Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:18, 29 December 2009 editJoe407 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers3,223 edits →User:Yehoishophot Oliver: new comment about chabad← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:14, 8 January 2025 edit undoEspresso Addict (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators58,318 edits →User:Kateblau: Comment 
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 = 39 |counter = 217
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(7d) |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 ] ==

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

== Requested edits ==

* '''].'''&nbsp;&nbsp;''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.''

== Super Hero Squad ==

{{article|Marvel Super Hero Squad}} - ] and his anonymous persona ] have already been reported, and threatened with blacklisting, for his efforts to keep a message board he admins in the external links. After the page was protected, he went away, but now he's . ] (]) 03:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)] (]) 03:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

: This was previously discussed here ]. In my opinion, whether or not there is a COI (its not immediately apparent) is irrelevant as the link is inappropriate per ]. If someone consistently adds the same link after being warned then they could be blocked for spamming and the website could be blacklisted. Hopefully ] will realise that they can't add their link to the article and there won't be any further problems. ] (]) 11:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Having read the ] in detail, i do not believe the link is at all inappropriate. Firstly, I suggest that nothing on there is listed as a hard-fast rule. In fact, it uses the word 'normally', as to imply possibly exceptions. And although it is a link to a forum, considering it DOES "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain" AND "contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article due to copyright issues" (listed under Sites to Include) it should fall under that exception. Also consider - as I mentioned before but got misconstrewed as an attack - Wikis ]:

"...Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, that doesn't mean it's a good idea. The principle of the rules is more important than the letter."

And under that, not only do I suggest the Hasbor Heroes link remain, but also the others that were removed as they are all VERY informative and offer much more up to date and detailed information that can be found here.

There was also an idea that a consenus was made - but I disagree. Those that added the various links back to the page throughout the months obviously considered them useful, even though they might never comment on the talk page. But if all it requires is a consensus to keep the link, I'm sure we can find more than enough people that believe the link(s) should stay.

I would ALSO like to add that it is apparent that the decision to remove the links was based off of a 'resolution' or 'compromise' to the above mentioned 'edit-war' rather than the enforcing of any rules. This 'resolution' was made ] by ] and conflicts with the rationalion given for the removal of the links.

On a side note, a while back the link was in question (and removed) because registration was required. Shortly afterwards, it was changed to NOT require registration and and the link was determined to be acceptable. Now, years later, after the so-called 'edit war' (which I was NOT a part of - as I only ever added links back, never removed any), apparently its not anymore.

Personally, it seems like a witchhunt OR power hungry editors whose answer to a resolution is the deletion of all.--] (]) 17:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:Let's be clear about what the problems are here, The7thCynic.
:*] is a critical part of Misplaced Pages, but misused often, and I believe you are misusing it now. It does not mean that the rules should just be ignored if they get in the way of something you want done. It means that the rules should be ignored if they get in the way of improving the encyclopedia, and/or they don't make sense in a particular case. Generally an appeal to IAR should be accompanied by a very persuasive argument as to why the rules should be ignored, while you've offered nothing except that your opinion is that the link (and others) are good, without anything to back that up.
:*You have a clear conflict of interest. Your personal opinion is naturally colored by the fact that you are associated with the site that you want to have linked.
:*Forums are very, very, very rarely linked to in ''any'' article. I understand that you probably don't have enough experience with various articles on Misplaced Pages, but it's an almost unheard of exception to allow a discussion forum as an external link. That is because as discussion forums, they offer almost nothing in terms of objective knowledge to an article subject. One of the very few exceptions I can think of would be in an article that is actually ''about'' a particularly notable forum, such as ].
:You are casually asking for people to make a rare exception to allow a link to a site where you have a clear conflict of interest, against prior discussion that agreed to not allow such, without any compelling reason to back up your request. I hope you see what the unlikelihood of that occurring might be. Also, attacking other editors ("power hungry editors") is more likely to result in sanctions against you, rather than to accomplish your goals, such confrontational attitudes are extremely counter-productive. -- ''']'''] 20:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:: Just to add 2 cents... putting the links back IS part of the edit war. There's already been lots of talk about how just because something was done in the past doesn't mean it's right. The links are good, but Misplaced Pages's not a directory or promotional tool. I can google about a dozen pages on super hero squad but that doesn't mean they should all be included. Look at the ] page and see that it's got 6 external links and 3 are to Marvel's own sites. There are many more sites out there that talk about Spider-Man, including major ones like Spider-Fan, but don't get included just because they're on topic. And continuing to say that everyone that disagrees with you is power hungry, on a witchhunt, stubborn or stupid doesn't help. It's not persecution, it's trying to apply a consistent standard over Misplaced Pages. Two cents.] (]) 02:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, lets deal with one issue at a time.

:*COI - I can see where it may appear that there is a conflict, but I assure you there is none. We do not sell anything. We are not worried about members. We are a simply a resource, and specifically for the subject of this page. Some would even say the best resource. And we work with many that edit this article. We work hand in hand with the article as a database. All the links in question do. And unlike the ] reference, I would argue with ] that you cannot just Google 'super hero squad' and get a dozen pages of useful information. In fact, we could say that information is sparse, thus making these links available even more crucial.

::But back to the COI, I can see this is a clear point of contention for you - as it is your main emphasis throughout. But I can easily solve this matter by abandoning that the specific forum I'm associated with get added - though will continue to argue that the others be added back regardless. (Will THAT then be enough to move on from the concept of COI that has apparently clouded much of your opinion of me or for the principle I stand for?)

:*Ignore All Rules or Common Sense - The assumption here is that I only request an exception because it's something I want done - which is preposterous. (But I suppose that opinion is based on your belief that there's a COI.) The inclusion of the links IS SOLELY for the improvement of the article as they provide MORE information and sources than the actual article itself, and I have stated so above, as well as stated before. But you suggest that I haven't backed up that statement, so I will humor you:

::Consider that almost NONE of this article is sourced. Well, not only do those sites provide pictures and specific details on each and every figure, including articulation and repack/repaint information, but all of the information on the upcoming waves (which are listed here) are all sourced, unlike the article - where it is often suggested to be rumored and falsely removed.

::Is that enough?

On a similar note...
:*Forums being linked - In the same breath that it says forums should normally be avoided, it also mentions blogs and fansites. And yet I can show you dozens upon dozens of articles that include those - and probably rightfully so. This seems to me like picking and choosing. (And considering the moderating I am questioning ], it doesn't seem very fair to anyone.) But again, with so little information out about this toy line (even the official site is VERY incomplete in comparison to ANY of the links), these links are more than useful. (Is all that persuasive enough argument for common sense? Geeeeeeeez.)

:*Edit War - ], perhaps you missed the start of all of this. Recap: Someone was removing the Rumorbuster link, then another person would come back and add it while deleting the Hasbro Heroes link at the same time, and vice versa. I was not one of those people. Although i would re-add the link, as it was apparently (at that time) done maliciously. So no, adding the link back was NOT part of the Edit War in question. Then as I mentioned, ], suggested that the 'compromise' would be to delete both - but it was never under the premise that it was breaking a rule. Not being part of the original Edit War, and as an observer, I have a problem with that type of moderating.

::Speaking of, I also would like to point out how interesting it is that both of you bothered to mention my "power hungry editors" comment (which FYI wasn't a specific attack on anyone, just my observation - but would at best fit the above mentioned moderating - which is not cool) but neglected to comment on the fact that this all started as the lame 'resolution' to an edit war. --] (]) 03:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

:::COI isn't limited to people who make money or who "want" members. The conflict is that you, who cannot be impartial, is saying your materials are the best or are more accurate, more whatever.

Your recap is incorrect and disingenous. The edit war you refer to doesn't happen in the way you suggest. You say that there was malicious removal of your links. That's not what happened.

] User ] removed therumorbuster.com apparently in a fit of vandalism most of which has been undone.

] user ] adds it back.

] - user ] removes therumorbuster.com

] - ] returns the site.

] - user ] removes therumorbuster.com and replaces it with your site.

] - your site is removed by user ]

And from there, it looks like you triggered an autoreversion bot when you tried to readd the link as user ], and that's when this situation started getting noticed.

And when called upon to explain why 98.235.186.116 was continually removing therumorbuster.com link, ] he says nothing.

Then looking at ]'s history ] who was removing whose (whomever's?) link is obviously the other way around. "(I removed the Rumorbuster link because the site isn't working and if the Hasbro Heroes forum isn't allowed to be a link, the Rumorbuster shouldn't be allowed either)"

Interestingly enough, looking at posts on your site at that time, you can see another admin of your site named X-Fan discussing how the Rumorbuster link isn't working and should be taken out.

So now we have you insisting you're not part of the war, because you're only re-adding your link in, 98.235.186.116 removing their link and replacing it with your link, you claiming to not have a conflict of interest, 98.235.186.116 (who I would bet is this x-fan admin since he basically admits to removing the other site on your site) removing a link solely because if your site isn't included, neither should the other link.

If you had an issue with the link being removed, then the proper course of action was to then ask for reasons and talk it out. Instead you kept adding it, which resulted in more attention, and later you attempted to circumvent the 3RR by using your IP and your screen name when you continued adding it in.

Adding the link back, after it was removed as an inappropriate link, WAS the war, regardless of your view of how malicious you found the enforcement of the rules to be or how you characterize the removal of the links.

Your remaining arguments are without merit. You now say you'll abandon wanting your site back to avoid the conflict of interest. It doesn't work retroactively, so now saying that the Ignore All Rules or Common Sense arguments are preposterous because you don't have a COI is bafflingly illogical.

You claim that because links to fan pages exist on other Misplaced Pages sites, it's picking and choosing. Not every instance gets caught by editors. This is a big site. Same with speeders and the police. You can't just tell the officer that other people are speeding and so you shouldn't get a ticket. Saying "And considering the moderating I am questioning here, it doesn't seem very fair to anyone" is more proof of this flawed logic. You don't like the result, so it doesn't seem very fair to anyone.

And not all editors see things the same way. That's why there's consensus, and the editors that looked at it said your forum shouldn't belong.

] did not really offer scrubbing the links as a compromise, regardless of his wording, because none of the links had a right to belong. All three links fell under the same category of stuff to go. The "compromise" was to enforce the general rules. The compromise, if any, wasn't to satisfy you and the other sites by offering to split the baby as Solomon once offered, but to stop the edit war by getting rid of links that violated the rules in the first place.

Of course, now your argument is that Cameron Scott's resolution, by taking out that which did not belong, is lame. Nobody commented on why you called the editors power mad because it's irrelevant. You didn't like the result of enforcing the rules, therefore the moderating was "uncool" and the resolution was lame and the editors are power hungry.

And now Methinks the lady doeth protest too much.] (]) 17:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

::Just to address your comments:
I won't say your recap is disingenous as you said mine was (Which for the record, suggesting I'm lying is really no better than a reference to power hungry editors, is it?) - as I believe you just werent there from the beinginning - but it is still incorrect.

From the ]:
In regards to deleting the Rumorbuster link -
"Can we come up with some kind of peaceful resolution to this edit war? I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt 98.235.186.116 but you just keep deleting this link...."(]) 00:53, 24 October 2009

: "More warring, still no talk."] 14:04, 28 October 2009

So the warring in question, and even by your own examples, was with the back and forth removal of hasbro heroes and/or Rumorbuster link - not the removal of both.

Then from the ]. :

"...] was deleting one site, replacing it with (what is now known to be his) forum. Page was semi-protected for a while. Days pass, edit war continues, ] joins in....."] (]) 19:46, 28 October 2009

:"Scrub both forums (I've just done so) and blacklist if they persist." --] 19:50, 28 October 2009

::"Sounds like a good compromise..."] 19:56, 28 October 2009

See the dates? Notice no comments abt the links breaking any rules? See how it was considered a 'compromise' rather than an enforcing? Hmmmmm.....

Now if you're suggesting that AFTER that 'compromise' was made, AFTER the original 'edit War', that my re-adding of the links was part of this NEW issue - then sure. Although I will say that at the time, I thought it was still part of the same foolishness as I was not totally aware of all these various pages of discussion or I would have commented. As proof to that, notice my edit on 20:16, 28 October 2009 where I commented "I even added Rumorbuster back. Stop the foolish editing."

I don't know who 98.235.186.116 is and whether it is or isn't X-Fan really has no bearing to me. Again, I think removing ANY of the links is silly as they are ALL useful to the article. But apparently the COI that you believe I have also sways how you view me in the original 'edit war'.

On another note, you insist its not picking and choosing when dozens of articles break said rule and attempt to mask it with an explaination of how editors can't catch everything. Very well. But it seems more rational that with the sheer number of articles Im referring to, that this particular article is just being targeted and denied the same sort of exception.

Regardless, its apparent that it's all come doen to consensus. And as I was informed ].--] (]) 18:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

: This seems to be getting nowhere. He doesn't have to explicitly mention that all the sites don't belong when it's obvious and previously pointed out. I suggest that your recap was disingenuous because it was wrong, you know it, and the facts support it. You said something to indicate you or your forum was a martyr, that you were being deleted and replaced maliciously. You weren't, however, the other site was apparently. You say whether or not 98.235.186.116 is X-Fan has no bearing on you, but whether or not it is your co-admin on this forum does have bearing on the issue. Then it further hammers home the point of COI, and having one person do the "dirty work" so to speak so the other can have clean hands doesn't make the issue any better. You can characterize my pointing this out as an attack, and you have, but there's no positive spin on you fabricating a story.

:You claim to not have been aware of the pages to discuss this, fine, but after consensus against your link, and no, we cannot just forget COI and you still refuse to acknowledge there is one, you then decided to come back and add it anyway, bringing up the same arguments that everyone was wrong. And now you make multiple attempts to "be clear" that once consensus has been reached the links will return.

:There isn't an "exception" in place for external links in articles that aren't properly sanitized. There's no "mask" or explanation... it's common sense that not everything can be found all the time. Otherwise, your site would have stayed removed apparently some time ago. Just because now that this issue with this particular page has been identified, it's being closely watched does not mean that you're being persecuted (for doing something you shouldn't be doing) or that other pages have an exemption. It just means this is one problem everyone is aware of, and now can be stopped.] (]) 19:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

At this point, i may have lost you, except for - "This seems to be getting nowhere."

Now to defend myself:
"He doesn't have to explicitly mention that all the sites don't belong when it's obvious and previously pointed out."
:I have no idea what youre referring to. I thought I laid it all out for you, apparently I didnt. It is YOU that does not understand the series of events that transpired, not me.

"I suggest that your recap was disingenuous because it was wrong, you know it"
:And how is that different that calling me a liar?

"You said something to indicate you or your forum was a martyr, that you were being deleted and replaced maliciously."
:Ive suggested that this particular article has been targeted, not any specific link. Why do you continue to insist that I have a particular bias against any other link when I have yet to show one, and in fact, have done the contrary in trying to get it added back various times?

"whether or not it is your co-admin on this forum does have bearing on the issue."
:Sure he is, but that doesnt mean I agree, control, or was aware of any of his actions. As I pointed out before with my 10/28 edit and comment, I was against the removal of ANY of the links. I stand by that statement. They are ALL useful.

"having one person do the "dirty work" so to speak so the other can have clean hands"
:FYI, this assumption is also extremely offensive.

"You can characterize my pointing this out as an attack, and you have, but there's no positive spin on you fabricating a story."
:And it is an attack. But Im not sure what you mean with positive spin. There would be no point in me fabricating any story.
"we cannot just forget COI"
:As far as I know, there hasnt been a COI even established. Only possibly by you, who originally placed the issue here in the first place.

"bringing up the same arguments that everyone was wrong."
:Dont try and brush off all of my points as simply telling everyone they are wrong. That is far from what Ive done. Instead, why dont you try to reply with something more than strings of subtle attack, as these last recent points dont really add much to the discussions - nor do my responses - but I am instinctively compelled to defend myself. Geeeeez.

"And now you make multiple attempts to "be clear" that once consensus has been reached the links will return."
:And? i thought that consensus was the main issue that was keeping them off as it has been thrown in my face numerous times.

"it's common sense that not everything can be found all the time."
:As Ive already said, thats your take on it, not mine. For me, its common sense that for the number of rule breaks I see on Wiki on a regular basis, that this article is possibly under higher scrutiny than normal and definitely than necessary. We're talking links here. --] (]) 19:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

::The links don't belong. They violate ]. Even the COI is really secondary to that. They are discussion forums, not places for reliable information. There's no benefit to a reader to direct them to a site like that. This is long-standing Misplaced Pages consensus, part of an official guideline, and there's no reasoning given to ignore it. You've said before you see blogs and fansites that don't belong... And that's true, I'm sure there are plenty of them in Misplaced Pages. They also should be removed, with rare exceptions. Just because you see a candy wrapper on a sidewalk, that doesn't mean that you have a right to litter there, it just means that somebody else has left a mess and nobody else has cleaned it up yet. -- ''']'''] 20:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

::: Agree with Atama above, which is why I'm commenting at ], and not this COI case. Whether or not there's COI is secondary, as the links don't belong regardless of the editor's connection. I would encourage any editor commenting here to also do so at the ], as the discussion is oingoing there as well. {{unsigned|Dayewalker}}

:::: Very well - Ill keep the discussion over ] Thank you.--] (]) 20:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

== ] & ] ==

{{Template:resolved|Page deleted. -- ''']'''] 20:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)}}
{{article|User:Butlerwhite/ThatSexShop}}:
Considering that the spammy userspace draft -- sitting there since 24 Sept -- says that the shop is owned by one "Butler White", I'd say that the COI is clear. --] | ] 12:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
:It looks like an abandoned draft. Perhaps ] it? --] <sup>]</sup> 14:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
::I have created ]. ] (]) 07:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

== WHDT and WHDT ==

{{article|WHDT}} - User:WHDT, who claims to be WHDT's "Chief Engineer", keeps reverting to a highly dubious version of the article that claims, for example, that WHDT is broadcasting a signal (FCC reports as well as OR show it isn't), and that it is carried by (or recently that it has been ordered to be carried by, implying it is, with nothing showing it isn't) Dish Network. I'm not the only user who is seeing these claims as problematic, and User:WHDT has been told the COI nature of the edits are problematic. There has been one, short, exchange on the Talk: page but User:WHDT's responses both avoided the central specific issue (evidence that WHDT is actually on the air) and were, as with his reverts, "somewhat discourteous".

I'm sure User:WHDT has useful information he or she could add to the article, but at this point it appears, to me at any rate, that commercially WHDT has a fairly large interest in disguising the fact the channel doesn't broadcast an ATSC channel at this time in at least one of the areas it has a license, and is abusing Misplaced Pages to maintain this fiction.

At this point I'm giving up, I'm walking away from the article as I find monitoring and reverting extremely tedious and a waste of my time, but I'd appreciate someone who actually has the power to force WHDT to read the guidelines and stick to them could actually do so. ] (]) 13:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

: I've reported the username to ] as it looks like it is either a role account or someone claiming to be linked to ]. I agree that their edits are definitely of concern, thanks for posting. ] (]) 16:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

:: They're been blocked because of their username, so the problem is slightly fixed but I guess that they will probably return with a different username. I'm not sure what else there is to do now as the article has already been fixed up by ]. I guess we wait and see, hoping that they will take note that their edits were inappropriate. ] (]) 16:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

: Thanks for taking care of this. I do think the user could probably be a constructive participant (and has made some constructive edits in the past) so I'm not overly happy with having to bring this up. --] (]) 18:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

: Unfortunately while I said I'd walk away I made the mistake of checking the page again this evening, and he's back under a new nick doing the same stuff. Like I said, I'm going to try to walk away from this (I'm not going to sit here reverting his claims over and over again), but if someone could explain the ] policy to him in a way he'll understand then I think it would be a good idea. I'm not sure what to do to fix the page, beyond possibly argue for its deletion. WHDT has one noteable aspect, it was supposedly the US's first commercial digital station, but otherwise it really hasn't done much of note and would normally be a footnote in, say, an article about the history of digital television in the US. --] (]) 02:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

::The new name is "Marksteiner", and the owner of the station is "Günter Marksteiner". The aggressive behavior of the editor as well as aggressive language on the talk page of the article are both very troubling. The article itself probably merits inclusion per ] whether or not it was the first commercial digital station in the US. -- ''']'''] 23:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

::: {{userlinks|Marksteiner}} has also been blocked, I've asked the admin to check whether this was right as WHDT was told they could edit using a different username when they were blocked. Having done a bit of searching it does seem possible that the information in the article at present is incorrect. There is a and another that have both been published this year that mention the channel. This would contradict the current version which states that they have been off air for two years. If this is correct then it makes it more reasonable as to why Marksteiner and WHDT made the edits that they did. I'm not entirely certain what action to take now though! ] (]) 12:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
::: Just noticed the NYT article is actually from 2001 despite gnews saying it is published today! ] (]) 12:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

== Jenn Brown ==

{{la|Jenn Brown}}
Hi. It would be lovely if anybody who works COI issues wanted to add this article to their watchlists, because I think it's a trainwreck waiting to recur. It was listed at ] for copyright problems, and in the course of cleaning it up I realized that the article has almost certainly been controlled since at least April 2009 by the subject or her agency, Berk Communications (see ]; ). Mostly IP contributors have repeatedly pasted promotional material from her website and resisted efforts by outsiders to remove such encyclopedic text as "Brown has a carefree nature that entices viewers to follow her on her many bold and electrifying adventures." All of this has been wiped out by the copyvio cleanup, which removed the last 66 edits from the article (and I only added back content that seemed neutral and copyvio clear...which wasn't much), but this stealth advertising campaign had been conducted for months. --] <sup>]</sup> 14:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
:The article has been properly sanitized. I wasn't sure what you were talking about until I looked at the deleted edits for the article (I'm glad I can do that kind of thing now). A definite problem, we have promotional conflicts of interest combined with a BLP and copyright violations. The promotional editing has been somewhat sporadic, with the latest occurring on December 4th, so it's difficult to justify protection at this point but if it resumes at a high volume then I'd recommend semiprotection (or do it myself). -- ''']'''] 19:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

== MondayMEDIA ==

{{Article|MondayMEDIA}} - This article was created by somebody with the username {{userlinks|mondaymedia}}. Furthermore, he or she has been active in creating links towards that article, and also external links towards MondayMEDIA's website on a number of pages. Some of it seems excessively promotional to my novice eyes, but I would appreciate some feedback in this. ] (]) 07:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
:Definitely promotional. User is blocked for username problem. There are only a few external links left and they are possibly ok, so I left them. Please report if process continues. ] (]) 03:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
::Some of the added links are ok, some are spam. I removed a few. If anyone wants to go through the user contribs and check the rest that would be a good thing. ] (]) 13:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

*{{userlinks|JonMonday}}
In addition to the suggestive user name, this user has (I think) admitted to having a COI here: ] "I added information about two audio CDs of lectures given by Aldous Huxley that are ... licensed from the Vedanta Society ... my own 40 year association with the Vedanta Society ..." I will point him to the COI guidelines. ] (]) 21:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

*{{article|Jon Monday}}
Since MondayMEDIA and JonMonday seem to be the same user (see ]), and assuming JonMonday is Jon Monday, it looks like the user has also created an ]. ] (]) 21:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

== Paid Company Editing W. V. Grant Article ==

{{article|W. V. Grant}}
Earlier, an SPA {{userlinks|Superedit09}} removed quite a bit of negative information on the ] article, including his arrested for tax evasion and a section of criticism. I reverted the removal of unsourced information, and commented on the talk page explaining. I also informed the editor about the ], and advised him the best way to make changes on an article that you have a personal involvement with is to suggest them on the talk page, and gain consensus.

They've reverted , and responded. As per this edit , the editor admits they are with a company contacted by the subject to clean up their wikipedia article. Not only is the sourced tax evasion material gone, somehow the article doesn't even appear to be in the same font. I'm not even sure how that could happen.I'll be off and on wiki for the next few days, so I'm bringing it here for more eyes. Thanks in advance. ] (]) 04:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
:'''UPDATE:''' I just noticed their post on the talk page also contains a legal threat ("Legal action is prepared to be taken if this matter can not be resolved.") Since I set this off by reverting, if someone else would warn them, it would probably go over better. ] (]) 04:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
::*I left a separate warning, as the material they were introducing was unreferenced and inappropriate (whether or not there was a COI issue). I have not addressed the matter of a legal threat. ] (]) 04:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
::::I left an NLT message at ] and will notice any reply. ] (]) 07:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
:I wouldn't fall to hard for the claims of their not understanding what was going on. It's a bit odd that they'd use the full syntax of <nowiki>]]</span></small>
:Oh, and ask the legal matters be stricken? It is far more a rant than any pointed threat so it's not terribly concerning to run off to ANI. They have their final warning so it's an obvious reporting next time. Has anyone actually made an attempt to talk to the user? Their posts on the article talk page are detailed and well-written, but it needs to be stated before any possible sanctions are given that almost every word of them are 100% contrary to Misplaced Pages policy. Especially the assertion of placing "right" information being okay without source if ''they'' know it's "right", and that it trumps "wrong" things with an infinite number of references. Guidelines and every other fiber of being in Misplaced Pages makes ] very clear and a nice summary of ], V and RS at the same time. Really nasty sense of ] too, with argument made based on length of time spent on writing about the person. Since I wasn't there to watch it develop, I'll leave it to any of the editors involved to decide a next action. It's possible to make a balanced article with such accounts... if they're willing to be cooperative. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">]]</span> 14:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
::The standard action to clear legal threats has been taken; indefinite block until the threat is retracted. Until then this editor won't be causing any trouble under this account. -- ''']'''] 19:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{userlinks|Rick206}} - While ] for his work in progress, it was brought to Rick's attention that he had the same name as the Vice President of the company. This in turn sparked interest in a possible COI. Rick ] and asked for help on the matter, and I came here to seek some more opinions in hopes that this matter is resolved peacefully and without bias. ] ''<sup>]</sup>'' 17:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
:I'd like to assume good faith, and if they claim to not be the same Rick as the VP of the company, I suppose that he isn't. Although as a resident of the greater Seattle area myself, I know that 206 happens to be the area code for Seattle, so the chosen username still screams COI to me; also, the personal way in which the article is written suggests an employee of the company or a person otherwise affiliated. I'm glad that the editor is communicative and shows a willingness to comply with our policies and guidelines, but the company just doesn't seem notable enough for inclusion in the first place. My suggestion to Rick is that if he is interested in editing Misplaced Pages that he find some other way to contribute. Someone who is communicative, polite, and has decent writing skills is a very welcome addition to the project and there are millions of articles that can use his help. -- ''']'''] 19:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
::I remember this. I was involved in trying to ] when the last user came along, but we all just gave up in the end, nobody able to help out (I could have Wikified it, but I didn't see the point if the rest of it couldn't be fixed and would therefore be deleted anyway). --<font color="#009000">]</font><font color="#03C03C">]</font><font color="#00A550">]</font> 03:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

* {{userlinks|Action grrl}}
Action grrl appears to be a single purpose account promoting the work of action movie director ]. It appears they may also have strayed into copyright violation with ]. Can someone please take a look? I don't have the time to get involved in another issue at the moment. Thanks. ] (]) 17:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
:This is a tough one. I have a strong hunch as to the identity of the editor, but I care not to voice this to avoid ] them (her?). If my hunch is correct, there are some strong COI concerns with this editor, but absent any self-identification the best thing to do is assume that this is just a fan of Steel. The copyright concerns seem to have been addressed, and despite my initial impressions both the actress and the film seem to meet our notability guidelines. I'm not sure what is actionable, but the report itself is certainly warranted. -- ''']'''] 21:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
::The user has simply replaced one copyvio with (see ) and is shining you on. Sorry, I just don't have the time to deal with slipperiness like this right now, but I will at least AfD the article. ] (]) 03:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all of the help making the articles better, the guidance on links and the references (the copyright issue). It is a team effort and I appreciate the professionalism! :)

I am a fan of JA Steel, JD Disalvatore, Dreya Weber (A Marine Story) and other strong women in Film.

I am grateful to be a part of Misplaced Pages and welcome the feedback.
] (]) 01:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
:I'm glad that you've replied here, AG. I do have some suggestions to help you along at Misplaced Pages, take them or leave them as you like.
:*If you do have some personal connection to anyone or anything you're editing about, that is not ''forbidden''. We don't have hard-and-fast rules that prevent you from doing so. We're only trying to identify such connections to be "on the lookout" for deliberate promotion (which I don't think you've done) or unintentional bias (which anyone can do without meaning to).
:*It's best to acknowledge such connections if you do have them. Doing so will help other editors know where you're coming from, and prevent people from assuming bad motives on your part if such connections are "revealed".
:*'''YOU ARE NOT COMPELLED TO GIVE PERSONAL INFORMATION.''' I don't want to make that look like "shouting" but I wanted to make it very clear. You don't have to tell anyone who you are, or give any personal information you aren't comfortable with. We have policies against people who try to dig up personal info about editors, and I always suggest that people think twice before they volunteer it. There are a lot of dangerous people on the Web, and Misplaced Pages certainly has its share. Risking your personal safety for an encyclopedia is definitely not worth it.
:*There are some indications that you might have a conflict of interest. Your edits are almost all related to JA Steel, her movies, and people associated with her movies (like Jessica Bair). That's not against the rules, or even discouraged; everyone is drawn to articles on subjects they're interested in (I know I am). But that still invites questions, if you can understand. In addition, you've stated on your user talk page that you actually spoke with J.A. Steel, which lends more weight to such suspicions. I only say this to explain ''why'' the COI concerns were raised in the first place, I don't see anything wrong with any of your edits myself.
:*You have a lot of enthusiasm for the subjects you write about. That's a good thing, Misplaced Pages needs people who want to create and expand articles. Just be sure to not let that enthusiasm go too far, be sure to listen to criticism and concerns from other editors, and remember that everything here is a collaboration (not a solo project) and you'll be fine.
:If you ever have questions please let me know, thank you. (Oh yeah, you might want to check out one or more Wikiprojects, where you can either ask for or give help, such as ], ], or ].)-- ''']'''] 03:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


: Atama,
: Thanks so much for the guidance and insight. I know most of the Lesbians in Hollywood that are in the entertainment industry. I've found that they are under-represented on Misplaced Pages, as they are in the film industry itself. I would like to continue to contribute edits and articles in this genre, that is indeed near and dear to my heart.

: On my first article, I was criticized for not enough links coming into the article, so I tried to prevent that this time and apparently overdid it.
: I have no intention to violate copyright, and edits are most helpful and welcome. It was my understanding that press releases are in public domain for adaptation in articles. Again, I welcome any input.

: This has been quite an arduous experience, and I appreciate you taking the time to mentor me and collaborate in the spirit of Misplaced Pages.
: ] (]) 06:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


: Atama,
: Learning from my recent experiences, I proposed two articles on my talk page to a gentleman (Chris) in Germany who offered to assist me navigate Misplaced Pages and write articles better.

: There is no article on one of the most loved and award winning Lesbian movies of all time, ''The Gymnast'', staring ], who did the choreography for the artist Pink! at a recent award ceremony. I've asked for his thoughts on how to craft an article about this beloved movie of our community. {{imdb title|id=0473074|title= The Gymnast}}.

: I would also like to do an article on the award-winning filmmaker Alexandra Kondracke, who is directing the new ]!: All Night Long film and was a writer/producer for ]. She has a long career in Hollywood, but no Misplaced Pages article. {{imdb name|id=0464934|name= Alexandra Kondracke}}.

: I would appreciate your help and collaboration, as you have time.

: I know both Dreya and Alexandra in Hollywood, and am grateful for your guidance.

: Thanks,
: ] (]) 06:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
::I can't help but notice that '''J.A. Steel''' happens to be in . ] (]) 15:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


::Very cool. Perhaps you can add it to her Filmography?
::A nice gentlemen, ], set up these two workshops for me to develop and grow:
::]
::]
::You are most welcome to participate. It is clear I can learn a lot from your experience and expertise.

::Thanks --] (]) 16:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
:::You are most welcome! It would be ''fantastic'' if you could read ] and ] and maybe think a bit about those guidelines! You seem to be saying that you know a lot of the people whose articles you are editing and those guidelines will come in handy for you! Looking forward to working with you again soon! ] (]) 17:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Thank you, the links are very helpful. The Lesbian community in Hollywood is very small and all the gals know each other. It is the nature of living and working in an environment where you are a scant minority. Having experts like you and ] provide oversight, suggestion, guidance and edits is much appreciated. I am committed to the ] and ] guidelines, and appreciate all who have reviewed and edited my contributions to ensure the integrity of Misplaced Pages. I look forward to seeing you again in a workspace. This as been quite an experience. I will focus on the workspaces ] created, for more practice in a safe and collaborative environment, where we can publish articles in concert. ] (]) 18:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

== Peter Maple ==

{{article|Peter Maple}} - This article - largely advertising - is being edited by {{userlinks|Maplep}} who claims to be the subject, {{userlinks|KewQuorum}} who is providing citations to a website of the same name and {{userlinks|JamesPeters1980}} who is a ] for this subject. Each have been warned about their conflict of interest, but continue to remove maintenance tags from the article, forming a false consensus on the talk page that, between them, they have solved the problems by providing links to blogs and LinkedIn and other unreliable sources. {{user|JamesPeters1980}} and {{user|KewQuorum}} are pretty obviously the same user. <small>⬅ ] '''] dashing thru the snow''' ]</small> 14:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
:I'm opening up a sockpuppet investigation. I believe that the three editors here are the same person (who is probably Peter Maple, per Maplep who self-identified). Using three accounts to create a false consensus is a clear violation of ]. The Peter Maple article itself does not seem to meet our inclusion guidelines, and should probably be deleted. -- ''']'''] 20:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
:The case is open at ] for anyone who wishes to comment. -- ''']'''] 21:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

== Kripalu Center ==

{{article|Kripalu Center}} - Article was originally an advertisement, IMO, and an interested editor fixed much of that. However, now it is slanted oddly: simple ] replaced with long negative-slant explanation... 2008 revenue being hammered into sentence 1, news that profits are off, news that staff are being cut, news that pay to executives is going up, news of scandals, award for "best spa" removed as minor and old. Editor appears intimately familiar with nicknames of staff, other detailed workings. I am withdrawing from the article, again, but I fear other eyes are needed on it as there have been fairly grave ] issues, and I don't feel I can contribute usefully at this time. One editor in a previous ] section I started disagreed with my interpretation of events, by the way, saying the article was reasonably neutral/balanced.- ] 16:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
:I'm glad you brought this here, and I totally understand withdrawing from the article. Looking at the history of the article, and ], I see a long, drawn-out dispute between you two. The editor has had a turbulent past, judging from their talk page, and their continued involvement with the article should be questioned. Some of the arguments made by Calamitybrook on the article's talk page are troubling, such as the that notability should be based on how nice the center looks in the landscape(?!). -- ''']'''] 21:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:I regard conflicts of interest as ''unethical.'' Editor says it's because I "appear intimately familiar with staff nicknames;" what he means is the yogic titles of president and vice president, as listed prominently on company's Web page.

:I have no personal or professional interest in the topic of article. To suggest otherwise, because I "know staff nicknames" and have done research, is simply inaccurate.

:For so simple and brief an article, there are many citations concerning "detailed workings," most of which are available on line.

:On talk page, plz note that a different ed. recently suggested that the article had too positive a slant, while a third ed found it neutral. What ever. Question here is Conflict of Interest.

:A 160,0000 sq-ft building in the woods indeed affects a landscape enshrined in Amer Lit. by N. Hawthorne, E. Wharton et al. and now part of a federal forest reserve. This "troubling argument" however, is not part of article.

:Award for "Best Spa" from "Self Magazine" is 10 years old and not the Nobel Prize. I replaced with note that center is subject of many travel articles in general interest newspapers, magazines. Not sure how best to cite this easily verified fact.
] (]) 16:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
::I'll try to address each of your points individually. What you regard a conflict of interest to be is irrelevant, when we talk about them we're talking specifically about the guideline at ]. That may differ from some outside definition of what constitutes a conflict of interest, or yours, but you should familiarize yourself with that guideline if you haven't yet.

::You're either grossly misinformed or being deliberately disingenuous in your statement about staff nicknames. John Carter previously mentioned that you referred to people as nicknames like "Gurudev", which is not even close to the "yogic titles of president or vice president". This misstatement of facts is troubling.

::Whether or not the argument about notability is or is not part of the article isn't relevant. You offered it as evidence of notability, dismissing the usual argument that significant coverage in independent reliable sources should be used to determine notability. I can accept that people have different opinions of what should constitute notability, but is troubling when combined with other concerns about your editing behavior at the article.

::You a verified, sourced statement for an award with a vague, unsupported ] statement (if you don't know what weasel words are, don't be offended, just see the link). You a Google search result as a reference for that, even though that is never acceptable as a reliable source.

::Overall, I think you've been damaging this article a piece at a time, violating numerous policies and guidelines in the process, and in defiance of editors who have been trying to tell you what you're doing wrong. Really, I think it's best for you to avoid the article entirely. -- ''']'''] 20:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
====COI allegation not supported====
::But this ''is'' a discussion of conflict of interest allegation...

:So-called evidence of conflict of interest is entirely limited to statement that I am "intimately familiar with staff nicknames" and other "inner workings."

:There are about 400 staff. Nicknames could be "Jack" "Jill" etc. Don't know whether any have nicknames, nor is reason provided that I do.

:'''Two executives''' (exclusively) ''have their yogic names posted on company Web site.''
:This yoga practice is apparently analogous to that of of Catholic monks and nuns, who take new names when they reach some stage in their religious careers. '''"Mother Teresa" for example, ''is not a "nickname" ''' as should be '''reasonably obvious''' (though she was originally named Agnesë Bojaxhiu).

:There is nothing "intimate" about my familiarity with topic. However, I didn't object when the names were removed.

:All "inner workings" described in article are derived from verfiable online sources, through which I gained non-intimate familiarity, which of course, suggests non COI.

:Since the COI tag is transparently '''unsupported, unsupportable''' and simply FALSE,''' I've properly removed it.

===== Quantified improvements=====

:Here is article before I contributed ] when there were six sources and ten footnotes -- (and text was mostly ''all just culled, wholesale, from "company" Web site'').

:Currently has about 20 sources, about 30 footnotes, and is of necessity therefore ''more balanced'' and somewhat more detailed. All of these additions, were added by myself. One or two are debatable, though not challenged as of now. Most of added sources are major newspapers, or government sources.

:''The easily verifiable fact that Kripalu over time, has been subject of sustained (though almost entirely superficial) coverage in national travel press, includes, supercedes and legitimately replaces a single reference to a decade-old magazine item, a so-called award, by Self Magazine editors, which in isolation, is obsolete and not a particularly significant bit of information.''

:Yes I removed a footnote regarding Self Magazine editors' award, and I accept that my general reference to much wider google news search results may be imperfect verification of coverage, but a complete bibliography of these many, various and mostly rather trivial "happy talk" articles would seem excessive for such an innocuous and simple observation.

:Thanks for useful input about my various policy violations and my damage to article. Sinneed has repeatedly made constructive suggestions that I must be banned from Misplaced Pages, because I focus on his nearly endless accusations this regard,'' '''rather than ''content of article.'' '''
:Yet he has comparatively little to say on content, focusing significantly on my "conflict of interest."

:''I've nearly tripled available reliable sourcing and vastly improved the thing -- while his posting seem quantitatively much more personally focused (without sourcing, evidence or shred of acceptable reasoning) on me.''

:As there is less and less I can do to improve article, so will probably in some degree, take your advise and make fewer edits and add few additional sources to what is simply, NOT a very complex topic.

] (]) 22:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

== Indie Movies ==

* {{userlinks|Indie Movies}} - See ]. It's still going on. I'm going through and tagging them, but this is getting annoying now. --<font color="#009000">]</font><font color="#03C03C">]</font><font color="#00A550">]</font> 16:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

*{{iplinks|70.147.45.179}} - this IP has a very similar edit history to Indie Movies. ] (]) 20:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

: No one had given them a COI warning or drawn their attention to this or the previous thread. As Atama stated before it is a pretty clear case of self promotion. I would urge Indie Movies to desist from creating more articles about these non-notable films that are all produced and sold by Maverick Entertainment Group. I'm going to have to warn them and if it continues they could be blocked. ] (]) 17:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
::My apologies. I've only just discovered there was a COI template just now. I'll make sure to use that in the future. I will admit that ''some'' of the films I am unsure about tagging, say, ] for example. --<font color="#009000">]</font><font color="#03C03C">]</font><font color="#00A550">]</font> 17:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
:::He's readded ] and now just did the same with ] (another one I'm unsure about) and ''still'' doesn't understand that maybe having most of his articles be submitted for deletion and being discussed here means something is wrong. --<font color="#009000">]</font><font color="#03C03C">]</font><font color="#00A550">]</font> 17:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
::::No worries about the lack of template, you should always notify someone if you post about them on a noticeboard though (Don't worry though as hardly anyone does, despite it being in the instructions at the top). I've checked the couple that I PRODed and none of them seemed to be notable as far as I could tell from a google news search. ] looks the same to be honest ] isn't the best indicator but there are only 3000 for ""london betty" film" so it doesn't look very notable. I've level 3 warned them as they've carried on despite being warned and being informed of this. ] (]) 18:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
::::I noticed that all the plot sections in the articles are copyvios of the webpages they reference too. ] (]) 19:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::I noticed that too (mentioned in the last thread as well), but I couldn't be bothered to do anything about it like you have. When I first encountered this user, I once tagged an article as ] but it got declined because the person who came along didn't think it worthwhile to delete it because of it. Since there is no speedy deletion criteria for non-notable films (there really needs to be), I've had to resort to prodding. --<font color="#009000">]</font><font color="#03C03C">]</font><font color="#00A550">]</font> 19:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
::::::I sort of dropped the ball on this. I planned on checking the articles against web sites to see if I could identify copyright violations; my gut tells me that much of the content in those articles was lifted either from some fan/review site, or an official site related to the films. Smartse has verified that much the material in these articles has been copied, but I think the best solution is a mass AfD. These articles are clearly related, created/expanded by the same person(s), and share the same issues. One advantage of AfD over PROD or CSD is that it inhibits recreation in ways that the other deletion methods don't; either the original AfD result must be overturned in ] or the recreated articles must differ significantly from the deleted versions and/or address the issues brought forth in the AfD discussion. -- ''']'''] 20:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::::No worries. I've ] ] ] for the ones which had the prod removed and, just to be on the safe side, an ]. (sighs) Should I start working on AfDing all of the others, prod or not? I'll do them, since I'm the original reporter. --<font color="#009000">]</font><font color="#03C03C">]</font><font color="#00A550">]</font> 20:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
::::::::I saw the SPI while I was filing one for a different user on this page (see Peter Maples above), but I don't think that will go anywhere. Editing with multiple accounts isn't disallowed on the encyclopedia, on its own (though disclosing alternate accounts is strongly encouraged), and editing without being logged in is definitely allowed (people do it all the time by accident). Sockpuppetry is only actionable when you can also show ] related to the sockpuppetry. (Using a sock to edit while your main account is blocked, casting multiple votes in an AfD, pretending to form consensus among multiple editors, etc.) -- ''']'''] 21:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
&larr; I don't know... part of me thought that it was an attempt to cast suspicion off his main account. Right now, I'm either assuming bad faith or someone who doesn't pay attention that something is wrong with the pages, not sure which. Anyway, the ] has links to all the others now. --<font color="#009000">]</font><font color="#03C03C">]</font><font color="#00A550">]</font> 00:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

== Head writer for BCBGMAXAZRIAGROUP creating and editing articles related to the company ==

See ]. This relates to the articles ] and ] and also to the copyvio problems, although they are not a matter for this page. I'll notify the editor and then I'm off to bed. ] (]) 22:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
:Not sure if this resolves the issue, but the articles have been deleted. -- ''']'''] 02:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Doug, Can you help me out with this? I will do whatever I need to do to keep the listing as neutral as possible and keep in line with Misplaced Pages standards. However now both articles have been deleted. This is particularly alarming for the Max Azria one-- his article has been up there for a long time and was not started by us. I simply updated the photo, fixed some formatting and added the list and descriptions of the brand encompassed by the BCBGMAXAZRIAGROUP company. This brings his article in line with those of other, similar fashion personalities like Ralph Lauren, Tom Ford and Tommy Hilfiger. I don't understand why the article was full-on deleted like that. As for the one about Lubov Azria-- she is our creative director and a public personality in fashion just like Marc Jacobs or Phoebe Philo. She has become more public in the past 18 months, and there is very little information about her available publicly. Creating a page for her and updating the page for Max was done in response to press inquires. Please let me know what I need to do to get both pages back up. Thank you so much for your help!] (]) 20:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

:The proper venue is ], which is the deletion review board. Or you can talk to ], the administrator who deleted the articles, to ask him why he did so and to ask how you could help prevent the articles from being deleted in the future if you were to recreate them. -- ''']'''] 20:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
:::An earlier version of the article on Max, who has a good case for notability, has been restored, with the COI edits of Acuffrose omitted. There is no case for separate notability for Lubov Aria, his wife. It should be noted for future reference that the article on Max has a bad history of COI editors, including ], self-described as ''"assistant manager for Max Rave"''; the IP 169.234.101.48; and ]. --] &#x007C; ] 20:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
:Acuffrose: are you the editor who formerly edited as ] and described her/himself as "an assistant manager for Max Rave"? Are you the editor who formerly edited as ]? --] &#x007C; ] 20:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

== ] and Global Warming ==

{{Archive top}}
{{resolved|I'm closing this report. While I believe that there are multiple issues of concern surrounding the editing of global warming-related articles, the hyperventilations of an opinion journalist who, among other things, confuses WMC's 3RR patrolling with his global warming editing, are not a credible foundation for a complaint. I suggest that the proper route here would be to compile actual evidence (diffs) of behavior that is allegedly inappropriate and hold a ] to get feedback. Editors who are opposed to WMC's editing should use the wiki process to compile and review evidence, discard weak examples, and get feedback from the rest of the community on whether WMC's behavior crosses the line from being an expert in his field (which should be encouraged) to improperly controlling content and excluding other legitimate viewpoints. ] 17:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)}}


{{userlinks|William M. Connolley}} has been (author ]) of a conflict of interest for global warming and of creating systematic bias in Misplaced Pages to the effect of minimizing the {{article|Medieval Warm Period}} to further an environmental agenda. The article states 5,428 articles could be involved.

For the record I have awarded WMC barnstars in 2006 for excellence in writing and maintaining science articles. I respect him. However, given the potential harm this should be treated seriously until demonstrated otherwise. - ]] 00:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: I found written by William M. Connolley discussing Lawrence Solomon and ]. - ]] 01:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

:He may have been so accused but the accusation is a ludicrous one. A ] means an incompatibility between the interests of an editor and those of developing a neutral, high quality encyclopaedia, and someone who is an expert in the field is certainly not thereby disqualified from helping improve articles - not even if they have known opinions. Making sure that the current state of climate science is accurately described is a service to the encyclopaedia, not something to be resisted. The limited extent to which William M. Connolley has a conflict of interest comes solely with matters related directly to the ] blog at the time he was involved in it, and the British Antarctic Survey under similar restrictions. ] (]) 00:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
::: Lectures on conflict of interest are rather rich coming from "]", I think. ] (]) 14:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

::::I think the word you were looking for was not "rich" but "apposite". Yes, I too have been frivolously accused by a journalist with an agenda, of having a conflict of interest because I edit in a field I have professional and personal knowledge of. That means I am keen to defend others who have been similarly wrongly accused, even ones with whom some people believe me to have 'a history'. Merely being actively engaged within a field of human expertise and having known opinions about the subject, does not give an editor a conflict of interest. Editors only have conflicts of interest when they are directly, personally and currently involved in the immediate precise issue being written about. ] (]) 15:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

::Doesn't the fact he is being paid by the Climate Research Unit to astroturf Misplaced Pages for the AGW POV pose a fiduciary conflict of interest with his role as editor here? I thought astroturfing was banned at Misplaced Pages?] (]) 08:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Since that hasn't happened no. Please don't abuse the word "fact" in future.©] 13:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

:No comment on the broader accusation, which I haven't looked at, but that Financial Post article is idiotic. It proceeds from the first principle that everything WMC does on Misplaced Pages is pushing a global warming-related agenda. The ~5,400 number is the total number of articles he has edited, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with global warming. "Over 2,000 Misplaced Pages contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions." - most of them "ran afoul" of him by crossing the ] bright line on articles entirely unrelated to global warming. And so on. If there is a COI issue here, please present using actual evidence, rather than the kind of journalism that makes me embarrassed of my citizenship. ] (]) 00:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Striking analysis. On the point of "present using actual evidence" would take a significant amount of time; and could be interpreted as cabal protectionism. Being correctly deliberative may not be a luxury we can afford. - ]] 00:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

::::A chain of comments may relate to this issue. ] (]) 01:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

:: To be scrupulously fair to ], the author of that piece, he is not a journalist but a writer and columnist and the piece in question is neither a news article nor investigative journalism, but an opinion column. This kind of writing sells papers, apparently. --] 00:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

:::No it doesn't. This is an author for the ] nobody buys that crap. ] (]) 15:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

::The COI accusation was made off-wiki, in an op-ed. I don't think that it's of concern. When an editor makes an appeal as to how WMC is in specific violation of our ] guideline, that's when I would be concerned. And as Sam Blacketer has alluded to, experts editing articles related to their fields of expertise are specifically given allowance in our guideline (even encouraged, as they should be) and only when there is a personal conflict should the COI be looked at (such as the blog mentioned). -- ''']'''] 00:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

:The ''Post'' article (actually, a blog entry) is ludicrous. It appears that the right-wing blogosphere has gotten to be dumber than usual lately with respect to WMC; there are more detailed rebuttals at ] and ]. There really isn't any credible, evidence-based claim being made anywhere. The climate skeptics echo chamber is probably going to be repeating this nonsense, so administrators watching {{article|William Connolley}} should be extra-vigilant for BLP problems over the next few weeks. ](]) 00:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

::I'm not completely certain as to why this is even being brought up. Are you suggesting that because someone seems to be drumming up a controversy (citing 5k+ edits with nothing to prove that those where problematic edits) that WMC should be barred from the article or subject? This board is for noting/discussing when editors may be directly involved with the subject of the article(s) they are editing. If that's what you're suggesting, please be more clear. Honestly, I can't believe we're even taking the time to address these articles. Like Steve Smith noted, the edits they cite are everything WMC has ever done on WP and assume they were all POV pushing edits. They even site his deletions as an admin, deleting speedy deletion articles which have nothing to do with global warming or his POV. What a waste of time. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 00:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Demonstrating how seriously we take alleged systematic bias is not a waste of time. A proper analysis should be done, and potential COI's on specific articles are possible. I sincerely hope such actions are unnecessary, but looking at the issue for a few minutes / hours and coming to a determination is a disservice to Misplaced Pages. - ]] 01:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
::::You haven't stated what you want the community to actually do. Are you volunteering to do this "proper analysis"? --] <sup><font face="Calibri">'']''</font></sup> 01:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::Royboy, I don't think that's going to happen. Nobody is going to go through WMC's entire edit history to dig up possible COI issues, nor should they. Especially not if the catalyst for this is some opinion piece on a web site. If you, or anyone else, has specific complaints then they should be made. Just like every noticeboard on Misplaced Pages, if there's a problem there should be diffs and specific examples to demonstrate the problem, not a general comment.

:::::To completely contradict your original statement, I think this should ''not'' be treated seriously, not until demonstrated otherwise. -- ''']'''] 01:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

::::::Understood, but if Misplaced Pages can be pro-active in any way I believe it would be to our credit. Removing the Solomon article from the ] article is likely myopic. I will follow up on that talk page. - ]] 01:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::The community can treat it seriously. As to an analysis I do not possess the tools to do that effectively / efficiently. We should provide more accurate numbers than those presented as a start. Perhaps even a "global warming" data dump of WMC edits may be appropriate? This would allow those who wish to contest COI edits to do so more quickly than standard Contrib scrolling. As issues are raised they can be addressed. - ]] 01:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::: Sorry if this sounds flippant (but then again, it ''is''), but have you considered putting all of William's edits into a zip file, posting it on a Russian ftp server, and posting at climateaudit that "A miracle has happened"? Let the sceptics do all the cherry picking... --] 01:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::::Depends on the size of the zip file I suppose. Is there any way to do a decent filter of WMC edits within Misplaced Pages and/or with 3rd party tools / scripts? - ]] 01:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Doable without such scripts. Do a search within article space only. Sort alphabetically by article name, then manually remove articles which clearly have naught to do with climate issues. 5000 edits takes you back to early 2007 -- which should furnish a sufficient sample to detect any problems. From the alpha list remaining, go through diffs sequentially (possibly examining edit summaries). Delete all which are clearly just vandalism reverts etc. Methodology is independent of who you are looking at, or what topics. Hope this helps. ] (]) 01:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::::: Yes, lots of us are programmers with tools for doing just that kind of filtering. But what would we be searching for, and could it be expressed in terms of textual search terms? I suspect not. It strikes me that if there were any significant outstanding conflict of interest it would have been detected in one or other of the arbitration cases in which William M. Connolley has made an appearance.

:::::::: It really would help if we knew what we were supposed to be looking for. --] 01:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::I believe a dump as Collect describes would be okay. Trying to be clever could be problematic. - ]] 02:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Though we should keep obvious vandalism, as that shows the reality of maintaining contested subjects. - ]] 02:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::'''I hereby allege that RoyBoy has systematically attempted to bias over 16,000 Misplaced Pages articles related to atheism.''' He has deleted 129 pages, presumably because he didn't like their subjects. In total, he has blocked 611 editors who ran afoul of him; RoyBoy clearly disapproved of the arguments they made, and had them barred from contributing. (.) Since we need to demonstrate that we take all allegations of systemic bias seriously, please, can someone begin the <s>witch hunt</s> investigation? Or do I have to repost this message in a blog before we get started?
:::::Honestly, that's the level of credibility and accuracy that Solomon's op-ed has. Solomon apparently didn't look at WMC's edits, he just pulled the numbers out of an edit counter and assumed that every article WMC edited, every page WMC deleted, and every editor that WMC blocked was somehow related to climate change and somehow an abuse of WMC's editing/admin privileges. I believe that we should take ''credible'' accusations of systemic bias seriously, and I believe that if Solomon had even bothered to present a patina, a bare ''gloss'' of evidence in support of his claims we might have something to discuss. However, taking this factually-challenged op-ed seriously wouldn't demonstrate anything beyond that we're gullible idiots. RoyBoy, you're welcome to conduct your own investigation, but please don't bring this back to the community until you have something of substance. ](]) 02:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

::::::I agree my call to action is hasty, but I'm hesitant to allow the weakness, and ironic COI, of the accusation to allow relegation of the issue to talk pages alone. Also, I hope this isn't hinged just on the op-ed, but on any appearance of COI within the larger context of ]. If too much a reach, fine. But let it be said we looked at it in an official capacity and found it wanting. - ]] 03:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Although any user is obviously free to satisfy themselves with their own investigation, accusations alone are just accusations. And the context is that the article is a wacky, paranoid opinion piece. It wouldn't surprise if its author were one of wikipedia's fringe pov-pushers in the area, doing some venting . Wiki has an expert user who edits in his area. And he is/was an admin. Big deal. If the author finds actual and specific CoI evidence about WC and the Holy Elders of Realclimate, he can submit it or publish it. Otherwise he shouldn't be allowed to waste our time like this. ] (<small>]</small>) 01:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

:I would like assist the author, and anyone else, to find any COI. It could lead to a streamlined procedure to respond appropriately to future accusations of note. - ]] 02:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

::William Connolley has a relationship with Michael Mann. William Connolley is information from Michael Mann's article that is potentially unsightful for Michael Mann. William Connolley has a COI with regards to this article per ] specifically section. I am sure it would be easy to find many more given his history. ] (]) 04:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy enough to respond to genuine concerns about COI from sensible editors. I think RB made a mistake by basing this report on the LS piece, which (as plenty of people have noted above) is not to be taken seriously. My response is to make fun of it ( is recycled LS so gets mocked too). However, I don't think RB was unreasonable in raising these concerns, so if anyone other than the trolls and the WoT's has anything to say, I'll respond ] (]) 08:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

=== Investigating conflicts in Scientific opinion on climate change ===

This COI investigation should be taken seriously. I investigated this editor in relation to a NPOV dispute with regards to ] for which he created. (Note: I have suffered two blocks (my only ones) and other confirmed harassment in attempting to work with this editor.) Here are my concerns.
:# '''SPECIFICALLY:''' The editor holds the ] mission and interests clearly above those of ].
:# The editor declared conflicted interest here during an ArbCom run.
:# The editor aggressively first denies and then aggressively negates attempts to reach a NPOV.
:# The COI may extend to other editors acting in cohesion for a conflicted mission counter to a NPOV.
:# In addition, the editor may also be held accountable for ] issues in ] upon further archive investigation.

I have diffs from archived talk history in ] to offer. Before proceeding (or taking abuse for conducting an investigation) does anyone else share these concerns to broaden the investigation scope? ] (]) 03:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

:ZP5, You have also first had a couple of polite warnings for borderline harrassing him, to be balanced and fair, and it did look like you started your type of harrassment long before the retaliatory complaints. It does look like an unsubstantiated witchhunt by you of him to me.--] ] 06:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

:It is not apparent how WMC's edits relate to the links which you have presented. I note that you have been blocked twice by ''other'' admins for your poor conduct (), but WMC has apparently not used his admin tools. The links you have presented are confusing, at best. In #2, where you declare that WMC has indicated a conflict of interest, he apparently only states that he 'care about' the issue of global warming. I presume that the same could be said for you. I've got better things to do than to try to parse the remainder of your compaint; can you provide a few diffs which clearly demonstrate the problem, or are you just grinding your own particular axe? ](]) 05:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

::Can those accusing WMC provide some examples of the parts of our ] that have been broken? As far as I can see he is an expert in a particular field which is to be encouraged: "However, an expert on trees is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject." ''If'' there is a problem it would seem to be a POV problem rather than a COI. ] (]) 12:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


Well this part covers it i believe

There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, but there are warning signs. Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest.

WMC has ties to both realclimate and hadley cru. The conflict of interest is his work is in proving agw, therefore when he edits an article to remove anything which may cast doubt on it is a conflict of interest.

See here for an examle please. ] ] (]) 12:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
:You must be kidding. By that criterion, 97.4% of active climate scientists have a COI. The desire to fairly represent a field of science is not a COI, it's a very desirable trait for Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 12:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not a desirable trait to remove any hint of criticism from an article, and i do not see how removal of any "bad news or dissenting opinion" is fairly representing this field of science.
But surly WMC`s neutrality is called into question here, how can he show a neutral pov when he works in the climate change industry?
I`m afraid his bias shows through in his edits, and this is not good for WP. ] (]) 12:48, 23 December 2009 (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.
: ''he works in the climate change industry?''. I don't. What makes you think you have a clue? ] (]) 13:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


*
Have you or have you not worked at hadley cru?
*
Whom is your current employer?
*
Do you have links do realclimate?
*
*


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)
Perhaps "works for" is not the right term, perhaps has worked for would suffice.
] (]) 13:11, 23 December 2009 (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)
: Even if he does or did "work in the climate change industry" (whatever that is) he can still edit articles related to climate change. There is nothing in our COI guideline that forbids him from doing so. If you can provide ] to show that the COI has actually been a problem (i.e. not being ]) then there may be a problem. Personally it seems pretty clear that improving wikipedia is more important than advancing outside interests. Since ] states "Where advancing outside interests are more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." it suggests that this is not a problem. ] (]) 13:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
::Just a brief follow-up to say that there is actually a current thread at ] in relation to the reliability of Nigerian newspapers (here ) which may be of assistance to the user who opened this thread. It seems that the existence of sponsored content in Nigerian newspapers is a widespread problem. Regards, ] (]) 04:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::I believe that it's evident from reading Connolley's bio that his career reputation and credibility is founded, at least in significant part, on Global Warming's credibility, especially on the IPCC's statement on climate change. Connelley's continued behavior at trying to minimize skeptical opinions in the global warming articles, adding criticism to global warming skeptic's BLPs, and attempts to control the POV in the global warming articles shows that this COI and POV are preventing him from complying with WP:NPOV. I suggest a topic band, interpreted broadly. ] (]) 14:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
:::I have run across a new editor who has created many articles based on these Nigerian sources. At first I thought it was a conflict of interest but now I am not so sure (but probably a conflict of interest with at least one of the subjects). I have moved the new articles to draft. ] ]] 17:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::: What's a 'topic band'? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::I suggest a rubber band, preferably wrapped around the fingers of editors who are tempted to promote off-wiki swiftboating. -- ] (]) 15:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
:::Do you mean the POV that insists that science-based articles be based on current scientific consensus? --] <sup><font face="Calibri">'']''</font></sup> 15:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
:Clearly, WMC should not be allowed to work on articles related to climate change, as he has worked with scientists and respected experts in the field. By a similar token, professional football players should avoid writing about sports, and professors of economics should steer clear of articles on monetary policy. The only people who should write our articles in contentious areas are individuals with minority viewpoints, personal axes to grind, and ]. ](]) 15:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
'''Question:''' Did I receive a second to proceed? I want to be clear and balanced with space for the editor to answer the specific issues. I appreciate the comments ... however, what will be most relevant at this stage, are the editor's answer. I can wait for folks to continue before presenting the evidence. Thanks. ] (]) 14:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
:Not from me ZP5. From what I've seen, you've taken your recent run in with WMC personally and therefore are most likely unable to participate in this conversation without bias. If you think you have something to provide proof that WMC has a conflict of interest with Wiki when editing the mentioned articles, I suggest pointing someone else to them and letting them sort things out. I'd also like to add, this will not be the place to reply about how personally or not you have taken the spat between you and WMC. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 15:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


== Special:Contributions/213.8.97.219 ==
===Connolley's contributions to Misplaced Pages===
The title of Solomon's article claims that Connolley edited 5,428 'unique' articles. It is claimed above that "5,400 number is the total number of articles he has edited, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with global warming". Neither of these claims seem to be correct (although I am not sure what 'unique article' means). I crudely and painfully calculated Connolley's edits by using the Misplaced Pages function that lists article edits. Connolley has made a total of 13,045 article edits since he joined in 2003. Many of these edits are to the same article. Counting the 'unique' edits (by my definition, meaning that all edits to the same article count only as one edit), he has edited 1701 articles. The majority of these are global warming articles. Moreover, the edits to non global-warming articles are usually singletons. To global warming articles, he returns many times. For example, the article "1960s in heavy metal music" he edits once. The article 'An Inconvenient Truth', 72 times. (And the article about ''himself'', 23 times).


{{iplinks|213.8.97.219}}
On whether Connolley has a conflict of interest, I don't see that being a climate scientist should rule him out. Clearly experts should be welcome in a project like Misplaced Pages. But is he is politically rather than scientifically motivated? His membership of the UK Green Party, which is not renowned for its scientific view of things (I should know), suggests the former. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


{{articlelinks|Israel Football Association}}
I have listed the articles he has edited on my talk page. I am unable to persuade the Misplaced Pages editor to present this nicely comma-separated table in the way that a spreadsheet would see it. Can anyone help me please? ] (]) 15:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


IP user to being employed by the subject of the article, but to blank the article's Controversy section after being of policy regarding paid editing. --] (]) 13:50, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:Your analytical skills may be valuable, but why not use the tools we have? shows 39,321 edits to 5,440 pages, 2029 users blocked, 510 pages deleted. Note how closely those match the numbers used by Solomon (5,428, "more than 500", "more than 2000"). Apparently, Solomon assumes "page" = "article". That once more shows his dedication to careful research and fact-checking. And your opinion on the UK Green Party aside, WMC's opinion on global warming and climate change agrees with the vast majority of researchers and has the support of all the major Academies of Science. ] applies. --] (]) 15:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
::Please read what I said. I clearly said that Solomon's claim was wrong. But the claim made above that "The ~5,400 number is the total number of articles he has edited, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with global warming." is also very wrong. Looking at his individual edit (and not the 'tool' referred to above, which merely summarises edits) it is clear that the vast majority of Connolley's edits are to GW articles.
:::Subtle distinction. Neither the majority of pages nor the majority of articles are in climate-related fields. The majority of edits are (or at least it seems so by eyeballing). But nobody claimed otherwise, so your argument is a strawman. --] (]) 17:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
: "His membership of the UK Green Party, which is not renowned for its scientific view of things '''(I should know)'''..."
: Do I take it that you have come here to declare your conflict of interest with respect to the Green Party? --] 16:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
::On the Green Party, I was a member a long time ago. That's how I know about its 'scientific' view of things. ] (]) 16:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}


:] is likely to be a sock made by the IP. I'm going to add a paid edit disclosure to the article. ] (]) 18:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==


== Lyal S. Sunga/Long-term (two-decade) COI abuses ==
{{Template:resolved|Blocked for spam/username violations. -- ''']'''] 00:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)}}
{{Article links|Lyal S. Sunga}}
;Editors
* {{userlinks|Addvisors}}
* {{userlinks|24.234.226.155}}


The article ] was created by 217.210.145.175, which is located in Sweden, in 2005, when Lyal S. Sunga just became a lecturer at the ]. Later, the article was edited by 81.234.192.235, 90.224.52.72, 81.234.194.194, 90.231.183.154, among others, all located in Sweden, from 2005 to 2009.
;Articles
* {{article|Andrew Sasson}}
* {{article|The Harmon Hotel and Spa}}
* {{article|CityCenter}}


Then, the article was edited by 93.41.230.58, 93.40.187.104, 93.47.142.126, among others, all located in Italy, when Lyal S. Sunga moved to Italy for UNODC.
] recently created the article ] about a Las Vegas nightclub entrepreneur (said article is now listed at ]). While researching the subject to try to improve the article, I ran across , whose website says they are "a Las Vegas SEO and Google Qualified Adwords agency, specializing in online marketing." The that their client, "The Light Group" (Sasson's company) has hired them to "generate more website traffic to increase and attract new clientele seeking VIP nightclub services, reservations, private parties, and table service in Las Vegas."


In 2014, the article was edited by 83.166.225.44, which is located in Moscow, Russia, when Lyal S. Sunga was an OHCHR-Moscow Consultant.
The user has also recently edited ] and ], two other projects of The Light Group and Sasson. <span style='font:bold 1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>] ❦ (] ❖ ] ❖ ]) ❦</span> 00:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
:I've indef-blocked as a spam username. The fact that they are hired to spam websites means that we can suspend good faith in their case. -- ''']'''] 00:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


In 2016, the article was edited by 83.84.186.217, which is located in the Netherlands, when Lyal S. Sunga was at the Hague Institute for Global Justice.
::Thanks for the fast work! <span style='font:bold 1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>] ❦ (] ❖ ] ❖ ]) ❦</span> 03:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


In 2017, the article was edited by 93.48.243.70, which is located in Italy, when Lyal S. Sunga returned to Italy for The American University of Rome.
== JeffSharlet and ] ==


In recent years, the articled has been edited mostly by IPs located in Italy, where Lyal S. Sunga has been living.
Could someone look into the edits of {{user|JeffSharlet}} at ]. If the account is accurately named, he's the author of the book ], which is used heavily as a source for that article. The issue here is the heavy reliance of that source on the article, often by him directly, in such a way that makes it look as though he is promoting his own book and his own viewpoint at that article, to the exclusion of all other sources. He removes references to ''any'' source which differs from his own conclusions, or is critical of them, see for an example of removing references to works not his own. There are also several other SPA accounts that work on that article which rely heavily on Sharlet's book exclusively, often misrepresenting it in ways that overextend Sharlet's conclusions with regard to the association of political figures with the group. Something needs to be looked at here. --]''''']''''' 05:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


It is fair to say that more than 95% of the edits in this article were made by Lyal S. Sunga himself. I am unsure if the article should be kept or deleted for its advertising nature. ] (]) 23:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
: This is quite a tricky case. It appears that the main issue with it is that JeffSharlet has been arguing about whether or not an article that comments about his book on this organisation should be included in the source. The edit that Jayron32 has linked to seems to be the only problematic edit however and he has edited the talk page more so than the main article. That said taking a quick look it does seem as though an article in ] should be included in the article and if it comments on a major source used in the article then the views may be necessary to meet achieve a NPOV. I noticed that he has argued it is an opinion piece and should therefore not be included but this is not a valid argument as long as the article makes it clear that it is an opinion piece and not fact. I'm not willing to agree that he removes ''any'' sources which disagree with him though, considering only one such edit has been made.
:{{re|Eyer}} has gone in and cleared out a lot of puffery and cruft. ]&nbsp;] 00:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


== User:Taeyasu/Sample page ==
: On a side is there not a system through ] by which people can prove that they are in fact the person that their username suggests they are? If this is the case then JeffSharlet really needs to demonstrate this is the case. ] (]) 20:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
: It also appears user 24.61.42.123 is Jeff Sharlet not logged in, judging by his comment removing the Newsweek article again. He has made some additions to the Fellowship page and his own page on wikipedia. ] (]) 14:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|User:Taeyasu/Sample page}}
* {{userlinks|Taeyasu}}
* {{userlinks|Trendalchemy}}
* {{userlinks|Dpatrioli}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->


3 accounts with no contributions except to write promotional-sounding article ]. Notably:
== Commonwealth Expedition (COMEX) ==


* "Trend Alchemy" appears to be the name of a PR firm in Italy
{{article|Commonwealth Expedition (COMEX)}} - New editor {{userlinks|Cbrownsyed}} has been adding large amounts of unwikified text to ], which, when put into Google come out as being from . I have reverted. When challenged, the editor replied ''The text entered is from the Proposal for the Green Pennant awards, of which I am the co-author with Kevin Lacy and Lionel Gregory. No images were included.'' I have warned about CoI issues, but this could use extra eyes as the unwikified text is not really suitable for Misplaced Pages. <small>]''']''']</small> 15:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
* 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)
==]==
* {{Userlinks|76.166.239.243}}
* {{article|Dr. Luke}} - a user has been reverting my expansion of this article, and then left me ] about representing the subject of the article, having privacy concerns with my additions, and looking into legal options to keep info from being added to the article. My sources include a couple of bios published by music equipment manufacturers, and a magazine article. I'd appreciate broader input on any ] issues. ]] 04:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


:I recently attempted to get the material speedy deleted under ] 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.
* {{Userlinks|Yehoishophot Oliver}}
: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 ==
assisted at the present time primarily by
* {{pagelinks|Chris Antonopoulos (footballer)}}
* {{Userlinks|Zsero}}
* {{userlinks|Amplifyplantz33}}
and
* {{Userlinks|Debresser}}
and
* {{Userlinks|Shlomke}}


] 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)
User {{User|Yehoishophot Oliver}}, proudly going by his real name spends his time flooding Misplaced Pages with any number of pro-] POV articles, even creating obvious fluff pieces and POV forks, in violation of ] a clear-cut violation of ] because he can be found as a spokesman for Chabad online, such as "Tamim Yehoshafat Oliver reminded everyone..." see his own prophile on and the FIVE pro-Chabad blogs he runs, and the over speaks for itself. His work is welcome, but judging by his many in light of his unquestioning open public adherence to the Chabad messianic movement and its ideology brings into play enormous questions of ] that states: "Do not edit Misplaced Pages to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits are in the best interest of Misplaced Pages" -- and lately several knowledgeable editors in the Judaica section have nominated some of his pro-Chabad propaganda articles for deletion and questioning his neutrality in the subject of Chabad on Misplaced Pages. Some kind of oversight is needed with basic warnings and guidelines because he is also aided by some other pro-Chabad editors who violate ] and ] when questioned or confonted for their pro-Chabad bias. ] (]) 03:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
*Please give examples of your allegations with diff's. Thanks, ] (]) 18:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
**At this time the AfD's dealing with the multiple needless Chabad POV forks will speak for themselves, with more information to follow as required: (1) ]; (2) ]; (3) ]; (4) ]; (5) ]. Thanks, ] (]) 20:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
**Shlomke, here are strong examples of diffs from edits by Yehoishophot Oliver protecting the Chabad POV on Misplaced Pages as if it were a pro-Chabad blog (we can present the similar pro-Chabad POV diffs for you, Debresser and Zsero, in due course): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , as well as and ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; . Thanks, ] (])


: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)
'''For the record''': I am not anti-Chabad by any means. I began as a Misplaced Pages editor seven years ago, and devoted some time to beginning the most important articles concerning Chabad and its seven rebbes, here: ; ; ; ; ; ; and helped start . Therefore I greatly admire the Chabad movement, however that being said, Misplaced Pages should not be allowed to become a reverse ] site for ] and the hundreds of pro-Chabad websites and blogs in order to protect the ] of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 04:19, 28 December 2009 (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)


== Adolph Jentsch ==
Yehoishophot Oliver has made many comments admitting that he is using Misplaced Pages to promote his religious viewpoints. He has made no effort to follow Misplaced Pages policies. He also tries to use guilt, to shame Jewish Misplaced Pages editors into following his lead, as he believes that his edits promote his Rebbe's religious worldview - which he believes to be the only right, Jewish worldview. He and many other pro-Chabad editors have clearly, publicly and repeatedly gone to war against all Misplaced Pages policies. They are trying to turn this Encyclopedia into a public relations tool for their faith. This is unacceptable. ] (]) 04:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
:Pleasy give examples of your allegations with diff's. Thanks, ] (]) 18:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
Also for the record, I have made financial donations to three different Chabad houses over the last twenty years. The sad thing is that they have become radicalized, created an us-versus-them worldview, and started trying to force their views on others. ] (])
* {{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)
* This is ridiculous, and has gone way too far. If someone is violating ], and about half a dozen other WP rules it's Izak, who seems to be engaged in a campaign of harassment against Chabad-related editors. This tendentious COI complaint is typical. So are his claims of a "fifth column" of Chabad editors with "growing powers and influnce" trying to "take over Misplaced Pages" and "turn it into chabad.org". He also constantly calls articles he doesn't like ]s, completely ignoring the actual definition of a fork; I don't know why he does that.
*: Claiming that Yehoishophot Oliver has some sort of COI here is exactly the same as claiming that Izak has a COI on any Jewish article, and that he should quit WikiProject Judaism, as should all Jews. Obviously that is not a valid claim. -- ] (]) 04:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
**Zsero, kindly stick to the issues. you are displaying the very problem I am addressing, that when anyone who is not a Chabad editor on Misplaced Pages either disagrees or lodges a complaint you then go into over-drive and violate ] as well as ]. I am not "making things up here" -- I have been a Misplaced Pages editor in the Judaic sections for seven years and I can honestly and objectively state that the way pro-Chabad articles and links are proliferating on Misplaced Pages, Misplaced Pages will soon look like a reverse ] site for ]. Instead of having a temper tantrum you need to devise a way that pro-Chabad editors can control their obvious ambitions to run anything to do with Chabad on Misplaced Pages as any edit history of a major Chabad topic will show that anyone trying to insert what runs counter to the pro-Chabad party line will be attacked by swarms of pr-Chabad editors, like you and User {{user|Debresser}} as current good examples of pro-Chabad POV warriors, who will ensure that articles Chabad articles reflect the official Chabad position. I now citing you and User {{user|Debresser}} as accessories to the problem at hand. ] (]) 04:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
:: IMHO ] is the only thing that is going into overdrive here. I can't answer for others, but I don't see any Chabad psuhing here that violates Misplaced Pages rules. Nothing more than the usual POV disagreements. Were you perhaps on the losing side of a few of them? ] (]) 21:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
* You have '''got''' to be kidding. What conceivable COI do you think I have? This is a deliberately false and tendentious accusation, an abuse of WP, and I'm calling for some sort of action against Izak. At the very least, he needs ]. -- ] (]) 04:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
**Zsero, this is a serious matter, stop trying to trivialize it or to ridicule a situation simply because of ]. By the way, kindly do NOT assert falsehoods, take a good look at ] and ], they are on the same page and it states there : "A '''content fork''' is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A '''point of view''' (POV) fork '''is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines''', often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. '''Both''' content forks and POV forks '''are undesirable on Misplaced Pages''', as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies." So when the pro-Chabad editors create deliberate POV and CONTENT forks, like ] (now mercifully and logically voted to merge with ]); or ] (now deleted but it was logically part of either ] or ]) or ] (which was now logically voted to merge with ] and it could just as easily been part of the main ] article) and there are lots more examples like this, these are clear-cut examples of both CONTENT and POV forking by the pro-Chabad editors to push their POV as they forget that here on Misplaced Pages there is a more comprehensive broader encyclopedic ] outlook on Judaism that they '''must accept''' on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 05:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


== Conflict of interest - Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra Article ==
*I'd like to put aside the question of FORKS for a moment a agree with IZAK regarding COI. When I work for a company, I am asked to declare a COI on any relevant article. I am still allowed to edit said article but it means that my work will be scrutinized by others for POV. Having a strong affiliation with a group, especially one with a public agenda of sharing their point of view with others, in my opinion is no less COI that working for an organization.<br /> While we all know that there is a certain amount of ] that we all bring to bear when editing WP articles (esp. in on Jewish topics) I would recommend that Oliver voluntarily restrict himself to 3rd party , reliable sources regarding his edits on Chabad and outreach related topics. ] (]) 05:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra}}
*: That is an outrageous demand. You may as well say that every Jew has a COI on Jewish topics, every Xian on Xian topics, every Buddhist on Buddhist topics, etc. Or that every US voter with political opinions has a COI on any US-politics related topic. -- ] (]) 05:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|Anurag Palutla}}
**Zsero, cut out the tones of ] PLEASE and be logical. I don't know about other religions, but Judaism and especially Orthodox Judaism is highly complex and multi-multi-faceted with thousands of nuances. Everything on Misplaced Pages is based on edit history and the style of an editor and that is how editors are judged. This is not about hypothetical arguments about what Christians do (you can use that word on Misplaced Pages and there is no need to use "Xian" which is offensive to other editors who may be Christians and not "Xians") or what Buddhists write, this is about the confirmed and obvious observations of the tactics and methods and aims of the pro-Chabad ]S, like you and the above-mentioned, who are gung ho to insert whatever they like about Chabad-related topics, no matter how trivial and repetative at times, as if Misplaced Pages was a branch or subsidiary of ] and if anyone seriously questions them in the larger Chabad articles they act in defiance of ] TO OTHER NON-CHABAD JUDAIC EDITORS (and not to "Xians" and Buddhists) and fight THEIR SUPPOSED FELLOW JUDAIC CO-EDITORS, albeit not being Chabadniks, harder than they would fight "Xians" and Buddhists to keep the pro-Chabad POV party line in articles often eliminating excellent points BY OTHER JUDAIC EDITORS, OFTEN AS OBVIOUSLY ORTHODOX AS THEY ARE, by resorting to defending their articles in packs, thus wearing down and tiring out the others resulting in the ongoing hegemony over the Chabad articles by the Chabad editors ONLY, again in violation of ]. ] (]) 06:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
# I do not hide my Chabad identity online, and I choose not to go by a pseudonym on wikipedia, and I don't see that this violates any rule. On wikipedia I strive to follow the rules, and that is what matters. I want to improve wikipedia through creating quality articles and editing existing ones, and that is what I have done, with Hashem's help. These articles are generally related to Judaism, because I have no knowledge or interest in writing articles about Islam or any other religion, being that I don't belong to them. I guess I have a COI because I'm Jewish, huh. Whatever.
# Conversely, Izak has made it clear that he identifies as an Orthodox Jew (which of course I respect). Perhaps someone who doesn't identify himself as such may now come and accuse Izak of being unfit to edit any Judaism-related article, because he is coming with the POV of Orthodox Judaism (which is by the way a world-view that according to all halachic opinions require a Jew to convince other Jews to accept it--as per the mitzvah of hocheiach tochiach es amisecho)? Most world views have a certain degree of "we want others to believe as we do". Big deal. And many wikipedia editors are not ashamed about mentioning their world-views, Izak included. For example, there are very pro-Islam/arab and very pro-Israel editors on wikipedia. Does the fact that they clearly hold something personally, hence the nature of their edits, disqualify them from editing? I think not.
# As for making lots of edits on one general topic (I'm not aware of a rule against this, but whatever), perhaps we will accuse Izak of that, since he clearly has a preference for editing Judaism related articles over Islam-related ones? I might also add that over the years I have edited many non-Chabad related Judaism articles.
# In any case, if someone believes that a particular edit of mine is incorrect or one-sided, they are welcome to quote counter-sources to promote balance (may I point out that I even added a whole controversy section to the Public Menorah article in order to create balance there). If they believe I have erred in counting a subject as a separate article, they are welcome to argue for that position. But this has turned into not just harassment, but nothing short of a witch-hunt.
# What is most outrageous is Izak claiming that he has no personal agenda against Chabad, when in the recent he repeatedly used the most derogatory POV, uncivil language against Chabad and against the Lubavitcher Rebbe, accusing him of a "drive for hegemony", calling his directives "diktats" (interestingly, he considers similar language inappropriate when referring to rabbis in general : "By the way, real rabbis don't "dictate" -- a very bad word"), accusing his disciples of carrying out their Rebbe's directives "robotically and unthinkingly", dismissing the Lubavitcher Rebbe's call for Public menorahs as invalid and incorrect, and therefore not worthy of inclusion, because many rabbis disagreed with it, and declaring that Public menorahs "really have nothing to do with menorahs as such but are aimed at furthering the Chabad world view upon everyone", and more. All of this was completely irrelevant to the discussion there, which was about the ''notability'' of Public Menorahs, and the most blatant violations of ], ], ] and especially ], ], and ]. Above Izak also violates ] by posting personal information about me from a search engine, info. which I did not post on wikipedia.
# Oh, and RK also reveals his anti-Chabad POV agenda himself right here: "I have made financial donations to three different Chabad houses over the last twenty years. The sad thing is that they have become radicalized, created an us-versus-them worldview, and started trying to force their views on others." But please, let RK adduce proof for the outrageous claims he makes against me, which clearly violate ], ], and ]. ] (]) 07:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


], I think there is a conflict of interest here. The director himself has created an account and working on the article - ] (]) 08:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Regarding User:Yehoishophot Oliver's comments:
#You contradict yourself by saying that on one hand "I do not hide my Chabad identity online, and I choose not to go by a pseudonym on wikipedia, and I don't see that this violates any rule" but on the other hand it's "outing" you to call you and KNOW you by your real online name which is also your Misplaced Pages name that you don't even attempt to hide, even when Emailing back and forth you use your name. Totally illogical. You are being facetious when you write "I guess I have a COI because I'm Jewish, huh" -- nope, because it's not the point, the point is that we are discussing your editorship and spread of a specific pro-Chabad ideology writing articles and defending pro-Chabad POV positions when other editors seek to insert or debate many of the issues that you and your allies stonewall.
#I have NOT identified myself as an Orthodox Jew or as any kind of Jew on Misplaced Pages at any time, but I have pointed out that YOU and your allies do not co-operate EVEN with Orthodox editors, which is quite obvious from the way they have commented against your practices many times.
#Sure, anyone can freely edit any articles, kindly stop fuzzing up the issues. The main point of this complaint is that when it comes to the topic of Chabad you create too many POV forks and within Chabad articles you and your allies will not allow any view that diverges from standard pro-Chabad propaganda (and it is outright UN-encyclopedic ]) to be found on ] but not befitting Misplaced Pages to be acting as a surrogate mouthpiece for Chabad care of your editorial stewardship.
#This is not a "witch hunt" and you are neither a witch nor a wizard, but like everyone else, and as pointed out by a few editors here already, as a Misplaced Pages editor you need to be restrained from creating articles on Misplaced Pages in the image of Chabad.org or that befits web sites like or or or or any of the literal thousands of pro-Chabad sites that no doubt somehow or other you and other pro-Chabad editors would like to see as the face of not just Misplaced Pages's Chabad articles but with links in all Judaic articles, and it's very funny you talk of welcoming others to edit along with the pro-Chabad editors which is like a bird trying to fly with a swarm of hornets as they buzz in when anyone they don't like tries to insert edits not to their liking. It can be proven from almost any of the multiple pro-Chabad pages on Misplaced Pages.
#To repeat I have no agenda against Chabad. God bless them. But they have no automatic right to invade Misplaced Pages and assume that they ] every last shred of information that relates to them, their highly controversial movement that faces serious questions from all sides of the Jewish spectrum. Kindly note that none of the terminology I used is in any way unsuitable when talking about an aggressive and unyielding leader because '''Misplaced Pages biographies are NOT ]''', so nothing I have stated thus far exceeds terms suitable for discussing powerful, almost frightening, and controversial figures.
#What is wrong with any User saying that he made financial contributions to Chabad? It's very kind in fact. Like the donations Misplaced Pages asks for now on top of every page. We can go by ] and ] and praise that person's generosity instead of assuming that having analytical thoughts and the ability to think and dicuss things in a critical manner somehow negates that person's sterling qualities. Misplaced Pages does not require a pledge of allegiance to the Lubavitcher Rebbe or to any rabbi because Misplaced Pages is not a ], nor is it a Chasidus, nor is it a ] but rather it's an encyclopedia that requires that articles follow its well-established guidelines. No amount of ]ING by Users {{user|Yehoishophot Oliver}} and {{user|Zsero}} and other single minded pro-Chabad defenders can cover up or excuse the free ride they have enjoyed so far without anyone seriously challenging them and the other pro-Chabad ]s that they must fall in line with ] and not game the system to suit the aims of Chabad while undermining the over-all development of a more balanced and critical view of Chabad topics as well as other topics that they delve into. ] (]) 08:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Regarding User:IZAK's comments:
#No, it’s outing to post personal information about me on Misplaced Pages, because aside from my name and location, I have not posted any personal information on Misplaced Pages. Nor did I reveal any personal information in any personal correspondence with you. Is there some reason I should attempt to hide my name? Others prefer to do so, I prefer not to. There is no rule against it.
#I see. Well, on Misplaced Pages I have not identified myself as a Chabad chossid. And if you would identify yourself as an Orthodox Jew, would all your edits on Judaic articles then be automatically COI? I think not. Also, if you could quote some concrete examples about how I or others have not “cooperated” with other editors, or how other editors have “complained many times” against my edits (and I don’t mean ones I made when I first started on Misplaced Pages and didn’t yet know the ropes), instead of making unsupported claims, that would be helpful. It might just be that (gasp!) there was a legitimate difference of opinion. Oh, and as for cooperating, you might recall that until you started this witch-hunt, we WERE cooperating quite amicably together on non-Chabad Judaic articles. I recall no disagreements there at all, never mind total non-cooperation. Or is your memory so short?
#As for starting articles that you consider inappropriate, some have been found unnecessary by other editors, and others haven’t. Each one may be discussed on its own merits. If there is a difference of opinion on the matter, the correct way to resolve it is through respectful discussion, not your current modus operandi. As for removing critical statements, please quote to me even one place that I or any of the other editors you point the finger at have deleted properly-sourced statements critical of Chabad.
#Your language was and continues to involve personal attacks, incivility, and unashamed promotion of your personal hostile views. Note that on the Public Menorah afd page several other editors, including those who believed that the article deserved to be deleted, objected to your nasty tone. Please stick to discussion directly related to editing Misplaced Pages, and kindly refrain from using it as a forum to release your vitriol and promote your personal agenda. Thank you.
#Obviously I wasn’t referring to RK’s donations, but to his POV statement after that expressing hostility to Chabad in general. But I am waiting for him (or you) to back up these absurd claims against me with extensive reference to the appropriate diffs. ] (]) 17:42, 28 December 2009 (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)
Response to Yehoishophot Oliver:
#Again, you admit that you do not hide your name anywhere and it's somehow "outing" you to know and address you for who and what you admit you are all the time. There is no "outing" someone who has already outed themselves by providng their true ID on Misplaced Pages and forgoing anonymity thereby, unless you claim that you are not "Yehoishophot Oliver" but an imposter impersonating you in violation of ]. Like saying anyone and everyone can and does know who I am, just don't mention it in this COI discussion.
#The issue is NOT if you are a Chabad chosid or what my beliefs are. God bless you in your personal life and personal beliefs, and long live Chabad! That being said, like a ], the central problem at hand in this COI complaint is that you, assisted by and with other pro-Chabad POV editors, obvious from their edit history and comments, the pro-Chabad POV editors violate ] and act as if you have the sole "power" and "authority" to shape and control the contents and edits of articles relating to Chabad topics in a ] fashion as if the articles emanate from ] and act in violation of ]; ] and ] for the Chabad movement in a dispassionate and unemotional manner. Your reactions right now are proof of the emotionalism and personalising of responses rather than discuss the real issue of your near-absolute control of the Chabad topics on Misplaced Pages.
#You well know that Chabad fights hard to control any voices against it and that so-called "properly-sourced statements critical of Chabad" are hard to come by, but they do exist. Nevertheless I invite you to look at the edit histories of just three serious topics most hateful to the pro-Chabd POV editors: and and and you will see how they function to undercut even known and sourced valid criticisms.
#Indeed, I feel as strongly about my views as you do about yours, but I do not violate ]. I also feel a strong responsiblity towards the direction and fate of ALL the Judaic articles on Misplaced Pages proven by my pretty good record of good faith editing over seven years. I have never been questioned about my fairness as an editor, the compalainst against me is that I am too vocal in fighting ] as I tend to be frank and not hide my agendas.
#At this time the AfD's dealing with the multiple needless Chabad POV forks will speak for themselves, with more information to follow as required: (1) ]; (2) ]; (3) ]; (4) ]; (5) ]. Thank you, ] (]) 20:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Response to Izak:
#Yes, I don't hide my name, but as I understood it, the outing rule prohibits drawing attention to a person's personal life if it is not promoted on wikipedia.
#You need to point to specific diffs to prove your claim; I'm not about to read through an entire history of an article. Note also that I've barely edited those articles, so perhaps address your challenges against those whom you feel have violated the rules you mention, not me.
#Yes, there are some articles whose independent merit is being debated. So what? Keep the discussion on the relevant talk/afd pages.
#I can't comment on your work on other articles in general and the fairness or lack thereof; however, much of the work that I've encountered I greatly respect, as I've mentioned. But you have clearly violated numerous rules when it comes to commenting on Chabad-related articles. ] (]) 21:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


== Vanskere ==
To Yehoishophot Oliver:
I do not wish to repeat myself and run around in circles. I will respond to new comments but not to self-repetition. Thanks, ] (]) 22:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks, those are exactly my sentiments. ] (]) 22:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->* {{pagelinks|Vanskere}}
=== Response by Debresser ===
* {{pagelinks|Evans Akere}}
* {{userlinks|Iamtoxima}}<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->


This editor is screaming conflict of interest to me. Both articles have been tagged as promotional utilizing ], I have nominated them for deletion. As you can see on the user talk page, they have been asked about conflict of interest without a response. They also posted asking about how to make Google index their brand's article. Their primary other edit was to add the brand to ]. ]] 18:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I definitely have a POV towards Chabad, since I am a Chabad rabbi. Likewise I have a POV towards Jewish points of view in general. And a whole lot of other POV's. I guess just like anybody. Nevertheless I try, and I think with success, to remain more or less objective. I can show edits that clearly prove I am doing a very good job at that. Including in the cases mentioned/alluded to above. Obviously, as any Wikipedian editor in good standing, I would have no problem with a third-party assessment of my behavior in this issue (or any other issue connected with my behavior on Misplaced Pages). ] (]) 08:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
*User Debresser's comments are to be welcomed, but it's too little too late, and the reasons are to be found in his words. Does it mean because Chabad has thousands of rabbis who have their own Chabad websites and blogs and who are streaming to Misplaced Pages in greater numbers as the days, weeks, and months fly by, that Misplaced Pages will have to bow in submission to the "greater wisdom" and resounding presence of thousands of Chabad rabbis who will think in unison and will in effect by SHEER NUMBERS unite to crush Misplaced Pages's independence, control every letter that's written about Chabad on it, and wage into areas about Judaic and Israeli-related topics that no one will be able to withstand as they declare "I am a Chabad rabbi"? This will be a sad and sorry state of affairs and the END of Misplaced Pages as it has been known until now. That is why it is important for other Wikipedians to be made aware of this very real threat to Misplaced Pages's independnce unless guidelines and restraints are set up to enforce total neutrality and ensure that not even Chabad topics can be ]ED by Chabad rabbis, no matter how many show up and declare their authority as such. ] (]) 09:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
**You list 3 editors whom you consider pro-chabad, and then start raving in the most derogatory terms about how thousands of Chabad editors are taking over wikipedia. This is wild hysteria. Please stop using wikipedia as a forum to promote your personal agenda; thank you. ] (]) 17:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
***It's more than a mere three pro-Chabad POV editors, and you know it, such as Users {{user|Shlomke}}; {{user|PinchasC}}; {{user|Chocolatepizza}}, and many who pop in and out, and they work hard together over time to ensure that a ] to ''their'' liking is placed around ANY Chabad-related topics. It's not "raving" to point out this growing pattern and ''projection'' of things to come if left unregulated. No one is saying that "thousands of Chabad editors are taking over wikipedia" but what I am saying is that if the presnet TREND contnues it will becom impossible for a non-Chabad editor to make meanigful contributions to Chabad and non-Chabad topics due to the constant unified stonealling by the pro-Chabad POV editors. ] (]) 20:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
****{{user|PinchasC}} and {{user|Chocolatepizza}} haven't been around for years. Until fairly recently, I've also been quite inactive. Sholomk is active, true. So you have a grand total of four. Hardly the mass conspiracy campaign that you paint. ] (]) 21:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
*****PinchasC has been around during 2009 and Chocolatepizza was an important pro-Chabad editor as part of a strong ongoing pattern that has continued as one editor retires another takes up the baton, which is part of the problem here as they all do the same thing. ] (]) 21:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
******Once again Izak is alleging some sort of vast conspiracy. He really needs to be sanctioned for this. -- ] (]) 22:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
*******No "vast conspiracy" -- then again, your best "defense" is offense -- just noting the obvious on the record editorial patterns. We can go through each and every Chabad article and see what comes of it if you like. There are also many pro-Chabad editors who make plenty of edits anonymously from just IP addresses hoping not to get noticed or cited for pushing the party line. That too is part of this problem. ] (]) 22:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
********I haven't seen any edits from PinchasC. So you disagreed with CP--so what? Again, your claims are wildly exaggerated. ] (]) 22:39, 28 December 2009 (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)
=== Outside editor's comment ===


== Marc Jorgenson ==
I'm not affiliated in any way with Judaism in real life, or with Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. I have no "side" in this dispute. I do frequent the COI noticeboard, though, and I've seen many complaints and resolutions come and go.
{{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. -->
IZAK, it is very rare that Misplaced Pages considers it a COI for an editor to edit articles related to that editor's religion. Doing so comes close to discrimination and would be pretty much impossible to police. Similar broad connections, such as a person's gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, political beliefs, or nationality are also not considered proper bases for COI complaints.
* {{pagelinks|Marc Jorgenson}}
* {{userlinks|Plus3db}}
* {{userlinks|Lexicon480}}
* {{userlinks|Bunny & J-Zone}}
* {{userlinks|24.82.146.94}}
* {{userlinks|24.82.146.152}}
* {{userlinks|24.86.250.211}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Blatantly promotional article and severe failure of ] with puffery removed by users before. 3 single-purpose accounts as well as 3 IPs of close proximity have edited the article in around 2008. There definitely is signs of paid editing or people connected with subject editing the article, so a block of these users and IPs should suffice alongside the deletion of the article. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: coral; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 06:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Ilyas El Maliki ==
You've said that Yehoishophot Oliver is a spokesman for "Chabad online", and runs five blogs. Does he attempt to promote any of those blogs or any web sites or organizations he is directly tied to? Doing so would certainly be a COI because he is directly connected to them.


* {{pagelinks|Ilyas El Maliki}}
It's very possible that he has violated our ] policy in his edits and in articles he has created. That is separate from a COI, however, and there is a ] for lodging such complaints.
* {{pagelinks|Draft:Ilyas El Maliki}}
* {{userlinks|IMDB12}}
* {{userlinks|Saileishere}}
I think the two users are the same person and probably work for El Maliki to write the article. ]] 22:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


:The photo of El Maliki was uploaded by ] ]] 22:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
So to wrap up, unless there are clear conflicts of interest such as I'd asked about, I'd say that this particular complaint about a COI is baseless. We don't discriminate based on religion, or as has been pointed out to you already, you'd be in violation yourself. -- ''']'''] 20:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
*Hi Atama: To address your points:
#This is NOT a complaint "related to that editor's religion" because obvioulsy he and everyone is free to have their religion. It's more subtle and complex than that, and easy for an outsider to miss the nuances and reality at work. This is a COI complaint about an editor and his allies admission to editing and controlling articles about ]-related topics on Misplaced Pages that reveals a pattern of promoting and defending a party line LIKE they were spokesman for Chabad, which they are in real life, on Misplaced Pages to make it adhere to the Chabad view and not to many Misplaced Pages policies, NPOV being one of them, but others being violated are ]; ] and ] to promote a flow of pro-Chabad articles as if Misplaced Pages were a reverse ] of other online Chabad web sites and blogs. This is a clear conflict of interest between their own admitted roles in real life as Chabad propagandists (in the positive sense) and their work as Misplaced Pages editors of Chabad articles on Misplaced Pages.
#Indeed, as you assert, "Yehoishophot Oliver is a spokesman" for the Chabad movement on the Internet (to be specific), and as proof, as you recognize, "runs five blogs" at least that promote Chabad full force. While he does not "attempt to promote any of those blogs" of his own, he does promote the MESSAGE of those blogs and that of "web sites or organizations he is directly tied to" by his strong connections to Chabad, and therefore: I agree with you that "'''Doing so would certainly be a COI because he is directly connected to them'''" .
#The issue of violating ] is not the bone of contention at all. It is more subtle than that because the main problem is he and his pro-Chabad POV editors create a stranglehold, utilizing refined editorial skills and the rules of Misplaced Pages as tools and shields to wage their ] to push Chabad and pro-Chabad links in articles and edits AS IF attempting to turn Misplaced Pages's articles and Chabad-related articles and links into the same thing they do online at Chabad blogs, websites and social networking online. Feel free to request further clarification. Thanks, ] (]) 21:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


::See ]. --] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 13:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:''You've said that Yehoishophot Oliver is a spokesman for "Chabad online"''
: You misparsed that; Izak's claim was not that Yehoishophot is a spokesman for an entity called "Chabad online", but that he has been cited online as a spokesman for the Chabad movement. That claim is false, and the "evidence" he cites for it is absurd, but it doesn't go as far as you thought it did. -- ] (]) 21:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


== Lindy Li ==
::I'm sorry, but perhaps this is too subtle and complex for any action to be taken. You've pretty much confirmed here that Yehoishophot Oliver has been doing a good job avoiding conflicts of interest by avoiding promotion of anything that he is directly connected with (those 5 blogs would be a clear COI). You haven't given any other specific complaints, only a general idea that he's trying to promote a pro-Chamal POV alongside numerous other editors.


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
::It seems to me that you're not really making a COI complaint here. You're trying to raise the alarm that a concerted effort by a religious movement is trying to change Misplaced Pages. That's not without precedent, see ] regarding something similar that occurred with ]. However, notice that the Scientology problem lasted for years, involved people who edited directly on behalf of an organization (rather than people editing on behalf of their own beliefs) and the case took 6 months to close (and was the 4th arbitration case on Scientology, and probably won't be the last!). If your allegations are true (and again, you don't have any diffs to back them up) it will take a lot more than a COI noticeboard complaint before anything is done about them. -- ''']'''] 22:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
* {{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)
Atama:
#If this is too subtle for you then you should perhaps recuse yourself from this discussion because this is a long-brewing issue that cannot be short-ended with simplistic solutions, and it requires utmost attention to details and a requirement to be ] in confronting this huge COI problem.
#If, as you state, a "religious movement is trying to change Misplaced Pages" then if that movement's representatives (one has admitted to being an official rabbi of it, and the other is also a rabbi that runs blogs to promote it) then it is a clear-cut issue of COI when they set about to promote their cause in POV fashion when Misplaced Pages requires absolute allegiance to ], even when POV-foisting is done by subterfuge it must be exposed and fought. Making matters worse, when a "religious movement is trying to change Misplaced Pages" and then fights to protect its articles in violation of ] EVEN TO OTHER JUDAIC EDITORS WHO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING, and flaunt themselves openly in violation of ] for Chabad, then the problem of COI is multiplied and not "reduced" in any way.
#The example you cite of the Scientologists' attempts to undermine and control Misplaced Pages's articles about them is the PERFECT analogy to what has also been going on for years with the pro-Chabad POV editors, and citing them for COI violations is as good a place as any to start because they are guilty of that and a lot more if you go through each one's edit history you will find manipulation, intimidation, editing, censoring, propagandizing and basically functioning as a law unto themsleves and if you call them on it they will resort to all manner of ] certainly no ] and all the silliness of utilizing ]ing as much as they can as you see them doing it now.
#The pro-Chabad POV editors, like the Scientologists, are, to use ''your'' exact words "'''involved people who edited directly on behalf of an organization'''" and they are NOT "people editing on behalf of their own beliefs" alone, because one is a self-admitted Chabad rabbi (Debresser) and the other is also another rabbi (Yehoishophot Oliver) who spends his time online doing what he does on Misplaced Pages, push the pro-Chabad POV. This is as clear as daylight.
#I have now provided you with the diffs (below and above) and even though, as you state: "it will take a lot more than a COI noticeboard complaint before anything is done about them" it is no reason to back off, but on the contrary this is an excellent point to start what will be a longer process of not allowing pro-Chabad POV editors from hijacking not just the ever-growing Chabad-related topics but many of the Judaic and Israeli-related topics. ] (]) 01:03, 29 December 2009 (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)
::I don't feel any need to recuse myself, but I think it's pretty clear to all involved that there is no COI here. I've gone through a number of diffs you cited, and while many of your descriptions of those diffs misleadingly suggest a problem, I don't see anything alarming. Frankly, as this continues the only concerns I have are regarding your motives. It would probably be in your best interest to ]. As DGG said below, there's nothing here that the usual Misplaced Pages processes involving an adherence to a neutral POV can't handle. -- ''']'''] 01:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


== State University of New York at Geneseo ==
===Response by Shlomke===
{{atop
I find ] to be a very good and dedicated editor who spends much time on general Judaic articles improving them, assuring that they hold a NPOV. He also has collaborated successfully with other editor's including ] and others on general Judaic topics. I find him to generally be a an editor who follows WP rules. At issue is whether he has a conflict of interest on Chabad topics, which is what Izak accuses him of. I have asked Izak to provide examples with diffs. Izak violates ] by attempting to reveal personal information about Yehoishophot Oliver, which may or may not be true. It is very funny how Izak arrived at the conclusion the Yehoishophot Oliver is a "spokesman" for Chabad-Lubavitch. This is patent nonsense.
| result = Soft blocked for promotional username representing Geneseo's Communications and Marketing (CommMark) team. ] (]/]) 01:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I think it is absolutely important, and very valuable to Misplaced Pages to have editors knowledgeable in Chabad Hasidism which is a movement that some put their numbers at . To have a rabbi like User:Debresser says he is is an advantage to Misplaced Pages. There are currently very few editors with good knowledge of Chabad, and it would not hurt to have a few more. Izak seems to think there is some conspiracy to make Misplaced Pages look like ]. There is no such conspiracy. In fact there are two huge articles critical of Chabad on WP, ] and ] which is posted on the ] that goes on every Chabad related article. There is no need for additional action outside of the proactive ]. It is indeed interesting how as soon as I asked Izak for diffs he added me to the "assisted by" section above which he did to User:Zsero as well. I personally don't take offense to it, but it seems it might be an effort to disqualify our responses. ] (]) 21:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
}}
:I have not had any experience with the Chabad editors' ] of which ] speaks, and I would like to see some examples (diffs) in order to comment on it. But I am aware of the pro-Chabad, PR-style (rather than encyclopedia-style) articles that ] has posted. Like many articles, the fact that they have no references other than the ] ''sichot'' earns them an "unreferenced" tag, no more and no less. The fact that no one has bothered to add references to them since they were posted two years ago is also not surprising, considering the volume of pages on the English Misplaced Pages. Since Misplaced Pages encourages people who know something about the subject to write articles, I don't think it's fair to censor Yehoishophot Oliver, but I do think he should be reminded to reread ] and be held to the standard of all "unsourced material may be challenged and removed." ] (]) 21:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
:: Wait a minute. Since when are the Rebbe's sichos not a reference? An article with only such references may be tagged as Singlesource, but certainly ''not'' as Unreferenced. Such material may ''not'' be removed. -- ] (]) 22:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
:::Whoa, ]. Maybe I was misreading ]:
:::'''Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.'''
:::The articles which IZAK cited above as having been written by Yehoishophot Oliver are all based on the primary source. For that matter, Oliver could go ahead and parlay all the Rebbe's ''sichot'' into Misplaced Pages articles. I was just saying that he should also try to find third-party sources (e.g. internet and newspaper articles) to make it look less like PR and more like an encyclopedia.
:::I, too, have started articles. But I do not put them up with one, primary source. I try to back up the page with many sources from the start so that readers will see the whole picture up-front. ] (]) 22:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
:::: 1. Primary sources are perfectly acceptable, provided that they are used for no more than what they actually say, not for analysis. Secondary sources are needed for analysis of what the primary sources mean. If someone claims the LR took a particular position, then he can only cite a sicha if it explicitly makes that point, not if it only implies it.
:::: 2. However, that is only for claims that the LR said something or held something. For topics beyond that, the LR's sichos are a valid secondary source, and his analysis of the primary sources he quotes is 100% citable on WP. For instance, on the shape of the temple menorah, the LR's sicha is the most important secondary source on what the rishonim had to say about it. -- ] (]) 23:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
:::::I know nothing about the specific issues, but just a point about primary sources: they may be used as sources, with caution, but articles should not be based on them, because primary sources do not show notability. Secondary sources are needed to show that the article should exist in the first place. Secondary sources are also usually needed to show that the specific points made in the article are worth making, and that the article's thrust isn't simply a Wikipedian's opinion. Articles about religious figures or religious issues that are based largely or entirely on primary sources would almost certainly be a violation of our content policies, specifically ], ], and probably ]. <font color="purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font> <font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 00:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|State University of New York at Geneseo}}
* {{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 ==
::Yoninah: Thanks for your observations. You ask about the "Chabad editors' ] of which ] speaks, and I would like to see some examples (diffs) in order to comment on it." So in answer to your questions take a look at the edit warring at these articles: and and . Thanks, ] (]) 21:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
::: 1) That's a grand total of 3 articles; hardly the mass conspiracy that you point; 2) you have yet to cite diffs to prove my role in these articles (not that I would have a problem editing them, and if I would I would strive to be fair and follow the rules, but I don't recall extensively editing them, so that makes your allegations against me all the more unsubstantiated. ] (]) 22:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
::::I'll address the edit war topic, although it's not relevant to any COI complaints.
* {{pagelinks|Kathryn Babayan}}
::::*] - This seems to mostly be a slow-burning conflict between a single IP editor in New York City and a couple of registered editors (209.155.49.X, 129.98.211.X, 98.116.27.151 all geolocate to NYC). Nothing alarming and there hasn't really been much discussion for the article for years.
* {{userlinks|2601:401:100:46E0:B919:9891:DF5D:FC9F}}
::::*] - The biggest editing conflict I see is between Zsero and Debresser back in September, and these are people you allege to have ganged together as part of some religious movement, so this actually works against your claims.
* {{userlinks|2601:401:100:46E0:E169:2FC9:4E47:B104}}
::::*] - The only alarming thing I see in the edit history here was blatant POV violation which was rightfully reverted. Aside from that, this article which you allege to be defended by a pro-Chabad group has had a total of 5 edits in the past year.
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
::::Again, I see ''nothing'' that supports a major conspiracy at work here. When asked to provide diffs, you point to article histories and expect people to dig through them. That's not going to sway anyone. -- ''']'''] 22:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
Atama: Here are strong examples of diffs from edits by Yehoishophot Oliver protecting the Chabad POV on Misplaced Pages as if it were a pro-Chabad blog: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , as well as and ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; . There are many more examples of COI pro-Chabad POV editing in many directions by Yehoishophot Oliver, but this should be more than enough proof of this user's inability to see anything except through the rosy lenses of the official Chabad party line. ] (]) 00:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
:The BLP is bloated with puffery and sources. It should be shortened substantially. ] (]) 00:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
Response to Izak (I tried to address them all; please tell me if I missed one):
:: 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)
* I stand by that edit; Dershowitz is no expert on religion, as is clear from the article about him.
:::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)
* Izak is right that I failed to source that; I thank him for pointing that out; I’ll add a source shortly.
::::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)
* I corrected POV language; no apologies for that.
:::::Article has now been protected to prevent further disruptive editing . With thanks, ] (]) 17:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
* I reverted an unsupported, OR claim.
* Again, I reverted an unsupported claim.
* Yet again, I reverted an unsupported OR claim.
* I added a blog link that cites relevant sources not generally available.
* Indeed, the source cited did not mention the messianist claim, so I removed those words.
* So by removing the blatant OR that says that the Rebbe’s actions must not be interpreted, and by stating the simple fact that he physically encouraged the singing, I’m promoting messianism. Got it.
* I removed unsourced OR.
* Huh? Matisyahu ''himself'' declared that he no longer identifies himself as a follower of Chabad, as it says in the article, so why should he be in the cat of Chabad chassidim?!
* I censored?? The article continues to describe him as a descendant of the Shneurson dynasty. All I did was remove him from the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidim cat, when no proof was given that he identified himself so. Lineage does not make a Hasidic identity.
* It’s not a dynasty, doesn’t claim to be, and thus shouldn’t be listed as one!
* Removed unsourced slander.
* Ditto.
* Removed outrageous, totally unsourced allegation of practice.
* I consider that site unreliable, and at least a “this may be POV warning” is in order; if he has reason to think otherwise, let him say so.
* Removed blatant POV and OR.
* Remove blatant distortion; there is a clear diff between incitement to murder, as the article implies, and a call for state execution.
* A simple copyedit.
* Removed quote about brief incident totally not notable.
* Removed OR.
* Fixed existing link (not inserted by me!) to legit relevant site.
* Removed detail unnecessary in intro.; removed OR.
* Replaced (not inserted!) direct quote from relevant source after reversion.
* Huh? Can Izak read? I didn’t remove it; I moved it to a more logical place in the article! This was a simple copyedit.
* A simple copyedit, removing POV. Whether “messianism” is “fringe” or not is a matter of POV.
* Removed blatant OR starting with “It is interesting to note”.
* What?! Does Izak have any knowledge of this subject matter? Has he ever studied halachic works?? They cite kabbalistic works regularly, at least as secondary sources. There is nothing controversial about this edit.
* I removed them from the list because they didn’t qualify for it, and no one disagreed with me. The fact that they are not Chabad has nothing to do with it.
* Israeli government public holidays legislated by secular politicians being separate from traditional Orthodox Jewish holidays ordained by rabbis of old has nothing at all to do with Chabad. It’s a POV misrepresentation of Judaism.
* This is not “glorification”, it is documented fact, though i admit that the word “self-sacrifice” would have been replaced with 8 something like “personal risk to life”.
* I just made the article sound less hagiographic, but I guess only Chabad articles can’t be hagiographic-sounding in Izak’s book.
* I removed a POV image that promotes Zionism. Lack of subscription to Zionism and belief that it has somehow replaced Torah is not specific to Chabad by any means; it is held by the entire Chareidi world, many of whom are far more anti-Zionist than Chabad—as Izak well knows.
* In no way was it proven that the Noahidism article was controversial, so I removed the controversy cat.
* Removed blatant OR about hatikvah, and falsehood about Jewish history.
* The information was sourced but not relevant, as discussed on talk page there.
* I explained the approach of Chabad as relevant in context. If Izak thinks the explanation wasn’t factually correct, could he please say why.
* Ditto.
* Removed?! Did Izak even read that edit?? I RESTORED the anti-zionism information about chassidism! But let’s say he had seen that I had restored it, Izak would have said: "You’re promoting anti-Zionism!" In Izak’s book I’m damned if I do, damned if I don’t.
* Again, Izak didn’t even read the edit!! In my edit I don’t claim any title for anyone; I simply refer to a notable campaign relevant to the article.
* Added sourced, relevant information.
* I should have sourced that, but in my defence, I had only recently started editing and was not yet au fait with the rule about sourcing. Don’t bite the newcomers!
* Removed false, unsourced OR.


== Captain Beany ==
In almost all these edits I have clearly explained my reasoning, and the reasoning behind them as per the WP rules should be apparent to Izak himself. What they show is one thing: I am actually reasonably familiar with the subject I am writing/editing about. I know what’s sourced fact and what’s spin and OR. I have removed lots of OR, and I intend to continue to do so. In the vast majority of the examples above, Izak has blatantly promoted his POV. In many he has blatantly, clearly intentionally, distorted the meaning of my edit and ignored the reasoning behind it. In others he has misunderstood it. In still others he has clearly not even bothered to read it properly in context. In all of them he has violated ] and ]. If Izak takes issue with any of these edits, he should mention it on the appropriate talk page politely.


*{{user3|CaptainBeany}}
Finally, I notice that Izak has a distinct preference for the Jewish POV over, let’s say, the Chrisitan or Muslim one. I also note that he has a distinct preference for the Othodox Jewish POV over the Reform or Conservative one. I haven’t seen him posting lots of references to Chrisitan or Muslim sources on pages that discuss all those religions in order to create balance. Likewise, I haven’t seen him refer to Reform or Conservative sources on pages in which it might be more encyclopaedic to do so in order to create balance. Likewise, he has argued for positions that conform with Orhodox Judaism, such as most notably in recent months, his lengthy debate with Newman Luke. Does this make him an Orthodox Jewish POVWarrior who deserves to be censured and blacklisted? I think not. I deserve the same respect when it comes to my Chabad-related edits. ] (]) 03:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
::: Although it may not be a popular thing to say, but I feel it is by now justified to say that ] has embarkened on a crusade. I have no doubt about his good intentions, but I don't think this is good for Misplaced Pages. If he has a few isolated instances of POV edits, that is no reason to speak about a conspiracy, let alone embark on crusades. ] (]) 23:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
::::Um, Debresser, the only "crusade" under review here is the COI one by the pro-Chabad editors who are on a free-wheeling Misplaced Pages ], no two ways about it. There are probably even discussions and guidlelines from the top echelons of Chabad about how to deal, co-opt and negate the power of Misplaced Pages as a rival to Chabad's desire to take ovet the Jewish segments of the ]. ] (]) 00:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
::::: As far as I am concerned, this post should get you blocked for being a potentially instable and disruptive editor. No offense intended, just a psychological assessment. Man, you are obsessed with this conspiracy theory of yours. Take a break! ] (]) 03:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


User:CaptainBeany has been editing the ] article a few times over the past 16 years, as well as other edits related to the subject's novelty political party and former museum. They've made no edits outside of this.
::It will be obvious from the time stamps on my edits that I am not an Orthodox jew of any sort, & I am not even sure of which of the two movements represented here I have greater personal sympathy with. . But I think there has clearly been an attempt to put many articles on Chabad rabbis and institutions into Misplaced Pages, just as editors many other groups have done likewise. As with other groups, some of these are possibly justified, but not on the evidence presented, and some of them are almost certainly unjustified altogether. Some of the articles on religious practices may be influenced by sectarian POV, some are even POV forks. But Misplaced Pages can deal with this without arousing resentments: the unsourced articles get sourced, the unjustified or unsourceable ones get deleted, the POV gets removed, the forks get merged back. All of this perfectly routine here. As has been said, there are enough Chabad supporters that there is no reason to think there will not be several editors working independently with the same viewpoint -- and the same goes for Modern Orthodox, I don't see it as a conspiracy. Everything above was perfectly open, and if there are more changes that need to be made or more articles deleted, we can do that. We will. Accusations such have been made here do not further this. ''']''' (]) 00:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


In 2010 they and asked for a sourced paragraph about a fraud conviction to be removed from the article. Discussions in response at
===Outside opinion by Jmabel===
] and ] decided that this was appropriate biographical content and should not be removed.
Just some remarks: I have not followed many of the articles in question, nor have I even read every word of what is above. I do, however, feel comfortable saying, from my experience in the world, that many (not all) people associated with Chabad-Lubavitch consider their own group and its actions disproportionately important relative to Jewish topics in general, and are very sure that they have '''the''' true version of Judaism, with respect to which every difference in belief or practice - especially practice - is a deviation. Given the well-known phenomenon of "five Jews, six opinions," that can lead to a lot of conflict with other Jews.


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)
Chabad-Lubavitch is not a "religion". The religion is Judaism. Chabad-Lubavitch is a combination of a rabbinic lineage and an organization. While I think all Jews would consider Chabad-Lubavitch a legitimate current within contemporary Judaism, few but themselves think of them as the main stream even within Orthodoxy, although arguably they are now the most important current within Haredi Judaism (Hasidism). That makes them important, but when we find Misplaced Pages with 10 or 50 times as many articles about them as about, say, the Satmars, it suggests that something other than evenhandedness is afoot.


:The user to the COIN notification, though exactly what they're trying to communicate is beyond me. --] (]) 05:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I do think that ''everyone'' should be careful about starting too many articles related to groups to which they have a close connection, especially if there is a track record of the community deciding to delete these articles. People should get a message when the community repeatedly decides that they are starting articles on topics that to not reach the level of encyclopedic notability (or splitting out aspects of articles in ways that others see as a POV fork). Beyond a certain point, persisting in that is uncollegial. If they don't get that message, then at some point sanctions are in order. I am making no comment on whether this matter has reached that point.


== Science of Identity Foundation ==
I'd also suggest that ''everyone'' working in an area in which there is disagreement try to use only material cited from reliable sources. It's really not that useful to write something unsourced and controversial in an encyclopedia article. Quite the contrary. - ] | ] 05:58, 29 December 2009 (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. — ]&nbsp;<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? ]&nbsp;] 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. ]&nbsp;] 21:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


== ] ==
===Comment by Joe407===
* {{userlinks|Kateblau}}
Regarding Chabad, there is an improtant point that some of the general WP population may or may not be aware of. Within the Chabad community, there is a focused effort to spread their gospel (excuse the borrowed term). This is in light of the request by the last Chabad who told his followers to actively spread Judaism. This is the basis for the existence of Chabad emmisaries (''shlichim'') around the world, on college campuses, and connected with many public venues. This is also the attitude taken with the online world (see ] lead).


Multiple draft creations of spammy company articles in a relatively short period of time:
I have no problem with the above and both study chabad torah and have worked with chabad houses in different parts of the world. I would like to point out that the COI here is about maintaining NPOV while writing about a website or business. If I understand correctly, the potential COI is between the general edict that chabad hassidim follow of "actively spreading" their persepctive as requested by the last Rebbe and the NPOV of... well.. everything!
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
Received a COI notice January 5th but has continued to edit without declaring any COI. ''']'''<sup>]]</sup> 02:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:здравствуйте! я создаю статьи о компаниях по киборгизации и автоматизации, научных деятелей в этой области, это будет сделано в короткий промежуток времени, потому что проделана большая аналитическая работа по данным компаниям и я загружаю уже составленную ранее информацию, это не реклама, я допустил несколько ошибок, потому что впервые на википедии как автор, пожалуйста, я могу дальше создавать страницы? ] (]) 18:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
IMHO, this means that a person who sees themselves as bound to the Rebbe's statment of "u'faratzta" (you shall spread out), should do their best to leave that sentiment aside when editing on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 06:18, 29 December 2009 (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)
::It appears that you are using a LLM like ChatGPT to create these drafts, and that your own communications are machine translated. Is that true? ] (]) 18:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*I've deleted some of these; they all seem to be on the same pattern, making roughly the same claims. I assume LLM use at minimum. ] <small>(])</small> 20:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:14, 8 January 2025

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

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

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

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests Talk:260 Collins Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk: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:Michael Dell Talk:Adela Demetja Talk:Etraveli Group 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: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)

    Special:Contributions/213.8.97.219

    213.8.97.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    Israel Football Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    IP user admits to being employed by the subject of the article, but continues to blank the article's Controversy section after being informed of policy regarding paid editing. --Richard Yin (talk) 13:50, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    User talk:Ron2999 is likely to be a sock made by the IP. I'm going to add a paid edit disclosure to the article. DACartman (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    Lyal S. Sunga/Long-term (two-decade) COI abuses

    Lyal S. Sunga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The article Lyal S. Sunga was created by 217.210.145.175, which is located in Sweden, in 2005, when Lyal S. Sunga just became a lecturer at the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law. Later, the article was edited by 81.234.192.235, 90.224.52.72, 81.234.194.194, 90.231.183.154, among others, all located in Sweden, from 2005 to 2009.

    Then, the article was edited by 93.41.230.58, 93.40.187.104, 93.47.142.126, among others, all located in Italy, when Lyal S. Sunga moved to Italy for UNODC.

    In 2014, the article was edited by 83.166.225.44, which is located in Moscow, Russia, when Lyal S. Sunga was an OHCHR-Moscow Consultant.

    In 2016, the article was edited by 83.84.186.217, which is located in the Netherlands, when Lyal S. Sunga was at the Hague Institute for Global Justice.

    In 2017, the article was edited by 93.48.243.70, which is located in Italy, when Lyal S. Sunga returned to Italy for The American University of Rome.

    In recent years, the articled has been edited mostly by IPs located in Italy, where Lyal S. Sunga has been living.

    It is fair to say that more than 95% of the edits in this article were made by Lyal S. Sunga himself. I am unsure if the article should be kept or deleted for its advertising nature. JIanansh (talk) 23:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    @Eyer: has gone in and cleared out a lot of puffery and cruft. Schazjmd (talk) 00:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:Taeyasu/Sample page

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

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

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

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

    Chris Antonopoulos (footballer) and Fort Lauderdale Strikers

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

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

    Adolph Jentsch

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

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

    Conflict of interest - Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra Article

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

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

    Vanskere

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

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

    Marc Jorgenson

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

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

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

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

    Ilyas El Maliki

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

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

    Lindy Li

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

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

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

    State University of New York at Geneseo

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

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

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

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

    Kathryn Babayan

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

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

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

    Captain Beany

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

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

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

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

    Science of Identity Foundation

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

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

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

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

    User:Kateblau

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

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

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