Misplaced Pages

:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 03:13, 15 March 2019 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 140) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:13, 15 March 2019 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 140) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) "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: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: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) User talk:Yehuda J. Glantz Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    User:AnnieCR 1991

    AnnieCR 1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Draft:Ashlee Rich Stephenson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Draft:Chris Wilson (pollster) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Draft:Todd Vitale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Draft:Bryon Allen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Draft:WPA Intelligence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Draft:Alex Muir (political consultant) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User:AnnieCR 1991/sandbox/Ashlee Rich Stephenson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    All of this editor's edits have to do with persons associated with the political consulting firm of WPA Intelligence. The editor has attempted to declare a conflict of interest with regard to Stephenson (but has created a malformed declaration box) but has not made any declaration with any other subjects, and they are all associated with the same firm.Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

    By the way, I have nominated all of these for deletion. See Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:WPA Intelligence. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
    Robert, the editor has now made such a declaration on their user page. Lourdes 06:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

    Your semi-regular helping of suspicious articles

    I've rejigged the heuristics used to generate the list - hopefully there are a lot less false positives this time around but less places for spammers to hide. For reference, this is about 16 days worth of pages. MER-C 12:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

    Sorry, missed a bunch. I think you'll find even richer pickings in this sublist. I've also found a way to reduce false positives further. MER-C 16:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

    Batch until 9 March

    Have fun! MER-C 14:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

    Mary Kay Letourneau

    Need some opinions on what to do about an editor known as Smmary, who says she is Mary Kay Letourneau, editing the Mary Kay Letourneau article and wanting things in the article changed if she is not to edit it. See this and what Smmary stated below it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

    Smmary was asked 8 years ago by SarekOfVulcan to verify their identity with OTRS, to which, they gave this long reply where they stated, among other things, "I only have a little time each week work on this...but I will keep on it" and "I will be learning." I don't know if OTRS was ever contacted by Smmary about this, but if that is the only mechanism which exists for identification, then it would seem prudent for them to do so.  Spintendo  10:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah, Spintendo. I'll see if anyone watching Misplaced Pages talk:Conflict of interest has any interest in weighing in on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
    As seen here, Smmary is going on about why the Los Angeles Times isn't a reliable source, and on with other thoughts about what reliable sources are. And the posts are so lengthy. I don't know where to begin, and, because Smmary is a newbie, it will take a lot of time to get Smmary to understand how things work here. The lengthy replies are far too lengthy for me to patiently dissect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
    Will see if the WP:BLP noticeboard will weigh in on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

    I hope the answer is that this editor can be treated with respect and understanding. Also, the editor is not whitewashing. Many of the editor's changes are substantiated by additional NPOV-secondary sourcing. Tabloid journalism permeates the subject's story, but mustn't also shape this BLP. I continue helping this editor and have found only one divergence from NPOV-secondary, which I can as easily attribute to the salicious and near-tabloid status of People magazine as to any deception on the editor's part. While single-issue with COI, the editor has improved this BLP, and has grown more aware of NPOV-Secondary dynamics. Understand how NPOV-Primary tends to call out to those whose lives hinged on those sources, even as the tabloid press of so-called journalists twisted salicious details beyond recognition. It's enough to naturally attract ya to Misplaced Pages. This editor asserts we need to treat the sourcing of tabloid sensations among the most skeptically, and I agree. Mcfnord (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

    Mcfnord, the editor was adding material based on their own account of what happened, and continues to try and do that. We can see that the editor is also challenging sources like Los Angeles Times. You don't seem to be using the WP:NPOV policy accurately. Being neutral on Misplaced Pages does not mean what being neutral means in common discourse. It does not mean, for example, that we should present the matter as simply some forbidden love affair when the vast majority of sources do not. Regarding this and this, you actually seem to think it's a good idea to use that Trutv.com "Mary Kay Letourneau: The Romance That was a Crime" source, including to state that Fualaau initiated and enjoyed the sex. First, some sources disagree on whether or not he initiated the sex. Second, this shows a lack of understanding of child sexual abuse and statutory rape. A child or other underage minor "initiating the sex" doesn't excuse the adult's actions or commonly make the matter any less damaging to the child or other underage minor, especially in the case of a very young child who might be "initiating the sex" because he or she was sexually abused already or saw a sexual act in person, on television, or the Internet. It is irrelevant in reporting on child sexual abuse unless the source is talking about those previously exposed matters, or how a child thinks that the sexual activity is okay because they found it pleasurable, or how the child might feel guilty about it (as a child, or once they are a teenager or adult) because they found it pleasurable. Yes, it's common for boys to think of the sexual activity with an adult woman as a having been a positive experience, but there are societal reasons for that (in addition to perhaps biological reasons) and it doesn't make the matter any less child sexual abuse or statutory rape. It doesn't automatically mean that the boy will not have psychological issues when older as a result of the sexual activity. And as for tabloid journalism, it was not permeating the Mary Kay Letourneau article at all. If anything, the "Mary Kay Letourneau: The Romance That was a Crime" source is akin to tabloid journalism. And as for People magazine? We already had a big RfC on that. Consensus was that it is not a tabloid source.
    I understand what John from Idegon means. SlimVirgin, you have worked a lot on the WP:COI guideline and COI issues. Do you have any opinion on this? JzG, you tend to be strict on BLP matters. Any ideas on how to handle this? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
    And, given the warnings you received on your talk page from Materialscientist and BullRangifer not that long ago about BLP articles, I'm not convinced that you know what is appropriate for BLP articles. Well, except for "no tabloid journalism." And I see that Doug Weller needed to make you aware of discretionary sanctions in the case of certain BLPs. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
    • The obvious thing is to warn Smmary that if she edits the article again she will be blocked. She can request changes via Talk, but if the requests become disruptive that also can lead to blocking. Guy (Help!) 08:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I just examined the last revert by Flyer22 of Smmary's last change. I was able to substantiate every change made by Smmary, and have added strong citations for each. In response to Flyer22: TruTV was then called Court TV, and my review did not reveal it to be unreliable based on its WP article, but maybe you can teach me the best way to make such an appraisal. This couple has maintained over all sources and over two decades that no crime occurred, which is noteworthy. The two citations I provide to conclude that the couple was not found having sex in the car by police by the Washington Post and Associated Press go into much greater detail than contrary claims found in People and elsewhere. In summary, this COI contributed verifiable facts in place of misleading nonsense that you reverted back to. I understand the risk of a COI, and the rules of BLP. I'm happy to collaborate with Smmary, as she has requested explicitly over 8 years of messages on her talk page. Please revert any failures on my part to adhere to the high standards of Misplaced Pages with my apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 20:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
    JzG, thanks. But I've also taken issue with a bit of Mcfnord's editing. Mcfnord, Smmary's latest changes being able to be substantiated does not negate her previous problematic edits. Above, you stated you were "able to substantiate every change made by Smmary, and have added strong citations for each." If we look at this revert by John from Idegon, we see that you added this products.kitsapsun.com source, which is a part of the USA Today network and seems to be reporting on an Associated Press article. You used it, in part, because you stated, "Two highly credible sources dispute the claim in some sources that they were found engaged in sex." The products.kitsapsun.com. source shows that David Gehrke, LeTourneau's attorney, said the two were clothed and merely talking. That's his claim. And this The Washington Post source that you used states, "The next witness, Detective Dane Bean, said the young man told him that there had been no sexual contact, but he and LeTourneau had kissed frequently and that he had touched her on the thigh. The two were found fully clothed." First, kissing can be sexual, as noted in the Kissing article. Second, that is a witness reporting on Fualaau's claim. Of course, if Fualaau was trying to protect Letourneau, he would state that. Most importantly, per WP:Due weight, two sources do not trump what the literature generally states. Per WP:Due weight, we give most of our weight to what the literature mostly or generally states. We do not give false balance. We don't try to "balance" out every view or aspect with an opposing view or aspect, as if the article is a trial we are involved in with rebuttals for every piece. Like WP:Verifiability states, "If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." But not everything is due for inclusion. Per WP:Due weight, minority views are not automatically included. And Fualaau's claim is not a WP:Reliable source; it's just his claim. If reliable sources generally state, or at least often state, that Letourneau was caught "having sex with Fualaau in a car," then we go with that unless the report was proven as false. We certainly don't remove the statement that "Letourneau was caught having sex with Fualaau in a car," like you did. That is what is misleading nonsense. This Chicago Tribune source clearly states that "she was caught having sex with Fualaau in her car." This Washington Post source clearly states that "she was caught having sex with Fualaau in her car." This products.kitsapsun.com source, reporting on an Associated Press report, clearly states that "she was caught having sex with Fualaau in her car." It's not just People magazine stating it. The most we might add as a counter report is that Fualaau, or both Letourneau and Fualaau, stated that they didn't have sex while in the car.
    You argued that "this couple has maintained over all sources and over two decades that no crime occurred, which is noteworthy." What? If you are stating that they are claiming that there was no sexual activity between them, all the evidence points to sexual activity having occurred between them. If you are stating that they do not view the sexual activity as a crime, their view contrasts what the law deemed. It was a crime. If one is talking about the "in the car" matter, it was a violation either way. And the products.kitsapsun.com source notes that she "pleaded guilty last August to two counts of second-degree child rape." Their view that it wasn't a crime because they were "in love" could go in the "Release from prison and marriage to Fualaau" section if they claim that, but that section already has Fualaau's view that he's not a victim, which, again, is common for boys involved in statutory rape cases where the perpetrator is an adult woman to state. And that section states that "Letourneau considered her relationship with Fualaau to be 'eternal and endless'." As for TruTV, I am familiar with TruTV. That it is reliable for some things does change the fact that it is not reliable for everything, especially when the author of the source is taking a "romance that was a crime" viewpoint, which is a viewpoint the author likely wouldn't have if it was an adult male teacher with a 13-year-old girl.
    Oh, and now we have this suspicious new account -- AlienStarChild (talk · contribs) -- editing the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
    There are clearly points on which we disagree, but is there a great reason to proceed within this Noteboard, rather than on the Talk page, as User:John from Idegon directed? I'm unrelated to the subject and not a COI. These are my edits based on my research. What's the compelling COI issue? Mcfnord (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

    Singapore Management University

    User had been adamant over a few days to restore advertisements in Singapore Management University page. Additionally user has removed the advertisement tag without solving the outstanding issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rongyao (talk • contribs) 11:38, February 28, 2019 (UTC)

    Gab (social network) and Gab Dissenter

    The site's founder and owner, Andrew Torba, has for months now been recruiting COI and possibly UPE POV-pushing on the main article Gab (social network); one such SPA editor was already TBanned from the article for a month (and has now returned to it). Today someone created an article on the spin-off product Gab Dissenter (not independently notable; currently less than 250 words long), and random seemingly canvassed people are coming out of the woodwork to !vote on the merge RfC: Talk:Gab (social network)#Gab Dissenter merge. Could use some eyes. Softlavender (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

    @Softlavender: I will not be remotely surprised if the site-banned User:Ridiceo and their two other block evading IP socks is actually Andrew Torba or someone from his company. Having random, seemingly experienced editors coming out of the blue to cast !vote and edit the dissenter article before the merge discussion becomes an RfC is indeed strange. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 16:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

    Note: I have asked the following editors to clarify if they have a COI connection to the subject: Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 08:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

    No, I am not employed by any of the subjects under discussion nor are they clients of mine. I have never taken compensation of any kind, including payment, for editing Misplaced Pages nor do I expect to do so. If this ever changes I will of course follow applicable policies. --vsync (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Softlavender:@Tsumikiria: No, I do not work for Gab or Torba. I've been editing Misplaced Pages way before I discovered the Gab article and have made many edits to other articles. X-Editor (talk)

    Comment: The original notice here is not without irony but I concur with the need for uninvolved editors/administrators to assess the discussion. Heated comments are flying and before they land the participants leave the discussion to edit-war over forcing the issue. For my part I cast my vote, followed up on interesting counterarguments, and stated what would change my view; vested editors tagged all my comments. I made 3 substantive edits, removing vendor hype; they suggested I was paid by that vendor. I directly expressed concern about one editor's statement casting the service as an attack on Wikpedia and thereby undeserving of an article; notably this was one of the few comments not replied to. When an editor was called out here without notification I simply supplied it rather than see things escalate; for this I got mocked, variously, for how much I do or don't edit Misplaced Pages. This is not an environment that encourages one to contribute further. -- P.S. As a new service a discussion about it is bound to involve new editors. P.P.S. I've just learned about WP:1RR and this article seems as good a use case as any I can imagine. vsync (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

    I replied to that concern on another location. I've reiterated in a direct reply to you just now. For a new editor, citing WP:POVRAILROAD is rather impressive. We might be overalert due to past disruptions, but WP:DUCK concerns aren't invalid. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 23:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

    Jusinjacob

    If anyone can read the (deleted) article on Saikatham Books, it is mentioned that the director of the company is Jusin jacob. The user himself added this The promotion doesn't stop with that article, he also goes into other wiki articles and adds his company's site link to them. Daiyusha (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

    I think this is resolved for now. I've done a run through for links to the website, and left some advice on the editor's talk-page. Unless I missed something, this can be archived. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

    Mike Bullard (comedian)

    The user Mike bullard is repeatedly editing the Mike Bullard (comedian) article to remove the section about legal issues. The information is properly sourced, and the username implies an obvious COI. --Zman9600 (talk) 05:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

    indexsciences.com

    This is just a heads up, I have no idea how to identify this company, but perhaps somebody here has ideas. Today I received the following email, from editor@indexsciences.com, at my personal (real life) email. There is no website at this address and, unsurprisingly, a WHOIS search does not offer any information about who is behind this site. The text of the email is copied here (with my name removed):

    Dear Dr.XXXXXX,

    Have you ever wondered of having a Misplaced Pages page for yourself or your company? We can help you get a Misplaced Pages page for yourself or your brand.

    Usually Misplaced Pages only accepts pages on celebrities and famous companies, if you are looking to get one for your self, we can help you with that. Having a page for yourself in Misplaced Pages, brings you more credibility and makes you more famous.

    We have been editing on Misplaced Pages for 7+ years and We've created tons of pages for companies, people, brands, products, and of course for academic purposes as well.

    We own multiple accounts on Misplaced Pages with page curation and new page reviewer rights, so i can create and moderate pages with almost zero risk of another mod taking it down.

    There are few[REDACTED] editors who are willing to create a page for money, and most of them are scared to offer this service directly, so they do it through their trusted sellers who markup the price to $1500 - $2500 per page.

    Because you're buying directly from an experienced[REDACTED] editor and mod, you'll get your page a lot cheaper, faster and with more reliability.

    Let me know if you are interested

    Regards

    Patricia M. Carnes

    I'm apparently not the only one, this person already got two such emails. The email contains a few typos and slightly unusual grammar, and unusually refers to "mods" when they mean editors or admins --Randykitty (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

    We are aware of similar emails as well and we're also doing what we can to look into it, but as you point out, there is not much information seemingly available. Mkdw 18:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

    QuisLex

    Last week I posted a brief comment asking Dylanexpert if they had a conflict of interest, and explaining WP:PAID. This was based on this block of edits to QuisLex which added "award-winning" to the first sentence, and a lot of bland, vaguely promotional descriptions based on flimsy sources. After looking at their history, several other articles had similar problems with flattering-but-vague bloat. Most of these articles are connected to the California Innocence Project, such as these edits to the Brian Banks article.

    Today they responded with this monster of a post. There's a lot of filler here, but three things seem pretty alarming:

    • When I was approached by my client, representing the organization QuisLex, to edit their page for compensation, I thought “why not”? Obviously you disagree, but if all information in an article is properly sourced, it shouldn’t matter whether an editor has been paid or is working for free. - It's not that I "disagree", it's that, well... hopefully the problems here are obvious.
    • However, I was recently approached by a client to represent a company that has had many legal claims and other public complaints against it. I was appalled by this company and immediately turned the client down. I refuse to edit the Misplaced Pages page of a company that I believe may be fraudulent or otherwise unsavory. - This suggests freelance paid editing. Why is this editor being approached? Who is the other company, and did they sucker someone else into editing? This seems like a good illustration of a problem with paid editing, as disclosing this would improve the project but would also potentially hurt this editor's chances of finding more work. We should be concerned with neutrality and notability, not with how "unsavory" a company is.
    • The rules say that paid editors are strongly discouraged from contributing to Misplaced Pages. It doesn’t say that they are forbidden from doing so. I suspect that that wording is included because to forbid editors from making edits to an article for which they are being paid by a client would constitute restraint of trade. Certainly, I would claim restraint of trade if I were thus prevented from editing this article. - This is an implied legal threat. My response on my talk page mentions WP:NLT, and I have asked them to respond here.

    As this editor explained in great detail on my talk page, not all of their edits are promotional, but unless they disclose all activity, it's not clear exactly which are clean and which are not. The above articles seem like plausible candidates. The edits to Lynne Serpe suggest that this might be a long-term behavior, since that activity dates to 2013 and includes acommons upload which later received an OTRS ticket. Normally this wouldn't mean anything, but combined with the comments about "clients", it's an additional red flag. Grayfell (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

    This matter should never have been referred to the Noticeboard. Please note the first bullet point of the “Additional Notes” above: “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.” Obviously, my actions do not qualify as “repeated” or “extended”: indeed, I’ve taken no action at all to edit the QuisLex article since Greyfell posted his comment on February 24 on my Talk page. In addition, Greyfell did not at all use our discussion on his Talk page to resolve this matter, dismissing my sincere questions as “filler.”
    I also included this sentence: “Particularly, if you happen to find any negative articles about QuisLex, by all means let me know, since to help maintain NPOV, I will gladly include references to those negative articles in the text.” (This is on the theory that his Internet search might uncover something I overlooked.) Apparently, Greyfell has plenty of time to put me on the Noticeboard, but not to do some simple research that might have made the QuisLex article better.
    Also, Greyfell completely fails to mention in his comments that in addition to posting his brief comment on my Talk page on February 24, he literally deleted all my work on the QuisLex article, as well as the work of a former editor or editors. This is despite the fact that the main objection he expressed to my edit of the article (other than the possible conflict of interest) was my use of the words “award winning” in the first sentence of my version of the article, a phrase which was, in fact, supported by a cited reference to this blog post by UK-based attorney Chris Dale, who is described here as the creator of “an authoritative and objective web site and blog on the subject and is a well-known speaker and commentator in the UK, the US and any jurisdiction which requires electronic discovery of documents.” (On the article Talk page, Greyfell disagrees that Dale is a legitimate authority, calling Dale's post an example of “acrylic paperweights”!) However, Greyfell completed ignored my offer to delete the words “award winning” (and the citation) from my version of the article, which would have resolved the problem.
    On the other hand, I apologize for my carelessness in not realizing that I had to reveal publicly that I was being compensated for my work on the article. I have already indicated the fact of my compensation on the QuisLex Talk page, and will shortly indicate it on my own Talk page as well.
    Also, I apologize that I gave the misleading impression that I was threatening Greyfell personally with legal action, which was not true. However, Misplaced Pages:NLT does specify the following: “Administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention if there is doubt.” Greyfell did not allow me the opportunity to apologize and retract my statement. He simply went ballistic and posted to this Noticeboard.
    I know that the dispute between Greyfell and myself has been of too brief a duration to qualify as harassment, but I certainly feel harassed! And as I informed Greyfell, situations like this do not encourage talented editors to contribute to Misplaced Pages!
    I strongly encourage other editors to view the history of this dispute and of the article and to respond. Thank you.
    Dylanexpert (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
    Dylanexpert, first, I am not an administrator. This post was to bring this problem to wider attention people with more experience dealing with these issues.
    As I explained, this wasn't merely about QuisLex, this was about several years of past activity writing promotional articles, which are listed above. You have admitted to writing for pay, but have carefully avoided explaining any details, or discussing previous edits.
    I have enough first-hand experience with legal action and Misplaced Pages that I don't take it lightly. You made an implied legal threat, and you still haven't clarified your intentions. It's not just me that you implied you would take legal action against, it was Misplaced Pages. Just spit it out, why would you even mention restraint of trade if not because you felt if gave you grounds for legal action? Instead of vague legalize, and complaining about policies, state your intentions using direct language.
    You also have not explained how you were approached, nor why some other company approached you. As I said on my talk page, you need to be transparent about all this. Who else has payed you to edit, and is anyone else still paying you to edit? What other articles have you written for pay? Grayfell (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
    Given the responses you were already giving to Greyfell, where you were denying the import of noting paid editing, and given that more eyes could be used to look at your prior edits, then yes, Greyfell was acting appropriately to bring this matter to the attention of those concerned with conflict-of-interest editing. Your eagerness to call having noticed your legal threat as going "ballistic" and say that you were feeling harassed for having your problematic edits and statements noted is inappropriate (as is any suggestion that you be entrusted with adding any negative material to your client's article.) I recommend that you not edit your client's articles, but use the Talk page to suggest edits, so that they may be seen by editors who are not inherently biased before inclusion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
    Dylanexpert, you asked for advice here, and received some that seems to me very good indeed. It's a pity that you haven't followed the first suggestion, which was to list on your user page all articles that you've edited for pay, with details of who paid you, and on whose behalf (and yes, I've seen that you've placed some {{Connected contributor (paid)}} tags). Until you do that, all your edits are under suspicion. It might be good to do this before you make any further edit elsewhere. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    Justlettersandnumbers: Thank you for weighing in, but I'm a bit puzzled. I never said anywhere that I didn't intend to list on my user page any articles that I've edited for pay. In fact, as you can see, when the editor Grayfell brought up the subject on my user Talk page, I wrote, prior to your edit above, the following sentence, "I am going to put all the information in when I have time," meaning within the next day or two, owing to personal pressures that I have had to deal with. Also, my placement of the Connected Contributor tags on the relevant article Talk pages would seem to indicate my good faith in this matter. Unfortunately, I had originally believed that the COI information should go on my Talk page, rather than the main user page. I have rectified that error, and the statement has now been entered on my main user page for all to see.
    As an additional note, I want to declare that I was not compensated for my work on the Lynne Serpe article.
    I want to apologize that I unknowingly violated Misplaced Pages's Terms of Use and want to assure you and others that it won't happen again. I'm also sorry that I reacted overly emotionally to Grayfell's original concerns about the QuisLex article. Thank you again.
    Dylanexpert (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

    Emily Jane Fox

    User:Emilyjanefox1 has edited Emily Jane Fox. Some talk page and/or user talk page templates may be needed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

    Oh, and I forgot to mention, someone called "Emilyjanefox" has edited the article before. This is noted on the article's talk page, in the connected contributor template. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
    Well, both accounts have now been templated to within an inch of their lives. However, note that both edits made by these accounts were simply to remove patently false information, e.g. . In one case the "information" involved doctoring an alleged statement she made to MSNBC not supported by the reference . She did not ask for this article, and frankly I don't envy her the position she's in. Perhaps a little more of the personal touch when communicating and little less might be considered. Voceditenore (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

    UglyDolls (film)

    These two users continue to add a so-called actor named "Jonathan Favela" as a character voice in the Uglydolls movie. No actor with this name seems to exist, but the user with the name Jonathan Favela has created two sandboxes, one on the account of the other, which seems to be a false attempt to paint himself as a legitimate author source as well. ZootyCutie (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

    Kilgore College Rangerettes

    Does COISELF extend to organizations/companies connected to a family member? While a person is genreally considered to have a COI when they are trying to create/edit content about a family member per WP:COISELF, I'm wondering if the same can be said about persons creating/editing content about organizations, etc. which are directly connected to a family member. For example, a person editing content about their spouse would be considered to have a COI, right? Would the same person, however, also have a COI if they were editing content about their spouse's company or some other organization in which the spouse held some position of authority?

    The specific example I've come across is Kilgore College Rangerettes where KingOfKilgore has been expanding the article. He has stated on his user page that he is married to assistant director and choreographer of the Rangerrettes; the editor may also be working on a userspace draft about his wife and one of the photos (File:Rangerette Assistant Director - Shelley Wayne.jpg) added to the team's article may be of his wife. While the licensing on the photos seems OK, the fact they were uploaded "for publication and marketing the Kilgore College Rangerettes on Misplaced Pages and other publications" makes me a bit concerned about why they're being added to the article.

    Anyway, I've already posted about some general COI stuff at User talk:KingOfKilgore#Conflict of interest editing, but I figured it would be good to get other opinions on this after reading KingOfKilgore, and also in case I'm the one who's really in the wrong here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

    Adding a personal comment to the article as done here about images not being allowed in the article is another reason which I feel KingOfKilgore probably should refrain from directly editing the article except per WP:COIADVICE. A non-free image uploaded by KingOfKilgore was previously removed from the article per a WP:FFD discussion because it was deemed not to comply with WP:NFCC. The comment added to the article seems to be a response to that. Being frustrated over something being deleted is understandable, but articles are not really the right place to express such frustrations whether you’ve got a COI or not. — Marchjuly (talk) 09:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
    Marchjuly I don't think you're in the wrong, and especially not after his comment on the talk page here. valereee (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

    Jewish Voice for Labour

    Per diff, @RolandR: admitted a COI in relation to this small activist group. Today they reverted information sourced to The New York Times from the article.Icewhiz (talk) 10:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

    His edit seems perfectly correct? You took a quote from a news article and attempted to restate it in Misplaced Pages's voice without even attributing it. This is a cut and dry BLP issue. Parabolist (talk) 11:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
    It's not a quote - it is in the NYT's voice - "Jewish Voice for Labour, set up in 2017 by Mr. Corbyn to take on allegations of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party". The attributed quote of Goldstein is there since I inserted that elsewhere in the article - attributed to Goldstein (and I wanted a single ref) - but the line on the founding of the group is clearly made by the NYT itself. Icewhiz (talk) 11:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
    The full context (if you can't see NYT behind a paywall) is "Ms. George said she meant only to say it was "<long quote of George>". Jewish Voice for Labour, set up in 2017 by Mr. Corbyn to take on allegations of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, defended Ms. George." - so no - this is not a quote in the NYT, but the NYT saying it itself. Icewhiz (talk) 11:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

    Soundwalk Collective

    User:Sonnenalle44 previously had an account name that identified them with Soundwalk Collective, but has subsequently changed their name, and has not made a declaration under the new account name. Soundwalk Collective is tagged as having undisclosed paid editing. Draft:Draft:Stephan Crasneanscki, on the founder of Soundwalk, also has not had a declaration made. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

    The Soundwalk Collective article has a long list of suspected connected contributors. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

    Dear editors, I understand it might look like I have an involvement in Soundwalk Collective financially, but I do not, I am a big fan of their work and Stephan Crasneanscki as a stand alone artist. I have followed Soundwalk Collectives work for many years, I do not know any of them personally. Can we please work together on cleaning anything up? It would be a shame for this work to go to waste. Sonnenalle44 (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

    Looks like nonsense to me, and please explain how, if you don't know them personally, you took the picture? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

    Dear all, the photo was given to me by a photographer friend of mine. She was in Abu Dhabi at the same time as Stephan Crasneanscki. I own this photo, but I did not take it. Hi Roxy the dog, Is the underlying issue that Stephan Crasneanscki is not 'noteworthy' enough for Misplaced Pages? Sonnenalle44 (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

    @Sonnenalle44:,Ok but the statement above makes it sound like your friend met Crasneanscki by coincidence. Did your friend take all three images you have claimed? SamHolt6 (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
    The underlying issue is that you have a COI regarding Soundwalk Collective, as indicated by your editing behaviour, and your previous username. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

    Debbie Tisinger-Moore

    User was warned by Agent00x of policy. Edits have persisted at clearly connected article nonetheless. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 23:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

    Howard Pechet

    Laurie Wallace-Lynch first came to my attention when they added mass additions of unsourced (and unencyclopedicly worded) content to Howard Pechet . Despite asking the user directly if they were paid (as their username matches a writing/communications website) they have ignored my warnings and continued to edit without disclosing. They also have appeared to have tried editing while logged out . HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

    User:Lminati

    Lminati has added new sections dealing with his own work to about a half dozen articles. Here is a representative sample. I pointed him to WP:REFSPAM (admittedly, I could have avoided the suggestive redirect name) and how he's accusing me of trolling him. That's fine, I've got a thick skin, but now that the dispute is personalized I would appreciate it if some other folks could weigh in. If I'm the one in the wrong here, please tell me so. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

    OK, MrOllie, thank you for raising the issue here, it is a good idea. Let us seek guidance and I will absolutely abide to what what advice is given. I have added recognized academic contributions that we have given to the following articles, trying to be balanced and just briefly mention results that have been widely recognized as important and are published on peer-reviewed scientific articles and journals - nothing related to personal business, websites etcetera. I have also added some references to the work of others. I have taken the liberty of creating and adding several illustrative images, that have been found helpful in academic presentations etcetera, I hopes they would be appreciated. This seemed to me to be a valuable contribution, but maybe I am incorrect. All my changes on all pages have been systematically reverted, twice, without any discussion on the scientific content, which I feel very demotivating. If it is inappropriate to include these results, they can be deleted and I will quit this community and refrain from making any further contributions. For the benefit of those involved here is the list of pages

    https://en.wikipedia.org/Central_pattern_generator https://en.wikipedia.org/Field-programmable_analog_array https://en.wikipedia.org/Hexapod_(robotics) https://en.wikipedia.org/Zero_instruction_set_computer https://en.wikipedia.org/Neon_lamp https://en.wikipedia.org/Sierpinski_triangle https://en.wikipedia.org/Ring_oscillator Thank you in advance for the guidance and help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lminati (talk • contribs) 23:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC) I would also, politely and humbly, request that due notice is taken of this rule "Hounding on Misplaced Pages (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Misplaced Pages." It is very hurtful when as a senior academic you try to contribute, and someone chases you everywhere to delete everything repeatedly, with a blanket accusation. I have not promoted myself or my company, only attempted to divulge scientific results by adding academically appropriate citations: these have been peer-reviewed and are citations to official journals, so it is not just "my work". Additionally, I have little or no benefit from a citation on Misplaced Pages, which, as we know, is not officially counted. Then, I am new so I trust that the community will give me feedback: if what I did was wrong, or is otherwise unwelcome, I shall withdraw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lminati (talk • contribs) 02:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

    Singapore Management University

    User has been defiance in maintaining page’s independence by restoring promotional materials on the following dates:

    - 21/02/2019
    - 27/02/2019
    - 09/02/2019

    Besides the advertisement tag and third party tag (added on 05/03/19) placed by administrators were remove without resolving outstanding issues in the page.

    Please be the judge as this user has shown unrestrained aggressiveness. Rongyao (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

    I have explained my reasons clearly numerous times but this user Rongyao has chosen to bulldoze them. This user is also suspected as a sockpuppet of other users who have been banned for using this advert template and promotional concerns as a reason to just delete relevant materials, key achievements, and legitimate history that is common to and needed for most institutions especially universities. S/he is the one with a conflict of interest. He has also been suspended several times for abusing his editorial right. Bluestsky99 —Preceding undated comment added 17:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

    Jaleh Mansoor

    Longish bio of a frankly pretty obscure associate professor, by a new account that has done very little else. Done at a local Meetup/Vancouver/ArtAndFeminism_2019. The editor also took the (rather nice) photo 4 days ago. Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

    It's quite possible the editor is a student or colleague of the subject, but... even if either were true that's a pretty minimal COI and the article isn't promotional. Jaleh Mansoor was added as a suggested article (then a red link) back in January by a completely different editor when the edit-a-thon was being organized . The article was started on February 6th in the editor's sandbox, the date of the first workshop for the edit-a-thon. Observe the first draft, obviously notes from the workshop. It was then gradually built up. It was one of the organizers of the editathon who moved it into article space , not its creator. Whether or not the subject is notable is an entirely different question, but that's a frequent problem with these sorts of events. I'm not seeing a COI problem here. Voceditenore (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

    Sword and Scale

    Obvious conflict of interest, owning the article and removing cited controversy. More eyes on the article would also be good to help regulate that.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

    • (Non-administrator comment) Comment: The "cited controversy" has been repeatedly removed and re-added countless times and it appears that MBoudet is doing so for WP:BLP reasons per this edit summary. This might be allowed per WP:COIADVICE and WP:BLPCOMPLAIN, but there doesn't seem to be any discussion of this at all on the article's talk page or at a place like WP:BLPN; maybe there should be (see WP:BLPN#Sword and Scale) and perhaps it should be left out until it's determined not to be a BLP violation. The editing warring going on over this by both Satani and MBoudet has really not been productive at all, and edit summaries like this and this left by Santanai were not very helpful, particularly because of the defamation claim, and probably only led to more edit warring. It's surprising that this didn't end up at WP:AN3 with one or both editors being blocked over it.There are, however, some other issues which need to be resolved. MBoudet is the creator of the article, which is basically about his podcast. Whether the article is Misplaced Pages notable enough for a stand-alone article to exist, it's quite clear he (if he's really MBoudet, but that's a WP:REALNAME issue) does have a conflict-of-interest with respect to anything about the podcast or about himself on Misplaced Pages and, thus, shouldn't be editing such content directly (except per COIADVICE). It's also possible that his conflict-of-interest is also a WP:FCOI which means that WP:PAID is also applicable. So, MBoudet needs to properly disclose his COI per WP:DISCLOSECOI and also declare his status as a paid contributor as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I've added Reality Kings, an article that he created as well as his sandbox version. COI needs explored here.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Alhtough MBoudet created the "Reality Kings" article, he doesn't appear to have edited it (at least not with the MBoudet account) since 2011. A Mike Boudet is specifically mentioned by name in Sword and Scale; so, it's not much of a reach to see how MBoudet might be connected to that article. I'm not, however, seeing any obvious connection between the account and "Reality Kings". What about the article makes you feel that he's also somehow connected to it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

    User:En ittomre and UBS

    The user is a SPA on UBS related articles. But the most recent edits are off the bar for so large, which positing recruitment link in the article UBS. Matthew hk (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

    Andrzej Sztando

    Seems to be an obvious coi owning the article and fighting to keep it from being deleted with Afd discussion here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Andrzej Sztando. Some more eyes on the Afd discussion would help. scope_creep 09:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

    Seems to be cleared up. scope_creep 12:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

    Bhavi Chand Jindal

    This article could use some extra eyes. I tagged it for G11 but that was judged to be a very bad call ("bogus"). Meanwhile, the article creator has been indeffed for promotional editing and most of their articles deleted. --Randykitty (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


    Max Schneider

    This article could use some extra eyes.

    There has been long term disruption on Max Schneider related pages by COIs since February. The IP listed above claims here to be his manager (and was warned about COI editing). Their edit here was subsequently replicated by Cantfullstopmenow showing they are the same user or working together. Their edits were overtly promotional and rejected. However, today Dml407 made a similar edit with a less over promotional tone but used similar text like "MAX is an iHeart 2019 ‘Best New Pop Artist" nominee to begin the paragraph and Lights Down Low charting. They also spammed a bunch of his performances with Youtube references which seems to just be to boost Schneider's resume. None of these users (or IPs) have followed proper COI procedure despite them all receiving warnings. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

    Adani Group

    This is a highly influential multi-billion dollar corporation and their page reads like an advert. There are not many eyes on the article because the company is based in India, not California. The main contributor of article text is User:Adanigrouponline. The editors are now blocked but their advert remains. I have added a COI tag but think most of the content would usefully be removed, though it is referenced. Anna (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

    Brian Frosh

    This was declined at protection requests with a suggestion that I bring it here. Article has a long history of promotional edits. OliverC200 is a Frosh WP:SPA. The account was unblocked with a request that they learn about WP:COI. BBcomm is included as another WP:SPA for the page.Adoring nanny (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC) I've also notified two ip addresses that were adding lenghty promotional material to the article. . There is a lot more if you want to go further back. I will do so on request. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

    User:Josephintechnicolor and WP:UPE

    Was referred from declined CU request and SPI case Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mohamed Ouda. So, Kelly Hyman, which was recreated at Kelly Hyman (lawyer) and Kelly Hyman (attorney), was yet again recreated by Josephintechnicolor in namespace Draft:Kelly Hyman due to main space was SALTed to new user. It was recently MFD.

    Based on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive306#Contentious Deletion Discussions of EverlyWell and Draft:EverlyWell and User:Mohamed Ouda. It seem the user Mohamed Ouda was paid to do so to create Kelly Hyman. On the AN thread, it was mentioned a few other user, which User:Experio2018 was a sock of User:Marcelo842, while User:Brio was another sockmaster that have 3 other socks that was mentioned in SPI of Mohamed Ouda by admin BU Rob13 as "the four accounts I blocked were related". So, it may be a WP:MEAT on paid editing, and unlikely a new user, by coincidence , recreating Kelly Hyman in Draft:Kelly Hyman just by random chance of overlapping interest (despite it was different in structure by compare Draft:Kelly Hyman and Kelly Hyman (attorney))

    Also, the user Josephintechnicolor somehow tagged himself for COI (see user page edit: Special:Diff/844292616) for the subject "Giuseppe G. Ruisi", which he then created Giuseppe G. Ruisi. Despite Ruisi was deceased. User should not edit further in[REDACTED] unless they are disclosing their paid editing employer, and binding to WP:COI guideline on avoid direct editing subjects and articles that have COI. Matthew hk (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

    PR Pundit

    Per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Aditibhalotra94 we have presumptive UPE probably connected to the Indian PR firm "PR Pundit". ☆ Bri (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

    User:Mooeena & Wiki:Detransition

    User is openly trans on their user page. User claims detrans article isn't NPOV. User accuses other users of wrongdoing in edit logs, article talk page, and user talk pages, with exaggerated or false claims. This appears to be a case of trans-against-detrans COI. Jadepraerie (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

    I am not transgender, (not sure why two separate people today have assumed that I am. Maybe because of the "...identifies as female" userbox, but I digress.) however, I believe that there is no ban on transgender people editing transgender-related articles. Feel free to ping me if you need any more information! Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 05:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
    I didn't say trans folk should be "banned" from contributing to detrans topics. I'm saying there appears to be a pro-trans/anti-detrans bias. Please stop the exaggerations and hyperbole. Jadepraerie (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
    Mooeena's gender is absolutely immaterial. Even if there's non-neutral editing (I have not looked at that), that does not equal a COI. This appears to be a content dispute and this is not the pplace to address that. --Randykitty (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
    I apologize for the confusion. The problem wouldn't be a user's gender, but rather a user's gender politics. If they're gender essentialist, and the detrans community is largely gender critical, this becomes problematic when they deny the detrans community even exists, and when they accuse editors of sockery and canvassing in lieu of addressing actual content added to the article. Thank you. Jadepraerie (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
    That's still not a COI, you're at the wrong place here. --Randykitty (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
    Could you advise please where would be a better place? Thanks. Jadepraerie (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
    Hi Jadepraerie. Have you tried discussing this on the relevant article talk page(s) per WP:DR? Content disputes (which this sort of sounds like) generally should first attempted to be resolved through article talk page discussion. If article talk page discussion has been taking place and hasn't moved closer to a resolution, then maybe WP:NPOVN or a relevant Wikiproject's talk page would be a good place to seek further assistance. You could post a Template:Please see on either to try and get others involved; just try not to run afoul of WP:CANVAS if you do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

    Paid editing and Mike Duffy

    During the 2015 trial of Canadian Senator Mike Duffy an individual named Mark Bourrie testified that he had been paid to edit Duffy's article. (See this news item). It appears that this never came to the attention of Misplaced Pages. I have noticed that there are editors heavily editing both articles to this day and I'm wondering if admins and checkusers can look into it and the articles. 199.7.157.61 (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard Add topic