Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:02, 6 March 2008 editWknight94 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users89,452 edits →User:Wcfirm and Channing Tatum: User:Laquishe indefblocked. Wcfirm block doubled.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:58, 9 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,301,982 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 217) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{redirect|WP:COIN|the WikiProject on articles about coins|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Numismatics}}
]]{{Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/header}}
]
]
]
]
{{Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{archivemainpage|Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard}} |archiveheader = {{archivemainpage|Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 22 |counter = 217
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(10d) |algo = old(14d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive_%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__ }}__NEWSECTIONLINK__
<!-- All reports should be made at the bottom of the page. Do not modify the above when reporting! -->
== ] on ] ==


I am trying to cut promotional content from ]. ] seems like a "reliable source". However, looking at the content they've published, I'm concerned that this newspaper may have a conflict of interest when it comes to her/her billionaire family.
<!-- New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. -->
<!-- PLEASE REMEMBER TO SIGN YOUR MESSAGE -->
<!-- Copy, do not edit, the below text and paste it below the newest section at the bottom of the page -->


*
== Possible ] found by ] ==
*
*
*
*


In fact, many of the sources used in the article seem like the kind of thing a billionaire in a country like Nigeria probably paid someone to write but I am not sure how to handle this. ]] 08:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
* ] &nbsp;&nbsp;''This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.''


:Maybe best to raise the issue at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (]). Users there may be able to confirm your concerns or perhaps could point you in the direction of a list of ] and non-RS sources within the Nigerian media. Hope this helps. ] (]) 12:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==
::Just a brief follow-up to say that there is actually a current thread at ] in relation to the reliability of Nigerian newspapers (here ) which may be of assistance to the user who opened this thread. It seems that the existence of sponsored content in Nigerian newspapers is a widespread problem. Regards, ] (]) 04:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I have run across a new editor who has created many articles based on these Nigerian sources. At first I thought it was a conflict of interest but now I am not so sure (but probably a conflict of interest with at least one of the subjects). I have moved the new articles to draft. ] ]] 17:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


== User:Taeyasu/Sample page ==
* {{article|Nick Schwellenbach}} - was created by a user named Schwellenbach
<small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> 28 February 2008
:I believe the subject is borderline notable. Though he created the article himself, he appears not to like the current version, since he tried to blank it, though his change was reverted. The article is at present tagged for notability, which seems correct. A thorough search might bring forth new references to show his notability, though that has not been done yet. Anyone who wants to propose an AfD is of course free to do so. I suggest this be closed as a COI item, since the article is reasonably neutral and very short, and it is appropriately tagged for its remaining issues. ] (]) 22:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
::Well the current version is nearly identical to the version this fellow started, except the current version lists the subject as deceased. So its either actually him disagreeing with his life-status or a relative/fan. Maybe a COI tag to the user's page. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
== Greensburger / Ziusudra / Eridu Genesis ==
* {{pagelinks|User:Taeyasu/Sample page}}
* {{userlinks|Taeyasu}}
* {{userlinks|Trendalchemy}}
* {{userlinks|Dpatrioli}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->


3 accounts with no contributions except to write promotional-sounding article ]. Notably:
*{{la|Ziusudra}}
*{{userlinks|Greensburger}}


* "Trend Alchemy" appears to be the name of a PR firm in Italy
I would like to express serious concerns about agenda pushing on the part of ].
* The {{conam|Trendalchemy}} account became inactive after being informed of paid-editing policy
* The {{conam|Dpatrioli}} account was created afterward and has not disclosed COI status.


I'd take this to SPI but the third account hasn't made any edits since I posted on its talk page. Thought I'd get a few more eyes on this in case the pattern continues. --] (]) 01:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I am trying to create an article on a famous archaeological artifact, known as the "]", which inexplicably has not had it's own article at all until now, but was tucked away under the ] article. This led to a conversation with User:Greensburger: , and I really didn't grasp what he was trying to propose.


:I recently attempted to get the material speedy deleted under ] but this was declined due to the material not being considered "unambiguously promotional".
When I tried to make the move that I said I would, he reverted it, calling it vandalism . So I then put a "split section" tag on the page, which he changed . The ensuing discussion on the article's talk page is here: .
:Presumably an attempt will be made at some point in the near future to introduce the article into mainspace. At that point, at a minimum, the elements of the article which clearly are promotional should be removed, and an undeclared PAID template added. Possibly the material should be draftified.
When I perused his talk page, trying to figure out where he was coming from, I noticed a discussion () about the book by Robert Best, which appears as a reference on a number of Ancient Near East pages. The theories listed on the back cover of the book (), that Noah was Ziusudra and was the king of Shuruppak in 2900 BC when the Sumerian river flood occurred, are obscure to say the least, and very fringe theories. Fringe books get published too, and simply the fact that somebody published it shouldn't give it credibility. More information about these theories is on its website
:However, what concerns me is that it seems reasonable to assume that the Trendalchemy account (plus the other accounts above) appears to have links to a PR firm and the draft material is currently titled "Sample page". The material is not in the user's sandbox or being curated as a draft, it appears to be a sample of the work of a PR agency ''displayed on the user page of that PR agency''. That being the case, I do personally believe that deletion under G11 would have been appropriate as a userspace clearly should not be being abused in this way, as per ] (i.e. prescribed material includes {{tq|Advertising or promotion of business}}). I'd invite input from ] on the grounds for them declining the G11. ] (]) 13:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::G11 is for ''unambiguous'' promotion which it isn't. COI is not a rationale for speedy deletion either. ] is thataway if you want it to be deleted. – ] (]) 13:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I agree that it is not unambiguous promotion of the company which is the subject of the article (a company called "Translated").
:::However, it is most definitely unambiguous promotion of the PR firm who created the material because the material is titled as being a sample of the work of that PR firm and it is presented on the userpage of that PR firm.
:::Or do you believe that PR firms post samples of their work online for reasons other than unambiguous self-promotion? ] (]) 14:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::UPDATE: I resubmitted the material for speedy deletion and it was deleted by a different user. ] (]) 15:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
: '''Update''': See {{conam|Dpatrioli}}'s message and my reply on my talk page ]. --] (]) 11:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::As just replied to @], and to give here with some more elements for your evaluation, this is what happened:
::1) ] , ] are not representing any PR Agency, they both work at in the Communication department. You may find evidence
::2) @] is an independent writer, and he has been hired to help us to write this article about Translated. He is not representing a PR agency but he is been paid by Translated for this task.
::3) The main reason for the "speedy delete" request of the page was that the author/contributors were suspected to be a PR agency promoting itself with this page; the material, as I see in the talk history, has not been considered "unambiguously promotional".
::We are new to produce contents here. But we decided to write this page and we made a draft, this wasn't finished. The page was meant to describe what has been the contribution of Translated in the last 20 years in the development of the Transformer applied to the AI and, more specifically, to Machine Translation advancements. The company developed a number of technologies available to the public, some of them free, and we believe it's notably and there is a huge number of third parties sources to mention that.
::Thanks for the input, in case we publish again material we'll sure specify the proper COI. ] (]) 14:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The draft was not considered to be "unambiguously promotional" but elements of it were certainly highly promotional in intent.
:::I see the evidence that Dpatrioli works for Translated, but no evidence that Trendalchemy works for Translated. Trend Alchemy is a PR firm. ] (]) 15:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::@] Trendalchemy is not actually a company, is a laboratory, and the founder is Patrizia Boglione. Check this page on where it's written: "''I am now the Brand & Creative VP of one of the most innovative tech-companies in the translation industry that combines the best artificial intelligence with a network of 200,000 translators." Patrizia is the same person mentioned in the website of Translated.''
::::As far as "but elements of it were certainly highly promotional in intent", I understand where you come from, and we'll try to make it right, but I believe we can make a page where there's a relevant story for the audience (and I think there's one), then if I write something wrong, questionable, or with inappropriate sources, well it will be the public to correct or to modify it. From my side, I can write what I know from my angle (including declaring COI), it would be odd if I write something with the intent of discredit the company I work for. ] (]) 16:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::The Trend Alchemy website states that {{tq|Our products and services include Trend Report, New Brand Narratives, Future Brand Strategies, Brand Coaching, Custom Brand & Trend workshops, Trend Talks.}} There can therefore be little doubt that it is, broadly speaking, a PR company.
:::::Also, Misplaced Pages is not about making {{tq|a page where there's a relevant story for the audience}}. This is an encyclopaedia, not an opportunity for marketing operatives to install a narrative. For further info on this please see ]. ] (]) 17:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::That's very useful, thank you ] (]) 19:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)


== Chris Antonopoulos (footballer) and Fort Lauderdale Strikers ==
The problem is that archaeological facts need to be "adjusted" to make these theories work at all. Two areas of original research which I see repeatedly all over the Ancient Near East articles are:
* {{pagelinks|Chris Antonopoulos (footballer)}}
* {{userlinks|Amplifyplantz33}}


] and numerous ] related articles, which Antonopoulos appears to have been a player for, have been edited by ]. The user seems to be Antonopoulos and received a notice to disclose their conflict of interest on December 4 by @]. The user did not respond and does not appear to have made an effort to disclose a conflict of interest as they are required to. The user also created the Antonopoulos article and is responsible for the majority of the content added to it. The only indication the user appears to have made to disclose their potential conflict of interest was to write "Chris Antonopoulos" on their user page. ] (]) 07:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
1) Attempts to link the "]" Flood myth to the mention of a historic flood on the "]". The way to do this is to insert Ziusudra, the hero of the Flood myth, into the king list, right before the flood. (see the mentioned above on the Ziusudra talk page).


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


== Adolph Jentsch ==
I also have to say I can't help thinking that this could be the author of the book himself, as his other editing seems to be in line with having a BS degree in Physics (), and he's created and edited articles about other people with the same last name.


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
I hope I'm submitting this in the right place, and I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. 23:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|Adolph Jentsch}}
* {{userlinks|username}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
There is an IP editor who is repeatedly entering non-encyclopedic text, such as . I've reversed him once but he then sent me several abusive emails accusing me of article ownership, so I don't want to reverse him again. I cannot give him a COIN notice because he uses different IPs every time he edits. Can someone other than me please remove the edit and perhaps protect the article from IP edits? Thanks! ] (]) 05:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


:You can request page protection at ]. -- ] (]) 14:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:: All of the above sounds like an ordinary content dispute. I do not see evidence of any conflict of interest. "He sounds like he might know some physics; ergo he must be the person who wrote this book, who is also a physicist" is the weakest link to a CoI I've seen proposed here in a long time. Even if this editor pushes a fringe theory (which I'm taking your word for, for the purpose of the discussion), is there any ''good'' reason to think that he does so for a reason other than a perceived wish to spread the truth? –] 01:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


== Conflict of interest - Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra Article ==
:::I mentioned the physics degree because that and the other circumstances I mentioned suggested to me that he might be the author of this book and that he might be quoting himself, and I thought that was against the rules.
* {{pagelinks|Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra}}
* {{userlinks|Anurag Palutla}}


:::The big problem is his persistently promulgating original research and fringe theories, which I also thought was against the rules. ] (]) 01:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC) ], I think there is a conflict of interest here. The director himself has created an account and working on the article - ] (]) 08:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


The Article was intitated by @udaywrites and is getting expanded by @anuragpatla. Who are the crew of the film. ] (]) 08:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::I'm assuming that the article which ] is nominating for COI investigation is ], so I formatted the header of this COI complaint accordingly. Greensburger has not edited ] at all, so there is no reason to include that in this complaint. I don't perceive that a Talk page consensus was reached anywhere on Sumerophile's idea of splitting the Ziusudra article. There may be ] stuff floating around, but I don't believe that S. followed due process with G. on the issue of splitting the article. ] (]) 02:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


== Vanskere ==
:::Actually I was nominating the ], if that can be done. The problem is this fringe agenda has been spread all over the Ancient Near East articles, and possibly on Genesis and Noah-related articles as well. I'm vetting it in the Ancient Near East section, and came up unexpectedly against Greensburger again in the ] article , in what appears to be another fringe agenda he's pushing - about when the Ubaid and Sumerian Dynastic periods occurred. ] (]) 00:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->* {{pagelinks|Vanskere}}
Whether ] and ] should be two articles or a single article is open to debate, and can be discussed calmly on talk. This is a perfectly pragmatic question. I have misgivings about Greenburger's attempts to portray any of these floods as "historical", but looking at the debate, it appears clear that Greenburger is perfectly willing to base his argument on academic literature, while Sumerophiles behaviour is much more erratic. Perhaps Greenburger is pushing an outdated academic view, but the way to counter this is by citing more ''recent'' academic literature, not by removing his material. This is entirely the wrong noticeboard for this. If Greenburger presents a lop-sided argument, set the score right by citing academic literature, not by wikilawyering about it. ] <small>]</small> 13:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|Evans Akere}}
* {{userlinks|Iamtoxima}}<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->


This editor is screaming conflict of interest to me. Both articles have been tagged as promotional utilizing ], I have nominated them for deletion. As you can see on the user talk page, they have been asked about conflict of interest without a response. They also posted asking about how to make Google index their brand's article. Their primary other edit was to add the brand to ]. ]] 18:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:I would like to point out that a fringe theory using outdated sources for its base is very different from an outdated academic view. Just because somebody cites academic literature doesn't mean he's an academic or that his theories are sound, and his selective use of older material is a good example of what citing academic literature should not be.


:Upon further investigation looking at the user's linked social media, the brand page in question is listed as one of their clients. ]] 18:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:And I do not appreciate being labled "erratic" for getting to the bottom of this, or for reporting concerns about this matter here. ] (]) 22:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


== Marc Jorgenson ==
"Just because somebody cites academic literature doesn't mean he's an academic" -- nobody claims that, but in case you have missed it, this is precisely how Misplaced Pages works. Please review ], and specifically ]. I wouldn't dream of using http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/ as a source, nor do any of the diffs you provide show that Greensburger is touting that website. ] <small>]</small> 12:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
{{atop
| result = No edits since 2008. No need for action. ] (]/]) 01:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
:dab, above you suggested Greensburger was pushing an outdated academic view. And no, he has not cited the website, merely the book that it is based on. ] (]) 01:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|Marc Jorgenson}}
* {{userlinks|Plus3db}}
* {{userlinks|Lexicon480}}
* {{userlinks|Bunny & J-Zone}}
* {{userlinks|24.82.146.94}}
* {{userlinks|24.82.146.152}}
* {{userlinks|24.86.250.211}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Blatantly promotional article and severe failure of ] with puffery removed by users before. 3 single-purpose accounts as well as 3 IPs of close proximity have edited the article in around 2008. There definitely is signs of paid editing or people connected with subject editing the article, so a block of these users and IPs should suffice alongside the deletion of the article. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: coral; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 06:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Ilyas El Maliki ==
:dab, I would also like to point out to you here, that Greensburger has in fact linked to http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/, on the Ziusudra article, which is now enmeshed in the ] article. ] (]) 17:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


* {{pagelinks|Ilyas El Maliki}}
dab, now we have a problem: ] is now re-linking the mythical ] with the historic king list . <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
* {{pagelinks|Draft:Ilyas El Maliki}}
* {{userlinks|IMDB12}}
* {{userlinks|Saileishere}}
I think the two users are the same person and probably work for El Maliki to write the article. ]] 22:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


:The photo of El Maliki was uploaded by ] ]] 22:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] ==


::See ]. --] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 13:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{article|National Policing Improvement Agency}}
* {{article|Serious Organised Crime Agency}}
* {{article|List of Special Response Units}}
* {{userlinks|Bamford}}
(See accounts and IP's below) is making many, many, many, many changes without leaving comments or edit summaries and clogging up ] and the ] of ] - (created by Amcluesent), ], ] and others.


== Lindy Li ==
{{hat|reason=Complete list of accounts}}
'''Accounts'''<br>
{{MultiCol}}
{{vandal|Bamford}}<br>{{vandal|Amcluesent}}<br>{{IPvandal|204.245.42.164}}<br>{{IPvandal|64.210.144.214}}<br>{{IPvandal|83.92.187.138}}<br>{{IPvandal|84.66.192.148}}<br>{{IPvandal|84.69.100.236}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.202.1.166}}<br>
{{IPvandal|90.204.211.188}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.106}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.108}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.11}}<br>
{{IPvandal|90.205.89.110}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.113}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.117}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.120}}<br>
{{IPvandal|90.205.89.122}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.132}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.135}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.136}}<br>
{{IPvandal|90.205.89.141}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.147}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.149}}<br>
{{ColBreak}}
{{IPvandal|90.205.89.153}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.161}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.162}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.165}}<br>
{{IPvandal|90.205.89.169}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.187}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.193}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.195}}<br>
{{IPvandal|90.205.89.198}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.20}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.200}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.201}}<br>
{{IPvandal|90.205.89.209}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.216}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.218}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.219}}<br>
{{IPvandal|90.205.89.221}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.223}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.234}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.236}}<br>
{{IPvandal|90.205.89.245}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.247}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.249}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.28}}<br>
{{ColBreak}}
{{IPvandal|90.205.89.3}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.32}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.33}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.36}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.39}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.4}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.41}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.45}}<br>
{{IPvandal|90.205.89.51}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.52}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.54}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.56}}<br>
{{IPvandal|90.205.89.63}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.64}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.67}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.71}}<br>
{{IPvandal|90.205.89.78}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.79}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.8}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.85}}<br>
{{IPvandal|90.205.89.90}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.207.93.66}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.240.35.89}}<br>{{IPvandal|92.12.114.52}}<br>
{{EndMultiCol}}
{{hab}}
Claims he works for the ], see . All the accounts and IP's have similar edit patterns. --] (]) 20:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
:Good work finding all the IPs. Probably a nice notice about COI and maybe an intro to editing template would be good. If anyone is thinking of blocking any of these IPs, it would probably be nice to report them to ] since these seem to link back to official UK national police departments. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 03:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|Lindy Li}}
::It is not inconceivable that WP might need to work with the UK police on some occasion, so let's be a little bit nice.
* {{userlinks|Napoleonjosephine2020}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
User Napoleonjosephine2020 has been registered since 2020 and has almost exclusively edited Lindy Li's page. Since Kamala Harris has lost the US Presidential election, Li, previously a stalwart Biden/Harris partisan has made multiple appearances on TV attacking the Democratic Party and has seemingly declared she has left the Democratic Party. Several users (including myself) have edited Li's page to include these recent news stories. Napoleonjosephine2020, whose edit/user history shows her praising Li in laudatory terms, has repeatedly objected to inclusion of this information, deriding it as minor and irrelevant. Napoleonjosephine2020 has also engaged in personal attacks against other users and acted combative. Multiple unregistered IP addresses starting with 2601:41:4300:9370 (presumably coming from the same location) have also removed these edits, with a writing style similar to Napoleonjosepine2020, accusing other users of bad faith and using the same rationales for why this information should not be included. Napoleonjosephine2020 has been subject to temporary editing restrictions due to their disruptive editing, I suspect these unregistered IP addresses are Napoleonjosephine2020 making edits outside their account so that their registered account is not subject to further sanctions for disruptive editing.


Given this pattern of behavior, I think the evidence points to Napoleonjosephine2020 having a personal connection to the subject, with an interest in violating NPOV leading them to repeatedly engage in disruptive editing/edit warring.] (]) 01:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::The only currently-active logged-in user in this group is {{userlinks|Bamford}}.


:{{ping|Vosotros32}} Prior to your filing report here, the article was already semi-protected until March 2, and the editor in question was indefinitely ] from editing that article. I'm not sure what more you think this report is going to accomplish. --] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 13:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::We need to get the attention of ], to persuade him to moderate this editing. I suggest semi-protecting both of the articles listed above and all the related UK police articles, to prevent the clogging up of recent changes. Bamford was recently blocked for six hours. Until we can abate the flood of changes, it will be hard to discuss article improvement. The usage of so many IPs is very peculiar by WP standards. My guess is that a number of police employees have been asked to add information, but only Bamford has created an account. I suggest we ask Bamford to agree to some conditions:
::* Ask all his colleagues to create an account before editing
::* Identify (by account name) all the other editors who have affiliations with his organization
::* Provide edit summaries for all changes
::* No editing under an IP address
::* No reversion of anyone else's edits without a Talk discussion
::* Participate in discussions in good faith, and listen to the responses
::* No more than 20 edits per day on UK police articles (per editor) until this COI item is resolved.
::I suggest semi-protection until this is closed. I welcome your comments on this idea. ] (]) 03:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


== State University of New York at Geneseo ==
:::Good suggestions. Although I might not list it as directly, say "If you could try avoid editing under an IP address". Also, edit summaries are important, but for many new users, I suspect their easy to forget. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
{{atop
| result = Soft blocked for promotional username representing Geneseo's Communications and Marketing (CommMark) team. ] (]/]) 01:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
Please don't block or protect. "Clogging up recent changes" is not a reason to pull out the administrative tools. Leave messages for everybody and explain site standards to them. Coach them how to do things the right way. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|State University of New York at Geneseo}}
:::I strongly support this point of view. ''Very'' strongly. ] (]) 19:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|CommMark1871}}
:Why not? Editing in a manner that messes up the tracking infrastructure and confuses ongoing review of changes is a form of disruptive editing. ] (]) 13:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
:::No, it isn't. It means our ''systems'' haven't handled it properly. It isn't disruptive in and of itself. ] (]) 19:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This editor has only edited the college's article, their username indicates a potential connection ("Comms" may indicate a role in communications at the college and 1871 is the date when the college official opened), and they have not responded to a brief but direct question on their User Talk page about this potential connection. Their edits are not objectionable but ] is not optional and our ] exists for good reasons. ] (]) 23:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::In this context, I don't see the difference. It's an edit pattern that's damaging the purpose of cooperatively creating an encyclopedia. It's academic whether this arises by directly impeding other editors or interacting badly with "the system". ] (]) 20:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
{{abot}}
::Perplexing situation, there has been multiple attempts at dialog with little or no results. The latest response is a bit concernining, .--] (]) 16:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


== Kathryn Babayan ==
:::I'm not surprised. Have a look at the three edits that he was blocked for. (After scores of normal ones.) He's blanked the page twice, which is fine, he receives a warning. But in heaven's name, look at the , which he was blocked for. Sheesh! ] (]) 20:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
:: Just for clarfication as some editors seem to be confused about this - the NPOA is an govt administration and advisory body set up to assist and give direction to Police forces in a number of areas - they are not connected to operational policing as carried out by UK police forces. --] (]) 20:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|Kathryn Babayan}}
:::Guess he's decided against . --] (]) 01:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|2601:401:100:46E0:B919:9891:DF5D:FC9F}}
::::Article talk vandalism ..--] (]) 01:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|2601:401:100:46E0:E169:2FC9:4E47:B104}}
::More:<br>{{IPvandal|204.245.42.164}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.56}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.51}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.141}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.51}}<br>{{IPvandal|90.205.89.11}}<br> I've protected the page due to the Anon switching IP's to remove the COI tag--] (]) 18:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Kathryn Babayan was an academic article I made two weeks ago. As of the past 24 hours, there is an IP editor on a rotating IP address that has been making wholesale wording changes to the article. Some of the changes are okay, more detailed than I had been, but I'm wondering if they're edging into promotional territory for her books. I tried asking the first version of the IP editor if they were Babayan themselves, which I feel is likely, but I received no response. And they're back to making changes just now with a different IP.


Suggestions on what should be done? ]]<sup>]</sup> 22:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:: removed the COI tag, and added 5 links to npia.police.uk.--] (]) 13:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
:The BLP is bloated with puffery and sources. It should be shortened substantially. ] (]) 00:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
:::More COI tag removal.--] (]) 14:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
:: is how it was before the IP changed things, which I think was a good summary of her work. No idea what you're talking about with the sources however. There are technically only 9 in use in the article, with only one of which being a primary source from her university page. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::] --] (]) 16:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Just revert to the last good version before the IP started editing. If the user continues to edit the article then revert them again and request page protection at ]. ] (]) 01:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Created another sock account {{vandal|Konemannn}} --] (]) 17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
::::K. I've gone ahead and made the revert, though I kept the lede change the IP made. Since I think that was actually an improvement. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::'''Comment.''' ] was indef blocked, and controversial editing of the main articles seem to have stopped a week ago. How do we feel about removing the COI tags? Does anyone see a current problem with their neutrality? To refresh your memory, here are the articles concerned (add others if you see any that were edited significantly):
:::::Article has now been protected to prevent further disruptive editing . With thanks, ] (]) 17:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::*{{la|National Policing Improvement Agency}} ''(COI tagged)''
:::*{{la|Serious Organised Crime Agency}} ''(COI tagged and semiprotected)''
:::*{{la|List of Special Response Units}}
:::*{{la|Durham (HM Prison)}}
:::*{{la|Low Newton (HM Prison)}}
:::*{{la|Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases}}
:::*{{la|Police Staff College, Bramshill}}
::] (]) 02:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
:::I'd say another week would be good. There were 5 days between the creation of his last 2 accounts. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 02:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


== ] == == Captain Beany ==


*{{user3|CaptainBeany}}
*{{resolved|This seems to be a resubmission of a complaint which expired with no action being taken. No specific problem was ever clearly identified. ] (]) 03:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC) }}


User:CaptainBeany has been editing the ] article a few times over the past 16 years, as well as other edits related to the subject's novelty political party and former museum. They've made no edits outside of this.
*{{User|Jayen466}} - This single user keep son pushing his agenda with multiple articles about the topic. Possible POV/COI issues have been raised by various people in both the english and german language wikipedia. If he finds any small error he tends to revert much more massive changes. He repeatedly claimed to aim at a neutral article but any changes he makes read like love letters unless someone massively steps on his foot. It was previously suggested in the discussion page to notify people here to enable balanced revisions without single users interference in the future. (] (]) 03:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC))


In 2010 they and asked for a sourced paragraph about a fraud conviction to be removed from the article. Discussions in response at
::We had this one already 15 days ago, ]. Give over. -- <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 20:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
] and ] decided that this was appropriate biographical content and should not be removed.
:: The archive of the previous (inconclusive) debate is ]. There is no reason to re-open it. ] (]) 20:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
:::The ] was filed by ], who has not been active since 5 February. In an exchange of User talk messages on 1 February, Semitransgenic ] he would provide further details, but they have not yet been forthcoming. If {{user|62.47.23.131}} believes there is still a COI issue with this article, he should give diffs of what he believes are inappropriate edits. ] is one of the editors who worked on ]. This article, related to the topic of ], has been identifed as a ]. ] (]) 05:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


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


:The user to the COIN notification, though exactly what they're trying to communicate is beyond me. --] (]) 05:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Articles:
* {{La|Enterprise architect}}
* {{La|Enterprise architecture}}
* {{La|Zachman framework}}
* {{La|John Zachman}}
* (perhaps others)


== Science of Identity Foundation ==
]s
{{archive top|No substantial evidence indicating a conflict of interest has been presented in this complaint. As such, I am closing this discussion as groundless/.{{pb}}When filing at this board, {{u|Sokoreq}} is reminded to explicitly state the reasons that they believe a conflict of interest (as defined in ]). In particular, it is important to to avoid ] by making complaints here while failing to state a reasonable case to conclude that a COI exists. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 04:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
* {{Userlinks|Metaframe}} (Nov 2007 - Feb 2008)
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{Userlinks|Lockezachman}} (Jan-Feb 2008)
* {{pagelinks|Science of Identity Foundation}}
* {{Userlinks|Len Morrow}} (Feb 2008)
* {{Userlinks|Phogg2}} (Feb 2008) * {{userlinks|Hipal}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
* {{Userlinks|Ron Gaba}} (Feb 2008)
This senior editor reverting my constructive edits repeatedly, in which I created a new section to simplify the content and cited reference. However, it appears that the editor is maintaining the article and may have a conflict of interest. Even though I have warned the editor, but now editor has started an edit war. ] (]) 18:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{Userlinks|Brandy Downs}} (Feb 2008)
:@], why haven't you attempted to discuss this at ] first? ]&nbsp;] 18:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{Userlinks|Greg Zorne}} (Feb 2008)
::Agreed. Looking over the talk page and edits, I don't see anything suggesting Hipal has a COI. Nor do I see anything to evidence that Sokoreq has a vested interest in editing the article, although it is curious that they went straight to the noticeboard without participating in the talk page. —''']''' (]) 18:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{Userlinks|Tom Corn }} (Feb 2008)
:::@] You are right, I was surprised that the editor keeps reverting my edits. This behavior suggests editor may have ] or feel a sense of ownership of the page. ] (]) 19:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{Userlinks|MatthewFordKern}} (July 2007)
::::Reverting your edits is evidence that they disagree with you, which is allowed. Disagreeing with you is in no way evidence of a conflict of interest. ] (]) 19:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{Userlinks|Mkernatmkerndotcom}} (March 2008)
:::::@] Yeh, I agree with you, but how many times ? And why? did you check my edit ? The editor was doing endless reverts, even after I requested clarification about their concerns on the talk page. ] (]) 20:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* (perhaps others)
::::::You were also 'doing endless reverts'. Do you have a conflict of interest? ] (]) 20:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Did you check my edit? What is wrong with that edit? I would like to know so that I can improve myself for next time. Please be specific. Thanks ] (]) 20:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::You can improve yourself for next time by recognizing that reverts are a normal part of Misplaced Pages's editing process (see ]), and by refraining from making unfounded accusations towards other editors just because they reverted you. ] (]) 20:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I followed ], but the editor didn't adhere to the discussion part: 'Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement.' Anyway, did you check my edit that the editor reverted several times? That would be really helpful. ] (]) 20:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::No, you began edit warring after you were reverted. That is not following ]. And you still have not posted at ]. ] (]) 20:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::The editor reverted my edits without any explanation and did so repeatedly. I am still waiting for your insight. Did you check my edit? What mistake did I make? I want to understand; any help would be appreciated. ] (]) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Some of the mistakes that you made were edit warring and posting spurious talk page warnings (and now a noticeboard entry) rather than discussing your edits on the article's associated talk page. I'm not going to contribute to compounding those errors by debating the content with you here. If you want to continue with this, I would suggest that you withdraw the allegations you have made against Hipal, including the spurious vandalism, COI, and harrassment warnings you placed on their talk page, apologize to Hipal, and then go to ] where active discussions are currently taking place without your participation. ] (]) 20:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::You are trying to make it seem like it's my fault only, and you are missing the point. Anyway, thanks; I have already explained my COI concern below. ] (]) 21:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] Already, there is a lot going on in that talk page. ] (]) 18:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@] I agree that it's daunting. However, you don't get to override discussion by jumping straight to a noticeboard, and especially not COIN.—''']''' (]) 18:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@] I apologize, but the editor's behavior was strange and did not make any sense. Now, after seeing the article history, it looks like the editor has a sense of ownership or maybe a conflict of interest. other than that, I don't have any other evidence to prove the COI. I leave the final decision to you, but now I am feeling Anxious about whether I should touch that article because it seems like that editor owns it. This is strange! ] (]) 19:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:I think this can be closed as a groundless complaint. Sokoreq has continued to edit since opening this complaint but has yet to try to discuss the edits in question at ]. No evidence has been provided for conflict of interest, other than the OP's apparent assumption that there is no other possible reason that their edits would be reverted. ]&nbsp;] 21:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


== ] ==
Metaframe as Stan Locke, managing director of Zachman Framework Associates (note similarity in Lockezachman username).
* {{userlinks|Kateblau}}


Multiple draft creations of spammy company articles in a relatively short period of time:
COI edits, which for some reason included removing references and templates, were brought to my attention ] by ]; he will probably have more to add here. — ] ] 06:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
Received a COI notice January 5th but has continued to edit without declaring any COI. ''']'''<sup>]]</sup> 02:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:здравствуйте! я создаю статьи о компаниях по киборгизации и автоматизации, научных деятелей в этой области, это будет сделано в короткий промежуток времени, потому что проделана большая аналитическая работа по данным компаниям и я загружаю уже составленную ранее информацию, это не реклама, я допустил несколько ошибок, потому что впервые на википедии как автор, пожалуйста, я могу дальше создавать страницы? ] (]) 18:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
;Related discussions:
:Hello! I am creating articles about companies in cyborgization and automation, scientific figures in this field, this will be done in a short period of time, because a lot of analytical work has been done on these companies and I am uploading previously compiled information, this is not advertising, I made several mistakes, because this is my first time on Misplaced Pages as an author, can I please continue to create pages? ] (]) 18:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
* ]
::It appears that you are using a LLM like ChatGPT to create these drafts, and that your own communications are machine translated. Is that true? ] (]) 18:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
* ]
*I've deleted some of these; they all seem to be on the same pattern, making roughly the same claims. I assume LLM use at minimum. ] <small>(])</small> 20:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
--] (]) 16:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


== John Ortberg ==
Lockezachman claims to "represent a group of about 60" . --] (]) 16:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
: Anyone else think it's time to semi-protect these articles, given all these new accounts joining in? --] (]) 18:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
:: Enterprise architecture is protected because of the edit-warring there. --] (]) 19:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
I have been editing the Zachman Framework article for the past couple of weeks in an effort to clear up its problems and clear the tags. A few others have made some contributions, but they have been constructive in my opinion. I don't think that article needs to be protected at this stage.
Pages:
* {{pagelinks|John Ortberg}}
Users:
* {{userlinks|Timothydw82}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Timothydw82 is a ] which is used solely to promote, defend and censor valid information about ]. Timothydw82 admits to consulting with Ortberg about the article on ] and has also used that page to make disparaging comments about Ortberg's son, Daniel Lavery. This is both a serious COI and POV problem. He has been warned before by other editors. My most recent warning (for POV editing) was met with what seems to be feigned incomprehension and "Do you work for Misplaced Pages?". I think it is time to put an end to this farce. ] (]) 02:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


:Thanks for sharing your concerns. I’d like to address the points you’ve raised to clarify any misunderstandings about my contributions and intentions.
] (]) 20:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
:First, while my account may appear to have a narrow focus, my goal has always been to ensure that articles on Misplaced Pages adhere to its principles of neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sourcing. My edits related to John Ortberg and related topics are aimed at upholding these standards, not promoting or censoring information. If there are specific examples where you believe I’ve violated these principles, I welcome a constructive discussion to address them.
:Second, regarding my consultation with John Ortberg: I acknowledge that I have communicated with him, as I’ve disclosed on my user talk page. However, my involvement has been strictly limited to ensuring that edits align with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines and reflect accurate information.
:Third, concerning the comments about Daniel Lavery, I understand how sensitive these matters are. My intent was not to disparage anyone, and if any of my remarks were perceived as inappropriate, please bring them to my attention.
:I'd also like to express my disappointment in your accusing me via direct message of treating you like "idiots". That felt like a curt, uncalled for accusation with little to no dialogue or support. You have not engaged in a discussion with me but clearly expressed your desire to see me blocked for little to no good reason I can discern.
:Finally, regarding warnings from other editors: I value feedback and strive to learn from it. I am more than willing to engage in dialogue to resolve disputes and improve the quality of articles. If there are ongoing concerns about my edits, I encourage the use of formal dispute resolution processes so we can work collaboratively toward a solution. ] (]) 02:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Is that AI generated text? I ran it through a few different detectors and most thought that it was at least partially AI generated. ] (]) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation ==
Ronz: I have only just noticed that you restored important material on the Zachman Framework that users LockeZachman and Len Morrow had deleted for no reason that I could tell. Thank you. --] (]) 01:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
:You might add ] to the list, he contacted me after I semi protected Enterprise Architect to complain about the Wrong Version I believe. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Pages:
* {{pagelinks|Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation}}
* {{pagelinks|Park Hyeon-joo}}
Users:
* {{userlinks|Channy Jung}}
* {{userlinks|203.239.154.130}}
* {{userlinks|Chisu1020}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Suspected undisclosed COI editors. Single-purpose accounts used exclusively to edit on this person and his foundation. All of the edits are complimentary, and almost entirely unsourced.


I warned Channy Jung () and 203.239.154.130 () but both have continued editing ] and have ignored the warning (, ). Chisu1020 has been inactive for a while though, but same pattern of behavior.
This tag-team edit-warring is getting tiresome. --] (]) 17:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
:Curiously, an editor named ], who is probably the same person as ], made a very sensible contribution over at ], including a new image of the Zachman model. It is at ], ] and ] that he seems uninterested in paying any attention to our policies. ] left a warning over at ] that included a big picture of a stop sign. Apparently this editor feels that only those references that are approved by his company should appear in Misplaced Pages. (We are not allowed to entertain any opposing points of view). Since he doesn't own Misplaced Pages, I'm not sure how he expects to make this happen. ] (]) 18:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
::] continues to revert out the TOGAF reference. I just left him a blatant vandalism warning. Would welcome some advice on how best to proceed. ] (]) 03:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
:::I think it's time for an uninvolved admin to consider an initial block for Lockezachman. --] (]) 17:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
::There appear to be grounds for a block on a particular editor, but while we're still meditating on that option, I see there is movement over at ]. A couple of editors have been trying to remove the POV issues with the article. Phogg2 appears knowledgable in this area and (though he is still included in the COI list above) he has made some useful edits. Ronz has removed the notability tag from ] in response to the edits by Phogg2 and ]. I'm still hoping that someone can improve ], which is really the parent article for this whole area. ] (]) 04:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm hoping that the recent progress is a sign that this is coming to a resolution. --] (]) 18:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


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


Also worth noting the is similarly fluffy. I suspect Park/his foundation are watching these articles.
* {{Userlinks|EmmSeeMusic}}
; Other editors adding same links:
* {{Userlinks|66.152.202.82}}
* {{Userlinks|71.124.182.22}}
* {{Userlinks|71.124.195.92}}
* {{Userlinks|71.124.245.67}}
* {{Userlinks|75.68.106.136}} owner of mandymoorepictures.com
I've run across this guy before, but never had the time to look into some very suspicious editing by him. I'm guessing that the many picture and forum links he adds (and re-adds) are all run by the same people or company. If not, he's still spamming them. Anyone have time to look into this? --] (]) 02:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
:The latest site that EmmSeeMusic is connected to a number of other sites. EmmSeeMusic added links to most of those sites: , , , and . The websites probably belong to EmmSeeMusic, as they left a on their talk page that said: "Your personal attacks against my websites are what is in question." I removed the links that were still in the articles and left the user a warning. ] (]) 03:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks for the help! --] (]) 17:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


He's added another. Given his history and the warnings he's received, I've left a uw-s3 notice on his talk page.--] (]) 17:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC) ] (]) 05:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

:And now 75.68.106.136 has contacted me on my talk page, claiming to be owner of mandymoorepictures.com. --] (]) 04:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
:: of a spam link removal shows a certain chutzpah, since it uses ]. The total number of edits made by this user (through all his accounts) in 2008 is not large (less than a dozen, I think). Doesn't ] have a highly-tuned system for dealing with these guys? Can't they block him if he persists after escalating warnings? ] (]) 05:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes, this needs to be taken to WT:WPSPAM. I wanted the raise and discuss the COI issues first. --] (]) 18:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As the owner of the sites I stand by them as relevent links. I have been on wikipedia for a long time and my links for Hazel Mae, Suzy Kolber, Betty Nguyen, Giada De Laurentiis have better information, media, etc than their official sites. Regardless they are quality editions to wikipedia, IMO. They are not "SPAM" - I have ads on my sites to keep them up. I am a volunteer on weekends, I am not a wealthy guy. My posting of my sites on Misplaced Pages is not malicious. I just had to give my 2 cents. ] (]) 12:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
:Whatever your intentions may be, you can't keep adding these links against consensus. (The Misplaced Pages community gets to decide on the value of these links, not you). You've had plenty of notice. Do you understand that you may be blocked if you continue? ] (]) 12:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
::So I need to present members of the Wiki community (besides myself) to dispute your claims that HazelMae.net and BettyNguyen.net are SPAM? ] (]) 05:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
::Also, look at my complete EmmSeeMusic edit history. You are pigeonholing me into a typical malicious spammer category and my websites sites are far from that. I've had my HazelMae.net / SuzyKolber.net / BettyNguyen.net / Rachael Ray / Giada De Laurentiis links up for years, the regular editors of those wiki's did not have any issue since they actually know the subject of the article and believe the links are relevent. Those people are members of the Wiki Community.] (]) 05:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
:::You realize we're not having a long discussion about this. Since hazelmae.net is your own site, you are not supposed to add it anywhere. Nobody needs to pigeonhole you. Admins can block you for violating the rules, of which you've been notified many times. ] (]) 05:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Seconded, site owners should not post their own sites to articles. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 06:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
::::"Also, look at my complete EmmSeeMusic edit history." Yes, I think an in-depth look at his edit history is worthwhile. It appears to consist mostly (almost completely?) the addition of links which he has a COI, as well as what appears to be the removal of links competing with his own. --] (]) 17:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've started a spam report: ] --] (]) 17:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{resolved|No-one who commented agrees with the submitter that there is any problem with the neutrality of these articles. ] (]) 01:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC) }}

* {{article|Teshkeel Comics}} - corporate vanity pages. None of these entries seem newsworthy (local comic book company) and they have entered several other entries on wikipedia to promote themselves including:
* {{article|The 99}}
* {{article|Jabbar the Powerful}}
* {{article|Sven Larsen}}
I would verify what the IP address is for each of these entries. I would suspect they are all from the same user. <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. {{ #if: | The preceding ] comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC).}}</small> 18 February 2008.

COI users concerned:
*{{UserSummary|Teshkeel}}
*{{UserSummary|Svenplarsen}}

No contributions for more than a year. ] 12:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
:] looks like a decent article. The comic is mentioned by the New York Times. Comics published in Arabic are a topic that deserves some coverage on Misplaced Pages, and what these articles have to offer is probably new information for many people. As MER-C points out, the people named above as COI editors have not been active lately. I removed some advertising language from the ] article. Does anyone see a problem here that needs further study? ] (]) 06:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
::This does not seem to be one of our more burning issues. Only MER-C and I have responded in the six days since the complaint was filed. Can we close this? ] (]) 04:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

→ ''<u>See also</u>: ] (result: redirect to ])''
* {{La|Hydrino theory}}

{{userlinks|TStolper1W}} has written what is essentially a vanity (i.e. self)-published of ], an entrepreneur working in an area of unconventional physics. There is a legitimate question of whether there is a ] generated by promoting the target of his work. In his defense, he claims that he has published the book on Amazon free from royalties and claims no other financial ties to Mills or his company, Blacklight Power. He has been asked to refrain from contributing to ], the main page on Mills' work, but shows no interest in stopping. Is there a case to prevent him from contributing at all based on this history? I'd appreciate some expert opinion on this. ] (]) 02:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
:Additional information: Stolper is running a ] - he has only edited regarding Mills. Stolper was blocked once for edit warring on ], and also continues to push his own personal POV on the article. Stolper's POV is in direct contradiction to the ], which makes the edit warring and COI problems somewhat worse. ] (]) 19:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
::Admin note: awhile back, I restricted {{user|TStolper1W}} from editing the article ], requesting that he limit himself to making suggestions on the talk page given his evident COI and related issues. However, now the Randell Mills article has been merged/redirected to ], where TStolper1W ''is'' editing, and rather heavily at that. One option is to extend the sanction I placed on the Randell Mills article to ] now that the Mills article has been redirected there. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 23:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
:It's clear (at least to me) that ] has a COI when contributing to either the original article ] or to the article where it now redirects, ]. MastCell banned Stolper from directly editing the ] article , and his notice to Stolper can still be seen on the latter's Talk page at ]. If editors who have a COI respond combatively to suggestions from regular editors that they be cautious, this inclines us to limit their editing to the article's Talk page, which is exactly the remedy that MastCell has established in this case. After perusing ], and noting his approach when he receives comments and suggestions about his COI, I believe the situation fully justifies extending his ban at ] to include ]. Ronnotel already notified him about the ] report, but if he does choose to offer comment, we should listen carefully to what he has to say. ] (]) 21:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
::I concur. Provided Tom respects WP basic editing protocols I see no reason not to allow him to try to influence debate on the talk page. However, I would also like to hear more from Tom on this matter. ] (]) 01:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
My paperback book isn't a biography of Mills. It's an extensively documented and footnoted study of the reception of his work, in historical and contemporary context. The paperback book is available from Amazon for $10.25 + shipping. At that price, there is no profit. Writing such a study and making it available is a credential, not a COI. Mills is a real and original scientist. No pseudoscientist has ever been able to do all that Mills has done: found a company, direct it himself for over 16 years, raise over $50 million for it, recruit and retain scientists and engineers with standard degrees and research backgrounds to work with him and for him, make presentations at scientific meetings, and publish dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles about his work. ] (]) 15:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for joining the discussion. You were invited to contribute here because an administrator, ], is planning to extend your existing article ban on ] to include ] as well. Your blanket defence of Mills's wonderful work doesn't give us much reason to take you seriously, since you didn't make any reference to obeying Misplaced Pages policies. Please explain how you plan to moderate your editing in the future so that you don't continue to deserve a ban from the Mills-related articles. ] (]) 18:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
We seem to be far apart. Michaelbusch has been biased in the extreme against Mills from the word go, as one can see from what Michaelbusch has done and has written in the discussion elsewhere. In this section, he added a charge against me of running a single-purpose account (see above). It’s illogical to ask me to edit articles about which I know less in order to edit the article about which I know the most. As even Ronnotel conceded at the bottom of my User talk page, I know as much about that material as anyone (other than Mills himself). Refusal to allow a defense of Mills proportionate to the attack on him in the Misplaced Pages would be very unneutral. ] (]) 15:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
:TStolper, you seem to misunderstand the purpose of this COI discussion. This is not about your views of Mills, or your mis-understanding of my enforcing Misplaced Pages's adherence to the scientific consensus. Here we are trying to determine if your block from editing of ] should be extended to ], nothing more. As Ed noted, you are not helping yourself. ] (]) 18:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
It’s not a COI to have studied, since 1991, the reception of Mills’ work, nor to have written and made available an extensively documented study of that reception. It’s a credential. The Misplaced Pages wasn’t founded to enforce orthodoxy. Enforcing orthodoxy by silencing other views stunts the progress of science and always has. Refusal to allow a defense of Mills proportionate to the attack on him in the Misplaced Pages would be unneutral at best. ] (]) 13:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

:: Actually that IS what wikipedia is suppose to do - we take the mainstream view on things using published sources - the "progress of science" is irrelevant to wikipedia. --] (]) 13:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

:::Let's do this: TStolper1 may comment freely on the ]. However, he is limited to 0RR in editing the ''article'' ]. This means that he may make an edit (as proposed text), but if it is reverted for any reason, then he may not reinsert it, in any form. This is an alternative to a complete ban from editing the article which would allow TStolper1 to contribute text suggestions directly, but not to edit-war. Expertise is welcome, but where there is a clear and well-documented connection as exists here, that expertise should be used persuasively on the talk page rather than by editing (or edit-warring) on the article directly. I'll open this for comment before imposing it. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 19:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
::::Sounds OK to me. It does depend on him knowing how the 0RR works. I assume you'll be the one enforcing it so you'll be able to explain it if he winds up violating the ban due to misunderstanding. ] (]) 14:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::Perhaps a ] would give him enough leeway to avoid being blocked out of unfamiliarity yet have the same practical effect of preventing him from engaging in edit warring. Zero reverts seems akin to a topic ban. ] (]) 14:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
MastCell, what is the connection to which you currently object? ] (]) 16:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:MastCell, I like the idea of your proposal above, but I'm afraid Stolpher has considered it license to add ] back to the article - which I have just reverted. Please see ]'s page history. ] (]) 18:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

== Bob Goodlatte ==

* User {{Userlinks|Ks1123}}
* User {{Userlinks|Marge60}}
* {{article|Bob Goodlatte}} - two single purpose accounts, likely the same person, continue to add overtly partisan, obviously inapproriatte text like: "An example of the system gone awry" and "There is also a growing concern that..." and "...which will force Congress to enact fiscally responsible spending measures...", etc. It all reads like a campaign brocure, and in fact is probably copyvio of one since the new text often strays wildly off the subject of the article. I've been reverting the changes but could use some help and a few more eyes. ] (]) 21:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
:If they have similar editing style, times, etc, ] will probably produce a faster and more lasting result than a COI tag would. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 02:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
::The second account did nothing but revert back to the version by the first one, so unfortunately there is no "similar editing style". The reversions are the only edits of this editor, so I assume it is a sockpuppet but at the same time there is no evidence of sockpuppetry except a pretty logical guess. ] (]) 02:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Hmm, checked their edit histories. Would be reason enough IMHO to file a SSP, but I've been known to have a liberal view of that. Try a ] and ] on each and work your way up. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 02:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
::::I agree that the POV excesses are breathtaking. This deserves someone writing up the problem at ]. ] (]) 03:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{Resolved|The article was fixed up and the promotional tone was removed by a helpful member of ]. ] (]) 21:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC) }}

* {{La|Cleveland Museum of Art}}
* {{Userlinks|LAndrewsCMA}}

], a communications assistant at the Cleveland Museum of Art, recently made some edits to the article. She substantially expanded it, added pictures, etc. Her edits were as being inappropriate in tone. She emailed me, confused, asking what had happened. I'd like someone (or several someones) willing to work with her to make this article better. ] (]) 18:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
:The edits by ] did create an article with a promotional tone. Unfortunately, there is no relevant conversation happening on the article's Talk page. Since this article is causing so much trouble, maybe stubbifying is the right thing to do. Promotional edits keep on being made, and then policy-enforcers sweep through and revert them, so we need a genuine improvement (even if it's only a stubbification) to stop the cycle of reverts. Any volunteers? :-) ] (]) 02:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

::I will leave her a message and try to help.--] (]) 01:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

:I can't really see the problem - she has not edited it for over a month. If she wants to be useful, releasing low-res images of star works of theirs we have articles on like ] and ] would be a sensible way to boost their PR. ] (]) 02:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
::Johnbod, thanks for your improvements. Can other editors look at to see if they agree it's sufficiently neutral? ] (]) 02:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
:::Thanks - feel free to keep adding artist links after I got fed up doing so ... :) ] (]) 03:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

== The Organic chef ==

{{resolved|Deleted as spam. ] 01:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)}}
* {{Article|The Organic chef}} - Clearly self promotional, but not quite SPAM. I am not sure what to do. Possibly notability also. Style also is well off. Lastly really gets me. ] (]) 20:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

== Tureya Ashram in India ==

*{{article|Tureya Ashram in India}}
*{{user|Omkarananda}}

Very slick single-edit SPA creation, clearly by experienced editor (is a new account allowed to create an article in semi-protected state as has been done here?). Poster asserts to be copyright holder of images in the Tureya Foundation Achieves , which would imply a relationship with the organisation, perhaps webmaster@tureya.org . ] (]) 21:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
:I'd say either stubbify it or AfD it. Its got too much content and sources (however inappropriate they may be) to go the Prod and CSD route. And of course the user should be warned with the right COI tag. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

== User:Olaffpomona ==

{{resolved|1=Its ] outside. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 07:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|Olaffpomona}} - User creates article for own company (]), links this and other (smaller) companies owned by themselves to different articles, and removes all tags from these articles (speedy deletion, not added by me, and notability and COI tags, added by me). As I don't want to be harassing him or her (I have already deleted other articles by same editor, tagged problems, ...), perhaps some other, uninvolved editor can have a look and try to solve this. ] (]) 13:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
:I've nominated ] as AFD on grounds of lack of notability. See ]. ] (]) 23:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

== COI tag on ] ==

{{resolved|Apparent consensus at ] that the COI tag should be removed. The disputed passage mentioned earlier is now out of the article. ] (]) 21:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC) }}

* {{La|Leon's}}

Over the past 18 months, an IP user ({{IPuser|207.188.94.238}}) has made less than 10 minor edits to an article which, as of a few days ago, s/he was revealed as being connected with (via the Helpdesk edit in the history). Now two editors have added the COI tag, which says, "The creator of this article, or someone who has substantially contributed to it, may have a conflict of interest regarding its subject matter.". This doesn't seem to fit with the minor contributions of the IP editor - is this correct use of the tag? ] '''·''' ] '''·''' ] 08:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
:Per of a paragraph of criticism by the IP editor I think the COI tag is justified. The at the Help Desk should be carefully listened to, though, since under ] the subject of an article is allowed to remove what they believe to be factual errors. It needs an investigation to see whether the removed paragraph is truly justified, since it may not be relevant to an article about the furniture store. (Misbehavior by a relative of the store owner seems remote, unless his activities are blessed by the store management in some way). Consider inviting the IP editor and the person who restored the COI tag to join this discussion. ] (]) 18:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

→ ''<u>See also</u>: ] (now closed as Snow Keep), and .''

* {{article|Norman Bettison}}
This bio of a UK Chief Constable has been doing its best impression of a slow-motion tennis ball for a while now. It started as a puff piece, got turned into a hatchet job, I waded in and tried to de-POV it (and got barked at in the process), then found some neutral ground... only to have some IPs and now an editor, {{user|Webteam3}}, start replacing what seemed to be relatively neutral and sourced copy with what they're calling an "official neutral version" from the West Yorkshire Police. Problem: the "official neutral version" looks kind of whitewashed to me. I'm utterly perplexed as to how to manage this one. Could we get more eyes on it, please? ] <small>]</small> 16:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
:So we're talking
:*{{user|79.67.252.250}}
:*{{user|194.152.91.186}}
:*{{user|Webteam3}}
:As long as ] is satisfied, Misplaced Pages is in no way obliged to use a version matching an "official neutral version", which can be guaranteed to put the best spin on anything controversial. ] (]) 18:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
::*{{user|81.86.147.19}} was also involved at one point, and got a 24-hour time out for edit warring. I agree with your assessment, but would like to be sure that there isn't a problem with the previous version before doing anything else. ] <small>]</small> 20:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for your help and the discussions, I appreciate the feedback. However we find it frustrating that a previous editor who appears to be seeking to harm Sir Norman's reputation by including very carefully selected negative assertions, without any right to reply, seems to be considered "relatively neutral and sourced". This person has been very clever to reference only controversial, negative issues which in many cases were later satisfactory resolved. The same editor also, at one stage, published on the page a reference to "Sir Norman being a moron" which surely undermines any credibility he/she might pretend to have. Bearing in mind Wiki's policies on LPB being factual and non-controversial, we attempted at first to publish a straight lift adapted from Sir Norman's official CV on the West Yorkshire Police website. This was not only rejected by Wiki but resulted in my IP address being temporarily blocked for 24 hours for "vandalism". Therefore, following feedback on discussion pages and bearing in mind your policies, Sir Norman prepared the current version which attempts to respond to the negative issues raised in the previous unauthorised entry, ie Sir Norman's appointment to Merseyside, the Force amalgamation programme and the recent vote by West Yorkshire Police staff on the shift system. As an example, the previous author sought to raise negative capital with a reference to the fact that staff had rejected the shift system, by a slim majority, attempting to create a perception that Sir Norman was unpopular. However, it is a fact that officers in the Force have now voted by an overwhelming majority to accept the new shifts. It is also important to point out the changes were being made in the first place to better meet the needs of local communities. So we have attempted to answer his/her points objectively, whereas the previous Editor was being very selective with half-truths. I must repeat that this person appears to be seeking to damage Sir Norman's reputation which is why we have been forced to respond by publishing a biography which does not shy away from the accusations but attempts to meet Wiki's policies on LPB - factually complete and correct, not littered with tabloid assertions. I thank you again for your help and can provide any proof required that I am acting on behalf of Sir Norman, and I hope you will find that by carefully reading our version, it does provide a full and balanced view, as one would expect to read on a published biography. Otherwise, we will be forever having to respond to every negative issue the malicious author can think up next. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Unfortunately there never is a "finished" version of Misplaced Pages articles. Whatever the problems, if you represent Sir Norman, you should read the Misplaced Pages ] guidelines. Being in this position gives you the right to reasonable correction, but not the right to demand your own version of the article, permanently. The guidelines suggest strongly that you help via the Talk page.
:As it stands, the version you favour does need editing, and I agree with Tony Fox that it has a whitewashy flavour. Where it touches on controversy, it so underplays it as to leave readers no idea what it was about. For instance
::"''This was despite a difficult introduction when it was reported that Sir Norman had been involved in the investigation of the Hillsborough Stadium disaster in 1989 when 96 Liverpool football fans died. He offered to meet with relatives of those who lost their lives at Hillsborough to defuse the controversy''"
:is meaningless without explaining ''why'' his involvement was controversial. ] (]) 12:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Given the level of control that {{user|Webteam3}} is demanding over this article, we ought to have proof that he/she is acting in some official capacity related to Sir Norman. Otherwise, ] is quite sufficient. ] (]) 18:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been mentioned in a news story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/29/nwikipedia129.xml —] 14:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
:Interesting, but wrong in many respects. It hasn't been "locked down" (that was only what he wanted); it doesn't mention the conflict of interest guidelines; it omits the very real controversy about his role in the Hillsborough enquiry; and it doesn't grasp the basis of Misplaced Pages in collaborative editing. I see they don't allow comments.
:Still, I take that (and the coverage in Police Review) as confirmation of the COI. I suggest {{user|Webteam3}} and socks should now be held strictly to ] guidelines.
:The "official version", now it's wikified, is actually not too bad as a starting point. The semiprotection should calm down both the vandals and the socks. ] (]) 19:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

::Please would Webteam3 upload a ] photograph. ] ] 18:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

== Naseba ==

* {{La|Naseba}}
* {{La|Scott ragsdale}}
* {{Userlinks|125.16.229.162}}
* {{Userlinks|Veena.ammadu}}
* {{Userlinks|Indira.ravi}}
* {{Userlinks|Sachinuppal}}

{{user|125.16.229.162}} who is trying to remove fact tags and resisting clean-up on ] and associated articles such as ], doesn't communicate. IP resolves to Naseba so clear COI. Also likely that {{user|Indira.ravi}} and {{user|Veena.ammadu}} are same editor. --] (]) 13:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
:Persistant little IP isn't he? Has he hit 3RR yet? Didn't look too closely at the others, but ] might be the best place. Do you think the article needs semi-protection at this point? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

:: I added {{tl|userlinks}} above for users Veena.ammadu, Indira.ravi, and Sachinuppal. — ] ] 17:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

== Gamers: The Movie ==

For nearly three months, {{user|Encyclopedia Mike}} has made dozens of edits across multiple articles that all promote a small independent film, '']''. The same user created the movie's article and an article on its director, ]. Many edits are trivial insertions to promote the film, such as , and . As far as I can tell, the user's entire edit history has been a campaign to promote the film throughout Misplaced Pages. ]? &#151;] (]) 20:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
:Whoville, are you saying that any of those edits were inappropriate? COI requires bad edits. It doesn't matter if the contributor only cares about one thing, ''in itself''; if he's ''merely'' self-promotional, then it's COI (and I suspect that's what you mean). I don't want to follow all the links unless you are asserting that some of them are bad edits, right? ] (]) 21:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
::The links above are examples of where the film or its director have been inserted into articles with a non-notable connection. I don't think it's notable that '']'' is an example of a "mockumentary" and needs mention in that article, or that because the film features a Loverboy song it requires a mention in the band's article. Or that '']'' is in any way to ''Gamers: The Movie''. That's the type of COI I'm concerned about. I've since found other edits from a that inserted Folino's name into articles connected to his , and lists of genuinely notable and . A separate discussion is whether ''Gamers: The Movie'' and Chris Folino meet Misplaced Pages's notability criteria in the first place. &#151;] (]) 21:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
:::These look like examples of spamming which needs dealing with; but unfortunately it only comes under the conflict of interest brief if there's solid evidence (e.g. self-identification, IP address) showing the editor(s) to be connected with the movie. ] (]) 22:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
::::Help me out, then. Is there a different process for reporting this kind of spam? I figured it would be rejected as ''vandalism'' which is why I didn't report it at ]. Since there seems to be some consensus that these edits are inappropriate, I'd hate to think they'll be ignored because of a procedural technicality. &#151;] (]) 22:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::I am the author in question. The movie in question was critically acclaimed by several movie websites. Both the author and the movie were covered by major media outlets for film like CNN, ABC television and the Hollywood Reporter. All the facts are verified. I swear on a stack of bibles that I am not doing this to promote the film and I am receiving no financial gain from it whatsoever. I find this to be a talented up and coming director who made a very good acclaimed movie. As far as the links go, I am new on Misplaced Pages. I thought you were supposed to link your work. If it came off as overexuberant, I apologize. (Although I would say that linking a movie voted BEST FILM OF 2006 by two sources to LOVERBOY is hardly undermining LOVERBOY.) But I honestly want to follow and respect Wiki's rules. Most importantly, I would hate to see a notable subject penalized for my lack of procedural knowledge. I hope the articles in question stay. I believe this is an artist of merit. I would very much like make this an Misplaced Pages insertion considered scholarly and proper. Thank you. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->--] (]) 06:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::Whoville, if it helps you resolve this faster, I will refrain from making any further edits regarding Folino or the film in the future. Being new to Misplaced Pages I thought everything had to be cross referenced. Again, I will happily leave further authorship on this subject to others to avoid the appearance of conflict. Thank you.--] (]) 07:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

* {{La|Peter Smith (painter)}}
* {{Userlinks|Stainlesssteel666}}

Fairly obviously a self-promoting account, since he's responsible for just editing ] and adding a massive, spammy section to ] advertising the same. Is he even notable? ] (]) 10:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
:No, he is not. AfD it, adding to ]. ] (]) 03:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

== Politician Dean A. Hrbacek ==

* Article: {{La|Dean A. Hrbacek}}
* {{Lat|Dean A. Hrbacek}}

]s with apparent ]:
* {{Userlinks|Watchingthedog}}
* {{Userlinks|Qp10io1011}}
* {{Userlinks|Jbgtx}}
* {{Userlinks|99.128.112.102}} removed "Photoshop controversy" three times (so far). — ] ] 23:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Various users have been ]ring on the article about Hrbacek, a politician who is a current congressional candidate in Texas.

User {{Userlinks|JamesMLane}} has attempted to engage the other users on the article talk page. The issues came to my attention on the ] project. — ] ] 18:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

== Common Cause article may need attention again ==

→ <u>See also</u>: ] (two sections) and ].

* Article: {{La|Common Cause}}
* User {{Userlinks|Dbarnold1}}

] user Dbarnold1 expanded the article four-fold today. Earlier discussions of COI edits to this article are in more than one COI/N archive; the difference this time is that quite a few references to independent sources (in addition to several citations of the organization's own website) were added. I'm posting here to draw the attention of impartial editors to it again. — ] ] 20:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The article has been in the ] since 2004 (). User Dbarnold1 removed it today (). I invited discussion on ]. — ] ] 17:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

: I am a student volunteer for this organization. However, I do not feel that I have a conflict of interest that would require me to withdraw from editing this article. I volunteer for their media and democracy department, which I made sure to not comment on as to avoid bias. I also made sure to cite credible sources for each statement made, pulling only from the organization's website for the mission statement, membership/funding data, and only two references to issues. — ] (] • ]) <small>—Preceding ] was added at 00:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::A well-known organization like Common Cause that is active in public issues should be heavily covered in the press. We prefer to reflect what outsiders say about an organization rather than what the organization says about itself, unless the facts involved are quite simple and uncontroversial. Someone who works in the media department of Common Cause should have access to lots of press clippings, I would assume. The current opening of the article sounds promotional, and we don't usually include multi-sentence direct quotes of somebody's mission statement as in:<blockquote><small>''Common Cause’s mission is: “To strengthen public participation and faith in our institutions of self-government; to ensure that government and political processes serve the general interest, rather than special interests; to curb the excessive influence of money on government decisions and elections; to promote fair elections and high ethical standards for government officials; and to protect the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans'' </small> </blockquote>It would be OK to address some of those topics in our article, but we should obtain reasonably neutral and balanced press sources for the quality and extent of Common Cause's work in each area. We should not just report Common Cause's own opinion on how well everything turned out. ] (]) 03:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

== Edits that promote company by the supposed new key person ==

* {{La|Intown Suites}}
* {{Userlinks|Collierdaily}}

{{Intown Suites|Intown Suites}} - I have discovered several edits within the last month on the page ] (which I initially created) by a user named ''']'''. These edits, for the most part, have changed the content of the article from a near neutral point-of-view to a promotion of the chain (some of these changes I have reverted). One of the changes that has been made is that the "key people" section of the template has been changed from "David Vickers, Cheryl Vickers" to "Scott Griffith, '''Collier Daily'''." Not that doing this is anything wrong, but that the user who has been making the changes that promote the chain is one of the key people of the company. This user's contributions now list just 6 edits, all of the Intown Suites article.] (]) 20:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

'''Follow-up''': A Google search of "Intown Suites" and "Collier Daily" produces just 5 hits, one of them which is the Misplaced Pages article on Intown Suites.] (]) 04:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

;Article:
* {{La|FreeLife}}
;Editor:
* {{Userlinks|Freelifelegal}}
: Freelifelegal has been informed of WP:COI and WP:U, but could still use some help getting a new username as well as assistance with editing ]. --] (]) 17:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

::I restored this complaint from Archive_22, since the debate is heating up. ] has been . Looking at ], that page shows a history of not-terribly-cooperative editing going back to April, 2007. There have been complaints about company supporters removing negative information at several points during the last 11 months. ] has lately been doing some useful cleanup work on the article. In its current form, the article looks OK to me, but we may have to persuade ] to edit more carefully in the future. Though Freelifelegal's user name may appear promotional, I wouldn't suggest blocking for username unless further issues appear. Anyone who has the time is urged to leave messages at ] if you notice any further edits that seem worrisome. At this point, we can't consider the COI-affected editors to be newbies any more. ] (]) 00:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

:{{UserSummary|Jsteelefreelife}}<br>{{UserSummary|Jody Steele}}<br> Not sure if these are related, but may be.--] (]) 01:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I took me a while to get anyone to even comment on my edits. Finally Barek will be working to help create a balanced entry. I chose this username so that there would be no question that I was associated with FreeLife (a the suggestion of Jimbo Wales to our company). One of my first posts on the discussion page was that I was associated with FreeLife, was a newbie to Misplaced Pages, and would appreciate any help I could get to ensure I was not violating the COI rules. I received absolutely no responses until all my edit were recently removed without any explanation on the discussion page. There seems to be a tendency to immediately jump to the conclusion that anyone associated with the company cannot possibly make edits without violating the COI rule. I respectfully disagree. I am thrilled that Barek is now involved and I will work within the rules with his help to get this entry to where it should be.] (]) 16:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

;Article:
* {{La|XBRL}}
The page ] could use some attention. Almost all recent editors seem to have COI issues, large or small (including Lancet75, Colcomgroup, Mike Willis, and myself). I include myself in this category since I have been an editor of the XBRL specification, and I'm asking for some advice about the quality of my editing on the page and the talk page. Thanks!
] (]) 03:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
:Since ] is an open standard, that argues in its favor. But nearly all the information provided in the article is from proponents. Isn't there any press coverage? Who needs XBRL, exactly? Who invented it? Does anyone agree with them? What's the extent of its adoption? Does it have disadvantages? Are there alternatives to XBRL? Our readers might like to know these things. ] (]) 21:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

== user ] ==

* User {{Userlinks|Crlittle1}}
i see no other edits besides inclusion into many dozens of articles 'references' and 'see also' promoting author's own book, with 'helpful' link to amazon page for same. i left a notice on user's talk page, no response. if there's a way to blanket revert all of these i think it would be appropriate. ] (]) 05:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

:I agree. They can't be "references" if he wasn't actually adding content to the article, and most of the other entries were under "further reading", with links to amazon.com. Rolling back now. --] | <sup>]</sup> 16:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

::thanks kindly. ] (]) 17:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{report top|'''No action required or taken.''' ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 18:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)}}
User Jossi had that he will not be abusing his administrative power's for promoting cult view, as it is established beyond doubt that he is promoter of cult view's on wikipedia, and abuses his administrative power to delete pages without any scope of discussion, attempt to discuss matter with him result in response as a latest example he himself was involved in and then deleting the page himself. Under normal circumstances if an admin is acting as editor, he must not abuse his admin power's in those article's, especially when it is well known and accepted by himself that he will stay away from editing or abusing cult related topic's on wikipedia. --] (]) 16:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
: With a user-name such as ], that contravenes ], and with accusations that are ], such as calling me a "cult member", you should know better than to continue ] and trolling my page. If you have any issues with my admin actions, feel free to report them at ]. ] <small>]</small> 16:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
: The page you refer: ] was deleted by ], and not by me. ] <small>]</small> 16:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


I have responded to above statement on Jossi's talk page, but he has removed it, --] (]) 17:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

:And also on my --] (]) 17:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


:::'s (aka ) stated purpose is to create a cult free world. This strong POV bias even appears in his user name. He name-calls and harasses any person he thinks is practicing an eastern spiritual tradition with a guru. He is not here to create valid Wiki articles but to promote this POV (consider his user name).

:::Are there some sanctions available for this type of behavior? It is slanderous to run around calling everyone who has expertise in eastern spiritual traditions cult members. It's like someone running around and calling every German a Nazi. ] (]) 18:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

::::] has declared a COI regarding Prem Rawat and related articles. It's appropriate for him to avoid editing those articles and he has committed to doing so. While he may have a POV on articles concerning cults in general, he does not have a conflict of interest with that broad topic. This request is inappropriate for that reason. Further, the article was properly deleted. Jossi is free to remove items from his talk page just as ] may also remove material from his own talk page. I don't see any legitimate issue here. ]] ] 18:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
{{report bottom}}
== ] ==

* {{Userlinks|Tnspdr}}
* {{Userlinks|Shearwater63}}
* {{article|Affinion Group}} - Two accounts, ], whe has edited from an IP belonging to the company in question, , and ], who admits to being an employee of the company, are tag-teaming to remove negative information from the article. Tnspdr, who had been inactive since before Shearwater63 began editing, returned to revert warring after Shearwater was blocked earlier today for ] and then warned for . In particular, the editors are interested in keeping the several other names under which the company has done business out of the intro. They also generally blank some or all of the section on complaints that have been made against the company. -- ] | ] 21:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

== ] removing content from ] ==

* {{La|Citizens Commission on Human Rights}}
* {{Userlinks|CCHRInternational}}

Also adding poor content, probably copied from CCHR materials. ] (]) 06:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

== ] appears to be advertising books by an Italian publisher ==

{{userlinks|212.183.163.237}} edits seem to be adding lots of book references to material published by Zecchini Editore who appear to specialise in classical music books.--] (]) 14:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:Failure to understand the term "references" is a dead giveaway. Don't think there's a COI here but it's definitely spam. Reverted. ] 12:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks. I thought it might be COI as it was adding disproportionate weight to this publisher as a source. How should I report such incidents in future?--] (]) 15:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
:::] - ] ] 20:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

== Request for opinion about myself ==

I have been accused of having a conflict of interest. Since I develop real estate on the island of Bonaire, and used to own a hotel there, it has been suggested that I should not have made . By extension, I would think that my edits to the ] article would be called into question as well. I think that that is on the level of claiming that someone from Boston can't edit an article about ], but I am airing the accusation here so that I can see the consensus.] (]) 14:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
:In terms of the deletion of the reference to Holloway from the Aruba article, I see no conflict of interest there - I believe that there is no need to mention her in the body of the article (see ]).
:For the Holloway article itself, most of your edits look fine, although I'm not so sure about . Why delete a link to a news article from a point in the article where a citation was explicitly requested? - ] ] 19:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
::Stylistic, I guess. The ''citation needed'' flag seemed to be on the concept that there was coverage on Aruba (which really seems to be kind of a pointy flag in the first place), not on the fact that Aruba has Dutch, Papiamentu, and English newspapers.] (]) 20:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
:::Hmm. To me, the sentence says both 1) there was coverage on Aruba; and 2) Aruba has Dutch, Papiamentu, and English newspapers. Since this is an example of such local coverage (although Amigoe is based in Curaçao, Aruba still appears to be within the paper's circulation area) I think it is worth inclusion. Apart from that, I saw no other problems with your conduct, unless anyone who disagrees can provide a diff that proves the contrary. - ] ] 21:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
:::: No harm here, but that you for being careful. ] (]) 20:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

== User:ArborBooks ==

{{user|ArborBooks}} is a ] responsible for ] (along with {{user|FeareygroupPR}}) and ]. The latter has had speedy declined under db-bio, and there is a potential notability argument, but in present form the article is pretty much ], and the Oasis article isn't a lot better. --] | ] 00:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

== John Saldivar ==

Article: {{article|John Saldivar}}<br />
User: {{userlinks|Jsnyc79}}

A self-penned article that has been tagged for various things since Feb 2008. {{user:Jsnyc79}} continually removes the tags, the main one being lack of references for which he doesn't seem inclined to provide. There is also a smattering of ] terms. It's debatable as to whether this article should go to AfD but I'd be grateful for other eyes on it first. ]''' 03:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

== ] and ] ==
* {{La|Channing Tatum}}

See ]. {{user|Wcfirm}} has spent the last year here doing almost nothing but squeezing mentions of his own site into the article for actor ]. He (she?) is now claiming his site is official (despite being a blogspot.com site) and therefore is more appropriate - but an entire paragraph?! Thread at ] and recent ] report have led to a week-long block. —] (]) 12:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
:I Googled for it and found another site that claims that the blogspot site is the official site. It could well be, because blogspot is easy to mantain and Google gives good search engine ranking to its own domain. Now a days the upcoming actors and musicians use free Web platforms like blogspot, facebook, and myspace to promote themselves. ] (]) 13:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

* {{Userlinks|Laquishe}}
: MaxSem for a week at 05:54, 6 March 2008 UTC. At 06:31 UTC, another ], Laquishe, began editing. Same? — ] ] 21:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

:*{{spamlink|channingtatumunwrapped.blogspot.com}}
:*{{spamlink|channing-tatum.com}}
:--] (]) 21:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
:::. That account has been indefblocked and Wcfirm's block has been doubled to two weeks. —] (]) 22:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

== Millennium Pharmaceuticals ==
* {{La| Millennium Pharmaceuticals}}
* {{Userlinks|Millenniumpharmaceuticals}}

I rescued this article from deletion, because the company is clearly notable, but User Millenniumpharmaceuticals keeps insisting on changing the article into a piece of marketing blurb rather than an encyclopedia article. My patience is running out, and I'm sure I will end up being ] if I carry on trying to sort this out, so could someone please help out? ] (]) 19:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
: I have soft-blocked the user for having a promotional user name. ] (]) 20:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:58, 9 January 2025

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

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

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

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests Talk:260 Collins Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:Aspen Dental Talk:Atlantic Union Bank Talk:AvePoint Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Edi Birsan Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Bunq Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Adela Demetja Talk:Etraveli Group Talk:Richard France (writer) Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire Talk:Group-IB Talk:Hall of Fame for Great Americans Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Insight Meditation Society Talk:International Motors Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:List of PEN literary awards Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Jonathan Mildenhall Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Optum Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician) Talk:QuinStreet Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Trendyol Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    This Day on Bella Disu

    I am trying to cut promotional content from Bella Disu. This Day seems like a "reliable source". However, looking at the content they've published, I'm concerned that this newspaper may have a conflict of interest when it comes to her/her billionaire family.

    In fact, many of the sources used in the article seem like the kind of thing a billionaire in a country like Nigeria probably paid someone to write but I am not sure how to handle this. 🄻🄰 08:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

    Maybe best to raise the issue at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (WP:RSN). Users there may be able to confirm your concerns or perhaps could point you in the direction of a list of WP:RS and non-RS sources within the Nigerian media. Hope this helps. Axad12 (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Just a brief follow-up to say that there is actually a current thread at WP:RSN in relation to the reliability of Nigerian newspapers (here ) which may be of assistance to the user who opened this thread. It seems that the existence of sponsored content in Nigerian newspapers is a widespread problem. Regards, Axad12 (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have run across a new editor who has created many articles based on these Nigerian sources. At first I thought it was a conflict of interest but now I am not so sure (but probably a conflict of interest with at least one of the subjects). I have moved the new articles to draft. Special:Contributions/Akpakipoki 🄻🄰 17:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:Taeyasu/Sample page

    3 accounts with no contributions except to write promotional-sounding article User:Taeyasu/Sample page. Notably:

    • "Trend Alchemy" appears to be the name of a PR firm in Italy
    • The Trendalchemy account became inactive after being informed of paid-editing policy
    • The Dpatrioli account was created afterward and has not disclosed COI status.

    I'd take this to SPI but the third account hasn't made any edits since I posted on its talk page. Thought I'd get a few more eyes on this in case the pattern continues. --Richard Yin (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    I recently attempted to get the material speedy deleted under WP:G11 but this was declined due to the material not being considered "unambiguously promotional".
    Presumably an attempt will be made at some point in the near future to introduce the article into mainspace. At that point, at a minimum, the elements of the article which clearly are promotional should be removed, and an undeclared PAID template added. Possibly the material should be draftified.
    However, what concerns me is that it seems reasonable to assume that the Trendalchemy account (plus the other accounts above) appears to have links to a PR firm and the draft material is currently titled "Sample page". The material is not in the user's sandbox or being curated as a draft, it appears to be a sample of the work of a PR agency displayed on the user page of that PR agency. That being the case, I do personally believe that deletion under G11 would have been appropriate as a userspace clearly should not be being abused in this way, as per WP:UP#PROMO (i.e. prescribed material includes Advertising or promotion of business). I'd invite input from SD0001 on the grounds for them declining the G11. Axad12 (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    G11 is for unambiguous promotion which it isn't. COI is not a rationale for speedy deletion either. WP:MfD is thataway if you want it to be deleted. – SD0001 (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    I agree that it is not unambiguous promotion of the company which is the subject of the article (a company called "Translated").
    However, it is most definitely unambiguous promotion of the PR firm who created the material because the material is titled as being a sample of the work of that PR firm and it is presented on the userpage of that PR firm.
    Or do you believe that PR firms post samples of their work online for reasons other than unambiguous self-promotion? Axad12 (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    UPDATE: I resubmitted the material for speedy deletion and it was deleted by a different user. Axad12 (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    Update: See Dpatrioli's message and my reply on my talk page here. --Richard Yin (talk) 11:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    As just replied to @Richard Yin, and to give here with some more elements for your evaluation, this is what happened:
    1) Trendalchemy , Dpatrioli are not representing any PR Agency, they both work at Translatedin the Communication department. You may find evidence here
    2) @Taeyasu is an independent writer, and he has been hired to help us to write this article about Translated. He is not representing a PR agency but he is been paid by Translated for this task.
    3) The main reason for the "speedy delete" request of the page was that the author/contributors were suspected to be a PR agency promoting itself with this page; the material, as I see in the talk history, has not been considered "unambiguously promotional".
    We are new to produce contents here. But we decided to write this page and we made a draft, this wasn't finished. The page was meant to describe what has been the contribution of Translated in the last 20 years in the development of the Transformer applied to the AI and, more specifically, to Machine Translation advancements. The company developed a number of technologies available to the public, some of them free, and we believe it's notably and there is a huge number of third parties sources to mention that.
    Thanks for the input, in case we publish again material we'll sure specify the proper COI. Dpatrioli (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    The draft was not considered to be "unambiguously promotional" but elements of it were certainly highly promotional in intent.
    I see the evidence that Dpatrioli works for Translated, but no evidence that Trendalchemy works for Translated. Trend Alchemy is a PR firm. Axad12 (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Axad12 Trendalchemy is not actually a company, is a laboratory, and the founder is Patrizia Boglione. Check this page on trendalchemy website where it's written: "I am now the Brand & Creative VP of Translated, one of the most innovative tech-companies in the translation industry that combines the best artificial intelligence with a network of 200,000 translators." Patrizia is the same person mentioned here in the website of Translated.
    As far as "but elements of it were certainly highly promotional in intent", I understand where you come from, and we'll try to make it right, but I believe we can make a page where there's a relevant story for the audience (and I think there's one), then if I write something wrong, questionable, or with inappropriate sources, well it will be the public to correct or to modify it. From my side, I can write what I know from my angle (including declaring COI), it would be odd if I write something with the intent of discredit the company I work for. Dpatrioli (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    The Trend Alchemy website states that Our products and services include Trend Report, New Brand Narratives, Future Brand Strategies, Brand Coaching, Custom Brand & Trend workshops, Trend Talks. There can therefore be little doubt that it is, broadly speaking, a PR company.
    Also, Misplaced Pages is not about making a page where there's a relevant story for the audience. This is an encyclopaedia, not an opportunity for marketing operatives to install a narrative. For further info on this please see WP:BYENOW. Axad12 (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    That's very useful, thank you 2.236.115.127 (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    Chris Antonopoulos (footballer) and Fort Lauderdale Strikers

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

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

    Adolph Jentsch

    There is an IP editor who is repeatedly entering non-encyclopedic text, such as this diff. I've reversed him once but he then sent me several abusive emails accusing me of article ownership, so I don't want to reverse him again. I cannot give him a COIN notice because he uses different IPs every time he edits. Can someone other than me please remove the edit and perhaps protect the article from IP edits? Thanks! Ratel 🌼 (talk) 05:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    You can request page protection at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection. -- Pemilligan (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Conflict of interest - Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra Article

    Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra, I think there is a conflict of interest here. The director himself has created an account and working on the article - Herodyswaroop (talk) 08:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    The Article was intitated by @udaywrites and is getting expanded by @anuragpatla. Who are the crew of the film. Herodyswaroop (talk) 08:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Vanskere

    This editor is screaming conflict of interest to me. Both articles have been tagged as promotional utilizing WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA, I have nominated them for deletion. As you can see on the user talk page, they have been asked about conflict of interest without a response. They also posted asking about how to make Google index their brand's article. Their primary other edit was to add the brand to Fashion in Nigeria. 🄻🄰 18:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Upon further investigation looking at the user's linked social media, the brand page in question is listed as one of their clients. 🄻🄰 18:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Marc Jorgenson

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

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

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

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

    Ilyas El Maliki

    I think the two users are the same person and probably work for El Maliki to write the article. 🄻🄰 22:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    The photo of El Maliki was uploaded by User:MoroccanEd 🄻🄰 22:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/MoroccanEd. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    Lindy Li

    User Napoleonjosephine2020 has been registered since 2020 and has almost exclusively edited Lindy Li's page. Since Kamala Harris has lost the US Presidential election, Li, previously a stalwart Biden/Harris partisan has made multiple appearances on TV attacking the Democratic Party and has seemingly declared she has left the Democratic Party. Several users (including myself) have edited Li's page to include these recent news stories. Napoleonjosephine2020, whose edit/user history shows her praising Li in laudatory terms, has repeatedly objected to inclusion of this information, deriding it as minor and irrelevant. Napoleonjosephine2020 has also engaged in personal attacks against other users and acted combative. Multiple unregistered IP addresses starting with 2601:41:4300:9370 (presumably coming from the same location) have also removed these edits, with a writing style similar to Napoleonjosepine2020, accusing other users of bad faith and using the same rationales for why this information should not be included. Napoleonjosephine2020 has been subject to temporary editing restrictions due to their disruptive editing, I suspect these unregistered IP addresses are Napoleonjosephine2020 making edits outside their account so that their registered account is not subject to further sanctions for disruptive editing.

    Given this pattern of behavior, I think the evidence points to Napoleonjosephine2020 having a personal connection to the subject, with an interest in violating NPOV leading them to repeatedly engage in disruptive editing/edit warring.Vosotros32 (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Vosotros32: Prior to your filing report here, the article was already semi-protected until March 2, and the editor in question was indefinitely pblocked from editing that article. I'm not sure what more you think this report is going to accomplish. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    State University of New York at Geneseo

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

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

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

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

    Kathryn Babayan

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

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

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

    Captain Beany

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

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

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

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

    Science of Identity Foundation

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

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

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

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

    User:Kateblau

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

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

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

    John Ortberg

    Pages:

    Users:

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

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

    Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation

    Pages:

    Users:

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

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

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

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

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

    Categories: