know what projection means? PostcolonialLitNerd (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

    Edit warring continues. Xxanthippe. (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC).

    User is willing to openly disregard WP:V to push their POV and removes opinion pieces published in high-quality press (The Times) critical of the article's subject . Should their behaviour perhaps rather be discussed at WP:ANI? 15 (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

    Kailash Surendranath

    Kailash surendranath, who seems to be the subject of Kailash Surendranath has made some significant edits to the article recently, adding unsourced information as well as information that can be verified by existing citations. He was previously warned about a COI in 2015, and I warned him again yesterday. My warning was ignored and he simply edited the article again. From his contribution history he is clearly a single-purpose account as the only article he has edited is his BLP and his edits are clearly not neutral. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

    Yeah, on their talk page the first warning is marked as being given "6 years, 3 months, 25 days ago". I am pretty sure they are ignoring the warnings! Perhaps a case for a pBlock.--- Possibly (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

    Julian Smith (saxophonist)

    Not the place for declared paid editors (Chrisfilip) to request edits. You have already made the request on the article's talk page.--- Possibly (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2021 (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.

    Please check the talk page Talk:Julian_Smith_(saxophonist) for requested edits. Chrisfilip (talk) 09:08, 30 April 2021 (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.

    Groton, Massachusetts

    While I was patrolling recent changes, I came across an editor by the name of Groton Herald— and they were editing Groton, Massachusetts. I immediately thought there might be a COI here, so I checked out their edit. Turns out that they removed an entire paragraph talking about Groton’s former anti-Catholic and racial prejudices. I think that this user, being known as Groton Herald (hint-hint, it’s in the name), is trying to promote Groton by removing the disagreeable parts of its past. They said it themself in their edit summary: ‘this page needs moderation’. They said they’ll be back to work on it more. This user is obviously trying to ‘moderate’ the page by removing certain sections. This cannot go on; Misplaced Pages is not a censored place. We don’t leave out parts of history we find offensive. Definite COI— Groton Herald’s the name of a newspaper up there. HelenDegenerate (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

    HelenDegenerate, did you read the Additional notes at the top of this page, which say "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"? I warned Groton Herald about their user name and Kinu subsequently blocked them. TSventon (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    TSventon, I didn’t see that part... sorry if I took up valuable space on this noticeboard. ;’( HelenDegenerate (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    HelenDegenerate, don't worry, I just wanted to let you know for next time. TSventon (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

    Barry Smolin

    Nothing too egregious here, but I figured I'd float the possibility. The editor seems to be overwhelmingly single-purpose, editing only Barry Smolin, Smolin's school, Alexander Hamilton High School (Los Angeles), a previous iteration called Barry smolin that wasn't formally moved, Fairfax High School (Los Angeles), Hartfield-Zodys, Mata Hari, List of University of California, Los Angeles people, Veronica Lake, Weeds (TV Series), and a redirect called Mr. Smolin– nearly all to insert edits mentioning Smolin, NPOV or not. The editing has been pretty consistent since 2008. The editing is remarkably quick, too– this added a new song of Smolin's the exact same day it was released, as was that one,, that one, that one (actually, it was somehow edited in the day before the source said it was released), and that one. I didn't cherry-pick examples, those are the five most recent songs added to the page's discography.

    This (along with this stuck out at me as being against WP:NPOV, but again, nothing too serious. The first version of the page, shown here, also looks like it was pretty promotional. It was redirected without a formal move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) 05:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

    I edited the page to remove some things I thought were needless puffery or otherwise inadherent to WP:NPOV. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

    References

    1. "Deep In The Sea-Meant Pond, by Mr. Smolin & Double Naught Spy Car". Mr. Smolin. Retrieved 2021-05-01.
    2. "A Pocketful of Poesies, by Mr. Smolin & Marc Doten". Mr. Smolin. Retrieved 2021-05-01.
    3. "Tender Buttons, by Mr. Smolin". Mr. Smolin. Retrieved 2021-05-01.
    4. "A Trespass Offering, by Mr. Smolin". Mr. Smolin. Retrieved 2021-05-01.
    5. "I Knew It By The River, by Mr. Smolin". Mr. Smolin. Retrieved 2021-05-01.
    Looks like a WP:BLP1E on the basis of the unproven accusation. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC),
    @Xxanthippe: hmm? sorry, I'm not understanding. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    I cannot see any notability except for the as yet unproven accusation. prod or AfD would be appropriate on basis of BLP1E Xxanthippe (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC).
    @Xxanthippe: I happen to disagree, please take a look at the sources for teaching and radio. If we could avoid a weeklong floor fight on this, that'd be appreciated, to be honest. I obviously can't stop you but please double check before nominating. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    Notability might be a genuine question. The huge glut of amazon.com links at the end and many other bad sources are clouding things.--- Possibly (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Possibly: Without question those are extraneous, given the possible COI on the page, but even the LA times article on the harassment acknowledges prior notability. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

    PodShare

    Where to start, where to start?! I asked Zedembee about their connection to multiple subjects and was immediately shutdown, despite their insistence after uploading multiple copyright violations (one of which, afaict, hasn't been uploaded elsewhere on the internet, which begs the question where it came from) that they had full permission from the photographers and in the same conversation discuss what the subject themselves desire while still maintaining they don't have any connection. link The Wolkstein article has been a long term spam/coi/paid target as well and they have some rather...niche interests in promoting specific subjects here.
    On top of that PodShare (and ignores the critical coverage of it where it is labeled as exploitative and greedy,) created by Zedembee is a highly promotional, heavily whitewashed article, interconnected with Elvina Beck, also created by Zedembee, the founder. It's dubious notability really makes me question how one would decide to write at such promotional length about something so...small. In any case, the user has declined to declare their connection, despite there being an obvious one, so I'm bringing it here. TAXIDICAE💰 20:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    Hello, I am the editor under discussion here. First of all, I would note this language at the top of this page: "When investigating possible cases of conflict of interest editing, editors must be careful not to out other editors. Misplaced Pages's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline." Praxidicae claims he/she was "immediately shutdown"; in fact, I feel I have given quite a bit of time to responding to his/her requests and ultimately declined to make a biographical statement of my identity, which appears to be the only way I can answer his/her repeated hostile questions (questions, I would note, that START from a position of bad faith).
    The impartiality of the PodShare page has already been discussed on its Talk page, including the omission of negative coverage. See my responses there for full background, but note that the vast majority of negative coverage came from social media, which is not admissible in this encyclopedia. A note on negative coverage was, in fact, added, by me, in response to the suggestions of another editor that I ultimately found to be very reasonable.
    Far from being suspicious, it is surely only natural to have an interest in both the founder of a company and the company itself. (Cf. Elon Musk and Space X or Tesla, for example.) So, yes, I created both pages. Note that both pages contain only fully-sourced facts (see the long list of references for each page). Praxidicae's position appears to be that the tone does not suit his or her own personal opinion of the company or its founder. This is not itself a position of neutrality. If Praxidicae feels facts are missing (which he or she implies in his/her use of "whitewashed), then he or she is free to source and add them. But please note such missing ("whitewashed") facts are hypothetical.
    Praxidicae comments that I have "some rather...niche interests". On the contrary, I have made 706 contributions to Misplaced Pages in the 18 months or so since I registered, on subjects that are remarkable only for being various. I believe I've edited everything but the kitchen sink. Those pages I've created from scratch are all correspondent with the interests declared on my User page. It's not actually Praxidicae's role on this website to judge whether my (or anyone else's) interests are suspiciously "niche"; on closer inspection, I'm sure his or her own editing timeline would reveal some pretty "niche" interests too. The tone is this remark speaks to Praxidicae's broader hostility and presumption.
    Every single one of those 706 contributions has been from my own mind, of my own will, with my own effort to find sources, and without pay from the subject or from anyone on Earth for that matter. It is true that I posted two images incorrectly, misunderstanding the meaning of what it is to "represent" the copyright holder of the image. (I never once represented myself as that copyright holder, by the way.) I've learned a bunch in the past few days about the high standards on Misplaced Pages around posted images. All good, and (now) understood.
    As I have written elsewhere, it is entirely possible to have the permission of the subject of a photograph and/or the photographer without having a connection with him or her that constitutes a Conflict Of Interest.
    I really don't have more to say, and won't be responding to any more comments because I'm frankly exhausted by the ton of bricks a small handful of editors have felt compelled to drop on me lately. I maintain my integrity, and encourage all of you to remember that good faith is integral to a collaborative environment.
    You must take whatever actions you see fit, after considering all I have said here. I will say in advance that I accept and respect your decision. Thanks for your time and all the best. Zedembee (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    Holy smokes, that is a seriously large, time-wasting wall of text. Please avoid such rambling in future and just get straight to the point. --- Possibly (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    • As I have written elsewhere, it is entirely possible to have the permission of the subject of a photograph and/or the photographer without having a connection with him or her that constitutes a Conflict Of Interest. It certainly is, however that combined with the fact that you also spoke at length on the subjects desire for another photo means that those two statements are not compatible. Further, your implication that I outed you is laughable. TAXIDICAE💰 21:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    • It's already difficult to explain why Zedembee would be this interested in these subjects, but why they get so defensive over it that they report me for vandalism and after that's declined report me again is beyond me. In the report they accuse me of "disrespectful/creepy comments". All I've said is that Wolkstein "just happens to look like that" (to indicate a particular photo wasn't unrepresentative) and that "her face is a bit unusual", which it is. She has less facial symmetry than most people, which means the way I usually process and crop photos isn't optimal for her. It's a technical judgment, but for some reason they saw a personal attack in it. On Talk:Lauren Wolkstein Zedembee said that you people don't get to sit on the internet and decide whether a picture of a woman (or man for that matter) is "unflattering" or "best" which is odd because first of all, yes we do, and second, why does Zedembee get to sit on the internet and judge the picture of woman? And when asked when a photo they uploaded was taken (which I knew to be from 2012) which they had claimed to be "much more recent" than 2017, they suddenly refuse to answer and tell other editors to take a 24-hour break from the discussion.. while they continue adding to the discussion themselves. Finally, there's the odd comment Please consider that multiple people may have tried to replace that photo in recognition that it looks nothing like Lauren! What you call a conspiracy could equally be a consensus among people with more authority than you on what defines "lifelike" in a photo of the subject. when it was just explained that these were WP:SPAs. Why defend SPAs? Zedembee acts like an overprotective dad but I can't fathom why. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Comment - I've moved the article to draft space, because of the preponderance of unreliable references. I believe that a review involving multiple editors will be to everyone's benefit. Deb (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Comment @Alexis Jazz: There is usually only two reasons why a person would react in a situation like that. The first one is: the lady is a close personal friend, and the editor doesn't like her slighted, which indicates a weak COI, or that some kind of relationship exists between them, perhaps fiduciary, perhaps financial, perhaps interpersonal loyalty, perhaps romance. In either situation, there is something not quite right. scope_creep 11:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
      Scope creep, I think you're right. In the end, it doesn't really matter which one of these it is, something is not quite right either way. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

    Caladrius Biosciences

    Would people care to take a look at Caladrius Biosciences? I removed copyvio there on 2 April, then attempted to clean the page up a bit. Now we have a new SPA editor – who has not disclosed any connection to the company – adding ill-sourced promotional content to the page. I've reverted a couple of times but am not prepared to engage in an edit-war, so bringing it here. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

    I rolled them back and added a level 1 UPE warning to their talk page. The kind of precise corporate material they are adding (unsourced or only sourced to the company) is without a doubt PR work.--- Possibly (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    This is MoslePete. I am not sure how to respond to the COI question. I have tried to update the page, which was completely out of date and mostly inaccurate. I affirm that I am not being paid to do so. I do not believe there is a COI, but here are the facts for you to decide: I own a small position the stock (less than $20,000), and I know the investor relations person at the company. He said they would like to have the page expanded and updated but can't do it themselves due to COI. They can't ask their investment bankers and/or analysts to do it either, for the same reasons. Since I know the company well, he asked me if I would do it, making clear that they cannot and would not pay me. I agreed to do it as a favor to him. I am a CFA and am well aware of professional, ethical requirements. I added references after your earlier requests, and I have only added factual information, not opinions. My purpose is to make the page more accurate and informative for anyone interested in Caladrius Biosciences. Thank you.MoslePete (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    MoslePete, You have a financial interest in the company. You were asked by a representative of the company to edit the article. This is unambiguously COI. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    MoslePete, that's textbook COI, I'm afraid. And asking you to edit because they have a COI was a dirty trick and you should tell them so. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

    Owning stock in a company is not the same as getting paid. The company would like to have accurate information on the page. The current version is completely out of date and mostly incorrect, and someone from the company previously asked Misplaced Pages to edit and update it. That was denied because the request came from the company. Only someone who knows the company can accurately edit the page, and the only people likely to know it well would be either employees, shareholders or those with a business relationship. The criterion for COI is direct or indirect compensation, and I emphatically deny either. There is no information in my attempted edits that is either opinion or promotional. It is all factual, and I give supporting references. By the standards that are being applied, thwre is no way to get a functional page on Caladrius, so it might was well be deleted altogether. I am new to Misplaced Pages editing and don't fully understand it. So please clarify who makes these decisions. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoslePete (talk • contribs)

    MoslePete, conflicts of interest don't have to involve payment. Owning stock is considered a financial conflict of interest since you directly benefit from the company looking good (though there is debate as to how much stock one needs to own before we consider it an FCOI). The more important bit here, however, is that you were asked to make changes by a representative of the company. When you are editing on behalf of someone with a conflict of interest, you are subject to the same rules that the person with the COI is - you can't launder a COI by having a proxy edit for you (despite what innumerable sketchy paid-editing companies would have you believe). Declare your COI, request edits on the talk page, and we'll all be good here. a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 16:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

    I wasn't asked to "make changes," the IR person suggested that I take a look and update the page, certainly not dictating content. I repeat that the content is factual, accurate and not opinionated. I tried to go to my user page for a COI, but Misplaced Pages said that there is no such page. It said if in doubt, please "verify that MoslePete exists." How am I supposed to do that? It is not clear to me how to do a COI statement, and I have already explained the situation. It appears that even with a COI disclosure, I will still need to request edits on the talk page. Who decides, and will I need to do that every time? That makes the entire procedure very cumbersome. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoslePete (talk • contribs) 20:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

    "Make changes" vs "update the page" is a distinction without a difference. You can create your user page yourself, just type in the edit box that comes up when you try to visit it. You can read about how to disclose COI at Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_disclose_a_COI. - MrOllie (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this page. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
    • ] (] · ])

    MoslePete. I want to disclose a connection with the subject Caladrius Biosciences. I am a retired ecurities analyst, a CFA and part-time portfolio consultant. I own less than $20,000 of Caladrius stock (CLBS). Since I know the company well, the IR person asked me to look at the Misplaced Pages entry, which is completely out-of-date and mostly inaccurate. He said that neither the company nor its investment bankers or analysts could do an update due to COI, and he said that the company couldn't pay me directly or indirectly. I would like to ensure accurate, factual information for anyone interested in Caladrius, and you will see in the archived history that what I have provided is purely factual and not promotional. If any material appears to violate the guidelines, maybe it could be removed. Can someone tell me if this COI disclusure meets the requirements to resolve the issue? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoslePete (talk • contribs) 15:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

    Likely COI editing

    I'm hesitant to even bring this up, not sure if it warrants an ANI, but... Yesterday while patrolling the uncategorised articles list, I came across this short and unreferenced stub about a book that is scheduled for publishing only next year, and replaced it with a redir to the author's article, Matthew Richardson (author). I then realised that the latter was virtually unreferenced as well, and tagged it for refimprove and notability. Cut a long story short, I think the creator of both articles (and a third one, The Royal Book of Lists), Hadropithecus, may be the same as the author of the two books. When I queried this, I didn't get any response, but I did receive a somewhat irate reply telling me more or less to back off. My next move would be to AfD the articles in question, but I also don't want to come across as a harasser (any more than I already do!), and certainly not if I'm actually the one in the wrong here (in which case, I'm more than happy to have that pointed out to me). So I guess what I'm after is a second opinion and a sanity check, of sorts? TIA, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

    Look, this is really bordering on stalking. The very old page was updated by me in the spirit of Misplaced Pages, and now some anonymous creep is demanding proof of the subject's "notability." I have no means of deleting the page myself, so I'm asking Misplaced Pages to please do it for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadropithecus (talk • contribs) 15:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

    @DoubleGrazing: Moved from ANI to WP:COIN. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

    Yeah seems like textbook COI and self-promotion since the user has only edited articles to insert and promote Matthew Richardson. Who else would know such details on a book not to be published for another year as well. Looks like this has been going on for a decade+, and with lots of non-logged in editing as well judging by the IPs. They even admit it's themselves on their talk page. So yes, all mentions of this person are pure self-promotion and clear COI editing. Since there has not been a single other established editor that has done more than maintenance edits on that page in over a decade, I think it's pretty safe to assume that this person is in fact not notable. We can take it to AfD though and let the board decide. Canterbury Tail talk 15:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    Okay, I've moved an AfD on one of the articles WP:Articles for deletion/The Royal Book of Lists to start with. Waiting to see what happens to the 'parent' article on the author; if that gets deleted by one means or another, then the other book article (currently a redir) can presumably just get speedied? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    The author's AFD is here.--- Possibly (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

    Tim Sarkes

    Hello. I've noticed that there is a user called "Tim2345678" (formerly PDavidson1) who claims to be the manager of Pete Davidson. He said that his name is "Tim", and after searching up the name of Pete Davidson's manager, I saw that he's named Tim Sarkes. (Redacted) Zai 21:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

    UPDATE: He just requested to have his account deleted, see and Zai 21:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    @-Zai-: I redacted the part where you connect a user to a real name. You have to be careful about our outing policy, even where it seems obvious. Basically, everyone is entitled to privacy and you cannot post someone's real name unless they have themselves posted that name previously. --- Possibly (talk) 09:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

    Mark Twitchell

    Verissa77 partially blocked by Cullen328. Appears resolved.--- Possibly (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2021 (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.

    There is an editor of the Mark Twitchell article who repeatedly asserts in the first sentence of the article that Mr. Twitchell, most often cited in media for having murdered a man in 2011, is a "filmmaker and artist". I left "filmmaker", though I'm not sure whether "aspiring filmmaker" wouldn't be more accurate, since Mr. Twitchell's IMDb page shows that he started three but did not complete any films, and most news articles I've seen refer to him as an aspiring filmmaker if his work is mentioned. I removed the word "artist", however, since this claim was not cited or substantiated. Verissa77 added it back, and continued to add it back when I edited it out again. Looking back at the page's Revision History, I can see that I and other editors, including EclecticEnnui, Cullen328, Tayroc122 and several more, have attempted to amend this since Verissa77 first added it, and have repeatedly requested a citation from Verissa77 for this claim, which they have not provided. In 2019, Tayroc122 pointed out Verissa77's repeat edits in the Editor Assistance page, and expressed concern that autobiography may be an issue here, or that Verissa77 is a close associate of Mr. Twitchell's, since Verissa77 only contributes to the Mark Twitchell page. The page's Revision History shows that on 17 October 2020, Verissa77 re-added "Filmmaker" into the first sentence after user Jackreacher69 edited it out, and wrote in their Edit Summary, "This was his profession, whether haters like it or not. FUJ" -- which indicates that Tayroc122's concerns may have been valid.

    Given the nature of his crimes, I think it's important to be mindful of how Mr. Twitchell is described in this article, and I think describing him as an "artist", especially without substantiating or citing that claim, starts to look like subjective assessment rather than verifiable fact, and is therefore inappropriate. Considering the duration of time that this editor has repeatedly made this unsubstantiated edit despite other editors' repeated requests for citation and amendment, I'm wondering whether a COI tag may be called for at the head of the page, and I'd welcome other editors' insight or input. Cisternet (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

    I have blocked Verissa77 from editing Mark Twitchell. Cisternet, please inform Verissa77 as required according to the instructions on this page. Cullen Let's discuss it 00:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

    Done! Cisternet (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2021 (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.

    Guggenheim Partners

    Well, this is a first: the IP editor "24.186.167.121" instructed me, "Sir, please stop editing our page!" after I removed some blatant COI puffery from the Guggenheim Partners article. I think the article deserves more eyes, as it seems clear that COI accounts have been systematically editing the page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

    I hope it becomes a part of the paid editor's guidebook to always say ""Sir, please stop editing our page!", as the attention it brings it is very helpful in the long-run. --- Possibly (talk) 04:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

    Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini

    Appears to have a COI with the subject matter, user has only edited that one article (and a draft that's also linked with the subject of the article) and has ignored warnings of a potential COI. Padgriffin 05:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

    JianHao Tan

    After the BLP article "JianHao Tan" was created, I noticed that there are two what seems to be single purpose accounts, Epwxx and Kayleytankaiqi123, editing the page. Their activities on the article are suspiciously of WP:COI nature, trying to include promotional/advertorial/puffery content. These content have been largely removed or rephrased by other editors, including myself. (Disclosure: a bulk of the current content is written by me, mostly in response to the COI edits, and following up on my earlier page review actions.)

    The username Kayleytankaiqi123 is a simple variation of a real name of someone who appears to be connected to Titan Digital Media (TDM), the company owned by the subject of the BLP. As to whether the account owner is the person, mentioned prior, connected to TDM, I shall not make a conjecture. Their edits and file upload (File:Jianhao Tan 3 Sept 2019.jpg) lead me to believe that the owner of the account is at the very least connected to Titan Digital Media. Epwxx had also uploaded a similar file earlier, claiming that the file was owned by them without a proper copyright notice or OTRS ticket (see deletion notice on Commons). The file in this instance was cropped, not of a quality as high as the above, and had no relevant metadata to lend an appearance of ownership of the file.

    I also received an off-wiki email from Titan Digital Media asking for offline discussion over the content, which I have duly rejected and insisted that any discussions relating to the content should be kept on Misplaced Pages. Although there is no direct evidence that the person who emailed is one of the two SPAs, it demonstrates a level of awareness by the company of the article, and an intent to control the narrative of the subject on this platform.

    I am not out to have the accounts restricted from editing on Misplaced Pages in general, but I appreciate that COI editors respect the process established when comes to COI editing. Both accounts have been warned about COI editing for at least a full 24 hours and they had continue to edit the BLP since. – robertsky (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

    Noted that Epwxx (talk · contribs) continued to add promotional trivia about subject matter (referring to the Five Cs of Singapore) even after being alerted to this COI. See diff here--Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    The ammendments that have been made by Kayleytankaiqi123 and Epwxx are those headed by the commercial team at Titan Digital Media, and in full transparency there is no intention to control the narrative of the subject on this platform nor to conduct any fraudulent activity on this page. The intention is to correct and modify content based on secondary sources available of Jianhao Tan.
    For future notices, aside from blatant removal of our content stating factual recognition and links to specified 2nd/3rd party sources, would appreciate FULL transparency on why factual information we have added has been removed. We offered an external discussion off wikipedia with the intention to obtain better guidance on navigating around the guidance under this platform, but guidance was not supported.
    On the photo change, kindly share with us what forms of recognition is needed and the next steps.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Epwxx (talk • contribs)
    @Epwxx: you are engaging in what a) undisclosed paid editing, b) using multiple accounts in a deceptive way and c)what sounds like promotional editing. All this sounds like good reasons for your account to be blocked, but you can take certain actions to prevent this:
    • place the proper paid editing declaration on your user page(s)
    • stop using multiple accounts in a deceptive way
    • use the article talk page to request edits rather than directly editing the page, per WP:COI.
    Can you do these things? I am wondering if one of our administrators, GeneralNotability, thinks.--- Possibly (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Epwxx: What is needed to be done for COI editing had been pointed out in the messages that were left on your user talk pages. For COI edits, they are scrutinised closer to ensure that they are not promotional/advertorial/puffery in nature. (For an essay on puffery: WP:PUFFERY) Not all facts are important and be included on Misplaced Pages, and sometimes removed. See Misplaced Pages:Handling trivia as well. Removal or reversion of the content you had included were and are usually accompanied by edit summaries, though sometimes short, which explain why the information have been removed. For COI edits in general, not only yours, they are usually biased favourably towards the subject of the article (sometimes unfavourably if the edits are made in bad faith, but that's for another time), and COI editors fail to see that as they are too involved with the subject (which is the reason why I don't edit on the article about the organisation I am a member of, unless it is for general maintenance purposes). The tug of war between what is being added and removed does lead to what we call here as edit warring, which is discouraged. Thus, it is highly encouraged for a conversation to happen on Talk page of the article and refrain from editing in the article itself, see WP:BRD and as what Possibly had laid out above. If there is really an issue with the content or items of note to be included, it will be acted on by non-COI editors, like me or Justanothersgwikieditor. The process is slower than editing directly, but it is better than to have ill-feelings generated through fighting over what is to be included directly on the article.
    Apologies for any unintended insinuations made above. If you do not mind, let's make an arrangement on guiding you on navigating on Misplaced Pages as you had requested.– robertsky (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    Also for release of photos into wikicommons, you can send an email with a release based on the email template at c:Commons:Email_templates. Instructions on how to do so is on that page as well. – robertsky (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    Possibly, I am wondering if one of our administrators, GeneralNotability, thinks - yes, I do indeed think from time to time :). Epwxx, Kayleytankaiqi123, Possibly is correct. I expect confirmation from you both that you will follow what Possibly said (I will also accept one account saying that the other will not be used any further). Additionally, I expect you to confirm that only one person is operating each account, as shared accounts are not permitted. These are not negotiable terms, and failure to comply will result in a block. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

    LowTierGod


    After attempting to have the LowTierGod article deleted multiple times. Shortscircuit has resorted to relentlessly manipulating his own article to remove true, factual and damning information about himself, and adding information that only the subject would know about. including a photo that they added not found anywhere else on the internet he added himself. It is clear this subject has a conflict of interest, but admins have given him access to edit this protected article

    Argonoct (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

    Fixing templates. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    Given that multiple other editors have disagreed with you adding some of the information you're trying to add, and Shortscircuit has not uploaded any files, I'm not buying this one. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    GeneralNotability I dont edit on wikipedia lol, I made this account to correct the record and put in factual information, but my submissions weren't up to par with what Misplaced Pages demands. and to point out this obvious conflict of interest from this user about this notable streamer I pay attention to. They created their account when this article was posted to demolish it. Even the author of the article first suspected this user was the subject himself.Argonoct (talk) 07:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


    Please stop speculating and accusing me of having a conflict of interest. And please stop accusing me of being a particular individual. I have never said I am any particular person. I have never disclosed my personal identify. So please stop accusing me of who I am.

    Regarding the issue of people adding "damning information" (in your own words) to the LowTierGod article - this has already been talked about in detail many times on the article talk page. They were addressed by multiple admins and removed by admins with very good reason too. You can read about it there. There were even 2 people blocked by admins from Misplaced Pages because of that, as far as I know. So please stop accusing me of who I am with such speculation. Shortscircuit (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

    Shortscircuit It obviously is you lol, you created your account when this wiki was posted and is the only wiki you edit. you manipulated the system to get all the information you didnt like removed after you couldn't remove the whole wiki. how did you get a hold of that profile picture that LTG never posted online?Argonoct (talk) 07:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    You are yet again accusing me of more false accusations. Please stop it. Again, the things you are trying to add have already been talked about many times in that article talk page. I believe I do not need to defend myself to you any more. Shortscircuit (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    Shortscircuit My only argument is that you have a conflict of interest editing this page, since you either are the subject or are close to them, and should not be able to edit this page. GeneralNotability Hopefully admins will agree Argonoct (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    Given Shortscircuit's actions, I suspect they're connected to the subject in some way (which is not to say that they are necessarily the subject) - sorry, Shortscircuit, but when someone comes in using phrases like "false and malicious statements" and "article was created for the purpose of disparaging the subject," that's a pretty strong COI indicator. Nevertheless, I am also quite concerned with Argonoct's actions here, including apparently trying to use COI/N to push their side in a content dispute where several other editors have already told them no. To the article talk page with both of you. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    GeneralNotability I'm not trying to push any narrative, I submitted edit requests while providing sources apparently not credible enough for Wiki and that's all. I don't intend on editing this page nor have I attempted to in several weeks. someone just needed to point this conflict of interest out from this userArgonoct (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    I am not connected to the subject. I do regret that I used such strong language that was inappropriate and unwarranted when discussing the article, like calling a person a "troll". What I do not regret though is trying to remove the content that was inappropriate. The edit history of this article (and even the discussions about it on various pages) is so long and extremely messy. The state of the article previously... was a total mess and it was filled with violations of policy. I am not the only person that thinks this way either. For this, I would like to especially draw attention to the section "Troll Ops" under the talk page for the article. This was posted by another editor. What this editor said there is very true. I may seem to say things strongly at times, but I do not want Misplaced Pages to be used at all for harassment and stalking (I am not pointing fingers at any one person here). This is not the only article I am concerned about when it comes to that kind of thing. A few weeks ago I had posted to one of the admins expressing my concern for this kind of thing happening in other places on Misplaced Pages. You can see it here in one of my replies on his talk page, dated 06:56, 14 April 2021. Shortscircuit (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    Your actions make it clear you are connected to the subject, You created your account the day the article was published in order to demolish it, which you attempted twice. when that didn't work, you manipulated the system to dismantle the information you didn't like. and began posting things that only the subject himself would have, such as the profile picture not seen anywhere on the internet before. Even now you are concerned about "Trolling" for what is factual information about the subject, probably you. GeneralNotability the evidence is clear, please block Shortscircuit from editing his own page.Argonoct (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    Like I said before, stop accusing me of false accusations saying things like "its obviously you the evidence is clear" and "stop editing your own page". I never disclosed my personal identity or information before. I am not connected to the subject and I am not the subject. Your apparent obsession with pushing this content and your "damning information" suggests you have not actually read this article's talk page. I would politely ask that you go and read the article's talk page where this kind of topic has already been discussed in detail multiple times, and multiple admins had already explained the reasons. Like I said before, I do not need to defend myself to you any more. Shortscircuit (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
    GeneralNotability, as I wrote in my previous reply I hope that when you have time you would look at the Troll Ops section in the article talk page. This especially was posted by another Misplaced Pages editor, not by me. There is also this admin talk page section reply timed 06:56, 14 April 2021. These I hope would shed more light into where I am coming from. This is not the only article I am concerned about when it comes to this kind of thing happening on Misplaced Pages. Shortscircuit (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
    I am one of the administrators mentioned above, and I can state with complete confidence that this article will not be transformed into a hit piece against WP:BLP policy. It was crammed full of policy violating content when it first came to my attention. Yes, Shortscircuit is a new editor focused on this article, but that editor has displayed a much better understanding of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines than any other new editor active on LowTierGod. I hope that they will move on to editing other topics here on Misplaced Pages. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
    Cullen328 so you are just going to ignore the fact this user created their account the day this article was published and immediately attempted to have it removed twice without any discussion? Of course he's going to have a "good understanding" and make more of an effort editing this page because ITS ABOUT HIM, that's a very poor argument. Many people have pointed out this user's conflict of interest including the author themselves, but nothing has been done about it and you continue to defend them. Seems odd that an admin would defend someone with a blatant conflict of interest. GeneralNotability Please look into this and possibly this other admin's insubordinationArgonoct (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
    Cullen328 GeneralNotability Still waiting for a replyArgonoct (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    Argonoct, you have no solid evidence other than your own strong feelings. The editor's contributions have been positive. Try also to be positive. Cullen Let's discuss it 20:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

    Sulaiman Al-Fahim

    Long-term COI problems on this page. Not only have high-quality RS been whitewashed from the page but the most ludicrous form of puffery kept being added to the page. The first two accounts are sufficiently recent in their activities that checkuser analyses can be done on them to check whether this is part of a broader network of socks. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

    Snooganssnoogans, big warning at the top of the page: you have to notify folks. I've notified the two recently-active accounts. Everyone appears to be  Stale for checkuser purposes, but there does seem to be concerted puffery afoot. I've ECP'd the article for a year and given COI warnings to the two active accounts. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

    Sparsh Mital citations

    I noticed a pattern today, of several accounts editing on computer science topics and citing their edits exclusively to works by Sparsh Mittal. These accounts activity span the last few years. Newwikieditor678 got some talk page warnings about citation spamming in march 2015, it looks like the other accounts all started up after that. Some are very recently active. Sometimes the cite is filled out with author, other times only a bare link is used. Given how often this name pops up in a Misplaced Pages search, I expect that there are more such accounts to be found. Thoughts? - MrOllie (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

    I'm guessing meatpuppetry, with the possibility of a couple of these being the same person...Mittal having his grad students cite him in Misplaced Pages, perhaps? Gotta love academics "helping" by getting themselves cited everywhere. Recommend nuking the lot, though it's going to be a painful search. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    I looked at all the edit summaries, which are stylistically very similar. Additionally, this diff by Newwikieditor678 certainly sounds like the author of the paper they are discussing.--- Possibly (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

    Covidreporter

    User Covidreporter seems to be using Misplaced Pages to try to publish negative-sounding articles about a legal dispute over a COVID app. The articles are not making it past the draft stage, but their use of WP is clearly promotional, and the COI is obvious. They did not respond to the COI template on their talk page. I'd say they are WP:NOTHERE.--- Possibly (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

    Possibly, hammer applied. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    Some history of COI editing at related article Robert Roberts (cardiologist) as well. MrOllie (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

    MuscleTech

    This is a case of a COI editor sharing an account as can be seen by this edit VVikingTalkEdits 13:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

    Looks like there was an attempt to conceal shared use as well. No matter, the account was blocked for username violation anyway. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

    Ebeyiye

    This editor has made over 100 edits, and every one has been to add a link to an article authored by "Will Guzmán". Magnolia677 (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

    Appears to be definite COI. The links all go to the domain blackpast.org, which states that Will Guzmán is a copyeditor for the site, and also states his Twitter handle is @ebeyiye.  — sbb (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    I'm feeling nice, pblocked them from mainspace. If they think one of these links is actually relevant to an article, they can make a constructive edit request. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

    Dan Schulman


    I suspect there is something fishy going on here. Seems 'someone' is trying to scrub the articles subjects wife from his article. First the IP 81.178.153.165 made a sneaky edit by removing cited content and added a Citation Needed tag here. 20 minutes later 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco removed the content. Another IP added back the content. Dataness_is_next_to_godliness account was then created and removed content again, hiding it among a few similar edits, seen here. Can someone look into this? P.S. I do not know how to notify the editors, I tried the code and it did not work, sorry. Botanical99 (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

    Botanical99, I've notified those editors for you. There is indeed something a little strange here. I think 49ers is unrelated to any funny business, it looks like they were just making a good-faith effort to clean up the article. The IP added a citation to a court case, which Dataness later removed. That's the strange part - Dataness went through and removed a bunch of citations to unicourt.com. They're not wrong - court documents are almost never acceptable sources in BLPs - but it's a weird choice of cleanup for a brand-new editor. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    GeneralNotability Thanks for the ping. I believe I was trying to clean up the naked URL reference on there. Let me know how I can help out.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    49ersBelongInSanFrancisco nothing in particular to do here - you just accidentally walked into the middle of some other editors doing something strange. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

    Social earnings ratio

    Looks like citations are of low quality - very difficult to verify any of the claims made here from sources other than those directly quoting those involved in the project. It's not clear why this work is notable.2A00:23C7:A30C:CF00:212D:D5D8:9868:D823 (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

    User:God Metric's edits comprise one edit creating the social earnings ratio article in February 2016 and four further edits relating to the article in March 2016, so they are clearly a single purpose account. If social earnings ratio is not a notable topic, that is a matter for WP:AFD, not here. TSventon (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

    Girish and The Chronicles

    User blocked by GeneralNotability, article cleaned up by Melcous--- Possibly (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2021 (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.

    Username suggests a conflict of interest. I went to the user's Talk page to discuss this with him but found that there were already CoI notices on there from 2014, 2019 and 2020. Edits to the possibly autobiographical article are substantial and article has been tagged as as having a possible CoI since 2019. Editor has not responded to the CoI notices. Tacyarg (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

    Tacyarg, partial block applied, article probably needs cleanup. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2021 (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.

    Brynn Thayer

    Admits to working for the subject and attempting to put a new picture in the article to which they may or may not have copyright or permissions. Orange Mike | Talk 01:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

    Their only edits were to try to change the photo, from this to this. But they should be disclosing. --- Possibly (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

    Jay S. Hennick

    Just admitted while discussing copyrights, that this is his boss and the company his boss runs. Orange Mike | Talk 03:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

    Here's the diff where he admits he is working on his boss' page.--- Possibly (talk) 04:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
    added Legenderpy, who seems related.--- Possibly (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

    World Eskimo Indian Olympics

    Ravenstrick has admitted to being a board member of the WEIO organization. Evidently, they believe this article is not an encyclopedia entry but rather part of their social media strategy. Their contributions to Wikimedia projects amount to removing a properly-licensed logo from the article and replacing it with one which isn't properly licensed and was previously deleted from Commons as a copyvio, under the rationale that the former logo is "outdated". This rationale fails our purposes of visual identification. They have demonstrated a lack of willingness to interface with the community and seek advice on how to do this right. Last I checked, we operate on consensus and not "my way or the highway". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

    He also added WEIO's telephone number, advertiser style, in one of his edit summaries. Don't know what you want to do with this information, though. 49.144.201.250 (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

    Bembo Bold

    Strongly looks like an autobiography. Bembo Bold is only interested in Owen Williams, created both of the above articles and continues to edit Owen Williams (artists) despite COI warnings. I put Owen Williams (artist) up for AfD as the only real notability derives from Owen Williams' long-running dispute with the Yukon Arts Centre. --- Possibly (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

    The named accounts have been confirmed as matching; just waiting for tags. --- Possibly (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

    EuroChem

    The user edits only pages related to Andrey Melnichenko, his company EuroChem, his yacht A, his foundation and his wife. They recently removed the whole "HSE Issues" section on EuroChem. They edit the same pages on WP:es, WP:de, WP:fr (where they always add "positive" content about the company and remove some of the "negative" one, even if it’s correctly sourced), on WP:ru and on WP:sr.

    Okhjon (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

    This is false and untrue, I am not paid directly or indirectly for any edits, and I do not have any financial stake in either entity. The fact that I may have a personal interest in certain topics doesn't mean that any of my edits are biased or promoted. On the contrary, all my edits are factually accurate and well referenced, and are all neutral (not positive or negative). The parts removed had been clearly either vandalism, lacked credible references or appeared to be promoted by those who must have been paid to post negative content about the subjects of the articles (as a black PR). The nature of your comments and reversals create an impression that you may have an interest in providing negative information about the subjects of the articles. All my edits comply with Misplaced Pages standards and are well referenced, and you should not remove them because you have any personal bias. I am an honest journalist by profession who writes objectively on the topics of my personal interest and your edits should not go to the extent of harassment and abuse.

    Sasha-int (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

    James Valitchka

    Kamala Tiwari seems upset that there are some maintenance tags on the article. She seems to believe it is bullying. And also has concluded that I am a racist. (see conversation on her talk page) I think it is fairly obvious she has a COI here for whatever reason but she denies it. Kate Fong is an obvious sock or meat puppet of Kamala Tiwari. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

    I've done a fairly large trim of the article, removing a stack of content that has been unsourced for 8 years and is non-verifiable/puffery. There is a question of notability, I considered taking it to AfD, but would be interested in what others think. Melcous (talk) 06:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    It's weird that the Toronto Sun backs the claim that he won the "Barack Obama Influencer Award" but I can't find any additional information on what that actually is. Like, is it awarded by Obama, or just named after him? That seems like something that should be easy to find out, but I didn't have any luck. I think overall he probably is just notable enough for an article, but there have been serious, repeated problems with puffery that make it hard to sort out what is real here. Side note: both of the accounts have now been blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    After digging further into his much-touted accomplishments, I have changed my mind. This guy is not notable. The awards are from a home school program. His supposed novel he wrote when he was eight was printed by a vanity press. This whole thing smells like his mom is behind it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

    Eran Elhaik

    Likely conflict of interest and brigade editing by conspiracy theorists. IcknieldRidgeway (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

    I recently came across this article, and unfortunately the page frequently seems to the edited by supporters of the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry, which widely accepted to be a fringe theory or full blown pseudoscience. Many of the main editors on the page have been banned before for antisemitic editing and seem to have strong anti-zionist political agendas. This is obvious on the talk page for the article and in many of the edit summaries for the page. I flagged the page for NPOV but it's still a mess with frequent editing from these users.

    On further inspection, I noticed that user RocksRsand has been exclusively editing pages related to Eran Elhaik for many years, often with specific detail. In 2014, user Shrike politely asked if he was related to Eran Elhaik and no response was forthcoming. The edits have continued. It seems likely to be that RocksRsand has a conflict of interest with Eran Elhaik

    Craig Chaquico

    Dec 2015 Disclosed paid editing on behalf of Chaquico by PilotRock61: here

    April 2017 Mr Chaquico files a lawsuit to prevent other former members of Jefferson Starship from using the band’s name and started complaining on FB and apparently having his representatives campaign to get online sites to use the term “legally retired”, among other preferred language and content. (no links, feels like an invasion of privacy)

    May 2017 Cheryl Fullerton adds “legally retired” into JS: here

    Sept 2017 Cheryl Fullerton adds “legally retired” into Craig Chaquico: here

    June 2019 Cajetsetter adds “legally retired” into JS: here

    Similar change to another website noted as having been requested by representatives of Chaquico:

    Nov 2019 Wayback Machine version of Jefferson Starship at classicbands.com: here
    April 2020 version now contains the phrases “legally retired” and “(special thanks to Craig Chaquico's representatives for correcting the accuracy of this bio)” here

    Cheryl Fullerton denies a connection, but it seems pretty clear she was at minimum canvassed here. Craig Chaquico certainly seems to be canvassing paid and possibly unpaid editors to get his preferred language into the articles. I am proposing Cheryl Fullerton be treated as having a COI and asked to make edit requests on articles surrounding Craig Chaquico rather than editing directly. I'm not so concerned about the other two, who have ceased editing, but I've included/am notifying them because they're part of the evidence here. —valereee (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

    I've done some work on the Chaquico article, mainly to clean up Cheryl's work, and I've written to Cheryl in the past. It's been a while, but she seemed to be learning the rules and heeding advice. I concluded at the time that she was a fan or maybe a relative. There's been too much cheerleading, esp. for someone who is a relatively minor figure, though this is not to slight Chaquico's ability in any way. As long as she sticks to the facts, avoids cheerleading and verbal inflation, and uses reliable sources I don't see that there is a problem. A couple things. He's a celebrity with some charities, like many celebrities, and it's wrong to red-link those, because they probably won't become notable charities. Another thing I dislike, which came up before, and comes up in many music articles, is the "instruments" section. Although some guitarists do have affection for certain guitars, these sections often get technical and have no relevance to people other than guitarists. I can see why some readers want to know that information, having played guitar myself, but I would like to see such sections eliminated. The bigger concern is that many musicians have "signature models" named after them. These involve agreements with companies to have special models made in their name. It's an honor, but it's also a way to sell guitars. We're not here to elevate sales, people, or agendas. Combine that with mentioning the other guitar brands, and these sections easily become promotional. Another reason is that some guitarists have a large collection of guitars, amps, and pedals during a career. It's not important to know every guitar of every guitarist. For most readers, this information is meaningless. Misplaced Pages is here for all readers—the public interest rather than special interests. I don't know what "legally retired" means or why it has to be mentioned. We usually don't mention when people retire. Encyclopedias exist in an eternal present.
    Vmavanti (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    I've tried to work with Cheryl and others on cleaning up Jefferson Starship and resolve a long-standing dispute with walls of text on the talk page, but I ended up dropping out of the discussion through sheer exhaustion. I've taken quite a number of music-related articles to GA, sometimes in collaboration with other editors (waves to JG66) and occasionally resolving disputes on them, and I have never seen somebody without a conflict of interest generate as much discussion as has happened here. As Vmavanti says, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter if Cheryl has a direct association with Chaquico or is a huge fan of his work, as long as she can stick to the relevant policies and guidelines and avoid getting into lengthy arguments with people. Ritchie333 10:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

    Dave Bautista

    Jmmeisner placed an {{edit semi-protected}} at Dave Bautista and declared I'm requesting this edit as a representative of Dave Bautista per this. On further investigation I found (Redacted) confirms WP:COI and a strong case of WP:PAID. Since a declaration was made I added {{Paid}} on their userpage after informing them and advised not to edit Dave Bautista and related pages here per Misplaced Pages community policies. But the editor remains in denial at first of being associated with Dave Bautista. Also, they tried to remove the disclosed information per later. I would like experienced admins and editors to keep a watch and resolve the issue and guide them. Thank you Run n Fly (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


    I would greatly appreciate some guidance in this process. I acknowledged from the beginning of my edit request that I work with Dave Bautista. In addition to that, I am his oldest childhood friend and am simply trying to correct an error in his birthplace. I'm not sure how doing that could raise any conflict of interest, but I would like to certify here that I am not being paid directly or indirectly to try to correct this error. The reference that it's associated with is also a inactive fan site. Please just let me know what the best process would be to make the correction. In addition, I originally was trying to also correct his height as he is 6'4". When he was in the WWE, they used to say 6'6" as the page properly represents, it's just not his real height. The WWE takes some liberties with height and weight, as they also did with the spelling of his name. Please advise. Thank you. Respectfully, Jmmeisner (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

    Jmmeisner, it is not necessary for you to be paid to make this specific edit. If you are a talent manager for him, then you are a paid editor and must make the declaration. Please confine yourself to making edit requests on the article talk page. We need a reliable source for his height. If the WWE exaggerates heights, then it is best to just remove his height, so I will do that. Cullen Let's discuss it 20:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    Cullen328, I had actually changed the paid template over to the normal COI userbox, since I can see plenty of room for a talent manager/friend to want to provide correct information without actually being paid for that. If anyone disagrees feel free to revert back on his userpage. I feel that they're trying to do right by Misplaced Pages in disclosing their COI immediately and not asking for any crazy puffery edits to be made, and we were a little BITEy with them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    Jmmeisner, but what if we find you irksome? Seriously, though: request changes on the Talk page. Misplaced Pages is one place you'll certainly find people keen to help Mr. Bautista. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    I redacted some of Run n Fly's original post. It's pretty much the definition of what the outing policy says not to do: do not post outside websites confirming someone's place of employement etc.--- Possibly (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


    Thank you all. You'd be surprised how happiness this will bring. I appreciate your kindness and patience. I've just never done this before. Jmmeisner (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

    Alan J. Cooper

    The Alan J. Cooper article has been subject to persistent probable COI editing since 2019, in an attempt to remove information relating to allegations of misconduct while Cooper was employed at the University of Adelaide which he was subsequently dismissed for, as well as to promote Cooper's work. Examples of such edits include . There was a long edit war in March 2020 between Andersjames0921 and other editors surrounding the issue, which has now been redacted. On the talk page Talk:Alan_J._Cooper#Content_Dispute_in_WP:BLPArticle, 1884e (apparently a throwaway account) stated that Andersjames0921 "is very close to the subject of this article". In the last few days brand new account Ledgereyrar has been edit warring to include edits originally made by Andersjames0921, they have specifically denied having a COI or having any relation to Andersjames0921 on my talk page but I am not convinced. In edit summaries they have accused me of "suppressing information", regarding removing statements to Cooper's self-published website stating that he settled out of court with Adelaide University in 2020, which I am uncomfortable including because they have no other corroboration. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

    Categories: