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

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

Revision as of 14:18, 17 October 2013 editDeskana (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users22,062 edits →https://en.wikipedia.org/MV_Seaman_Guard_Ohio: expand← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 18:30, 18 January 2025 edit undoMusikBot II (talk \| contribs)Bots, Interface administrators, Administrators104,099 editsm removing {{pp-sock}} as page is not edit-protected, removing {{pp-vandalism}} as page is not edit-protected (more info)
(995 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{redirect\|WP:COIN\|the WikiProject on articles about coins\|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Numismatics}}
	{{offer help}}
	]		]
	]		]
	]		]
			]
	{{Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Header}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Header}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{archivemainpage\|Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard}}		\|archiveheader = {{archivemainpage\|Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 150K		\|maxarchivesize = 150K
	\|counter = 67		\|counter = 217
	\|minthreadsleft = 4		\|minthreadsleft = 4
	\|minthreadstoarchive = 1		\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	\|algo = old(7d)		\|algo = old(14d)
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
	}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__		}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__
	<!-- All reports should be made at the bottom of the page. Do not modify the above when reporting! -->		<!-- All reports should be made at the bottom of the page. Do not modify the above when reporting! -->

	== CV ~~used~~ ~~as reference~~ and ~~external~~ ~~link~~ ==		== Chris Antonopoulos (footballer) and Fort Lauderdale Strikers ==
			* {{pagelinks\|Chris Antonopoulos (footballer)}}
			* {{userlinks\|Amplifyplantz33}}

			] and numerous ] related articles, which Antonopoulos appears to have been a player for, have been edited by ]. The user seems to be Antonopoulos and received a notice to disclose their conflict of interest on December 4 by @]. The user did not respond and does not appear to have made an effort to disclose a conflict of interest as they are required to. The user also created the Antonopoulos article and is responsible for the majority of the content added to it. The only indication the user appears to have made to disclose their potential conflict of interest was to write "Chris Antonopoulos" on their user page. ] (]) 07:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	A user <small>(]) </small>has been changing links to papers he apparently wrote concerning world population figures for Islam. The old links had rotted, and rather than updating them to working urls he has been linking instead to his curriculum vitae. He has done this with both external links and inline references . His CV page does link to PDF versions of the papers in question. I have multiple concerns, some of which are beyond the usual scope of this noticeboard:
	* The user has an apparent conflict of interest.
	* Personal résumés or CVs are always inappropriate links for articles, whether used as references or as external links.
	* It's not clear to me that the papers dealing with population statistics, which apparently were submitted as part of the user's participation in an academic conference, meet either ] or ]. (Note that it was an arts and humanities conference and that the papers' author is associated with his university's Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Computer Science.) I am disinclined either to update the urls properly or remove them without resolving these questions.
	I initiated a discussion, which I have now copied onto ]. I would be grateful for the opinions of other editors on the points I've raised above. ] (]) 19:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
	*1. I do not call this "Personal Resume" http://bigcat.fhsu.edu/~kettani/vita.html This is my CV: http://bigcat.fhsu.edu/~kettani/KettaniVita.pdf I linked to the former so that the reader has access to a bank of related papers to the topic in hand and the link is robust to changes, unlike a specific pdf file.<br>2. The papers are published in international conferences, journals and a book (by esteemed publishing company) and acknowledged by researchers. FYI: a statistician/engineer can publish in social science and humanities topic, when applying their skills to such areas. So now, by you pointing such insinuations, it begs the question if you have a conflict of interest in editing such page. May be you have an issue with the topic itself! (Islam/Muslims). ] (]) 19:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
	**I'm more than willing to assume that you're adding the link ]. That you're unwilling to assume good faith in return is unfortunate, but so be it; my editing record is public and will, I believe, withstand any amount of scrutiny with regard to conflicts of interest on any topic. I'm afraid the bottom line is that the link is improper and the pdf documents you propose I link instead do not conform to either ] or ] (the relevant guidelines for external links and reliable sources, respectively). If you wish to challenge my opinion in this regard, I suggest you open a new thread at ] or ], two noticeboards that fortunately are busier than this one. Before you do that, you may wish to consult ] to learn how to indent your talk page replies. ] (]) 04:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
	***1. I checked the links you mentioned and I still do not see why you keep revoking "conflict of interest"? or "reliable sources"? The work was published in peer-reviewed international conference and was first included by another user who I do not know.<br>2. I see you got offended by my response to your point (3) which was nonsense (and I explained why). This led you to the deletion of the article and replacing it by "reference needed". Letting your emotions affect your decision is not objective editing and is a dis-service to WP community.<br>3.By the way, I did not add the reference (which I authored) to that article, and it was added several years ago. I only updated the link since I was aware of the existence of a new link (sincere help to WP readers).<br>4. No one agrees with your decision, and thus I demand that you undo the deletion. Out of respect, I will not redo, but will ask you to undo.<br>5. While you should be commended for your oversight on some WP articles, I believe you got this one wrong. ] (]) 19:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
	****While I was taken aback by your response, which ended in a demonstrably false insinuation based purely on surmise, I assure you that my actions concerning the link to your CV have not been affected by my emotions. Now, at the risk of repeating myself, if you wish to challenge my opinion in this regard, I suggest you open a new thread at ] or ], two noticeboards that fortunately are busier than this one. Before you do that, you may wish to consult ] to learn how to indent your talk page replies. In the meantime, thank you for not reverting. ] (]) 04:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
	*****If it hurts you to add a link from my homepage, the papers are available publicly at http://www.ohio.edu/orgs/muslimst/downloads/World_Muslim_Population_2010.pdf and http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.180.3753&rep=rep1&type=pdf <br>As you can tell, my WP editing skills are not sophisticated, as I do not edit that often But it is frowned upon to take a reliable source out without replacing it with another reliable source, then claim "ref is needed!" <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	*As an author on the URL linked sources cited by Rivertorch above, ] has a close personal or business connection with those references. The URL's posted by Hkettani are hidden behind text that does not truthfully inform the reader where the link leads. The links lead to an individual/personal web page having Curriculum Vitae at the top with little to no relation to the topic of the external link. is a general site that has information about a variety of subjects not related to the Misplaced Pages articles and should not be linked from the articles. See ]. The reason give by Hkettani for the URL change is "the reader has access to a bank of related papers to the topic." There is no evidence that this is an aim of ]. Hkettani edits advanced outside interests more than they advances the aims of Misplaced Pages. Hkettani has a Conflict of Interest with regard to URLs used in Misplaced Pages references in which Hkettani is an author and is required to comply with ] with regard to URLs used in Misplaced Pages references to which Hkettani is an author. -- ] (]) 14:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
	**Correct on all points. I'll reiterate what I said on my talk page: I'm willing to help with linking ''directly'' to the papers, either as external links or as references, ''if'' consensus is reached at the ] or the ] that they're appropriate to link to. ] (]) 18:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
	** Jreferee: your point is outdated, and already well-taken from Rivertorch. The issue at hand now that Rivertorch is disputing the "reliability" of the source (certainly with no valid excuse) and decided single-handedly to delete the source, all reference to it, and mentioned "ref needed" as if the facts in the WP article are disputed. This is done after he got offended when I challenged his insinuations about the authenticity of the articles. Making his actions look more personal retaliation than objective editing. ] (]) 19:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
	***Yes, removing references as not being a reliable source and COI externally linking to an individual/personal web page are two totally different issues. Rivertorch, in , you linked to this COI discussion to claim the source is not reliable. There is no basis for that. You also have a number of edits where you removed Dr. Houssain Kettani's publications from articles but stated that you were removing the URL. Removing or revising the URL to Dr. Kettani's web page per the COIN results is fine. However, the remainder of the inline references need to be left intact since the COIN discussion does not extend beyond the URL issue. Removal of the remainder of the inline reference requires more. If any of Dr. Kettani's external link references are removed, the edit summary needs to be more specific as to why. -- ] (]) 03:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
	****This is getting rather complicated, and it doesn't help that the discussion is happening in two places. Let me try to sort it out as simply as I can. I've removed the '''external links''' (which were variously in "External links" and "See also" sections) per ]. Relevant criteria are nos. 1, 4, 11, and 13 under ], as well as the wording of ]. I decided to remove the '''references''' as well, primarily because they contain no valid urls for verification but also because they appear to be primary sources where the use of secondary sources would be indicated, and I was not confident that they were fully compliant with the provisions of ]. I have informed user Hkettani that I am willing to be persuaded on that point and am willing to reinsert the references (not the external links) if consensus determines that they do meet ]. The offer stands. I'm also willing to be the one to open a new discussion at ]; although I think the spirit of ] tends to put the responsibility for that on the user favoring inclusion, I'm not one to stand on ceremony. ] (]) 04:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
	{{hat\|Tangential discussion collapsed}}
	*Is this a policy based statement, Rivertorch? "Personal résumés or CVs are always inappropriate links for articles, whether used as references or as external links." I've always viewed CV's as adequate sources for the mundane facts of someones career, provided that there is adequate evidence that it is actually their CV. This seems to be in line with ]'s guidelines. Sorry for the minor hijack, I'm just quite curious if there is opposing guidance somewhere. I'd certainly never use a CV for an overly selfserving statement, but for something like "John Doe worked at Johns Hopkins in 1978 as an assistant researcher," I would consider a CV adequate. ] (]) 05:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
	**<small>I don't mind your hijacking if you don't mind my hatting! {{smiley}} </small>I'd tend to accept a verifiably authentic CV as reliable only for ] claims (which appears to be the same as ]). I wasn't trying to make a blanket statement, and you're quite right that there's an exception for claims about self. I guess I didn't think of that because it had no relation to the issue at hand here. (It's worth noting that some people don't seem to think any self-sourced claims should be used. If you can get through the top half of ] without either laughing or crying, you have remarkable self-control!) ] (]) 06:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
	{{hab}}

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

			== Marc Jorgenson ==
			{{atop
			\| result = No edits since 2008. No need for action. ] (]/]) 01:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}

	<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->		<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
	* {{la\|~~Peter~~ ~~Pakeman~~}}		* {{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. -->		<!-- 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)
	This article about a guy who played soccer 30 years ago reads like a resume... take a look at the version before I just edited it, which was even worse.
			{{abot}}

			== State University of New York at Geneseo ==
	I can't say any more because of the red instruction at the top of this page! Which is confusing... ] '''>:3''' (]) 15:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
			{{atop
	:I think I may have broken that rule with my edit summary too :( sorry... can an admin fix it? ] '''>:3''' (]) 15:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
			\| result = Soft blocked for promotional username representing Geneseo's Communications and Marketing (CommMark) team. ] (]/]) 01:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	::The edit summary can't be ], but I've seen worse. Read over ] and that should take care of that. As for the article, it visually is hard on the eyes due to so many words using upper case first letters, which seems to try to show subject importance through formal event name dropping rather than his life events. Nice photos, but they do not appear to be free license photos. If the topic does not meet ], then a trip to AfD should fix the matter. -- ] (]) 02:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
			}}
	::There's no diffs posted showing a direct connection between Peter Pakeman and ], ], ], or ]. -- ] (]) 16:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::Thanks for your help {{u\|Jreferee}}. I was unsure about mentioning those users but I guess it's okay since you've done it. I can't prove any direct connection with the named users but {{oldid\|575456332\|label=the version of the article before my edit}} said that Pakeman works for the Canadian Health Information Management Association. 205.207.78.4 to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, so it seems to me that this is a case of autobiography. I see you have also done AfD and PUFC listings, thank you for that. ] '''>:3''' (]) 10:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::] was uploaded by Xave2000 then {{diff\|diff=prev\|oldid=452069471\|label=added to an article}} 28 minutes later by InPerpetuity, I think it is clear they are the same person. Should this go to sockpuppet investigation? ] '''>:3''' (]) 01:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::"Both of them" seem to be trying to blank the article and it will probably be deleted so I imagine this situation will resolve itself without needing to be investigated. ] '''>:3''' (]) 10:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

			<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
	== Diane Harper COI editing ==
			* {{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 ==
	It appears as though ] has discovered her Misplaced Pages page and has created an account whose only contribs are to that page: This isn't really a big deal. The reason I am posting here is that she may have created a sock account to make similar edits (i.e. edits which aim to make Harper look good). That account is ], which has also only ever edited the Diane Harper page. ] already posted on Cassandra's talk page warning him/her, and I would like to ask for an admin to see if one account is a sockpuppet of the other. ] (]) 02:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

	:This noticeboard is something of a ghost town at present. If you seriously suspect disruptive sockpuppetry, you can request that a ] investigate by filing a report at ]. ] (]) 05:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

	:Much of the written account of Diane Harper's life in the Misplaced Pages Diane Harper article is not independent of Diane Harper. The references in the article in which she is an author are not independent of Diane Harper and the information sourced to those references should be removed from the article. If what is left is not enough for a stand alone biography, then AfD should be considered. -- ] (]) 13:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
	::Jreferee, this is not the place for such complaints. You've already made this observation, and been answered, on the article's Talk page. ] (]) 08:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

	*Now another sock/meatpuppet, ], is making the same edits to the article. Might be time for an SPI for all three users and whatever other socks pop up in the meantime. Then again, she could be using various computers and the SPI checkuser will not show identical sources, but I think it's worth filing. ] (]) 08:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

	Actually, Softlavender, I have already opened an SPI: ]. I didn't request Checkuser though, maybe I should have. ] (]) 13:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

	== Protocol ==

	<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->		<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
	* {{la\|~~article~~ ~~name~~}}		* {{pagelinks\|Kathryn Babayan}}
	* {{userlinks\|~~username~~}}		* {{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. -->		<!-- 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.
	Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation.

			Suggestions on what should be done? ]]<sup>]</sup> 22:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	A friend asked me to create a wiki page about himself, and I tried to explain that this was not ethical.
			: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 ==
	Here's his response:

			*{{user3\|CaptainBeany}}
	As you might know, for creating an article, Misplaced Pages recommends (in Tip
	number 5 of their
	site: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Starting_an_article): "Please
	do not create pages about yourself". For this reason, as I explained to you
	in my e-mail of 30th July, "perhaps it will be more appropriate and have
	more credibility if is sent in by a third person - somebody
	with great international respectability … like you!" I thought of you
	because you are a person that has been in professional contact with me (and
	not just my buddy) for over 17 years and who knows well my professional
	development over the years. If you insist on calling this request
	"unethical", then I admit I am completely confused.

			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.
	My view is that this is a no-brainer. COI says "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family or your close friends. If you or they are notable enough, someone else will create the article. "
	https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:COI

			In 2010 they and asked for a sourced paragraph about a fraud conviction to be removed from the article. Discussions in response at
	But what should I do if he continues? Do I rat him out? What are my options and what's the protocol?
			] and ] decided that this was appropriate biographical content and should not be removed.
	] (]) 18:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
	*If you believe that he is notable, ie that ] then you can use ] or ] to suggest that a someone without a conflict of interest start an article. -- ] 18:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
	**and then you should follow up with an assessment of how close you want to be to someone who presses you to do things that you find unethical. -- ] 19:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
	The inverse of ] means that if you do not think something would be a good contribution to the encyclopedia, then don't do it, even if you can't find a specific rule. <span style="color:orange">]<sup>]</sup></span> 15:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

			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)
	== WR Entertainment Group ==

			:The user to the COIN notification, though exactly what they're trying to communicate is beyond me. --] (]) 05:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
	* {{la\|Ryan Wiik}}
	* {{userlinks\|WREG}}
	<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
	User has made edits relating to WR Entertainment Group. The edits appear to be promotional, or at least POV, in nature. The user's name is the acronym for the group the user is editing about. Reported the username to UAA, but was directed here (though it still suggests ] imho). This is my first time filling out a COI report, so I apologize if I have made a mistake. ] (]) 18:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
	:User should be permabanned as per above. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== Claire Perry ==

			== Science of Identity Foundation ==
			{{archive top\|No substantial evidence indicating a conflict of interest has been presented in this complaint. As such, I am closing this discussion as groundless/.{{pb}}When filing at this board, {{u\|Sokoreq}} is reminded to explicitly state the reasons that they believe a conflict of interest (as defined in ]). In particular, it is important to to avoid ] by making complaints here while failing to state a reasonable case to conclude that a COI exists. — ] <sub>]</sub> 04:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->		<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
			* {{pagelinks\|Science of Identity Foundation}}
	* {{la\|Claire Perry}}
	* {{userlinks\|~~ChristopherJones119~~ }}		* {{userlinks\|Hipal}}
	* {{userlinks\|GC88}}
	<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->		<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
			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)
	] is a British MP. They have been active in calling for tighter controls on teh interwebs. They also had an embarrassing episode recently where their website was hacked and they then chose to publicly blame a prominent political blogger for this in a way that has been widely seen as libelous. A sourced section to this effect is on their article. The crucial point is not "politician makes gaffe" or "politician favours control/censorship/whatever", but the combination of "politician dictating technical policy demonstrates personal ignorance of subject".
			:@], why haven't you attempted to discuss this at ] first? ] ] 18:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Agreed. Looking over the talk page and edits, I don't see anything suggesting Hipal has a COI. Nor do I see anything to evidence that Sokoreq has a vested interest in editing the article, although it is curious that they went straight to the noticeboard without participating in the talk page. —''']''' (]) 18:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::@] You are right, I was surprised that the editor keeps reverting my edits. This behavior suggests editor may have ] or feel a sense of ownership of the page. ] (]) 19:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Reverting your edits is evidence that they disagree with you, which is allowed. Disagreeing with you is in no way evidence of a conflict of interest. ] (]) 19:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::@] Yeh, I agree with you, but how many times ? And why? did you check my edit ? The editor was doing endless reverts, even after I requested clarification about their concerns on the talk page. ] (]) 20:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::You were also 'doing endless reverts'. Do you have a conflict of interest? ] (]) 20:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Did you check my edit? What is wrong with that edit? I would like to know so that I can improve myself for next time. Please be specific. Thanks ] (]) 20:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::You can improve yourself for next time by recognizing that reverts are a normal part of Misplaced Pages's editing process (see ]), and by refraining from making unfounded accusations towards other editors just because they reverted you. ] (]) 20:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::I followed ], but the editor didn't adhere to the discussion part: 'Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement.' Anyway, did you check my edit that the editor reverted several times? That would be really helpful. ] (]) 20:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::No, you began edit warring after you were reverted. That is not following ]. And you still have not posted at ]. ] (]) 20:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::The editor reverted my edits without any explanation and did so repeatedly. I am still waiting for your insight. Did you check my edit? What mistake did I make? I want to understand; any help would be appreciated. ] (]) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::Some of the mistakes that you made were edit warring and posting spurious talk page warnings (and now a noticeboard entry) rather than discussing your edits on the article's associated talk page. I'm not going to contribute to compounding those errors by debating the content with you here. If you want to continue with this, I would suggest that you withdraw the allegations you have made against Hipal, including the spurious vandalism, COI, and harrassment warnings you placed on their talk page, apologize to Hipal, and then go to ] where active discussions are currently taking place without your participation. ] (]) 20:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::You are trying to make it seem like it's my fault only, and you are missing the point. Anyway, thanks; I have already explained my COI concern below. ] (]) 21:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@] Already, there is a lot going on in that talk page. ] (]) 18:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::@] I agree that it's daunting. However, you don't get to override discussion by jumping straight to a noticeboard, and especially not COIN.—''']''' (]) 18:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::@] I apologize, but the editor's behavior was strange and did not make any sense. Now, after seeing the article history, it looks like the editor has a sense of ownership or maybe a conflict of interest. other than that, I don't have any other evidence to prove the COI. I leave the final decision to you, but now I am feeling Anxious about whether I should touch that article because it seems like that editor owns it. This is strange! ] (]) 19:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I think this can be closed as a groundless complaint. Sokoreq has continued to edit since opening this complaint but has yet to try to discuss the edits in question at ]. No evidence has been provided for conflict of interest, other than the OP's apparent assumption that there is no other possible reason that their edits would be reverted. ] ] 21:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{archive bottom}}

			== ] ==
	Several edits to this article are from single-purpose {{userlinks\|ChristopherJones119 }}, also the name of one of their staff (a moment's web searching). After a COI note to that account, today we're seeing similar spin control from a new account {{userlinks\|GC88}}. Before this turns into edit-warring, I'd appreciate some more eyeballs on the situation. My regular pet troll (who I think is from Wikipediocracy, possibly {{userlinks\|Vigilant}} / Vigilant@Wikipediocracy, as he's done it before) has already emailed me to threaten to have me blocked for outing {{user\|ChristopherJones119 }} as Christopher Jones. ] (]) 13:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
			* {{userlinks\|Kateblau}}

			Multiple draft creations of spammy company articles in a relatively short period of time:
	:Added to my watchlist. You might consider requesting semi-protection, which would force new SPAs to use the talk page and might head off a potential edit war. ] (]) 20:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			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)
	== Requesting help at Accenture ==
			: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 ==
	Hello, I'm currently working on behalf of ] to make some improvements to their Misplaced Pages article. I've raised some issues over at ], and although there's been a discussion between myself and two editors, the changes haven't yet been implemented (despite reaching consensus about one of the issues). It's been a couple of weeks now, but the editors don't seem to have had time to come back to the page. Because of the rather involved discussion on the Talk page over there, I'll briefly summarize the two remaining issues here:

			<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
	*'''].''' This list seemed to be acting as a magnet for various bits of incorrect information. After discussion, the solution that arose via consensus was that:
			Pages:
			* {{pagelinks\|John Ortberg}}
			Users:
			* {{userlinks\|Timothydw82}}
			<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
			Timothydw82 is a ] which is used solely to promote, defend and censor valid information about ]. Timothydw82 admits to consulting with Ortberg about the article on ] and has also used that page to make disparaging comments about Ortberg's son, Daniel Lavery. This is both a serious COI and POV problem. He has been warned before by other editors. My most recent warning (for POV editing) was met with what seems to be feigned incomprehension and "Do you work for Misplaced Pages?". I think it is time to put an end to this farce. ] (]) 02:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			:Thanks for sharing your concerns. I’d like to address the points you’ve raised to clarify any misunderstandings about my contributions and intentions.
	:*The ''Principal subsidiaries'' section be removed
			: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.
	:*A link be inserted into the ''External links'' section of the article that points to
			: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.
	:*The one subsidiary that has a Misplaced Pages article, ], remain in the article, but be moved to the ''History'' section, under ''Initial public offering'', with language like the following:
			:Third, concerning the comments about Daniel Lavery, I understand how sensitive these matters are. My intent was not to disparage anyone, and if any of my remarks were perceived as inappropriate, please bring them to my attention.
			:I'd also like to express my disappointment in your accusing me via direct message of treating you like "idiots". That felt like a curt, uncalled for accusation with little to no dialogue or support. You have not engaged in a discussion with me but clearly expressed your desire to see me blocked for little to no good reason I can discern.
			:Finally, regarding warnings from other editors: I value feedback and strive to learn from it. I am more than willing to engage in dialogue to resolve disputes and improve the quality of articles. If there are ongoing concerns about my edits, I encourage the use of formal dispute resolution processes so we can work collaboratively toward a solution. ] (]) 02:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Is that AI generated text? I ran it through a few different detectors and most thought that it was at least partially AI generated. ] (]) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Unbelievable. Indeffed. Thank you, ]. ] \| ] 20:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC).

			== Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation ==
	:{{quotation\|Also in 2001, Accenture became the majority owner of ], an IT consulting subsidiary it initially formed in 2000 as a joint venture with Microsoft.<ref name=Bishop>{{cite news \|title=Seattle tech firm gets big, quietly \|author=Todd Bishop \|url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-138992905.html \|work=Seattle Post-Intelligencer \|date=2 October 2006 \|accessdate=17 September 2013}}</ref>}}

	:Again, there seems to be consensus amongst myself, FeralOink, and Stalwart111 that this is the best way to move forward, but neither has yet had a chance to make the changes. As an editor with a COI, I don't edit directly, so if someone would be willing to help here, I'd really appreciate it.

	*'''].''' Although there was some discussion here, we did not reach consensus. Currently, Tiger Woods is referred to as a "celebrity spokesperson" in the article. I feel that this overstates Woods' role and is potentially confusing to readers, and that it would be more accurate to simply state that he appeared in Accenture's advertising. Among the two editors involved in discussions, one seemed to be amenable to a change along these lines, while the other thought the current language acceptable.

	If anyone here has time to take a look at the discussions, and, if everything looks okay, roll out the change re: the principal subsidiaries, and also weigh in on the Tiger Woods issue, I'd sure appreciate it. Cheers, ] (] · ]) 13:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

	:This is {{done}}. ] (] · ]) 12:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

	== School District 63 Saanich ==

	<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->		<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
			Pages:
	* {{la\|School District 63 Saanich}}
			* {{pagelinks\|Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation}}
	* {{userlinks\|Sd63socialmedia}}
			* {{pagelinks\|Park Hyeon-joo}}
			Users:
			* {{userlinks\|Channy Jung}}
			* {{userlinks\|203.239.154.130}}
			* {{userlinks\|Chisu1020}}
	<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->		<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
			Suspected undisclosed COI editors. Single-purpose accounts used exclusively to edit on this person and his foundation. All of the edits are complimentary, and almost entirely unsourced.
	Username and page edited share the same (but abbreviated) name. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 04:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

			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.
	== Art Plural Gallery ==

			I recently rewrote ] entirely to get rid of the unsourced promotional-like writing . State of article before the rewrite: .
	<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
	* {{la\|Art Plural Gallery}}
	* {{userlinks\|CorneliaHTang}}
	* {{userlinks\|Vijayaartplural}}
	Two accounts that have edited almost exclusively the article on ] and those on artists represented by the gallery, such as ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and so on. ] (]) 13:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
	:Establishing the conflict is aided by diffs/links showing a connection between the user behind the user name and the topic of the article. I don't find a COI at this point in time. CorneliaHTang has 108 of the 168 revisions to the Art Plural Gallery article and her talk page shows a desire to contribute, but that she might not be aware to how to go about it. I'll post a note on her talk page. -- ] (]) 13:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	::Right, 100% agreed on the first point. But I can't actually do that, can I, as to do so would be outing? As for the talk page note, many thanks, yours is much better than . Let's see if she takes any more notice of yours than she did of mine. ] (]) 17:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::The diffs/links would be those posts that the person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on/in Misplaced Pages. The Art Plural Gallery article is not a troubled article. Vijayaartplural has few edits and the information notice on Cornelia's talk page should be sufficient for now. If she continues along the same lines as before, ] may be a better noticeboard to post at. -- ] (]) 03:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::I'm bewildered by your response. Those diffs you mention would only be available in the case of a '''declared''' conflict of interest. Here you have two people who are very obviously employees of the gallery (or masquerading as such) adding wholly promotional content about it and about the artists it represents, vast chunks of it lifted direct from the gallery's own website. The fact that they have not declared their conflict of interest does not make it less one. Or is it OK to edit when you have a conflict of interest as long as you don't actually come out and admit it? I don't think so. ] (]) 17:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::I'm not sure what you mean. This discussion is to determine whether COIN is going to declare that an editor has a COI for a specific article. CorneliaHTang and Vijayaartplural do not yet have a COIN declared COI. Part of determining whether to declare a COI is to establish through diffs the editor's connection to the topic (see the top of this noticeboard). Editors may post in Misplaced Pages things like ... I work at ..., I maintain a website on behalf of ..., I'm good friends with the owner of ... . Diffs to such posts help COIN determine whether to declare a COI. The Art Plural Gallery article appears to have been cleaned up. CorneliaHTang received a notice and has not posted contrary to that notice. Is there something else that needs to be done? -- ] (]) 14:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

			Also worth noting the is similarly fluffy. I suspect Park/his foundation are watching these articles.
	== Yassmin Ghandehari ==

			] (]) 05:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	Hi, I have recently drafted an article in my ] on Yassmin Ghandehari, an Iranian-born interior designer and patron of the arts in the UK. In the interests of transparency I am declaring that I work for Bell Pottinger, a UK public relations agency, and that Yassmin Ghandehari is my client. Please see my talk page for more information. Feedback on the draft article with a view to an AfC submission would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks. ] (]) 18:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

			: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. ] ] 06:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	*I've responded on your talk page. Thanks for being transparent about your connection! --] (]) 16:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

			== Misplaced Pages Writers Marks a Milestone with 1,000 Successful Misplaced Pages Page Publications ==
	* Gareth, how did you come about writing a draft article about Yassmin Ghandehari? For example, did he contact Bell and the job was assigned to you? -- ] (]) 01:56, 16 October 2013 (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)
	== ]: more eyes please ==
			:{{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) ==
	I would be much obliged if experienced editors (especially admins) from here could add {{la\|Optical Express}} to their watchlists and keep an eye on the article and its talk page. There's a slow-moving but long-running conflict between editors with opposing conflicts of interest, and I don't have the time at the moment to monitor things as closely as I'd like. ] \| ] 12:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	:Looks like some editors appear to be obtaining negative, but sourced, event information (possible foreclosure, purportedly not closing a deal when they said, closed a subsidiary, pre-tax loss, owner resigned from the board of another company) and adding it to the article with some being removed by other editors. You might want to cross post at ]. -- ] (]) 14:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	::I notice that two editors are specifically cited for COI at the very top of the talk page. Has their conflict of interest been admitted or demonstrated? ] (]) 16:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::The first one has on their user page. The second one has not declared a connection. --] (]) 17:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::Thanks. I'd say that the first user's disclosure is completely inadequate, as it fails to indicate on the article talk page that he works for the company. The second editor's conflict disclosure is confusing, as it does not indicate what his conflict is. ] (]) 13:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

	== Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bangladeshi Cyclists ==

	<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->		<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
			* {{pagelinks\|Paul Devlin (footballer)}}
	* {{la\|Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bangladeshi Cyclists}}
	* {{userlinks\|~~drabiralam~~}}		* {{userlinks\|Pdfc2025}}
	* {{userlinks\|The sorcerer}}
	* {{userlinks\|Ridwanq}}
	* {{userlinks\|Alokito.bd}}
	<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->		<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
			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)
	They are members of the group or sockpuppet of a single user. <font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#B3B3FF -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#C0C0C0 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000040">]\|] </font> 11:51, 16 October 2013 (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)

			== ] ==
	You do realize that now you are going for personal attacks on each of these individuals? You have been asked for clarification but you have declined to clarify either point. You have made some of your own revisions which are most welcome. But your only focus is on deleting the article. Why is that? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			{{pagelinks\|User:SHEJO VARGHESE}}
			Undisclosed COI editor writing an autobiography at ].<span id="LunaEclipse:1736800296227:WikipediaFTTCLNConflict_of_interest/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 20:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
			: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. ] ] 20:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::], my bad :( I had no intention to come off as overly harsh.<span id="LunaEclipse:1736801352397:WikipediaFTTCLNConflict_of_interest/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <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. ] ] 00:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Gilles Epié ==
	I have handed the issue to administrators. It's not my duty to decide the article's deletion or keeping. An administrator's intervention is not a personal attack. An administrator will decide and check for shockpupettry. - <font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#B3B3FF -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#C0C0C0 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000040">]\|] </font> 12:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

			<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
	Without even bothering to go in a discussion with the creators of the page, you straightway nominated the page for a speedy deletion. ] (]) 15:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
			* {{pagelinks\|Gilles Epié}}
			* {{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)
	: No matters who created the article. It's not his/her own property. Deletion or keeping of article will be according to policy and guideline of wikipedia. - <font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#B3B3FF -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#C0C0C0 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000040">]\|] </font> 16:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
			::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)
			:::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)

			== Burning River Buckets ==
	::The users are more likely to be ] than ]. AFDs are closed according to the arguments made for or against deletion and are not a simple vote. As other established editors have pointed out already, the organisation appears to be notable so accusations of COI are a ]. ] (]) 19:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

			<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
	== Rebecca Housel article ==
	* {{la\|~~Rebecca~~ ~~Housel~~}}		* {{pagelinks\|Burning River Buckets}}
	* {{userlinks\|~~EmpressMatilda~~}}		* {{userlinks\|C.A. Buttons}}
			<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
			] 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)

			: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)
	] posted a request at the Help Desk for assistance with an article of which she created and is the subject. The request is . -- ] (]) 12:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
			::Went back and restored the external links section as well. --] (]) 20:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] ==
	:Hi EmpressMatilda. To determine which one image to add to an infobox, we can use ], specifically ]. I listed both the images at graphics lab. Once they do their magic, we should be able to figure out which image to use in the infobox by applying what it says at ]. Your rights relative to the article about you generally are listed at ]. After reviewing these, please list what ever you would like assistance with. Thanks! -- ] (]) 12:57, 16 October 2013 (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)
	* EmpressMatilda has not responded and the conclusion is straightforward. EmpressMatilda has a COI with the Rebecca Housel topic and I posted a notice on her talk page informing her of this. -- ] (]) 13:01, 17 October 2013 (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)

	== ] ==		== Alexander H. Joffe ==

	<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->		<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
	* {{la\|MV ~~Seaman~~ ~~Guard Ohio~~}}		* {{pagelinks\|Alexander H. Joffe}}
			* {{userlinks\|69.121.25.122}} Claims to be Joffe in a 2007 edit
	* {{userlinks\|Jmartin77}}
			* {{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\|Comeonftw}}
			* {{userlinks\|74.88.198.179}} Claims to be Joffe in this talk page edit
	* {{userlinks\|81.240.180.58}}
			* {{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.
	<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
			* {{userlinks\|67.82.155.243}} Made 2 edits to Joffe article, has ] IP, only a few miles from ] where Joffe formerly taught.
	I understand that Misplaced Pages is not a place for business wars, but our competitors are using it as a place to hold such wars with us.
			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)
	I represent a company named AdvanFort, and this article was written to attack our company’s integrity, because it contains many irrelevant and untrue statements.

	It is an article about MV Seaman Guard Ohio yet it contains data about “Issues involving AdvanFort”; “2009 Revoked Corporate Licence”; “2011 Allegations of contact mismanagement in Estonia”; “2011 Arrest of Advanfort Texas and Advanfort Alaska”; “2013 guilty plea to illegal acquisition of firearms." Most of this article is not about the subject matter. Most of it is about our company, not the ship, however, most of it is untrue, and we have documentation to dispute every piece of information that has been written about us.

	I ask you to look into the author/editor and question their motive. They surely are in the Maritime industry. I urge you: don’t allow your website to be used for business wars as these people are using it. ] (]) 14:07, 17 October 2013 (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. ] ] 05:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I've expanded this report to include you, ], as you appear to have some affiliation to the subject of the article. So yes, since we're not for "business wars", I suggest you stay away from the article. I will likely be cutting the article down heavily, as right now some of it is reads like a PR piece for the vessel, and some of it reads like an angry rant against the owners. --] ] 14:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:30, 18 January 2025

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

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)

Shortcuts

Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge)

This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Misplaced Pages to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution procedural policy.

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

Additional notes:

This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:

1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.

2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.

3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.

Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline.

Are you in the right place?

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

Notes for volunteers

To close a report

Add Template:Resolved at the head of the complaint, with the reason for closing and your signature.
Old issues are taken away by the archive bot.

Other ways to help

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

To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests Talk:260 Collins Talk: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:Alex Wright (author) Talk:Xero (company) Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Chris Antonopoulos (footballer) and Fort Lauderdale Strikers

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

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

I've removed a lot of unsourced material from the Antonopoulos article, but clearly the problems here extend rather further than that. Axad12 (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The user has now denied on their talk page that they are Antonopoulos. It must be admitted, however, that they appear to be a WP:SPA dedicated solely to promoting Antonopoulos and mentioning him on as many articles as possible.

It seems unclear whether the user has a COI or is just a fan who is unaware of the policies on sourcing and promotion.

Any thoughts on whether Antonopoulos satisfies WP:GNG and whether detailed info on beach soccer activities is usually considered suitable for inclusion? Axad12 (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that they would be so obsessed with Antonopoulos if they were not either him or someone closely associated with him, and their response is quite odd. There does appear to be a Chris Antonopoulos who signed a professional contract with the Fort Lauderdale Strikers, and to me that satisfies notability as the beach soccer and pre-professional soccer contract section of his career would not make Antonopoulos notable enough to have an article alone. It is of note that Antonopoulos does not appear to have been the primary goalkeeper during his tenure and that the primary goalkeepers were Jorge Valenzuela, Mario Jimenez, and Jim St. Andre at this time. It appears Antonopoulos only made two appearances between 1993 and 1994 which is when he was apparently signed to the team. From the perspective of someone who was not directly involved with the Strikers but would want to write about them, Valenzuela and Jimenez would probably be higher on the priority list than a goalkeeper who only made two appearances. The only parts about Antonopoulos in the article that are specific to him are praising his accomplishments. Raskuly (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. Axad12 (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, the photos that the user have all uploaded appear to indicate that whoever is writing the article had close connections with Antonopoulos throughout his career if they in fact have the right to upload them. Raskuly (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The user continues to obsess over this article and to add large amounts of trivial non-encyclopaedic detail and generally promotional material. Are we really sure that the subject satisfies WP:GNG? Axad12 (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I generally go by pro athletes being notable enough to have an article, but Antonopoulos appears to have barely been a pro athlete, and like I brought up with the writer before they accused me of acting uncivil, it would make more sense to write articles about Antonopoulos' teammates. I'm not in favor of having an article on Misplaced Pages who's express purpose is to promote someone, even if they may meet the requirement of general notability. This is the first time I've dealt with an issue like this, so I apologize if I am not understanding things correctly as to what makes someone notable enough. Raskuly (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Article is notable. And I deem there's a consensus to proceed with option #1 - tag the 2 pages. RememberOrwell (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Marc Jorgenson

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

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

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

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

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

State University of New York at Geneseo

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

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

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

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

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

Kathryn Babayan

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

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

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

The BLP is bloated with puffery and sources. It should be shortened substantially. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC).

This is how it was before the IP changed things, which I think was a good summary of her work. No idea what you're talking about with the sources however. There are technically only 9 in use in the article, with only one of which being a primary source from her university page. Silver seren 01:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Just revert to the last good version before the IP started editing. If the user continues to edit the article then revert them again and request page protection at WP:RPPI. Axad12 (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

K. I've gone ahead and made the revert, though I kept the lede change the IP made. Since I think that was actually an improvement. Silver seren 01:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Article has now been protected to prevent further disruptive editing . With thanks, Axad12 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Captain Beany

CaptainBeany (talk · contribs · logs)

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

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

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

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

Science of Identity Foundation

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

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

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

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

@Sokoreq, why haven't you attempted to discuss this at Talk:Science of Identity Foundation first? Schazjmd (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Looking over the talk page and edits, I don't see anything suggesting Hipal has a COI. Nor do I see anything to evidence that Sokoreq has a vested interest in editing the article, although it is curious that they went straight to the noticeboard without participating in the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@C.Fred You are right, I was surprised that the editor keeps reverting my edits. This behavior suggests editor may have conflicts of interest or feel a sense of ownership of the page. Sokoreq (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Reverting your edits is evidence that they disagree with you, which is allowed. Disagreeing with you is in no way evidence of a conflict of interest. MrOllie (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@MrOllie Yeh, I agree with you, but how many times ? And why? did you check my edit ? The editor was doing endless reverts, even after I requested clarification about their concerns on the talk page. Sokoreq (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

You were also 'doing endless reverts'. Do you have a conflict of interest? MrOllie (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Did you check my edit? What is wrong with that edit? I would like to know so that I can improve myself for next time. Please be specific. Thanks Sokoreq (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

You can improve yourself for next time by recognizing that reverts are a normal part of Misplaced Pages's editing process (see WP:BRD), and by refraining from making unfounded accusations towards other editors just because they reverted you. MrOllie (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I followed WP:BRD, but the editor didn't adhere to the discussion part: 'Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement.' Anyway, did you check my edit that the editor reverted several times? That would be really helpful. Sokoreq (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

No, you began edit warring after you were reverted. That is not following WP:BRD. And you still have not posted at Talk:Science of Identity Foundation. MrOllie (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The editor reverted my edits without any explanation and did so repeatedly. I am still waiting for your insight. Did you check my edit? What mistake did I make? I want to understand; any help would be appreciated. Sokoreq (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Some of the mistakes that you made were edit warring and posting spurious talk page warnings (and now a noticeboard entry) rather than discussing your edits on the article's associated talk page. I'm not going to contribute to compounding those errors by debating the content with you here. If you want to continue with this, I would suggest that you withdraw the allegations you have made against Hipal, including the spurious vandalism, COI, and harrassment warnings you placed on their talk page, apologize to Hipal, and then go to Talk:Science of Identity Foundation where active discussions are currently taking place without your participation. MrOllie (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

You are trying to make it seem like it's my fault only, and you are missing the point. Anyway, thanks; I have already explained my COI concern below. Sokoreq (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Schazjmd Already, there is a lot going on in that talk page. Sokoreq (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sokoreq I agree that it's daunting. However, you don't get to override discussion by jumping straight to a noticeboard, and especially not COIN.—C.Fred (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@C.Fred I apologize, but the editor's behavior was strange and did not make any sense. Now, after seeing the article history, it looks like the editor has a sense of ownership or maybe a conflict of interest. other than that, I don't have any other evidence to prove the COI. I leave the final decision to you, but now I am feeling Anxious about whether I should touch that article because it seems like that editor owns it. This is strange! Sokoreq (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I think this can be closed as a groundless complaint. Sokoreq has continued to edit since opening this complaint but has yet to try to discuss the edits in question at Talk:Science of Identity Foundation. No evidence has been provided for conflict of interest, other than the OP's apparent assumption that there is no other possible reason that their edits would be reverted. Schazjmd (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Kateblau

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

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

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

здравствуйте! я создаю статьи о компаниях по киборгизации и автоматизации, научных деятелей в этой области, это будет сделано в короткий промежуток времени, потому что проделана большая аналитическая работа по данным компаниям и я загружаю уже составленную ранее информацию, это не реклама, я допустил несколько ошибок, потому что впервые на википедии как автор, пожалуйста, я могу дальше создавать страницы? Kateblau (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I am creating articles about companies in cyborgization and automation, scientific figures in this field, this will be done in a short period of time, because a lot of analytical work has been done on these companies and I am uploading previously compiled information, this is not advertising, I made several mistakes, because this is my first time on Misplaced Pages as an author, can I please continue to create pages? Kateblau (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

It appears that you are using a LLM like ChatGPT to create these drafts, and that your own communications are machine translated. Is that true? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I've deleted some of these; they all seem to be on the same pattern, making roughly the same claims. I assume LLM use at minimum. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

John Ortberg

Pages:

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

Users:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation

Pages:

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

Users:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Paul Devlin (footballer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Pdfc2025 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Gilles Epié (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Epie2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Burning River Buckets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
C.A. Buttons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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 // 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)

Alexander H. Joffe

Alexander H. Joffe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
69.121.25.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Claims to be Joffe in a 2007 edit
71.249.231.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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 Levantine archaeology and The David Project, Joffe's former employer per here.
74.88.198.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Claims to be Joffe in this talk page edit
24.191.44.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Claims to be Joffe in the same talk page as above
31.154.131.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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.
67.82.155.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Made 2 edits to Joffe article, has New Rochelle, NY IP, only a few miles from SUNY Purchase 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. 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: