Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:29, 28 November 2007 editGerry Ashton (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,405 edits Silanis: back again← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:31, 23 December 2024 edit undoMartinevans123 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers232,697 edits A Celebration of Horses: The American Saddlebred: also 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{redirect|WP:COIN|the WikiProject on articles about coins|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Numismatics}}
]]{{Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/header}}
]
]
]
]
{{Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{archivemainpage|Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard}} |archiveheader = {{archivemainpage|Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 19 |counter = 216
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(10d) |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! -->
== Carlton Wilborn ==


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -->
* {{pagelinks|Carlton Wilborn}}
<!-- New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. -->
* {{userlinks|Carltonrising}}
<!-- PLEASE REMEMBER TO SIGN YOUR MESSAGE -->
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -->
Clear ] only interested in editing an article about himself. Previous edits already revdeleted for copyright issues. ] (]) 14:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
<!-- Copy, do not edit, the below text and paste it below the newest section at the bottom of the page


:Looks like a very clear-cut COI violation. - ] (]) 03:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
== {{subst:Coiwatch|Article name}} ==
::Should I also add the main article to Articles for deletion? The sources of that article all suck.. there's only one reliable source (Attitude Magazine). I haven't heard of the other sources ] (]) 06:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


== Anahit saribekyan ==
* Describe the dispute using the following format:
* {{article|article name}} - brief explanation // ~~~~ or
* {{userlinks|user name}} - brief explanation //~~~~
-->


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
== Possible ] found by ] ==
* {{pagelinks|Anahit saribekyan}}
* {{userlinks|Anahit Saribekyan}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
User created autobiography. <span style="color: #0f52ba; font-weight: bold; text-shadow: 0px 0px 1px #111111;">]</span> (]) 17:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)


:Yes, and the first paragraph is a ] from here: . Copyvio is a problem that was pointed out on a previously turned down AfC from this user, but their talk page doesn't inspire confidence that the message will have been understood.
* ] &nbsp;&nbsp;''This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.''
:
:The user seems to have severe issues with both ] and promotion of herself and her employer (The International Dance Council). A look at the user's talk page reveals a long list of declined promo AfCs, and deleted promo material that was introduced directly into mainspace.
:First there was this article on Dance Day , which was declined at AfC 5 times in the space of a month.
:Then there was this article for International Certification of Dance Studies , turned down at AfC, nominated for speedy deletion, moved into mainspace, then back to draftspace, then back to mainspace and eventually deleted at AfD - all in the course of a fortnight.
:(Both of the above articles are directly related to the International Dance Council.)
:And now the user has moved an entirely unsourced and COPYVIO article about themselves directly to mainspace, only for it to go to AfD half an hour later. It was then speedy deleted under G11 within the hour.
:As far as I can see this is a blatant promo only account which is wasting a lot of volunteer time. The fact that they started bypassing AfC is the clearest sign that something is wrong here. ] (]) 19:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::As further illustration of the issues here, an article for Dance Day has actually existed on Misplaced Pages since 2005 (under the title ]. We can only wonder why an employee of the organising body was repeatedly trying to create an inadequately sourced and very poorly written duplicate article. However, the 5 referrals to AfC and the reams of resultant back and forth communication on the user's talkpage indicates that a massive amount of time was wasted. ] (]) 19:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::For more of the same, see the article for ] (president of the International Dance Council), edited by the user above back in August, but set up by the obviously COI user ] (The IDC/CID is part of Unesco), and entirely bereft of references and apparently the work of the same hand. Another strange similarity, the article was originally created as Alkis raftis (lower case r) and the Anahit saribekyan article today had the same peculiarity.
:::The Raftis article was also extensively edited by ] which was site blocked in 2023 for being a promo/advertising only account.
:::] therefore indicates that ] is involved in block evasion. They are employed (by their own admission) by the International Dance Council, and they are involved only in promotional and advertising.
:::Copying in ] who has been working on removing some of the material mentioned earlier in the thread. ] (]) 20:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Fun fact: ] even popped up as a meat puppet at the AfD for International Certification of Dance Studies (their only edit). ] (]) 20:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)


:::::I thought about blocking this account, but the COI had been declared and it seemed to be as much a competence issue as anything, so I didn't, perhaps an error in retrospect ] - ] 08:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
== Articles tagged for COI that need to be cleaned up ==
::::::Point taken, but surely block evasion after a block for promo/advertising isn't a competence issue - and the behaviour that got them blocked has continued (if anything, worse than before).
::::::I wonder if you would care to reconsider? ] (]) 10:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::For example, declaring a COI doesn't give a user carte blanche to repeatedly crowbar promotional mateerial into mainspace that has been turned down at AfC, or to start bypassing AfC altogether with their promotional and unsourced autobiography. ] (]) 10:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Guys no problem. Let me know how to delete my account from here.
::::::::I am getting tired from the issue. Or delete my account from here. ] (]) 13:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::{{ping|Anahit Saribekyan}} Accounts cannot be deleted. If you don't want to edit Misplaced Pages anymore, simply abandon your account and never log into it again. --] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 13:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)


== Pinialtaus ==
* ] - ''Please pick an article from this category and decide whether it satisfies ]. If not, nominate it for deletion via one of the ], ] or ] processes. If you believe the article should be kept, review the text to ensure that it complies with ]. After you have made any necessary edits, remove the {{tl|COI}} template.''


{{userlinks|Pinialtaus}}
== ] ==
For going straight to making ten edits after being old enough to meet the time requirement and then immediately to posting ] and ].
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
* Update: Pinialtaus has now been blocked as a ], see ]. {{nowrap|''']''' ]]}} 19:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


== Special:Contributions/EAllen04 ==
*{{article|Princess Diana: The Evidence}}
*{{article|Death of Diana, Princess of Wales}}
*{{userlinks|Paperbackrighter}}


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
Paperbackrighter's only contributions have been on the subject of one specific book which makes claims about the death of ]. He has created an article about the book which reads like the publisher's blurb, and added mentions to the main article about the death of Diana even though the book may not be significant. Given his user name, I think there is more than a chance that he may be connected to the authors of the book. ] 09:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|Flourishing}}
* {{pagelinks|Water For People}}
* {{userlinks|EAllen04}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
First time submitting something like this, so please bear with me.


It appears to me that user EAllen04 is the same Eleanor Allen named in the ] article. Eleanor recently edited the ] article, contributing a word salad of advertising copy that further dilutes the quality of an article already thoroughly suffused with marketing-speak and woo.
:Just to note that ] has acknowledged the conflict of interest on his user talk page. ] 19:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


EAllen04 was notified of their COI responsibilities in March of 2024. I notified them again following their most recent string of edits. Respectfully requesting a more seasoned editor double check my work here.
:: but still seems to be adding his book... --] 12:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


*]. -- ]]/] 14:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC) ]]] 13:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)


:At this time I should also point out that in light of ], I struggle to discern a convincing case for the continued presence of the article ] anywhere within the scope of the project. The subject organization fails the notability test, and nearly all the cited sources are from either the organization itself or one of their members named in the article. If it were my choice, I'd say nuke this stinker -- but that's probably why I don't have any actual power around here ;) ]]]™ 13:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==
::Yes, I'm inclined to agree with you. I've removed some unsourced text from Water For People and reverted the recent edits to Flourishing. As you say, AfD may be the solution for Water for People.
::Looking at the edit history for Water For People, there have been various redlinked ]s editing the article from 2010 onwards, which is probably why it is such a mess.
::However, on the other hand there is the following text, which is obviously some kind of ]/] and presumably doesn't originate from the organisation itself: {{tq|Water For People reported in its 2015 IRS tax form that it spent a total of $18,844,346, in which $5,819,735 in administration, and $1,944,288 in fundraising. There's a discrepancy here. On Water For People's website, they have all their audited financial statements from 2005 to 2015. They also have all their IRS Form 990s from 2012 to 2016. They also have their IRS Form 1023 accessible from 1991, where they applied for recognition of tax exemption. They also have their 501(c)(3) document, containing a letter that confirms their tax exemption status from the Internal Revenue Service. On its website, the charity also has its own printed pamphlet, called "Behind the Numbers" from the years 2013 to 2015. The pamphlet explains what the money in the respective fiscal year was able to accomplish in project works around the world.}}
::Overall, a mess. ] (]) 15:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::Hi all -EAllen here - I am not trying to be a problem. I am trying to contribute meaningfully. I am the former CEO of Water For People. The page is/was very outdated and I was trying to update it and make it more factual. Wanting to help and appreciate your guidance to do so in an appropriate way.
::For Flourishing, the page doesn't mention workplace flourishing. I think it is a missing element on the flourishing page. I did get some copy from SHAPE, a company I respect in this space. Happy to tone it down to not make it sound like marketing text and more factual. Appreciate the guidance. ] (]) 16:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:::When you say {{tq|I did get some copy from SHAPE, a company I respect in this space. Happy to tone it down to not make it sound like marketing text}} are you basically admitting to having attempted a large scale ]?
:::Also, I see very clear offwiki evidence suggesting a degree of association between yourself and SHAPE. Given that you appear to have cut and pasted material from SHAPE into Misplaced Pages, material that you accept sounded like marketing text, maybe it would be best if you were to disclose your conflict of interest there? ] (]) 17:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Your edits here , here and here were clearly blatant adverts for SHAPE.
::::To suggest that you are {{tq|Happy to tone it down}} isn’t really going to get us anywhere. There is no place for this kind of promotionalism on Misplaced Pages, no matter how much it is toned down. These edits were not, as you claim, adding detail to an element of Flourishing that was previously not covered. They were very blatant adverts for a specific company.
::::I note that you also made a large promotional edit back in March 2024 to the article for ], another organisation where off wiki evidence suggests some degree of association. The edit including material such as {{tq|Notable B-Lab certified corporations: There are thousands of certified B Corps all around the world. You can search the database to find a B Corp . There are many famous brands including: }}
::::In fact, looking at your edit history, is it fair to say that it relates primarily to adding promotional material to articles where you have a conflict of interest (including apparent self-promotion, here )? ] (]) 17:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I note also a previous note left on your talk page back in March this year, observing that {{tq|editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted.}} Under the circumstances some explanation is surely required on why you recently felt it wise to add material such as {{tq|SHAPE Global Ltd is a leading advocate for the research and application of organizational flourishing. Contributing to multiple groups such as Harvard University’s Flourishing at Work and AI for Human Flourishing, as well as IWBI WELL standard, SHAPE is linking the importance of flourishing to regulatory as well as academic communities globally}}. That is obvious marketing copy re: SHAPE and has nothing to do with the topic of the article. I could give further examples, but hopefully that suffices for now... ] (]) 18:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)


== Leyla Kuliyeva ==
{{resolved|Articles deleted. ] 01:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)}}
*{{article|Yunkyung_Ashleigh_Cho}}
*{{article|Enter_the_studio}}
*{{userlinks|Yunks77}}
Editor has created an autobiography page, and a promotional page for her company. Editor hasn't responded to comments on her talk page, and has been removing COI tags from the articles in question. As the editor continues to remove COI templates without addressing the concerns on her (and the articles') talk pages, I left a template removal / blanking warning notice. ] <sup>(])</sup> 06:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
:This may now be a moot point, as the pages have been A7 speedied. Best, --] <sup>(])</sup> 21:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
==]==
* {{pagelinks|Leyla Kuliyeva}}
* {{userlinks|User publisher wiki}}
User publisher wiki has made two sets of changes to this article. The , which I reverted, was promotional in tone and either unsourced or referenced to primary sources. The , which I also reverted, was unsourced. Another editor posted on the user's Talk page about CoI, and I followed up with a direct question, to which User publisher wiki responded {{tq|I have the information}} and giving concerns about the grammar, quality and brevity of the article. They have now posted on the article's Talk page saying, in part, {{tq|I have been assigned to create a page for this individual with all the relevant information. This article either needs to be properly edited or deleted and replaced with a new one, as it does not adhere to Misplaced Pages's standards. If this is not addressed promptly, we will need to notify Misplaced Pages's legal department to take further action}}. ] (]) 10:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)


:Their last comment has now earned them a {{tlx|uw-legal}} warning. --] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 15:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
* {{article|Ego Pharmaceuticals}} - While the article was created by someone apparently associated with the company, I and another editor have cleaned it up. Unfortunately a 3rd editor thinks that the stub still has NPOV issues (see talk page discussion). Would appreciate another pair of eyes. Thanks ] <sup>]</sup> 03:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC) (not associated with the company)
::There have been quite a lot of problems with this article since it was created. All of the problematic activity clearly derives from a single previously blocked user, evidence as follows...
**Still looking for another pair of eyes please Thanks ] <small>formerly known as User:Golden Wattle</small> <sup>]</sup> 00:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
::The article was originally created in Feb '22 by virtual SPA ] who took the article to this rather odd <s>(but very long)</s> version before their work began to be reverted (and the article was taken back to very short stub status).
::The user was then blocked for sockpuppetry .
::Then in Sept '22 ] attempted to create a new article for Leyla Kuliyeva (despite the fact that one already existed). This was turned down at AfC. The user placed their new version of the article on their talk page, here . It is obviously <s>the version that was favoured by</s> ''the work of a user with an identical agenda to that of'' the blocked user TheWeldere. Then in Jan '23 Dmarketingchamp cut and pasted their version into the existing article, here . So, this was <s>obvious</s> ''apparent'' block evasion and sockpuppetry by the user of the TheWeldere account.
::Then in Nov '24 the present account appeared and attempted to create a new article for Kuliyeva (is this sounding familiar?). This was again turned down at AfC (twice this time). The user then implemented their preferred version within the current article, here . So, same story as above.
::This version is different to the previous version that the earlier accounts attempted to implement, but is very likely from the same hand.
::The behavioural evidence of users trying to create complete replacement articles indicates obvious sockpuppetry and block evasion, as per ]. ] (]) 17:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{reply to|Axad12}} Are you going to file a report at SPI? --] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 03:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I would, but I don't know how to. If you feel an SPI is required, would you be prepared to do the honours and simply link to the evidence above? If so it would be much appreciated. ] (]) 05:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Just a note to say that the user seems to be restricted to communicating with extensive AI produced material, as can be seen in recent discussions at their talk page and at the Leyla Kuliyeva talkpage . The user even parroted back one of my responses (here:), presumably due to cut and paste error while putting an earlier question into Google Translate. ] (]) 12:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::] now blocked by ] as an advertising only account (and for {{tq|wasting people's time on their user page}}, as per the SPI: ). ] (]) 20:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


== South College ==
== Editing "List of Mind Mapping Software" ==


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
{{resolved|Editor who opened the complaint is now satisfied. ] (]) 19:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC) }}
* {{pagelinks|South College}}
* {{userlinks|Amanda Woodward Burns}}
In a , this editor used an edit summary that indicates that they work for the college: "We needed to update our number of programs we offer, update the 2023 stats to include CBE programs. Also correct a few grammatical issues." I placed a ] on their User Talk page in May. They have not yet responded to the warning but they continue to edit the college's article. ] (]) 22:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)


:An once of good faith might be due, just from the standpoint that you warned them last time and they stopped. Then 7 months later they come back, probably don't remember seeing the first warning, and then get two more today ''after they stopped editing'' again. Not that this isn't a problem, but I'd probably wait for them to edit again in the next day or two, and then if they do perhaps a hammer needs to come down. Another possibility might be to report per ]. ]&thinsp;] 05:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
]
::In fairness, various promotional accounts have been editing that article since at least 2019. For example, this promotional edit with edit summary {{tq|Update at the request of the college}}. That user was blocked as an advertising only account.
::Then we have this exchange from 2020 , where another user admits to working for the college in a marketing capacity and is asked not to edit the article.
::Then later that year this user edited the article, later blocked as ].
::Then user SPA from 2021 whose promotional edits were reverted later that day.
::Then this user from 2023 , who made 1 edit before being notified of the ] policy.
::And then the current user, whose first edit indicated that they work for the college, and who was notified of the relevant policy back in May.
::So, let's not be under any illusion that this college has been directly editing the article for many years, receiving repeated push back in that regard, and is well aware that such activity is contrary to policies and guidelines. ] (]) 23:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:::That does appear consistent with what I've found, but also let's be real, given the spread of these edits, and their limited scope, even blocking this account isn't going to provide a different outcome. Because, as you noted, there have been multiple accounts, and even blocking those accounts isn't making a difference. A large reason for this, I believe, is that college is full of well intentioned, technically versed students who are going to introduce SPAM, but also, there is a huge rotation employees - most people who edit these sorts of pages on college will not be working there two years later. This is different from a company or individual. That doesn't mean that we ignore it. But my point is, once a notice has been issued, they go away, a block will not make any reasonable difference here except make someone doing AIV patrolling feel better. This doesn't mean that I'm light on abuse, but rather, that I believe that we should be more concerned with actual outcomes versus the appearance of just following the process. ]&thinsp;] 00:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::::You say {{tq|once a notice has been issued, they go away}}, but in this case the user has continued their editing beyond a notice (which is why they ended up here).
::::You also say that the college {{tq|is full of well intentioned, technically versed students who are going to introduce SPAM}}, but as far as can be ascertained (from the accounts' own statements) the accounts originated from employees of the college and from marketing companies employed by the college.
::::Under those circumstances it's entirely reasonable to assume that those working for the college are aware of the past failures to install promotional content and that they are simply returning to the article once a year or so in the vain hope that no one is looking any more.
::::You also note that you don't feel a block would be worthwhile - but when an account exists solely for advertising or promotion, and continues beyond a notice, a block is a fairly standard response in accordance with policy (although in this case I don't see that anyone has actually called for a block anyway).
::::Note also the relatively recent promotional edit here , done by an IP address (quite possibly the user named at the top of this thread, or else clearly someone with an identical agenda). That edit (done under a misleading edit summary) was swiftly reverted on the basis that it was promotional.
::::The named user has been referred to ] and to ] and any further continuation of the same agenda can only be construed as blatant breaches of policies and guidelines. That's all the more the case given how easy it is to follow the COI edit request process.
::::The general long term pattern of behaviour seen in this case is actually alarmingly common on the articles for schools and colleges. Blocking is often the only way to get the attention of such editors. ] (]) 03:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'm not against a block, but I'm simply suggesting that it will simply be a case of WHACKAMOLE and that using warning templates will likely result in the same case of editing every few months from various accounts. The only real way to keep colleges protected is to use page protection, which might be a better option. ]&thinsp;] 17:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I don't disagree, but when I've tried to get page protection in the past I've often found that (a) this level of disruptive editing wouldn't be judged sufficient to justify protection (they sometimes refer requesting editors back to COIN for this sort of thing), and (b) when protection is applied it's usually only for a time period that wouldn't be much use if the promotional edits only seem to occur once a year or so.
::::::Clearly this isn't an ideal state of affairs, but I can understand why volunteers at ] wouldn't want to apply long term protection and thus prevent new good faith non-promotional editors from being able to edit a page. That sort of solution is only going to be a good idea on articles with endemic vandalism issues.
::::::Ideally engaging with COI editors is the way to encourage them to use the COI edit request process, but most promotional editors simply don't engage at their talk page. ] (]) 17:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)


== Ivan Lagundžić ==
Hi, I want to raise an issue of '''links to websites''' in this article. I feel like it's time to edit this article, adding links to websites in the FOOTNOTES section. '''Reason''' for it is that this article is about mind mapping '''software''', which presupposes that people coming to this page actually WANT to find out information about different software, '''try it''' and make a choice. So they will go to these links in the FOOTNOTES section in any case, but because most links are not clickable at the moment, it makes it harder for people to do that (copy+paste operation is simple yet it takes more time and effort than simply clicking on the link). So I (and many other users) think that links should be allowed in the FOOTNOTES section of this exact article (due to its solely practical nature). Otherwise, I believe all links in the footnotes section should be deleted, because the way it looks now makes people think some software is superior over other (or some editors are favoring some software), which is not good and that's the reason I'm raising this issue here, in ]<br />
Please consider this option. Thanks! ] 09:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
:I believe you have a conflict of interest for the very links that you've added, and have asked you to respond to this concern. It's probably best to do so now and here.
:The article is in my opinion a failed experiment to present additional information than is normally found in lists. Best to discuss those issues on the article talk page. --] (]) 16:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
:: I'm concerned not only about links I've added, but also about all other software that you have deleted from that list. It doesn't seem like a reasonable action to me, I think what you've done simply robs people out of their choice to try and decide. ] (]) 08:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
:::This list has faced a long struggle over the issue of allowing direct links to vendor's web sites where the package in question is not notable enough to have its own Misplaced Pages article. I have seen many such links removed in other articles such as ], and to me it seems a sensible application of the ] policy. This issue does not qualify as a normal COI posting which requires (a) an article name, (b) the name of a problematic editor who has a COI, and is not staying within the rules. I think ] needs to give a more convincing argument why the issue should be here. ] (]) 14:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
::::], thank you for comprehensive answer, I now see why this issue shouldn't be here. I thought ] was being prejudiced against particular software, because his first cleanups of the article didn't have any system, so when Ronz deleted all software that doesn't have its own Wiki article, I decided that Ronz didn't want to bother thinking about which software is worth having a link and which is not, and simply deleted all of them. Now I see that it has been done in other articles, which makes it reasonable for me. Thanks again and I'll stick to Wiki policies (it's just that sometimes they should be articulated better...) ] (]) 16:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
== Parapsychology article being edited directly by an advocate for an association promoting parapsychology ==
* {{pagelinks|Ivan Lagundžić}}
* {{userlinks|Ivan Lagundzic}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
One to keep an eye on. This appears to be an autobiography. See the page history of ]. The user doesn't really communicate and most of their edits seem to be to force the article into mainspace (in spite of it being moved out of there due to ] concerns) or talk space - see history at ]. As they have been abusing the function, it may be worth restricting their ability to move articles if their poor behaviour continues. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:And . He really will stop at nothing to get himself an article on here, it would seem. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:: I have partially blocked them from page moves. ] (]) 22:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::: Thank you. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] on ] ==
] is quite an active editor at ] and has a definite conflict of interest as she runs , which she states is the 'official blog' of the "Parapsychology Association." () Part of this work includes solicitations for donations to support parapsychology. She is also a as is quoted below:


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


*
:''Page 2:''
*
*
*
*


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


:Maybe best to raise the issue at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (]). Users there may be able to confirm your concerns or perhaps could point you in the direction of a list of ] and non-RS sources within the Nigerian media. Hope this helps. ] (]) 12:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:''2007 Skeptiko Media Monitor Grant''
::Just a brief follow-up to say that there is actually a current thread at ] in relation to the reliability of Nigerian newspapers (here ) which may be of assistance to the user who opened this thread. It seems that the existence of sponsored content in Nigerian newspapers is a widespread problem. Regards, ] (]) 04:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:''Awarded for monitoring and improving the accuracy of information about parapsychology on the web in various ways.''


== Yang Youlin ==
This kind of advocacy is very problematic considering she is being paid by an organization to portray a controversial subject in a particular light. I have no problem with her commenting on talkpages, but I don't think that edits to articles on parapsychology should be done by this individual. I suggest a notice placed at ] indicating that this particular user should not be editing the article directly.


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
Thanks,
* {{pagelinks|Yang Youlin}}
* {{userlinks|YangZongChang0101}}


This user has a self-declared family connection to the page in question. Definitely is looking like a ] and attempt at ] from this user's contributions to the article's talk page. - ] (]) 01:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
-- ] (]) 17:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


:User has engaged in libelous activity on Reddit, claiming you have disrespected his relative by reverting his edits. His nationalistic behavior and lack of understanding on civil behavior might imply that he either is doing this in favor of the CCP or is simply a really dedicated patriot; while ] might not apply here ] is clearly evident. Could warrant a block if he engages in similar behavior. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: coral; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 08:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:Paid to promote a topic and rewarded for accuracy on a topic are two different things. You're framing a grant or scholarhip award for accuracy as a reason to support restricting a user from participating in an article about a subject -- not an association, organization, or biography. ] doesn't even call for blocking from editing an article where there's a ''strict'' conflict of interest, much less a topical subject matter where they have a professional expertise. It's like asking someone who has an affiliation with the Republican National Committee not to participate in politics articles. It'd have more merit if this were the Parapsychological Association aritlce, and it's not. --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 19:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
::What is the involvement here of ]?
::I don't see a problem here either. The fact that Annalisa Ventola belongs to an organization related to the article or has received grant money should not make any difference. The policy states that "Editors who may have (or be perceived as having) a close connection with a subject are recommended to disclose this, and should take great care not to edit in a manner that may be perceived as controversial, promotional or agenda-driven." as well as "Editors proposing to write about themselves, their own organizations, or matters they have very close ties to, are strongly advised not to edit or create such articles at all (except for certain non-controversial edits) but to instead use the talk page to request help from neutral editors." This means that Annalisa should be allowed to edit the article if her ties aren't so extremely close to the subject of the article (which they don't seem to be) or she should be prohibited from making "controversial edits" to it. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
::PrivateRyan44 set up the article on 13th December and then 24 hours later ] began editing the article, which he states relates to a member of his family.
::That is either a matter of the most extreme coincidence, or there is off-wiki collusion taking place.
::I also note the discussion between the 2 users here where both users sign off their posts in an identical but rather unusual way.
::Note also in the edit history for the article how on 14th December the 2 users seem to tag each other in and out over the course of several hours.
::Something looks distinctly odd here. ] (]) 09:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::I am not a nationalist. I am a patriot. Nationalism is a contradiction of Marx’s words in his theory.
::I am responding to my concern of Amigao, a well known member on r/sino, and chollima, who has an inherently pro american and pro israel stance, and edits a ridiculous amount of China related articles everyday.
::if you can’t see this simple connection to why I am acting the way I am, then I will no longer contribute to this discussion. ] (]) 09:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:i know him from discord. We are working together on the article with my irl friend Luoniya. ] (]) 09:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::Interesting to see that a user previously interested almost solely in the Boer War suddenly meets a relative of a 1930s member of the CCP on Discord and immediately creates an article about that subject based almost solely on Chinese language sources and then nominates it for Good Article status. The general pattern is what would be expected of someone with a degree of Wiki-editing skills being paid to assist a family member who claims to have an archive of relevant material .
::That talk page discussion is clearly fake and based on previous collusion off-wiki (given that you have already admitted previous contact).
::I still maintain that something irregular appears to have occurred here. ] (]) 09:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I also note on the user page for YangZongChang0101: {{tq|If you want me to research or write about anything to make a page just dm.}}
:::Surely the only reason why such a communication would take place off-wiki is if there was something irregular taking place, e.g. ]?
:::And why would someone be advertising their availability to create articles on any subject to order, but then using another account to create an article on someone they claim is their own distant relative?
:::Also, the quote above was added within hours of the YangZong account being opened, clearly indicating that this is not the user's first rodeo.
:::Evidently there are multiple elements to what has been going on here which look very odd indeed. If there is not some form of paid editing and/or sockpuppetry taking place here I would be most surprised ] (]) 09:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I have communicated privately with the editor of note about this on Reddit. These editors are from Mainland China and don't understand how Misplaced Pages works, so their well-intentioned editing led to all this chaos. I would suggest ] for now, but if similar events happen again action should be taken. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: coral; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 13:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::In fairness, the statement {{tq|If you want me to research or write about anything to make a page just dm}} is not a comment by someone unfamiliar with the workings of Misplaced Pages.
:::::Similarly the quite disgraceful disparagement of ] (both here and at the ] talkpage) was clearly by someone who had encountered the user before and not someone who had only opened their first account 3 days ago.
:::::Also, ] describes themselves here as a US citizen who has difficulty accessing material in Chinese. It would therefore seem reasonable to assume that PrivateRyan44 is ''not'' {{tq|from Mainland China}}.
:::::Finally, I do not consider extreme nationalistic POV-pushing to be {{tq|well-intentioned editing}}. ] (]) 13:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::The editor's mistakes are severe, but I personally believe that he deserves one last chance, on the condition that he adheres to the rules and does not harass editors like he did. If he does not change his ways I suppose a block would do. He showed genuine remorse for the nationalist POV thing but as long as he knows he cannot afford to get into trouble again, he's fine to edit. No comment on the PrivateRyan guy. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: coral; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 13:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::If the user wants to express remorse for anything, the place to do that is here. Not in private on Reddit.
:::::::The user clearly is not new. I wonder if Amigao has any thoughts on which account the user previously edited under? Presumably it will be quite easy to spot someone who casually drops their interpretation of Marxist doctrine into conversation (e.g. {{tq|Nationalism is a contradiction of Marx’s words in his theory}}). Also, the detailed critique of Amigao's editing pattern and perceived agenda may have been seen before somewhere.
:::::::Of course, we await PrivateRyan44's version of all of these events... ] (]) 13:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Very well. You might have to look at the IP he had been using, could be a VPN or proxy. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: coral; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 13:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::At a minimum, there is a declared COI coupled with a ] situation going on and potentially ]. - ] (]) 17:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


== Derek Warburton and Khamadi the Amethyst ==
:::From looking at Annalisa's website I think no one can disagree that she operates a Parapsychology advocacy site. IMO, soliciting donations, urging readers to join the PA, and presenting material which highlights only one side of a controversial subject is a bit more than "having an affiliation" with the subject. It certainly isn't a neutral informational site. Rather than deny one has a COI, a person involved in such activity "should take great care not to edit in a manner that may be perceived as controversial, promotional or agenda-driven." Questions raised as to the nature of Annalisa's editing are quite legitimate. - -- ] (]) 20:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
::::There's a burden of proof in establishing that edits made are "controversial, promotional or agenda-driven". That's a requirement of the policy. And the request is that the editor not edit the mainspace at all, which isn't even part of the policy. ScienceApologist is posing her -''edits''- as advocacy. That's not established. On the parapsychology talk page he stated that it's not about "content disputes". It is completely content-related, per the policy. Every edit Annalisa has made recently is to re-establish the FA consensus article similarly to what it was already before ScienceApologist stepped in. Those aren't controversial edits, by the definition of prior consensus. A ''disruptive'' COI editor is one who actually edits in a manner that is promotional, and they must be disruptive for the COI to matter. ScienceApologist must first demonstrate that he is right on his content dispute before he has a legitimate COI complaint. --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 21:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|Derek Warburton}}
* {{userlinks|Khamadi the Amethyst}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
This appears to be a COI situation; Khamadi the Amethyst has made a great number of edits to ] with extremely promotional language. Looking at a sizeable majority of their uploads have been removed for lacking any permission and all pertain to Derek Warburton. All of the account's edits are to ] or per their talkpage, attempting to create a page for something pertaining to Warburton - apart from a first edit to ] today which is where I noticed the user; this aroused my suspicion as an IP had made sweeping, whitewashing changes to Greitens a few days back - but I digress.


The entirety of the Warburton page history appears to be SPA contributors, but this one is the most long-running one. David Gerard added a COI template, which removed; this to me is particularly egregious. There was also a left on the user's talk page around this time which was ignored and the user continued to edit. This seems pretty clearcut COI to me, and the lack of communication/removal of COI templates/continual editing of the page is concerning.<span id="Ser!:1734443340850:WikipediaFTTCLNConflict_of_interest/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;''']''' <sup>(] - ])</sup> 13:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</span>
ScienceApologist, you are paid to teach science. If parapsychology is for real, it will blast your form of science out of the water: causal relationships, for example, will have to be re-evaluated. Thus, it is quite obvious that you have a vested interest in defending your form of science, and that you have an interest in bashing anything which would undermine your job and your vested interest in the subject. I suggest that you not edit the Parapsychology article any longer, because it is a conflict of interest for you. You are paid and make a living for your COI, while Annalisa merely has parapsychology as a hobby- if she nets any money at all from it I would be rather surprised. ScienceApologist, a person involved in such activity as yourself should take great care not to edit in a manner that may be perceived as controversial, promotional or agenda-driven- as your editing has continually been relative to the Parapsychology article and paranormal articles in general. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 20:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
::I think saying a teacher has a conflict of interest is a little bit of a stretch and not very fair. Outside of research projects, a teacher or professor doesn't necessarily "create or shape" the subject that they are teaching. Rather they convey the general and present knowledge of that subject. In theory, if some tenets of Parapsychology became verified and accepted applications of Science it is quite likely that ScienceApologist would be teaching that subject as well.]]/] 21:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


:OMG if Warburton is trying to write his own Misplaced Pages page then this may be the funniest thing to happen in Philosophy Misplaced Pages in a hot minute. ] (]) 13:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Exactly. Which is why Annalisa teaching parapsychology through her blog, or doing a little unremunerative research on the side, is not COI. SA, since he makes his living teaching a science which would go out the window (making his knowledge obsolete) if parapsychology were true, has a far greater COI. They are both teachers, but one makes his living at it, and the other doesn't. Or, would you say that SA would have a COI if he did research? You know, he does edit conventional science articles. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 21:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
::I am clearly thinking of a different Derek Warburton after looking at the page. LOL ] (]) 13:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't see a conflict here. Annalisa's edits are not pushing a point to an extreme and seem rather balanced to me. She's writing on a topic she's knoweledgeable about. By the logic ScienceApologist presents here, he should stop editing science articles. Now if Annalisa were the rep for a certain organization and only wrote how great they were and ignored their weak points, that'd be COI. ScienceApologist needs to stop grinding his axe on this topic and get on with happy editing.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 22:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
:::I am in fact thinking of ] lol and trout me. ] (]) 13:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:Here is an example of Annalisa removing a source that is critical of her POV as stated at her webpage: . ] (]) 23:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
::A check of the page revisions shows there were 11 works listed, three of them by Randi. The editor simply removed one of them and left the other two. And it looks to me like it deserved to be removed: it's a link to a self-published bloggish criticism of a chapter in a psychology book by somebody that isn't even mentioned in the main article. The link doesn't warrant a cite in any scholarly sense. How much room in the reference list needs to be reserved to the same guy? He's already given plenty of coverage in the article, including his picture, and cited twice more in the footnotes. All of it left intact by this same editor. You can be pretty sure any of Randi's other published material on the subject would largely cover the same tracks. This evidence is pretty weak. It's curious that you raise these issues now, since this is an old edit, and the same editor appears to have demonstrated quite well the ability to work cooperatively with others since together they succeeded in taking this article to FA status. ] (]) 00:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


::::I've blocked this obvious UPE ] - ] 09:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Context is everything, ScienceApologist. Here the diff is from August 2007, during the major rewrite that earned parapsychology its FA status. During this rewrite, the article was being structured and cleaned up. The edit summary "one of these things is not like the other" is your tip off to assume good faith. Look at the Further Reading section and then look at the part that was removed. It's an online essay where ''all'' the remaining items are ''books''. Literally one, and only one, of these things is not like the others. You'll note that ''An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural'', also by Randi, was not removed by Annalisa. You'll note that all the other references to Randi in the article weren't removed either, not then, not ever. --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 00:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::Cheers Jim, much appreciated. ''']''' <sup>(] - ])</sup> 10:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


== Lyons Township High School ==
::::He has no chance of making anything like this stick. Why with all the wds? ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 02:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
I have always been upfront about my interests and affiliations, as you can see by my ]. Science Apologist has not uncovered any information that I haven't volunteered myself at one point or another. The Skeptiko grant was awarded to me for my work on and it was only $500 (enough to pay for a few professional memberships and journal subscriptions). The only thing that I get paid to do regularly is teach little kids how to play the piano. My activities at Misplaced Pages are purely volunteer.
* {{pagelinks|Lyons Township High School}}
* {{userlinks|Jeffcheslo}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Editor states they work for the school. I notified them about their COI which they ignored, perhaps they havent found their talk page. ] ] 18:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


== Draft:John Fred Ogbonnaya ==
Additionally, is '''not''' the official blog of the Parapsychology Association (this was a misunderstanding of mine at the time), it is the official blog of the Center for Research on Consciousness and Anomalous Psychology (CERCAP) at Lund University, Sweden as you can see . Note also that the blog was something that I was doing voluntarily <i>before</i> that grant was awarded and before the head of CERCAP requested affiliation with my work. It is incorrect to portray my blog as an advocacy site for parapsychology since as it says clearly at the top it is also devoted to public scholarship for anomalous psychology (a field that looks at paranormal phenomena and experiences in purely psychological terms). The blog reports on the activities and research of those who publish research on parapsychological topics in peer reviewed journals, regardless of their conclusions about the reality of ostensibly paranormal phenomena. I have a reputation in both fields for being fair and even-handed in how I interpret their activities to the general public.


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
And to save Science Apologist the trouble of doing more supposed detective work on me, I was once reprimanded for posting a link to my own blog during my first week at Misplaced Pages. That's when I became aware of ] and retracted the link without further argument. Science Apologist has also failed to point out that I am an associate member of the ], but as you can see, I have never edited that article. My own particular research has to do with ] but I haven't edited that article either.
* {{pagelinks|Draft:John Fred Ogbonnaya}}
* {{userlinks|Omarisonfire}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Possibly paid to edit Misplaced Pages to create an article for the individual. Editor first replaced the entirety of ] with the article he created before starting a rejected draft. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and there is no way there is no connection between editor and subject. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: coral; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 07:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


:Draft now speedy deleted under ] (unambiguous advertising or promotion). ] (]) 08:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Science Apologist has characterized me as a 'true believer' to strengthen his own arguments against me at ]. What he has failed to investigate is the fact that my own research studies paranormal <i>beliefs and experiences</i>, and which factors (i.e. priming effects) may lead people to interpret ambiguous stimuli as paranormal (in other words, skeptical research). He has also characterized the Parapsychological Association is an advocacy group, which is also incorrect. The PA is an association of scholars and scientists with common interests in particular , but as a group they do not have a particular point of view. (In fact, a number of members of the PA characterize themselves as unbelievers in their personal lives.) If physicists can edit physics articles, and psychologists can edit psychology articles, then I see no reason why parapsychologists should not be allowed to edit parapsychology articles.


== Victor Yannacone ==
The request on this noticeboard is Science Apologist's bad faith attempt to silence an editor who has stood up to his recent disruptive editing behavior () at ]. This article was brought to FA status through the efforts of myself and several other editors. I think that Science Apologist will be hard pressed to prove to that I am a disruptive or aggressive editor. Rather, I am here to lend my expertise and I am committed to portraying research on parapsychological articles neutrally with the cooperation of others. I've been at Misplaced Pages for less than a year, and I do make mistakes, and being somewhat entrenched in academia, my perspective can be a bit narrow sometimes, but I try make sure that my contributions are approachable to the general public.


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
I will be out of town for the weekend. My ability to respond to further comments will be limited.--] <sub>(] | ])</sub> 02:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|Victor Yannacone}}
* {{userlinks|PeoplesBarrister}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
, this user states "I am also a public figure still active as an attorney with an extensive website at https://yannalaw.com" which links to a page promoting Victor Yannacone's legal services.<br>Given that the article about Victor Yannacone appears to be predominantly edited by this user, . However, the user recently removed the tag, despite the conflict of interest remaining applicable.<br><br>Based on the user's statement and editing patterns, it is reasonable to conclude that they are heavily involved in editing their own article, thus creating a clear conflict of interest. <span style="color: #0f52ba; font-weight: bold; text-shadow: 0px 0px 1px #111111;">]</span> (]) 03:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


:User was informed of the COI policy back in August and has continued making extensive edits to the article - including, at present, edit warring over a highly promotional version of the article that they are trying to implement.
:Obvious bad faith attempt. His own COI is much greater. Be sure and click Annalisa's link. Here are some more: . And that doesn't even count the ''previous'' ArbCom findings against him. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 03:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
:The account is evidently only interested in self-promotion.
:This activity has already attracted the attentions of admins ] and ], so if the user continues on their current path presumably they will find themselves blocked in the near future. ] (]) 04:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::The following thread is of relevance here: .
::It appears to be a good faith attempt at mediation, as an apparent associate of PeoplesBarrister returns to make their first edit in over 10 years arguing on PB's behalf. The post also includes some quite unacceptable allegations of bad faith activity by multiple users which some readers may find rather over the top. I'd suggest that we try to look beyond that in the hope of finding a way forward. ] (]) 13:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::This user turned out to be a sockpuppet, and has been blocked. <span style="color: #0f52ba; font-weight: bold; text-shadow: 0px 0px 1px #111111;">]</span> (]) 01:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


== COI tags on "It's Coming (film)" and "The Misguided" ==
Here is my take: (1) Annalisa runs the blog Public Parapsychology. (2) Annalisa has stated on-wiki that this is the official blog of the Parapsychology Association. Taken together, these implicate Annalisa as a public mouthpiece of this group, presenting a potential conflict of interest with regards to the ] subject of parapsychology. Great care should be taken in writing the ] article, especially by those who have a conflict of interest. I do think it is worth notifying the community about this, as ScienceApologist has done. As an involved editor, I would greatly appreciate insight from uninvolved parties. <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 22:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


Hello, I'm seeking review of the close connection tags recently added to ] and Draft:The Misguided. These tags were applied based solely on basic journalistic contact with the filmmaker for fact-checking purposes. To be clear: I have never met Shannon Alexander or anyone from the film production company/distribution team, have no personal or professional relationship with them, and my only contact was for fact verification.
: (1) I don't just run the blog. I founded it.
: (2) I explained above that statement was a mistake. It is '''NOT''' the official blog of the PA, rather it is affliated with CERCAP (see the link above). The person who requested this affiliation was both the director of CERCAP and a PA member, which is why I misunderstood him. If it was 'the PA's blog', there would be a link from their site saying so, but there is not. There is a link from CERCAP, which I provided above.


Having followed Perth's independent film scene closely for years, I noticed several internationally-recognized films lacked Misplaced Pages coverage. Rather than simply copy online sources, I took a thorough journalistic approach. My contact was limited to requesting factual verification of release dates and sourcing materials. This contact served to ensure accurate documentation of the films' development and history.
:None of this really matters though. The important thing is that Public Parapsychology is <i>my</i> site. It was a self-started venture that attracted the attention of people in the fields of parapsychology and anomalous psychology, some of whom rewarded my efforts with grants and affiliations. I am nobody's mouthpiece and I am the sole person who decides what gets published at my site.


Both articles are built entirely on independent coverage from established media outlets like The Hollywood Reporter, LA Times, and Film Threat. All content follows proper journalistic standards, maintains neutrality, and adheres to Misplaced Pages guidelines. Every statement in the articles can be verified through these independent sources.
:Now that we're clear on that, the concern shouldn't be over who recognizes my blog, but the fact that I am an associate PA member (an association that was granted rather recently) and an active researcher in the field. I have always been upfront about my interests and affiliations and I have not been aggressive about my edits. And great care has been taken in writing the parapsychology article. Since I started collaborating here, the article has quickly risen to FA status. --] <sub>(] | ])</sub> 00:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


"It's Coming" just underwent thorough review this week, resulting in removal of an unwarranted paid editing tag. The addition of these new tags without discussion or specific concerns lacks justification.
::Thanks for being forthcoming. I would call ScienceApologist's inquiry successful in that it has resulted in your provision of a more accurate and complete picture of your vested interests than had been previously provided. Had you not stated earlier that the Public Parapsychology blog was the official blog of the PA, I don't think there would have been so much concern (and I'm not faulting you for this misunderstanding, just saying it was probably the root problem). <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 00:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


A review of these tags is needed based on:
::::ScienceApologist didn't make an inquiry, he made a request that Annalisa be blocked from contributing in the mainspace. That requires a demonstration that her edits were promotional. ScienceApologist was not successful in doing so. --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 01:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
1. Contact limited to standard fact-checking practices
2. Reliance on independent, reliable sources throughout
3. Clear adherence to neutral point of view
4. Recent thorough review confirming content standards


I'm here to ensure these films are documented accurately and objectively. Thank you for taking the time to review this matter. Happy to address any specific concerns about the content or sourcing.
:::You're welcome. But it doesn't take a request at a noticeboard to resolve this sort of thing. It's a lot simpler to just ask me on my talk page ;-). I thought I did a pretty good job of providing a complete picture of my interests at my user page, but perhaps it is time to update it. --] <sub>(] | ])</sub> 00:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


] (]) 18:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


:I'd suggest raising this issue at the talk pages of the articles concerned, using the COI edit process detailed here ]. When you do so, please link to the connected discussion at the Help Desk, here . ] (]) 20:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::Antelan, please read the section before commenting. And your continual harassment of editors over COI is just tiresome. Since you're a medical student, I really should have remembered to report you here for your disruptive and highly POV editing of Psychic surgery. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 22:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
::Also, GPTzero indicates that there is a 100% likelihood that your post above was AI generated. Please stop using AI to generate posts (as was also previously pointed out to you in the discussion here ). ] (]) 21:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{u|Axad12}}, I need to address several concerning points:
:::1. You suggest I raise these issues on the article talk pages, but if you actually check the links you provided you'll see I've already tried that multiple times. I've gotten zero response there which is why I'm I'm hoping to get a fair and objective assessment from editors who aren't already entrenched in this dispute.
:::2. The accusation that I'm using AI to write my posts is completely baseless. GPZero is known to be only around 80% accurate at best, so claiming "100% likelihood" is just flat-out wrong. You're mistaking my formal writing style, which comes from my professional background for AI text. Throwing around serious accusations like that with zero proof is not only wrong but also really damaging and hurtful.
:::3. The sudden addition of a promotional content tag, without any prior discussion, is just the latest in this ongoing pattern of unfounded allegations. First it was paid editing with zero evidence, then a COI tag that's still sitting there after I've repeatedly explained my lack of any affiliation and now suddenly it's 'promotional content?' The article is based entirely on reliable, independent sources. If there are particular statements that seem promotional to you, point them out specifically so we can address them. Just because the film has gotten good reviews from reputable publications doesn't automatically make the article promotional.
:::I've had to defend myself dozens of times now, repeatedly explaining the same things over and over, providing evidence that gets ignored. How many more baseless accusations do I need to address? The constant tags and allegations without justification have made this whole process exhausting and frankly, pretty demoralizing. But you know what? If anything, it's made me more determined to keep improving these articles properly.
:::I'm going to post at the NPOV Noticeboard about this latest promotional content tag and I'm also asking for the COI tags to be removed. I'd rather focus on actually improving content than dealing with endless unfounded accusations.
:::] (]) 22:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::1) You got zero response because you didn't use the COI editing process. How many users do you think access the talk pages of brand new articles for independent films?
::::2) You consistently use AI to generate your posts here and any suggestion to the contrary is untrue, as has been noted by several users.
::::3) Evidence of COI is not required, only room for plausible concern. There is room for huge concern in relation to your editing, as I will demonstrate shortly.
::::Promotional content can obviously be based on independent reliable sources - especially when the material installed in articles goes some way beyond what the sources actually say (which appears to be your standard MO). ] (]) 22:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Axad12}},
:::::1. I've followed every proper channel available - talk pages, help desk, and now appropriate noticeboards. Suggesting I'm at fault for others not responding isn't constructive.
:::::2. Your continued insistence about AI use without evidence is becoming harassment. You have no proof because there is none - these are my own words. Making repeated false accusations doesn't make them true.
:::::3. You state "Evidence of COI is not required" but then claim you'll "demonstrate shortly." Which is it? Either provide specific evidence or stop making vague accusations. If you have concerns about source interpretation, point to specific examples instead of making broad claims.
:::::The recent removal of a properly sourced Reception section, combined with these continued unsubstantiated allegations, suggests a pattern of targeting rather than constructive editing. ] (]) 22:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::1) I didn't say you were at fault, I said it was unreasonable to expect a swift response on a low traffic page. Had you used the COI edit request process you would have got a much faster response as the posts would have gone directly into a volunteer queue rather than relying on footfall.
::::::2) When GPTzero ''frequently'' says that there is a 100% likelihood that a post was AI generated, that is sufficient proof. Half of your posts produce that response, the other half produce very low likelihoods of AI input or an indication of human origin. You are therefore producing two distinctively different kinds of posts in a way that is only possible if half of them were not written by you.
::::::3) I'm about to demonstrate the areas of concern, I'm currently drafting the post. ] (]) 23:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|Axad12}},
:::::::1. The COI process is for editors with actual conflicts of interest. I have none, as I've repeatedly explained.
:::::::2. Your claims about GPTZero are incorrect. The tool obviously has false positives and is far from 100% accurate, especially with formal writing. Again, making accusations of AI use with no evidence is not constructive.
:::::::3. You keep saying you'll "demonstrate" concerns but continue making vague accusations. Please provide specific policy-based concerns about actual content rather than continuing these unsupported allegations. ] (]) 23:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::As you wish...
::::::::Areas of concern in relation to the editing of user Stan1900:
::::::::1) User is a single purpose account in relation to the films of Shannon Alexander. This goes back all the way to Dec 2017 when they edited the article for ] (an actress who featured in the Alexander film 'The Misguided' ). The user’s account was then dormant until Nov 2024 when it began creating articles for Alexander’s films.
::::::::2) The user states that they have been in touch with Shannon Alexander and that {{tq|requesting source materials when writing an article is standard practice and doesn't constitute a conflict of interest when there's no financial or professional relationship involved}} . This is, however, wrong on both counts.
::::::::3) The articles created (plus draft) have clearly been of a promotional nature.
::::::::4) User appears very interested in when articles will appear in mainspace and when they will appear on Google. This is typical of those interested in search engine optimisation, i.e. in publicity.
::::::::E.g. this thread .
::::::::this thread
::::::::this thread
::::::::this thread
::::::::and this thread
::::::::5) Concerns have consistently been raised in those discussions that (a) the user is not forthcoming when asked about their association with Shannon Alexander (they have only denied being paid but avoid further clarification) and (b) the user appears to be involved primarily in promotional activity, as noted here . Also, ] said that the overall pattern is {{tq|highly unusual behavior consistent with a paid editing assignment}} .
::::::::Similarly (Cullen again): {{tq|In that three weeks, the editor has been incredibly repetitive and persistent in pushing these three articles and dismissing the concerns expressed by several editors, not just me. They are not above making a false accusation against me. They consistently insist on special preferential treatment that is not extended to thousands of other editors who have written drafts. This is highly unusual behaviour}}.
::::::::I entirely concur with the sentiments expressed by Cullen328 and would suggest that the PAID templates be replaced on the articles and draft created by this user. ] (]) 23:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Anyone who hasn't yet had enough of Stan1900's relentless forum shopping over this issue may be interested in the thread they started an hour ago at the Neutral Point of View Forum, here .
:::::::::Inevitably they've received the same response there that they've encountered elsewhere, this time from the redoubtable ]. ] (]) 23:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
{{od}} is one of several instances of Stan1900 claiming to be the license-holder of various of Alexander's film-posters. ] (]) 00:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:Very interesting. Thank you. ] (]) 00:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Stan1900 wrote a couple of days ago at the Help Desk that {{tpq|User:Cullen328 has been the primary editor maintaining the paid editing tag on the article}} That is a blatant falsehood. I have never once edited either ] or its talk page. I have never discouraged any uninvolved editor from removing the tag. I have simply tried to explain to Stan1900 why several editors (more now) have expressed concern about their pattern of editing. They have persisted with their axe grinding for many days. At Wikimedia Commons, they uploaded posters of films by Shannon Alexander in 2017, 2021 and 2023, with a legally binding licensing declaration that those posters were their "own work". A poster artist clearly has a paid editing relationship (or a deep and profound conflict of interest if unpaid). The only alternative explanation is that Stan1900 lied about these posters being their "own work" and therefore created a major multi-year copyright violation, which is illegal. ] (]) 03:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank you Cullen. On that basis I have reinstated the 'undisclosed paid' tag to the relevant articles. The wording of that tag, of course, only states that there {{tq|may have been}} an undisclosed paid situation - and there is evidently more than enough cause for concern in that regard.
:::Disregarding whether or not they are paid, the user is clearly a blockable promo-only account. They have wasted a great many users' time by forum shopping their transparent COI around in search of support which never arose (in, I think, 7 different threads now). ] (]) 03:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{u|Axad12}}, {{u|Cullen328}}, your newest accusations require correction:
::::1. Following connected topics is normal Misplaced Pages behavior. Yes, I edited Langford's article about The Misguided, which naturally led to noticing significant gaps in coverage of Perth's independent film scene.
::::2. The poster licensing issue is a non-issue. The copyright holder assigned permission for Misplaced Pages documentation use. Copyright holders can authorize others to license their work - this is standard practice, not a violation or evidence of anything nefarious.
::::3. Regarding AI claims - you keep citing GPTZero without acknowledging its known 80% accuracy rate. My writing style comes from professional background. More importantly, even if AI tools were used for drafting (which they weren't), this violates no Misplaced Pages policies. Focus on content accuracy and sourcing, not unfounded assumptions about writing style.
::::4. Using appropriate Misplaced Pages channels isn't "forum shopping" - it's seeking proper review when talk pages receive no response. Each venue serves a different purpose: talk pages for initial discussion, help desk for guidance, NPOV for content neutrality issues.
::::5. Your pattern of escalating accusations - from paid editing to COI to AI use to promotional content - while removing properly sourced content suggests targeting rather than legitimate concerns. In fact, your apparent determination to suppress documentation of these artists' contributions raises questions. What's your motivation for trying to prevent coverage of their work despite reliable sources confirming its notability?
::::6. Claiming "everyone disagrees" while actively removing properly sourced content and making baseless accusations isn't consensus - it's coordinated targeting. The aggressive resistance to documenting these artists' widely recognized contributions to independent film is puzzling at best.
::::The focus should be on article content and reliable sources, not endless unfounded assumptions about contributors. I've provided reliable sources, followed guidelines, and explained everything clearly. What I haven't seen is any specific policy-based reason why properly sourced content should be removed. ] (]) 04:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Stan1900}}, the poster licensing matter is in no way a {{tpq|non-issue}}.
:::::''You'' made a legally binding statement that those posters were your "own work", which was a lie according to what you just wrote above. <s>You never provided any evidence that the {{tpq|copyright holder assigned permission for Misplaced Pages documentation use}}, which must be a written document from the copyright holder in legally precise language.</s> Accordingly, I will be removing these copyright violations from the articles and the draft in question. ] (]) 05:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I appreciate that you don’t intend to back down, but the simple fact is that a number of users over a range of threads oppose your edits and that represents a strong consensus contrary to what appears to be a promotional agenda. With regard to your 6 points above I believe that it is all old ground, but for clarification:
:::::1) You clearly lied about the Langford edits, as demonstrated here .
:::::2) The image issue has been recently discussed here by others.
:::::3) Regarding AI, you are clearly producing 2 very different types of post, one type which GPTzero identifies as very high likelihood AI generated and one type which it identifies as very high likelihood human generated. If, as you say, you have a very formal way of writing which is distorting the results, this would produce a consistent spread of results lumped into the middle of the range and not two exceptionally disparate groups. Arguing that GPTzero isn't 100% accurate doesn't invalidate that point.
:::::4) Going to multiple places trying to get a decision that you didn’t get at a previous discussion is forum shopping. You're currently holding down three simultaneous discussions in three separate locations (here, here and here ) in which the same point (reinstatement of removed material) is being discussed. You have previously opened multiple threads trying to get COI templates removed.
:::::5) Everything in this thread and elsewhere has been based on reasonable concerns raised by multiple users.
:::::6) I think it is time for you to accept that there is a broad consensus against what you are trying unsuccessfully to achieve. ] (]) 06:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Cullen328, from what I see on Commons, they "uploaded" the files in 2024 (their account itself was only created 30 November 2024), though they are for films that were themselves from 2017, 2022, 2023 and likewise the images are identified as having been created in or near those years. But you're definitely correct that Stan literally said "I, the copyright holder of this work" for each of them. ] (]) 05:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


:{{u|Cullen328}}, I completely reject your accusation that I lied about the poster images. I acted in good faith as an authorized representative of the copyright holder, who gave me explicit permission to use the images on Misplaced Pages. This is the first time you've even asked about the permissions, so your claim that I "never provided evidence" is entirely false. If you have doubts about the licensing, there are established processes for verifying image permissions. Publicly demanding private communications and unilaterally removing images based on unfounded accusations is not how it works. If an admin asks for documentation, I'll happily provide it through proper channels.
:::I expect a retraction of that claim calling my editing "disruptive and highly POV." <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 23:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
:Your pattern of behavior - the personal attacks, bad faith assumptions, and removal of properly sourced content without discussion - is really concerning. It feels more like a witch hunt than a collaborative effort. I'm open to constructive feedback and working together to make these articles the best they can be. But I won't stand for baseless attacks on my character.
:Let's focus on the actual content and policies, not personal vendettas. If you truly believe there's a permission issue, take it up with the appropriate admins. But stop making unilateral accusations and removals. It's disruptive and goes against waht Misplaced Pages stands for. ] (]) 05:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::I do not have access to the non-public communications (and wouldn't disclose them even if I did), but someone did go through the proper process to document the license release for the files Stan uploaded to Commons, to the default satisfaction of those who handle that process on there. I'm saying this as a stand-alone detail, purely from a commons policy standpoint. ] (]) 05:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{u|DMacks}}, you are correct that the file pages report that a licensing agreement was sent and received, and I apologize for not noticing that. But those three files still state that they are the "own work" of Stan1900, which is not the case. ] (]) 05:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{u|Cullen328}} {{u|DMacks}}, the unilateral deletion of these properly licensed images is completely unacceptable and appears to be part of a pattern of aggressive, disruptive actions.
:::1. As DMacks confirmed, proper licensing documentation was ALREADY verified through official Commons channels. This fact was deliberately ignored.
:::2. The "own work" designation relates to the upload as an authorized representative - a standard practice on Commons that is well understood by experienced editors.
:::3. Deleting multiple images across several articles over template semantics, especially after licensing was confirmed, is extraordinarily aggressive and disruptive to Misplaced Pages.
:::I will be filing for undeletion of all three images: "It's Coming", "The Misguided", and "Sex, Love, Misery: New New York" posters. The proper documentation exists and was previously verified. This kind of unilateral action without discussion or opportunity for clarification is exactly the type of disruptive behavior that damages Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 16:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::No, "own work" means exactly what it says - that you made the poster yourself. You're not doing yourself any favors by denying something so obvious. ] (]) 16:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::this interpretation of "own work" on Commons is wrong because the designation refers to the upload itself being my own work as an authorized representative - a standard practice for authorized uploaders contributing licensed material with the proper permissions. As DMacks noted earlier, the proper licensing documentation was already verified through official Commons channels.
:::::This is yet another example of interpreting template language in the most uncharitable way possible rather than addressing actual licensing substance. The fact remains: these images were properly licensed, documentation was verified, and they were serving a legitimate encyclopedic purpose before being improperly removed. ] (]) 16:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Interpreting 'own work' to mean 'own work' is not 'uncharitable', it is the plain meaning of the words. Under your 'the upload was my work' literally every file uploaded on commons would be 'own work', which is obviously not the case.
::::::If you didn't actually make these posters yourself, just admit you were mistaken so people can figure out what the proper source should be and get it set up properly for you. Working collaboratively with others in this case means you are going to have to own up when you make a mistake so someone can actually fix it. Digging in like this when you are so obviously wrong is just disruptive - actual disruption, not the 'someone disagrees with me' way you've been throwing around the word. ] (]) 16:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::The {{tl2|sister=c:|Own work}} tag on commons is documented as "Use this to say that you personally created the entire original image by yourself (for example, you drew the picture on paper, you used a camera to take the photograph, you painted the picture on canvas, etc.). Do not use this tag for any images that you saw on any website, downloaded from any source, scanned from a book, newspaper, or magazine, or copied from anything." I tried a few upload methods on commons, and all of them forced me to choose between an option that says I created something entirely myself vs something I got from somewhere else. In particular, I verified that the Wizard method, when I choose the from-somewhere-else option, does not apply the 'own' tag. ] (]) 17:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The images were removed as an editorial action within each enwiki article here on enwiki, not an administrative action for the files themselves on commons. ] (]) 17:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{u|MrOllie}} {{u|DMacks}}, like I keep saying this continued focus on template semantics rather than substance is unproductive. As an authorized representative with explicit permission to upload these images, I used "own work" to indicate my authorized upload - a practice that many representatives use when contributing licensed material. The licensing documentation was properly submitted and verified through Commons channels, as DMacks noted earlier.
:::::The removal of properly licensed images from articles over template terminology, rather than addressing any actual licensing concerns, is still needlessly disruptive. Images serve a legitimate encyclopedic purpose and have verified permissions.
:::::If there's a preferred template format for authorized uploads, I'm willing to discuss. But using template semantics to justify wholesale content removal seems to be part of a broader pattern of finding technicalities to suppress properly sourced content about these films. ] (]) 18:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::If as you say you are an "an authorized representative" then you clearly have a conflict of interest despite your repeated denials. ] (]) 18:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Acting as an authorized representative doesn't constitute as COI. Being authorized to handle tasks like verifying copyright or providing accurate information does not mean that contributions are biased or promotional.
:::::::Misplaced Pages defines COI as "an incompatibility between the aim of Misplaced Pages, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and an editor's personal or external relationships." My edits have been basically focused on adhering to standards of neutrality, verifiability, and reliability. How tiresome I must repeat this ad nauseum.
:::::::So, in summary being authorized to facilitate copyright or provide accurate details about a subject does not violate Misplaced Pages's COI policies. ] (]) 19:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Where are you getting the definition {{tq|1="an incompatibility between the aim of Misplaced Pages..."}} from? ] hasn't said that since . ]&nbsp;] 23:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::{{u|Schazjmd}} Thank you for catching the outdated COI definition. That was an oversight on my part and I appreciate the correction. To be clear, my point was never to rely on an obsolete technicality but emphasize substance; My limited interactions with the filmmaker for fact-checking and image licensing do not constitute a substantive COI in terms of the content I've contributed, which is all neutrally written and based on independent reliable sources. I should have double-checked the current policy wording and I apologize for any confusion. The underlying principle remains that nothing improper has occurred . The focus belongs on content and policies, not unfounded aspersions. I'm here to collaborate in good faith. I hope we can move forward productively with that shared goal in mind. ] (]) 00:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::But where did you get that definition, @]? If there are pages that aren't in sync with ] anymore, I'd like to reconcile them. ]&nbsp;] 00:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::UPDATE: Stan1900 has now been indef blocked following a thread at ANI . ] (]) 23:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


== Andrew Kosove ==
::::I doubt very much that you actually expect such a thing. For one thing, you know that I usually consider what I say. For another, you know that anyone can go see the diffs. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 23:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
:::::No, I expect a retraction because your claim is false and highly offensive. (1) You didn't make this claim months ago, while the incident in question was actually occurring. (2) I believe that no reasonable user would consider my editing "disruptive and highly POV," as evidenced by the fact that the article, as currently implemented, uses much of the wording that I advocated, and it even uses entire blocks of material that I wrote for it. (3) This is an out-of-place attack on me for the inappropriate purpose of hurting my credibility, not for the appropriate purpose of asking for community input to see if your allegations require a community response against me. Yes, your allegations will still be in the diffs, but I expect you to remove them from the page. <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 00:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|Andrew Kosove}}
* {{userlinks|Alconite}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
] has tried to notify the user about ] and based on the users' edit summaries, it's clear they have a COI. I ] to the version with AntiDionysius's revert because the previous version was too promotional. ] <big>(]</big> · <small>])</small> 01:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


:Mmm, and the use of "our" in one of the edit summaries is also not a great sign. ] (<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>) 12:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::"You didn't make this claim months ago, while the incident in question was actually occurring." Yes, I said that was my mistake- You and SA hadn't taught that these false harassment claims are the done thing. Not that I really would have done it, because that's not me, but I could have. I think it is entirly appropriate to note that you are here supporting ScienceApologist's attack on Annalisa (without reading the secion, BTW), while you are quite willing to make, as I said above, highly POV edits to articles which involve medicine. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span>
::{{tq|I am a direct representative and employee of Alcon who was approved to make these changes}} from So, we have a paid editor who hasn't been responsive to talk page inquiries, and instead seem to be edit-warring their preferred version. Given that, could an admin consider pblocking them from the page to force them to use the talk page for edit requests? If they do, yay. If they sock or do anything else untoward, we can look at a regular promotional editing block. ] (]) 23:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
01:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


== A Celebration of Horses: The American Saddlebred ==
*''']''' deserves a little attention for editors here in need of something better to do. ] (]) 16:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
== Andre Douzet on Misplaced Pages ==
* {{pagelinks|A Celebration of Horses: The American Saddlebred}}
* {{userlinks|Atsme}}
{{multiple image
| align = right
| total_width = 320
| image1 = 1994ASHA-Article-86.jpeg
| image2 = 1994ASHA-Article-87.jpeg
| image3 = 1994ASHA-Article-88.jpeg
| footer = {{cite journal | journal = The American Saddlebred | publisher=American Saddlebred Horse Association|title= TV Series Featuring Saddlebreds Honored | page=88 | date=January 1994}}
}}
] has previously self identified as Betty Wills. She has authored two thirds of the article content and is listed in the article as the program's executive producer.


The subject of the article also has serious notability issues. The only citation that meets significant coverage is the piece from The American Saddlebred magazine which is shown on the right and is also likely unreliable as it is clearly marked as a promotion. ] (]) 21:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
{{resolved|Article deleted. ] (]) 16:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)}}
:This filing borders on trolling. Just look at the talk page of that article, where Atsme has a declaration of her connection right at the top of the page, and there is a lengthy discussion about it – from 2016. If there are notability concerns, AfD is that-a-way. --] (]) 21:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
→ ''<u>See also</u>: ].''
: I concur with ]; Atsme is a solid and good editor who has made any required disclosures, and is fastidious about editing within the rules. This report is frivolous. ] ] 21:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
* {{La|André Douzet}}
: I also concur. This editor has already fulfilled their obligations regarding ]. ] (]) 21:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Is an ongoing problem - Andre Douzet is a recognised hoaxer and charlatan in France in relation to Rennes-le-Chateau and writer of pseudohistorical books - his supporters in the UK who have websites promoting him are the ones responsible for placing the article on Misplaced Pages - meaning that it cannot be written from an unbiased and neutral POV. Does Misplaced Pages have its article on L. Ron Hubbard arguing that Dianetics was a "scientific fact"? The same difference applies to Douzet.] (]) 09:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The Andre Douzet article on Misplaced Pages is contributed by his Supporters Corjan de Raaf, Filip Coppens and Andrew Gough who also run websites that promote him - therefore the Misplaced Pages article cannot be Neutral or Unbiased in nature. My comments in the article that he is a writer of ] books and my comments in the Talk Page about who contribute the article get blanked out by his supporters. Can something please be done about this? Thanks. ] (]) 09:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

* {{Userlinks|Dsine}} wrote original stub
* {{Userlinks|194.74.202.254}} removed categories and other information
* {{Userlinks|194.178.111.19}} similar
* {{Userlinks|194.73.124.83}} similar, removed {{tl|POV-check}} template, removed content from article talk twice
* {{Userlinks|81.154.106.203}} similar
* {{Userlinks|86.132.238.133}} similar
* {{Userlinks|86.132.162.118}} similar, removed content from article talk
: I don't know who the people Wfgh66 mentioned are. I added article links and user links above. — ] ] 11:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
::The article has been deleted.--] (]) 14:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

== Marina section at ] ==

* {{article|Greystones}}
* {{userlinks|Bwmiller}}
The user (full name Basil Miller) is a member of the (he personally added their link , and a Google search of their website brings up his name ), which is a group vehimently opposed to plans to build a marina at the town of Greystones. He has not declared this association, but continues to edit the section in question.<br>
The user is continually adding POV statements and information he claims to have heard at 'oral hearings', which he cannot provide any references for. When I challenged him about this on the ], he replied ''"'Citation needed': Yes, in the same sense as the medieval scholastics required 'citations', condemning Europa to centuries of ignorance. There is no official textual source for this."''<br>
His current problem is with the fact that a landfill on the site is 'inert' (meaning non-toxic). Even though there is a for this fact, the user has twice removed it, and . On the talk page he has tried to argue that the citation is not from a "reputable" source. Any help would be appreciated, as I feel there is a clear COI here. Thanks. ] (]) 14:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
:The Greystones marina issue seems to goes back to at least April 1996: Godson, Rory; Woods, Richard. ] (April 14, 1996) ''Beer and food key to Irish super-rich;Ireland.'' Section: Home news; Page IR (writing, "Yet another retailer with Irish connections, Albert Gubay, is worth Pounds 275m. He is developing a marina in Greystones, Co Wicklow.") To keep the ] article relatively free of trouble, you may want to create a ] article so that such matters may be debated there rather than on the coastal town article. Also, there is plenty of reliable source material for an article on ] going back to atleast March 1998. Creating an article on Greystones Protection and Development Association may further help protect ]. -- ]]/] 15:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks for the suggestions; I'm not sure if splitting the main article is what is needed, we don't have a problem with edit warring because the user actually only comes online every few weeks, it's just that when he does he changes what he likes and adds some more pointless arguement to the talk page, which gets a bit frustrating. I think perhaps just a strong-worded warning from an admin might make him think twice before he does it again? Thanks. ] (]) 15:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
:::''I'm not sure if splitting the main article is what is needed''
:::Agreed. I don't think it's the general practice here, or desirable, to deal with problematic editing by creating sub-articles as ] (Greystones is anyway such a small place that I doubt ], and even more so ], are separately notable). More useful to deal with the conflict of interest, which looks very clear. ] (]) 21:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{article|Highgate Vampire}}

{{userlinks|Vampire Research Society}}

It's an article about a supposed vampire sighting, and I think it's in need of attention. It is edited by ], who is one of the self-described vampire hunters who claim to have discovered and destroyed the vampire in question. There is a bitter rivalry between VRS (Sean Manchester) and David Farrant, another (ex-)vampire hunter (don't laugh), as well as with sceptical authors who have written on the matter. I had a very hard time keeping the article neutral and the discussion civilized a year ago or so (mostly as an IP). Now I see VRS is active again, and while he doesn't seem to be doing anything particularly terrible at the moment, I'm quite nervous about what can happen next. If I were active on Misplaced Pages at the moment, I would keep watch on it, but as I'm not and won't be any time soon, I'd be relieved if a more regular Wikipedian occasionally takes a look at what is going on there.--] (]) 01:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

:I added some further reading and moved some of the external links. -- ]]/] 00:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
::It also has a flavour of ]; the whole article is very authorially-framed (e.g. "The growth of its reputation is a fascinating example of modern legend-building"). ] (]) 14:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

== ] and ] ==

{{article|Digital Entertainment Network}}

{{userlinks|Tdenusa}}

The article is about the old DEN.net portal (which someone else has put online, and is restoring the old video content to). Someone else -- ] -- insists his company owns the trademark to the name "The Digital Entertainment Network." He has repeatedly posted content about his current company on the top of the article here, insisting he has a "legal right" to do so. I've suggested to him that his information would be better served in a separate article, ], which would reflect his company's name, and preserve the historical record of the original article. I also noted to him that his information would be subject to WP notability guidelines, as his information appears to be little more than an advert for his company.

Some guidance here would be helpful. Thanks! --] (]) 16:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
:User:Tdenusa has disclosed he is Ralph Press, President of TDEN, USA. — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 16:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

::*Just to note, Mr. Press has indicated that he plans to restore the disputed information once 24 hours has elapsed, so as not to be in violation of ]; and has threatened to "report" me for vandalism if I remove the advert information again. --] (]) 20:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::Please don't revert again. Even though the information is clearly not appropriate, there is no need for you to risk a block for possible edit warring as well. ] is a touchy area. — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 21:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::Understood; I'll stand apart from it, but when I note it, I'll report such here. --] (]) 21:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
::::If http://www.den.net and http://www.tden.com are separate companies with no overlap, then it's reasonable we should have two separate articles, and use a DAB or a hatnote to distinguish them. Putting unrelated material into a single article seems mischievous. ] (]) 20:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::I kind of thought so - I thought I was being reasonable. I did note to him that the advert-related info would certainly be subject to possible removal under WP guidelines, but I thought I was being reasonable (at least I was trying to be). I know I can be heavy-handed at times, plus I needed some guidance in the matter. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> 21 November 2007
* I have created the separate article with a dab link at the top of both of them.--] <small>formerly known as User:Golden Wattle</small> <sup>]</sup> 23:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


I see a new page was created for The Digital Entertainment Network. That's fine. I will work on improving it. Our trademark ownership can be verified at the uspto.gov website by typing in Digital Entertainment Network in the trademark search page. The trademark registration# is 2347797. I am a little surprised that the Misplaced Pages experts are not aware of this capability. The problem here is the patent and trademark office does not distinguish whether the 'The' is in front of Digital Entertainment Network or not. They will not issue that mark to another company. By having two separate pages it just adds to the confusion that existed almost 10 years ago. Our website has been using this registered trademark continuously for 11 years now. I am not going to reinstate the prior edits for Digital Entertainment Network. However the trademark infringement problem between our 2 companies is an historical fact which I can document with references from articles in the NY Post and correspondence I have with their attornies. I will add some information about this at the bottom of their page. I don't see why there should be a problem with this as it is part of that company's history just as the lawsuits against Collins Rector are.

Sincerely,
Ralph Press
] (]) 05:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
:If you have references from the New York Post it would be good to list them here. We can use published sources but we can't use your correspondence with attorneys. I suggest that you not make any edits to the articles yourself, since you have a conflict. If you see a change that needs to be made, ask for it on the article Talk page and neutral editors will address the matter. ] (]) 05:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
::Archives search of ''New York Post'' did not come up with anything for me . I found the patent registration under 2347797 (filed 22 May 1998 and live). I also found 2 dead registrations to the other comapny though they weren't for the ] ''Digital Entertainment Network'' but rather the wordmarks DENMART and CHATDEN to a company of that name. Further also at the patents office - : ''A petition to cancel the registration identified below having been filed, and the notice of such proceeding sent to registrant at the last known address having been returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable, notice is hereby given that unless the registrant listed herein, its assigns or legal representatives, shall enter an appearance within thirty days of this publication, the cancellation will proceed as in the case of default. ... Digital Entertainment Network, Inc., Santa Monica, CA, Registration No. 2366329 for the mark "DIRECT DRIVE", Cancellation No. 92045801.'' I found no record in the patents office website of a trademark dispute but that might be my poor searching skills although I did search the Decisions of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and I think the matter must not have been tested there eg . --] <small>formerly known as User:Golden Wattle</small> <sup>]</sup> 22:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
:See for the current status of a service mark #2347797 on the Digital Entertainment Network. It was granted on 5/22/2000 and is now owned by a company called TDEN USA which is based in Plantation, Florida. The service they provide is called ''Computerized on-line ordering and retail services in the field of digital audio recordings, featuring previews of the recordings.'' However, the original Digital Entertainment Network is reported to have gone bankrupt in May of 2000 so the timing doesn't work out for the trademark issue to have played any role in their demise. There is apparently a successor company that still runs http://www.den.net and maybe *they* have had dealings with TDEN USA. However our article doesn't say anything about them. So unless the New York Post has something to report about the trademark issue it's not yet obvious that anything about the trademark belongs in the original DEN article.
:Our additional article called ] has these sentences: <blockquote>That company infringed upon the tden.com trademark. After a period of negotiations to license the trademark to DEN, DEN went out of business.</blockquote>So far I see no case for keeping those sentences, since no evidence has been provided, and the date of bankruptcy of the original DEN doesn't fit. I'd like to see ] comment on the situation, though. ] (]) 05:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
::Although registered (granted) in 2000 the application was filed in 1998 and thus the time period does overlap. I was unable to find evidence on the web of negotiations (there was less on the web then). Obviously cites from newspapers or other ] that are not online are fine - but there need to be cites and correspondence between attorneys would not meet our guidelines - wouldn't be encyclopaedic.--] <small>formerly known as User:Golden Wattle</small> <sup>]</sup> 05:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually the overlap period started in 1996. A trademark doesn't have to be registered for there to be infringement. We started using it on our website in 1996 while DEN's website started 3 months after ours. The conflict wasn't discovered until the end of 1998. While attorney's correspondence may not be 'encyclopedic' they are direct evidence of the situation. Newspaper articles are second hand sources and can contain misinformation. I have a copy of a NY Post article that was written about this stored somewhere. I will dig it out and post it on my website for all to read.

] (]) 13:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You can read the article here http://www.tden.com/NY_Post_Article.pdf. It was written on June 17, 2002 by Ben Silverman of dotcomscoop. There are 2 articles on the page. The first is about DEN the second is about us. The company he refers to Digital Masters USA was the original company I set up to run the website and own the trademark. When I moved to Florida I started TDEN USA and transferred everything over to it.

] (]) 20:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

==]==

* {{article|Rick Cesari}} -
* {{userlinks|Cesaridirect}} -
The author of this article has a name similar to the subject.
According to ], the same user has deleted sourced material.
I tagged it. ] (]) 23:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
:It looks like all of his edits are to promote himself and his business. Hopefully, he'll respond to the warnings soon. --] (]) 23:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

* {{article|Cayra}} - article about beta, freeware
* {{userlinks|Zabriski}} - creator and main editor to the ] article, who claims to own the copyright to the product logo : mistake
* {{userlinks|Julia sova}} - appears to be Julia Sova, the PR manager for Cayra
: I had previously warned Julia sova with a uw-coi. Discussions on ] led to her report above: ]. I'm also concerned that there may be a language problem here causing confusion. --] (]) 20:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
::Ronz should give some thought to nominating this article for deletion. Notability has not been shown from reliable sources. There is a real COI here, but not yet any troublesome violation of the COI guideline by the affected editors. All I noticed was a bit too much indignation at the noticeboards and on Talk pages (e.g. ) over what seem to be to be clear Misplaced Pages policies. If the article creators had cooperated fully, Ronz wouldn't need to come here to get support, the editors involved would have understood the policy issues themselves. It shouldn't be hard to understand our ] policy, which excludes the web sites these editors were using to reference ]. The site http://killerstartups.com is an internet popularity poll, not a reliable source. ] (]) 20:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Hi, I'm neither the creator nor main contibutor to ], copyrighting the logo was a mistake (simply haven't found other suitable options that will not grant access to the logo editing).<br>
:::I don't see where advertisement can be read in ] article, I tried to make it as neutral as possible. What concerns reliable sources, what's wrong with mind-mapping.org or mindmap-software.com? I have read ] and it says ] is a guideline, not a policy, am I wrong?<br>
:::Also please compare ] article with ] article. Are there any differences? Any reliable sources there? The reason why I'm pointing to FreeMind article is that it was the one that inspired me to create an article about Cayra, as these two mind mapping applications seem to have a lot in common: both are free and practice no advertising.<br>
:::Please show me what's the weak link in my judgement and how can I improve the article, thank you! <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> 2 November 2007
::::Since Zabriski doesn't have a coi, this comes down to WP:N and WP:RS issues that are best addressed on the article talk page. I think this is resolved here. --] (]) 01:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Ronz, there was some misunderstanding but I wouldn't say it was because of "language problem" - when EdJohnston explained everything to me, I understood it quite well. As you see, I'm not editing Cayra's article, so this issue can be now removed from WI:COI Noticeboard. ] (]) 09:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Julia sova.

== ] ==

{{resolved|Further comments to ]. ] 01:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)}}
:See also: ].
* {{article|Human trafficking in Angeles City}} - article about human trafficking in Angeles City, Philippines.
* {{userlinks|Susanbryce}} - creator and main contributor to the article. Claims to have founded charity in Angeles and is a political activist using wikipedia to distort and fabricate claims of human trafficking and other social problems.

:: {{userlinks|Susanbryce}} has been accused by the Senate of the Philippines of running a smear campaign against Angeles, see http://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2007/0726_revilla1.asp . She has used other internet forums to spread lies about Angeles City. She claims it has 150,000 prostitutes (out of a total population of 280,000) and that a woman or child is raped or killed every 6 seconds.

::There has never been one arrest for Human Trafficking in Angeles City. Susanbryce makes unfounded claims this is because of some wild government conspiracy. ] (]) 11:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Refactored link. I'd suggest a ] or an ] to get more opinions on whether any ] survives. (As an aside. National Geographic noted in its September 2003 issue that "here's a clear link between slavery and government corruption" (p16)). ] 11:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

:{{userlinks|RodentofDeath}}
:If soapboxing is an issue, please , and his edit history. RodentofDeath's ] edits to various ]-related articles, notably ] (), consistently remove well-sourced information that is not flattering to Angeles City (which has some problems). After 100's of kb of Talk page discussion on various articles, RodentofDeath resumes deletion of source material for specious and highly disputed reasons (see Talk), and sustains a near-constant campaign of personal attack against editors who challenge him. This ] has been raised repeatedly in ], and dismissed as a content dispute. / ]<small> ] ]</small> 12:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
::I just found the ANI thread and it appears both sides (i.e. RodentOfDeath and Susanbryce) have engaged in POV pushing. I was suggesting a community review of the article to make sure that no soapboxing by either party survives.

::I'd file a ] on RodentOfDeath with the possibility of bumping it up to ] in the future. (Note that the arbcom doesn't rule on content issues, you'll need to produce evidence of user misconduct.) ] 13:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

:::Started ]. Am currently awaiting more ''Users certifying the basis for this dispute'' before submitting the request. This may be problematic because many of the editors who have tried to resolve these disputes are no longer contributing to Misplaced Pages, and a certification from {{User|Susanbryce}} might be dismissed due to partiality. / ]<small> ] ]</small> 15:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

::::You've got three now, which is more than the prerequisite two. I guess we're done here, further comments should go to the RFC. ] 01:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

excuse me, but how is susan's documented conflict of interest resolved by asking people for requests for comments on ME?!!! she is still inserting false information continually in articles she has a direct conflict of interest editing. and my discussion of why these edits are incorrect are on the talk page where they should be.] (]) 00:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
:I would have suggested mediation but you refused that. Plus your conduct is the most questionable out of all three participants. ] 02:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

please show me where i ever refused moderation. my conduct has nothing to do with the fact susanbryce has a conflict of interest. if i were to fall off the planet and never were heard from again she still has a conflict of interest. in the past when moderation between susan and i was suggested elsewhere i asked what would be moderated. the reply to me was the human trafficking in angeles article. i responded that she has a conflict of interest and should not be editing that article. the subject was then dropped and she didnt edit for several months. during this time nobody had any complaints about my conduct. now that she is back editing articles she should not be involved with suddenly i am a problem again. please address the issue here which is her conflict of interest and her deliberately inserting false information. you can address my conduct elsewhere as you seem to already have done. ] (]) 02:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

:I will respond on the RFC. ] 04:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

are users supposed to be removing COI templates from their user page? even after the response on my RFC i dont see how commenting on my actions resolves susanbryce's conflict of interest. my statements can in no way affect if she has a her conflict of interest or not, which she clearly does.] (]) 17:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

:User warnings aren't supposed to ''be'' on their user page. And yes. You can remove warnings from your talk page. ] (]) 18:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the answer. so where are they supposed to be? apparently i didnt understand the purpose of them. back to the conflict of interest topic.... is anyone watching the human trafficking page and all the errors getting inserted now (including statements already proven false months ago)? nobody else can see the clear smear campaign and conflict of interest going on here?] (]) 18:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

* {{article|R Family Vacations}}
Inital discovery: This article is fraught with error. The sources for references 1,2,3 and 10 do not support the text. Reference 4 is an outdated link. Reference 11 doesn't work. The source for reference 6 lists Dan as a friend of Rosie, not a biz partner as written in the text. The source for reference 7 lists the capacity of the ship to be 2,600; they had 1,600 passengers the first year, and 2,200 after -- text says capacity is 2,200 and is over 70% full with 1,600. The text under reference 8 says simply O'Donnell was quoted when it was actually Kelli quoted in the source; the text preceding the quote gives no indication it was Kelli.

COI concerns: why did the single author of this article use the term "Reservations" instead of "Homepage" or any other term to describe the first reference? Readers clicking on the word "Reservations" are taken to the company website page, and an attracting jumping link to make a reservation. Did the author want to provide a convenient link to the website so the reader could make a purchase, i.e., buy tickets? Does the author have a business or financial interest in this company? Why else would he highlight "Reservations" in the first reference, a reference to a source that doesn't support the text, i.e., that the company is headquartered in Nyack? There are possible COI issues here that need to be investigated.] (]) 17:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
:It may well be inaccurate, but I don't see any reason to think a COI is involved: the editor, {{userlinks|Benjiboi}}, has a track record of edits on varied LGBT topics. ] (]) 17:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
::Obviously having a track record of edits is no guarantee of accuracy in those edits. Perhaps his other contributions ought to be scrutinized for accuracy, the incidence of LGBT topics notwithstanding.] (]) 18:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I suggest this should be closed as a bad faith nomination. It's fairly odd that a new anon editor, clearly with knowledge of Wikiprojects and the ] procedure, should show up solely to attempt to discredit one article and its creator. It has just been spotted at ] that {{userlinks|71.127.226.19}} has a similar IP address to someone who has been harassing ]. If accuracy really is a concern to 71.127.226.19, there's nothing preventing him/her helping improve the article(s), as others are doing at this instant - but this is a COI forum, not one for discussing accuracy. ] (]) 23:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
:Yes, and as I wrote on the LGBT project page , the greater concern was suspicion of conflict of interest in the creation of the article and the way the article's first reference was structured to make it easy for the reader to make reservations with the company. The factual inaccuracies, etc., were secondary to the COI concerns, but were presented to give a complete picture of the author's "work." ] (]) 00:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Obvious bad faith nomination from an anon IP who has been stalking Benjiboi for over a month now. Please see ] to see how he was following Benjiboi there. That is only one example. This has been happening to Benjiboi across many articles and has been taken to ANI twice. I can provide more diffs if required. ] (]) 00:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote on the LGBT page: I have raised legitimate concerns over suspicion of conflict of interest, and many errors in this article. You are all masking errors and possible impropriety in your defense of the author of the article. How do any of you know for certain that the author has no financial or business interests in the company R Family Vacations? You do not know that for certain.

The stalking suspicion is absolute nonsense and simply a smokescreen to mask the errors of another LGBT editor and his possible impropriety. It's troubling that WP editors are conducting themselves in this manner. ] (]) 00:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
:Nobody's stopping you improving the article. An anon account created entirely to diss one article and its editor is more troubling. ] (]) 01:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
::No, sir, it is more troubling when an editor raises legitimate concerns over perceived impropriety and he is accused of stalking, and the very discussion in which he enumerates his concerns is deleted from the LGBT project page. What have the people at LGBT to fear? Have you seen how they scrambled to correct the factual errors in ], and to remove any material whereby the author could be suspected of COI? If those were not legitimate concerns, if there was no impropriety, then why did they hasten to change the article? No, the group at LGBT and how they've conducted themselves in this matter is what's troubling, not my reporting of it.] (]) 02:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
::And, despite the extensive changes made in the article, there should still be an investigation to determine the extent of the author's conflict of interest in creating the article. ] (]) 02:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

::: You show up from nowhere, with no previous record of constructive edits, to start complaining loudly (in the wrong places) about perceived errors that you take no steps to fix yourself, and assert that an established editor edits in defiance of a conflict of interest, on evidence that it would be charitable to call tenuous. And after the errors you complain about have been fixed, you consider ''that'' to be evidence of wrongdoing and demand an "investigation" of your own flimsy accusations? Obviously you're not interested in improving your encyclopedia; you just want to see somebody punished for, um, it's not really clear what they did to anger you so. However. Vendettas such as yours are not appreciated here. Please go away. You can think of it as boycotting us, if that makes you feel better. –] 02:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

::::Sir, your reasoning of the facts of this matter is spurious at best, perhaps abetted by indignation. There were not perceived errors, there '''''were''''' errors. What was perceived was a possible incident of COI, and for that reason, the concern over COI along with the errors were brought here and to the LGBT project page; it has already been stated quite clearly that the article talkpage was bypassed for that reason. The removal of errors is not evidence of wrongdoing. The removal of material that suggests the incidence of conflict of interest -- and the rapidity with which that material was removed -- indicates the presence of impropriety at the very least. The removal of the discussion thread at LGBT is also telling, of impropriety. I would hope that well-intentioned and genuine good faith editors here will undertake an appropriate inquiry to determine the extent of the author's conflict of interest in creating the article.] (]) 03:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::The "errors" that the stalker saw were not really errors at all. Benjiboi had the right website, but used the wrong page He used the mainpage instead of the appropriate when filling in his reference. That is a mistake many make when entering multiple references, and was corrected. The only conflict of interest I see is this stalker bringing articles of Benjiboi up for review. ] (]) 09:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::BTW, the Reservations page does actually provide citation for the physical location for the company, so no sinister motive there. To claim ref 2 doesn't support the citation for the slogan is simply untrue: it's there, top right of the home page. And so on. ] (]) 12:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


(unindent) Errors are errors, and there were, and remain, errors in this article, and further suggestion of possible COI.

Prior to others' corrections, the author listed Dan as a friend, the source says he's a biz partner -- that is an error.
The author wrote that O'Donnell was interviewed. From the text the reader gathers he meant Rosie, but the source says Kelli was interviewed -- that is an error.
The author confused the capacity of the ship with the number of passengers in the second year and produced an incorrect percentage based on that confusion -- those are errors.
The author listed a webpage to source the info he included on an address; that info was not found at that webpage. Whether others make a similar error does not alter the fact that -- that is an error. Not only are these errors, but they "really are" errors.

These errors were detected as part of the discovery made in reading this article and are secondary to the suggestion of COI found.

If, as has been noted, the reservations page does list the address (and it does) and that that indicates the absence of a sinister motive (author's COI?), then why, why did somebody else scramble to change the reference? If it was OK to begin with, why change it? Indeed, another source was found to verify the address, and the new reference does not facilitate making reservations (purchase tickets). Therein lies the suggestion of COI: that the author deliberately listed the reservations page as a source for the company address, despite the fact that other sources are available to corroborate this info; he titled the reference "Reservations" and linked the term to the reservations page of the company, providing a convenient link to the company webpage where the reader could make a purchase (buy tickets), in effect, saying "here's where you go to make reservations with R Family Vacations."

I have additional discovery which I will present as time allows. I presume this thread will remain active for a day or two more? --] (]) 21:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
:Please see ] and ] for more documentation of this anon IP's stalking behavior. This is on ANI again, by the way. ] (]) 09:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
::Currently on ANI , and I've tagged 72.68.125.254 as a probable sock. ] (]) 23:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In a desperate attempt to quash discussion and bury this matter, some editors have taken to spouting suspicions and accusations. They are operating under a misguided sense of loyalty to their colleague/friend, the author of this article -- and in their zeal to protect him, they overlook even the possibility that their friend could make errors and have a conflict of interest in creating and editing this article, despite the starkness of the evidence presented.

Additional discovery: Let's take a look at the article and the work of the author and the section entitled "Faith-based homophobia in the Caribbean." Faith-based homophobia -- does that heading accurately describe what follows in the section, the protest in 2004 and the threat of a protest in 2007? The protest was anti-gay, but one anti-gay protest in Nassau does not comprise the whole of homophobia in the region, just as what occurs in Nassau does not comprise the whole of what occurs in the Caribbean, but the author would have us believe otherwise, so he writes otherwise. The author wrote that Nassau, Bahamas, is nearby Bermuda -- Nassau is hardly close at hand to Bermuda, but the author would have us believe otherwise, so he writes otherwise. The author wrote that the cruise itself "was being targeted" by the interfaith group, when, in fact, the cruise dropped Bermuda from the itinerary before United's statement of intent had been published. It was the threat of protest that caused R Fam to drop Bermuda, but the author would have us believe otherwise, so he writes otherwise. The author wrote that protesters in the 2004 protest numbered "a hundred," when in fact, the source cited says "about 100," which is a guesstimate and can mean less than one hundred, not necessarily one hundred, but the author would have us believe otherwise, so he writes otherwise. The author wrote that the protesters in the 2004 protest were "Christian," when in fact, there is not one single instance in the source article where the protesters are described as Christian. The protesters might have been from Christian denominations, but there is no evidence that they were Christian in any or every sense of the word Christian, so they cannot be accurately described as such, but the author would have us believe otherwise, so he writes otherwise.

The author of this article has produced this work with multiple errors and distortions, slant and bias; he has an agenda. He had made a convenient link for readers to go to the company homepage and make reservations, i.e., make a purchase, until such link was removed by his colleagues upon disclosure. That link had enhanced the business of the company. Based on the evidence presented in previous posts and the foregoing, the author of this article has a clear conflict of interest in the creation of and the editing of this article.

I would hope that this matter be attended by genuine good faith editors including those outside of the LGBT project community.--] (]) 05:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
:Begone and take ''your own'' agenda with you. We don't need people who have an axe to grind against a specific subsection of humanity here. Can we close this as a bad-faith thread? (And before you say I'm a member of WP:LGBT, the only projects I am affiliated with are ] (member) and ] (lurker and unofficial member). -'']'' <sup>(<font color="0000FF">] ]</font>)</sup> 05:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

::I have raised legitimate concerns over conflict of interest. One need only look at the evidence presented. Reporting incidences of conflict of interest is not having an agenda. The author of this article has a clear conflict of interest in creating the article and in the ways he has edited it.--] (]) 05:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Then explain to me why you're targeting an article Benjiboi has edited, as you did with ] and ]? -'']'' <sup>(<font color="0000FF">] ]</font>)</sup> 06:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
::::The suspicions and accusations to which you allude, posted here and elsewhere are, as I've said previously, intended to quash this discussion and are a smokescreen meant to mask the real issue here: that the author of this article has a conflict of interest both in creating the article and the way he's edited it.--] (]) 06:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. You have a beef with ], which you're trying to avoid discussing here and which makes you incapable of accusing him of wrongdoing. Could we get someone to close this thread, please? -'']'' <sup>(<font color="0000FF">] ]</font>)</sup> 06:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::I had read the article and found it to contain multiple errors. Upon further examination I found evidence of conflict of interest and I reported it here and at LGBT. I would rather that the matter be attended by others who can reason from the evidence presented, and not simply from emotion or speculation.--] (]) 06:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::There is no evidence - you need to provide it rather than letting the people here hunt it down. Further, your IP originates from Paterson, New Jersey - the same place all the other IPs who have harassed Benjiboi come from. Just ask the RDNS link in your Contribs page. Stop harassing Benjiboi - we can contact Verizon. -'']'' <sup>(<font color="0000FF">] ]</font>)</sup> 06:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) The evidence for the incidence of conflict of interest by the author of this article has been clearly and exhaustively annotated in the postings above. -- unsigned edit by {{userlinks|71.127.232.179}} ] (]) 15:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

== ], ] ==

* {{article|Anti-stuttering devices}}
* {{article|Stuttering}}
* {{userlinks|Tdkehoe}}
] was created by ], who ] "I'm an expert on the subject because I own one of the companies that make anti-stuttering devices". He has since {{tl|uw-coi}} and spam notices from his ]. For summaries of COI and other concerns with his edits, please see ], ] and the ] for Stuttering. Finally, it is possible that {{userlinks|Stutterman}} and some IPs are sockpuppets or meatpuppets of Tdkehoe. Thanks, ] ''']''' 17:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
:This is a serious and growing concern, which led to ] being defeatured. Please refer to ], , and the {{user|Slp1}} and I have spent days just trying to restore these articles to a reliable level. Slp (a speech and language pathologist) suggests that some sections of ] need to be reduced to one paragraph. Another concern is that Tdkehoe did not participate in the FAR, but once he resumed editing of ], after a several month absence, several other new editors and IPs began backing up his reverts to the older, problematic versions. As noted on the FAR, Tdkehoe has started numerous similar articles on Wikibooks, which are now linked at alt.support.stuttering and on their FAQ. It seems as if Wiki is systematically being used to promote anti-stuttering products. (According to Slp1, some of which is easily verifiable via Google, Tdkehoe is likely the inventor of several anti-stuttering devices, including the SmallTalk and School DAF and he owns Casa Futura Technologies which makes and distributes them.) ] (]) 18:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering if there's any particular reason why this issue generates not a single response at COIN; this came to COIN once before, and was archived without a single response, leaving a few editors to deal with this for another two months. Is there something I'm missing? If no admins respond here, perhaps AN/I is the next stop? ] (]) 13:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
: Are most of your problems coming from a user, or from IP's? - ] <sup>]</sup> 13:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
::One user, with a conflict of interest. The IPs and the new account appeared briefly, recently. ] (]) 14:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
::: (edit conflict, so not logical order!) I actually don't have much to add to the descriptions listed above. And I must apologize that some of the links below may not be the most informative I could provide. I have extremely limited and very sloooow internet access!

:::On the plus side, ] has since June been upfront about his business interests on his userpage, has sought advice on various occasions , and I honestly think hasn't understood some WP policies and guidelines. On the other hand, he hasn't readily followed through with recommendations made to him,, , or chose to interpret them to allow what he would like to include.
:::I find the editing here and on wikibooks disconcerting, in part because of the criticisms the manufacturers of another anti-stuttering device have received (in a peer reviewed journal no less) for grandiose claims of treatment effects on shows such as Oprah, without the scientific data etc to back them up. I feel that a similar approach at diffusion is being used here. ] (]) 14:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

* {{article|uSwitch}} — After the previous edits to the article uSwitch caused a big fuss here, I recommended to my colleagues that we propose the changes on the article's Talk: page. ] have been listed there for over a month now. Can someone please make these changes for us, so the article is actually ] and accurate? ] (]) 09:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

*{{article|American Apparel}}
*{{userlinks|Leftcoastbreakdown}}

Relevant thread at ]. ] (]) 13:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{user|MRC LTD}} has a clear conflict of interest in editing the ] article, but feels that he/she can blatantly remove the coi tag from the article because Sav Remzi isn't editing it. <font face="Comic Sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 23:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
==]==
* {{article|Brightcove}}
** {{vandal|Eddroid}}
** {{IPvandal|65.15.24.42}}

{{linksearch|*.brightcove.com|brightcove.com}} Linksearch current<br>

Article was created by an ] account with no other edits other than related to Brightcove. Was speedied six times previously.--] (]) 07:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

Clear evidence of COI can be seen in phrases like "We offer...". Despite the promotional tone, the subject seems notable, so cleanup would be preferable to deletion. It's a big job, so be prepared to devote at least ten minutes. ] (] • ]) 17:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
: The whole article is copied directly from the Perry Institute website and is a copyright violation. I have speedied it. --] (]) 22:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

== Silanis ==

An IP address, 66.46.217.132, registered to SILANIS TECHNOLOGY has pluged the websites of that company in articles such as ], ], and ] since August of this year. The spam continues even after warnings. Silanis provides services in the digital signature field. --] (]) 23:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.silanis.com
*{{spamlink|silanis.com}}
http://spam.esignrecords.org
*{{spamlink|esignrecords.org}}

;Spammers
*{{IPSummary|66.46.217.132}}
*{{IPSummary|209.167.254.82}}

If they return again, we'll probably blacklist the links. ] 01:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
:Agree with MER-C, feel free to request @ ] refering to this if there is a resurgence.--] (]) 13:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The spammer 66.46.217.132 has returned; here is a of the spam addition. I suggest that the IP address 66.46.217.132 be blocked indefinitely and the domain silanis.com be blacklisted. I will post a blacklisting request as suggested by Hu12. --] (]) 18:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:31, 23 December 2024

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

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

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests Talk:260 Collins Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:AvePoint Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Edi Birsan Talk:Adam Boehler Talk:Bunq Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Casualty Actuarial Society Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Commvault Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:DEGIRO Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Michael Dell Talk:Etraveli Group Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire Talk:Group-IB Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Andrew Hoffman Talk:Insight Meditation Society Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:Khalili Foundation Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:V Pappas Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician) Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:Louise Showe Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Uppsala Monitoring Centre Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Carlton Wilborn

    Clear WP:SPA only interested in editing an article about himself. Previous edits already revdeleted for copyright issues. See this edit PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

    Looks like a very clear-cut COI violation. - Amigao (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Should I also add the main article to Articles for deletion? The sources of that article all suck.. there's only one reliable source (Attitude Magazine). I haven't heard of the other sources PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

    Anahit saribekyan

    User created autobiography. Synorem (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

    Yes, and the first paragraph is a WP:COPYVIO from here: . Copyvio is a problem that was pointed out on a previously turned down AfC from this user, but their talk page doesn't inspire confidence that the message will have been understood.
    The user seems to have severe issues with both WP:CIR and promotion of herself and her employer (The International Dance Council). A look at the user's talk page reveals a long list of declined promo AfCs, and deleted promo material that was introduced directly into mainspace.
    First there was this article on Dance Day , which was declined at AfC 5 times in the space of a month.
    Then there was this article for International Certification of Dance Studies , turned down at AfC, nominated for speedy deletion, moved into mainspace, then back to draftspace, then back to mainspace and eventually deleted at AfD - all in the course of a fortnight.
    (Both of the above articles are directly related to the International Dance Council.)
    And now the user has moved an entirely unsourced and COPYVIO article about themselves directly to mainspace, only for it to go to AfD half an hour later. It was then speedy deleted under G11 within the hour.
    As far as I can see this is a blatant promo only account which is wasting a lot of volunteer time. The fact that they started bypassing AfC is the clearest sign that something is wrong here. Axad12 (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    As further illustration of the issues here, an article for Dance Day has actually existed on Misplaced Pages since 2005 (under the title International Dance Day. We can only wonder why an employee of the organising body was repeatedly trying to create an inadequately sourced and very poorly written duplicate article. However, the 5 referrals to AfC and the reams of resultant back and forth communication on the user's talkpage indicates that a massive amount of time was wasted. Axad12 (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    For more of the same, see the article for Alkis Raftis (president of the International Dance Council), edited by the user above back in August, but set up by the obviously COI user CID-unesco (The IDC/CID is part of Unesco), and entirely bereft of references and apparently the work of the same hand. Another strange similarity, the article was originally created as Alkis raftis (lower case r) and the Anahit saribekyan article today had the same peculiarity.
    The Raftis article was also extensively edited by user:International Dance Council which was site blocked in 2023 for being a promo/advertising only account.
    WP:DUCK therefore indicates that user:Anahit Saribekyan is involved in block evasion. They are employed (by their own admission) by the International Dance Council, and they are involved only in promotional and advertising.
    Copying in user:Jimfbleak who has been working on removing some of the material mentioned earlier in the thread. Axad12 (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    Fun fact: user:Alkis Raftis even popped up as a meat puppet at the AfD for International Certification of Dance Studies (their only edit). Axad12 (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    I thought about blocking this account, but the COI had been declared and it seemed to be as much a competence issue as anything, so I didn't, perhaps an error in retrospect Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    Point taken, but surely block evasion after a block for promo/advertising isn't a competence issue - and the behaviour that got them blocked has continued (if anything, worse than before).
    I wonder if you would care to reconsider? Axad12 (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    For example, declaring a COI doesn't give a user carte blanche to repeatedly crowbar promotional mateerial into mainspace that has been turned down at AfC, or to start bypassing AfC altogether with their promotional and unsourced autobiography. Axad12 (talk) 10:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    Guys no problem. Let me know how to delete my account from here.
    I am getting tired from the issue. Or delete my account from here. Anahit Saribekyan (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Anahit Saribekyan: Accounts cannot be deleted. If you don't want to edit Misplaced Pages anymore, simply abandon your account and never log into it again. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

    Pinialtaus

    Pinialtaus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) For going straight to making ten edits after being old enough to meet the time requirement and then immediately to posting Yohei Kiguchi (entrepreneur) and Enechange (company). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oona Wikiwalker (talkcontribs) 22:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

    Special:Contributions/EAllen04

    First time submitting something like this, so please bear with me.

    It appears to me that user EAllen04 is the same Eleanor Allen named in the Water For People article. Eleanor recently edited the Flourishing article, contributing a word salad of advertising copy that further dilutes the quality of an article already thoroughly suffused with marketing-speak and woo.

    EAllen04 was notified of their COI responsibilities in March of 2024. I notified them again following their most recent string of edits. Respectfully requesting a more seasoned editor double check my work here.

    🆃🆁🆂13:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

    At this time I should also point out that in light of Misplaced Pages:INDISCRIMINATE, I struggle to discern a convincing case for the continued presence of the article Water For People anywhere within the scope of the project. The subject organization fails the notability test, and nearly all the cited sources are from either the organization itself or one of their members named in the article. If it were my choice, I'd say nuke this stinker -- but that's probably why I don't have any actual power around here ;) 🆃🆁🆂13:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, I'm inclined to agree with you. I've removed some unsourced text from Water For People and reverted the recent edits to Flourishing. As you say, AfD may be the solution for Water for People.
    Looking at the edit history for Water For People, there have been various redlinked WP:SPAs editing the article from 2010 onwards, which is probably why it is such a mess.
    However, on the other hand there is the following text, which is obviously some kind of WP:SYNTH/WP:OR and presumably doesn't originate from the organisation itself: Water For People reported in its 2015 IRS tax form that it spent a total of $18,844,346, in which $5,819,735 in administration, and $1,944,288 in fundraising. There's a discrepancy here. On Water For People's website, they have all their audited financial statements from 2005 to 2015. They also have all their IRS Form 990s from 2012 to 2016. They also have their IRS Form 1023 accessible from 1991, where they applied for recognition of tax exemption. They also have their 501(c)(3) document, containing a letter that confirms their tax exemption status from the Internal Revenue Service. On its website, the charity also has its own printed pamphlet, called "Behind the Numbers" from the years 2013 to 2015. The pamphlet explains what the money in the respective fiscal year was able to accomplish in project works around the world.
    Overall, a mess. Axad12 (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    Hi all -EAllen here - I am not trying to be a problem. I am trying to contribute meaningfully. I am the former CEO of Water For People. The page is/was very outdated and I was trying to update it and make it more factual. Wanting to help and appreciate your guidance to do so in an appropriate way.
    For Flourishing, the page doesn't mention workplace flourishing. I think it is a missing element on the flourishing page. I did get some copy from SHAPE, a company I respect in this space. Happy to tone it down to not make it sound like marketing text and more factual. Appreciate the guidance. EAllen04 (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    When you say I did get some copy from SHAPE, a company I respect in this space. Happy to tone it down to not make it sound like marketing text are you basically admitting to having attempted a large scale copyright violation?
    Also, I see very clear offwiki evidence suggesting a degree of association between yourself and SHAPE. Given that you appear to have cut and pasted material from SHAPE into Misplaced Pages, material that you accept sounded like marketing text, maybe it would be best if you were to disclose your conflict of interest there? Axad12 (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    Your edits here , here and here were clearly blatant adverts for SHAPE.
    To suggest that you are Happy to tone it down isn’t really going to get us anywhere. There is no place for this kind of promotionalism on Misplaced Pages, no matter how much it is toned down. These edits were not, as you claim, adding detail to an element of Flourishing that was previously not covered. They were very blatant adverts for a specific company.
    I note that you also made a large promotional edit back in March 2024 to the article for B Lab, another organisation where off wiki evidence suggests some degree of association. The edit including material such as Notable B-Lab certified corporations: There are thousands of certified B Corps all around the world. You can search the database to find a B Corp here. There are many famous brands including:
    In fact, looking at your edit history, is it fair to say that it relates primarily to adding promotional material to articles where you have a conflict of interest (including apparent self-promotion, here )? Axad12 (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    I note also a previous note left on your talk page back in March this year, observing that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Under the circumstances some explanation is surely required on why you recently felt it wise to add material such as SHAPE Global Ltd is a leading advocate for the research and application of organizational flourishing. Contributing to multiple groups such as Harvard University’s Flourishing at Work and AI for Human Flourishing, as well as IWBI WELL standard, SHAPE is linking the importance of flourishing to regulatory as well as academic communities globally. That is obvious marketing copy re: SHAPE and has nothing to do with the topic of the article. I could give further examples, but hopefully that suffices for now... Axad12 (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

    Leyla Kuliyeva

    User publisher wiki has made two sets of changes to this article. The first, which I reverted, was promotional in tone and either unsourced or referenced to primary sources. The second, which I also reverted, was unsourced. Another editor posted on the user's Talk page about CoI, and I followed up with a direct question, to which User publisher wiki responded I have the information and giving concerns about the grammar, quality and brevity of the article. They have now posted on the article's Talk page saying, in part, I have been assigned to create a page for this individual with all the relevant information. This article either needs to be properly edited or deleted and replaced with a new one, as it does not adhere to Misplaced Pages's standards. If this is not addressed promptly, we will need to notify Misplaced Pages's legal department to take further action. Tacyarg (talk) 10:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

    Their last comment has now earned them a {{uw-legal}} warning. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    There have been quite a lot of problems with this article since it was created. All of the problematic activity clearly derives from a single previously blocked user, evidence as follows...
    The article was originally created in Feb '22 by virtual SPA user:TheWeldere who took the article to this rather odd (but very long) version before their work began to be reverted (and the article was taken back to very short stub status).
    The user was then blocked for sockpuppetry .
    Then in Sept '22 user:Dmarketingchamp attempted to create a new article for Leyla Kuliyeva (despite the fact that one already existed). This was turned down at AfC. The user placed their new version of the article on their talk page, here . It is obviously the version that was favoured by the work of a user with an identical agenda to that of the blocked user TheWeldere. Then in Jan '23 Dmarketingchamp cut and pasted their version into the existing article, here . So, this was obvious apparent block evasion and sockpuppetry by the user of the TheWeldere account.
    Then in Nov '24 the present account appeared and attempted to create a new article for Kuliyeva (is this sounding familiar?). This was again turned down at AfC (twice this time). The user then implemented their preferred version within the current article, here . So, same story as above.
    This version is different to the previous version that the earlier accounts attempted to implement, but is very likely from the same hand.
    The behavioural evidence of users trying to create complete replacement articles indicates obvious sockpuppetry and block evasion, as per WP:DUCK. Axad12 (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Axad12: Are you going to file a report at SPI? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    I would, but I don't know how to. If you feel an SPI is required, would you be prepared to do the honours and simply link to the evidence above? If so it would be much appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    Just a note to say that the user seems to be restricted to communicating with extensive AI produced material, as can be seen in recent discussions at their talk page and at the Leyla Kuliyeva talkpage . The user even parroted back one of my responses (here:), presumably due to cut and paste error while putting an earlier question into Google Translate. Axad12 (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    User publisher wiki now blocked by Izno as an advertising only account (and for wasting people's time on their user page, as per the SPI: ). Axad12 (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

    South College

    In a previous edit, this editor used an edit summary that indicates that they work for the college: "We needed to update our number of programs we offer, update the 2023 stats to include CBE programs. Also correct a few grammatical issues." I placed a standard paid editing warning on their User Talk page in May. They have not yet responded to the warning but they continue to edit the college's article. ElKevbo (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

    An once of good faith might be due, just from the standpoint that you warned them last time and they stopped. Then 7 months later they come back, probably don't remember seeing the first warning, and then get two more today after they stopped editing again. Not that this isn't a problem, but I'd probably wait for them to edit again in the next day or two, and then if they do perhaps a hammer needs to come down. Another possibility might be to report per WP:REALNAME. TiggerJay(talk) 05:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    In fairness, various promotional accounts have been editing that article since at least 2019. For example, this promotional edit with edit summary Update at the request of the college. That user was blocked as an advertising only account.
    Then we have this exchange from 2020 , where another user admits to working for the college in a marketing capacity and is asked not to edit the article.
    Then later that year this user edited the article, later blocked as WP:NOTHERE.
    Then user SPA from 2021 whose promotional edits were reverted later that day.
    Then this user from 2023 , who made 1 edit before being notified of the WP:UPE policy.
    And then the current user, whose first edit indicated that they work for the college, and who was notified of the relevant policy back in May.
    So, let's not be under any illusion that this college has been directly editing the article for many years, receiving repeated push back in that regard, and is well aware that such activity is contrary to policies and guidelines. Axad12 (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    That does appear consistent with what I've found, but also let's be real, given the spread of these edits, and their limited scope, even blocking this account isn't going to provide a different outcome. Because, as you noted, there have been multiple accounts, and even blocking those accounts isn't making a difference. A large reason for this, I believe, is that college is full of well intentioned, technically versed students who are going to introduce SPAM, but also, there is a huge rotation employees - most people who edit these sorts of pages on college will not be working there two years later. This is different from a company or individual. That doesn't mean that we ignore it. But my point is, once a notice has been issued, they go away, a block will not make any reasonable difference here except make someone doing AIV patrolling feel better. This doesn't mean that I'm light on abuse, but rather, that I believe that we should be more concerned with actual outcomes versus the appearance of just following the process. TiggerJay(talk) 00:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    You say once a notice has been issued, they go away, but in this case the user has continued their editing beyond a notice (which is why they ended up here).
    You also say that the college is full of well intentioned, technically versed students who are going to introduce SPAM, but as far as can be ascertained (from the accounts' own statements) the accounts originated from employees of the college and from marketing companies employed by the college.
    Under those circumstances it's entirely reasonable to assume that those working for the college are aware of the past failures to install promotional content and that they are simply returning to the article once a year or so in the vain hope that no one is looking any more.
    You also note that you don't feel a block would be worthwhile - but when an account exists solely for advertising or promotion, and continues beyond a notice, a block is a fairly standard response in accordance with policy (although in this case I don't see that anyone has actually called for a block anyway).
    Note also the relatively recent promotional edit here , done by an IP address (quite possibly the user named at the top of this thread, or else clearly someone with an identical agenda). That edit (done under a misleading edit summary) was swiftly reverted on the basis that it was promotional.
    The named user has been referred to WP:COI and to WP:PAID and any further continuation of the same agenda can only be construed as blatant breaches of policies and guidelines. That's all the more the case given how easy it is to follow the COI edit request process.
    The general long term pattern of behaviour seen in this case is actually alarmingly common on the articles for schools and colleges. Blocking is often the only way to get the attention of such editors. Axad12 (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not against a block, but I'm simply suggesting that it will simply be a case of WHACKAMOLE and that using warning templates will likely result in the same case of editing every few months from various accounts. The only real way to keep colleges protected is to use page protection, which might be a better option. TiggerJay(talk) 17:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't disagree, but when I've tried to get page protection in the past I've often found that (a) this level of disruptive editing wouldn't be judged sufficient to justify protection (they sometimes refer requesting editors back to COIN for this sort of thing), and (b) when protection is applied it's usually only for a time period that wouldn't be much use if the promotional edits only seem to occur once a year or so.
    Clearly this isn't an ideal state of affairs, but I can understand why volunteers at WP:RPPI wouldn't want to apply long term protection and thus prevent new good faith non-promotional editors from being able to edit a page. That sort of solution is only going to be a good idea on articles with endemic vandalism issues.
    Ideally engaging with COI editors is the way to encourage them to use the COI edit request process, but most promotional editors simply don't engage at their talk page. Axad12 (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

    Ivan Lagundžić

    One to keep an eye on. This appears to be an autobiography. See the page history of Draft:Ivan Lagundžić. The user doesn't really communicate and most of their edits seem to be to force the article into mainspace (in spite of it being moved out of there due to WP:COI concerns) or talk space - see history at Talk:Ivan Lagundžić. As they have been abusing the function, it may be worth restricting their ability to move articles if their poor behaviour continues. Spiderone 14:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

    And he has done it again. He really will stop at nothing to get himself an article on here, it would seem. Spiderone 22:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have partially blocked them from page moves. PhilKnight (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you. Spiderone 22:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

    This Day on Bella Disu

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

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

    Maybe best to raise the issue at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (WP:RSN). Users there may be able to confirm your concerns or perhaps could point you in the direction of a list of WP:RS and non-RS sources within the Nigerian media. Hope this helps. Axad12 (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Just a brief follow-up to say that there is actually a current thread at WP:RSN in relation to the reliability of Nigerian newspapers (here ) which may be of assistance to the user who opened this thread. It seems that the existence of sponsored content in Nigerian newspapers is a widespread problem. Regards, Axad12 (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    Yang Youlin

    This user has a self-declared family connection here to the page in question. Definitely is looking like a WP:NOTHERE and attempt at WP:OUTING from this user's contributions to the article's talk page. - Amigao (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

    User has engaged in libelous activity on Reddit, claiming you have disrespected his relative by reverting his edits. His nationalistic behavior and lack of understanding on civil behavior might imply that he either is doing this in favor of the CCP or is simply a really dedicated patriot; while WP:PAID might not apply here WP:NOTHERE is clearly evident. Could warrant a block if he engages in similar behavior. MimirIsSmart (talk) 08:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    What is the involvement here of user:PrivateRyan44?
    PrivateRyan44 set up the article on 13th December and then 24 hours later user:YangZongChang0101 began editing the article, which he states relates to a member of his family.
    That is either a matter of the most extreme coincidence, or there is off-wiki collusion taking place.
    I also note the discussion between the 2 users here where both users sign off their posts in an identical but rather unusual way.
    Note also in the edit history for the article how on 14th December the 2 users seem to tag each other in and out over the course of several hours.
    Something looks distinctly odd here. Axad12 (talk) 09:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    I am not a nationalist. I am a patriot. Nationalism is a contradiction of Marx’s words in his theory.
    I am responding to my concern of Amigao, a well known member on r/sino, and chollima, who has an inherently pro american and pro israel stance, and edits a ridiculous amount of China related articles everyday.
    if you can’t see this simple connection to why I am acting the way I am, then I will no longer contribute to this discussion. YangZongChang0101 (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    i know him from discord. We are working together on the article with my irl friend Luoniya. YangZongChang0101 (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Interesting to see that a user previously interested almost solely in the Boer War suddenly meets a relative of a 1930s member of the CCP on Discord and immediately creates an article about that subject based almost solely on Chinese language sources and then nominates it for Good Article status. The general pattern is what would be expected of someone with a degree of Wiki-editing skills being paid to assist a family member who claims to have an archive of relevant material .
    That talk page discussion is clearly fake and based on previous collusion off-wiki (given that you have already admitted previous contact).
    I still maintain that something irregular appears to have occurred here. Axad12 (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    I also note on the user page for YangZongChang0101: If you want me to research or write about anything to make a page just dm.
    Surely the only reason why such a communication would take place off-wiki is if there was something irregular taking place, e.g. WP:UPE?
    And why would someone be advertising their availability to create articles on any subject to order, but then using another account to create an article on someone they claim is their own distant relative?
    Also, the quote above was added within hours of the YangZong account being opened, clearly indicating that this is not the user's first rodeo.
    Evidently there are multiple elements to what has been going on here which look very odd indeed. If there is not some form of paid editing and/or sockpuppetry taking place here I would be most surprised Axad12 (talk) 09:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have communicated privately with the editor of note about this on Reddit. These editors are from Mainland China and don't understand how Misplaced Pages works, so their well-intentioned editing led to all this chaos. I would suggest WP:NOBITING for now, but if similar events happen again action should be taken. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    In fairness, the statement If you want me to research or write about anything to make a page just dm is not a comment by someone unfamiliar with the workings of Misplaced Pages.
    Similarly the quite disgraceful disparagement of user:Amigao (both here and at the Yang Youlin talkpage) was clearly by someone who had encountered the user before and not someone who had only opened their first account 3 days ago.
    Also, user:PrivateRyan44 describes themselves here as a US citizen who has difficulty accessing material in Chinese. It would therefore seem reasonable to assume that PrivateRyan44 is not from Mainland China.
    Finally, I do not consider extreme nationalistic POV-pushing to be well-intentioned editing. Axad12 (talk) 13:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    The editor's mistakes are severe, but I personally believe that he deserves one last chance, on the condition that he adheres to the rules and does not harass editors like he did. If he does not change his ways I suppose a block would do. He showed genuine remorse for the nationalist POV thing but as long as he knows he cannot afford to get into trouble again, he's fine to edit. No comment on the PrivateRyan guy. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    If the user wants to express remorse for anything, the place to do that is here. Not in private on Reddit.
    The user clearly is not new. I wonder if Amigao has any thoughts on which account the user previously edited under? Presumably it will be quite easy to spot someone who casually drops their interpretation of Marxist doctrine into conversation (e.g. Nationalism is a contradiction of Marx’s words in his theory). Also, the detailed critique of Amigao's editing pattern and perceived agenda may have been seen before somewhere.
    Of course, we await PrivateRyan44's version of all of these events... Axad12 (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Very well. You might have to look at the IP he had been using, could be a VPN or proxy. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    At a minimum, there is a declared COI coupled with a WP:TAGTEAM situation going on and potentially WP:MEAT. - Amigao (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

    Derek Warburton and Khamadi the Amethyst

    This appears to be a COI situation; Khamadi the Amethyst has made a great number of edits to Derek Warburton with extremely promotional language. Looking at commons a sizeable majority of their uploads have been removed for lacking any permission and all pertain to Derek Warburton. All of the account's edits are to Derek Warburton or per their talkpage, attempting to create a page for something pertaining to Warburton - apart from a first edit to Eric Greitens today which is where I noticed the user; this aroused my suspicion as an IP had made sweeping, whitewashing changes to Greitens a few days back - but I digress.

    The entirety of the Warburton page history appears to be SPA contributors, but this one is the most long-running one. David Gerard added a COI template, which Khamadi the Amethyst removed; this to me is particularly egregious. There was also a question left on the user's talk page around this time which was ignored and the user continued to edit. This seems pretty clearcut COI to me, and the lack of communication/removal of COI templates/continual editing of the page is concerning. — ser! 13:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

    OMG if Warburton is trying to write his own Misplaced Pages page then this may be the funniest thing to happen in Philosophy Misplaced Pages in a hot minute. Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    I am clearly thinking of a different Derek Warburton after looking at the page. LOL Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    I am in fact thinking of Nigel Warburton lol and trout me. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    I've blocked this obvious UPE Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Cheers Jim, much appreciated. ser! 10:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    Lyons Township High School

    Editor states they work for the school. I notified them about their COI which they ignored, perhaps they havent found their talk page. Doug Weller talk 18:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

    Draft:John Fred Ogbonnaya

    Possibly paid to edit Misplaced Pages to create an article for the individual. Editor first replaced the entirety of Diring with the article he created before starting a rejected draft. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and there is no way there is no connection between editor and subject. MimirIsSmart (talk) 07:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

    Draft now speedy deleted under WP:G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). Axad12 (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    Victor Yannacone

    As seen here, this user states "I am also a public figure still active as an attorney with an extensive website at https://yannalaw.com" which links to a page promoting Victor Yannacone's legal services.
    Given that the article about Victor Yannacone appears to be predominantly edited by this user, a COI tag was added. However, the user recently removed the tag, despite the conflict of interest remaining applicable.

    Based on the user's statement and editing patterns, it is reasonable to conclude that they are heavily involved in editing their own article, thus creating a clear conflict of interest. Synorem (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    User was informed of the COI policy back in August and has continued making extensive edits to the article - including, at present, edit warring over a highly promotional version of the article that they are trying to implement.
    The account is evidently only interested in self-promotion.
    This activity has already attracted the attentions of admins C.Fred and Significa liberdade, so if the user continues on their current path presumably they will find themselves blocked in the near future. Axad12 (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    The following thread is of relevance here: .
    It appears to be a good faith attempt at mediation, as an apparent associate of PeoplesBarrister returns to make their first edit in over 10 years arguing on PB's behalf. The post also includes some quite unacceptable allegations of bad faith activity by multiple users which some readers may find rather over the top. I'd suggest that we try to look beyond that in the hope of finding a way forward. Axad12 (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    This user turned out to be a sockpuppet, and has been blocked. Synorem (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

    COI tags on "It's Coming (film)" and "The Misguided"

    Hello, I'm seeking review of the close connection tags recently added to It's Coming (film) and Draft:The Misguided. These tags were applied based solely on basic journalistic contact with the filmmaker for fact-checking purposes. To be clear: I have never met Shannon Alexander or anyone from the film production company/distribution team, have no personal or professional relationship with them, and my only contact was for fact verification.

    Having followed Perth's independent film scene closely for years, I noticed several internationally-recognized films lacked Misplaced Pages coverage. Rather than simply copy online sources, I took a thorough journalistic approach. My contact was limited to requesting factual verification of release dates and sourcing materials. This contact served to ensure accurate documentation of the films' development and history.

    Both articles are built entirely on independent coverage from established media outlets like The Hollywood Reporter, LA Times, and Film Threat. All content follows proper journalistic standards, maintains neutrality, and adheres to Misplaced Pages guidelines. Every statement in the articles can be verified through these independent sources.

    "It's Coming" just underwent thorough review this week, resulting in removal of an unwarranted paid editing tag. The addition of these new tags without discussion or specific concerns lacks justification.

    A review of these tags is needed based on: 1. Contact limited to standard fact-checking practices 2. Reliance on independent, reliable sources throughout 3. Clear adherence to neutral point of view 4. Recent thorough review confirming content standards

    I'm here to ensure these films are documented accurately and objectively. Thank you for taking the time to review this matter. Happy to address any specific concerns about the content or sourcing.

    Stan1900 (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    I'd suggest raising this issue at the talk pages of the articles concerned, using the COI edit process detailed here WP:COI. When you do so, please link to the connected discussion at the Help Desk, here . Axad12 (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Also, GPTzero indicates that there is a 100% likelihood that your post above was AI generated. Please stop using AI to generate posts (as was also previously pointed out to you in the discussion here ). Axad12 (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Axad12, I need to address several concerning points:
    1. You suggest I raise these issues on the article talk pages, but if you actually check the links you provided you'll see I've already tried that multiple times. I've gotten zero response there which is why I'm I'm hoping to get a fair and objective assessment from editors who aren't already entrenched in this dispute.
    2. The accusation that I'm using AI to write my posts is completely baseless. GPZero is known to be only around 80% accurate at best, so claiming "100% likelihood" is just flat-out wrong. You're mistaking my formal writing style, which comes from my professional background for AI text. Throwing around serious accusations like that with zero proof is not only wrong but also really damaging and hurtful.
    3. The sudden addition of a promotional content tag, without any prior discussion, is just the latest in this ongoing pattern of unfounded allegations. First it was paid editing with zero evidence, then a COI tag that's still sitting there after I've repeatedly explained my lack of any affiliation and now suddenly it's 'promotional content?' The article is based entirely on reliable, independent sources. If there are particular statements that seem promotional to you, point them out specifically so we can address them. Just because the film has gotten good reviews from reputable publications doesn't automatically make the article promotional.
    I've had to defend myself dozens of times now, repeatedly explaining the same things over and over, providing evidence that gets ignored. How many more baseless accusations do I need to address? The constant tags and allegations without justification have made this whole process exhausting and frankly, pretty demoralizing. But you know what? If anything, it's made me more determined to keep improving these articles properly.
    I'm going to post at the NPOV Noticeboard about this latest promotional content tag and I'm also asking for the COI tags to be removed. I'd rather focus on actually improving content than dealing with endless unfounded accusations.
    Stan1900 (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    1) You got zero response because you didn't use the COI editing process. How many users do you think access the talk pages of brand new articles for independent films?
    2) You consistently use AI to generate your posts here and any suggestion to the contrary is untrue, as has been noted by several users.
    3) Evidence of COI is not required, only room for plausible concern. There is room for huge concern in relation to your editing, as I will demonstrate shortly.
    Promotional content can obviously be based on independent reliable sources - especially when the material installed in articles goes some way beyond what the sources actually say (which appears to be your standard MO). Axad12 (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Axad12,
    1. I've followed every proper channel available - talk pages, help desk, and now appropriate noticeboards. Suggesting I'm at fault for others not responding isn't constructive.
    2. Your continued insistence about AI use without evidence is becoming harassment. You have no proof because there is none - these are my own words. Making repeated false accusations doesn't make them true.
    3. You state "Evidence of COI is not required" but then claim you'll "demonstrate shortly." Which is it? Either provide specific evidence or stop making vague accusations. If you have concerns about source interpretation, point to specific examples instead of making broad claims.
    The recent removal of a properly sourced Reception section, combined with these continued unsubstantiated allegations, suggests a pattern of targeting rather than constructive editing. Stan1900 (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    1) I didn't say you were at fault, I said it was unreasonable to expect a swift response on a low traffic page. Had you used the COI edit request process you would have got a much faster response as the posts would have gone directly into a volunteer queue rather than relying on footfall.
    2) When GPTzero frequently says that there is a 100% likelihood that a post was AI generated, that is sufficient proof. Half of your posts produce that response, the other half produce very low likelihoods of AI input or an indication of human origin. You are therefore producing two distinctively different kinds of posts in a way that is only possible if half of them were not written by you.
    3) I'm about to demonstrate the areas of concern, I'm currently drafting the post. Axad12 (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Axad12,
    1. The COI process is for editors with actual conflicts of interest. I have none, as I've repeatedly explained.
    2. Your claims about GPTZero are incorrect. The tool obviously has false positives and is far from 100% accurate, especially with formal writing. Again, making accusations of AI use with no evidence is not constructive.
    3. You keep saying you'll "demonstrate" concerns but continue making vague accusations. Please provide specific policy-based concerns about actual content rather than continuing these unsupported allegations. Stan1900 (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    As you wish...
    Areas of concern in relation to the editing of user Stan1900:
    1) User is a single purpose account in relation to the films of Shannon Alexander. This goes back all the way to Dec 2017 when they edited the article for Katherine Langford (an actress who featured in the Alexander film 'The Misguided' ). The user’s account was then dormant until Nov 2024 when it began creating articles for Alexander’s films.
    2) The user states that they have been in touch with Shannon Alexander and that requesting source materials when writing an article is standard practice and doesn't constitute a conflict of interest when there's no financial or professional relationship involved . This is, however, wrong on both counts.
    3) The articles created (plus draft) have clearly been of a promotional nature.
    4) User appears very interested in when articles will appear in mainspace and when they will appear on Google. This is typical of those interested in search engine optimisation, i.e. in publicity.
    E.g. this thread .
    this thread
    this thread
    this thread
    and this thread
    5) Concerns have consistently been raised in those discussions that (a) the user is not forthcoming when asked about their association with Shannon Alexander (they have only denied being paid but avoid further clarification) and (b) the user appears to be involved primarily in promotional activity, as noted here . Also, user:Cullen328 said that the overall pattern is highly unusual behavior consistent with a paid editing assignment .
    Similarly (Cullen again): In that three weeks, the editor has been incredibly repetitive and persistent in pushing these three articles and dismissing the concerns expressed by several editors, not just me. They are not above making a false accusation against me. They consistently insist on special preferential treatment that is not extended to thousands of other editors who have written drafts. This is highly unusual behaviour.
    I entirely concur with the sentiments expressed by Cullen328 and would suggest that the PAID templates be replaced on the articles and draft created by this user. Axad12 (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Anyone who hasn't yet had enough of Stan1900's relentless forum shopping over this issue may be interested in the thread they started an hour ago at the Neutral Point of View Forum, here .
    Inevitably they've received the same response there that they've encountered elsewhere, this time from the redoubtable MrOllie. Axad12 (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    Here is one of several instances of Stan1900 claiming to be the license-holder of various of Alexander's film-posters. DMacks (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Very interesting. Thank you. Axad12 (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Stan1900 wrote a couple of days ago at the Help Desk that User:Cullen328 has been the primary editor maintaining the paid editing tag on the article That is a blatant falsehood. I have never once edited either It's Coming (film) or its talk page. I have never discouraged any uninvolved editor from removing the tag. I have simply tried to explain to Stan1900 why several editors (more now) have expressed concern about their pattern of editing. They have persisted with their axe grinding for many days. At Wikimedia Commons, they uploaded posters of films by Shannon Alexander in 2017, 2021 and 2023, with a legally binding licensing declaration that those posters were their "own work". A poster artist clearly has a paid editing relationship (or a deep and profound conflict of interest if unpaid). The only alternative explanation is that Stan1900 lied about these posters being their "own work" and therefore created a major multi-year copyright violation, which is illegal. Cullen328 (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you Cullen. On that basis I have reinstated the 'undisclosed paid' tag to the relevant articles. The wording of that tag, of course, only states that there may have been an undisclosed paid situation - and there is evidently more than enough cause for concern in that regard.
    Disregarding whether or not they are paid, the user is clearly a blockable promo-only account. They have wasted a great many users' time by forum shopping their transparent COI around in search of support which never arose (in, I think, 7 different threads now). Axad12 (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Axad12, Cullen328, your newest accusations require correction:
    1. Following connected topics is normal Misplaced Pages behavior. Yes, I edited Langford's article about The Misguided, which naturally led to noticing significant gaps in coverage of Perth's independent film scene.
    2. The poster licensing issue is a non-issue. The copyright holder assigned permission for Misplaced Pages documentation use. Copyright holders can authorize others to license their work - this is standard practice, not a violation or evidence of anything nefarious.
    3. Regarding AI claims - you keep citing GPTZero without acknowledging its known 80% accuracy rate. My writing style comes from professional background. More importantly, even if AI tools were used for drafting (which they weren't), this violates no Misplaced Pages policies. Focus on content accuracy and sourcing, not unfounded assumptions about writing style.
    4. Using appropriate Misplaced Pages channels isn't "forum shopping" - it's seeking proper review when talk pages receive no response. Each venue serves a different purpose: talk pages for initial discussion, help desk for guidance, NPOV for content neutrality issues.
    5. Your pattern of escalating accusations - from paid editing to COI to AI use to promotional content - while removing properly sourced content suggests targeting rather than legitimate concerns. In fact, your apparent determination to suppress documentation of these artists' contributions raises questions. What's your motivation for trying to prevent coverage of their work despite reliable sources confirming its notability?
    6. Claiming "everyone disagrees" while actively removing properly sourced content and making baseless accusations isn't consensus - it's coordinated targeting. The aggressive resistance to documenting these artists' widely recognized contributions to independent film is puzzling at best.
    The focus should be on article content and reliable sources, not endless unfounded assumptions about contributors. I've provided reliable sources, followed guidelines, and explained everything clearly. What I haven't seen is any specific policy-based reason why properly sourced content should be removed. Stan1900 (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Stan1900, the poster licensing matter is in no way a non-issue.
    You made a legally binding statement that those posters were your "own work", which was a lie according to what you just wrote above. You never provided any evidence that the copyright holder assigned permission for Misplaced Pages documentation use, which must be a written document from the copyright holder in legally precise language. Accordingly, I will be removing these copyright violations from the articles and the draft in question. Cullen328 (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    I appreciate that you don’t intend to back down, but the simple fact is that a number of users over a range of threads oppose your edits and that represents a strong consensus contrary to what appears to be a promotional agenda. With regard to your 6 points above I believe that it is all old ground, but for clarification:
    1) You clearly lied about the Langford edits, as demonstrated here .
    2) The image issue has been recently discussed here by others.
    3) Regarding AI, you are clearly producing 2 very different types of post, one type which GPTzero identifies as very high likelihood AI generated and one type which it identifies as very high likelihood human generated. If, as you say, you have a very formal way of writing which is distorting the results, this would produce a consistent spread of results lumped into the middle of the range and not two exceptionally disparate groups. Arguing that GPTzero isn't 100% accurate doesn't invalidate that point.
    4) Going to multiple places trying to get a decision that you didn’t get at a previous discussion is forum shopping. You're currently holding down three simultaneous discussions in three separate locations (here, here and here ) in which the same point (reinstatement of removed material) is being discussed. You have previously opened multiple threads trying to get COI templates removed.
    5) Everything in this thread and elsewhere has been based on reasonable concerns raised by multiple users.
    6) I think it is time for you to accept that there is a broad consensus against what you are trying unsuccessfully to achieve. Axad12 (talk) 06:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Cullen328, from what I see on Commons, they "uploaded" the files in 2024 (their account itself was only created 30 November 2024), though they are for films that were themselves from 2017, 2022, 2023 and likewise the images are identified as having been created in or near those years. But you're definitely correct that Stan literally said "I, the copyright holder of this work" for each of them. DMacks (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Cullen328, I completely reject your accusation that I lied about the poster images. I acted in good faith as an authorized representative of the copyright holder, who gave me explicit permission to use the images on Misplaced Pages. This is the first time you've even asked about the permissions, so your claim that I "never provided evidence" is entirely false. If you have doubts about the licensing, there are established processes for verifying image permissions. Publicly demanding private communications and unilaterally removing images based on unfounded accusations is not how it works. If an admin asks for documentation, I'll happily provide it through proper channels.
    Your pattern of behavior - the personal attacks, bad faith assumptions, and removal of properly sourced content without discussion - is really concerning. It feels more like a witch hunt than a collaborative effort. I'm open to constructive feedback and working together to make these articles the best they can be. But I won't stand for baseless attacks on my character.
    Let's focus on the actual content and policies, not personal vendettas. If you truly believe there's a permission issue, take it up with the appropriate admins. But stop making unilateral accusations and removals. It's disruptive and goes against waht Misplaced Pages stands for. Stan1900 (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    I do not have access to the non-public communications (and wouldn't disclose them even if I did), but someone did go through the proper process to document the license release for the files Stan uploaded to Commons, to the default satisfaction of those who handle that process on there. I'm saying this as a stand-alone detail, purely from a commons policy standpoint. DMacks (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    DMacks, you are correct that the file pages report that a licensing agreement was sent and received, and I apologize for not noticing that. But those three files still state that they are the "own work" of Stan1900, which is not the case. Cullen328 (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Cullen328 DMacks, the unilateral deletion of these properly licensed images is completely unacceptable and appears to be part of a pattern of aggressive, disruptive actions.
    1. As DMacks confirmed, proper licensing documentation was ALREADY verified through official Commons channels. This fact was deliberately ignored.
    2. The "own work" designation relates to the upload as an authorized representative - a standard practice on Commons that is well understood by experienced editors.
    3. Deleting multiple images across several articles over template semantics, especially after licensing was confirmed, is extraordinarily aggressive and disruptive to Misplaced Pages.
    I will be filing for undeletion of all three images: "It's Coming", "The Misguided", and "Sex, Love, Misery: New New York" posters. The proper documentation exists and was previously verified. This kind of unilateral action without discussion or opportunity for clarification is exactly the type of disruptive behavior that damages Misplaced Pages. Stan1900 (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    No, "own work" means exactly what it says - that you made the poster yourself. You're not doing yourself any favors by denying something so obvious. MrOllie (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    this interpretation of "own work" on Commons is wrong because the designation refers to the upload itself being my own work as an authorized representative - a standard practice for authorized uploaders contributing licensed material with the proper permissions. As DMacks noted earlier, the proper licensing documentation was already verified through official Commons channels.
    This is yet another example of interpreting template language in the most uncharitable way possible rather than addressing actual licensing substance. The fact remains: these images were properly licensed, documentation was verified, and they were serving a legitimate encyclopedic purpose before being improperly removed. Stan1900 (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Interpreting 'own work' to mean 'own work' is not 'uncharitable', it is the plain meaning of the words. Under your 'the upload was my work' literally every file uploaded on commons would be 'own work', which is obviously not the case.
    If you didn't actually make these posters yourself, just admit you were mistaken so people can figure out what the proper source should be and get it set up properly for you. Working collaboratively with others in this case means you are going to have to own up when you make a mistake so someone can actually fix it. Digging in like this when you are so obviously wrong is just disruptive - actual disruption, not the 'someone disagrees with me' way you've been throwing around the word. MrOllie (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    The {{Own work}} tag on commons is documented as "Use this to say that you personally created the entire original image by yourself (for example, you drew the picture on paper, you used a camera to take the photograph, you painted the picture on canvas, etc.). Do not use this tag for any images that you saw on any website, downloaded from any source, scanned from a book, newspaper, or magazine, or copied from anything." I tried a few upload methods on commons, and all of them forced me to choose between an option that says I created something entirely myself vs something I got from somewhere else. In particular, I verified that the Wizard method, when I choose the from-somewhere-else option, does not apply the 'own' tag. DMacks (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    The images were removed as an editorial action within each enwiki article here on enwiki, not an administrative action for the files themselves on commons. DMacks (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    MrOllie DMacks, like I keep saying this continued focus on template semantics rather than substance is unproductive. As an authorized representative with explicit permission to upload these images, I used "own work" to indicate my authorized upload - a practice that many representatives use when contributing licensed material. The licensing documentation was properly submitted and verified through Commons channels, as DMacks noted earlier.
    The removal of properly licensed images from articles over template terminology, rather than addressing any actual licensing concerns, is still needlessly disruptive. Images serve a legitimate encyclopedic purpose and have verified permissions.
    If there's a preferred template format for authorized uploads, I'm willing to discuss. But using template semantics to justify wholesale content removal seems to be part of a broader pattern of finding technicalities to suppress properly sourced content about these films. Stan1900 (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    If as you say you are an "an authorized representative" then you clearly have a conflict of interest despite your repeated denials. Theroadislong (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Acting as an authorized representative doesn't constitute as COI. Being authorized to handle tasks like verifying copyright or providing accurate information does not mean that contributions are biased or promotional.
    Misplaced Pages defines COI as "an incompatibility between the aim of Misplaced Pages, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and an editor's personal or external relationships." My edits have been basically focused on adhering to standards of neutrality, verifiability, and reliability. How tiresome I must repeat this ad nauseum.
    So, in summary being authorized to facilitate copyright or provide accurate details about a subject does not violate Misplaced Pages's COI policies. Stan1900 (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Where are you getting the definition "an incompatibility between the aim of Misplaced Pages..." from? WP:COI hasn't said that since 15 May 2015. Schazjmd (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Schazjmd Thank you for catching the outdated COI definition. That was an oversight on my part and I appreciate the correction. To be clear, my point was never to rely on an obsolete technicality but emphasize substance; My limited interactions with the filmmaker for fact-checking and image licensing do not constitute a substantive COI in terms of the content I've contributed, which is all neutrally written and based on independent reliable sources. I should have double-checked the current policy wording and I apologize for any confusion. The underlying principle remains that nothing improper has occurred . The focus belongs on content and policies, not unfounded aspersions. I'm here to collaborate in good faith. I hope we can move forward productively with that shared goal in mind. Stan1900 (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    But where did you get that definition, @Stan1900? If there are pages that aren't in sync with WP:COI anymore, I'd like to reconcile them. Schazjmd (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    UPDATE: Stan1900 has now been indef blocked following a thread at ANI . Axad12 (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    Andrew Kosove

    AntiDionysius has tried to notify the user about WP:COI and based on the users' edit summaries, it's clear they have a COI. I restored to the version with AntiDionysius's revert because the previous version was too promotional. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 01:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Mmm, and the use of "our" in one of the edit summaries is also not a great sign. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    I am a direct representative and employee of Alcon who was approved to make these changes from So, we have a paid editor who hasn't been responsive to talk page inquiries, and instead seem to be edit-warring their preferred version. Given that, could an admin consider pblocking them from the page to force them to use the talk page for edit requests? If they do, yay. If they sock or do anything else untoward, we can look at a regular promotional editing block. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    A Celebration of Horses: The American Saddlebred

    "TV Series Featuring Saddlebreds Honored". The American Saddlebred. American Saddlebred Horse Association: 88. January 1994.

    User:Atsme has previously self identified as Betty Wills. She has authored two thirds of the article content and is listed in the article as the program's executive producer.

    The subject of the article also has serious notability issues. The only citation that meets significant coverage is the piece from The American Saddlebred magazine which is shown on the right and is also likely unreliable as it is clearly marked as a promotion. 2A00:23C7:118C:A901:3D75:27EF:BBDF:1814 (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

    This filing borders on trolling. Just look at the talk page of that article, where Atsme has a declaration of her connection right at the top of the page, and there is a lengthy discussion about it – from 2016. If there are notability concerns, AfD is that-a-way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    I concur with Tryptofish; Atsme is a solid and good editor who has made any required disclosures, and is fastidious about editing within the rules. This report is frivolous. BD2412 T 21:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I also concur. This editor has already fulfilled their obligations regarding WP:COI. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Categories: