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

< Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:37, 28 July 2008 editMiszaBot II (talk \| contribs)259,776 editsm Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 10d) to Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive_25.← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 20:34, 9 January 2025 edit undoBishonen (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators80,332 edits →John Ortberg: indeffed
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 = 25		\|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 ] ==
	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 ] ==

	* ]   ''This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.''

	== Requested edits ==

	* '''].'''  ''Editors who believe they have a Conflict of Interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should undo the {{tl\|Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requestor to explain your decision.''

	== Idiomag ==

	* {{article\|Idiomag}}Marginally notable website, created by single-use editor Idiogirl, written much like an advertisement.

	== Pcarbonn ==

	{{userlinks\|Pcarbonn}}

	Look at this user's user page where he brags that he has "won the battle" over cold fusion. I think he should be banned from editing in article space per his obvious conflict of interest and ].

	] (]) 14:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
	:Could you explicate your argument for COI a little more? I'm sorry, but my first take is that this is an unusual COIN listing by someone who states on their own user page that they are "tired of silly drama on Misplaced Pages." ] (]) 16:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
	::Read . ] (]) 18:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
	:::Okay, I read it, but I still don't see a conflict of interest. Are you suggesting that writing about an instance of Misplaced Pages processes on a news site disqualifies someone from editing here? I agree that talking about "winning the battle" on one's user page is perhaps unnecessarily triumphalist, but I still don't see a COI (and certainly not a reason to ban the editor, not that this is the right forum for that discussion). ] (]) 18:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
	::::I can't see a sufficiently close relationship to the topic to count as COI. That said, the edit history certainly looks SPA and tendentious, with a sole interest in being here to overturn the article's reflecting the real-world sceptical consensus about cold fusion: see also - "''many of the prominent individuals known to New Energy Times who are observing the field are keeping mum though a few observers such as Ron Marshall and Pierre Carbonnelle have tried their best to participate''") and other off-wiki discussions . ] (]) 20:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I have never tried to "overturn the article's reflecting the real-world sceptical consensus about cold fusion". Actually, I have fought hard for the article to represent precisely that view, instead of the view of rejection and pseudoscience that some editors have tried to impose without appropriate sources. I have asked editors to stick to what the 2004 DOE report was saying. This is also clearly described in the article I was asked to write for New Energy Times. ] (]) 20:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
	::::::It doesn't come across that way.
	:::::::"''I'm pleased to report that the revised page, resulting from the mediation process, presents the topic as a continuing controversy, not as an example of pathological science. This is a major step forward in the recognition of the new field of condensed matter nuclear science and low-energy nuclear reaction research ... I now have a lot of respect for all paradigm-shifting scientists, like Copernicus, Galileo, Fleischmann and Pons, and the other courageous cold fusion pioneers''".
	::::::reads as a distinct agenda of Righting a Great Wrong re cold fusion. We all have biases, but if your aim is push a new paradigm into Misplaced Pages, ] and ] definitely apply. ] (]) 20:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

	:::::::My particular concern over this is that ''New Energy Times'' is all over that article, with several citations and external links. It's not just a conflict of interest, it's self-promotion. --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 21:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

	Conflating on-wiki disputes and off-wiki advocacy is never a good idea. While I think there is a bit of Pot-Kettle-Black going on here, I think an apology is in order, Pierre. However, you have been a strong contributor to this page and a topic ban is overkill. ] (]) 22:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

	::I should say that I'm not interested in a topic ban. I just want links that are promotional removed, and for the article to be reliable. --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 23:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

	:::I did not want to have the NET article mentionned in the cold fusion talk page. I just wanted SA to know about it, and I posted my message on his talk page. It's unfortunate that Seicer brought it to the cold fusion talk page. I wish I had sent it by e-mail to SA, as we would have avoided the whole thing. As I did not bring it up, I don't see what I have to apologize for, but welcome any suggestion. I wish someone would ask SA to apologize for the many personal attacks that me and others had to endure. This episode is nothing compared to the incivility that he has been blocked many times for. ] (]) 15:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

	:::My response to another comment above: If the Great Wrongs is inconsistent with published, reputable sources, and if it is published on wikipedia, it is a service to wikipedia to Right it. The DOE does say it is an ongoing scientific controversy, not pseudoscience. Bragging about it out of wikipedia does not change this. I stand by what I wrote in the NET article and on wikipedia. ] (]) 16:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
	::::I've watched this unfold and it has been very frustrating. It was not helpful at all to the encyclopedia to have Pcarbonn boasting in an external publication that he has managed to influence it. SA's behaviour has been challenging at times as well. Full page protection should be extended and perhaps some editors should voluntarily turn their attention to other articles for a while. ] (]) 09:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

	For your information, I have apologized to ScienceApologist by private e-mail on July 14. ] (]) 10:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

	* I am absolutely not surprised that Pcarbonn turns out to be part of the NET POV-pushing cabal, he should have declared this COI up front, and I support a topic ban. That article has been completely hijacked by proponents of a minority POV, to the detriment of neutrality and the project's reputation. From the article: "Ihope that the revised Misplaced Pages article will help put a stop to the epidemic of pathological disbelief and that it will help raise the interest of scientists so that prominent scientific journals won't be able to reject articles on the topic "because it does not interest our readers." - this is a clear abuse of Misplaced Pages for advocacy. '''We are not here to "correct" problems which exist in the real world'''. The real world views this as a pariah field, Misplaced Pages is, thanks to Pcarbonn and his very determined friends, blazing a trail in "fixing" that. This is a perfect example of how Misplaced Pages is abused by thiose who want to promote a fringe view, and an admission of how important it it to get Misplaced Pages to reflect your fringe view. I think it's unforgivable, and if we let them continue to get away with it as they have then we might just as well ditch ]. Compare the current version with the FA version and see for yourself how much more the current version reflects the fringe view. And fringe it absolutely still is, though they fought tooth and nail against references which pointed this out. In fact, it went through months of mediation and Pcarbonn never once thought it might be relevant to mention that he was hoping to change the real-world view of this field. The apology above is incredibly hollow. "I'm sorry I abused the project to advance a fringe POV, but by the way I'm actually rather proud of it and am not going to back down". We shold return the article to the FA version immediately and wait for some editors who do not have a vested interest in promoting the frienge view of this subject. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 06:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

	::] says "Do not edit Misplaced Pages to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals, companies, or groups, '''unless you are certain that the interests of Misplaced Pages remain paramount'''." I am certain that the interests of Misplaced Pages remained paramount in all my edits. That's why I wrote many times "for the enemy", unlike many other editors. ] (]) 07:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
	:::For the benefit of a hitherto completely uninvolved admin, could you provide some examples of where you've written for the enemy on ]? ] (]) 07:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
	::: Pcarbonn, I am sure that in your own mind the interests of Misplaced Pages are best served by helping the real world to find out that it is wrong about cold fusion. Unfortunately, that conflicts with our core mission and non-negotiable policies. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

	I'm not seeing any COI issue here. Guy needs to go check a dictionary or something. You want to topic ban someone because they dare hope that a truth they believe in gets spread? He might be wrong about the information itself, he might not be, but what the hell man. No really, what the freaking hell. You are just spazzing out here. "It's unforgivable" and "detriment of neutrality and the project's reputation". Are you sure you didn't get your web browser windows mixed up? -- ] 09:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
	:Also, Guy's started a thread about Pcarbonn at ], which he didn't bother to mention here (or to Pcarbonn). -- ] 09:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
	:: So which bit is OK by you, again? The violation of ] or the crowing about it? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
	:::I'm not sure if he's violated NPOV or not, but the COI accusation seems unfounded. If an editor wants to gloat about getting an article to a version that they honestly believe is within our policies and guidelines, and is in the best interest of the wiki, fine by me. -- ] 00:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

	== ] ==

			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.
	{{user\|Oldnoah}} has a conflict of interest in regard to the ] page. In the interest of not publicly "]" the user (as I promised in an email to him), is there an email address to which I can send the evidence to be vetted? When I requested confirmation of the COI by email, he threatened to "out" other editors that contribute to the page, so I think this is a somewhat delicate situation. -- ] ] 06:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

			*
	: To be fair, more than one editor of the ] and ] are CERN employees including a Misplaced Pages admin. The shear numbers of pro-CERN editors and lack of equal respect for the opposition cause me to no longer feel comfortable contributing to the safety article. CERN has a direct interest in the outcome of the legal action in US Federal Court in Hawaii beyond any safety interests jointly shared with the plaintiffs. --] (]) 23:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
			*
	::And to be even fairer, ] is open about being from CERN, and has never used the tools on the article. That editor discusses all changes on the talk page, and never edits against consensus.
			*
	::OldNoah on the other hand, refuses to take any part in discussions, edit wars against consensus with a clear intention of personal off-wiki gain, and threatens to "out" other editors.
			*
	::Let's not pretend these two editors behaviour are anything like each other. -- ] ] 23:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
			*

			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)
	::: I dispute the statement "never edits against consensus". The CERN employee editor removed references to published peer reviewed papers that challenge the probability that Hawking Radiation might exist against editor consensus. I was personally reported by this editor as an Administrator Incident in what the editor later acknowledged was clearly a content dispute when I followed rules to the best of my ability while clear rule violations by another editor were ignored. I do not think the characterization that one editor is saintly and one is not is fair. --] (]) 14:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

			: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)
	Will you ''please'' stop hijacking discussions? If you want to report a conflict of interest, there's a "New Section" tab up the top of the page - you don't need to wait for someone else to click it for you. This section is regarding Oldnoah's disruptive editing where an undisclosed conflict of interest exists - period. To bring this back on topic, I'll repeat my points here:
			::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)
	*Oldnoah has a '''serious''', undisclosed conflict of interest.
			:::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)
	*Oldnoah has '''never''' (not once) taken part in the discussion of his contentious edits.
	*When discussion occurs, Oldnoah continues to edit against consensus.
	-- ] ] 00:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

			== User:Taeyasu/Sample page ==
	== ]: our article compared to the ]' ==

			<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
	*{{article\|Andrew Bone}}
			* {{pagelinks\|User:Taeyasu/Sample page}}
	*{{article\|Tomasz Rut}}
	*{{~~article~~\|~~Scott Jacobs~~}}		* {{userlinks\|Taeyasu}}
			* {{userlinks\|Trendalchemy}}
	*{{article\|Jean-Claude Picot}}
			* {{userlinks\|Dpatrioli}}
	*{{article\|Anatole Krasnyansky}}
			<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
	*{{article\|Park West Galleries}}
	*{{article\|Park west gallery}}
	*{{article\|Park West Gallery}}
	**deleted once before
	*{{article\|Charles Lee (artist)}}
	*{{article\|Alfred Gockel}}
	**deleted twice
	Note that some of these artists are likely notable; the articles in some cases appear to have been added as vehicles for links various Park West domains. I also left a note at ] asking for input on the notability of the more marginal subjects.

			3 accounts with no contributions except to write promotional-sounding article ]. Notably:

			* "Trend Alchemy" appears to be the name of a PR firm in Italy
	After reading a long ] article yesterdayday, , I was curious to see if we had an article. In fact we did: a slickly pretty article complete with "refs" and good compliance to our Manual of Style … it was also a .
			* 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've made a few changes to the article and tagged it for a conflict of interest; another editor added a small controversy section but it still needs more work. I dug up several other news articles that are listed in the external links and reference sections that could be potentially helpful with this.

			:I recently attempted to get the material speedy deleted under ] but this was declined due to the material not being considered "unambiguously promotional".
	One of the accounts, ], that produced the article has expressed willingness to make the article more acceptable; see our exchange at ].
			: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 ] (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 ==
			* {{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)
	Accounts:
	I've left {{tl\|COI}} warnings for all of these:
	*{{UserSummary\|Abansee18}}
	*{{UserSummary\|Sorlando}}
	**See ]; the image is by Park West Gallery and Sorlando holds the copyright
	*{{UserSummary\|JimRicefortheHall}}
	*{{IPSummary\|66.170.139.66}}
	*{{IPSummary\|68.60.34.248}}
	*{{UserSummary\|Wedrown}}
	*{{UserSummary\|Kb212}}

			: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)
			::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 ==
	A full list of domains is at:
	*] <small>(permanent )</small>
	I originally listed this case at WikiProject Spam however after a closer look it probably belongs here. This one is more of an article-spam/conflict of interest issue than a linkspam problem. Also, the spammed articles that have not been deleted are about subjects that are probably notable; they should be reworked rather than deleted.

			<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
			* {{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)
	I'd appreciate any help you could give in getting these articles (especially the main one, ]) up to our standards. You guys are much better at this than I am.

			== Conflict of interest - Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra Article ==
	Thanks! --<font face="Futura">] <sup>(] • ])</sup> </font> 12:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
			* {{pagelinks\|Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra}}
			* {{userlinks\|Anurag Palutla}}

			], 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)
	::A new editor, ], just deleted the small controversy section I and an IP added to the article. He also alleges slander, bias and conflict of interest on the part of myself and the other editor. --<font face="Futura">] <sup>(] • ])</sup> </font>
	:::Added to my watchlist. ] (]) 01:12, 20 July 2008 (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)
	== Don Ecker ==

			== Vanskere ==
	{{article\|Don Ecker}} and {{article\|Dark Matters Radio}} - A single user who appears to be the subject of the article is the primary contributor to ] and is the creator and only contributor to ]. Appears to be a self promotion of a radio personality lacking notability. Both articles are in an AFD state currently. ] (]) 11:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

			<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->* {{pagelinks\|Vanskere}}
	== HydraIRC ==
			* {{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)
	{{article\|HydraIRC}} - has been modified by the creator (I believe, signed Hydra, not logged in) of the software. Re-added unsourced statements that were removed and made some other changes (may or may not be okay). Comment on the discussion page by him shows substantial lack of neutrality. ] (]) 21:47, 20 July 2008 (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)
	:Its only references are primary sources, the software's own website. This is a good candidate for ] if its notability cannot be established using more reliable third party sources. <font color="purple">✤</font> ] <sup>]</sup> 22:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
	::Someone may want to nominate the article for ]. Recent edits by IPs do seem to be removing criticism. If you want to catalog the removals here, that might be enough to justify semi-protection. If the article is sent to AfD, it might well be deleted due to lack of reliable sources to show notability. ] (]) 22:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
	:::I think it's definitely notable in the IRC world, but largely through word of mouth. A quick search turned up some references: , , exploit in x-force database . The article definitely needs some work though. ] (]) 22:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

	== ~~Minnesota~~ ~~Online~~ ==		== Marc Jorgenson ==
			{{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. -->
	*{{article\|Minnesota Online}}
			* {{pagelinks\|Marc Jorgenson}}
	*{{article\|Minnesota State Colleges and Universities System}}
			* {{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 ==
	Problem editors:
	*{{UserSummary\|MnOnline}}
	*{{UserSummary\|Marceldesade}}

			* {{pagelinks\|Ilyas El Maliki}}
	I just put a ] on the ] article. After the fact I found a that included editing Misplaced Pages in the list of priorities. I expect that prod to expire and the article deleted because the problem editors have had no activity for over a year. However, this article should go to AfD if it is contested. Is there anything else to do about this blatant abuse of Misplaced Pages? <font color="purple">✤</font> ] <sup>]</sup> 03:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
			* {{pagelinks\|Draft:Ilyas El Maliki}}
	:I agree that the current form of ] doesn't have much value. If we could get any reliable third-party sources, the topic could conceivably be of interest. (A state-wide center, presumably government-supported, that takes care of online instruction). I'll not object to the PROD, but hope that someone comes up with better sources before the five days runs out. Now, about the other article listed: ]. I suggest that it be dropped from this report because I don't see any neutrality problems. ] (]) 00:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
			* {{userlinks\|IMDB12}}
	::Both articles should remain as part of the documentation. The latter was created by a ] that has only edited these two articles. Because there is a formal plan that enumerates Misplaced Pages as a marketing tool, these related organizations should both remain under scrutiny. Additionally, if user MnOnline edits again, the account probably should be blocked simply because the username is unacceptable (could be considered promotional and is likely a role account). <font color="purple">✤</font> ] <sup>]</sup> 12:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
			* {{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)
	== User Drsavard COI Notification ==

			::See ]. --] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 13:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	I am hoping you can help me with a Conflict of Interest dispute I am engaged in with User: Zodon. I am a contributor of several articles related to HPV and cervical cancer. User: Zodon feels this is a conflict of interest due to the fact that I have consulted with QIAGEN, the manufacturer of the HPV test. However, I am also a board-certified internist with broad medical experience in HPV, who also is a contributor to ABC Medical News. All of the changes I have suggested are backed up by recent citations from the medical literature. However, Zodon has not responded to the medical facts I was using to update the copy; he seems to be basing his opinions only on the fact that I have consulted with QIAGEN-which is one of a number of companies with which I have worked (as have many physicians).

			== Lindy Li ==
	I am unsure whether Zodon is a community member like myslef or a Misplaced Pages editor, and whether he has any medical background. I would welcome having a dialogue on the medical content of what I am proposing, and would be happy to make edits based on a common understanding of the data (see ] as an example). Can you help facilitate a next step, so that we can continue to serve your readers with the most up-to-date information available? Thank you. ] (]) 20:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

			<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
	== ] ==
			* {{pagelinks\|Lindy Li}}
			* {{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)
	{{resolved\|Deleted and salted. ] 03:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)}}
	* {{article\|A. Edward Moch}}
	* {{userlinks\|Aedwardmoch}} -- Supposed autobiography of a supposed psychic. He keeps creating the article after repeated warnings. ] (]) 20:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
	Update: deleted again by another sysop. ] (]) 21:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
	:(hands up) That would have been me - was contemplating salting the page for repeated recreation, but wasn't sure as the recreation isn't persistent in a temporal sense. ] (]) 21:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

			:{{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)
	== ] ==

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

			== Kathryn Babayan ==
	Both articles were created by ], he's the only one who has ever made additions, and they're the only articles he's ever edited.

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

			Suggestions on what should be done? ]]<sup>]</sup> 22:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	There's an active question as to whether each has sufficient notability to have an article, but an employee of the companies in question shouldn't be touching the articles.
			:The BLP is bloated with puffery and sources. It should be shortened substantially. ] (]) 00:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
			:: is how it was before the IP changed things, which I think was a good summary of her work. No idea what you're talking about with the sources however. There are technically only 9 in use in the article, with only one of which being a primary source from her university page. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Just revert to the last good version before the IP started editing. If the user continues to edit the article then revert them again and request page protection at ]. ] (]) 01:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::K. I've gone ahead and made the revert, though I kept the lede change the IP made. Since I think that was actually an improvement. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Article has now been protected to prevent further disruptive editing . With thanks, ] (]) 17:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Captain Beany ==
	: Disclosing COI...no subterfuge intended, just unclear on the guidelines. I've reviewed the COI policies and will refrain from editing the above articles. Although I believe the winery histories and published references are sufficient grounds for inclusion, I defer to the editors determine suitability. Thanks. ] (]) 14:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

			*{{user3\|CaptainBeany}}
	== ] and ] ==

			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.
	{{userlinks\|Lskaliotis}}

			In 2010 they and asked for a sourced paragraph about a fraud conviction to be removed from the article. Discussions in response at
	*{{article\|Spinning cone}}
			] and ] 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 . ] (]) 13:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	An employee (or perhaps employees) have been doing extensive edits to the spinning cone article adding distinctly ] language, even using a sales brochure (from possibly their own company) as reference. I've requested the editor(s) to post their propose changes on the talk page or to create a sandbox with a draft article so that editors without a COI can review and assist in editing the article in a NPOV tone. ]]/] 04:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

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

			== Science of Identity Foundation ==
	Virtually all of the user's edits involve someone named Kevin J. Johnston, which are starting to look very like COI, possibly AUTO. Any additional eyes at the ] would be appreciated, as I have yet to be convinced that any of this passes notability standards. Thoughts? ] (]) 23:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
			{{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. — ] <sub>]</sub> 04:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
			* {{pagelinks\|Science of Identity Foundation}}
			* {{userlinks\|Hipal}}
			<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
			This senior editor reverting my constructive edits repeatedly, in which I created a new section to simplify the content and cited reference. However, it appears that the editor is maintaining the article and may have a conflict of interest. Even though I have warned the editor, but now editor has started an edit war. ] (]) 18:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:@], why haven't you attempted to discuss this at ] first? ] ] 18:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Agreed. Looking over the talk page and edits, I don't see anything suggesting Hipal has a COI. Nor do I see anything to evidence that Sokoreq has a vested interest in editing the article, although it is curious that they went straight to the noticeboard without participating in the talk page. —''']''' (]) 18:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::@] You are right, I was surprised that the editor keeps reverting my edits. This behavior suggests editor may have ] or feel a sense of ownership of the page. ] (]) 19:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Reverting your edits is evidence that they disagree with you, which is allowed. Disagreeing with you is in no way evidence of a conflict of interest. ] (]) 19:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::@] Yeh, I agree with you, but how many times ? And why? did you check my edit ? The editor was doing endless reverts, even after I requested clarification about their concerns on the talk page. ] (]) 20:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::You were also 'doing endless reverts'. Do you have a conflict of interest? ] (]) 20:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Did you check my edit? What is wrong with that edit? I would like to know so that I can improve myself for next time. Please be specific. Thanks ] (]) 20:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::You can improve yourself for next time by recognizing that reverts are a normal part of Misplaced Pages's editing process (see ]), and by refraining from making unfounded accusations towards other editors just because they reverted you. ] (]) 20:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::I followed ], but the editor didn't adhere to the discussion part: 'Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement.' Anyway, did you check my edit that the editor reverted several times? That would be really helpful. ] (]) 20:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::No, you began edit warring after you were reverted. That is not following ]. And you still have not posted at ]. ] (]) 20:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::The editor reverted my edits without any explanation and did so repeatedly. I am still waiting for your insight. Did you check my edit? What mistake did I make? I want to understand; any help would be appreciated. ] (]) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::Some of the mistakes that you made were edit warring and posting spurious talk page warnings (and now a noticeboard entry) rather than discussing your edits on the article's associated talk page. I'm not going to contribute to compounding those errors by debating the content with you here. If you want to continue with this, I would suggest that you withdraw the allegations you have made against Hipal, including the spurious vandalism, COI, and harrassment warnings you placed on their talk page, apologize to Hipal, and then go to ] where active discussions are currently taking place without your participation. ] (]) 20:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::You are trying to make it seem like it's my fault only, and you are missing the point. Anyway, thanks; I have already explained my COI concern below. ] (]) 21:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@] Already, there is a lot going on in that talk page. ] (]) 18:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::@] I agree that it's daunting. However, you don't get to override discussion by jumping straight to a noticeboard, and especially not COIN.—''']''' (]) 18:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::@] I apologize, but the editor's behavior was strange and did not make any sense. Now, after seeing the article history, it looks like the editor has a sense of ownership or maybe a conflict of interest. other than that, I don't have any other evidence to prove the COI. I leave the final decision to you, but now I am feeling Anxious about whether I should touch that article because it seems like that editor owns it. This is strange! ] (]) 19:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I think this can be closed as a groundless complaint. Sokoreq has continued to edit since opening this complaint but has yet to try to discuss the edits in question at ]. No evidence has been provided for conflict of interest, other than the OP's apparent assumption that there is no other possible reason that their edits would be reverted. ] ] 21:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{archive bottom}}

	== ] ==		== ] ==
			* {{userlinks\|Kateblau}}

			Multiple draft creations of spammy company articles in a relatively short period of time:
	* {{article\|Cherry Wilder}} - ], who states on his user page "My wife's mother was Cherry Wilder, who spent time in NZ, Oz and Deutschland. (Shameless plug: Check out Cherry's posthumously published book The Wanderer ISBN 0312874057)." has been editing Cherry Wilder as seen . This is a clear conflict of interest, and the promotion of the book on his user page is in violation of "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam" ] ] (]) 23:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
			*]
	:Ottava Rima, who has apparently taken leave of his senses, is beginning to look like a stalker . I created the Cherry Wilder page long before I was aware of any ]. So I'm not sure what Ottava is accusing me of here. That I am guilty of violating a guideline that was still at the time. That having a link to the last book by my mother-in-law on my userpage makes me guilty of link spam? I've no problem with removing the blurb, that's not such a big deal -- but I find it hard to see that as spam -- I don't directly benefit in any way (I think my wife's sister may receive a few pennies in royalties every now and then). My reason for adding the link is that I thought it was an interesting book and something about myself that others might find interesting. Ottava seems to think I have some nefarious agenda. ] ≠ ] 23:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
			*]
	::You have been warned about your personal attacks. You have persisted in such. Furthermore, Bkonrad already "asked me to do something about it". Instead of correcting their behavior immediately, they chose to use this forum as a means to personally attack me. ] (]) 00:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
			*]
	:::I hope that Ottava will list out some of the problems he perceives with this article. At first sight, I don't notice a neutrality problem. Do we need better sources? The article does not seem promotional. The complete list of short fiction seems too long, and might be trimmed or summarized. I don't see any third-party reviews of her work. ] (]) 00:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
			*]
	::::It seems that the only sources of the information is from his relationship, and the advertisement on his user page is troubling. There is no actual information on the person to provide notability, nor is there information except for a list of books. Is this article a "list" article? ] (]) 00:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
			*]
	:::::Actually, the article had been created by someone else. Cherry is a published author. I'm not sure what notability criteria are in place for authors these days. I merely happened upon it a long time back and expanded it a bit. Most of the details I added can be found in the published interviews under External links. At the time, External links were accepted as a form of citation -- Wikiepdia's guidance and the mechanisms supporting citations have evolved considerably since then. I think the only detail I added that might not be sourced was to change the line ''She died in ] after a long battle with cancer.'' because it was not really "long" and the use of "battle" seemed a little clichéd. Considering that my substantive edits to this article were among my very first edits at a time when standards were still being developed for editing, I'm sure the article could use some improvement. But again, I'm really not sure what Ottava sees as the problem here. ] ≠ ] 00:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
			*]
	::::::You mean created by someone else and then you happened to be the first one to find it after a few days and then start expanding? You are, after all, the primary editor on the topic, and it almost seems to provide enough evidence to warrant a checkuser to compare you to Jose Ramos to make sure that you two aren't the same person, especially with Jose Ramos no longer editing after that time. It would appear, by looking at the logs, with you starting and he ending, and there being the cross over at Cherry Wilder, that there is a relationship between the accounts. ] (]) 00:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
			*]
	::Oh yes, please do ask for a checkuser on myself and Jose Ramos. It is a preposterous and thoroughly baseless accusation. Aside from that edit, I don't believe I have ever crossed paths with Jose again. ] ≠ ] 01:44, 24 July 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)
	:::As I have pointed out, the user quickly stopped posting after you joined, so claiming that you didn't cross paths again is a no argument. ] (]) 02:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
	::::And having edited the same article without any other evidence whatsoever is no basis for making accusations about sockpuppetry. You are the one who is engaging in incivility. ] ≠ ] 03:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Well, stating that your wife would have an account, which would (I presume) would be using the same connection would already submit to the classification of puppet. There are reasonable uses for puppetry. However, it have a say on if you actually created the page or not. Regardless, other users say that the page is decent, but it will need third party sources to help verify notability and some other minor clean up. My major concern is with the promotional material on your talk page and to let the community know that there is a conflict in case anything in the future happens with the page. ] (]) 03:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
	::::::To make accusations that two accounts by spouses (which occasionally, but not always) edit from the same connection are sockpuppets is a perversion of what the sock puppetry policy is about. To make claims about conflict of interest solely because you are peeved at me for daring to disagree with you about how disambiguation pages should be formatted and for calling you out for being rude and insulting to other editors -- well that is just puckish of you. Now that you've done your self-proclaimed duty to the community, perhaps now you might consider expending some effort in learning how to be just a little less obnoxious and annoying. ] ≠ ] 03:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::As I stated before, there are legitimate reasons for sockpuppet accounts. And making claims of conflict of interest? It is clear from your user page that there is one. You didn't have to post personal information about yourself and admittedly promote a book in conflict with ]. By the way, you asked me to take action, so I obliged. ] (]) 03:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::Except that two different people (even if related) having accounts is not sockpuppetry and for you to insinuate that is wrong. Your understanding of COI also appears to be faulty. I edited the page a while back and have for the most part let it be, precisely because I did not want to edit a topic of such personal interest. If I had a mind to, I could have expanded the article at great length with all manner of anecdotes. But as you acknowledge, "other users say that the page is decent", so I'm not sure where you get off making such accusations. As for my user page, what is or is not SPAM is not a bright shining line. If impartial editors were to politely raise objections on my talk page, I'd be more inclined to take them seriously and not as an annoyance simply looking to hound me. Yes, I "asked" you to take action on my talk page -- primarily because I thought that perhaps if you did ask in a public forum and saw that no one else agreed with you, you might, perhaps, possibly come to your senses. But alas, that doesn't seem likely. ] ≠ ] 04:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::: talks about your (supposed) situation. Note: "Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Misplaced Pages's purposes if they edit towards the same objectives. When editing the same articles,". Also, ] - "Close relationships ... Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest ... Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article. As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies — Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages:No original research, and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability — when editing in that area." I think it is reasonable from the above to say that you fall under CoI and that you are united to your wife's account for Misplaced Pages purposes. Also, ] is clear that you cannot advertise items, even on your own user page. If you still think that policy supports you, please say so now. I have already quoted policy that was quite clear on the matter. ] (]) 04:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Well fine, it is pretty obvious that you just don't get it and rather than beginning with one of the core fundamental principles of Misplaced Pages and assume good faith, you prefer to slice and dice the minutiae of various other guidelines and policies to justify making baseless accusations. Suit yourself. I'm giving up on the possibility rational discourse with you. ] ≠ ] 04:46, 24 July 2008 (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)
	:Also a conflict , her "daughter" edits on the page too. Perhaps this would be the same daughter that Bkonrad's user page admits to being married to? This account seems also to be created about the same time as Bkronrad's. ] (]) 00:45, 24 July 2008 (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? ] (]) 18:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Um, yeah you got it Sherlock. That's my wife alright. It's really not an accident that our accounts were created at the same time. Is it now a crime for a spouse to also have an account or are you simply on a witchhunt? Or perhaps you merely enjoy mudslinging? It appears your interest in this article is entirely motivated by your animosity towards me. Perhaps you'd care to explain yourself? ] ≠ ] 01:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
	::~~:Your~~ ~~actions~~ ~~are extremely incivil and I ask for~~ you to ~~desist.~~ ~~Editing~~ on ~~topics~~ ~~that relate~~ to ~~yourself is~~ ~~frowned~~ ~~upon~~, and ~~recent edits to the topic along with the promotional material on~~ your ~~user~~ ~~page~~ are a ~~breach~~. I ~~asked~~ ~~you to remove the breach before, and you refused to.~~ ] (]) 02:21, 24 ~~July~~ ~~2008~~ (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)
	~~::::How~~ ~~about~~ if ~~you~~ ~~stop~~ ~~making~~ ~~stupid~~ ~~and~~ ~~baseless~~ ~~accusations.~~ ~~Talk~~ ~~about~~ ~~incivil!~~ ~~Criminy. I'm sorry~~, ~~but~~ ~~you are~~ the ~~one~~ ~~who~~ is ~~out~~ of ~~line~~ ~~here~~. ] ≠ ] 03:02, 24 ~~July~~ ~~2008~~ (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)
	*The article is reasonably written, and I do feel that the COI issues aren't too problematic here. ] (]) 02:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
	::It would be nice to have a source for the bio details. I think informal sources are acceptable for that, but it should be specified as more than personal knowledge.''']''' (]) 23:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

	== ~~Katie~~ ~~Reider~~ ==		== John Ortberg ==

			<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
	*{{userlinks\|Brhannan}} - Editing ], and somehow has access to her personal materials (as per his image talk contrib ). Is not only hiding his sig (oversigning as "Nomad 2"), but also misreading policy and spamming the article AfD. Definite COI and MEMORIAL problem, as well as no understanding of policies. ] (]) 04:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
			Pages:
	*{{userlinks\|Plexusnexus}} is another new account that somehow managed to come up with a "source" for Katie Reider posted on talk (9 minutes after account creation), knows enough to claim "critical mass" of sources, but has no other edits. ] (]) 16:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
			* {{pagelinks\|John Ortberg}}
	*{{userlinks\|38.112.25.6 }} - likely sock of Brhannan, as shown by, where the IP edits Brhannan's AfD comment. ] (]) 19:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
			Users:
			* {{userlinks\|Timothydw82}}
			<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
			Timothydw82 is a ] which is used solely to promote, defend and censor valid information about ]. Timothydw82 admits to consulting with Ortberg about the article on ] and has also used that page to make disparaging comments about Ortberg's son, Daniel Lavery. This is both a serious COI and POV problem. He has been warned before by other editors. My most recent warning (for POV editing) was met with what seems to be feigned incomprehension and "Do you work for Misplaced Pages?". I think it is time to put an end to this farce. ] (]) 02:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			:Thanks for sharing your concerns. I’d like to address the points you’ve raised to clarify any misunderstandings about my contributions and intentions.
	**I have to say that I disagree with this assesment. First, the "access to her personal materials" is a photo lifted from her web site? Don't we all have access to that? Second, being active in a deletion debate is not the same as "spamming." Finally, why should you be surprised that any new user is not familiar with or misreads the nuances of wikipedia policy? We don't exactly have a training program. -] (]) 06:41, 24 July 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.
	::No, the contrib summary stated "the photo belonged to Katie"; that's not the same as "I got it off her website" (which is what the rationale said). And how would a random person know that it was her personal photo as opposed to a professional photographer's shot? Furthermore, we do have a training program; it's called the utilization of common sense, or "if you don't know what it does, don't touch it." We provide plenty of resources to use WP properly, and if people ignore them, that's their own problem. ] (]) 16:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
			: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)
			::Unbelievable. Indeffed. Thank you, ]. ] \| ] 20:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC).

			== Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation ==
	== {{user\|Daredevil0405}} and ] ==

			<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
	{{user\|Daredevil0405}} added a non-notable political scorecard (0% for everyone!) from this lobbying group of questionable notability to scores of congresspersons. Additionally, he created an article on the pledge, and is now edit warring to re include the scorecard on various congresspersons pages. He appears to be involved with the organization taking the pledge in some way - see also {{user\|09blonegan‎}}. The scorecard seems to provide no value to the various congresspersons he is adding it to, and seems, to my eyes, to be designed to publicize the lobbying group. Help! ] (]) 23:16, 24 July 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.
	== KylieX2008 ==

			I recently rewrote ] entirely to get rid of the unsourced promotional-like writing . State of article before the rewrite: .
	] and myself are currently in an edit war. He or she was added several images to the ] article. Because of the minimal content of the article, I have explained to him or her that numerous images should relate to the content (body text) whether than the subject. We are currently at two reverts each. I feel that him or her are taking this rather personally because it is their own work. In the '''External Links''' section, there is a link to the images in Wiki Commons and I think that is sufficient than slapping them in the article. ] (]) 19:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

			Also worth noting the is similarly fluffy. I suspect Park/his foundation are watching these articles.
	== All Gwernol, All the Time (Gwernol's own page, product and company) ==

			] (]) 05:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	::*]
	::*]
	::*]
	::
	::COI-crusader ] has a secret that no one seems to have caught on to as from yet. He wrote ], about himself, his own product ] and his own company ] (Crow works for Google, but started the company and probably continues to hold an interest. , for editing about the company - and now this. Please. Given the heavy-handed nature of his character as regards any form of COI, this is sheer hypocrisy and cannot go without note. Crow/Gwernol may have a PhD, he may work for Google, and he may have lots of friends on Misplaced Pages, but this does not merit such abusive PR use of Misplaced Pages. This smacks of not only hypocrisy, but of special and preferential treatment. He may well have used a meatpuppet for one or any of them (which I highly doubt, given the edit history of all three articles), but in any event, he's not only violated COI grossly, but he's been strident in relation to any person or persons editing in relation in a similar manner. This is not correct. Particularly from a person so vastly overbearing as regards others. Note his current involvement in the IPTV COI mediation case, where he has insisted that the other party, who has a professional relationship to IPTV, has a COI interest. Yet another case of an investigator who is guilty of the worst behavior he seeks to root out - case of projection? Whatever. Please, let's be consistent. This can not stand. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	::: '''HILARIOUS - See ?'''
	:::::Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did to Dan Crow (computers). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gwernol 22:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
	Proof? —''']''' 23:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
	::: Presumably you want proof that he's Crow. I have that. Got a safe email? ]
	:::'''Dan Crow's Vanity Article about Company, Blurb Inc.'''
	::: Here's the history. .
	::: This is followed by edits made by Bluberati SPA of Gwernol, supposedly an employee of the company - probably Crow himself (Gwernol). Amazing coincidence that Gwernol was followed by unknown person 4 hours later. Either a SPA or m-puppet.
	:::# (cur) (last) 18:47, 21 July 2006 Blurberati (Talk \| contribs) (undo)
	:::# (cur) (last) 18:41, 21 July 2006 Blurberati (Talk \| contribs) (→Blurb) (undo)
	:::# (cur) (last) 18:37, 21 July 2006 Blurberati (Talk \| contribs) (→See Also) (undo)
	:::# (cur) (last) 18:35, 21 July 2006 Blurberati (Talk \| contribs) (undo)
	:::# (cur) (last) 14:45, 21 July 2006 Gwernol (Talk \| contribs) (Add company info box) (undo)
	:::# (cur) (last) 14:41, 21 July 2006 Gwernol (Talk \| contribs) (Link another NYT article on Blurb) (undo)
	:::# (cur) (last) 12:21, 13 June 2006 Gwernol (Talk \| contribs) (Stub article on software company)
	]
	:That's not proof. That's speculation. —''']''' 00:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
	::Do I understand correctly that editor 208 is complaining about edits made two years ago? I am not sure if the COI policy even existed back then. If I remember correctly, it used to be called the Vanity policy and was then rewritten substantially. Even if any of this were true, the complaint is so old that it is not actionable, other than to check the articles and fix them if any potential problems remain. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:34, 9 January 2025

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Numismatics.

v t e 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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)

Shortcuts

Sections 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-wpwikipedia.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?

An editor can be biased without additionally having a COI. Issues involving bias may be more suited to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.
Issues involving the biographies of living persons policy (BLP) may be more suited to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.
Commercial usernames should be reported to Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention.
Obvious cases of corporate vanity can be tagged with {{db-spam}}.
Articles written about a person, group, club or band by such a person, group, club or band with no assertion of notability can be tagged with {{db-bio}} instead.
This page is not for reporting simple vandalism, material that can easily be fixed or removed without argument, or non-conflict of interest breaches of the neutral point of view policy.

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

All editors are encouraged to help resolve reports of COI editing. More problematic articles can be found in Category:Misplaced Pages articles with possible conflicts of interest.
Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests. Editors who believe they have a conflict of interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should edit the parameter of the {{edit COI}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requester to explain your decision.

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: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

User:Taeyasu/Sample page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Taeyasu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Trendalchemy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dpatrioli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Amplifyplantz33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Adolph Jentsch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Anurag Palutla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Vanskere (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Evans Akere (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Iamtoxima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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.

Marc Jorgenson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Plus3db (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Lexicon480 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bunny & J-Zone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
24.82.146.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
24.82.146.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
24.86.250.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Ilyas El Maliki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:Ilyas El Maliki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
IMDB12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Saileishere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Lindy Li (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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.

State University of New York at Geneseo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
CommMark1871 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2601:401:100:46E0:B919:9891:DF5D:FC9F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2601:401:100:46E0:E169:2FC9:4E47:B104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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? Silver seren 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. Silver seren 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. Silver seren 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

CaptainBeany (talk · contribs · logs)

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.

Science of Identity Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hipal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Kateblau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

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. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

John Ortberg

Pages:

John Ortberg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users:

Timothydw82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Thanks for sharing your concerns. I’d like to address the points you’ve raised to clarify any misunderstandings about my contributions and intentions.

First, while my account may appear to have a narrow focus, my goal has always been to ensure that articles on Misplaced Pages adhere to its principles of neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sourcing. My edits related to John Ortberg and related topics are aimed at upholding these standards, not promoting or censoring information. If there are specific examples where you believe I’ve violated these principles, I welcome a constructive discussion to address them.

Second, regarding my consultation with John Ortberg: I acknowledge that I have communicated with him, as I’ve disclosed on my user talk page. However, my involvement has been strictly limited to ensuring that edits align with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines and reflect accurate information.

Third, concerning the comments about Daniel Lavery, I understand how sensitive these matters are. My intent was not to disparage anyone, and if any of my remarks were perceived as inappropriate, please bring them to my attention.

I'd also like to express my disappointment in your accusing me via direct message of treating you like "idiots". That felt like a curt, uncalled for accusation with little to no dialogue or support. You have not engaged in a discussion with me but clearly expressed your desire to see me blocked for little to no good reason I can discern.

Finally, regarding warnings from other editors: I value feedback and strive to learn from it. I am more than willing to engage in dialogue to resolve disputes and improve the quality of articles. If there are ongoing concerns about my edits, I encourage the use of formal dispute resolution processes so we can work collaboratively toward a solution. Timothydw82 (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Is that AI generated text? I ran it through a few different detectors and most thought that it was at least partially AI generated. DanielRigal (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Indeffed. Thank you, Daniel. Bishonen | tålk 20:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC).

Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation

Pages:

Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Park Hyeon-joo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users:

Channy Jung (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
203.239.154.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Chisu1020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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: