Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:11, 5 March 2022 editMreatwashacked (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,119 editsm Reverted 2 edits by 90.224.200.213 (talk) to last revision by Lowercase sigmabot IIITags: Twinkle Undo← Previous edit Revision as of 06:13, 7 March 2022 edit undoRazali Osman (talk | contribs)112 edits →John Dykes: new sectionTag: RevertedNext edit →
Line 194: Line 194:


The way your account is responding doesn't look like you're new, just stating, nothing wrong. Was a semi-sleeper and all of a sudden you're editing a watch article, glamorizing like how the "respective" brands do to their own website. Misplaced Pages is the one place where facts and truth are untouched by relevant parties and hopefullly it will always be like that. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> The way your account is responding doesn't look like you're new, just stating, nothing wrong. Was a semi-sleeper and all of a sudden you're editing a watch article, glamorizing like how the "respective" brands do to their own website. Misplaced Pages is the one place where facts and truth are untouched by relevant parties and hopefullly it will always be like that. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== John Dykes ==

<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{pagelinks|John Dykes}}
* {{userlinks|Dykesj}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Names suggests that it is a ] account of the BLP ]. It's likely to be John Dykes himself. This has been going on as early as 2009. ] (]) 06:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:13, 7 March 2022

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

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

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

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests Talk:260 Collins Talk:2020 United States Postal Service crisis Talk:Academy of Achievement Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Anaxam Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:Aspen Dental Talk:Atlantic Union Bank Talk:AvePoint Talk:Edward J. Balleisen Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:Neil Barofsky Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Bell Bank Talk:Bobbie (company) Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Gráinne de Búrca Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Pamela Chesters Talk:Cloudinary Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cognita Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Covivio Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dell Technologies Template talk:Editnotices/Page/List of Nintendo franchises Talk:EnterpriseDB Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:Richard France (writer) Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Genuine Parts Company Talk:Dan Gilbert Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Group-IB Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Hilary Harkness Talk:Hearst Communications Talk:Jo Ann Jenkins Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:Elizabeth Koch (publisher) Talk:Scott Kurashige Talk:Andrew Lack (executive) Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:List of PEN literary awards Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health Talk:Anne Sofie Madsen Talk:Laurence D. Marks Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Modern Meadow Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:Ornge Talk:Parexel Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:Philly Shipyard Talk:Polkadot (blockchain platform) Talk:QuinStreet Talk:Prabhakar Raghavan Talk:Michael Savage (politician) Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:SolidWorks Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko Talk:Sysco Talk:Tamba-Sasayama Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Tencent Talk:Tencent Cloud Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:TKTS Talk:Trendyol Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:Loretta Ucelli Talk:Ughelli Power Plant Talk:University of California, San Diego School of Medicine Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Alex Wright (author) Talk:Xero (company) Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Sarah Kerr-Dineen

    User:Suffolk J has an undisclosed COI with the school above and its headmistress, Sarah Kerr-Dineen. After I asked him to disclose the COI on their talk page, they blanked it (diff). They have also been involved in the AfD discussion on the article of Kerr-Dineen (disclosure: and so have I). I have very high certainty regarding this COI, but due to WP:OUTING, I have preferred to send an overview of the situation to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. Feel free to leave me a ping when you reply. Pilaz (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

    This COI has been noticed by me since at least September 2021 (see the following diff and edit summary). Ericoides (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
    Not COI I am pleased to say. I can confirm that I am not being paid by the school. Happy though to stop editing pages related to Oundle and Sarah Kerr-Dineen. I accept that my editing looks a bit like advertising so I shall stop immediately. I apologise for any inconvenience. Thanks. Suffolk J (talk) 9:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
    Suffolk J, You are affiliated with the school. Please follow WP:DISCLOSE and disclose that COI on your user page. Unpaid conflicts of interest are still conflicts of interest. Pilaz (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
    Pilaz, Done. Thank you for making me aware to this. Suffolk J (talk) 21:54 21 February 2022 (UTC)
    Suffolk J, thank you. I consider my initial concerns addressed, and an admin may close this report and decide on warnings/sanctions (or lack thereof) at their discretion. Pilaz (talk) 12:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

    Soramitsu

    There appears to be coordinated editing between these two editors, although the first one has declared that they are paid and the second one has disclaimed any conflict of interest. The first account has created the draft, and has properly declared that they are being paid. The second account now appears to be trying to improve the draft, but is not really neutralizing it. The second is a new account. The first is a new (paid) account except for one edit five months ago. This may be a case where an editor randomly is interested in the company another editor is being paid to edit, or it may be something else .... Robert McClenon (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

    Hello, as far as I am concerned, I don't have any connection to the company or the other editor. If the style I am using within the article does not convey neutrality, I invite another editor to contribute. There are other instances where all mentions of the company and their works have been removed due to this conflict, which, as far as I can tell, were already within[REDACTED] from before this COI began. I am open to improving the draft and adding the information with the sole purpose of improving the information on[REDACTED] regarding cryptocurrencies and their infrastructure. Metaxolotl (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

    There was also User:Junji1337, who says that 'A friend who does work at soramitsu sent me a link and I am happy to help out, so I edited it.' I'm not sure if this is sockpuppetry or just improper coordination, but coordination is obviously happening. - MrOllie (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
    Recorded two of them at Talk:Hyperledger, one at Draft talk:Soramitsu and gave all three the standard {{Gs/alert}} for blockchain and cryptocurrency topics. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
    The draft is a crock. I examined the first seven reference and they are all annoucements and press-releases/whitepapers. It is a brochure article I think they're all coi. One main editor and other follow up editors to fix grammer, spelling, copyedit and so on. It seems to be a common pattern. Often we seems to focus on the main editor but the worker bees, i.e. rest of the company, tend to get missed. scope_creep 12:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
    Editor Metaxolotl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been working on it, almost since he arrived and submitted it for review as well. They're working together. scope_creep 12:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
    Editor Junji1337 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) comes in and added the distributed legdger into the[REDACTED] listing page at Hyperledger and then editwars to keep it. They all have coi. Its offline coordinated activity and for this type of article and work it is coi. scope_creep 12:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

    There is no offline coordinated activity. Whether Soramistu gets published or not does not make a difference to me. I am adding content to the crypto articles because it is factual and relevant. It is unfortunate timing that the initial draft of Soramitsu was effectively done by an employee, who disclosed the relationship. I have no relationship with the company or any other editors working on DLT, CBDC, crypto, etc. If there is any editwar going on, this is because admins have decided that they don't want to implement changes and consider themselves gatekeepers of obsolete information. Hyperledger, DLT, CBDC, etc advancements are happening. If the alleged COI is going to keep[REDACTED] from being updated, what is the point? Metaxolotl (talk) 11:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

    @Metaxolotl: You started working on the draft article sn the same day you arrived, the day after it was created, which looks suspicuous. Of all the articles on Misplaced Pages you selected a draft? Also comments likes this: Reworked the draft to remove product value judgment and advertisement-sounding text. Upon further investigation, company notoriety has been determined by the importance of contributions in Asia and Oceania (ie developments in Cambodia, JICA assignments, PALM9 assignments) as well as the contributions to open-source distributed ledger technology. This looks like you work for the company. scope_creep 10:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
    @Scope creep: I'm confused; how would an edit summary that says in part remove(d) ... advertisement-sounding text mean they work for the company? Miracusaurs (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

    Carpet-bombing of articles on Thermodynamics with undeclared self-citations

    A self-citation is when an editor adds a citation to their own published work into a Misplaced Pages article. It is considered to be a form of WP:Conflict of interest (COI) editing, but is allowed under certain conditions. These are declaring publicly that a COI exists and gaining the support other editors on the Talk page for the inclusion of the self-citation.

    I have, from time to time, seen what I suspected to be COI self-citations in Misplaced Pages, but these have been few, and I have ignored them. However, recent edits by Klaus Schmidt-Rohr to Chemical potential and Talk:Chemical potential, revealed a situation that amazed me.

    I found that the user had added what I estimated (the estimate is so far unchallenged) to be 101 undeclared self-citations of papers by himself to topics in thermodynamics. He has outed himself in real-life as an individual of the same name. This number of citations is unprecedented in my experience. By contrast, Lars Onsager, a Nobel prize-winning giant of 20th century thermodynamics has only 18 citations to his work in Misplaced Pages. Of course, none of these are self-citations, as Onsager died in 1976.

    My edit was the third time editors warned Klaus Schmidt-Rohr about adding self-citations to Misplaced Pages. His reply to me was ad hominen and he claimed that his high and deep level of expertise was justification for his edits. After further consideration he proposed that his 101 previously undeclared self-citations should remain in place and that he give an undertaking to place no further self-citations in Misplaced Pages for the next three years. Do editors think that this is an adequate resolution of the matter? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

    Academics using Misplaced Pages to extensively cite their own research papers is unfortunately not uncommon in my own experience. I've given a pass to some accounts that I genuinely thought were some of the most recognised experts in their field, but 101 self-citations does seem extreme. Is Klaus Schmidt-Rohr a recognised authority in thermodynamics? Having had a look on scholar, I don't know. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
    All my edits have been of good quality, because I have a high level of expertise in the areas that I edit — I'm afraid I have to call non sequitur on that. Anyone who has taken a course from a professor who is world-renowned for their work learns that expertise does not always translate to expository skill. Each of those 101 self-citations will have to be evaluated on their own merits. XOR'easter (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
    Self-citation should only be done in the rare situation where your own work is demonstrably the best or only source available. I agree that this number of self-citations is extreme and unwarranted. In order to protect his own reputation, he should take some time to replace most of those with citations by others wherever appropriate. However I will say that since he made them under his own provenance - in other words, he's not doing this surreptitiously or anything - it's hard for me to think of these as "undeclared" although this may be true in the strictest sense. Certainly self-citation is widely done in academic journals (although should not be excessive), but this is an encyclopedia, not a journal. KeeYou Flib (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

    Browhaus

    Editor GrantHarrison created account on 16 February 2022, and on his 5th edit, started editing Browhaus and uploaded a logo of Browhaus on English Misplaced Pages. I pasted a notice on his talkpage and noted editor continued to edit and did not respond to my notice. I wrote a follow up on his talkpage and editor once again edit the page and fail to respond to my follow up. -- Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 09:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

    @Justanothersgwikieditor:, what about the editor or their edits make you suspect COI? --SVTCobra 12:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
    @SVTCobra: A quick google with the editor name and Browhaus reveals some connection. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
    Indeed. scope_creep 14:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
    Please note there are further updates at Talk:Browhaus --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
    It looks like GrantHarrison is bowing out gracefully. --SVTCobra 17:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

    Partha Kar

    Multiple unreferenced edits have been made. The responsible contributors appear to have only edited this article. The fact that one of them uploaded an image saying it was their own work suggests a potential conflict of interest if they are either the subject of the article or a close acquaintance. A much longer previous version was also made with almost entirely unreferenced information which seemingly could only have been made by someone with close personal knowledge of the subject, though most of this was subsequently removed. 2A02:C7F:F664:8700:61F7:134B:43D6:542C (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

    I have notified Lord7645 of this discussion. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

    Better.com

    I noticed that this fairly new user (November 2021) handled a paid edit request for Better.com very early in their editing history. Seemed a bit strange to me. Could someone check if it was handled properly? I’m not totally clear on how these paid edit requests should be handled and I’ve been editing a while. It appears there may be another may layoff coming and this paid editor may have come to improve the article before it happens. Article about it in Business Standard here: Thriley (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

    I acknowledge that I am a new editor, and that I don't have a long edit history on the wiki. I took interest in editing the page after I saw that it was a stub with a proposal for expansion; seeing that it was a paid edit request I endeavored to be thorough in my analysis of the provided sources, and checking similar articles to make sure the added text followed WP:NPOV. I made the edits in chunks, by section, with the goal of ensuring each individual edit was justified based on the WP:RS provided.
    For reference, you can see the COI user's draft here: User:Kristin_at_Better/Better_(company), as well as the article prior to any of my edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Better.com&oldid=1069072627. (Note, I made some changes to the article other than addressing the COI ER)
    If it is inherently problematic for new editors to answer edit requests then I apologize. I wanted to WP:BEBOLD and expand a stub, and did my best to be thorough and critical with a work I knew was coming from an editor with a conflict of interest. Like Thriley, I would encourage any other editors to review my changes and see if there are any issues that can be corrected. Thank you.
    aismallard (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

    Mikheil Lomtadze

    I've already tagged for CSD, as this is a blatant attempt to circumvent the salting of Mikhail Lomtadze, repeatedly re-created by Bodiadub. It stands to reason Bash is another un-declared paid editor. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

    I am not following the "it stands to reason" argument. Bash7oven seems to have an interest in Uzbek and Kazakh politicians and business people. What is the alleged COI? Overall, the Mikheil Lomtadze article is in a terrible state. As of this writing, it looks like it is suffering from POV edits who wish to denigrate him rather than the product of editors paid to promote him. As a side note, there ought to be more meat in the sources than just constant updates to business appointments and Forbes rich lists to establish notability, although his stature may self-establish that. But I digress. --SVTCobra 17:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
    @SVTCobra: The title is salted after the prior article was deleted. Another editor brought the draft through AfC, where I would have accepted it so I asked for un-protection. The MER-C and ToBeFree did not think the draft should be accepted. Bash7oven has moved that same rejected draft into mainspace, so I find it more likely that off-wiki coordination, rather than coincidental interest in the topic, explains this activity. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
    I personally find this reasoning convincing for off-wiki coordination but am not aware of the (probable) sock farm having a COI with Lomtadze. Nonetheless, I think it would be prudent to wait for Bash7oven to comment on this thread. This particular kind of COI case tends to be quite obtuse to figure out without the other party responding. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
    I've sent this to Afd. It is huge puff piece, exceptionally promo at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mikheil Lomtadze. Such an extreme level of promo would indicate COI. It so far off the scale. scope_creep 02:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

    Gregory J. Feist

    Just noticed he wrote his own article. Needs a look over. scope_creep 12:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

    Similarly named account Gjfeist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started Psychology of science in 2006. Vycl1994 (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
    Not sure if this person meets notability criteria for academics either, but that's for elsewhere. KeeYou Flib (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
    He does. scope_creep 20:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

    Father for son

    Mohit Kapahi is the father of Indian actor Sheehan Kapahi, and it seems he's only here to write Sheehan's prospective Misplaced Pages article, writing a draft and even tried decreasing protection on the page even though it's not protected. All of his contributions relate to this quest to make the page, which is clearly only for promotional purposes. Big stage dad vibes--CreecregofLife (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

    Note that the first revision of Mohit's userpage says we are jointy trying to create this page so there are some WP:ROLE concerns as well. Miracusaurs (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
    Yup. His ideal situation would be providing the competency that his son being 11 years old lacks, but even if he/they weren’t only interested in crafting Sheehan’s page, he doesn’t seem to quite have the fluency in English or the understanding of Misplaced Pages or its requirements to actually reach the competency he believes he brings.--CreecregofLife (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
    Update - User has not edited from their account nor the IP account they used to answer their talk page messages in over 24 hours--CreecregofLife (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

    Jim Harrington by Jim Harrington

    This biography / advertisement page appears to have been written by Mr. Harrington himself in July 2011; I came across it randomly (I enjoy clicking on "Random article," what can I say?) Ten years later, I want to seriously strip it down and take everything out that's not cited online by reliable sources, but wanted to get input from experience editors here first. KeeYou Flib (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

    @KeeYou Flib: Go for it. I doubt there will be much left once you're done, unless you can find better sources. Might be ripe for WP:AFD or WP:A7 speedy. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

    Jamie Merisotis

    I found substantial deletion of content at Jamie Merisotis by a new editor. The editor is potentially an employee editing on behalf of an employer. Blue Riband► 16:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

    @Blue Riband: Please be aware that posting any user's personal information is considered WP:OUTING unless they have already volunteered it. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
    @Drm310: I've removed the above web link to the editor's potential workplace and will be more aware of this in the future.Blue Riband► 14:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you. I have noted this user's account on the article talk page, as well as two other accounts. One is declared paid, the other undeclared but stale and whose edits predate the WP:PAID policy. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

    Chatri Sityodtong

    There seems to be a clear coordinated effort going on for this BLP article, namely from WP:SPA accounts dating back as far back as 2013. Accounts such as Roycegracie100, the most recent active one, has exhibited WP:OWN behavior on the article for almost a decade now and would usually revert other users/IPs if it's something that may not be to the BLP's 'liking'. This behavior could also be seen with PinnacleLight as well as the other accounts. It seems likely that these users are either multiple people hired by the BLP, a single person with multiple accounts, or is the BLP themselves.

    The other article which these accounts are all active in as well, Evolve MMA (first created by Jacksonbulldog, subsequently deleted and then re-recreated by Sadoka74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is also directly connected to the BLP itself, being the creator of the company. Notice how both articles are also rife with puffery. Sadoka74 seems suspect too, pretty much all of their other contributions are also connected to this BLP, with the creation of articles of individuals competing in ONE Championship. Speaking of which, there's definitely something fishy going on with the ONE Championship (founded by the BLP) article as well, with the article exhibiting a similar peacocky tone. Razali Osman (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

    Evolve MMA needs a WP:BEFORE but after removing the unsourced, mis-sourced and unrelated sources... there are only Primary sources remaining. Other two might survive an AfD, though ONE Championship has sourcing issues especially roster, which also has its own list that's not supported by sources.Slywriter (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

    Rolex

    I'm fairly uninvolved here; just saw Asnelt was reported at AIV by Lioneagle13 (which was rejected with a message telling Lioneagle to go to COIN or ANI). Apparently there has been problems with puffery in the Rolex article? I figured that this squabble should be talked about somewhere here and perhaps fixed.

    On January 13th this year, Bishonen removed a lot of puffery from the article and got it semi-protected. More recently, there has been a user, User:Asnelt, who apparently wishes to make the patent section neutral (and was a semi-sleeper before they decided to do this on the Rolex article, nothing wrong with that, but just stating this).

    User:Lioneagle13 says that Asnelt's added information is an advert. (interestingly a lot of their edits seem to be in the "removing puffery and vandalism on pages of watch companies" topic, ex. they've reverted edits on Omega SA while claiming that they were vandalism committed by "a Rolex fanboy from Santa Monica"). The user Spencer left a COI notice on their talk page, another reason why I went to COIN. wizzito | say hello! 08:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

    I'm not affiliated with Rolex or any other watch company and have no conflict of interest whatsoever. It is true that I haven't edited a lot on Misplaced Pages and could be called a semi-sleeper. Reading the patent section of the Rolex article, I felt that it wasn't neutral at all and started reading more into the topic. It's the first time I'm editing on watch topics. Before my edits, five out of the seven list entries in the innovations and patents section described a broad class of invention such as 'self-winding wristwatch' and then went on to say that actually, Rolex did not invent this. It is beyond me how anybody could think this is impartial. This is the "Notable innovations and patents" section. If it's not a Rolex invention after all, it shouldn't be in this section in the first place. My edits go into more detail and describe the actual invention / novelty and still contrast these to earlier inventions. All of these are supported by independent references. Before editing the Rolex page, I explained my concerns on the Rolex Talk page and, as nobody else engaged in the discussion, waited a week before changing the article. Asnelt (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

    The way your account is responding doesn't look like you're new, just stating, nothing wrong. Was a semi-sleeper and all of a sudden you're editing a watch article, glamorizing like how the "respective" brands do to their own website. Misplaced Pages is the one place where facts and truth are untouched by relevant parties and hopefullly it will always be like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lioneagle13 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

    John Dykes

    Names suggests that it is a WP:COI account of the BLP John Dykes. It's likely to be John Dykes himself. This has been going on as early as 2009. Razali Osman (talk) 06:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

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