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 15:15, 10 June 2014 editSophie.grothendieck (talk | contribs)157 edits →IEX and Brad Katsuyama: name removed← Previous edit Latest revision as of 10:26, 9 January 2025 edit undoDanielRigal (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users48,090 edits →John Ortberg: format 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{redirect|WP:COIN|the WikiProject on articles about coins|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Numismatics}}
{{offer help}}
] ]
] ]
] ]
]
{{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 = 150K |maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 75 |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! --> <!-- All reports should be made at the bottom of the page. Do not modify the above when reporting! -->
== ] on ] ==


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


*
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
*
* {{la|TV Tropes}}
*
* {{userlinks|Speededdie}}
*
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
*


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)
Please see the ] that occurred on this same noticeboard just ten days ago. User {{ping|Speededdie}} is the cofounder of TV Tropes and continues to make inappropriate COI edits to the article, such as . This particular diff used an extremely misleading edit summary in order to remove maintenance tags; something user attempted several times before and which resulted in the original report. He obviously did not take the previous discussion seriously and seemed to simply think he could wait for a few days and make the offending edits again without notice. What should the course of action for this issue be now? ''']'''<sup>]''']</sup> 03:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
:Further note: Judging by his contributions, ] appears to be a ], having for all intents and purposes only edited the ] article, an article he obviously has a vested and conflicted interested in. ''']'''<sup>]''']</sup> 03:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
:Addendum: I'm the chief administrator of the All The Tropes wiki (the "competition" to TV Tropes, though I prefer to think of it as an alternative), so my word may be considered biased, but since my attempt to privately contact the Misplaced Pages administration via email seems not to have gone through concerning evidence regarding this matter (I wanted to avoid conflicts with this editor nor start a disruption here), I am posting this information here in the interest of preventing further COI incidents. ] has sockpuppeted numerous times under IP addresses as well under his own handle, repeatedly trying to remove information he did not like from the TV Tropes article, specifically as ] and ]. I have also seen evidence of his actions in doing similar editing offsite such as on and his IP has been used by Speededdie AKA Fast Eddie as seen and . Again, as I run a site which this editor has expressed open contempt of (as well as myself), I am not the most neutral source in the world concerning this information, so I ask it be verified independently and appropriate action be taken by the appropriate parties if warranted. ] (]) 03:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
:: Regardless of your potential bias, ] are not allowed. I'll file the SPI when I get home. ] (]) 13:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
::: Just a small update; I didn't file one as some of the accounts have one edit, and some have their last edits as 2-4 months ago. I don't see any current sockpuppets, nor disruptive activities. ] (]) 00:37, 6 June 2014 (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)
::I categorically deny making any edit to the article involving a fact which has not been backed up by a linked reference or of in any way concealing my affiliation with the subject wiki. Or of using a sockpuppet here or anywhere else. Please do not accept a link to GethN7's wiki (which copies TV Trope's data and adds ads to it) as evidence of anything. It is a highly suspect source. In any case, GethN7 is a person who clearly has a real conflict of interest.] (]) 15:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
::Just a brief follow-up to say that there is actually a current thread at ] in relation to the reliability of Nigerian newspapers (here ) which may be of assistance to the user who opened this thread. It seems that the existence of sponsored content in Nigerian newspapers is a widespread problem. Regards, ] (]) 04:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I categorically deny that All The Tropes has advertisement. This is a matter of ; your statement only exists to spread misinformation. GethN7 and my biases are obvious and self-declared, but then we're not editing the main pages on tropes wikis -- we're only providing information to the community on talk pages. ] (]) 18:41, 3 June 2014 (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)


== Special:Contributions/213.8.97.219 ==
== Brand.com ==


{{iplinks|213.8.97.219}}
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{la|Brand.com}}
* {{userlinks|BeloyiseBurron}}
* {{userlinks|Solarra}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
First time here, thought it would be good to bring my item to your attention though. I noticed that ] has had a lot of suspicious editing, and really, an imbalanced article for a company that has a history of white-washing. So I tried to balance it, include information from the less flattering side, but also constructive information, including their logo. For some reason that whole contribution was removed, including the logo I added for the page. I tried to leave a COI warning on the page of the white-washer . ] concurred with my initial addition of information, and I don't want anyone to get into trouble for edit-warring, so I thought I'd just raise it here to see if others agreed. Especially as I've been threatened with a) a COI charge in response to mine from an established editor without cause (] being the individual) with absolutely no evidence as to why I would have a COI and b) , which I have seen in the past is a tactic used by those trying to intimidate other editors off the page. I will admit to any COI proven against me, but I really have no idea what they are talking about. I'm just concerned that Wiki-PR has warnings against its ethical stance and that Brand.com did not. ] (]) 22:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
: Update&nbsp;— I received accusing me that something happened off Misplaced Pages that cause me edits. Very weird, considering I have had no contact with Brand.com and the SPU appears to believe they know I could have been involved with them somehow? What is happening here; am I being threatened by Misplaced Pages to stop speaking? ] (]) 22:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


{{articlelinks|Israel Football Association}}
ArbComm isn't a threat. No legal threat of any kind has been made. A report is going to ArbComm so they can understand how Diva is using off Wiki conduct to try to make a company look bad. It's a right, not a threat. Except you have no idea who I am, and it's not Wiki PR or Brand.com. edits are not suspicious, they are plain as day. Diva is using Wiki as a place to air his grievances about things that are taking place off Wiki. Check the edit history of Mr. Diva. I am sending additional info to ArbComm so we can end this silliness. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::I first entered this seeing that there was a ] involved, and at first I thought it was {{U|GenuineDiva}} with the COI. Having I see the COI is in fact with {{U|BeloyiseBurron}} as you can see with his he is clearly editing to ]. ] <sup>]</sup> ߷ <sub>]</sub> 22:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
::: Holy wow! So many threats in so little time just because I start editing on paid-editing company pages. Cripes. No wonder they run roughshod over the whole thing. Well, if the arbitration committee is used solely for pushing new users out when they raise an issue, fine by me. By wow, I cannot even believe that any balanced information about a paid-editing company is just removed with the snap of the fingers. Shocking there is so much support here for commercializing the site. ] (]) 22:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
::::{{U|BeloyiseBurron}} has been posting threats, I have warned the user. {{reply|GenuineDiva}} Don't let one errant user dissuade you from the community, you are most welcome here :-) I originally thought Diva had a COI based on the edit summaries of ], after further investigation I removed the notice from Diva's talk page. ] <sup>]</sup> ߷ <sub>]</sub> 22:58, 31 May 2014


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


Okay, lets make this simple. Things were rolled back to last week, before Diva began to heavily weight the references. We can discuss on the talk page. Make your case, Diva. --] (]) 23:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC) :] is likely to be a sock made by the IP. I'm going to add a paid edit disclosure to the article. ] (]) 18:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
: Yup, somehow the Brand.com page was reverted to its prior form with no negatives whatsoever, and all new sources removed. As I said before, however it is happening, the page has been white-washed of anything but carefully crafted PR writing. I'll do what I can to keep this off, but if there is no support here, ANI is next I guess. ] (]) 23:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
::{{reply|GenuineDiva}} I already posted to ] feel free to comment :-) ] <sup>]</sup> ߷ <sub>]</sub> 23:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
::: Okay; I've left a brief comment pointing to my prior discussions, but of course want others to make any decision. Lord knows anything else I really have to say may not be in line enough with Misplaced Pages rules to truly contribute well enough. ] (]) 23:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
::::Thank you, your contributions have been more than adequate as far as I'm concerned. ] <sup>]</sup> ߷ <sub>]</sub> 23:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


== Lyal S. Sunga/Long-term (two-decade) COI abuses ==
:This can be closed now, ] was blocked for edit warring. ] <sup>]</sup> ߷ <sub>]</sub> 11:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
{{Article links|Lyal S. Sunga}}


The article ] was created by 217.210.145.175, which is located in Sweden, in 2005, when Lyal S. Sunga just became a lecturer at the ]. Later, the article was edited by 81.234.192.235, 90.224.52.72, 81.234.194.194, 90.231.183.154, among others, all located in Sweden, from 2005 to 2009.
== William Astor, 4th Viscount Astor ==


Then, the article was edited by 93.41.230.58, 93.40.187.104, 93.47.142.126, among others, all located in Italy, when Lyal S. Sunga moved to Italy for UNODC.
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{la|William Astor, 4th Viscount Astor}}
* {{userlinks|Waldorf astor1 }}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
User likely affiliated with subject, possible impersonation. ] (]) 22:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


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


In 2016, the article was edited by 83.84.186.217, which is located in the Netherlands, when Lyal S. Sunga was at the Hague Institute for Global Justice.
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{la|Charles Denham}}
* {{userlinks|bluerasberry}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Hello! I work in the health sector and have a personal interest in health news. Earlier this year I learned about a court case mentioning ] and edited the article about the person, as the case was interesting to me. In my mind this did not relate to my employment directly, even though iit is in my professional field. The subject of the article, Denham himself, came to Misplaced Pages some time ago and has been interacting on the article page and an AfD. I have developed both his biography and the AfD discussion more than anyone else. Today he tells me that he sells a product which competes with one provided by my employer, and that I have a conflict of interest. That might be the case, and I proposed to leave all discussion entirely. I deny knowing that my employer and he were marketplace competitors as he suggests.
Beyond my abandoning interaction with any Misplaced Pages articles related to Denham or anything close to him, I commit to be more conscious of avoiding COI in the future. I am posting here because as a new user, Denham should have access to someone who can give him relief for his concerns about COI, whatever that may mean, and I thought it would be best that since he made a COI claim against me that I come here and commit to stay out of this from here on and ask that someone else please help him address his needs.
I am very sorry for the negative experience he is having. One problem which he raised was that he wished to know that I am employed by an entity which he says has competing business interests, and while I try to be open about this, the way that I put this information on my userpage was not sufficient to meet his needs and I regret this. I believed that I was acting independently of my employer, but regardless, I would am excusing myself from involvement there now. I am around otherwise if anyone asks for me. ]] 23:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

*I was attracted to this page after seeing Bluerasberry, who I know reasonably well, on the BLP noticeboard. I don't think this string is necessary, because the page will most likely be removed soon. There is no strong consensus to keep the article and the BLP has requested deletion. The COI accusation is a symptom of the AfD dragging on long enough to make editors with competing views become irritable by the discussion.


In 2017, the article was edited by 93.48.243.70, which is located in Italy, when Lyal S. Sunga returned to Italy for The American University of Rome.
:Having witnessed the presentation Consumer Reports did at Wikimania a couple years ago, I could see how Blue's work there could give him a strong opinion on the subject, though not actually a COI. This string represents an over-reaction to the kinds of COI accusations that get thrown around routinely, often against editors that may have some bias for another reason. ] (]) 00:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


In recent years, the articled has been edited mostly by IPs located in Italy, where Lyal S. Sunga has been living.
*What's missing from this discussion (and those parts of the discussion which have been conducted in the corresponding AFD) is ]. It makes sense that ] would naturally have an interest in something he has an understanding of. It would seem (from the edits in question) that BR's aim was to expand those parts of the biography where sources were available but information hadn't been included. Having a "controversy" section is perfectly acceptable and fairly common. That doesn't mean it's ''nice'' but nice and neutral are not necessarily the same thing and WP strives to be the latter. I suppose it's possible for BR to have discovered the link between the subject's work and the work of his employer (though I don't think there's even been confirmation that BR works in a related area) had he done more research. But having had it drawn to his attention, he has now committed to not editing that article. That's about as good faith an effort as we can ask from an editor who has amorally stumbled into a conflicted situation. Like ], I'm not actually convinced that paid employment with Coke gives you an automatic conflict of interest with regard to Pepsi. Even less so with regard to employees of the other organisation. ] you seem like a smart guy. You've made your point and achieved what you set out to achieve. Like CM, I think the article will probably be deleted. Lets all go about our business, shall we? ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 04:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


It is fair to say that more than 95% of the edits in this article were made by Lyal S. Sunga himself. I am unsure if the article should be kept or deleted for its advertising nature. ] (]) 23:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*Just one more thought: As I pointed out at the AfD, Dr. Denham should hardly be the one to complain about possible COI, since the article about him was originally written, later edited, and strongly defended at the AfD by users who are admittedly affiliated with his foundation. As you say, it's moot now because the article is likely to be deleted, but I felt the accusation against Bluerasberry (whom I don't know at all) was unjustified and was a case of ]. --] (]) 20:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
:{{re|Eyer}} has gone in and cleared out a lot of puffery and cruft. ]&nbsp;] 00:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


== User:Taeyasu/Sample page ==
== Jeff Davidson (speaker) ==


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> <!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{pagelinks|User:Taeyasu/Sample page}}
* {{la|Jeff Davidson (speaker)}}
* {{userlinks|Seankellywiki}} * {{userlinks|Taeyasu}}
* {{userlinks|Camforest2}} * {{userlinks|Trendalchemy}}
* {{userlinks|Reidconnor}} * {{userlinks|Dpatrioli}}
* {{userlinks|Davidcallum}}
* {{userlinks|Editor684765}}
* {{userlinks|Editor8365}}
* {{userlinks|Editor38657023}}
* {{userlinks|EditorBrosepho8y}}
* {{userlinks|C3po2398}}
* {{userlinks|R2D29826398}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> <!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
All of the above editors are single-use accounts that keep adding promotional language to this article which requires cleanup. I seems to me that the editors probably have a close link to the article subject, the way they are being used looked somewhat like sockpuppetry. The quality of some of the publications mentioned looks a bit think, and I think the whole article could do with a review by someone with more expertise than me. ] (]) 08:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


3 accounts with no contributions except to write promotional-sounding article ]. Notably:
Most of the edits that have been made by moderators has not been to correct neutral tone issues, but rather the mass cutting of information. I understand perfectly fine if there are issues with neutrality, however I have sought to substantiate all of the claims on the article with some sort of citation or another. Many hours have been put into researching the necessary citations, and I would appreciate if the concerned moderators would not remove the properly cited information. It will not ultimately serve Misplaced Pages or the common user if the proper information is removed. ] (]) 10:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


* "Trend Alchemy" appears to be the name of a PR firm in Italy
::C3po2398, can I ask what you relationship with the subject is? And also, are those other editor accounts also under your control? ] (]) 08:28, 4 June 2014 (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)
::Shritwod, Jeff has given a presentation at the University I attend, and I took interest in some of his work. I don't believe that should constitute conflict of interest, and regardless to that issue anyway, I have sought professionalism and neutral tone in the information I have added to the page, citing as much as I have been able. So my request is that the information that I have dug up be there, and you can correct whatever neutral tone issues you believe there are. And to answer your other question, I have no relation to the other editor accounts. ] (]) 8:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


:I recently attempted to get the material speedy deleted under ] but this was declined due to the material not being considered "unambiguously promotional".
:::C3po2398, is it just then a coincidence that there is also an editor R2D29826398? ] (]) 11:25, 8 June 2014 (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.
::::In the past, a number of editors have been hired to create biographies for speakers who are part of the ]. The client has been hiring more than one editor per article. My guess is that this is the case here, although I'd expect that to only account for two or three of the editors. I'd propose that there were a couple of editors hired, one of whom has been creating multiple accounts. - ] (]) 16:28, 9 June 2014 (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)
:::::] checkuser results should probably be here for reference. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 16:43, 9 June 2014 (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 ==
== metamodernism ==
* {{pagelinks|Chris Antonopoulos (footballer)}}
* {{userlinks|Amplifyplantz33}}


] and numerous ] related articles, which Antonopoulos appears to have been a player for, have been edited by ]. The user seems to be Antonopoulos and received a notice to disclose their conflict of interest on December 4 by @]. The user did not respond and does not appear to have made an effort to disclose a conflict of interest as they are required to. The user also created the Antonopoulos article and is responsible for the majority of the content added to it. The only indication the user appears to have made to disclose their potential conflict of interest was to write "Chris Antonopoulos" on their user page. ] (]) 07:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{la|metamodernism}}
* {{userlinks|Festal82}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
The metamodernism page is being held to ransom by ], who is making threats and using bullying tactics to force an entirely subjective list of 'Notable metamodernists' onto the page, which other editors agree is divisive and inappropriate. There appears to be a clear conflict of interest at play here, and a possible attempt at self-positioning. This user has repeatedly ignored my requests to stop this behaviour, and has instead harassed me on the talk page, making wild and outlandish accusations, and making threats to delete the whole content of the page if they don't get their own way. The user also repeatedly accuses me of being somebody that I am not, every time I make an edit they have not sanctioned, despite there being consensus among other editors, and has sought to undermine my attempts to maintain the factual integrity of the article. (The user also seems to accuse me of penning the entirety of the article, which the edit history shows is clearly not the case.) Rather than respond to my requests in a reasonable manner, the user has instead offered a bizarre ultimatum, that effectively says they will not vandalize the rest of the page if they can keep adding to their list, and seems intent on instigating an edit war. ] (]) 19:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

:I'm happy to have anyone who wants take look at the Talk page for ] and see what has really happened there. My last posted message on that page summarizes exactly the sort of behavior ] has exhibited there for weeks now, including (as anyone who reads the History can see) accusing me repeatedly of being "Seth Abramson" and editing with an aim of "self-positioning" and then coming here to complain that I've made such accusations against him/her. Most appalling (besides outlandish representations, like a supposed "threat to delete the whole content of the page") is that this user has been flagged for violating WP:NOT and WP:RS for weeks now, leading to a "warning" tag being put atop the ] page, and is now, incredibly, making accusations that in fact s/he has only been "attempting to maintain the factual integrity of the article." I do hope an editor will step in hold ] to the WP:NOT and WP:RS and WP:OR standards s/he has been violating with impunity for over a month. I previously attempted to secure an administrator's intervention, but was told this was a content dispute; I then offered ] two separate dispute resolutions to try to tamp down the conflict--both of which were ignored. All of this can be confirmed by looking at the Talk and History pages for ]. ] (]) 19:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

::The talk page and edit history will show the above claims to be grossly misleading and untrue. ] (]) 20:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Festal82}} {{ping|Esmeme}} - Both of you are making claims about each other's off-wiki interests and activities. Keeping in mind ], are either of you basing this on an admission of the other or are they just accusations? --&mdash; <tt>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></tt> |&nbsp; 19:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

::::Apologies, ] (])--you are right that both the OP and I have skirted this line more than once. My base claim has nothing to do with any of that, though; it's that ] has shown persistent bias in favor of a non-WP:NOT, non-WP:RS website, while deleting all links relating to WP:NOT, WP:RS media outlets like ], ], et cetera. ] has justified these deletions by assumptions of bad faith (thereby violating WP:AGF) and accusations that are either violations of WP:OUTING or WP:NOR. In responding to this bias and these allegations, I did the same thing ] had been doing--make accusations regarding the likely identity of another editor, based upon what I perceived to be consistent biases. I know, for my part, that those allegations are in no way important to my concerns, finally--as again, the issue is the OP's persistent selection of non-WP:NOT, non-WP:RS websites over WP:NOT, WP:RS media outlets, based upon allegations which, as you note, violate WP:OUTING (in addition to being baseless). In fact, ] has never provided any grounds whatsoever for deleting WP:NOT, WP:RS media outlet links other than claims based entirely on WP:OUTING and WP:NOR violations. A review of the article history and talk page reveals these are the _only_ grounds ever provided by the OP for his/her edits, while my grounds have consistently been as stated above. ] (]) 19:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

:::::I've looked through the edit history of the page and made some comments on the talk page here: ]. --&mdash; <tt>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></tt> |&nbsp; 22:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

== Articles from a Wikipedian in Residence ==


: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)
We have an editor who is a Wikipedian in Residence (see ]) who has drafted a userspace version of articles here which he wishes to use for his own internal use. Please see ] as I'm not sure of what to do. I suggest that the contents be merged into the current article but it seems like the user does not want to for additional months or years due to the current COI policies. -- ] (]) 22:19, 6 June 2014 (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.
::I have commented there. I see no harm whatsoever in keeping material by a trustworthy editor such as Blue that may be of some use, but I am quitepuzzled aboutwhy he might whant not to use it. If the WIR program acts to discourage high quality work from appearing in WP, it's being used perversely. ''']''' (]) 17:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC) .
::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)


== IEX and Brad Katsuyama == == Adolph Jentsch ==


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> <!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{pagelinks|Adolph Jentsch}}
===Related articles and user===
* {{la|IEX}} * {{userlinks|username}}
* {{la|Brad Katsuyama}}
* {{userlinks|KristinaChi}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> <!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
There is an IP editor who is repeatedly entering non-encyclopedic text, such as . I've reversed him once but he then sent me several abusive emails accusing me of article ownership, so I don't want to reverse him again. I cannot give him a COIN notice because he uses different IPs every time he edits. Can someone other than me please remove the edit and perhaps protect the article from IP edits? Thanks! ] (]) 05:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


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


== Conflict of interest - Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra Article ==
* ] is in violation with Misplaced Pages's editor policies on ], ] and ].
* {{pagelinks|Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra}}
* {{userlinks|Anurag Palutla}}


], I think there is a conflict of interest here. The director himself has created an account and working on the article - ] (]) 08:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
* Based on his/her edit patterns, ] appears to be acting as an agent for the ] and ], and therefore has a conflict of interest with respect to these articles.


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)
* ]'s accusative tone towards "]", and his/her repeated attempts to censor and suppress all content that is critical of ] while keeping only content that appears to hurt the image of "]" fully intact, provides grounds to believe that the user cannot be trusted to maintain a neutral, objective and encyclopedic view towards the editing of these specific articles.


== Vanskere ==
===Detailed description===


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->* {{pagelinks|Vanskere}}
] appears to have a significant conflict of interest with the editing of the ] article:
* {{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)
1. Immediately after the account ] was created, its first action was to undo all of the contributions made by me to the ] and ] articles. Moreover, the user's contribution history shows that he/she is solely dedicated to changing the articles on ] and ] to improve the image of Katsuyama and IEX. Furthermore, the user mounts extremely lengthy defenses of ] on the ], which border on ]. This type of activity is unusual for new accounts and suggests that ] has a substantial conflict of interest: either a personal agenda against me, or personal connection with ] and ].


: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)
2. *** is the real name of my colleague from MIT. If you look-up my IP address from the revision history of ], anyone from the public can find the name of our group and *** is the only person whose name can be connected with our group from a Google search. It is clear that the account name ] was picked deliberately to resemble, ] and ] a person associated with me. This choice of username directly violates several of Misplaced Pages's editor policies on ], ] and ]. I feel that a user with this level of maturity should not be trusted to maintain an encyclopedic and objective view of the articles at hand.


== Marc Jorgenson ==
2. ]'s persecutory tone in the ] further reveals that he/she is not editing the articles from a neutral or objective perspective:
{{atop

| result = No edits since 2008. No need for action. ] (]/]) 01:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Quote box
|quote = Sophie.grothendieck, is your firm doing HFT?
|source = ]. ] (]) 07:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
|quoted = 1
|align = left
| width = 100%
}} }}


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
{{Quote box
* {{pagelinks|Marc Jorgenson}}
|quote = I would like to rephrase the question I just asked before. Does apply to your firm?
* {{userlinks|Plus3db}}
|source = ]. ] (]) 07:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|Lexicon480}}
|quoted = 1
* {{userlinks|Bunny & J-Zone}}
|align = left
* {{userlinks|24.82.146.94}}
| width = 100%
* {{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 ==
{{Quote box
|quote = It appears to me you may be dodging my question. I'll rephrase again: how much does your firm spend on infrastructure, i.e. colocation, direct exchange connectivity, data feeds etc. per month approximately?
|source = ]. ] (]) 07:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
|quoted = 1
|align = left
| width = 100%
}}


* {{pagelinks|Ilyas El Maliki}}
Another editor, ], has come forward to point out the possibility that there exists a conflict of interest in the editing process of the article:
* {{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)
{{Quote box
|quote = If one believes an editor may have a conflict of interest the appropriate step is to post a message to their talk page asking them to disclose any conflict of interest. If the response is unsatisfactory the next appropriate step is to take it to the ]. This is not appropriate content for this talk page.
|source = ]. ] (]) 08:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
|quoted = 1
|align = left
| width = 100%
}}


::See ]. --] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 13:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
While I have fully disclosed my position, ] appears to be evading the topic of his/her conflict of interest:


== Lindy Li ==
{{Quote box
|quote = My firm engages in a mix of quantitative trading in global asset classes in various time horizons (including long-term macro trades) and we do not engage in U.S. equities trading... We do focus on developing bleeding-edge technology to protect ourselves against predatory practices from certain high-speed traders. As such, I am writing these views with an independent assessment of the facts.
|source = ]. ] (]) 06:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
|quoted = 1
|align = left
| width = 100%
}}


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
I learned about ] and ] originally through a CNBC interview between ]'s CEO and ].<ref name="wsj">{{cite web|url=http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2014/04/01/epic-debate-on-high-frequency-trading-between-michael-lewis-brad-katsuyama-and-william-obrien/|title=The Wall Street Journal Market Watch|publisher=marketwatch.com|accessdate=2014-05-11}}</ref> As such, a citation referencing this interview was my first contribution to the article on ]. As a member of the financial industry that is unassociated to Katsuyama, BATS and the "]" topic at hand, I found the topic interesting and carried out my own research to weigh the pros and cons. Seeing that the articles on ] and ] were lacking in neutrality because most of the content had come from either ] (IEX themselves) or a single book, ], that promotes ], I hoped to add a few references to balance the views in both articles.
* {{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)
My contributions seem to be rational, as ] has pointed out:


:{{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)
{{Quote box

|quote = I tend to agree with an editor who pointed out this article relies heavily on primary or biased sources which seem to present the subject as "heroic". I think this should be toned down and balanced with content based on secondary sources' discussion '''of IEX'''. I also think the article could be made more clear and explanatory.
== State University of New York at Geneseo ==
|source = ]. ] (]) 03:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
{{atop
|quoted = 1
| result = Soft blocked for promotional username representing Geneseo's Communications and Marketing (CommMark) team. ] (]/]) 01:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
|align = left
| width = 100%
}} }}


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
Thanks for your kind attention to this issue! ] (]) 08:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|State University of New York at Geneseo}}
* {{userlinks|CommMark1871}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
This editor has only edited the college's article, their username indicates a potential connection ("Comms" may indicate a role in communications at the college and 1871 is the date when the college official opened), and they have not responded to a brief but direct question on their User Talk page about this potential connection. Their edits are not objectionable but ] is not optional and our ] exists for good reasons. ] (]) 23:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


==== References ==== == Kathryn Babayan ==
{{Reflist}}
: Comment: someone used a ref tag above for some reason. -- ] (]) 07:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
:: I was not notifed by Sophie.grothendieck about this discussion. I would like to clarify that I have nothing to do with either IEX or Brad Katsuyama, who happen to be prominent and public critics of HFT. For this very reason it is Sophie.grothendieck who has substantial conflict of interest, since he is involved in his own HFT firm and has lied about his HFT involvement in the very same dialoge he pointed out above. Also MrBill3 was taking about Sophie.grothendieck in the comment of 08:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC) and raised the issue on Sophie.grothendieck's talk page , not on mine. ] (]) 09:18, 7 June 2014 (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)
::: I think the fact that I was willing to lift the veil of anonymity to declare no conflict of interest is a very strong testament of my integrity. In contrast, the fact that you're using "HFT" in the negative connotation in the above sentence shows that you're not approaching this topic with a neutral point of view. ] (]) 15:44, 7 June 2014 (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 ==
:: My username is an alias and does not resemble a living person. I have never claimed otherwise. My initials are completely different to the initials of the person it was claimed I would impersonate and the last names share just one character, the "i" at the end. As a sign of good faith however I am willing to have my username changed if community consensus arises to do so. ] (]) 09:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


*{{user3|CaptainBeany}}
::: KristinaChi and *** are evidently ]. The fact that you showed no hesitation to namedrop non-fictitious entities (e.g. my group) further strengthens the premise that you were deliberately namedropping a non-fictitious person (e.g. ***), and shows your intent to ] us. ] (]) 15:50, 7 June 2014 (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.
::{{Redacted}}


In 2010 they and asked for a sourced paragraph about a fraud conviction to be removed from the article. Discussions in response at
::: Your accusation is defamatory. The tag "high-frequency trading" was added to the page because of our ''research interest'' in high-frequency trading, not because we ''practice'' high-frequency trading. I know a whole variety of domain experts at high-frequency trading (e.g. the ], the ], ]) who nevertheless do not practice it - we don't consider them "high-frequency traders" simply because they stated high-frequency trading as a research interest. I replaced the name of our group with asterisks for security reasons, I think your blatant disregard for our confidentiality is disrespectful and uncivil, and in breach of ]. ] (]) 15:44, 7 June 2014 (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)
:: Before today, essentially all his edits were directed at prominent critics of high-frequency trading, such as Bradley Katsuyama and Katsuyama's firm IEX. ] (]) 09:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


:The user to the COIN notification, though exactly what they're trying to communicate is beyond me. --] (]) 05:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::: On the contrary, all of ''your'' edits are directed at censoring criticisms of ] and ] and it seems you have spent an inordinate amount of effort (word count of your talk page arguments) arguing just to remove the criticisms rather than adding any new content. I've also ''added'' factual content to MIT's page during those edits.


== Science of Identity Foundation ==
::: As you say it yourself, Katsuyama and IEX have been making criticisms. Why is it that their points get preferential treatment in your editing efforts while you:
{{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)}}
:::: 1. call Scott Locklin's views a "smear",
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
:::: 2. denounce the views of CEO of ], a multi-billion dollar company by private market valuation, as "contentious"?
* {{pagelinks|Science of Identity Foundation}}
::: The CEO of BATS and Scott Locklin has been held in great regard by ] investors like me even before Katsuyama's name became public. The huge contrast in creditworthiness is quantifiable: A Google search of "William O'Brien BATS" yields nearly 100x the number of results, and "Scott Locklin" yields nearly 10x the number of results, as compared to a Google search on Brad Katsuyama. I don't see a fair reason why references to their statements have to be silenced. ] (]) 15:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
* {{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}}


== ] ==
Sophie.grothendieck operated the following user names and IP addresses to advance the very same points/ make the same edits with the same oddities like forgetting to sign comments, among other oddities:
* {{userlinks|Kateblau}}


Multiple draft creations of spammy company articles in a relatively short period of time:
:: starting 00:20, 12 May 2014
*]
:: starting 00:27, 12 May 2014
*]
:: starting 04:41, 2 June 2014
*]
:: starting 04:57, 2 June 2014
*]
:: starting 18:50, 5 June 2014
*]
*]
*]
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)
:: ] (]) 09:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
:Hello! I am creating articles about companies in cyborgization and automation, scientific figures in this field, this will be done in a short period of time, because a lot of analytical work has been done on these companies and I am uploading previously compiled information, this is not advertising, I made several mistakes, because this is my first time on Misplaced Pages as an author, can I please continue to create pages? ] (]) 18:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::It appears that you are using a LLM like ChatGPT to create these drafts, and that your own communications are machine translated. Is that true? ] (]) 18:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*I've deleted some of these; they all seem to be on the same pattern, making roughly the same claims. I assume LLM use at minimum. ] <small>(])</small> 20:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== John Ortberg ==
::: This accusation is patently false.


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
:::: - appears to be my current IP, which makes sense because I registered my account right afterwards.
Pages:
:::: - appears to have begun contributing on 23 January 2014 on ], long before I started editing the ] article. This is a ] registered by RCN originating near ].
* {{pagelinks|John Ortberg}}
:::: - appears to be a ] registered by Illinois Century Network originating from ].
Users:
:::: - I have no CheckUser privileges but I think checking his/her IP will immediately clear me of your accusation.
* {{userlinks|Timothydw82}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Timothydw82 is a ] which is used solely to promote, defend and censor valid information about ]. Timothydw82 admits to consulting with Ortberg about the article on ] and has also used that page to make disparaging comments about Ortberg's son, Daniel Lavery. This is both a serious COI and POV problem. He has been warned before by other editors. My most recent warning (for POV editing) was met with what seems to be feigned incomprehension and "Do you work for Misplaced Pages?". I think it is time to put an end to this farce. ] (]) 02:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


:Thanks for sharing your concerns. I’d like to address the points you’ve raised to clarify any misunderstandings about my contributions and intentions.
::: It is not plausible that I registered 3 other ]s on different networks, under different organization names, based in different cities, and seemingly edited the article across every hour of the day. Static IPs cost substantial time and money to own and register, more so than it costs to run ]'s website. The more likely explanation is that these editors showed up because I emailed a ] mailing list about the ] article to invite editors with a more objective view to take part in the editing of the article. This would be consistent with the fact that their origin cities appear to be financial hubs. Given that ] was designed to help ] investors like me and probably those 3 other editors, our personal views should actually be biased ''in favor of'' IEX - and the fact that all of us seem to have converged on the editing efforts on the criticisms of IEX goes to show that we were able to practice full neutrality. ] (]) 15:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
:First, while my account may appear to have a narrow focus, my goal has always been to ensure that articles on Misplaced Pages adhere to its principles of neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sourcing. My edits related to John Ortberg and related topics are aimed at upholding these standards, not promoting or censoring information. If there are specific examples where you believe I’ve violated these principles, I welcome a constructive discussion to address them.
:Second, regarding my consultation with John Ortberg: I acknowledge that I have communicated with him, as I’ve disclosed on my user talk page. However, my involvement has been strictly limited to ensuring that edits align with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines and reflect accurate information.
:Third, concerning the comments about Daniel Lavery, I understand how sensitive these matters are. My intent was not to disparage anyone, and if any of my remarks were perceived as inappropriate, please bring them to my attention.
:I'd also like to express my disappointment in your accusing me via direct message of treating you like "idiots". That felt like a curt, uncalled for accusation with little to no dialogue or support. You have not engaged in a discussion with me but clearly expressed your desire to see me blocked for little to no good reason I can discern.
:Finally, regarding warnings from other editors: I value feedback and strive to learn from it. I am more than willing to engage in dialogue to resolve disputes and improve the quality of articles. If there are ongoing concerns about my edits, I encourage the use of formal dispute resolution processes so we can work collaboratively toward a solution. ] (]) 02:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Is that AI generated text? I ran it through a few different detectors and most thought that it was at least partially AI generated. ] (]) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation ==
:: Two other, experienced editors objected content Sophie.grothendieck added to IEX. Among other grave breaches of policies, at least a handful of times Sophie.grothendieck re-inserted a wordpress blog link into this article, it is currently in the IEX article as reference
:: 9. ^ "Michael Lewis: shilling for the buyside". April 4, 2014. Retrieved 2014-05-30.
:: that was identified to read and look like a smear and was also objected by another editor. ] (]) 09:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

::: I wholeheartedly agree to remove Scott Locklin's wordpress reference and I was about to do so. But I was unable to carry on my editing efforts on the article because you have been repeatedly and nondiscretionarily undoing changes from 5-7 different editors in bulk, including improvements to parts of the article unassociated to the section that I wrote - which is why I had to bring your destructive efforts and conflict of interest to the attention of this noticeboard.
::: I was not notified by you that you think I have been in ''grave of policies''. Also as a sign of good faith, I am willing to resolve your concerns if community consensus arises to do so.
::: ] (]) 15:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
*Looking at this, there seems to be a contradiction: Sophie.grothendieck has claimed to be both a disinterested researcher, and a buy-side investor ("buy-side investors like me"). I suppose it is possible to be both at the same time, but nonetheless I think that editor is too much involved with this topic to edit the article on HFT or any of the companies or other organizations involved in it. Even neutral edits can exhibit OWNership. I consider that . KristinaChi is similarly too involved--tho I understand that editor to be currently & I think rightly blocked for outing. I am prepared to issue corresponding topic bans, but I ask for comments. ''']''' (]) 20:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

== ] ==


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> <!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
Pages:
* {{la|Banc De Binary}}
* {{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. --> <!-- 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 know a discussion on this article has already been archived, but I would like to renew it here. I find it suspicious that a marginally notable company article (which was previously deleted for not passing WP:CORP) has a large number of intensely interested editors that are persistent about using low-quality sources like press releases, court records, Investopedia, etc.

Some circumstantial events suggest that the article has become a battle-ground for competing financial interests, whereas some are paid a small fee to use their accounts to add negative content, and the other has used a paid editing firm probably (if the accusations of socks, etc. are true), offered a bounty to anyone who can control the article and so on.

Since a COI can never be proven anywhere and we have no way to obtain evidence one way or another, I'm just left with my paranoia and suspicious circumstances regarding online ads for paid edits. So I'm not sure anything can be done about it, except to focus on content and high-quality sources. However, knowing that there is most likely so much COI going on, with competing interests, it's probably impossible to develop a consensus that is not astroturfed. ] (]) 01:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

== ]: RfC: Move criticism up lede? ==


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.


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


Also worth noting the is similarly fluffy. I suspect Park/his foundation are watching these articles.
Should we move criticism of Dr Chopra up the lede? Right now it's in the second half of the final para.


] (]) 11:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC) ] (]) 05:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 10:26, 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:Atlantic Union Bank Talk:AvePoint Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Edi Birsan Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Bunq Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Michael Dell Talk:Adela Demetja Talk:Etraveli Group Talk: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:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Optum Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician) Talk:QuinStreet Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Trendyol Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    This Day on Bella Disu

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

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

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

    Special:Contributions/213.8.97.219

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    User:Taeyasu/Sample page

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

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

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

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

    Chris Antonopoulos (footballer) and Fort Lauderdale Strikers

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

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

    Adolph Jentsch

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

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

    Conflict of interest - Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra Article

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

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

    Vanskere

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

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

    Marc Jorgenson

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

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

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

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

    Ilyas El Maliki

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

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

    Lindy Li

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

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

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

    State University of New York at Geneseo

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

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

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

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

    Kathryn Babayan

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

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

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

    Captain Beany

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

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

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

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

    Science of Identity Foundation

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

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

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

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

    User:Kateblau

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

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

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

    John Ortberg

    Pages:

    Users:

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

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

    Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation

    Pages:

    Users:

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

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

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

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

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

    Categories: