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 20:40, 4 July 2009 editWillking1979 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators40,884 edits →User:Georgianwebteam: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:23, 19 January 2025 edit undoSmartse (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators49,613 edits →User:Thebosullivan: links 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{redirect|WP:COIN|the WikiProject on articles about coins|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Numismatics}}
]
]

] ]
]<!-- ]
]

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

-->{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{archivemainpage|Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard}} |archiveheader = {{archivemainpage|Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 33 |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! -->

New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.

PLEASE REMEMBER TO SIGN YOUR MESSAGE

Copy, do not edit, the below text and paste it below the newest section at the bottom of the page

-->

== ] ==

{{Template:Resolved|The article was speedily deleted. -- ''']]''' 19:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)}}Created article ]. ] (]) 06:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

== Possible ] found by ] ==

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

== Requested edits ==

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

== ] and ] ==

{{Resolved|1=Article deleted, user blocked, nothing else to do. &nbsp;–&nbsp;] (]) 19:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)}}
* {{article|Artez Interactive}}
* {{userlinks|Artezinteractive}}
User formed a single purpose account to create an article for the user's company (user name is the name of the company). The user's ] consists entirely a brochure for the company, complete with the company's logo. The article is a pure puff piece, as is the userpage. The user removes COI and other tags from the article without consensus (the only other editors are the ones who placed the tags). User was warned on user's talk page, did not respond, and persists in un-tagging the article. I found out about this because it is discussed as an example of blatant COI company spam at ] and brought it here. ] ] 20:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

:Pardon me for asking, but is anyone going to look into this? ] ] 19:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
::Artezinteractive was blocked for spamming and COI issues. Artez Interactive (the user) hasn't made any edits, or at least no edits on any existing pages. The Artez Interactive article was deleted. Are there any unresolved issues? This was all done prior to your last message. -- ''']]''' 18:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Marking this as resolved, as it clearly is.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] (]) 19:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

== Relisting ] and ] ==

{{Template:resolved|COI tag removed from article, users accused of COI haven't edited article in years. -- ''']]''' 20:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)}}
*{{la|Sathya Sai Baba}}
*{{userlinks|Andries}}
*{{userlinks|SSS108}}

Nobody commented, so please do so now. ]. ] (]) 07:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

:I stand by the CoI tag. Not only you, but the second largest contributor of the article, ], were banned from the article for a possible CoI. The tag is more than appropriate, as it only warns the reader that the article was edited by one or more users that may have had a Conflict of Interest. I don't see how the tag couldn't be appropriate. Thanks, ] <sup>(]/])</sup> 20:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:::SSS108 and I had opposite opinions, so we balanced each other out. Again, two years and many edits have passed since we last edited this article, so I think the tag is inappropriate. ] (]) 06:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
::::You cannot deny that the article most certainly has information that one or both of you added. That alone makes the tag appropriate, as you were both charged with having a CoI. I mean, the length of time since your last edit should have absolutely nothing to do with the CoI tag, unless you can provide diffs where each bit of info that you and SSS108 added was removed or changed. Until then, the tag is appropriate and should remain on the page, as it serves as a warning to each reader of the article that the two largest contributors had a conflict of interest for the two-three years that they edited it. Thanks, ] <sup>(]/])</sup> 03:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
:::The article has been full-protected due to a revert war. There has been plenty of dispute about the article. ] from the article including Andries and SSS108. See also:
::::*]
::::*]
::::*]
::::*] (objection to removal of well-sourced criticism)
::::*
:::Is there anyone who wants to check the article for neutrality and make suggestions here for how to fix it? Keeping the COI tag on an article forever is not desirable. ] (]) 13:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


The text of the COI tag says:
*''A major contributor to this article appears to have a conflict of interest with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Misplaced Pages's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page.''
The tag is not intended as a warning for readers so much as a notice for editors that there are problems which need to be fixed. It particulrly mentions that the article may may require cleanup in order to comply with NPOV. However the article already has an NPOV tag on it, so it doesn't add much there. The other issue is that the tag is intended to be discussed on the talk page, with specific complaints that can be fixed. Onopearls wrote on the talk page:
*''The fact remains that you are the largest contributor to this article. Information that you added remains in the article. That alone justifies adding the tag, as a general warning to readers.''
That seems to be saying that the tag needs to stay up indefinitely, or at least until every word added by a COI editor has been removed. That is not a helpful approach. It would be more helpful if the editor would identify the text that is problematic so it can be fixed. If the editor fails to do that then it'd reasonable to remove the tag. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 19:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:Since no list of the problems to be fixed has been supplied, I went ahead and removed the COI tag from the article. ] (]) 04:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

::User Andries maintains a website called Ex-Baba,http://www.exbaba.com/, he is listed on the home page as the main administrator. This site makes many outrageous, unfounded and unproven claims against Sai Baba and continues a high profile smear campaign against Sai Baba even to this day. Please review this website. That being said though I believe the article has reached neutral status so I don't think the tag should be there.] (]) 05:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Thanks for agreeing to remove the tag. And by the way, the article was LESS critical when I still edited it. ] (]) 05:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{Template:resolved|The ] violations are 4 years old. -- ''']]''' 20:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)}}
{{User|Caspar Henderson}}
Many self promotional edits including autobio spam. ] (]) 20:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
: I hate to say it, but it looks like his autobiography is pretty notable, assuming those references back up the claims made. He hasn't edited it in nearly 4 years. Some notification that he is the subject of a Misplaced Pages article would be warranted, but otherwise I don't see what the COI problem is if he never touches his own article. -- ''']]''' 18:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{Template:resolved|Calling "resolved" per EdJohnston's words below. -- ''']]''' 19:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|Npres Media}}<br />
*{{article|Fort Myers, Florida}}<br />

This ] has edited articles solely for the purpose of adding redlinks to a church, a pastor and his grandson. I've attempted to engage the editor in discussion, telling him about the notability standards and pointing him to the guidelines for each man, but he simply keeps adding the info back in, unsourced. A search was conducted, but I can't find anything that would qualify either of them under notability standards. ] (]) 09:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:There's no evidence of a ]. The number of edits seem fairly minimal. They stopped just short of ] (as did you). It's a shame that they are uncommunicative, but there doesn't seem to be any gross violations made. -- ''']]''' 21:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
::Yes, there were a small number of edits. They were all to mention the endeavors of a single person, Rev. Daymon. Whether mentioning that he founded the church, a school or that another non-notable person was his grandson, they all involved him. There was a second article on a NFL player where the same user inserted an unsourced mention of the players elementary school, which was, you guessed it, the same elementary school that Daymon founded. The account has made no edits since then. Most definately looking like a ] and I suspected a COI because of the way they were written. ] (]) 21:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
:::No edits by Npres Media since June 19. It appears that Niteshift36 has cleaned up whatever problems may have been created by this editor in ]. I suggest that this report can be closed. ] (]) 04:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

== User palefist ==

{{Template:resolved|No evidence of COI was given, and reporter is being investigated for sockpuppetry. -- ''']]''' 20:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)}}
I believe user ] has COI being an upset customer or competitor trying to edit ]. I believe we need to warn " palefist" from editing this article. See discussion board.] (]) 20:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:Evidence is always good. Do you have any? ] (]) 20:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::Ironic. And don't hold your breath waiting for evidence. :-) ] (]) 21:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
please ask him to state his real name and email and representetive from the company Jeff Godfrey will run if he placed any orders with company. you may ask him if he ever placed an order with th company. the other evidence is his contribution list-he is writing only about Bloomex.] (]) 22:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

'''Comment:''' I am troubled that ], a editor with an admitted COI ("I was all my adult life in floral business, owing number of retail outlets in Canada.I live in Ottawa, Canada and I involved in wholesale and bouquet distribution business now"), apparently feels he can edit floral industry articles at will, as do the other "Alex..." etc. accounts. What is the correct solution for this behavior, wholesale reversions? --] (]) 01:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

:I lost track. Was a sockpuppet investigation ever started? It sure seems like all these florist users are the same guy. ] (]) 01:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

::Not to my knowledge, but I'm not an admin so I don't follows such things. Lots of discussion of possible suspects at ], though. Based on his edits, I'd guess that ] is actually a different person. Perhaps a like-thinking cousin in Florida? --] (]) 01:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

:::I'm going to try to start a sockpuppet investigation (never done that before). As to the request for my personal info, I never used Bloomex and have never worked in the industry. Bloomex started spamming a discussion group I was reading a while back after one of our members reported an extremely bad experience with their service. The spam came in the form of dozens of "positive" reviews written by new members who cut and pasted reviews within seconds of signing up, then never posted again (pretty damning evidence of sock puppets and meat puppets). The bogus reviews were deleted by the admins once someone pointed out they were the exact same "positive reviews", word for word, popping up on other discussion boards. Admins figured from IP info, dates and times that Bloomex employees were searching for negative Bloomex reviews and trying to spam them out of existence with their own phony positive reviews. I added the controversy section to the Bloomex Misplaced Pages article, which was obviously posted by an employee as advertising and used for SEO purposes. It looks like it was Jeff Godfrey(user godfreyj) who posted it, using an alias that he often used elsewhere (polygene). That user didn't edit any other article, and created the article shortly after Godfrey joined Bloomex as internet marketing strategist and SEO dude. They use multiple gray/black hat methods (fake reviews; duplicate blogs containing the same material; multiple domains, including a fake review site registered to Bloomex owner Dimitri, etc., etc.) Pretty dastardly stuff.

:::The assertion that I've only edited Bloomex is clearly false, based on the publicly available contributions listing on my user page. The Flowermen have a habit of accusing others of what they do themselves. ] (]) 17:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
::::The SPI case has been filed at ]. ] (]) 04:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
If Floralexpert has been engaged in disruptive behavior, that is certainly bad. If Floralexpert has been inserting their own POV, or been uncivil, or has engaged in sockpuppetry, that is definitely bad. But if Floralexpert is a professional in the floral industry, how is that a COI? On the contrary, a person with first-hand experience in the floral industry is the best person to edit such articles assuming they are able to maintain a neutral POV, avoid original research, and contribute in a positive manner. Misplaced Pages can always use more experts. I'm not at all defending Floralexpert, and if Floralexpert is somehow connected with Bloomex itself that's obviously a COI, but I'm very much disturbed by the insistence that Floralexpert has an "admitted COI". The only "COI" that Floralexpert admitted to is being in the floral industry, and if we start chasing away experts then where will Misplaced Pages be? -- ''']]''' 19:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
:Check out the article's Talk page and the article's edit history since mid-May. There has been a steady stream of editors, many of whom have 'floral' in their name, who have been trying to remove well-sourced criticism of Bloomex from the article. One might be forgiven for speculating that there is an off-site campaign trying to whitewash this article. ] (]) 01:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
::A number of accounts who appear to be engaged in sockpuppetry to push a POV, yes, that's bad and the SPI case was warranted. But we have to be careful not to consider a person's real life vocation and/or expertise in a field to be a conflict of interest in and of itself, which has been suggested at least by CliffC. -- ''']]''' 23:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
:::I didn't mean to suggest that expertise in a field makes for a ''de facto'' conflict of interest, far from it. However, when we combine ]'s statement of expertise and experience with his record of edits since he first appeared on May 20, it's hard not to believe that he is likely a Bloomex officer, employee or contractor, or has some other business or familial relationship with the company. I find it particularly laughable that he claims on another editor's talk page "I came accross arcticle acidentaly", but was to delete a link to the company's negative Better Business Bureau report. --] (]) 01:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

== ] and ] ==

{{Template:resolved|Content dispute with no real COI issues reported or evidence given. -- ''']]''' 20:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)}}
] products which contain ] have been ordered off the market by the ] as hazardous. {{user|Cosmic Latte}} keeps trying to minimize this, in 46 edits to those two articles removing parts of FDA statements, adding company denials, and manipulating headings to deemphasize the product recall and reports of injury. It's not clear if this editor has some connection to the company. --] (]) 20:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
:My edits have invoked policies and guidelines, so I do not see why you are ] that I might have a "connection" to anything other than Misplaced Pages. And, having assumed such a possibility, you could have simply asked me to confirm it or deny it. In that case I would have denied it, given that my interest in Zicam stems not from any corporate connections, but rather from the fact--surprising though it may be--that I have caught at least a cold or two in my lifetime. If you still are not satisfied, then perhaps you could provide some actual diffs to demonstrate how my edits have been unreasonable, or at least less reasonable than your repeated and largely unqualified accusations (, , , ) of "whitewashing"? ] (]) 08:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
::See this edit which deleted a quote from the FDA's warning letter. This is blatant whitewashing. Removing the FDA's words "A significant and growing body of evidence substantiates that the Zicam Cold Remedy intranasal products may pose a serious risk to consumers who use them." is a bit much. --] (]) 16:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Allow me to refer interested editors to ], where I have explained my actions in-depth and where (as opposed to here) this discussion should have materialized in the first place. ] (]) 17:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
::::I have only looked at the last diff provided by Nagle. No whitewashing at all. Encyclopedias don't contain long passages like that from primary sources unless there is a very good reason. The edit summary contained sufficient justification. The source from which the citation came is still linked as a reference. If this wasn't a US government source, citing excessively like that would even be a copyright violation, since it's clearly not covered by fair use. ] ] 18:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::I agree with Hans. I’ve recently edited the ] article to correct a “broad-brushing” problem which left the inaccurate impression that all Zicam products were being recalled. I can see no evidence of “whitewashing” (which was what led me to the article) nor which suggests Cosmic Latte has a COI problem. It really seems to be nothing more than a content/style issue, and I would recommend closing this as resolved. ] <small>]</small> 02:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

:Note that ] has been attacking the ] with claims that the sole reason for the health warning is because Zicam is one of his sponsors. Beware of ]. ] (]) 21:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
::Unless Rush Limbaugh has been editing the articles I don't see what your statement has to do with this discussion. This isn't a ], WTWAG. Nagle, you've obviously posted your complaint on the wrong board. You haven't even really alleged that Cosmic Latte has a ], you are instead making a ] complaint, and honestly it seems to be a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. There are ] for resolving those conflicts and they don't involve reporting someone on a noticeboard (not until you've exhausted all other alternatives). -- ''']]''' 19:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

*{{article|Jorge Bechara}}
*{{user|Georgebech}}
This article reads like a resume and seems in serious need of an overhaul (and it's been that way for almost a year). It may be an autobiography, based on the similarity of username to subject. (I imagine that IP editors in the range 58.178 are likely the same user.) I came upon the article through OTRS, clearing use for an image. I've tagged it for a POV check and will notify the contributor of our COI guidelines, but wanted to list it here in case somebody had time and opportunity to look it over. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
:Hmm. A new ] came in and removed the tag, possibly inadvertently? I've restored it. Back to copyright matters. :) --] <sup>]</sup> 20:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the user is the subject of the article, based on the fact that the apparent self-portrait that appears in the article was taken by Georgebech. ] (]) 20:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed some fluff but was reverted. Added COI and refimprove tags. ] (]) 22:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

:I've placed a COI template on the anon's talk page as well (and added 58.178.73.241 to the list of parties above). ] <small>]</small> 03:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

All of the IP addresses appear to be part of the same dynamic address pool under .dsl.syd.iprimus.net.au. So it's possible they are all the same user getting a different IP address every time they connect. ] (]) 12:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

:Um, yeah ... I got distracted from my computer for a while and forgot what had already been written about that. I removed the note above; as for the talk page, maybe he'll come across it in three more years. Pardon me while I go find a wet trout for self-abuse. :( ] <small>]</small> 03:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
::One of the 58.178.* IPs left a talk comment at Moonriddengirl's page, which is the first time ever that this editor has engaged in talk. I am leaving a note for {{user|Georgebech}} about the discussion here to see if we can get his attention. Though the article is tagged for POV, it looks like it could be fixed without much work. The sequence of edits by the IP suggests he may be getting the message about our policies. ] (]) 01:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find any reliable sources for what appears to be an ] so I have listed it at ]. ] (]) 22:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

We deliberately chose a username similar to what was to be our first wiki edit/creation. The subject attracted our interest through the mentioned international media publications and institutions. The included information and images are from and , which we regarded as reliable sources. Understanding the issues discussed on this page we’re trying to fix the article hoping that it's a valid initial contribution. ] (]) 13:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{Template:resolved|The articles were deleted at AfD and salted to avoid another recreation. -- ''']]''' 16:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)}}
*{{user|Yungd360}}
*{{article|The Prince Yung D}}
*{{article|Yung D discography}}


See . ''']''' 20:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==
{{Template:resolved|He seems to have left Misplaced Pages, for better or worse. -- ''']]''' 23:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)}}
*{{la|Thomas Alured Faunce}}
*{{userlinks|Fauncet}}

Subject has probably written his own bio, ] (based on editor's username and the tone of the bio - you have to read it), and is inserting references to himself in other articles left and right. I don't know that the bio is notable enough to keep. Since I'm already involved in another conflict with him at ], it would be better if an uninvolved editor (and one more knowledgable about COI) looked into this. User is {{User|Fauncet}}. ]&nbsp;<i><sup>]</sup></i> 21:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
:I strongly suspect this is true considering that almost every reference given in the article is self-published. On the other hand, the subject does seem pretty notable, so it's unlikely that the article would be deleted, but in the future he shouldn't be allowed to edit his own page. Of course there's no problem with him using the talk page to make suggestions or provide information to be added. -- ''']]''' 20:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
:Oh, I left a notice at his ]. -- ''']]''' 20:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
::The article on ] reads like a resume and seems a bit fluffy. I wish there were some regular editor who has the time to rewrite it. Checking ] causes some concern that Faunce could be founding an empire here on Wikpedia. For example, the new article on ] is mostly by Fauncet, and he seems to be one of the two contributors to that new field. I am wondering if Faunce, as an associate professor, has already done such important work that he needs to be cited in ], ] and ]. There might be a concern that he has a COI in attempting to add mentions of his own work to other articles. ] (]) 03:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
:::I don't know, I get the impression that he came onto Misplaced Pages without a lot of foreknowledge and started making what he thought were appropriate contributions. I think if he still has interest in Misplaced Pages he might be fine with a little guidance, he has taken the time to explain what he was doing while in my experience an editor who is intentionally trying to push something on Misplaced Pages is much more defiant. I tried to think what I would have done in his situation, where he thought Misplaced Pages had an article on him that was blank, and tried to improve it, and I would probably have done the same thing. -- ''']]''' 23:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

== Susan Singleton ==

{{Resolved|1=Article speedily deleted, username blocked.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] (]) 03:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)}}
* {{article|Susan Singleton}} was created by and is being edited by {{userlinks|Singlelaw}}... clear conflict of interest. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">'''<font color="Black">]</font>'''<font color="silver">]</font></span>] 21:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I tagged it COI, but I would also question notability. ] (]) 00:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

:Article is ]. I have reported the user to ].&nbsp;–&nbsp;] (]) 19:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

== Cloudruns. I suspect has connections with ] the producers of ] ==
{{Template:resolved|No clear COI can be established. -- ''']]''' 23:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)}}
] is an high-end maths program produced by ]. The ] article has always been very promotional - a point that has been made by several different people at different times in the talk page. One of the regular editors {{user|JonMcLoone}} admits on the ] he is employed by ], and as you will note, several have complained out his Mathematica links. But Jon does provide information to the ] page which only an employee would know.

However, my concern here is about {{user|Cloudruns}}, who I believe is trying to promote ] too much, at the expensive of other similar software. {{user|Cloudruns}} edits many different pages on maths software, usually adding material to give the impression nothing can touch Mathematica. Some examples of dubious edits are:

* On a ], he wrote of ] ''Ubiquitous system also includes extensive numeric capabilities, statistics, image processing, number theory, boolean computation and is a development environment.'' It's far from clear the program is ''ubiquitous''
* Cloudruns adds ] to the page on a ] User {{user|Toscha}} later removed edit, correctly pointed out ] is not interactive geometry software. Nobody would buy ] for that purpose.
* Although I would not dispute he was right to remove some hype words from an article on Sage (a competitor to ]), he does tend to add hype whenever he can if it benefits Mathematica, and remove hype when he can if it might be detrimental to Mathematica.
* When I wrote '''], which aims to be a free alternative to Mathematica, can be used as an interface to Mathematica''' Cloudruns changed it to '''] mathematics software can be used as an interface to Mathematica'''.

I have no hard evidence to support my believe he probably works for Wolfram Research, but when asked both in ], and ] if this is true, he declines to answer. ] (]) 03:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
:Does anyone have any comment on this? I'm not sure what is supposed to happen, as this is the first time I have reported anyone for a conflict of interest. ] (]) 21:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
::I've left a comment on Mathematica's ]. I actually agreed with him on that particular issue about the "hype" about Sage, but that doesn't mean I agree with all of his edits. I reminded him that ] strongly encourages editors to disclose a conflict of interest if they wish to edit an article whose subject they are affiliated with. On the other hand, Drkirkby, the question has been raised as to whether or not you are affiliated with Sage, and if so I give you the same encouragement for disclosure. -- ''']]''' 20:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
:::I agree there was some hype words. I did not write them myself. I agree he was right to remove them. It's just when you look at many of his edits, they seem '''very''' biased in one direction.
:::I do work as a developer on the Sage project (unpaid) - my main interest is improving the port to Solaris. I'll post a bit more info on the Mathematica talk page. ] (]) 01:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Does anything else happen when ] '''still''' refuses to answer if he has a ], despite your request? He still edits the Mathematica page in a pro-Wolfram way? Before his last round of edits, which promote the product even more, someone else has said in ] that '''''FWIW, I'm not particularly vested in any edits to this article, but am a regular Mathematica user. From that informed distance, this page comes across (to me at least) as strikingly Mathematica-biased: the text reads like ad copy...''''' I'm not the only to feel that article is biased, and there are others who made the point in the archived talk pages. One person commented on this, but never edited the article as he disclosed he was a former employee. ] just increases that bias. ] (]) 13:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Well, no, I don't think anything else happens now. The difficulty is that I don't think you can really show a conflict of interest here. It might be shown that he has a pro-Mathematica bias, but the ] might be a better place to try to get that resolved. Honestly, his refusal to answer is suspicious but he's not at all required to answer. ] is a guideline, and doesn't supersede an editor's right to privacy, and you'll notice in reading the guideline that the language is quite careful, talking about what is "recommended" and "suggested". I think it might be worth bringing up in later discussions that he has refused to disclose his affiliation or lack thereof, but don't hound him about it or that could be considered harrassment and could backfire. If somehow it is revealed that he does have those affiliations and refused to disclose them earlier that will reflect poorly on him, but in the meantime what if he says no? If he's lying, you can't prove it. So I'd let this go of this particular angle and if he acts ] either report to the POV board or go through regular ]. -- ''']]''' 22:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::Thank you very much {{User|Atama}}. Although we both agree the refusal of {{user|Cloudruns}} to answer whether he has a conflict of interest is suspicious, I will not ask him any more about it. But I will as you suggest mention in any further discussions that {{user|Cloudruns}} has refused to disclose whether or not he has an affiliation with ]. I will copy this over to the Mathematica talk page so there is a record of it there. Thank you once again. ] (]) 12:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

== Ray Dotoratos ==

{{Template:resolved|A definitive COI can't be established, but the ] of the article seems to be ]. -- ''']]''' 20:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)}}
Hi folks. I could use some help with ], which is a clear ] and ] problem. I don't know for certain it is an autobiography, but the author is aggressively removing my requests for sources, and my attempts to engage him on his talk page have only produced a stream of insults and reverts. By the way, Mr. Dotoratos gets very few google hits, so the issue of notability may also be relevant. Thank you for any assistance, ] ] 04:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

:Subject is not notable as far as I can tell. The few news hits that come up are just listings of scheduled performances. Given the promotional text, COI, lack of notability, and absence of sources, it's almost a speedy deletion candidate, certainly AfD. ] (]) 18:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
::Probably a COI, but I'd say delete the article in AfD and deal with his other behavior through normal channels when needed. -- ''']]''' 20:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

== Rockstar (drink) ==

{{Template:resolved|User in question has been indef blocked. -- ''']]''' 20:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)}}
* {{userlinks|56ghyv842851654}} - active at ], appears to be very strongly connected with the company, which has had some recent controversy. Among other things, user is pushing an ] website. Apart from constantly reverting/editing, is there anything else that can or should be done? Perhaps someone else could keep an eye on it at least. ] (]) 19:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

* I am trying to add correct information about the company. Misplaced Pages was designed to give information about topics and not be used as a trashing ground for political mudslinging. Information on this page is misleading and not entirely correct plus information that I have added that is correct and relevant to the company is being erased as to push other people's agenda. We have no problems with people talking about what has happened but we want it to be correct and be able to share good facts about the company. ] (]) 23 June 2009

::Please read ], there is a huge difference between an encyclopedic article and an advertisement masquerading as an article. &nbsp;–&nbsp;] (]) 19:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Information i provided was about the events that Rockstar has sponsored and of the factual information regarding the Company. At no point was i soliciting. This is an article about the company and i provided information about the company. So this does not qualify as spam. ] (]) 23 June 2009

::::It may not have been your intention, but that was the way it read. Filling an article about a company with minute detail about its activities can give the impression of being promotional and is also not very encyclopedic.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] (]) 20:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

:*Doesn't basically say all that need be said? ] (]) 20:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

::Good catch, and of course ] and ] accounts are not permitted.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] (]) 20:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

* Then let me ask what information is considered valid? Misplaced Pages cannot be a trash site. Rockstar is entitled to have valid information about the company. This cannot be a trash site. The other articles about the boycott are also fall into COI yet those articles are allowed to remain. There is more to the company story then this boycott but for some reason only the boycott information is allowed to stay. There is a abuse of COI right there. ] (]) 20:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

* If I publish a add-on to the article here, can we agree on it before I publish it to the site? ] (]) 23 June 2009

::The best place to do that is the article's talk page.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] (]) 21:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Due to the inherent conflict of interest issues with a shared account created by the marketing department of a company, I have shut down (indef blocked) the user above. I have invited them to create a new, individual account, disclose their relationship with Rockstar on their user page and here, and participate preferably by discussing on the article talk page.
:::I am also going to go look at the article in more depth to review the concerns they are raising here. Just because their first response was not entirely appropriate does not mean that their article concerns are not necessarily valid. ] (]) 21:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{la|Danny Mekić}}

I suspect that {{userlinks|Twinmate}} who created this article may be the subject. Hard to prove or disprove but the article is fairly promotional. ] (]) 19:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
:It should be pointed out that the article is currently in an ]. -- ''']]''' 19:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{Template:resolved|The vandalism was reverted and the vandal hasn't returned. -- ''']]''' 20:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)}}
Just so you know, I reverted a sequence of edits to my article at ] which contained clear libel. It's possible that some of the other edits in the sequence were consistent with Wikipeida policies and guidelines, but references to ] are clearly inappropriate. If an ''uninvolved'' editor wishes to restore the parts of the anon's edit which are in keeping with guidelines, go ahead. I also noted this on ], but I believe that self-reporting here seems the best bet in keeping with the guidelines. — ] ] 21:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
:The IP who made the 'cockfighting' edit appears to be a vandal-only account. I've given then a 24-hour timeout to reflect on the problem of accuracy in BLP articles. Once somebody like yourself already has an article, adding something about them running for office seems legitimate; other opinions are welcome. ] (]) 00:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
::I think the other two changes by the anon were well-meaning; the gramatical edit was just inept. Their comment on running for office not being notable is probably an allusion to ], which states that only ''holding'' an elected office makes a person notable. However, this isn’t the main thing making Mr. Rubin notable, so you could probably flip a coin on keeping it or removing it. The only thing I saw in the rest of the article that I found problematical is the last sentence of the first paragraph in the lede. It’s ] and non-encyclopedic in tone. ] <small>]</small> 03:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Just to note, it's been about a week and that anonymous editor hasn't resurfaced. In addition, I've added a citation for the state assembly run which the vandal deleted because it wasn't cited. -- ''']]''' 20:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{Template:resolved|I'm calling this resolved because the article is being ] at the ] where the editor also admits to being paid to create the article. -- ''']]''' 19:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)}}
*{{la|Cindy Cohen}}
*{{UserSummary|Gkerkvliet}}

Paid spamming, see ], and ]. I've handed out my standard advert4im/coi for paid adverts, but what do we do with the article? ] 06:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

:The job listing says, "Article should adhere to all of Misplaced Pages's guidelines." Maybe inform the subject that the article doesn't meet guidelines and she shouldn't pay? ] (]) 11:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
::I suggest that the ] article be nominated for deletion. She has a film credit for ], a made-for-TV movie where she played a role called Green-Eyed Girl. Our article on the film doesn't mention her name. Similarly the IMDB entry for the film doesn't include her. It does not sound that she would meet ], unless our article is missing something important about her. ] (]) 22:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
:::I am going to go ahead and nominate for deletion. --] (]) 22:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

== Spokeo ==

* {{article|Spokeo}} - This article is essentially written and maintained by the company it describes. The company is just another people search engine; only notable for spamming people<ref></ref>, and the only sources are some outdated references from tech blogs. I tried editing it, but the CEO of the company changed it back again - after sending me an email offering me a free "premium account" with his site...] (]) 13:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

:Tagged for speedy delete. ] (]) 02:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

:And untagged, because I see it has already survived an AfD, although I can't imagine how. The article as it stands is nothing but advertising. ] (]) 02:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
::It survived the delete because of the "multiple non-trivial published works" rule which is essentially broken for web2.0 type websites; any and every new site that does a press release gets some chatter on the millions of tech blogs; which count as 'reliable sources' for this purpose.

:: Also in the Afd, I argued that the article is CofI, OR and misleading, to which the response was 'edit, don't delete'; except I can't edit it because the site owners change it back. Ho hum. I wouldn't care so much, except that the site is so slimy; they are spamming people's contacts, and worse, trying to mine people's personal data and then sell it (to recruiters and such like), which is so unethical it makes me shiver. ] (]) 11:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

== ] and ] ==

Since April the main editor has been {{user|74.220.79.129}} whose edits have mainly been to this article and to ], an article created in April by {{user|DavidJayBrown}} who has also edited this article 3 times. The article was tagged for potential coi in May but the tag was removed today by the IP. The IP geolocates to an area near where the two subjects seem to live (not together so far as I can tell but they do seem to know each other). I'll replace the tag. ] (]) 12:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
:Both of them are written as resumes and are full of ]. I don't doubt the ] at all. I've noted some additional concerns on each article's talk page, but boy those articles are a mess. -- ''']]''' 23:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

== ] products - multiple articles ==

* {{userlinks|Neolithic66}} - has created spammy articles on a number of products of ] (], ], ], and edited others‎ (]) or inserted Springer product names into other articles (]); and seems to have no interest in any other topic. ] &#x007C; ] 00:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
::Many Springer products are notable, and these may be also, but they have just been released. I'm prepared to try to contact the company, because I think they've also used other usernames for some of their articles on journals. I will help them as needed, but they can't do it this way. ''']''' (]) 00:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
:::Thanx, DGG. I can always depend on you to do the right thing in this kind of situation; but please be prepared to use your biggest ]. --] &#x007C; ] 15:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

== Truegreta ==

{{Template:resolved|Truegreta was indef blocked. -- ''']]''' 16:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)}}
* {{userlinks|Truegreta}} - is on the Interim Board of Directors of the ]. The user is now editing the page without neutrality as a reaction to it being vandalized recently. The user also continues to add inappropriate sources. The user had a discussion with another user ] about a similar subject in which a warning was given. The editor now continues to debate and refuses to follow standards.] (]) 07:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
<s>::Follow-up: I have posted as much information as possible on the user's talkpage since the last edit that led me to believe that a mention here was necessary. Hopefully, it was just confusion on their part and no further action is needed. Apologies for cluttering this noticeboard.] (]) 09:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)</s> I am requesting a more experienced editor or administrator to resolve the concern with an editor who has a conflict of interest.] (]) 07:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The page FREE GAZA MOVEMENT has been seriously undermined by several posters, in particular Cptnono. The first paragraph of the entry was changed from the original posting more than a year ago, and the page was libelous. We have been trying to fix not only that paragraph, but we have protested that Cptnono is eliminating our references, changing some of the text and reporting our serious concerns by threatening to forbid us to enter legitimate text and sources. We ask that Cptnono not be allowed to make changes (many of them unnecessary and some of them libelous). If he did not add so many of his personal views, none of our changes would have been necessary. And we object to his removing sources just because he seems to think that Middle East/Far East papers are not worthy of being included in Misplaced Pages. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Your account appears to be a ] in violation of Misplaced Pages's ] and has been reported.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] (]) 20:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
::I feel that I have to defend myself here as I did on the user's talk page. I did not make the edits with incorrect and inflammatory information. it was another user and it was inappropriate. Please see Trugreta's, mine, or the article in question's if there are further inquiries on to my edits.] (]) 21:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is a problem in Truegreta editing this page. As a states the user appears to be a co-founder of the movement. It is therefore difficult to think that her edits are not a form of ], this is strongly discouraged at ]. If both of you could stop editing the article for the moment it would be useful. I disagree that Truegreta is being used my multiple people at present - is there any evidence? I therefore don't think that Truegreta should be blocked. ] (]) 21:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
:I reverted my previous edit and will hold off until this is resolved.] (]) 21:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
::Truegreta has an indef block now, although I'm not quite certain why. Clearly she was in violation of ] and has had quite a few warnings about her editing and conduct, but the block still seems sudden. It claims a username violation, but what violation? -- ''']]''' 16:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Read the posts above - it's clearly a group/shared name in violation of ].&nbsp;–&nbsp;] (]) 17:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Why? Because they used the term "we" to describe themself? I actually see that often in Misplaced Pages, it's a quirky thing to do but I think it's a leap to assume that an account is shared because of it. The opposite is true, if a person uses "I" to describe themself that doesn't mean the account isn't shared. Do you have another reason to believe that it's shared? -- ''']]''' 18:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::I didn't block them, so don't take it up with me. They can appeal the block if they so wish per the notice on their talk page.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] (]) 18:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::Fair enough. Honestly I'm not in tears over this, I really dislike POV-pushing activists, especially ones who speak with such charged language as Truegreta does (accusing everyone of spreading Zionist lies) but if someone is blocked it would be best if it was done for valid reasons. I've left a comment at the blocking admin's talk page. -- ''']]''' 18:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I wanted to mention that an IP address from the group made an edit on the talk page before trugreta really started in. That was done perfectly. They brought up the concerns and I thought that was awesome. That person probably notified truegreta who unhappy about the shenanigans from the malicious edit. Truegreta can appeal and the IP is not blocked so I hope this is now resolved (besides any possible loose ends with the reason used in the block log).] (]) 23:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Myself and another user protested to the blocking admin, saying that the "royal we" is not a definitive proof of a shared account. The blocking admin said there were plenty of other reasons to block the user, which nobody seems to disagree with, so I think the indef block will stand. -- ''']]''' 16:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

== ], ] and other MLM articles ==

* {{userlinks|Insider201283}} - This editor is <s>a self-described "paid editor"</s> one whose edits seem primarily dedicated to defending the reputation of MLM operations; he admits to operating pro-MLM websites, and has been accused of being a paid shill for them. ] &#x007C; ] 19:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
**Where has he called himself a "paid editor"? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 20:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
:::I'm wondering this too. He denied it twice in the ]. At the same time, his own talk page hints that he's somehow affiliated with Amway (he cites facts about himself that are meant to contrast stereotypes about Amway). -- ''']]''' 23:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
::::I'd have to search back, but I recall his professional connection with Amway has been discussed before. He's also a topic of disucssion on non-Wiki, anti-Amway forums. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 23:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::In 2007 he wrote:
:::::*''To be clear I don't make money from N21 or Quixtar, I do make money from Amway, I just have not been actively involved as an Amway IBO for sometime...'' ]
:::::FWIW, Quixtar has changed its name back to "Amway". &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 23:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::Here is his quote: ''"Excuse me, but may think you can lie all you want about anything here, but I do not appreciate lies being spread about me. I am categorically NOT paid to promote MLM companies (or any particular MLM company) - that is utterly false."'' -- ''']]''' 05:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

== Possible IGDA spam ==

;User
*{{userlinks|GameProducer}}

;Articles related to the user
*{{la|Roger E. Pedersen}}
*{{la|Game Design Foundations, Second Edition}}
*{{la|Combination Lock (game show)}}
*{{la|Adventure game}}

The user above seems to be closely affiliated with Roger E. Pedersen and has been inserting wikilinks to the ] and ] articles above and has been creating ] which has repeatedly been tagged as spam and removed. See . It is possible that this user may be representing the ] in some sort of a spamming operation. ] 05:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
:Well, the book article is gone and it looks like the biography is on its way out. If they get recreated, they can be deleted and salted. I actually checked his edits to ] and let them stand; they were appropriate as they helped in specifying the page numbers and edition of the book used as a reference. I fixed the "Video Game" portion of ] which was very spammy, written as a promotional piece. -- ''']]''' 17:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

== ACN Inc. ==


== Chris Antonopoulos (footballer) and Fort Lauderdale Strikers ==
*{{la|ACN Inc.}}, lots of insider and self-interested editing, both pro and con. Independent review needed. ] 11:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|Chris Antonopoulos (footballer)}}
::See "], ] and other MLM articles" above. --] &#x007C; ] 14:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|Amplifyplantz33}}


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


: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)
*{{user|WiganWarriorsFan}}
::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.
*{{article|Wigan Warriors}}
::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)


== Marc Jorgenson ==
Wigan Warriors ''are'' a notable sports team, but, well, if the above user's very name doesn't tip anyone off, s/he has been adding promotional and non-neutral information to the article by the minute without actually backing it up with any sources. I placed a {{tl|uw-coi}} tag on his/her talk page, but s/he doesn't seem to care (especially since the {{tl|coi}} tag I placed on the article's page was removed ''twice''). ''']''' 21:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
{{atop
:I think it would be best for the user to familiarise himself with Misplaced Pages's core guidelines by joining a WikiProject. I notice the user hasn't yet joined ]. Editing in collaboration with more experienced users on pages other than those relating to the Wigan Warriors may improve user's contributions and attitude towards other editors. I'll send an invite to the user. <small><span style="border:1px solid black; font-family=fantasy">]]</span></small> 10:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
| result = No edits since 2008. No need for action. ] (]/]) 01:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
== Dislecksia: The Movie ==
* {{pagelinks|Marc Jorgenson}}
* {{userlinks|Plus3db}}
* {{userlinks|Lexicon480}}
* {{userlinks|Bunny & J-Zone}}
* {{userlinks|24.82.146.94}}
* {{userlinks|24.82.146.152}}
* {{userlinks|24.86.250.211}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Blatantly promotional article and severe failure of ] with puffery removed by users before. 3 single-purpose accounts as well as 3 IPs of close proximity have edited the article in around 2008. There definitely is signs of paid editing or people connected with subject editing the article, so a block of these users and IPs should suffice alongside the deletion of the article. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: coral; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 06:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== State University of New York at Geneseo ==
*{{user|HubbellV}}
{{atop
*{{article|Dislecksia: The Movie}}
| result = Soft blocked for promotional username representing Geneseo's Communications and Marketing (CommMark) team. ] (]/]) 01:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{article|Billy Blanks}}
}}
*{{article|David Boies}}
*{{article|Stephen J. Cannell}}


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
Worth a check for neutrality: editor name matches movie's director. ] (]) 08:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|State University of New York at Geneseo}}
* {{userlinks|CommMark1871}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
This editor has only edited the college's article, their username indicates a potential connection ("Comms" may indicate a role in communications at the college and 1871 is the date when the college official opened), and they have not responded to a brief but direct question on their User Talk page about this potential connection. Their edits are not objectionable but ] is not optional and our ] exists for good reasons. ] (]) 23:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Kathryn Babayan ==


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
== Marc H. Tanenbaum ==
* {{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 am a new wikipedia editor so I need a lot of advice! I have been reading the wikipedia guidelines on Conflict of Interest, Neutral Point of View and Copyrights. I recently tried to edit the page of ] who is the namesake of the Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding, where I am an intern. I have been told that in having “Tanenbaum” as my user name and in being an intern here it is a conflict of interest for me to edit this page. However, I believe that I am capable of editing and expanding the biography of this great man without losing neutrality or advocating for the organization I work for. I tired editing the page and inserting information from a book that was written and published about Rabbi Tanenbaum. (I have been given permission to use this copyrighted information from the publisher).
: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 ==
If I am not breaking copyright rules, because I have permission to use this information can I add information to Rabbi Tanenbaum’s biography? And if I am not actively advocating for the Tanenbaum Center’s cause but simply editing and expanding Rabbi Tanenbaum’s biography will information from a reliable published source will I be allowed to make edits?


*{{user3|CaptainBeany}}
Help, please! ] (]) 17:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC) <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. {{ #if: | The preceding ] comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC).}}</small>


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.
:In one clause (''" the biography of this great man"''), you've inadvertently demonstrated why we so fervently discourage editors with conflicts of interest from editing articles. With the best good will in the world, it's incredibly hard for you to maintain the requisite ] to edit this article. Sorry. --] &#x007C; ] 17:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


In 2010 they and asked for a sourced paragraph about a fraud conviction to be removed from the article. Discussions in response at
::Even if you can get over the COI issues, the copyvio issue remains. With respect, we have only your word that you are who you say you are and that you have permission to use copyright material on Misplaced Pages. That's why we have a formal process for releasing copyright material for use here and that's set out at ].&nbsp;–&nbsp;] (]) 17:57, 30 June 2009 (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)
I am going through the formal process of getting copyright permission right now-once that process is complete then I can legally use the information within Misplaced Pages's guidelines, is that correct? ] (]) 18:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC) <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. {{ #if: | The preceding ] comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC).}}</small>


:The user to the COIN notification, though exactly what they're trying to communicate is beyond me. --] (]) 05:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:Yes, but (and it's a significant but), your edits must still comply with our ] requirements and all other policies and guidelines. By its very nature, material from the website probably isn't neutral. Because of your COI, I strongly recommend that you discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page ''first''.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] (]) 19:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


== Science of Identity Foundation ==
== ] caught POV-pushing his own article ==
{{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)}}
{{Template:resolved|After a checkuser, a bunch of pro-King editors banned as socks. -- ''']]''' 17:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)}}
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
Add ], the sometime pop-music figure/TV personality, to the list of people caught trying to own their own articles. In this case the subject had been extensively anon-posting, trying to massage the presention of his underage sex convictions, and to reinflate the article's previous (self?-)assessment of his former importance.
* {{pagelinks|Science of Identity Foundation}}
* {{userlinks|Hipal}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
This senior editor reverting my constructive edits repeatedly, in which I created a new section to simplify the content and cited reference. However, it appears that the editor is maintaining the article and may have a conflict of interest. Even though I have warned the editor, but now editor has started an edit war. ] (]) 18:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:@], why haven't you attempted to discuss this at ] first? ]&nbsp;] 18:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::Agreed. Looking over the talk page and edits, I don't see anything suggesting Hipal has a COI. Nor do I see anything to evidence that Sokoreq has a vested interest in editing the article, although it is curious that they went straight to the noticeboard without participating in the talk page. —''']''' (]) 18:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@] You are right, I was surprised that the editor keeps reverting my edits. This behavior suggests editor may have ] or feel a sense of ownership of the page. ] (]) 19:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Reverting your edits is evidence that they disagree with you, which is allowed. Disagreeing with you is in no way evidence of a conflict of interest. ] (]) 19:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::@] Yeh, I agree with you, but how many times ? And why? did you check my edit ? The editor was doing endless reverts, even after I requested clarification about their concerns on the talk page. ] (]) 20:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::You were also 'doing endless reverts'. Do you have a conflict of interest? ] (]) 20:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Did you check my edit? What is wrong with that edit? I would like to know so that I can improve myself for next time. Please be specific. Thanks ] (]) 20:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::You can improve yourself for next time by recognizing that reverts are a normal part of Misplaced Pages's editing process (see ]), and by refraining from making unfounded accusations towards other editors just because they reverted you. ] (]) 20:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I followed ], but the editor didn't adhere to the discussion part: 'Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement.' Anyway, did you check my edit that the editor reverted several times? That would be really helpful. ] (]) 20:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::No, you began edit warring after you were reverted. That is not following ]. And you still have not posted at ]. ] (]) 20:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::The editor reverted my edits without any explanation and did so repeatedly. I am still waiting for your insight. Did you check my edit? What mistake did I make? I want to understand; any help would be appreciated. ] (]) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Some of the mistakes that you made were edit warring and posting spurious talk page warnings (and now a noticeboard entry) rather than discussing your edits on the article's associated talk page. I'm not going to contribute to compounding those errors by debating the content with you here. If you want to continue with this, I would suggest that you withdraw the allegations you have made against Hipal, including the spurious vandalism, COI, and harrassment warnings you placed on their talk page, apologize to Hipal, and then go to ] where active discussions are currently taking place without your participation. ] (]) 20:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::You are trying to make it seem like it's my fault only, and you are missing the point. Anyway, thanks; I have already explained my COI concern below. ] (]) 21:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] Already, there is a lot going on in that talk page. ] (]) 18:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@] I agree that it's daunting. However, you don't get to override discussion by jumping straight to a noticeboard, and especially not COIN.—''']''' (]) 18:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@] I apologize, but the editor's behavior was strange and did not make any sense. Now, after seeing the article history, it looks like the editor has a sense of ownership or maybe a conflict of interest. other than that, I don't have any other evidence to prove the COI. I leave the final decision to you, but now I am feeling Anxious about whether I should touch that article because it seems like that editor owns it. This is strange! ] (]) 19:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:I think this can be closed as a groundless complaint. Sokoreq has continued to edit since opening this complaint but has yet to try to discuss the edits in question at ]. No evidence has been provided for conflict of interest, other than the OP's apparent assumption that there is no other possible reason that their edits would be reverted. ]&nbsp;] 21:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


== ] ==
Kudos to {{User|Little grape}} for detective work.
* {{userlinks|Kateblau}}


Multiple draft creations of spammy company articles in a relatively short period of time:
See: ] & recent
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
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)
-- ] (]) 17:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
:Hello! I am creating articles about companies in cyborgization and automation, scientific figures in this field, this will be done in a short period of time, because a lot of analytical work has been done on these companies and I am uploading previously compiled information, this is not advertising, I made several mistakes, because this is my first time on Misplaced Pages as an author, can I please continue to create pages? ] (]) 18:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::It appears that you are using a LLM like ChatGPT to create these drafts, and that your own communications are machine translated. Is that true? ] (]) 18:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*I've deleted some of these; they all seem to be on the same pattern, making roughly the same claims. I assume LLM use at minimum. ] <small>(])</small> 20:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== John Ortberg ==
:Rubbish. Most of my edits have been anti-King. Who is Little Grape? Similar to Purples (history)? And Privatemusings? And Expat? I won't be posting about King any more. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
::But do you have any reasonable explanation for posting from the very same hotel King's staying at in Tivoli? Or are you still claiming you're in Seattle? ] (]) 11:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Pages:
:::Little grape: even though the guy is generally reviled, ] puts a limit on how far it's acceptable to pursue users' real-life identities, and using IPs to track and identify someone's ongoing location - down to the level of the hotel where they're staying - looks to me to overstep that limit. If a pattern of promotional edits has been spotted, it's sufficient now that the article get increased editorial focus to maintain NPOV. ] (]) 12:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|John Ortberg}}
::::I have to admit that I agree with the anonymous poster; I looked at the edits they were making and they didn't seem all that complimentary of King. They were fairly balanced, I would expect if that really was King that he'd be more aggressive about removing negative information and inserting positive information, but that wasn't the case. -- ''']]''' 17:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Users:
:::::Wow... As it turns out, according to Checkuser about a half-dozen editors of King's article who have been defending him and/or changing the article to remove negative content are confirmed to be sockpuppets, likely of King himself. That's disturbing. -- ''']]''' 17:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|Timothydw82}}
::::::It was quite cleverly done - but then he's a Cambridge English grad. At least we can now settle down to starting over, and writing a balanced article. My own view is that he was an extraordinary (in all senses) character in the 60's and 70's, occupying a unique niche in British pop history who then went on to develop and star in an outstandingly good TV series in the early 80's. But he didn't do anything notable for the next ten years - until his convictions. And he hasn't done anything notable since, either. Endless plugging of his latest home-movie, and puffery of non-notable stuff he's done since being released simply detracts from his considerable achievements (even if these *don't* include running Decca Records). Let's have a shot at writing something even he can be proud of? And in my view it's fine for him to come clean and assist in that process - as long as he commits to not editing the main article. (assuming your permission Atama, can I copy this and your comment above to the King talk page?) ] (]) 18:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
:::::::You don't need my permission, but I appreciate you asking... Sure, go ahead. -- ''']]''' 19:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Timothydw82 is a ] which is used solely to promote, defend and censor valid information about ]. Timothydw82 admits to consulting with Ortberg about the article on ] and has also used that page to make disparaging comments about Ortberg's son, Daniel Lavery. This is both a serious COI and POV problem. He has been warned before by other editors. My most recent warning (for POV editing) was met with what seems to be feigned incomprehension and "Do you work for Misplaced Pages?". I think it is time to put an end to this farce. ] (]) 02:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


: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. ] (]) 02:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Is that AI generated text? I ran it through a few different detectors and most thought that it was at least partially AI generated. ] (]) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Unbelievable. Indeffed. Thank you, ]. ] &#124; ] 20:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC).


== Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation ==
*{{user|Witizen}}
*{{article|Wirtland (micronation)}}


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
In my view COI notice should be better motivated in this case. Even if a major contributor of article about Wirtland (a micronation) is a citizen of this micronation, should it preclude him/her from writing about it? According to that logic, US citizens cannot edit articles about America. Opinions welcome. ] (]) 18:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Witizen
Pages:
* {{pagelinks|Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation}}
* {{pagelinks|Park Hyeon-joo}}
Users:
* {{userlinks|Channy Jung}}
* {{userlinks|203.239.154.130}}
* {{userlinks|Chisu1020}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Suspected undisclosed COI editors. Single-purpose accounts used exclusively to edit on this person and his foundation. All of the edits are complimentary, and almost entirely unsourced.


I warned Channy Jung () and 203.239.154.130 () but both have continued editing ] and have ignored the warning (, ). Chisu1020 has been inactive for a while though, but same pattern of behavior.
:Your question is moot as the whole article is a blatant copyvio of http://www.wirtland.com/ and I have tagged it for deletion as such.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] (]) 18:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


I recently rewrote ] entirely to get rid of the unsourced promotional-like writing . State of article before the rewrite: .
::Oh, that was a crafty move, removing the site's original text and making it look like it's framing the Misplaced Pages article. Your reuse of the article is not, however, in compliance with ].&nbsp;–&nbsp;] (]) 18:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


Also worth noting the is similarly fluffy. I suspect Park/his foundation are watching these articles.
I'm confused, didn't this article survive an ]? If so, doesn't that make it invalid for CSD? And also, just to let you know, Witizen referred to him/her/themself as "we" on the talk page (slightly off-topic observation). -- ''']]''' 18:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
:If it is in fact a copyright violation, that still means it should be speedied (don't know how it snuck by the AfD if that is the case, though), or reverted to a non-copyvio stub if one existed. --] &#x007C; ] 18:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


] (]) 05:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:Dear editors. Though a speedy deletion is not exactly what I expected from posting my question here, I have answered to it on my talk page, as requested. I am tirelessly doing my best to comply with all edits and requirements, which come up again and again. I'm not complaining, however, I am thankful for this attention and all your time. I'm just trying to distinguish measurable, clear, and legitimate requests from those which I perceive (maybe wrongly) as subjective and excessive.
:Wirtland stated that '''"As an internet-based community, Wirtland attaches high importance to being properly represented in the internet encyclopedia"'''. Bearing in mind Jimbo Wales' principle '''"Newcomers are always to be welcomed"''', I hoped for a welcome, but face lots of resistance. I am ready to cooperate, but really I won't insist, so I will remove Wirtland entry if it indeed contradicts Misplaced Pages's rules. ] (]) 19:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Witizen


:Those accounts, as well as ], all seem to be SPA/COI accounts which are not responding to multiple discussion attempts, and should be blocked for some period of time to get their attention. The "foundation" article seems like it would also fail GNG, and should probably be either deleted or merged into the Hyeon-joo article. ]&thinsp;] 06:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::Yes we welcome newcomers, but there are also many policies and guidelines that face the newcomer when they participate in this project. The copyright issue for example -- for legal reasons Misplaced Pages cannot accept copyright materials without a clear release verifiably from the copyright owner. That's why the ] process exists. No one here is trying to be difficult, we are just trying to ensure that the numerous policies and guidelines are adhered to. &nbsp;–&nbsp;] (]) 19:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


== Misplaced Pages Writers Marks a Milestone with 1,000 Successful Misplaced Pages Page Publications ==
::One more point, the Wirtland website now looks like it is framing the Misplaced Pages article, but it really isn't. I am not quite sure what you are trying to achieve by using the Misplaced Pages logo (which by the way is a registered trademark) and the "According to the standard of Misplaced Pages, the 💕" language.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] (]) 19:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
:::I see now, on ] it states, "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted ''except for newly discovered copyright violations''." That certainly applies here. -- ''']]''' 19:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Except that I was apparently mistaken. Other editors have checked the Google cache of the website and confirmed that it looked like it does now on 6/22. However I will say in my own defence that when I checked it just before tagging for G10, none of the Misplaced Pages stuff was there, or at least visible (the logo or the "According to the standard of Misplaced Pages, the 💕" text) otherwise I would not have tagged it. I do have questions though about the purpose of using the Misplaced Pages trademarked logo and the accompanying text and of course the COI issues still remain. &nbsp;–&nbsp;] (]) 20:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::I believe the COI accusation is valid. The defense that Witizen has no more of a COI than the citizen of a country editing their own nation's article isn't valid. The Wirtland "citizenship" is just like any organization that requires voluntary membership, such as a church or club. -- ''']]''' 21:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


Well, that's what they ''say'' on openpr.com. For the interested. I was going to link it, but my edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a ] or ]. Despite that, it seems to have some WP-presence: ] (]) 12:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::: The reason the citizen defence isn't valid is because no reliable authority actually recognises Wirtland as a sovereign state anyway. We're only one step removed from outright ] here. ] - ] 16:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
:{{re|Gråbergs Gråa Sång}} That's just a press release site. The company that published it is already listed on ] at ]. ] (]) 15:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


== Paul Devlin (footballer) ==
Oh well. My entry is now blanked. My original question about COI has become irrelevant for the time being. Hope copyright permission message will be processed soon. Thanks everybody who was helpful. ] (]) 20:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Witizen.


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
== ] and Berrett-Koehler Publishers ==
* {{pagelinks|Paul Devlin (footballer)}}
* {{userlinks|Pdfc2025}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
The editor claims to be the subject of the article and is repeatedly adding altered statistics, replacing ones which appear to be referenced. I and {{u|Struway2}} have made suggestions at the editor's talk page. I am reluctant to continue reverting in the circumstances (for all I know the edits are correct, if unsourced), but on the other hand it could be a hoax or subtle vandalism. What's the best way forwards? ] (]) 12:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:Their stats look correct for what they are, per the sources in the career stats table lower down the article where they appear in the totals columns, but they include data for matches that don't belong in the infobox. The editor has removed all but big-league clubs from the infobox, lumped together separate spells with the same club, and included statistics for cup competitions; I've explained to them that conventionally we don't do that. The editor also suggests there are errors and omissions, which could well be true, but they haven't yet elaborated. cheers, ] (]) 13:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::They are now blocked from making changes to that article. They are more than welcome to suggest changes on the article's talk page. <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 20:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] ==
*{{userlinks|Bkpub}}
{{pagelinks|User:SHEJO VARGHESE}}
*{{article|All Together Now (book)}}
Undisclosed COI editor writing an autobiography at ].<span id="LunaEclipse:1736800296227:WikipediaFTTCLNConflict_of_interest/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 20:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
*{{article|Crunch (book)}}
:With the page in draft space and placed for CSD, and the copious user page warnings, with a grand total of 3 edits by this apparent COI editor, I would caution ]. I think no further action is likely necessary as their draft page will either be deleted under CSD but failing that would most certainly fail a formal AfD. ]&thinsp;] 20:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Bkpub has entered articles and links relating to books published by Berrett-Koehler Publishers. WP:UAA did not consider this a promotional user-name. I gave the user a welcome note including a pointer to ] and a COI warning, and he has not edited since. I will check out the books and PROD if necessary, though the articles are not excessively promotional and at least the first will probably pass as ''notable'' - it seems Obama referred to it in a speech. Posted here in case anyone thinks more action necessary. ] (]) 10:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
::], my bad :( I had no intention to come off as overly harsh.<span id="LunaEclipse:1736801352397:WikipediaFTTCLNConflict_of_interest/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 20:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
:::Just remember to have good faith -- when they have only made three edits and stopped editing at 16:52, and then subsequently 4 consecutive posts to their talk page is a bit overbearing. It would be one thing if they were editing between your posts (so it appears they are ignoring you), but in this case, zero edits since the first notice, there's not a huge need to escalate unless they continue to persist in unconstructive behavior after the notifications. ]&thinsp;] 00:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


== Gilles Epié ==
:Jeez sometimes I despair of ] - how is that ''not'' a promotional user name?&nbsp;–&nbsp;] (]) 15:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
::First, seeing as I'm going to have to post it here as well, the policy guidelines clearly states that users who "add promotional material or demonstrate a conflict of interest can be reported to the conflict of interest noticeboard or to administrator intervention against vandalism, where further action may be taken." :/ UAA is usually for more extreme cases, such as personal attacks, more obvious promotional usernames (ex. BUYBOOKSAT___), and all that lovely stuff at WP:IU. For cases such as this, you would take it to COIN. Besides, I checked the first article-it seems pretty good. As long as he's not promoting material as set by G11, I think that the worst he should get is a warning and CHU. Cheers, ''''']''''''<sup><small>]</sup></small> 16:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|Gilles Epié}}
:::I have to agree about the username. Bkpub gives a hint to the COI (fortunately) but it's not explicit. A casual editor wouldn't even think twice about that username. While COI certainly exists if they created articles on notable subjects without adding promotional material, they have been warned about COI, and haven't edited since, I think that there's nothing further to do. Does anyone disagree? -- ''']]''' 16:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|Epie2020}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Epie2020 has acknowledged a personal connection to Gilles Epié on their ] but does not seem to consider this a conflict of interest. They were most recently warned about this behavior on 20 December 2023 but to make edits to the Gilles Epié article. ] (]) 22:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


:It's been nearly a year since this user's last contribution, unless there are edits to deleted pages. I don't think there's any action to be taken here given that a COI notice has been on the page since 2023. Maybe some work could be done on the article itself? --] (]) 02:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] and ] ==
::Unfortunately I don't think the article has a version in page history that doesn't suffer from ] issues. I've gone ahead and trimmed it down a bit. --] (]) 03:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Template:resolved|The article seems headed for a ] deletion. The user disclosed his COI and isn't even fighting the deletion now. -- ''']]''' 16:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)}}
:::This seems like a reasonable approach to me. They've been off and on editing the same article for years now, so I wouldn't be surprised if they come back at some point. Hopefully this notice will dissuade them from directly editing the article. Thank you for your work on this. ] (]) 15:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{article|The True Victory}}
* {{userlinks|Kevinbrogers}}
Editor created the page for '']'' (also up for AfD), an unreleased, unproduced film he plans to direct. Doesn't see his contributions as conflict of interest or self-promotion, continues to add his film to ] after being notified of COI. ] (]) 17:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
:He seems to have come around somewhat, he is asking for advice on sourcing and on what to do about the article after deletion, and seems resigned to the fact that deletion is going to happen. He is also very open about his COI, so I'm not sure what other measures have to be taken in his case. -- ''']]''' 20:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


== Neo Torres == == Burning River Buckets ==


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
Came across ] of a book by Neo Torres in ], an article very heavily edited by {{user|Noetorres}}. Looks like pretty blatant self promotion and the article references Torres and another self-published book almost exclusively. ] (]) 22:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|Burning River Buckets}}
:I think that page should go up for AfD probably; references are very weak. I tried finding online coverage of the incident and I found a talking about it. And guess what? It was an article in a Wichita Falls newspaper that was an interview with Noe Torres! Blatant self promotion? I'd say so. -- ''']]''' 16:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|C.A. Buttons}}
:Oh, I also found that Noe created the ] article. I doubt very much the name similarity is a coincidence. -- ''']]''' 16:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
::With whole paragraphs of personal claims presented as factual and sourced to "personal interview" -- greattttt. ] (]) 17:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
] has identified himself as the owner of the ] basketball team on , on , and on . I've tried over a period of months (and on each of those talk pages) to share information on the COI policy and the need for reliable sources, to no apparent avail. Perhaps others could give it try. -- ] (]) 01:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Every contribution this editor has made has been in articles that feature one of his books prominently as a reference (which he helpfully added) or linked to an article of the same. Unfortunately the whole concept of ] is foreign to him (which is somewhat understandable considering that his original research has been published). -- ''']]''' 19:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


:I've posted a on their talk page. For now I think it's worth letting their changes to the page more or less stand; their ''actual contributions'' in the latest round of edits consisted of deleting some unreferenced information and accidentally removing one reference. --] (]) 20:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] = Insanity Talent Management ==
::Went back and restored the external links section as well. --] (]) 20:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Template:resolved|Article deleted, user blocked. -- ''']]''' 22:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|ITMLONDON}}
*{{article|Louise Roe}}
From the link in the article to www.itmlondon.com, this user is evidently Insanity Talent Management trying to use Misplaced Pages to promote their client. Username possibly not directly promotional, but I suggest should be blocked as an advertiser. ] (]) 11:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


== ] ==
:I tagged it for G11 speedy as in my view, from both tone and content, it's a PR piece. Also reported username to UAA, but not holding my breath.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] (]) 14:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
::Given that itmlondon is their website, I blocked it as a blatant spamusername. --] &#x007C; ] 14:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


User appears to be/is part of a (self-published) substack publication called ''Shatter the Standards'' and since joining on January 13 2025 have been adding the publication's reviews to album articles (]). For example/recently, on Mac Miller's '']'' (today). // ] (]) 20:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] ==
: {{u|Chchcheckit}} The top of this noticeboard clearly says {{tq|This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue}}. Why wasn't this done first? I have now left a COI notice on the user's talk page. ] (]) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::my bad. i rushed / wasn't thinking {{facepalm}} // ] (]) 22:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::: No wirres {{u|Chchcheckit}}, thanks for responding. Hopefully they will respond either here or there. ] (]) 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{linksummary|shatterthestandards.com}} ] (]) 16:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


== Alexander H. Joffe ==
Note edit, and warning by an account with user page. This is an account that is dedicated to only contributing to one page, the company's wikipage. I don't think further action is needed, but I do think COIN needs to know about this. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 18:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
== ] ==
* {{pagelinks|Alexander H. Joffe}}
* {{userlinks|69.121.25.122}} Claims to be Joffe in a 2007 edit
* {{userlinks|71.249.231.9}} Edited the article only a day after the above IP to remove a notability tag, has only edited the Joffe article, Joffe's area of expertise of ] and ], Joffe's former employer per here.
* {{userlinks|74.88.198.179}} Claims to be Joffe in this talk page edit
* {{userlinks|24.191.44.177}} Claims to be Joffe in the same talk page as above
* {{userlinks|31.154.131.245}} Single edit on the page promoting Joffe's podcast, IP is from Israel where Joffe has done work in the past. I find it rather unlikely some random Israeli wants to add a link to a minor academic's podcast.
* {{userlinks|67.82.155.243}} Made 2 edits to Joffe article, has ] IP, only a few miles from ] where Joffe formerly taught.
There are other IPs which have only one edit to Joffe's article that could well be him as well but I don't think that's enough evidence to go by, nor would it be worthwile given how much Joffe's IP seems to change. ] (]) 03:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


:Not really actionable directly as all of these account edits are from several years ago. IP addresses span multiple networks and we wouldn’t block them broadly without good reason. Only thing at the moment is to keep an eye out on this article. If new IP edits become persistently disruptive you could request page protection, but one or two anonymous edits once a year wouldn’t even qualify for that unless there were serious BLP concerns. Use revert instead. ]&thinsp;] 05:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
{{user|Georgianwebteam}} made today to ]. User's first edit was back on February 18. <span style="font-family: Segoe UI">] ]</span> 20:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:23, 19 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:Academy of Achievement Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:Aspen Dental Talk:Atlantic Union Bank Talk:AvePoint Talk:Edward J. Balleisen Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:Neil Barofsky Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Bell Bank Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Pamela Chesters Talk:Cloudinary Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dell Technologies Template talk:Editnotices/Page/List of Nintendo franchises Talk:Alan Emrich Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:Richard France (writer) Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Genuine Parts Company Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Group-IB Talk:Hearst Communications Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:Scott Kurashige Talk:Andrew Lack (executive) Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:List of PEN literary awards Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health Talk:Anne Sofie Madsen Talk:Laurence D. Marks Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Modern Meadow Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:Philly Shipyard Talk:Polkadot (blockchain platform) Talk:QuinStreet Talk:Prabhakar Raghavan Talk:Michael Savage (politician) Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:SolidWorks Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko Talk:Sysco Talk:Tamba-Sasayama Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Tencent Cloud Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:TKTS Talk:Trendyol Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:Loretta Ucelli Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Laurie Williams (software engineer) Talk:Alex Wright (author) Talk:Xero (company) Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    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)

    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.

    State University of New York at Geneseo

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

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

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

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

    Kathryn Babayan

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

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

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

    Captain Beany

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

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

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

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

    Science of Identity Foundation

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

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

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

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

    User:Kateblau

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

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

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

    John Ortberg

    Pages:

    Users:

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

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

    Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation

    Pages:

    Users:

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

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

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

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

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

    Those accounts, as well as 203.239.154.131, all seem to be SPA/COI accounts which are not responding to multiple discussion attempts, and should be blocked for some period of time to get their attention. The "foundation" article seems like it would also fail GNG, and should probably be either deleted or merged into the Hyeon-joo article. TiggerJay (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages Writers Marks a Milestone with 1,000 Successful Misplaced Pages Page Publications

    Well, that's what they say on openpr.com. For the interested. I was going to link it, but my edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Misplaced Pages's blacklist or Wikimedia's global blacklist. Despite that, it seems to have some WP-presence: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: That's just a press release site. The company that published it is already listed on WP:PAIDLIST at Misplaced Pages:List_of_paid_editing_companies#Hire_Wikipedia_Writers. SmartSE (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    Paul Devlin (footballer)

    The editor claims to be the subject of the article and is repeatedly adding altered statistics, replacing ones which appear to be referenced. I and Struway2 have made suggestions at the editor's talk page. I am reluctant to continue reverting in the circumstances (for all I know the edits are correct, if unsourced), but on the other hand it could be a hoax or subtle vandalism. What's the best way forwards? John (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    Their stats look correct for what they are, per the sources in the career stats table lower down the article where they appear in the totals columns, but they include data for matches that don't belong in the infobox. The editor has removed all but big-league clubs from the infobox, lumped together separate spells with the same club, and included statistics for cup competitions; I've explained to them that conventionally we don't do that. The editor also suggests there are errors and omissions, which could well be true, but they haven't yet elaborated. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    They are now blocked from making changes to that article. They are more than welcome to suggest changes on the article's talk page. Jauerback/dude. 20:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:SHEJO VARGHESE

    User:SHEJO VARGHESE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Undisclosed COI editor writing an autobiography at Draft:Shejo Varghese. — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 20:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    With the page in draft space and placed for CSD, and the copious user page warnings, with a grand total of 3 edits by this apparent COI editor, I would caution WP:BITE. I think no further action is likely necessary as their draft page will either be deleted under CSD but failing that would most certainly fail a formal AfD. TiggerJay (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Tiggerjay, my bad :( I had no intention to come off as overly harsh. — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 20:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Just remember to have good faith -- when they have only made three edits and stopped editing at 16:52, and then subsequently 4 consecutive posts to their talk page is a bit overbearing. It would be one thing if they were editing between your posts (so it appears they are ignoring you), but in this case, zero edits since the first notice, there's not a huge need to escalate unless they continue to persist in unconstructive behavior after the notifications. TiggerJay (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    Gilles Epié

    Epie2020 has acknowledged a personal connection to Gilles Epié on their talk page but does not seem to consider this a conflict of interest. They were most recently warned about this behavior on 20 December 2023 but continue to make edits to the Gilles Epié article. Vegantics (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    It's been nearly a year since this user's last contribution, unless there are edits to deleted pages. I don't think there's any action to be taken here given that a COI notice has been on the page since 2023. Maybe some work could be done on the article itself? --Richard Yin (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Unfortunately I don't think the article has a version in page history that doesn't suffer from WP:PROMO issues. I've gone ahead and trimmed it down a bit. --Richard Yin (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    This seems like a reasonable approach to me. They've been off and on editing the same article for years now, so I wouldn't be surprised if they come back at some point. Hopefully this notice will dissuade them from directly editing the article. Thank you for your work on this. Vegantics (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Burning River Buckets

    User:C.A. Buttons has identified himself as the owner of the Burning River Buckets basketball team on his talk page, on my talk page, and on the article's talk page. I've tried over a period of months (and on each of those talk pages) to share information on the COI policy and the need for reliable sources, to no apparent avail. Perhaps others could give it try. -- Pemilligan (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    I've posted a personalized explanation on their talk page. For now I think it's worth letting their changes to the page more or less stand; their actual contributions in the latest round of edits consisted of deleting some unreferenced information and accidentally removing one reference. --Richard Yin (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Went back and restored the external links section as well. --Richard Yin (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:Thebosullivan

    User appears to be/is part of a (self-published) substack publication called Shatter the Standards (their about page makes this fact very obvious) and all of his edits since joining on January 13 2025 have been adding the publication's reviews to album articles (WP:PROMO). For example/recently, on Mac Miller's Balloonerism (today). // Chchcheckit (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Chchcheckit The top of this noticeboard clearly says This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue. Why wasn't this done first? I have now left a COI notice on the user's talk page. Melcous (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    my bad. i rushed / wasn't thinking Facepalm Facepalm // Chchcheckit (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    No wirres Chchcheckit, thanks for responding. Hopefully they will respond either here or there. Melcous (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    shatterthestandards.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com SmartSE (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Alexander H. Joffe

    There are other IPs which have only one edit to Joffe's article that could well be him as well but I don't think that's enough evidence to go by, nor would it be worthwile given how much Joffe's IP seems to change. Gazingo (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    Not really actionable directly as all of these account edits are from several years ago. IP addresses span multiple networks and we wouldn’t block them broadly without good reason. Only thing at the moment is to keep an eye out on this article. If new IP edits become persistently disruptive you could request page protection, but one or two anonymous edits once a year wouldn’t even qualify for that unless there were serious BLP concerns. Use revert instead. TiggerJay (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions Add topic