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 21:15, 13 January 2010 editWhpq (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators146,706 edits →Dawood Group: spi case already submitted← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:34, 9 January 2025 edit undoBishonen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators80,332 edits →John Ortberg: indeffed 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{redirect|WP:COIN|the WikiProject on articles about coins|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Numismatics}}
]
]

] ]
]<!-- ]
]

-->{{Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/header}}<!-- {{Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config

-->{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{archivemainpage|Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard}} |archiveheader = {{archivemainpage|Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 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

-->

== Vandalisation of ] and ] ==

few months ago he/she already had waenings, now and again
<blockquote>Revision history of ]:<br>
(cur) (prev) 04:05, 9 January 2010 Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) (21,632 bytes) (Getting rid of redirecting link.) (undo) <br>
(cur) (prev) 03:07, 9 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) (21,706 bytes) (now it is not a redidirect!) (undo) <br>
(cur) (prev) 16:31, 8 January 2010 Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) (21,632 bytes) (Removing a link that redirects here.) (undo) <br>
(cur) (prev) 08:55, 8 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) m (21,706 bytes) (orpho) (undo) <br>
(cur) (prev) 08:53, 8 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) (21,705 bytes) (agree) (undo) <br>
(cur) (prev) 04:46, 7 January 2010 Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) (21,632 bytes) (This article isn't about the demonologist class in some games.) (undo) <br>
(cur) (prev) 03:35, 7 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) (21,663 bytes) (Undid revision 336140734 by Gordon Ecker (talk)) (undo) <br>
(cur) (prev) 04:28, 6 January 2010 Gordon Ecker (talk | contribs) m (21,632 bytes) (removing from the character classes category) (undo)</blockquote>
the sitation is following:<br>
1. the ] is a character class in D&D<br>
2. Ian.thomson removes any info abot that fact from ] and ] articles<br>
which is a kind of vandalizm (] (]) 03:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC))

== 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.''

== ] ==

An editor claiming to be the subject of this article has posted allegations of judicial misconduct in his legal case and his own theory on climate change, none of which were sourced. I removed the content per WP:BLP violations regarding the judicial misconduct and WP:OR for the climate change item. Unfortunately, it appears that he feels that there is a conspiracy regarding the removal of such content and that I am a part of it. See his comments on the article talk page my my user talk page. I would like to request some assistance in educating this editor on Misplaced Pages's policies as I believe that he has not and will not pay attention to my notes to him. Thanks. -- ] (]) 22:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
:I have linked the relevant sections for his perusal. ] ] (]) 00:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
::As can be seen on his ], a number of people have attempted to reason with him. I'm worried this might be a lost cause. This editor seems to be assuming bad faith from everyone involved and is unwilling to be collegial, this will probably result either in his leaving Misplaced Pages in disgust due to what he perceives as abuse, or a block. ] doesn't give me any more hope either. -- ''']'''] 20:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

== ] and ] ==

* {{article|The Indian Institute of Planning and Management}}
* {{article|The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM) advertising controversy}}
* {{userlinks|wifione}}
] has been mired in content disputes for years now, primarily because of editors ostensibly sympathetic to the institute looking to remove any negative information, and embellish positive information. Wifione's editing of ] is tendentious and aimed at whitewashing negative information about the institute, in a manner that strongly suggests some sort of affiliation and therefore COI. The user's editing also goes against ]. The user is not an SPA at first glance of his/her edit logs, but a careful perusal indicates that most of the edits have to do with IIPM or related entities, and are aimed at putting a positive spin on the article, and removing any negative information, by twisting wikipolicy, take ] or or or
. The edits always seem like a PR exercise, to minimize the institute's criticism and to add questionable positive info.

Whenever the user has been asked about any affiliation with IIPM, he/she has . To be fair, user is not being a vandal or revert-warring. But given the obvious pro-IIPM bias, and in tune with ], it would be nice if the user clarifies any COI situation, either confirming or denying it. ] (]) 13:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
:Makrandjoshi, sorry for replying late. Let me assure you, there is no CoI. There is surely a content dispute on the pages in question - a look at the talk pages of the articles in question would be beneficial. When an article (like you have mentioned) contains too many negative issues, then attempting to reach an NPOV state by adding a balancing positive pov appears to be CoI. Just for information, when you were warned with a future block by an administrator for harassing me last month, the same point was told to you by the administrator here . You were also warned by administrator here how I am not a CoI case. The administrator also informed you how he is ready to give you more evidence of the same --- you did not take the same up.

However, given this new CoI template, I'll respond to the exact diffs you have given.

1. Your first diff shows the talk page discussions.

I would wish to understand what part of the discussions did you find CoI? (You were absent from the discussions here, till two days back) I do believe discussions are the basis for making NPOV changes. Don't you?

2. Your second diff leaves out four intermediate edits. I'll focus on the biggest change on that for benefit, which is, reducing a major part of the controversy section.

It'll be good if you look at discussions here which occurred from 22nd Dec 2009 till 25th Dec 2009 (you were absent throughout the discussions) where, before undertaking the change, I even placed the paragraphs for other editors' comment.

3. Your third diff shows me removing M.Peri's statement from the article as I have claimed it is a self published source. Your request at the Reliability noticeboard here is clear evidence of the fact the source was not an open shut case.

4. Your fourth diff shows how I removed information about IMI. Please see discussions here to understand how that was done after discussions (you were absent again).

I'll request you in the future to treat content disputes the way they should be treated - like content disputes. Please don't harass a fellow editor continuously and so flagrantly. Thanks ] ] 10:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

::Wifione, how does asking someone to clarify their COI harrassment? You have evaded the question in the past. Now that you have answered it, I'll take your word for it in good faith. And we can move on. Now about the links I provided and your responses to them. My first link was an example of your misinterpreting wiki policy. The discussions there show that apart from you, no one else thinks that using the word controversy is against policy. The second diff, all the intermediate edits were by you too, FYI. The difference speaks for itself in terms of how validly cited information critical of the institute has been removed in the course of "summarizing". About my third diff, if you read the RSN request, each and every person responding agreed that the article is WP:RS. And yet, you were removing it repeatedly despite other editors on the IIPM page asking you not to. The fourth diff, your edit summary said "moving to footnotes" or something, whereas you did no such thing. All these edits and numerous other edits by you at the IIPM page have been towards removing any information that is critical of the institute. You mention NPOV. Remember that when there is an NPOV dispute, the suggested path is adding VALIDLY CITED information about both points of view. Removing information under the name of NPOV is not right. I hope you will learn from your mistakes in the past and not remove validly cited information on questionable grounds. And finally, a very happy new year to you. :) ] (]) 22:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
:::] is the harassment policy. Asking someone if they are affiliated with an article subject shouldn't constitute outing, per se; it's a perfectly reasonable question to ask and doesn't necessarily reveal undue personal information (a person can be affiliated with a company without being an employee, for example). Nobody is compelled to answer such a question, though, and repeatedly insisting on it could be considered harassment. Since Wifione denies having a conflict of interest it can be reasonable to assume that they are unaffiliated with IIPM. -- ''']'''] 23:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

::::I, not Makrandjoshi, am the person who has asked Wifione more than once about possible association with IIPM. Wifione evaded the question, on three different talk pages, saying essentially "don't ask me that question" in each instance.

::::Such evasion strongly suggested a conflict of interest, especially after Wifione spent ''weeks'' of relentless and disruptive ] to remove ''each and every source'' containing negative information from the article, as well as inserting positive spin. Evasion, campaigning to remove negative information, and adding promotional information, paint a fairly clear profile of a person with a conflict of interest.

::::I will accept Wifione's denial of COI, but I also want to see a cessation of Wikilawyering on Wifione's part. ~] <small>(])</small> 23:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::Given that this is a CoI forum, and given that both Makrandjoshi (yes, happy new year to you too :)) and Amatulic have accepted their parts in moving on with this CoI, I'll let sleeping dogs lie and move on myself. Thanks. ] ] 17:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

This user seems to be unusually keen on inserting references to the textbook
* {{citation | last = Herman | first = Gabor T.|authorlink=Gabor Herman | title = Fundamentals of Computerized Tomography: Image Reconstruction from Projections | year = 2009 | publisher = Springer | edition=2nd | isbn=978-1-85233-617-2}}
and other books by Gabor Herman into a variety of articles, without making any other substantive changes (aside from correcting the odd typo). ] (]) 13:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
:I'm a little confused... Is "Klar Sagen" affiliated with the book in any way? Are they listed as a contributor to it, or affiliated with the publisher? If not, there shouldn't be any COI; having an interest in a subject is completely different than a conflict of interest. If this person is ], that's certainly a problem but this isn't the place to address that. -- ''']'''] 19:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

== Leca67 and ] ==

{{user|Leca67}} was blocked last month on the 19th for having a promotional username. They requested an unblock in order to change their username, this was granted and the change made . However, no edits have been made under the new username and the editor continues to edit ] where he/she seems to have a clear COI. There are also some copyright issues reported to this editor's talk page. ] (]) 16:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
:A small correction; the ''request'' was made to change the username to Exclay67, but this request was put because ] asked for a confirmation that the editor understood the COI guidelines (a reasonable request in my opinion).

:A second block , and an unblock request was by ]. After this, ] on the ] page that Leca67 had been blocked since the request, leading ] to the username change request.

:However, Daniel Case has recently an ublock request, and told the editor to not edit again until the username change had occurred. Juliancolton has this on the CHU page.

:That's where things stand now with this editor. They are having difficulties figuring out how to use Misplaced Pages, this includes creating and editing articles (the ] article has been deleted twice), uploading images (almost 20 uploaded images have either been deleted or are pending a deletion discussion), and of course username changes. My impression is that this is an editor with good intentions but who keeps making one mistake after another. There could very well be a COI here on top of all of this. I'm not sure how things will end up. -- ''']'''] 20:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{user|Thrill Girl}}: edits to {{article|Ogo}} and {{article|Zorbing}} suggest a connection to this company . Has been adding information to ], which is a disambiguation page. ] (]) 12:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

:I apologize that no one has gotten back to you here. I see ] hasn't attempted to put the information back in since you posted this so I hope this might be over. Under no circumstances would that be considered appropriate especially given we have an article on a somewhat similar topic already. If it does happen again, could refer them to ] though I'm weary of that since it'd be seemingly just advert info additions anyway. You've been in the right to revert her attempts to have it included, and your warnings to their talk page seem 100% justified to me, including the patience to use Uw-advert1 through 3. Checking your edit history quickly it seems we have very similar habits so I'm not at all surprised we're in agreement :) Thanks for the post, and again sorry on the timing. On a level 4 it's made pretty clear reporting to an incident board is next, so for all intents and purposes they're on an accidental but indefinite 1RR for any article their promo cruft is added to. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">]]</span> 10:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

::Seems she hasn't given up yet. Is this justification for a block? The content has been toned down a bit but it's still promotional. (I'd only give a warning saying "you will be blocked next time" if that is what would happen!) ] (]) 18:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
:::I've already given such a warning. If she tries to promote Ogo again after this warning there's sufficient cause for at least a short block. Note that Thrill Girl isn't the first to try to promote this business, see ]. -- ''']'''] 21:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

== Natasha Wheat ==

*{{Article|Natasha Wheat}}
*{{Userlinks|SandyPortland}}
] of a US-based fine artist was {{diff|Natasha Wheat||319720360|created 13 October 2009}}, likely by a close associate of the artist. The creator has ] prior to creating the ] and ] were either to edit and {{diff|Natasha Wheat|prev|319721762|unflag the article}}, or to ] .

, ''linked to {{diff|Natasha Wheat|prev|319720360|by the article's creator}}'', shows that '''as the creator, ], shares names with a coworker and workplace location of the subject.''' If the subject of the article and the article creator are in fact coworkers and artistic collaborators, this would seem to be a clear ].

*Additionally, there is an apparent lack of good faith editing on this article. The creator has {{diff|User talk:Ttonyb1|prev|319959591|suggested}} an absence of personal association with the artist; {{diff|Natasha Wheat|prev|319721762|removed an A7 Template}}—in spite of being the article's creator; and {{diff|Natasha Wheat|prev|324187337|may have used puppetry to remove subsequent flags}}. The user ] has ]: the removal of the ], ], and ] flags, which was {{diff|Natasha Wheat|324187337|324313299|immediately reverted}}. The opening of JASON6752's edit comment: ''WIKIPEDIA EDITING ABUSE.'' (caps not mine) looks like ] to me. Likewise, in defending the article, {{diff|User talk:Ttonyb1|prev|320174847|SandyPortland stated}}, ''<nowiki>'I like this, Wiki rules: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages ignore it".'</nowiki>''

The artist Natasha Wheat may meet ], but the circumstances of this biography's introduction into Misplaced Pages represent a likely controversion of ] and a potential threat to ]. —] (]) 23:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

:The article doesn't establish notability but the notability tag keeps getting removed. This is being discussed on the article talk page. ] (]) 12:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for deletion at ]. I am not convinced the editor has a COI. ] (]) 04:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
:I don't see that the coincidence of a first name indicates a COI, and pointing it out comes close to violating ]. If both the first and last name matched, then yes, I'd say that's a solid indicator. But regardless, the article itself should be deleted (I've said as much at the AfD) and if the discussion concludes as it looks like it will this will all likely be a moot point. -- ''']'''] 18:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

== User:Snowded and Spiral Dynamics ==

* {{article|Spiral Dynamics}}
* {{userlinks|Snowded}}

] has been insisting at great length, and against talk page consensus, that ] be placed on the ] article. Spiral Dynamics is a business management book and course series. User:Snowded has cited no sources for the addition.
*
*]
*]
*]
*]
*
*]

User:Snowded's user page links to his website. At his website, he sells a series of courses on business management techniques. He appears to be a potential competitor with Spiral Dynamics. It is possible that User:Snowded wants to paint his competitors in a certain light, and that s/he is using Misplaced Pages to do so. &mdash; ] ] 22:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

:I note without much surprise that user Goethean did not see fit to notify me of this posting.
:*The Spiral Dynamics article has been characterised as "New Age" for over a year and I was not involved in that original decision
:*On two occasions in six months Goethean has managed to get one other editor (in each case) to agree with his position that the category is inappropriate and on this basis he claims consensus and has edited warned in defiance of ]
:*I have said on both occasions that I do not think that the original Spiral Dynamics book and course series are new age, but that the assimilation by the Integral Movement is. More recently I have proposed changes to the article to reflect this which would allow the category to be removed and Goethean has refused to engage with any attempt at a compromise here
:*The only thing I have been doing at great length is to get Goethean to abide by ] and ]
:*My company is involved in the application of natural science to social systems and does not compete as far as I know in any way with Spiral Dynamics. Or if it does then any academic in Management Sciences (about 50% of my time) or any Management Consultant should not be allowed to edit Misplaced Pages.
:*I have always believed in transparency on WIkipedia so my page indicates my political and other beliefs along with a link to my company's web page, if I was playing the game suggested by Goethean then I would not have done this.
:*There appears to be a movement among supporters of the Integral Movement to remove any reference to New Age across a series of articles. This matches the doctrine of Ken WIlber that Integral has transcended New Age (a mean green meme to quote). This is a matter I am starting to look into, especially as pages on Integral tend to have a small number of editors who are part of that movement.
:Goethean remains (I think) upset that I reversed his move of Integral Movement to Integral (philosophy). We had a similar position there, three editors heavily involved in the Integral Movement (some of them who publish books) making a decision that has NPOV aspects. I am pleased to say that the other editors on that page have taken a more open attitude and an a discussion is proceeding which will improve the article overall.
:I think this is pre-emptive strike as I told him yesterday (the transparency principle again) that I was considering raising an ANI report about his refusal to engage in discussion. He would be better engaged in finding ways to resolve problems rather than insisting that 2 or 3 editors taking a position against 1 constitutes "consensus" without the need for discussion --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

:::''I note without much surprise that user Goethean did not see fit to notify me of this posting.''
::Yes, well I knew that you were following my contributions rather enthusiastically. &mdash; ] ] 13:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
:::I'll make some comments as an outside observer (I don't really know either of you, nor have I had anything to do with the article in question).
:::*It seems that Goethean was the one who removed the New Age category back in , and the category has been around since . So Snowded does have a point (a technical one) about the fact that removing the category is a change that generally should be justified if anyone objects against it. Having said that, if there truly was a consensus reached that suggested that the category be removed, it should be removed. I don't see that there was a true "consensus", two people against one isn't much of a consensus. But the argument that there should be a source supporting the "New Age" claim is a valid one, and absent such a source I'd personally favor removing the category from the article.
:::*All of that is immaterial to the COI complaint. Even if it was determined that Snowded has enough of a COI that editing the article should be discouraged, the ] specifically permit an editor with a COI to participate in the talk page of the article. That means that Snowded is free to argue for including the New Age category regardless, or to make any other argument on the talk page of the article.
:::*I don't see that a COI actually exists. Possibly being a potential competitor is a far cry from actually being a competitor. It would be ludicrous to say that Snowded is not allowed to participate on any article where the subject creates business management books. That's like saying that a novelist can't edit articles about other novelists. I'm not saying there isn't a potential for a COI here, but it seems like a weak case for one.
:::*Being open about your affiliations is commendable. It makes it much easier to assume good faith in an editor, and I'm glad that Snowded is candid about the web site. If Snowded edits an article about his company (I don't see that there is one) or starts linking to his web site in articles (as an external link or a reference, for example), at that point I'd be concerned about COI issues.
:::These are my opinions. Again, I do support Goethian's side on the New Age category issue (based on what I've read on the article's talk page) but I don't support the COI concerns. -- ''']'''] 20:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
::::Seems a little unnecessary to be arguing about a category tag, when the entire article is so dubious; I wonder more about notability, and promotionalism. Perhaps the simplest solution is an AfD . ''']''' (]) 22:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::Just starting with Google, looking at , , and , I see that the term is widely-used in published sources. Wading through all that glut to see if it's relevant to the actual article subject is work, but there seems to be an indication that the subject ''is'' notable. Personally I wish it could be deleted away, but ] isn't very good justification. :) -- ''']'''] 23:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::It might have been clearer if the article had actually had such sources, rather than be an expostulation of theory backed by very general references. ''']''' (]) 17:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

== User:Roland Sparkes ==

{{User|Roland Sparkes}} has displayed a clear conflict of interest in writing a glorifying resume and then arguing for retention of "his article" {{la|Roland Sparkes}} at ]. breach of WP:OWN, WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO applies here. inclusion of a Twitter comment as a reference to himself as excellent just shows the extent of this blatant conflict of interest. inclusion of editing of other WP pages as somehow worthy of inclusion of content demonstrates this also. ] (]) 12:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
:I thought ] only applied if the person created the article? ] ] (]) 18:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
::Only one ] of the guideline is about actually creating autobiographies, the rest of guideline involves participating in a biographical article about yourself (whether you created it or not). -- ''']'''] 19:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
::: given that Mr Sparkes built up the article into a glowing self testimonial, it really is an autobiography. the article creator may have a connection to Mr Sparkers. ] (]) 02:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
::::Agreed. ] is worth a look too: excessive hype for his book and website. ] (]) 03:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
yes given that his book was just released on 21 December 2009 and a flurry of editing to direct people to his own WP site and excessive text on Belmont article sourced from his book...you have to wonder if this is too much of a coincidence or blatant new book promotion. ] (]) 06:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
*'''Note''' Roland Sparkes was previously warned about this in June 2009, ]. I believe this history of ] is not acceptable. ] (]) 23:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

* {{article|Anthony Adams (politician)}}
* {{userlinks|Anthonyadams}}
User has made several deletions of sourced information from his article. I have reverted, welcomed him and pointed him to ], ] and ], but I have to go offline now and some more eyes on the article might be useful. ] (]) 22:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

*{{userlinks|Caassembly}}
The name of this SPA is also suggestive of COI. ] (]) 00:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
:I've blocked the Caassembly account for username violations (role account representing the ]) but it's only a softblock, they can create a new account or edit anonymously. I haven't looked at the original complaint yet. -- ''']'''] 01:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

*{{userlinks|Ca assem}}
Another SPA suggestive of COI. ] (]) 17:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

:Blocked that one too, for the same reason, under the same conditions. It's almost the same username. -- ''']'''] 18:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{collapsetop|Editor blocked by Daniel Case.}}
{{resolved|Editor blocked by Daniel Case. ] ] (]) 22:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)}}
*{{Article|I Scream Records}}

{{userlinks|Iscream666}} - This user has a name that is similar to the article ]. A <nowiki>{{uw1-coi}}</nowiki> warning was given, and I am also reporting the user here as it is a blatant COI instance. ] ] (]) 03:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

:The user has only made minor edits, according to the edit history. ] (]) 03:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
::Nevertheless, I believe it's still a COI. ] ] (]) 05:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

:They are marked as minor in the log, but are actually major edits. I just made an edit myself and was quickly reverted by this user in spite of the COI warning you left, which he has not responded to. I think we need stronger efforts to engage this user. ] (]) 15:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

::I can look this over personally later, when I have more time, but other than marking major edits as minor and the COI/username issue, has there been actual disruption (like spam or edit wars)? I'm tempted to leave them a non-templated, personal message asking them to change their username (which is a clear violation of ]) and if that is ignored, issue a softblock. But if they're disruptive I'm more inclined to do a hardblock (meaning that they can't just create a new account with an appropriate name, or edit anonymously). -- ''']'''] 19:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

:::I don't see any warring in the edit log. Let's hold off on the hardblock and see if he'll engage on either his or the article's talk page. I've got the article watchlisted and will report here if it seems more action is needed. Meanwhile the article does need work if anyone feels inclined. ] (]) 19:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

::::I have reported the user name to ] as a spamname.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] (]) 21:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
{{archivebottom}}
{{collapsebottom}}

== LTSally ==

*{{Userlinks|LTSally}}
This editor reflects a strong anti-Jehovah's Witness bias in both his editing, his "undo" edits, and in his talk page. His talk page has what might be consider "hate speech" towards the Jehovah's Witness organization. I had asked a few times that it might be edited. But the user is pretty adamant about keeping it as it is.

"the senseless parroting of stock phrases and ideas and the smugness of Witnesses about their own religion and their arrogant, derisive dismissal of the lifestyles and life choices of non-Witnesses.

I became sickened by the mindless acceptance and sometimes ecstatic reception of empty and.."

"...I realised after some time that within their closed community — a claustrophobic, sycophantic, incestuous community they describe as a “spiritual paradise” — gossip and backbiting are the norm. One is always watched by other Witnesses, who are always waiting to judge, criticise and condemn the people they call their "brothers and sisters".

And so, after enduring much unhappiness, frustration and silent anger as a Jehovah’s Witness — for one cannot voice these criticisms, even to one’s closest friends, for fear they will report you to elders as an apostate and a murmurer — I chose to cease associating with the Witnesses."

He writes strongly about Jehovah's Witness "apostates" and uses them frequently as sources, fights attempts to remove negative comments about Jehovah's Witnesses.
The result it, it becomes very difficult to bring a neutral point of view to the Misplaced Pages article. LTSally fights it every step of the way, and knows the system better than most, so he has undone, deleted about all of the comments that I and others have made to try to balance the article out.

He states on his page regarding the Jehovah's Witneses, "But such is the power — an intrusive, insidious, malevolent power — of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society."

His views are not balanced, they are biased, have an extreme point of view, not just a point of view, but his view is extreme, by any standards, and his editing reflects that extreme style.

The Misplaced Pages article as a result is negative, and strongly biased. I've read parts of many books, articles and websites on Jehovah's Witnesses such as Andrew Holden's 2002, where he presents what might be termed the positive and controversial, from the perspective of an outsider, but the wording and accusations in the Misplaced Pages article are extreme in their view of Jehovah's Witnesses, in many areas, because of the bias by this particular editor in large part. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Judging from your talk page, you may have a COI yourself. Plus, you have not proposed any changes nor answered my questions at ] --] <sup><font face="Calibri">'']''</font></sup> 16:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
:You brought this up about two months ago on this same board ]. What's changed? --] <sup><font face="Calibri">'']''</font></sup> 16:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


:::In answer to the above question, about bringing it up 2 months ago. LTSally stated that he deleted my comments from the pages where they were posted. I didn't know the system them, didn't know how to work with the Misplaced Pages, and at that time it was too much for me to deal with, so I opted out of the editing for the past 2 months. So, now my schedule is a little better where I can spend some time to understand the Misplaced Pages system.

:::I had thought to request that the LTSally talk page be deleted. I asked him a few times to modify it to take off the hatespeech, and so on, but he was pretty firm in keeping it.

:::I feel that in addition to a strong or extreme POV on the subject of Jehovah's Witnesses, he also has a measure of COI, which he openly states, and doesn't want to modify. If he was receptive to modifying his page, I wouldn't have posted this, but he pretty much refused to make any changes to his editing, and keeps on blocking my attempts to try to balance out the article. There are two on the current editing that are pretty much anti-Jehovah's Witness in their POV, LTSally and one other.--] (]) 17:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

::Just as before, there's no COI here. Bias, yes, possibly some problems maintaining a neutral POV, but no conflict of interest. And NeilN is spot on when he says that any potential COI would equally apply to yourself. -- ''']'''] 17:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

:::I had alreay modified my Talk page to take away any potential COI, and plainly stated the purpose of my editing is to promote a neutral point of view, not a pro-Witness point of view. I'm not opposed to criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, as long as it is fair and from reliable sources, and truthful. Statements about 1914,1925,1975 I'm not opposed to that on the page, even though it is revealing errors of the Witnesses. That type of thing is factual and well-documented, the issue I'm bringing up is a clear anti-Witness editing bias, and in openly stating the oppostion and conflict of interest on the talk page. That's not appropriate for an encyclopedia discussion group or editing group and leads to problems among the editing team.

:::This is the second complaint at this noticeboard by that user against me. On neither occasion has he advised me of the complaint to enable me to defend myself. I have strong opinions about Jehovah's Witnesses, which I discuss on my user page in the context of explaining my motives for editing JW articles. ] also has strong opinions about the religion. I don't believe either of us have a COI. We are both interested in the religion, but for different reasons. I strive to ensure that all material I add to the page is accurate, fair, neutral and based on reliable published sources. I remove material from articles that fails to be neutral or based on reliable sources. I have asked this user at ] to identify material that breaches of ] and am happy to discuss those. ] (]) 20:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

::::I published 2 notices last week on LTSally's talk page about plans to post a complaint. LTSally deleted both notices. I don't fully know the system yet, so any help with procedure is helpful also to me. Some of the other editors have been helping along with that.--] (]) 17:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::There's no official procedure, some noticeboards like ] have a template that you can post to a person's talk page but this one doesn't. Basically, after you open the report leave a message on the person's talk page that you have created a report about them on this board (linking ] is helpful). That's really all that's needed. -- ''']'''] 19:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

::I feel that there is a conflict of interest, because LTSally is personally "hiding" from Jehovah's Witness elders in his congregation, stating, that if they found out what he was doing on Misplaced Pages he would be disfellowshipped, and he states in his talk page that he doesn't want to be disfellowshipped, because then he would not be able to associate with his old friends. So, I feel that he is partially using comments on the Misplaced Pages article about disfellowshipping, and trying to promote anti-Jehovah's Witness books and apostate literature, partly to cover his own tracks.

Before looking at the comments here, I changed my user page, so that my motives in editing are clearly stated. It's not my purpose to at all promote Jehovah's Witnesses, and I'm not adverse to criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, but rather to present factual information on the Wiki article which supports a neutral point of view, rather than a hyper-critical or negative point of view, or an extreme point of view. In other words, part of the editing by LTSally purposely is worded in such a way as to present Jehovah's Witnesses as being overly-authoritarian, and extreme. The editing style is purposely blunt. I added it to the COI page for the above reason, at the advice of one of the other editors. I didn't think of doing that until advised by one editor about that.--] (]) 17:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

::*Please note that the user making the complaint against me has, in his usual blundering style, inserted some unsigned comments immediately before my response, creating the impression that some of his comments were made by me. They were not. ] (]) 20:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

== User:GivensMarineSurvival ==


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.
{{Template:resolved|Indef blocked for spamming and username violations. -- ''']'''] 20:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)}}
* {{userlinks|GivensMarineSurvival}} - Clearly affiliated with ; edits such as and show a problem. ] (]) 19:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


*
== Kyle.Lindsay COI ==
*
*
*
*


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)
{{Template:resolved|Drive-by promotional editor, article and all links to it are deleted. -- ''']'''] 18:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)}}
* {{userlinks|Kyle.Lindsay}} - Has a coi on ] who's article contents are copied from the company he works for (see linkedin profile). This whole things is just a marketing piece. ] (]) 21:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
:The big problem is spamming, really, since permission for using the material was given to OTRS, but the article was deleted as are all references to it, and the editor hasn't edited since November (in fact, his entire edit history took place on one day) so this seems resolved. -- ''']'''] 18:15, 12 January 2010 (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)
== Wangobango ==
::Just a brief follow-up to say that there is actually a current thread at ] in relation to the reliability of Nigerian newspapers (here ) which may be of assistance to the user who opened this thread. It seems that the existence of sponsored content in Nigerian newspapers is a widespread problem. Regards, ] (]) 04:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I have run across a new editor who has created many articles based on these Nigerian sources. At first I thought it was a conflict of interest but now I am not so sure (but probably a conflict of interest with at least one of the subjects). I have moved the new articles to draft. ] ]] 17:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


== User:Taeyasu/Sample page ==
* {{userlinks|Wangobango}} Appears to have a conflict of interest , has removed maintenance templates, and is downloading and using images with copyright notices embedded . ] (]) 22:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
*{{Article|The Daddy}}
* {{pagelinks|User:Taeyasu/Sample page}}
*{{Article|Kubb (band)}}
*{{Article|Moke (band)}} * {{userlinks|Taeyasu}}
* {{userlinks|Trendalchemy}}
I think these are the articles. The first is up for deletion. ] (]) 15:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
* {{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:
*{{Userlinks|Moketheband}}
This user name is suggestive of COI. ] (]) 15:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


* "Trend Alchemy" appears to be the name of a PR firm in Italy
:I'm removed the proposed deletion tag from The Daddy. It was already deleted once through ] and restored, it is ineligible for proposed deletion now. I'm opening an AfD for all three articles instead. -- ''']'''] 19:29, 9 January 2010 (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)
:I've opened the AfD ]. An AfD will be good because at least one editor has been tendentiously resisting deletion of one of the articles; removing speedy templates despite being the author of the page, and having it restored after prod. An AfD will allow the articles to be speedily deleted on recreation unless the authors address the problems raised in the AfD discussion (assuming it closes with a delete result). -- ''']'''] 19:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


:I recently attempted to get the material speedy deleted under ] but this was declined due to the material not being considered "unambiguously promotional".
:Note that the edits by this editor were regarding a completely different band named Moke to the one that the article was originally, and is currently about.--] (]) 13:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
: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.
:I'm not sure why this editor was notified about the AFD of ] as they don't appear to have ever edited it. The only contributions from this account were in July 2009, for which they received a warning and stopped.--] (]) 16:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
: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 ==
*{{Userlinks|Alexmoke}}
* {{pagelinks|Chris Antonopoulos (footballer)}}
Maybe a moot point now, but the Moke article was created by this editor whose name is also suggestive of a COI. -- ''']'''] 20:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|Amplifyplantz33}}


] and numerous ] related articles, which Antonopoulos appears to have been a player for, have been edited by ]. The user seems to be Antonopoulos and received a notice to disclose their conflict of interest on December 4 by @]. The user did not respond and does not appear to have made an effort to disclose a conflict of interest as they are required to. The user also created the Antonopoulos article and is responsible for the majority of the content added to it. The only indication the user appears to have made to disclose their potential conflict of interest was to write "Chris Antonopoulos" on their user page. ] (]) 07:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
: This certainly isn't a classic case of COI self-promotion and there appear to be quite a lot of refs out there. We might be better off trying to advise the COI editors how they can comply with guidelines as it looks as though at least two of the bands are notable. ] (]) 22:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC) (])


:The ] article hasn't been edited from this account since April 2008, so I don't see that this is going anywhere.--] (]) 13:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC) :I've removed a lot of unsourced material from the Antonopoulos article, but clearly the problems here extend rather further than that. ] (]) 15:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::The user has now denied on their talk page that they are Antonopoulos. It must be admitted, however, that they appear to be a ] dedicated solely to promoting Antonopoulos and mentioning him on as many articles as possible.
::It seems unclear whether the user has a COI or is just a fan who is unaware of the policies on sourcing and promotion.
::Any thoughts on whether Antonopoulos satisfies ] and whether detailed info on beach soccer activities is usually considered suitable for inclusion? ] (]) 15:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It seems unlikely that they would be so obsessed with Antonopoulos if they were not either him or someone closely associated with him, and their response is quite odd. There does appear to be a Chris Antonopoulos who signed a professional contract with the Fort Lauderdale Strikers, and to me that satisfies notability as the beach soccer and pre-professional soccer contract section of his career would not make Antonopoulos notable enough to have an article alone. It is of note that Antonopoulos does not appear to have been the primary goalkeeper during his tenure and that the primary goalkeepers were Jorge Valenzuela, Mario Jimenez, and ] at this time. It appears Antonopoulos only made two appearances between 1993 and 1994 which is when he was apparently signed to the team. From the perspective of someone who was not directly involved with the Strikers but would want to write about them, Valenzuela and Jimenez would probably be higher on the priority list than a goalkeeper who only made two appearances. The only parts about Antonopoulos in the article that are specific to him are praising his accomplishments. ] (]) 22:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Agreed 100%. ] (]) 22:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Additionally, the appear to indicate that whoever is writing the article had close connections with Antonopoulos throughout his career if they in fact have the right to upload them. ] (]) 23:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::The user continues to obsess over this article and to add large amounts of trivial non-encyclopaedic detail and generally promotional material. Are we really sure that the subject satisfies ]? ] (]) 00:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I generally go by pro athletes being notable enough to have an article, but Antonopoulos appears to have barely been a pro athlete, and like I brought up with the writer before they accused me of acting uncivil, it would make more sense to write articles about Antonopoulos' teammates. I'm not in favor of having an article on Misplaced Pages who's express purpose is to promote someone, even if they may meet the requirement of general notability. This is the first time I've dealt with an issue like this, so I apologize if I am not understanding things correctly as to what makes someone notable enough. ] (]) 01:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Article is notable. And I deem there's a consensus to proceed with option #1 - tag the 2 pages. ] (]) 22:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== Adrienne Cullen == == Adolph Jentsch ==


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{userlinks|Adrienne Cullen}} Apparent conflict of interest, creating articles about husband and father-in-law, and by extension, linking to her own biography and promoting her business. ] (]) 15:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
:* {{article|Peter Cluskey}} * {{pagelinks|Adolph Jentsch}}
:* {{article|Jim Cluskey}} * {{userlinks|username}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
*See also {{userlinks|Rebecca Van Buren}} who has written
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)
:* {{article|Adrienne Cullen}}
:and wrote a userspace draft ] of Adrienne Cullen's article about her husband. ] (]) 16:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
*and {{userlinks|Jean-Claude Chaminade}} is a new ] editing these articles. ] (]) 15:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
:*User:Jean-Claude Chaminade removed the COI tags from these articles and made some minor changes. I restored the tags. ] (]) 15:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


:You can request page protection at ]. -- ] (]) 14:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==


== Conflict of interest - Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra Article ==
{{Template:resolved|COI is likely, but article deleted, no other contributions made. -- ''']'''] 18:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)}}
* {{pagelinks|Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra}}
* {{userlinks|Guenn}} - very similar username to article name, possible conflict of interest as the article could be about the editor or someone close to them ] (]) 00:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|Anurag Palutla}}


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


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)
*{{article|Matthew Le Merle}} - Article created by ]. Article states that Mr. Le Merle's wife is "Alison Davis."
*{{article|Alison Davis}} - Article created by ]. Article states that Ms. Davis's husband is "Matthew Le Merle." ] (]) 03:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


== Vanskere ==
:Both are blatant COI violations. Evaluating the Alison Davis article, I think it doesn't merit our inclusion standards, and it has some severe POV problems, including unsupported claims about being named one of the most influential women in business for 4 years and being an "outstanding student". The other article on the other hand probably does merit inclusion based on a news search I've made, but even that is a bit iffy. -- ''']'''] 18:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->* {{pagelinks|Vanskere}}
== User:CubeSpawn ==
* {{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)
* {{userlinks|CubeSpawn|CubeSpawn}}


: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)
This editors edits appear promotional to me, along with which I reverted as spammy, but was then reverted by another editor who didn't agree. ] ] (]) 04:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


== Marc Jorgenson ==
:Spammy, yes, actual spam, I wouldn't go that far. Is there a COI with an editor named CubeSpawn creating an article called CubeSpawn? Possibly. The username itself is problematic, as it might be a violation of ]. Since raw linking of external web sites is discouraged, I've converted the link to a reference. I'd like to know what relation the editor has to the project, and it would be a good thing if they were to choose a different username (one that represents them as an individual, not the project).
{{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. -->
:My other concern is that I see zero notability for the project itself. I know that the editor who reverted you had expressed that he the CubeSpawn concept, but that doesn't mean we ignore ]. For now, I don't oppose mentioning it in the ] article (that's why I went through the trouble of cleaning up the link) but I don't see any potential for a stand-alone article. -- ''']'''] 19:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|Marc Jorgenson}}
* {{userlinks|Plus3db}}
* {{userlinks|Lexicon480}}
* {{userlinks|Bunny & J-Zone}}
* {{userlinks|24.82.146.94}}
* {{userlinks|24.82.146.152}}
* {{userlinks|24.86.250.211}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Blatantly promotional article and severe failure of ] with puffery removed by users before. 3 single-purpose accounts as well as 3 IPs of close proximity have edited the article in around 2008. There definitely is signs of paid editing or people connected with subject editing the article, so a block of these users and IPs should suffice alongside the deletion of the article. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: coral; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 06:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Ilyas El Maliki ==
:: Is this notable yet? Probably not (Incidentally, I'm the editor who initially reverted ArcAngel). Looks like a case of a highly interesting project, but it's still too early for WP coverage, according to WP:RS. However, my concern isn't with deleting the article (which, let's remember, didn't even exist yet outside userspace!) but with deleting the user through a heavy-handed ]Y welcome. MFD isn't for flogging well-meaning newbies who don't yet underside groupname policies, it's for wiping out real problems. What does it feel like for a new editor to start out in a fairly discrete manner with a clearly GF creation, then have the whole weight of the wikicops descend upon them? ] mission accomplished. We've driven ''that'' editor away 8-(. ] (]) 09:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


* {{pagelinks|Ilyas El Maliki}}
== Ourwalks ==
* {{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)
{{Template:resolved|Editor indef blocked, article deleted. -- ''']'''] 20:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)}}
* {{userlinks|Ourwalks}} - Blatant COI - created ] page. ] (]) 15:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


::See ]. --] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 13:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
== Kripalu Center ==


== Lindy Li ==
:{{article|Kripalu Center}}
:{{user|Calamitybrook}}


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
Previous discussion of COI and editor behaviour , and many warnings and cautions on the editor talk page.
* {{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)
Calamitybrook continues to remove article tags for sourcing, POV, COI, and has repeatedly restored a google search to support weasel-wording the intro. The article is very oddly slanted, as I see it.- ] 18:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


I will place a note about this on the article talk page. I will not notify the editor, editor has asked I not post on editor talk page.- ] 18:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC) :{{ping|Vosotros32}} Prior to your filing report here, the article was already semi-protected until March 2, and the editor in question was indefinitely ] from editing that article. I'm not sure what more you think this report is going to accomplish. --] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 13:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


== State University of New York at Geneseo ==
:As you say, this has been discussed here before. Calamitybrook denies any COI, so in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I don't think this is a subject for COI/N. It may be appropriate for some other noticeboard but I'm not sure which. ] (]) 00:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
{{atop
| result = Soft blocked for promotional username representing Geneseo's Communications and Marketing (CommMark) team. ] (]/]) 01:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
== Leo airline ==
* {{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 ==
* {{userlinks|Leojones2009}} - This editor has created a page called ] which is about an employee of EasyJet called Leo Jones who is featured with the company on the television programme Airline. I would suggest that with the editors name being the same name as the article, there is a possible conflict of interest here. ] (]) 23:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
:The conflict of interest is evident, however the article has been deleted and I've removed the "notable residents" entry made to ]. I've also given a welcoming template that discusses our COI guideline and informed them of this noticeboard report. -- ''']'''] 02:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|Kathryn Babayan}}
* {{userlinks|2601:401:100:46E0:B919:9891:DF5D:FC9F}}
* {{userlinks|2601:401:100:46E0:E169:2FC9:4E47:B104}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Kathryn Babayan was an academic article I made two weeks ago. As of the past 24 hours, there is an IP editor on a rotating IP address that has been making wholesale wording changes to the article. Some of the changes are okay, more detailed than I had been, but I'm wondering if they're edging into promotional territory for her books. I tried asking the first version of the IP editor if they were Babayan themselves, which I feel is likely, but I received no response. And they're back to making changes just now with a different IP.


Suggestions on what should be done? ]]<sup>]</sup> 22:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] & ] ==
:The BLP is bloated with puffery and sources. It should be shortened substantially. ] (]) 00:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
:: is how it was before the IP changed things, which I think was a good summary of her work. No idea what you're talking about with the sources however. There are technically only 9 in use in the article, with only one of which being a primary source from her university page. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Just revert to the last good version before the IP started editing. If the user continues to edit the article then revert them again and request page protection at ]. ] (]) 01:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::K. I've gone ahead and made the revert, though I kept the lede change the IP made. Since I think that was actually an improvement. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Article has now been protected to prevent further disruptive editing . With thanks, ] (]) 17:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


== Captain Beany ==
* {{userlinks|Petertripp}} - Petertripp claims to own the radio station in question (]). After the article was vandalised the article repeatedly, a constructive part of the article (which described the bulk of the station's history) that the vandal had added was removed by Petertripp, due presumably to his dispute with the two radio hosts during that ten-year run. I re-added a small part of it that could be referenced by a newspaper article and he reverted me . All throughout the edit history of ] edit summaries of "Station owner <action done>" can be found . Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated. ] (]) 08:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


*{{user3|CaptainBeany}}
:My biggest concern is that the person who owns the radio station is acting like he owns the article; he doesn't. He's also incorrectly accusing people of vandalism, and attacking people in edit summaries. At this point, seeing the recent history of the article, I wouldn't be opposed to a topic ban from the article for the editor, unless he promises to no longer act as aggressive in his edits and edit summaries. His contributions haven't been exclusively to the WCLX article, he has edited other radio station articles, though admittedly his edits at those articles have also been somewhat disruptive. -- ''']'''] 19:26, 12 January 2010 (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.
:: What's the procedure for initiating such action? Of course, if Petertripp were to leave the article (or at the very least, that part) free of his POV I'd be fine without him having any restrictions, but I don't think it's likely that he will just give in. ] (]) 13:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


In 2010 they and asked for a sourced paragraph about a fraud conviction to be removed from the article. Discussions in response at
:::He hasn't even been informed that this discussion is taking place. When you open a report on a noticeboard for someone, you ''should'' let them know (some boards like ] and ] require it), so I'll leave him a note. A page ban should be done by opening a discussion in a public forum and open a discussion to see who would support such a ban, or see if there's a consensus for some other remedy. But before we go that far I'd like him to have a chance to discuss this himself, so we'll see if he follows the notice to this board. -- ''']'''] 18:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
] and ] decided that this was appropriate biographical content and should not be removed.


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


:The user to the COIN notification, though exactly what they're trying to communicate is beyond me. --] (]) 05:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Template:resolved|I've blocked the editor for username violations and spamming. -- ''']'''] 02:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|GameFanatics}} - User's first and only action was adding a spam link to on ] - Suggest indef block as I suspect the user has conflict of interest. '''''<font color="#dc5f02" >Chimpanzee</font>''''' - <small>] | ] | ]</small> 09:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


== Science of Identity Foundation ==
== Oxjam ==
{{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}}


== ] ==
I'd like to get some more eyes on the ] article. It appears to have been heavily influenced in the past by staff of ] editing under the usernames:
* {{userlinks|Kateblau}}
*{{UserSummary|John Smith Drive}} (the street Oxfam GB is located on)
*{{UserSummary|Oxjam}} (now blocked)
Additionally, at least one IP editor:
*{{IPSummary|193.133.69.201}}
directly resolves to an Oxfam GB host (grail1.oxfam.org.uk). I have refactored the article to a better form, and I believe the subject of the article should be included. However, the form that these three users keep changing it to is completely unacceptable, which is basically a press release. The page has been protected for now, but it would be nice if a few folks could watchlist it in the future to keep an eye out for abuse. ] <small>(] ] ] ])</small> 16:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
:Also, the contributions of the above users, especially the IP, looks like it should be reviewed for additional abuse. ] <small>(] ] ] ])</small> 16:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
::I support the block, and the COI is pretty clear. I'll keep the article on my watchlist in case more trouble comes up. -- ''']'''] 18:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


Multiple draft creations of spammy company articles in a relatively short period of time:
== Iniva ==
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
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)
I'd like to get some more eyes on the ] article. It appears to have been heavily influenced in the past by staff of ] editing under the username:
: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)
*{{UserSummary|Inivaatrivingtonplace}} (now blocked)
::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)
Additionally, at least one IP editor:
*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)
*{{IPSummary|217.169.16.67}}
directly resolves to an Iniva host (mail.iniva.org). It would be nice if a few folks could work on it a bit and watchlist it in the future to keep an eye out for abuse. ] <small>(] ] ] ])</small> 16:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


== John Ortberg ==
== ] re ] article ==


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
This user is at the heart of this controversy and has a documented close association with the scientists implicated. Request he be topic banned from this article and its talk, and not involve himself in editing disputes and allegations of article probation violations as he has done numerous times, always on one side of the debate.] (]) 17:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Pages:
:Do you have any examples of inappropriate behavior by William M. Connolley regarding the Climategate article? Unless he's actively causing trouble, there should be no need for a topic ban. ] <small>(] ] ] ])</small> 17:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|John Ortberg}}
:: See ,,, for some examples of one-sided and disruptive editing (under the terms of article probationh, we're supposed to reach consensus before changes are made although that doesn't seem to apply to everyone). He also inserted himself into my case and in my view, unfairly recruited friendly admins that resulted in my being banned. (see discussion . ] (]) 17:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Users:
:::One of the links you posted, the third, is not an edit by William M. Connolley, but a revert of one of his edits (which happens to be the 4th link you list) by another editor. Two other links, the second and fourth, are both over a month old. The only recent edit, the first, was made during a content dispute between a variety of editors and was resolved when consensus was reached on the talk page, which is now archived at ]. None of these things indicate a problem with William M. Connolley's editing pattern, let alone one strong enough to justify some sort of topic ban. ] <small>(] ] ] ])</small> 18:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|Timothydw82}}
:This looks related to ]. ] (]) 17:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
::Yes, it does, and I have posted a note there linking to this discussion. Also notified ] directly about this discussion. ] <small>(] ] ] ])</small> 17:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Timothydw82 is a ] which is used solely to promote, defend and censor valid information about ]. Timothydw82 admits to consulting with Ortberg about the article on ] and has also used that page to make disparaging comments about Ortberg's son, Daniel Lavery. This is both a serious COI and POV problem. He has been warned before by other editors. My most recent warning (for POV editing) was met with what seems to be feigned incomprehension and "Do you work for Misplaced Pages?". I think it is time to put an end to this farce. ] (]) 02:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::: I've asked Jpat34721 what he hopes to achieve by forum shopping like this: to clarify, he has attacked the person who reported his conduct problems and both admins who discussed the report and topic banned him. --] 17:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
:::: I hope to achieve increased fairness in the process and improvement WP by promoting ] ] (]) 17:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
::::: You've listed some diffs above which you think show William M. Connolley engaging in disruptive conduct. Why not file a case on the probation enforcement page? It's ]. --] 17:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::: Because the larger issue in my view is his clear conflict of interest here. Given the history of this user and this topic, and given that he's in the emails at the heart of the controversy, don't you agree that WP should avoid the appearance of impropriety at this point? How can you defend a person whose involved in a scandal, being allowed to spin the article ''on'' the scandal?? ] (]) 18:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::: William M. Connolley has barely been participating in the article at all, and is more active on the talk page where many of the "issues" you have raised with his edits have been resolved through the achievement of consensus. He's not made any edits that lead me to believe that he is expressing any sort of ], which is what you seem to be trying to convince everyone of. Unless you can come up with something substantive in its own right, continuing this pursuit could be viewed as harassment. ] <small>(] ] ] ])</small> 18:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::: Why are we even talking about his contribs. There's nothing in that says it's to be ignored if the user's edits meet with your approval. He's ''in'' the emails that are the subject of the article and has '''Close relationships''' with those implicated. How can that ''not'' be viewed as a conflict of interest? ] (]) 18:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::We're talking about his contribs because that's what you're trying to use as evidence of improper behavior. Please keep in mind that ] is a guideline and not a policy. Furthermore, the guideline only advises editors to exercise great caution when editing in a COI topic area; it does not forbid them from doing so. Now, I'm not saying that Dr. Connolley does not have a conflict of interest, I'm saying that he has done nothing to show that his conflict of interest has negatively impacted the encyclopedia. ] <small>(] ] ] ])</small> 18:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::: Oh whatever. It's clear the wagons are circled and the fix is in. I'll disengage at this point ] (]) 18:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::(ec)"There's nothing in that says it's to be ignored if the user's edits meet with your approval" - no, but it's also a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. It's not a ban from pages, it's a recommendation. And behaviour is very relevant - if you ''can'' write the perfect NPOV article about yourself, ] doesn't forbid you to do so. It just advises (strongly) against it. This noticeboard has a role not because there's a COI ''per se'', but rather, "for conflict of interest issues that require outside intervention". ] (]) 18:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


:Thanks for sharing your concerns. I’d like to address the points you’ve raised to clarify any misunderstandings about my contributions and intentions.
I noticed I mis-spelled the users name in the email search link above. Here is mentioned in more emails than I thought. ] (]) 17:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
:First, while my account may appear to have a narrow focus, my goal has always been to ensure that articles on Misplaced Pages adhere to its principles of neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sourcing. My edits related to John Ortberg and related topics are aimed at upholding these standards, not promoting or censoring information. If there are specific examples where you believe I’ve violated these principles, I welcome a constructive discussion to address them.
:Second, regarding my consultation with John Ortberg: I acknowledge that I have communicated with him, as I’ve disclosed on my user talk page. However, my involvement has been strictly limited to ensuring that edits align with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines and reflect accurate information.
:Third, concerning the comments about Daniel Lavery, I understand how sensitive these matters are. My intent was not to disparage anyone, and if any of my remarks were perceived as inappropriate, please bring them to my attention.
:I'd also like to express my disappointment in your accusing me via direct message of treating you like "idiots". That felt like a curt, uncalled for accusation with little to no dialogue or support. You have not engaged in a discussion with me but clearly expressed your desire to see me blocked for little to no good reason I can discern.
:Finally, regarding warnings from other editors: I value feedback and strive to learn from it. I am more than willing to engage in dialogue to resolve disputes and improve the quality of articles. If there are ongoing concerns about my edits, I encourage the use of formal dispute resolution processes so we can work collaboratively toward a solution. ] (]) 02:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Is that AI generated text? I ran it through a few different detectors and most thought that it was at least partially AI generated. ] (]) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Unbelievable. Indeffed. Thank you, ]. ] &#124; ] 20:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC).


== Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation ==
:COI issues notwithstanding, I find nothing particularly disruptive in William M. Connolley's edits you linked above. Could you be more precise? --]] 18:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
:: Why COI aside, that's supposed to be the topic here. But to address your question, I'm glad you see nothing wrong with his edits because they are exactly what has gotten other users topic banned, editing without consensus. Given your view, perhaps you'll go to bat for me and get my ban reversed. ] (]) 18:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
::: That is patently false. Other users have been topic banned for continued controversial editing without achieving consensus. Three edits in the course of a month, none of which were related, is not at all the same thing. Furthermore, as I have said before, William M. Connolley has been more active on the talk page in that time than in the article. ] <small>(] ] ] ])</small> 18:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
:]. --] (]) 18:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
::This is '''not''' about Global Warming, nor am I proposing a topic ban on that subject. This is about ] only and I'm only asking that he be prevented from contributing on that topic. Jpat34721|JPatterson]] (]) 18:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
:::And you have, at this point, failed to produce a substantive reason for us to do so. What you are very successfully doing is making this look like a personal vendetta, though. ] <small>(] ] ] ])</small> 18:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
::::May I suggest to ] that if you continue the way you are that you won't have to worry about one article ban because you are boxing administrators into a corner to have you blocked completely from editing. I would strongly suggest you just ride out the banned page and resume editing elsewhere. You are only hurting yourself with this continuing battle. Just a suggestion, --]] 18:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
::::: On what grounds? Attempting to use the process that's been laid out? There's a clear conflict of interest here and this is the proper place to report such concerns. Threats and intimidation for doing so seems a bit ham handed, wouldn't you agree? ] (]) 18:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::: On the grounds of ], ], and ] to name a few. You have forum shopped this issue, have been unable to provide substantive evidence of improper editing on the part of William M. Connolley, and continue to make what are looking more and more like bad-faith claims against him. Get back to your original point and show something that necessitates intervention or drop it. ] <small>(] ] ] ])</small> 18:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::The diffs provided fail to show disruption, and this whole report seems like retribution to me. I'm not going to say that there is no potential COI with WMC participating at the Climategate article, but even acknowledging that, you would have to show that his editing the article is actually causing a problem before anyone would be tempted to take action on it. I don't think you've done this. -- ''']'''] 18:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence of a conflict of interest presented. Being copied or mentioned in some harmless emails from years ago isn't a conflict. ] (]) 18:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
: From the closing of one the the emails:
<blockquote>
Thanks,


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
Gavin Schmidt
Pages:
* {{pagelinks|Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation}}
* {{pagelinks|Park Hyeon-joo}}
Users:
* {{userlinks|Channy Jung}}
* {{userlinks|203.239.154.130}}
* {{userlinks|Chisu1020}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Suspected undisclosed COI editors. Single-purpose accounts used exclusively to edit on this person and his foundation. All of the edits are complimentary, and almost entirely unsourced.


I warned Channy Jung () and 203.239.154.130 () but both have continued editing ] and have ignored the warning (, ). Chisu1020 has been inactive for a while though, but same pattern of behavior.
on behalf of the '''RealClimate.org''' team:
- Gavin Schmidt
- Mike Mann
- Eric Steig
- '''William Connolley'''
- Stefan Rahmstorf
- Ray Bradley
- Amy Clement
- Rasmus Benestad
- William Connolley
- Caspar Ammann
</blockquote>
:Nope, nothing to see here , move along.] (]) 19:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
:: If you were discussing his COI on ] that would be different, but that's not what you're discussing. ] (]) 19:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
:::I agree, the COI with the Climategate scandal is weak at best, and would only be related to anything regarding Realclimate itself. -- ''']'''] 19:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
:::: At the risk of being tendentious, it should be pointed out for the benefit of the uninformed that RealClimate.org is a notable part of the controversy as is the email I referenced above. Without passing judgment on their merits, notable allegations have been made that the email shows that RC was initiated as a means of spinning ] in order to sway public opinion and that Dr. Connolley's role was to use Misplaced Pages to the same ends. ] (]) 20:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
::::: The above is neither well sourced, nor accurate. Stop digging. ] (]) 20:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The only connection RealClimate has to the hacking is that someone also hacked RealClimate and tried to lock the regular users out and use the site to dispense the stolen emails and other documents. --] 20:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


I recently rewrote ] entirely to get rid of the unsourced promotional-like writing . State of article before the rewrite: .
I suggest that we now close the thread as the thread starter is now abusing Misplaced Pages in order to propagate a conspiracy theory. --] 20:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
: I'm not trying to propagate anything. I was ''asked'' to provide further evidence of a COI. That evidence was discounted, so I explained why it is relevant.] (]) 20:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


Also worth noting the is similarly fluffy. I suspect Park/his foundation are watching these articles.
I have been requested under threat of blockage to provide sources that support my assertions re notability above. Keeping in mind, that I have no opinion on their veracity, and that my only point here is that RC and Dr. Connolley are a notable part of the controversy, in a quick google search I found and of course the allegations made have received a lot of attention. Lest I be accused of escalating this, I would point out again that I offer these sources under threat of blockage. ] (]) 20:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
: If you've no opinion of the veracity of these very serious allegations, why are you propagating them? --] 20:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
:: Because I was if I didn't. The question isn't veracity, it's notability. ] (]) 20:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
::: Ahh, so you know the allegations that he has done what those pieces say he has done are provable, obvious lies, then, correct? Why then are you pushing allegations that he has a conflict of interest based on articles you know to be dishonest? ] (]) 20:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
:::: No opinion means no opinion. My opinion is irrelevant anyway. There's no getting around the fact that these references prove notability.] (]) 21:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
::::: You don't alledge that he's notable, you alledge he has a conflict of interest with respect to Climategate. To do this, apparently, you use two provably dishonest works. This seems somewhat odd to me. ] (]) 21:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
:::<small>(]{{#if:|&#32;× {{{1}}}}})</small> I did impress upon him to, TS, and thank you for doing so, JPatterson. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To claim that others have said William M. Connolly was involved in a sort-of conspiracy without referencing said others is tantamount to claiming a conspiracy yourself, which I would view as a personal attack. The merits of the pieces are unimportant, but the content is, in this light. Indeed someone has made the claim, which was JPatterson's point. It is not, however, relevant to the on-wiki evidence presented here by JPatterson. ] <small>(] ] ] ])</small> 21:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Can people please settle down? Looking over these two pieces -- I have no idea of their reliability -- I do not actually see any claim that Connolley's editing was discussed in the emails. They seem quite noticeably vague on this point: talking about what is in the emails, and then jumping to a much more general statement about what he was up to with his editing on Misplaced Pages (where, obviously, there are differing interpretations). It seems to me there is still only the connection to RealClimate. In this regard there seems to be a recognized conflict, and people seem to be saying that as long as the editing is not disruptive then it is not an issue. So, how about we talk about disruptive editing or we close the discussion? I don't see anything else coming out of this. ] (]) 21:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
:There are other ways to damage the encyclopedia besides disruptive editing. The bar for concerns such as I've raised here should be ]. Dr. Connolley clearly has a vested interest in Climategate being downplayed, precisely the theme of most of his edits and talk page comments on the subject. He is demonstrably not POV neutral on this issue. Equally disturbing (and equally effective in POV pushing) is his chiming in at every opportunity to silence editors with whom he disagrees. In his recruitment message to the two admins WMC notes "Things are starting to back up at Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement". True that, because one of his strong supporters brought sanction requests against 4 editors in one day. In my case, WMC's request that I be made an example of ("User:Jpat34721 is misbehaving here and needs sanctionning to remind him (and indeed others) that the rules really do exist and have teeth") was granted. I get a month, one other editor gets a day for the same offense, the other two closed as unactionable. Allegations of COI should be taken more seriously than has been demonstrated here where the overriding concern seems to be how best to shoot the messenger. ] (]) 19:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
::No. No there isn't. If the encyclopedia is being damaged by any editing, that editing is by definition ], whether it's straight vandalism, NPOV violations, or anything else that's harmful to an article. Again, diffs have been requested that might demonstrate this behavior. Otherwise we just have to take your word for it, and clearly you have a bias against the editor due to past conflicts. -- ''']'''] 21:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


] (]) 05:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
==]==
* {{article|Dawood Group}}
* {{userlinks|Kashifpisces}}
* {{userlinks|Kashi786}}
This seems to be a classic case of ]. Last May, Kashifpisces created ] about a Pakistani group of companies; he is an ] editing only Dawood-related articles. Other users have since added sourced material unfavourable to the company, and Kashifpisces has been edit-warring to try to remove it; he was finally blocked for 31 hours, when Kashi786 appeared and carried on, finally requesting deletion ], which I declined; he is on a 24-hour block. It is likely that one or both, or others, will be back; a report to ] may be necessary. ] (]) 18:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
:A sock puppet investigation case has been submitted already. See ]. -- ] (]) 21:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:34, 9 January 2025

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

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

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

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

    This Day on Bella Disu

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

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

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

    User:Taeyasu/Sample page

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

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

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

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

    Chris Antonopoulos (footballer) and Fort Lauderdale Strikers

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

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

    Adolph Jentsch

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

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

    Conflict of interest - Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra Article

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

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

    Vanskere

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

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

    Marc Jorgenson

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

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

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

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

    Ilyas El Maliki

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

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

    Lindy Li

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

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

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

    State University of New York at Geneseo

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

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

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

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

    Kathryn Babayan

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

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

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

    Captain Beany

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

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

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

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

    Science of Identity Foundation

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

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

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

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

    User:Kateblau

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

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

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

    John Ortberg

    Pages:

    Users:

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

    Thanks for sharing your concerns. I’d like to address the points you’ve raised to clarify any misunderstandings about my contributions and intentions.
    First, while my account may appear to have a narrow focus, my goal has always been to ensure that articles on Misplaced Pages adhere to its principles of neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sourcing. My edits related to John Ortberg and related topics are aimed at upholding these standards, not promoting or censoring information. If there are specific examples where you believe I’ve violated these principles, I welcome a constructive discussion to address them.
    Second, regarding my consultation with John Ortberg: I acknowledge that I have communicated with him, as I’ve disclosed on my user talk page. However, my involvement has been strictly limited to ensuring that edits align with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines and reflect accurate information.
    Third, concerning the comments about Daniel Lavery, I understand how sensitive these matters are. My intent was not to disparage anyone, and if any of my remarks were perceived as inappropriate, please bring them to my attention.
    I'd also like to express my disappointment in your accusing me via direct message of treating you like "idiots". That felt like a curt, uncalled for accusation with little to no dialogue or support. You have not engaged in a discussion with me but clearly expressed your desire to see me blocked for little to no good reason I can discern.
    Finally, regarding warnings from other editors: I value feedback and strive to learn from it. I am more than willing to engage in dialogue to resolve disputes and improve the quality of articles. If there are ongoing concerns about my edits, I encourage the use of formal dispute resolution processes so we can work collaboratively toward a solution. Timothydw82 (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Is that AI generated text? I ran it through a few different detectors and most thought that it was at least partially AI generated. DanielRigal (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Unbelievable. Indeffed. Thank you, Daniel. Bishonen | tålk 20:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC).

    Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation

    Pages:

    Users:

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

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

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

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

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

    Categories: