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 18:26, 23 September 2008 editJehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,283 edits →Important Policy update: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:30, 18 January 2025 edit undoMusikBot II (talk | contribs)Bots, Interface administrators, Administrators104,066 editsm removing {{pp-sock}} as page is not edit-protected, removing {{pp-vandalism}} as page is not edit-protected (more info) 
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 = 26 |counter = 217
|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! -->

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

PLEASE REMEMBER TO SIGN YOUR MESSAGE

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

-->

== Possible ] found by ] ==

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

== Requested edits ==

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

== ] ==

{{resolved|Article deleted at AFD ] (]) 21:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)}}
The subject of the article and a bunch of obvious sock/meetpuppets are edit warring to spin this thing out of control. At the moment they want a succession box for his "office" as a community council member. For those who don't know, community councillors are normally elected unopposed and are the political equivalent of the PTA. Further, who he succeeded as community councillor is unverifiable. This is the latest in a succession of COI edits and spin. The article is being owned for promotional reasons.--] (]) 19:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:Still edit waring for preferred style on his own biography. Despite talk page consensus against him .--] (]) 13:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

* The article states that someone with a conflict of interest may of edited it. I don't disguise my identity, so people can clearly see which edits have been made by me - my interest in the article has been declared through the notable Wikipedian tag. What they can't see is the conflicts of interests of the other editors, who are of a different political persuasion to me, who are trying to discredit me, by deleting the article about me a piece at time. If you check the edit histories of the people that have edited the talk page, many of them have only edited the article about me, and many of them only started when an online community consisting mainly of Liberal Democrats (I'm Labour & Co-op) asked its members to vandalise the page about me. Of course I have an interest in ensuring the article about me is accurate, as others to in discrediting, defaming and diluting me -- (]) 17:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::The tag is there to alert other editors to a problem; the tag is not the solution to the problem. The solution to the problem is that you stop editing the article. No one would object if you limited your edits to ''removing'' false or insulting statements. But you are ''adding'' material that many editors think exaggerates your accomplishments. It gives the appearance that you are using Misplaced Pages as a way of promoting yourself. It's best to back off, avoid adding anything, and limit yourself to edits that remove objectionable material.--] (]) 13:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Looking at the history and Talk, I think the whole article needs a spot of independent attention, as there are a number of other single- and narrow-purpose accounts involved...
:::*{{user|ColonelBuendia99}}
:::*{{user|Pontyboy}}
:::*{{user|Cardydwen}}
:::*{{user|Politicool}}
:::*{{user|Pontyslapper}}
:::... who all appear to have some political affiliation/antagonism perhaps close enough to be COI. It'd go a lot more smoothly if they all backed off and left it to editors who don't feel ''hot'' about the topic. ] (]) 17:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

* I have done a short survey of the articles about other University of Glamorgan Alumni articles. The ] article does not have her employer referenced. The ] article does not have his education and career referenced, nor does the article about ] reference her early biography. Mention is made of referencing my Circle of Friends invention, whereas there is no citation of the claimed greatest novel of ]. The ] article doesn't have any references at all, nor does ], which also has a succession box. It seems to me that the article about me is undergoing some unfair level of scrutiny. People are removing content from this article, while similar content remains on others. I believe there needs to be action taken by administrators to ensure that notable living people, and not deleted, diluted or defamed by editors not acting in the best interest of Misplaced Pages's readers. -- (]) 18:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

**Rubbish. There has been no "defamation" here. Merely people removing unverifiable assertions and general puffery designed to make you look good. There's nothing negative in this article, and no-one suggesting there should be, it's just that we want it to be neutral and not over-egg the cake, as it were. CV are for spinning every achievement to make it look like a noble peace prize, wikipedia articles are not. (Oh and I suspect sock/meet puppetry here, but I could be wrong).--] (]) 18:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

::::I've just toned down the lead, removing 'influential' and 'noted' (replaced that with 'known'). After all, Kevan Brennan isn't called influential in the lead. :-)] (]) 18:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::Almost immediately after I removed 'influential', JB posted to my talk page, and a few minutes later it was back. ] (]) 21:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::And I've never seen a signature before with a link to the editor's web page. Can I do that too? :-) ] (]) 18:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::: No, please don't. --]] 18:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Sorry, should have put in a smiley. ] (]) 21:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The article is problematic - all the sources seem self-authored or self-published. Past claims that Bishop is an important figure in the evolution of various fields of the Internet seem unsupported (and a search for sources came up fruitless). As now written the article is plausible in saying Bishop is a respected IT professional, but that is only borderline as far as suggesting notability. It seems to go awfully deep into resume-type items. Were the article to evolve on its own vie edits from disinterested editors (assuming people had the urge to do so) the tone and focus would probably be a lot more like a typical Misplaced Pages biographical article. ] (]) 18:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

:I've spent some time looking at this, and am convinced that the claim to have developed a core technology for organizing online communities (the ] claim) is another example of puffery. Apparently, ''circle of friends'' was a feature of a website that Bishop developed in 1999; it is similar to features in later websites such as ]. This similarity is used to make claims that these later websites used Bishop's technology (see the third sentence in the ] article). The two sources for this claim are written ''after'' the claim first appeared in Misplaced Pages, and it seems likely the WP article served as the source for these sources. My view is that the ] article should be deleted, since it appears to have already created some mischief. Any thoughts?--] (]) 20:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
::Quite likely. It should go. ] (]) 21:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

:::AfD nomination is here: ].--] (]) 22:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The article ] most likely should also be deleted. Mr. Bishop seems to be a good, intelligent, and productive person, but he just doesn't seem to meet the threshold for a WP article. I can't find anything that makes him more exceptional than the many good, intelligent, and productive people that I interact with every day, none of whom have a WP article. The article has been nominated for deletion twice, but in the previous nominations it was not clear the extent to which the article had served as a vehicle for advancing Mr. Bishop's own career, and the extent to which Mr. Bishop and ]s had edited it. Is there any support for deletion?--] (]) 10:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:The following claim (in the ] article) to have invented a technology known as 'Circle of Friends' is what bothers me:<blockquote>A graduate of Cardiff School of Art & Design (1998) Bishop established early presence in online communities, through his employment at Trefforest-based Broadway Studios, where he was managed by professional photographer Steve Powderhill when he developed the Circle of Friends technique for social networking during 1999, applying it to websites that preceded the existence of Friendster.</blockquote>If there were a way to get this claim removed (or properly sourced to knowledgable outsiders who recognize his claim, which seems unlikely to occur) then the article might deserve to be kept. The underlying problem was well stated by Anthon.Eff in his of ]. ] (]) 14:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
::Watching from the sidelines for a bit, I'll agree that there is some inherent feel of notability missing from this article. I can't place my finger on it, but somehow it just doesn't feel right. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 14:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Looking at edit histories, the article, its Talk page and AFDs look deeply compromised by multiple SPAs. Troikalogo just asked me if there are sufficient grounds for asking for CheckUser. ] (]) 15:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

::::My feeling is that after the Circle of Friends claim has been disposed of, the PARLE e-learning system is left as Mr. Bishop's sole possible claim to notability. But the system is not widely implemented--in fact, there is no evidence that it is implemented at all. For all we know, it could be purely conceptual, or a piece of software in a very imperfect alpha stage. These concerns have been ]. It seems more than likely that puffery is at work here, just as it was with Circle of Friends.
::::As for CheckUser--several editors have already voiced suspicions about sock/meatpuppets, so it seems it would be appropriate to run the check. There is a related case ].--] (]) 15:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::I went ahead and did the AfD. It's here: ]. --] (]) 16:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==
{{resolved}}
{{user|MSHSAA}} - Removed criticism from article. The username is the initials of the association, making an obvious conflict of interest. ] (]) 03:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
:A discussion on the editor's Talk page as well as a uw-coi warning, might help. <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 21:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
::Considering the removal of the criticism was done back in feb(and has been reverted), and MSHSAA has not edited since then, i think that its safe to say no action needed here--] (]) 00:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

== Proven COI editor inserting promotion into ] ==

*Article under issue: {{article|d'Alembert's paradox}}
*Main user with COI: {{userlinks|Egbertus}}

See ] for the clear evidence and admission of COI.

Despite claiming to know better than to pursue COI edits to this article, Egbertus has just re-inserted a link to his Knol page after already having been told this was against Misplaced Pages practice. He seems to think that the Google ranking of his Google Knol page (#3 according to him, although I cannot be replicate this even if it were relevant) makes it OK for him to do so.

He has already been warned countless times that this is not allowed and been warned about repercussions. I left a warning in the edit summary of my reversion also. It's time for some admin to step in and leave an actual stern warning on his user page. And it's time that someone actually did something here instead of continuing this to go on. This editor should have been blocked a long time ago. --] (]) 08:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
:Since this editor has been warned several times since August 5th about spamming his own work to Misplaced Pages, and has previously been blocked for 3RR, and has kept on going regardless, I have blocked him for one week. I invite review of the block. ] (]) 16:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
::See also , where Johnson admits that ] (c.q. ]) is Hoffman and ] is Johnson, the authors of the inserted COI material. -- ] (]) 22:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
::Johnson does not seem to be very satisfied with Misplaced Pages. The above Knol is titled: . -- ] (]) 23:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Perhaps one day Knol will notice that sole-author articles aren't necessarily credible, if they don't have to undergo any community scrutiny. They have no referees, they have no community input, it's what you would end up with if all academic authors could submit their papers into journals with no review whatever. ] (]) 21:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
::::What exactly is the link that is the issue - in the knol, he claims that what he inserted _was_ a reference to a publication in a refereed journal, this contradicts your "they have no referees" and I'd like to know just what is going on. --] (]) 18:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::They are claiming to have solved an historic problem in mathematical physics (D'Alembert's Paradox). So far, they are the only ones who see their work as a solution. They were arguing that it was enough that their paper was accepted for publication, and that this proves the point. Regular editors asked to see any third-party confirmation that they had solved the famous problem. (So far nothing has been offered). References to their paper were being repeatedly spammed on Misplaced Pages, against talk page consensus. There is more background on this in the previous COI report linked above, at ], and at ]. ] (]) 18:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

== Sylvester Braithwaite ==
{{resolved}}--] (]) 00:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
* {{article|Sylvester Braithwaite}} - written almost exclusively by {{user|Nonameplayer}} who the author link on ] and other publicly available sources suggest is related to the subject. ] (]) 08:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:Nonameplayer has admitted the relationship to the subject and has expressed intent to stay within guidelines. I don't think anything further is needed. ]] 20:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

== ] and ] ==

{{resolved|Deleted at author's request ]] 20:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)}}
* {{article|George Reece}} ] is determined to create and maintain the article about this obscure UK singer/songwriter. His private recording label is: Imogen Records! I can find no evidence that there is a person by that name, but it's not quite blatant enough for UAA reporting, I fear. ] &#x007C; ] 15:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

== ] and ] ==

{{resolved|Article deleted. Further comments to ]. ] 08:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|Roberttheman2008}} has inadvertently admitted to having taken some major involvement in a software article {{article|The SNES Game Maker}} at the article's AfD discussion at ], which is having known the person who is creating the software. ] (]) 01:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:'''Note''' — A ] has been initiated for said user. ] (]) 20:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

== ] and ] ==

{{resolved|Article deleted. ] 02:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|Teabonesix}} has created the video game {{article|Super Mario for MegaZeux}}, in which he/she is also editing the article. The article has many problems and was just nominated for deletion after a contested ] at ]. ] (]) 04:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

== ] and ] ==

{{userlinks|Tlaverty}}, presumably the musician himself, created and has made over half of the edits to his biography. In addition, notability is questionable. Non-affiliated sources are thin and are not what the article is based on. ] (]) 15:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
::If you think notability questionable, AfD is the place to get it decided. No opinion on whether or not it is--I have not the least knowledge about this type of subject. ''']''' (]) 03:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I have never initiated an AFD, how is that done? ] (]) 16:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

::::] has the instructions. ] 13:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

See ]. ] 05:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{resolved| Article deleted via AFD. ] (]) 19:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|CLinden}} is continually editing the article {{article|Charles Linden}}, in which they are also heavily advertising a product sold by a company owned the person in question. I would ask for assistance in this matter, as this is not the first time the user has been warned about COI. Thankyou. ] (]) 11:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I was signed out. ] (]) 11:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)I would also like to add that the article is based on citations from the actual company, and contains no impartial citations. It is seriously flawed. ] (]) 11:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
::AFD would seem the proper first step for dealing with this article. if kept, we can then consider the content. ''']''' (]) 03:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Hi I have placed the deletion tag on the article. If anyone objects (which I am certain they will), we can take it from there. Thankyou. ] (]) 13:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
::::FYI, your AfD nomination is incomplete. It will likely be procedurally de-listed unless the process is completed (following the steps as shown in the Deletion notice). ]] 16:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::I've created the necessary pages. ], if you go to ] you can fill in the reason you propose deletion; I've moved your comment there from the first ], which is now closed.
:::::PS: I also removed a large chunk of copyvio from the ''Birmingham Post''. ] (]) 21:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

== COI problem with ] ==

{{resolved|per below ] (]) 15:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)}}It appears that the article ] is being written by the subject, ]. The article is overflowing with ] as well. I've added the COI and pressrelease tags only to have them deleted (without comment or discussion) by the editor. I've tried to explain why I added the tags and why they should be left until the problem is addressed. ] (]) 15:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
:Problem resolved. Editor made improvements. ] (]) 15:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

== COI with ] ==

] recently edited ] to add original research (unsourced commentary about a lawsuit), Max's lawyers' names, and a link to Richard J Mockler's biography, one of the lawyers. Since the username in question is 'Rjm' and the lawyer is named Richard J Mockler, I assume there is a COI for him to add original research and his name to the article (contribs: ] ] (]) 19:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
:Yes, there's certainly a COI since he has essentially admitted the connection. But COI or not, original research is a big no-no in a BLP anyway. Also, I would ask you to keep ] in mind... I'm sure a lawyer who's not a regular editor would be quite puzzled that cited court documents may not meet the standards of ] and ], and RJM does appear to be trying to adhere to the policies once explained to him. Beyond that, things seem to be proceeding as they should for a COI issue. You may want to bring it up on ] if you've not already done so. ]] 15:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
::Incidentally, it seems that the reporting editor violated ], as seen in . ] (]) 05:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

== Eric Craig ==

{{userlinks|Ericcraigis}}<br>
{{userlinks|Inoneearandoutyourmother}}<br>
{{userlinks|67.155.98.242}}<br>
{{userlinks|76.90.121.177}}

Editor Ericcraigis says he is ] (]). This person was a guitar player for ] and is Director of A&R for ]. He started articles on these three subjects and is the major contributor to all three. The account Ericcraigis appears to have stopped editing and ] started soon after, doing the same sort of edits as Ericcraigis. After ] was deleted it was twice recreated by Inoneearandoutyourmother. Editor repeatedly removes tags from these articles without giving any reasons and was repeatedly readding incorect information about Queens of the Stone Age (]). ] (])

== ] and ] ==

{{resolved|Article deleted. ] 08:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|GodsAndMortals}}
*{{article|Gods And Mortals MMORPG}}

This is an obvious COI here. User has been notified and article tagged. ] (]) 13:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
:Also see ]. ] (]) 13:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
::Yes, no question of the COI. Watching the AfD now, but it seems to be headed to a predictable result. ]] 20:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

Though not an egregious case of COI, I thought I would make note of:
* {{userlinks|ESUOHNIT}}
* {{userlinks|Tintern}}
and
* {{userlinks|Justanintern}} who are adding content and articles on the authors who are published by Tin House Books. ] (]) 22:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

:Articles created by these accounts:

:*{{la|Keith Lee Morris}}
:*{{la|Adam Braver}}
:*{{la|Lucy Corin}}
:*{{la|Win McCormack}}
:*{{la|Jim Krusoe}}
:*{{la|Lucia Nevai}}

:I'm not sure about the notability of these but it's best to wait for a little while for some are still {{tl|underconstruction}}. ] 07:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

::I think a couple of those would pass notability if more sources were found, and the users are not overtly making the articles sound like advertisements. However since I noticed that most of these authors have ''only'' had book-length work published by ], which itself may not be notable (Tin House is notable, is their publishing arm?), I am bit suspicious. Other sources obviously need to found. ] (]) 17:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Justanintern, ESUOHNIT and ] are continuing to edit. I've attempted to communicate with him/her and s/he has been informed of this discussion. ] (]) 19:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

== ] and ] ==

*{{userlinks|Leonardollockett}}
*{{article|So Was It Worth The Price That He Paid?}}

User is the author of the book described in the article. Article is currently up for deletion at ]. However, it is believed that this user trying to ] by moving the page multiple times in an attempt to shirk the deletion process (see , . , ). ] (]) 05:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

All deleted, user warned. <font face="Verdana"><font color="Blue">]</font></font> 21:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

== BoA ==

{{resolved|with reference to translation of official website; see ]. Also not COI. Incivility can be dealt with elsewhere if it continues. ] (]) 19:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)}}
Recently, ] has been removing sourced content from the ] article. The content in question is BoA's influences, among whom are Britney Spears and Janet Jackson (and this is according to her official online website). Whotheman2006 keeps removing Britney Spears and Janet Jackson from the list of BoA's influences because (he says) it will lead to BoA's being compared with "that skank". (See his side of the conversation on ].) As far as I know, there is no good reason to remove that content from the article. ] (]) 05:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
:This isn't really a COI, unless Whotheman2006 has some relation to BoA. He's got some strong opinions on her article, to be sure, but this is mainly a content dispute. In addition, I've left him a message regarding some rather uncivil comments. I recommend discussing on the article's talk page, which is a better place than on individual user talk pages, as it gets more eyes on the issue and helps to build a consensus. If you are unable to resolve the dispute there, the next steps can be found ]. ]] 18:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
::Agreed. BTW - civility issues and motives aside - Whotheman2006 appears to be correct. The official site doesn't explicitly list these artists as influences. ] (]) 18:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

This user keeps editing articles on musicians who have CDs or are about to have CDs relased on the EMIClassics label (example: ]). The content added is mostly copy pasted press releases from the either Artist Management websites or the EMI website. i have warned this user on the talk page but they continue with these edits.] (]) 16:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

== Douglas Romayne - COI ==

This article appears to be a COI under the Misplaced Pages standard, as it appears to be an autobiography that has been posted by user Bleu Jean Management and a user with the IP addrss 216.86.198.37. Bleu Jean Management is this persons management company, and writing an article about someone you are in bussiness with is a direct violation of the Misplaced Pages COI rules.

Also the section on "Albums" is a blatent attempt for self promotion, because it send people to iTunes, MovieScore Media and CD Baby where the CD can be purchased. The quotes provided are also the type of quotes that would be used in a promotional package, not a enyclopedia.

== Harbhajan Singh Yogi ==

*{{article|Harbhajan Singh Yogi}}
*{{user|Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa}}
Distinctly rose-tinted article about Yogi Bhajan, which underwent a major expansion early this year and continuing edits since, via a SPA editor who appears to be a close disciple - see ("Guru Fatha Singh met Yogi Bhajan, master of Kundalini Yoga and spiritual director of the 3HO Foundation, later that year. Soon after, he received from him his new spiritual name and began his decades-long tutelage under the master's expert eye"). ] (]) 02:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

'''Update''': Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa has replied , and there's definite cause for concern: "''I wrote the article and happen to be the best authority on the life of Yogi Bhajan, as I am currently writing his biography''". Which makes him ideal for identifying sources, except he doesn't currently "get" the problem with original research ("''I have personally spoken with the former High Commissioner and found that he held Yogi Bhajan in high regard''"). ] (]) 14:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

== List of a-ha awards ==

Regarding site: http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_a-ha_awards

Regarding dispute with: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Be_Black_Hole_Sun

|a-ha awards}} - Hi. Regarding the dispute I have with " Be Black Hole Sun " on the a-ha awards page. I have tried to explain to him or her my view on the issue, however " Be Black Hole Sun " keeps reverting my edits and is not willing to accept my view. This person only wants to include what he / she calls notable awards, while i want to inlcude all known awards a-ha has won. My problem with this is that I can't see how this person can dictate what a notable awards is and what is not. In my view, a won award is an award and i can't see how it can be a problem to include the awards on the list. I can't see how it can bother anyone. In my view, the article can only become better, including as much relevant information as possible. I have tried to explain to "Be Black Hole Sun " my view, but the person does not tolerate a different view. An adittional probblem to this is that " Be Black Hole Sun " reverts back to an even older version and the info on the page gets messed up ( numbers of total awards in the grid window etc ) I would appreciate your input on how to solve this. ] (]) 02:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

== Adminship ==

{{resolved|Blocked, indefinitely. ] 13:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)}}
Hi there, i'd like to become an admin, however ] strongly opposes.........If i nominate myself, id like assurances that there will be no backlashes from him or his fellow admins. . . .--] (]) 05:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
:This is not the appropriate board. Please read the explanation at the top. ] is probably more appropriate, though even then... -- ] <small>(])</small> 05:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

== SPA account GCA-Info (]) spewing non-notable bios ==

See his talk page for AfD'd bios he produced. ] (]) 09:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

:Articles created by this user:

:*{{la|Games Convention Asis}}
:*{{la|Maxime Villandre}} → ]
:*{{la|Dan Scott (Game developer)}} → ]
:*{{la|Ole Thongsrinoon}} → ]
:*{{la|Jon Niermann}} → deleted A7

:There's a very likely COI here as GCA stands for "Games Convention Asis". ] 13:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

::Left a COI notice on his talk page. Notability issues aside, the article he wrote don't seem excessively promotional, though a couple of peacock words would need to be excised. We'll see what happens at the AfD's and can tweak those that survive. ]] 14:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
:::User left a message for me in response to the COI temp. He says he now understands the rules better and will make changes accordingly. He has in fact made a few changes to the Ad-tagged articles and has asked for feedback on the respective talk pages. I feel good-faith from this editor and invite feedback on his contributions (as he has requested as well). ]] 14:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

*]
*{{userlinks|66.218.40.66}}
*{{userlinks|Sunkyokim}}
*{{userlinks|LACMAadmin}}

please see to my talk page explaining exactly what they're doing. I'm going to try and explain it again but another voice may help. <font face="Verdana"><font color="Blue">]</font></font> 19:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

:See specifically, :

:''Hello''
:''The press office at LACMA will be making multiple updates to the wiki page. Please do not delete these edits. Our team here at the museum will be overseeing the page on a daily basis''.
:''Best, Karla, Marketing and Press Coordinator, LACMA, kbraun@lacma.org''

:Ouch! ] (]) 20:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

::*Subtle, isn't it. Just added another account. Going off line so can't play ]. Will be back in the evening to help if you all haven't managed to resolve it. I think it's in good hands though. Thanks! <font face="Verdana"><font color="Blue">]</font></font> 20:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
:This seems to stink of ]. ] (]) 23:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

*See also {{userlinks|Contemporary Projects}} and now deleted ] more copyvio spam. It's going to take forever to find all the spam I think. <font face="Verdana"><font color="Blue">]</font></font> 03:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

== ERG Group ==

* ]
* ]
* ]

A lot of text has recently been dumped into this article by an IP address belonging to the company itself, and by ] who has no other edits and I think is the same as 203.23.27.1.

The text certainly has the tone of something lifted from a corporate document and so may be a copyvio in addition to being too detailed and the wrong tone for WP.

ERG has recently been in the news because of an acrimonious contract dispute with ]. Providing more context about other aspects of ERG is fair but this is too much.

I'm not sure how to approach what may be well-intentioned edits and would appreciate guidance. I have no connection to ERG myself. ] (]) 01:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

== CyberLink Corp. ==

* {{article|CyberLink Corp.}}
* {{article|YouCam}}
* {{article|CyberLink Media Server}}
* {{article|CyberLink SoftDMA}}
* {{article|PowerDirector}}
* {{article|PowerDVD}}

Editors
* {{userlinks|Menschenfressender Riese}}
* {{userlinks|Nick Saunders }}
* {{userlinks|Stubydo}}

CyberLink and it's products are being spammed into wikipedia. Product articles are taking the form of datasheets (listing specifications and features) that are used to advertise products. ] (]) 10:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

: I have deleted those articles, and a few more related ones, that were blatant advertising (CSD G11). If anybody disagrees, except for the COI editors above, please let me know and I will recreate them for you. Meanwhile, I think the above three accounts may be sock puppets because their editing fits together chronologically and they are indistringuishable from one another. All appear to be single purpose COI accounts. See ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

::A bunch of socks were found and indef blocked. I think this matter is now resolved. Thank you, Duffbeerforme, for your work on this case! ] <sup>]</sup> 23:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

] is chief tech officer and co-founder of the above corporation. He wrote an article with no assertions of notability, somebody else nominated it as a nn corp, I deleted it. His only edits have been to abuse me for deleting it, to say that if I think he has a COI then he'll instruct somebody else to make his arguments for him, and to insert references to Greenplum and Greenplum products into other articles. He doesn't seem to take the concept of COI very seriously. --] &#x007C; ] 13:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

== Limmy ==
{{resolved|User blocked indef--] (]) 23:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)}}
{{article|Limmy}} - New user ] has made repeated edits which, depending on how they are viewed, would seem to be vandalism, contravene either ], ] and probably all three. The edits focus not on the subject of the article, but a relative, and are not very complementary. <span style= "font-variant:small-caps"> <font color="FF4500">]</font></span> ☠ 11:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
:Yeah, it's patent defamation and must stay out of the article. Bump an admin if it happens again. ] 14:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
::It's hard to tell anyway what's going on. Could be plain vandalism. Could be Limmy himself trying to generate Wikidrama by trolling with a fictional persona (since his podcasts involve playing with different personas). Easiest just to treat as plain ] breach until more information, if any, is forthcoming. ] (]) 16:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I left a 3RR warning for {{userlinks|Dlimond}} but there is precedent for giving such an account an indef block as a vandal-only account. Let's see if he reverts again. ] (]) 17:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

*{{la|Simple Plan}}
*{{userlinks|Wehwalt}}

I would like to know if this constitutes a COI. At the Simple Plan article there is an editor who knows the band in real life, his relationship is thus that he gets free passes to the band's shows. This relationship seems to be effecting his willingness to allow NPOV statements to be included the article. An ] shows that he previously quit the WikiProject centering around this band in order to avoid COI concerns. There also comments at ] detailing his relationship with the band. I have tried discussing the issue with the editor but no progress has been made. ] (]) 17:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
:I filled in the header with the article name and the user names. This band is so famous they have their own Wikiproject, ]. I have notified ] that he's being discussed. ] (]) 18:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
::I like the band. I edit the Simple Plan article because of my liking of the band. If this is a COI concern please ignore this comment. However, I know that editors tend to edit articles with subject matters that interest them; I know that most editors can edit without bias. Wehwalt is one such editor that is acting without a bias. Your fixation, Aurum one, with adding the 'Emo' genre into the article is the reason for this report. I would like to remind you that your two (very flimsy) sources are in an extreme minority. Faced with hundreds of articles reporting the band to be pop punk, your opinion can not be included in the article. Sorry. Please stop acting childish. -- ] (]) 18:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Poe Joe sums it up well. I am a fan of the band who has become a "friend of the band", I see them at the shows, I rarely to never see them away from the venue, and who they put on the guest list. I should add that I can well afford to pay for a ticket, and that my travel expenses (which I pay) to get to the shows are many times the cost of a ticket. I can't imagine that for a $30 ticket, I have bought a COI. All this is disclosed on SP's talk page, and I believe on my talk page archives. Any conflict (I don't think there is) has been adequately disclosed. Aurum ore's theory, if he has one, is simply nuts. I'm not even clear on how he is saying there is a COI, unless he says I can be bought so cheaply. I am a fan, and take an interest in the band, and as Poe Joe says, people edit what they are interested in.

:::Editors are free to look through my edits to the SP and related articles; they are uniformly NPOV and aimed at improving the articles.--] (]) 21:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Wehwalt and Poe Joe, I know your feelings on the matter, and I know my feelings on the matter. I have come here to get an outside opinion. I should have notified you that you were being discussed here, and for that I apologize. ] (]) 23:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::From your discussion here, and an admittedly brief look over the article an its talk page, i don't think that this can be classed as a COI, rathers its simply an edit conflict about whether to call them emo or pop punk, and you need to stop changing it, leave it as it is until your debate is resolved. If i can be so bold as to make a suggestion for a solution to this conflict though, why not a compromise. On the talk page you say there are sources for either, why not put change the header to something like "Simple Plan is a French Canadian pop punk<nowiki><ref></nowiki>/Emo<nowiki><ref></nowiki> band. If you are willing to make such a compromise, it would solve all the drama, and save you all from a lot of tension--] (]) 23:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I personally never meant to imply that I wanted "pop punk" to be removed. I'd be perfectly happy to have them both listed since there are references for each. ] (]) 01:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::]. Again, your flimsy sources are in an extremely small minority when faced with the hundreds of reliable sources calling them pop punk. 'Emo' must not be included as a genre. -- ] (]) 02:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) First of all, this is not the place for you to be having this discussion, and secondly, if you're not willing to compromise over something so trivial, this is likely to get dragged on for a long time--] (]) 03:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
:Poe Joe, again I am already aware of your stance. This is not the place to discuss our personal views on the subject, that's what the talk page is for. I am here solely for other editor's opinions as to whether Wehwalt's previous comments constitute a COI. ] (]) 04:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
::Not so. In view of the fact that Aurum ore began this discussion by alleging that I was not willing to "allow NPOV edits", Poe Joe is certainly within his rights to acquaint other editors as to what the matter in dispute is. And Jac16888, you made a proposal on this page relevant to the content; certainly Poe Joe is within his rights to respond.
::Aurum ore has acknowledged that I have disclosed on talk page, which is the proper way of handling such things. I very much question the way that Aurum ore has gone about this. Deep in a content dispute in which he has failed to convince any other editor, either myself or Poe Joe (who certainly has no COI), he makes an issue of this disclosed matter. Aurum ore, incidently, has used this techniques of invoking questionable reviews as RS to add "emo" to the genre of at least one other band, ] through tendentious edits. And aside from the current content dispute, in which no regular editor of the page has agreed with him, he cannot point to a single edit made by me which is inconsistent with WP policies.
::WP:COI says that "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban." There is no there there in Aurum ore's arguments, who appears to be in full flown retreat since now he is saying that he just wants a second opinion. Dragging the name of another WP editor through this board is not acceptable without a solid basis for doing so, and he doesn't have any basis--other than the possibility that I can be bought for a thirty dollar concert ticket. That's not a sustainable position. But any stick works to beat a dog.
::I'd really like an uninvolved admin to look at this, and see if Aurum ore should be topic blocked on the subject of music for misuse of this page. I also note that he did not notify me of the allegations he was making against me, another editor had to do that. While I like to AGF, the assumption can be worn away, and given Aurum ore's words and conduct, it is hard to AGF with him/her anymore.--] (]) 15:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Wewhalt, the COI guideline suggests first approaching the editor directly on the matter, which I have at Simple Plan's talk page. It then suggests bringing the matter either here or to ]. I am not trying to gain an upper hand in a content dispute. Simple Plan is not linked to WP:NPOVD, which is what content dispute redirects to on the COI article. I am perfectly willing to discuss the matter with other editors such as Poe Joe, and have even continued to discuss the matter with you at the Talk Page after bringing the matter here. ] (]) 03:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
:::It's unorthodox to discuss music genres here on this page. But it's not the first time this problem has come up on Misplaced Pages. Can you tell us, briefly, how you think music genre disputes ought to be settled? Do you know of any successful examples where you think a genre issue was correctly laid to rest using reliable sources? (If this discussion gets too verbose we can move it elsewhere, but I personally would like to know the answer). ] (]) 19:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Well, I asked Aurum ore to get some news articles in which Simple Plan is called emo. I think that there has to be a threshold showing of news coverage (or articles on the band, not opinion reviews in other words) in which the band is called by the second genre. I would say that if he can come up with a significant number of such articles, or, since band genres and also terminology shift over time, a smaller number from a discrete period of time, then I'd tend to accede to a second genre, with the location of the mention within the article to be negotiated. I'm thinking that if 20 percent of news articles/feature articles on the band mention the proposed genre, that would be good enough. But reviews are opinions, necessarily so, and I can't give them weight. Unhappily, Aurum ore chose to stand on the review articles he posited, and did not respond to my request. If it's less than 20 percent (I'd even make it 15), then I think it falls under WP:UNDUE. I can't give you an example of genre disputes that were resolved, because I mostly don't follow such things. It was Aurum ore's assertions that emo should be listed coequally with pop punk when I follow the news coverage of SP reasonably closely and I know that news articles always call them pop punk that brought me into this.--] (]) 19:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::One thing we might want to do is move the question of whether CD reviews are considered RS over to the RS noticeboard.--] (]) 19:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
:Wehwalt and Poe Joe, I have tired to be very courteous to you throughout our discussions. I have never insulted you or your viewpoints, so please do not continue to insult mine. You never requested that I find additional references to back up my statement (the closest you got was asking: ''where are all the newspaper reports that call SP emo?'' You never indicated that offering more references would have any effect on your opinion. A statement you made on Poe Joe's talk page when you asked him to join the discussion indicated that you intended on prolonging the dispute until I went away rather than engaging in meaningful discussion.
::''Typically they get discouraged or else bored and go away after a while.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)''
:] (]) 03:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

::I'm afraid that is not only false, it is demonstrably false. Here are some quotes from our discussion:
::". In a nutshell--you have a couple of reviews that call them emo, which may or may not be RS, it doesn't matter. But I'm looking at the news stories on the recent tour, and news article after news article calls them pop punk and doesn't call them emo.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)"
::"According to WP:UNDUE, small minority views (which you seem to admit yours is, they are the views of individual reviewers, you have two of them, and one refers to the music on the first two CDs) are not to be given space on WP. Reviews are close to personal opinion, which are not to be used for WP:RS except under limited conditions that don't apply here, where are all the newspaper reports that call SP emo? Here's a few of the recent ones that call them pop punk! I'm in a hurry or I'd put in more. (there are many more, and news articles are far more reliable than reviews) I would hesitate to call your UK source a "major component of the mainstream media", leaving a brief Rolling Stone review. Whereas newspapers routinely refer to SP as a pop punk band. WP:UNDUE is a subset of WP:NPOV. Those who call SP emo are not a significant minority, therefore we do not put them in. And to paraphrase Poe Joe, that pretty much says it all!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)"
::"You've given a couple of opinion pieces about music, reviews in other words. You haven't shown a single news piece. If this is a significant minority view, and not just "flat earth", you should be able to show that there are many news reports that refer to them as an emo band. Two reviewers are "flat earth", not a significant minority. You know, the sort of coverage they get when they play a city. Not just the opinion of two reviewers, but offhand references in serious news reports.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)"
::Thus, your claim that I never asked you for more sources, or more RS, is not true. I find it amazing that you choose to link directly to matters you feel support your claims, but if you don't, you just make an offhand characterization (although clearly untrue). I would expect you to be both civil and truthful when bringing matters to this page. I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed.--] (]) 16:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
:::In order to make the discussion more accessable to outside editors, I am detailing my reasons for initiating this discussion with links for each instance: I am aware that Wehwalt previously commented on his relationship with the band on the article's talk page. However the statement is not current and does not include all the details of his relationship. The statement was posted on 9 February 2007. He did not remove his name from the WikiProject until December 2007, indicating that his relationship with the band had changed, to the extent that he now feared COI concenrns in regards to his continued participation. When questioned by Poe Joe about his departure he stated:

:::''"Uh, given that I get a pass now from the band, I feared WP:COI concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC) "''

:::He has also made statements indicating that he knows the band well enough to receive favors or perks for his friends:

:::''I haven´t forgotten (though I will probably have to remind them) but don´t expect it soon. I´ve seen the schedule, nothing your way anytime soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)''

:::One of his edit summaries indicates that he speaks to the band outside of shows, and has spoken with them on the phone:

:::''Well, call it OR if you want, but i got a call''

:::When I made a good faith edit with several reliable sources, he reverted it without discussion. No previous discussions had adressed the sources in question. He has a history of reverting genre edits to the article without discussing them at the talk page, or in some cases doing so without even explaining what he was reverting in the edit summary. In a few instances he has said this was due to previous conensus at the talk page, however none of the discussions in question appear to have arrived at any form of consensus.He has also removed article headers without discussing them and has even taken it upon himself to correct statements backed by the band's official site, replacing it with his personal knowledge.
:::I trust the opinions of the editors at this article and will gladly abide by their decision regarding Wehwalt. Although, I have tried to keep relatively level headed and assume good faith throughout the discussion, I admit that my temper has risen and as such will take a few days' leave from this discussion in order to ]. ] (]) 03:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


== Chris Antonopoulos (footballer) and Fort Lauderdale Strikers ==
:: <s>Woah, woah, woah. Why did you, Aurum ore, add my name on there? How in the Sam Hill do I have a conflict of interest?! Now, it is beyond obvious that you are reporting us only to gain an advantage in this content dispute. I strongly urge you to drop this COI case, so that we can continue this discussion civilly on the Simple Plan talk page.</s> -- ] (])
* {{pagelinks|Chris Antonopoulos (footballer)}}
:::I didn't add your name to the discussion header, one of the other editors did. I assume it's because Wewhalt made comments regarding his relationship with the band on your talk page. I'm not accusing you at all of having a COI. ] (]) 03:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|Amplifyplantz33}}
::::I'm actually rather shocked at the uncivil tone taken by Aurum ore, whether or not he is here to read it, and the misleading and incorrect characterizations he has given. I think we know that Aurum ore spent a considerable amount of time last night looking for ''anything'' he could use against me, and in most cases did not content himself with the link, but posted his own (wrong) conclusions based on them. This is uncivil and he has failed to WP:AGF. For example, is a reversal of vandalism. Take a look at the previous edit, it puts some kid's name in as the producer. I do not get calls from the band, or release non public info on the band (not that I ever have any), so there goes that right now. There is a consensus, stated after discussion on the talk page, that SP is pop punk, and unsourced changes to that get reverted as a matter of course. Usually they come from IP addresses. Too bad I didn't post detailed edit summaries, but on a page which receives a lot of vandalism, you get into a habit of being rather summary. And yes, most disruptive editors, whether or not you fall into that category, do get bored and go away after a while.


] and numerous ] related articles, which Antonopoulos appears to have been a player for, have been edited by ]. The user seems to be Antonopoulos and received a notice to disclose their conflict of interest on December 4 by @]. The user did not respond and does not appear to have made an effort to disclose a conflict of interest as they are required to. The user also created the Antonopoulos article and is responsible for the majority of the content added to it. The only indication the user appears to have made to disclose their potential conflict of interest was to write "Chris Antonopoulos" on their user page. ] (]) 07:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Moving on to other items in the kitchen sink he has thrown at me, . Of course I removed the unencyclopedic tag; the editor failed to state any specific concerns and what were we supposed to do, guess? The tag says "please discuss on talk page"; the editor did not start a talk page discussion. Other tags, properly applied, have remained on the articles concerning the band (double tag, inserted December 2007 and remained ever since). , the call was from the Foundation, and they were supposed to modify their web page, which they never did, unfortunately. That was after I applied for a ticket, and was called back to be told it was sold out. Um, given that I didn't go, that hardly makes Aurum ore's case! I thought it would be helpful to put the information it was sold out on WP pending the official announcement, which unfortunately never came. Aurum ore is mistaking tongue in cheek edit summaries because he is hoping to see violations of WP policy. common courtesy to let another fan know if SP is coming their way, jeez. And when I did let Poe Joe know, I backed it up with a link. Something wrong with that?


:I've removed a lot of unsourced material from the Antonopoulos article, but clearly the problems here extend rather further than that. ] (]) 15:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Concerning my edit about COI concerns, I felt that in a wikiproject, I might get more deference than I deserved, and thus resigned from the wikiproject. That is a matter of my personal ethics, and not of WP COI standards. I'm still not clear on what basis Aurum ore is even contending there is a COI (other than his kitchen sink approach to dispute resolution). Is he still saying a thirty dollar concert ticket buys a Misplaced Pages shill? If so, he hasn't shown it. At the worst, all he's shown is carelessness in editing in an article which makes no pretentions to be a FA. And his attempt, and general incivilities, very much leaves his own ability to properly engage on this article open to question. I note he has said he won't engage with me any more, just with Poe Joe. Guess what. Even if I did have a COI, which I do not, I'd still be able to participate on talk page. Aurum ore's "I won't talk with you but I will talk with him" displays a rather childish attitute (to borrow Poe Joe's phrasing).
::The user has now denied on their talk page that they are Antonopoulos. It must be admitted, however, that they appear to be a ] dedicated solely to promoting Antonopoulos and mentioning him on as many articles as possible.
::It seems unclear whether the user has a COI or is just a fan who is unaware of the policies on sourcing and promotion.
::Any thoughts on whether Antonopoulos satisfies ] and whether detailed info on beach soccer activities is usually considered suitable for inclusion? ] (]) 15:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It seems unlikely that they would be so obsessed with Antonopoulos if they were not either him or someone closely associated with him, and their response is quite odd. There does appear to be a Chris Antonopoulos who signed a professional contract with the Fort Lauderdale Strikers, and to me that satisfies notability as the beach soccer and pre-professional soccer contract section of his career would not make Antonopoulos notable enough to have an article alone. It is of note that Antonopoulos does not appear to have been the primary goalkeeper during his tenure and that the primary goalkeepers were Jorge Valenzuela, Mario Jimenez, and ] at this time. It appears Antonopoulos only made two appearances between 1993 and 1994 which is when he was apparently signed to the team. From the perspective of someone who was not directly involved with the Strikers but would want to write about them, Valenzuela and Jimenez would probably be higher on the priority list than a goalkeeper who only made two appearances. The only parts about Antonopoulos in the article that are specific to him are praising his accomplishments. ] (]) 22:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Agreed 100%. ] (]) 22:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Additionally, the appear to indicate that whoever is writing the article had close connections with Antonopoulos throughout his career if they in fact have the right to upload them. ] (]) 23:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::The user continues to obsess over this article and to add large amounts of trivial non-encyclopaedic detail and generally promotional material. Are we really sure that the subject satisfies ]? ] (]) 00:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I generally go by pro athletes being notable enough to have an article, but Antonopoulos appears to have barely been a pro athlete, and like I brought up with the writer before they accused me of acting uncivil, it would make more sense to write articles about Antonopoulos' teammates. I'm not in favor of having an article on Misplaced Pages who's express purpose is to promote someone, even if they may meet the requirement of general notability. This is the first time I've dealt with an issue like this, so I apologize if I am not understanding things correctly as to what makes someone notable enough. ] (]) 01:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Article is notable. And I deem there's a consensus to proceed with option #1 - tag the 2 pages. ] (]) 22:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== Marc Jorgenson ==
::::You did not post with reliable sources; you posted with opinion reviews. When you persisted, I told you that. Your editing is tendentious, to say the least, and now you are throwing in the kitchen sink in an effort to gain your ends. This is uncivil and wrong. Perhaps an opinion review is good enough for this list, whereby one mention in any music review of "emo" makes you emo, but we've asked, repeatedly, repeatedly, Aurum ore to post news articles, feature articles which refer to SP as emo. He won't even reply. The regular editors of the Simple Plan article properly refused Aurum ore's attempts to insert the "emo" genre under WP:UNDUE (if he can't find news or feature articles . . . ) and told him of the need to find pieces which were more than someone's personal opinion. Unfortunately, his responses have been to come here and try to get me thrown off the article, without good cause. I have refrained from going back and looking at Aurum ore's edits, forcing him to defend everything he has done against a hostile editor, like he has done for me.
{{atop
| result = No edits since 2008. No need for action. ] (]/]) 01:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
::::Poe Joe has stated that Aurum ore is engaging in this discussion to get an advantage in a content dispute. I agree, it is proved beyond doubt. I've quoted from what WP:COI has said are the consequences of that, and unlike Aurum ore, see no need to repeat myself.--] (]) 13:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|Marc Jorgenson}}
* {{userlinks|Plus3db}}
* {{userlinks|Lexicon480}}
* {{userlinks|Bunny & J-Zone}}
* {{userlinks|24.82.146.94}}
* {{userlinks|24.82.146.152}}
* {{userlinks|24.86.250.211}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Blatantly promotional article and severe failure of ] with puffery removed by users before. 3 single-purpose accounts as well as 3 IPs of close proximity have edited the article in around 2008. There definitely is signs of paid editing or people connected with subject editing the article, so a block of these users and IPs should suffice alongside the deletion of the article. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: coral; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 06:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== State University of New York at Geneseo ==
== ] ] ==
{{atop
| result = Soft blocked for promotional username representing Geneseo's Communications and Marketing (CommMark) team. ] (]/]) 01:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


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


== Kathryn Babayan ==
{{userlinks|Limjason}}


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
I'm concerned that the contributor has a COI with this article. I have reverted the seemingly spam like links to this page from kidney related pages. I believe the motivation was to push for the company that was externally linked from this article until I removed it.
* {{pagelinks|Kathryn Babayan}}
* {{userlinks|2601:401:100:46E0:B919:9891:DF5D:FC9F}}
* {{userlinks|2601:401:100:46E0:E169:2FC9:4E47:B104}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Kathryn Babayan was an academic article I made two weeks ago. As of the past 24 hours, there is an IP editor on a rotating IP address that has been making wholesale wording changes to the article. Some of the changes are okay, more detailed than I had been, but I'm wondering if they're edging into promotional territory for her books. I tried asking the first version of the IP editor if they were Babayan themselves, which I feel is likely, but I received no response. And they're back to making changes just now with a different IP.


Suggestions on what should be done? ]]<sup>]</sup> 22:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
There was however, one thing stopping me from tagging this as a csd: this is actually somewhat relevant medicine. It is upcoming and new, but there are a couple publications out about it. It will be rapidly evolving and it may likely be a commercial technology at one point. I'm not sure if it warrants its own article, but at the very least, I would rather not lose all the information presented there until editors have a chance to sort through it and perhaps merge it into the relevant articles (or even improve it so it can stand on its own). I am not certain what to do with the COI and the article, so I am appealing here for help. ] (]) 08:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
:The BLP is bloated with puffery and sources. It should be shortened substantially. ] (]) 00:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
:: is how it was before the IP changed things, which I think was a good summary of her work. No idea what you're talking about with the sources however. There are technically only 9 in use in the article, with only one of which being a primary source from her university page. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Just revert to the last good version before the IP started editing. If the user continues to edit the article then revert them again and request page protection at ]. ] (]) 01:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::K. I've gone ahead and made the revert, though I kept the lede change the IP made. Since I think that was actually an improvement. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Article has now been protected to prevent further disruptive editing . With thanks, ] (]) 17:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


== Captain Beany ==
Hi, i would to clarify that i do not have a COI with the article, as explained in my talk page discussion with ]. Thank you so much for the help. ] (]) 10:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


*{{user3|CaptainBeany}}
== ] ] ==


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


In 2010 they and asked for a sourced paragraph about a fraud conviction to be removed from the article. Discussions in response at
{{userlinks|Dsol}}
] and ] decided that this was appropriate biographical content and should not be removed.


I posted a belated COI message on their talk page last year, after noticing the issue's history when working on the article: User:CaptainBeany had removed the paragraph in 2016, with nobody realising. The user didn't respond to the talk page template, and today they . ] (]) 13:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
{{userlinks|91.77.59.126}}


:The user to the COIN notification, though exactly what they're trying to communicate is beyond me. --] (]) 05:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
{{userlinks|91.77.57.180}}, and


== Science of Identity Foundation ==
{{userlinks|Asstrafficcontroller}} who has been blocked
{{archive top|No substantial evidence indicating a conflict of interest has been presented in this complaint. As such, I am closing this discussion as groundless/.{{pb}}When filing at this board, {{u|Sokoreq}} is reminded to explicitly state the reasons that they believe a conflict of interest (as defined in ]). In particular, it is important to to avoid ] by making complaints here while failing to state a reasonable case to conclude that a COI exists. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 04:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{pagelinks|Science of Identity Foundation}}
* {{userlinks|Hipal}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
This senior editor reverting my constructive edits repeatedly, in which I created a new section to simplify the content and cited reference. However, it appears that the editor is maintaining the article and may have a conflict of interest. Even though I have warned the editor, but now editor has started an edit war. ] (]) 18:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:@], why haven't you attempted to discuss this at ] first? ]&nbsp;] 18:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::Agreed. Looking over the talk page and edits, I don't see anything suggesting Hipal has a COI. Nor do I see anything to evidence that Sokoreq has a vested interest in editing the article, although it is curious that they went straight to the noticeboard without participating in the talk page. —''']''' (]) 18:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@] You are right, I was surprised that the editor keeps reverting my edits. This behavior suggests editor may have ] or feel a sense of ownership of the page. ] (]) 19:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Reverting your edits is evidence that they disagree with you, which is allowed. Disagreeing with you is in no way evidence of a conflict of interest. ] (]) 19:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::@] Yeh, I agree with you, but how many times ? And why? did you check my edit ? The editor was doing endless reverts, even after I requested clarification about their concerns on the talk page. ] (]) 20:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::You were also 'doing endless reverts'. Do you have a conflict of interest? ] (]) 20:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Did you check my edit? What is wrong with that edit? I would like to know so that I can improve myself for next time. Please be specific. Thanks ] (]) 20:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::You can improve yourself for next time by recognizing that reverts are a normal part of Misplaced Pages's editing process (see ]), and by refraining from making unfounded accusations towards other editors just because they reverted you. ] (]) 20:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I followed ], but the editor didn't adhere to the discussion part: 'Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement.' Anyway, did you check my edit that the editor reverted several times? That would be really helpful. ] (]) 20:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::No, you began edit warring after you were reverted. That is not following ]. And you still have not posted at ]. ] (]) 20:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::The editor reverted my edits without any explanation and did so repeatedly. I am still waiting for your insight. Did you check my edit? What mistake did I make? I want to understand; any help would be appreciated. ] (]) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Some of the mistakes that you made were edit warring and posting spurious talk page warnings (and now a noticeboard entry) rather than discussing your edits on the article's associated talk page. I'm not going to contribute to compounding those errors by debating the content with you here. If you want to continue with this, I would suggest that you withdraw the allegations you have made against Hipal, including the spurious vandalism, COI, and harrassment warnings you placed on their talk page, apologize to Hipal, and then go to ] where active discussions are currently taking place without your participation. ] (]) 20:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::You are trying to make it seem like it's my fault only, and you are missing the point. Anyway, thanks; I have already explained my COI concern below. ] (]) 21:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] Already, there is a lot going on in that talk page. ] (]) 18:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@] I agree that it's daunting. However, you don't get to override discussion by jumping straight to a noticeboard, and especially not COIN.—''']''' (]) 18:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@] I apologize, but the editor's behavior was strange and did not make any sense. Now, after seeing the article history, it looks like the editor has a sense of ownership or maybe a conflict of interest. other than that, I don't have any other evidence to prove the COI. I leave the final decision to you, but now I am feeling Anxious about whether I should touch that article because it seems like that editor owns it. This is strange! ] (]) 19:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:I think this can be closed as a groundless complaint. Sokoreq has continued to edit since opening this complaint but has yet to try to discuss the edits in question at ]. No evidence has been provided for conflict of interest, other than the OP's apparent assumption that there is no other possible reason that their edits would be reverted. ]&nbsp;] 21:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


== ] ==
the eXile - formerly a giveaway paper - has ceased publishing and moved to a blog format. Dsol and his related IP addresses have continued to spam for the blog in the article. The article itself is essentially fancruft and spam.
* {{userlinks|Kateblau}}


Multiple draft creations of spammy company articles in a relatively short period of time:
Another user has removed some of the eXile spam in a different article and warned user 91.77.57.180 not to reinsert the spam/advertising. see ]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
Received a COI notice January 5th but has continued to edit without declaring any COI. ''']'''<sup>]]</sup> 02:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:здравствуйте! я создаю статьи о компаниях по киборгизации и автоматизации, научных деятелей в этой области, это будет сделано в короткий промежуток времени, потому что проделана большая аналитическая работа по данным компаниям и я загружаю уже составленную ранее информацию, это не реклама, я допустил несколько ошибок, потому что впервые на википедии как автор, пожалуйста, я могу дальше создавать страницы? ] (]) 18:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Dsol (who has mostly given up using his username) has a problem with ownership on the eXile article and is essentially a s.p.a. with all his contributions related to the eXile and its fancruft.
:Hello! I am creating articles about companies in cyborgization and automation, scientific figures in this field, this will be done in a short period of time, because a lot of analytical work has been done on these companies and I am uploading previously compiled information, this is not advertising, I made several mistakes, because this is my first time on Misplaced Pages as an author, can I please continue to create pages? ] (]) 18:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::It appears that you are using a LLM like ChatGPT to create these drafts, and that your own communications are machine translated. Is that true? ] (]) 18:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*I've deleted some of these; they all seem to be on the same pattern, making roughly the same claims. I assume LLM use at minimum. ] <small>(])</small> 20:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== John Ortberg ==
] (]) 21:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
:Excuse me, but I take offense to this for multiple reasons. First, I have no connection to that IP. I would agree to an IP check by an Admin. Second, all my contributions do not relate to the eXile. Third, it is not appropriate to complain in this way about me at a noticeboard without making any good faith effort to engage in discussion on the relevant pages or to contact me, or letting me know in any way shape or form that someone has a problem with my edits.


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
:I should add that a number of anonymous IPs and accounts have (unlike mine) been repeatedly blocked and banned for attempting to remove information from ], disparaging it and the editors who have worked on its article, and refusing to engage in discussion. I think the facts of this case are clear but if there is any doubt I would encourage those interested to read the talk pages of the eXile and to ask me if there are any questions. ] (]) 22:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Pages:
* {{pagelinks|John Ortberg}}
Users:
* {{userlinks|Timothydw82}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Timothydw82 is a ] which is used solely to promote, defend and censor valid information about ]. Timothydw82 admits to consulting with Ortberg about the article on ] and has also used that page to make disparaging comments about Ortberg's son, Daniel Lavery. This is both a serious COI and POV problem. He has been warned before by other editors. My most recent warning (for POV editing) was met with what seems to be feigned incomprehension and "Do you work for Misplaced Pages?". I think it is time to put an end to this farce. ] (]) 02:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


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


== Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation ==
] (]) 02:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
::That fact that I mistakenly thought I was reverting to an edit by me, when I was actually reverting to an IPs edits, is not "proof" that the IP is me. As noted above, I would encourage any interested admin to run an IP check. That would be "proof." What has been done here is calling me a liar with less than zero evidence. ] (]) 12:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


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


I warned Channy Jung () and 203.239.154.130 () but both have continued editing ] and have ignored the warning (, ). Chisu1020 has been inactive for a while though, but same pattern of behavior.
{{article|Quentin Elias}}- After checking the article, I noticed some diffs that may need to be checked . Given the nature of the edits I think A ] may be present, but since this is a biography of a ] the edits may have merit. But I still think they should be checked. <font color="purple">]</font></font></font></font></font><sup>], ]</sup> 02:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


I recently rewrote ] entirely to get rid of the unsourced promotional-like writing . State of article before the rewrite: .
The Article is provided directly by the artist "Quentin Elias" by electro boy inc records. His current managment and record label. All that has been put in the article are facts and are documented so by links directing there integrity and documentation.


Also worth noting the is similarly fluffy. I suspect Park/his foundation are watching these articles.
If the person needs to talk to his representation feel free to without deleting the truth.


] (]) 05:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
flash
electro boy inc records
electroboyinc@aol.com


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


== Misplaced Pages Writers Marks a Milestone with 1,000 Successful Misplaced Pages Page Publications ==
Quentin Elias
qnyc@mac.com


Well, that's what they ''say'' on openpr.com. For the interested. I was going to link it, but my edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a ] or ]. Despite that, it seems to have some WP-presence: ] (]) 12:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== User:Lapsed Pacifist ==
:{{re|Gråbergs Gråa Sång}} That's just a press release site. The company that published it is already listed on ] at ]. ] (]) 15:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


== Paul Devlin (footballer) ==
{{userlinks|Lapsed Pacifist}} - LP has been making contributions to various ] (a group against a controversial Irish oil pipeline) related articles. Many of these articles are overflowing with POV, weasel words, etc. I set about cleaning them up over the weekend, noticed LP was heavily involved, and saw he admitted to a ] . I (first edit was a mistake) him, and he replied this morning , but then he (''all'' the edits, not just sections) I made over the weekend. Thanks! ]]] 09:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
:On the contrary, Falcon9x5's "cleaning" has involved blanking, whitewashing, deletion of references, and peppering articles with weasel words. I haven't blindly reverted all his edits, and have added requested sources where practical (i.e. where it didn't necessitate wading through an ocean of weaseling in order to save the source requests). Falcon's assertion that my edits are controversial doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I freely admit being involved with the campaign. Nothing I see in WP:COI would indicate that this precludes me from editing related articles. ] (]) 09:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|Paul Devlin (footballer)}}
* {{userlinks|Pdfc2025}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
The editor claims to be the subject of the article and is repeatedly adding altered statistics, replacing ones which appear to be referenced. I and {{u|Struway2}} have made suggestions at the editor's talk page. I am reluctant to continue reverting in the circumstances (for all I know the edits are correct, if unsourced), but on the other hand it could be a hoax or subtle vandalism. What's the best way forwards? ] (]) 12:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:Their stats look correct for what they are, per the sources in the career stats table lower down the article where they appear in the totals columns, but they include data for matches that don't belong in the infobox. The editor has removed all but big-league clubs from the infobox, lumped together separate spells with the same club, and included statistics for cup competitions; I've explained to them that conventionally we don't do that. The editor also suggests there are errors and omissions, which could well be true, but they haven't yet elaborated. cheers, ] (]) 13:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::They are now blocked from making changes to that article. They are more than welcome to suggest changes on the article's talk page. <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 20:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] ==
::Lapsed Pacifist has been blatantly violating the WP:COI for years. None so blind as those who cannot or will not see. ] (]) 10:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
{{pagelinks|User:SHEJO VARGHESE}}
Undisclosed COI editor writing an autobiography at ].<span id="LunaEclipse:1736800296227:WikipediaFTTCLNConflict_of_interest/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 20:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
:With the page in draft space and placed for CSD, and the copious user page warnings, with a grand total of 3 edits by this apparent COI editor, I would caution ]. I think no further action is likely necessary as their draft page will either be deleted under CSD but failing that would most certainly fail a formal AfD. ]&thinsp;] 20:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::], my bad :( I had no intention to come off as overly harsh.<span id="LunaEclipse:1736801352397:WikipediaFTTCLNConflict_of_interest/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 20:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
:::Just remember to have good faith -- when they have only made three edits and stopped editing at 16:52, and then subsequently 4 consecutive posts to their talk page is a bit overbearing. It would be one thing if they were editing between your posts (so it appears they are ignoring you), but in this case, zero edits since the first notice, there's not a huge need to escalate unless they continue to persist in unconstructive behavior after the notifications. ]&thinsp;] 00:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


== Gilles Epié ==


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
Please quote the part of WP:COI you believe I am violating.
* {{pagelinks|Gilles Epié}}
* {{userlinks|Epie2020}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Epie2020 has acknowledged a personal connection to Gilles Epié on their ] but does not seem to consider this a conflict of interest. They were most recently warned about this behavior on 20 December 2023 but to make edits to the Gilles Epié article. ] (]) 22:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


:It's been nearly a year since this user's last contribution, unless there are edits to deleted pages. I don't think there's any action to be taken here given that a COI notice has been on the page since 2023. Maybe some work could be done on the article itself? --] (]) 02:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
] (]) 12:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
::Unfortunately I don't think the article has a version in page history that doesn't suffer from ] issues. I've gone ahead and trimmed it down a bit. --] (]) 03:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::This seems like a reasonable approach to me. They've been off and on editing the same article for years now, so I wouldn't be surprised if they come back at some point. Hopefully this notice will dissuade them from directly editing the article. Thank you for your work on this. ] (]) 15:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


== Burning River Buckets ==
::"COI editing involves contributing to Misplaced Pages in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where an editor must forgo advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages in order to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Also, "...editing articles related to...your organization..." - something that should be avoided, or have great caution exercised, neither of which you've done. Thanks! ]]] 12:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{pagelinks|Burning River Buckets}}
* {{userlinks|C.A. Buttons}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
] has identified himself as the owner of the ] basketball team on , on , and on . I've tried over a period of months (and on each of those talk pages) to share information on the COI policy and the need for reliable sources, to no apparent avail. Perhaps others could give it try. -- ] (]) 01:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


:I've posted a on their talk page. For now I think it's worth letting their changes to the page more or less stand; their ''actual contributions'' in the latest round of edits consisted of deleting some unreferenced information and accidentally removing one reference. --] (]) 20:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I disagree, I believe I have exercised caution. Unlike your wholesale blanking of links to newspaper articles that don't tally with your point of view, insertion of nauseating weasel words (insinuating that the crippling of old men is somehow not violent) etc. etc. There's no need to keep thanking me, I'm happy to set you straight.
::Went back and restored the external links section as well. --] (]) 20:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] ==
] (]) 12:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


User appears to be/is part of a (self-published) substack publication called ''Shatter the Standards'' and since joining on January 13 2025 have been adding the publication's reviews to album articles (]). For example/recently, on Mac Miller's '']'' (today). // ] (]) 20:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Comment''': It really seems that neither of these editors are blameless and could both moderate their editing style especially on ]. Much of ]'s editing has been removal of apparently justifiable text and looks like extreme whitewashing to make the article seem there is little opposition or resistance. On the other hand ]'s edits are perhaps somewhat tainted by his interest in the controversy but not to the extent that Falcon suggests. However if there are ] sources that text should not be removed without discussion. ] (]) 14:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
: {{u|Chchcheckit}} The top of this noticeboard clearly says {{tq|This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue}}. Why wasn't this done first? I have now left a COI notice on the user's talk page. ] (]) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::Having looked through the in the ] article, I'm not really sure what could be considered extreme whitewashing. As I see it, all of my contributions were legitimate, removing ], a huge number of ] words - I don't think I removed any ] sources. I removed some indymedia.ie ones, but it can not be considered ]. Also, I don't think any of this excuses the fact that LP ''has'' a conflict of interest. Thanks! ]]] 14:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Both editors have breached 3RR and as appropriate I have left them both a warning. ] (]) 15:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC) ::my bad. i rushed / wasn't thinking {{facepalm}} // ] (]) 22:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::: No wirres {{u|Chchcheckit}}, thanks for responding. Hopefully they will respond either here or there. ] (]) 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I'd like to point out that I'm well aware of 3RR and have '''not''' breached it - at least not on the article you linked to (and no others that I'm aware of - I try to be careful about it). Thanks! ]]] 15:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Perhaps you should review of ] one of the related articles associated with the same topic above. Clearly looks like 3RR to me. ] (]) 15:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::I have reviewed it - : , , (no breach). : , (no breach). I haven't broken 3RR. Thanks! ]]] 16:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


== Alexander H. Joffe ==
==Important Policy update==
I have added the following paragraph to ] to reflect the actual state of matters. Please familiarize yourself with this, and feel free to discuss if you think this does not reflect actual practice.


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
:When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to ] other editors. Misplaced Pages's ] takes precedence over this guideline. COI situations are usually revealed when the editor themselves discloses a relationship to the subject that they are editing. In case the editor does not identity themselves or their affiliation, reference to the ] may help counteract biased editing.
* {{pagelinks|Alexander H. Joffe}}
* {{userlinks|69.121.25.122}} Claims to be Joffe in a 2007 edit
* {{userlinks|71.249.231.9}} Edited the article only a day after the above IP to remove a notability tag, has only edited the Joffe article, Joffe's area of expertise of ] and ], Joffe's former employer per here.
* {{userlinks|74.88.198.179}} Claims to be Joffe in this talk page edit
* {{userlinks|24.191.44.177}} Claims to be Joffe in the same talk page as above
* {{userlinks|31.154.131.245}} Single edit on the page promoting Joffe's podcast, IP is from Israel where Joffe has done work in the past. I find it rather unlikely some random Israeli wants to add a link to a minor academic's podcast.
* {{userlinks|67.82.155.243}} Made 2 edits to Joffe article, has ] IP, only a few miles from ] where Joffe formerly taught.
There are other IPs which have only one edit to Joffe's article that could well be him as well but I don't think that's enough evidence to go by, nor would it be worthwile given how much Joffe's IP seems to change. ] (]) 03:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


:Not really actionable directly as all of these account edits are from several years ago. IP addresses span multiple networks and we wouldn’t block them broadly without good reason. Only thing at the moment is to keep an eye out on this article. If new IP edits become persistently disruptive you could request page protection, but one or two anonymous edits once a year wouldn’t even qualify for that unless there were serious BLP concerns. Use revert instead. ]&thinsp;] 05:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for you help, and thank you to ] for reviewing this edit. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:30, 18 January 2025

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

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

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

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests Talk:260 Collins Talk:Academy of Achievement Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:Aspen Dental Talk:Atlantic Union Bank Talk:AvePoint Talk:Edward J. Balleisen Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:Neil Barofsky Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Bell Bank Talk:Edi Birsan Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Pamela Chesters Talk:Cloudinary Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Dr. Phillips Center for the Performing Arts Template talk:Editnotices/Page/List of Nintendo franchises Talk:Alan Emrich Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:Richard France (writer) Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Genuine Parts Company Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Group-IB Talk:Hilary Harkness Talk:Hearst Communications Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:Scott Kurashige Talk:Andrew Lack (executive) Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:List of PEN literary awards Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health Talk:Anne Sofie Madsen Talk:Laurence D. Marks Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Roland Mertelsmann Talk:Metro AG Talk:Modern Meadow Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:Philly Shipyard Talk:Polkadot (blockchain platform) Talk:QuinStreet Talk:Prabhakar Raghavan Talk:Michael Savage (politician) Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:SolidWorks Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko Talk:Sysco Talk:Tamba-Sasayama Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Tencent Cloud Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:TKTS Talk:Trendyol Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:Loretta Ucelli Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Alex Wright (author) Talk:Xero (company) Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Chris Antonopoulos (footballer) and Fort Lauderdale Strikers

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

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

    Marc Jorgenson

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

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

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

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

    State University of New York at Geneseo

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

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

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

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

    Kathryn Babayan

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

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

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

    Captain Beany

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

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

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

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

    Science of Identity Foundation

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

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

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

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

    User:Kateblau

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

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

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

    John Ortberg

    Pages:

    Users:

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

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

    Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation

    Pages:

    Users:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Paul Devlin (footballer)

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

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

    User:SHEJO VARGHESE

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

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

    Gilles Epié

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

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

    Burning River Buckets

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

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

    User:Thebosullivan

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

    Chchcheckit The top of this noticeboard clearly says This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue. Why wasn't this done first? I have now left a COI notice on the user's talk page. Melcous (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    my bad. i rushed / wasn't thinking Facepalm Facepalm // Chchcheckit (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    No wirres Chchcheckit, thanks for responding. Hopefully they will respond either here or there. Melcous (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Alexander H. Joffe

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

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