Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bilby (talk | contribs) at 00:53, 26 September 2022 (→Another autopatrolled UPE: rp). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Shortcuts WP:COI/N WP:COIN WP:COIBOARD Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge) This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Misplaced Pages to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes: This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice. The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}. Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request: 1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}. 2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed. 3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days. Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline.
Are you in the right place? An editor can be biased without additionally having a COI. Issues involving bias may be more suited to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Issues involving the biographies of living persons policy (BLP) may be more suited to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Commercial usernames should be reported to Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention. Obvious cases of corporate vanity can be tagged with {{db-spam}}. Articles written about a person, group, club or band by such a person, group, club or band with no assertion of notability can be tagged with {{db-bio}} instead. This page is not for reporting simple vandalism, material that can easily be fixed or removed without argument, or non-conflict of interest breaches of the neutral point of view policy. Notes for volunteers To close a report Add Template:Resolved at the head of the complaint, with the reason for closing and your signature. Old issues are taken away by the archive bot. Other ways to help All editors are encouraged to help resolve reports of COI editing. More problematic articles can be found in Category:Misplaced Pages articles with possible conflicts of interest. Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests. Editors who believe they have a conflict of interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should edit the parameter of the {{edit COI}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requester to explain your decision.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Jeremy Bloom

• Jeremy Bloom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jbuff2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has only edited this page, over the last 14 years. They pretty consistently add puffery and other non-cited, promotional facts, and the picture on the article is a headshot of the subject, uploaded by this editor, labeled "Own work". A couple of editors have expressed concerns, including just as recently as three days ago, but they have never responded to any on their talk, and they just reinserted the previously removed promotional material again. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Follow up, because I should have made it clear: I have concerns Jbuff2006 is Jeremy Bloom, and that this is self-editing of their article. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Still no response to the noticeboard, nor no response to the concerns on their talk, and they are adding the puffery again. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@FrederalBacon: Looks like they've gotten a 5-day block from editing the Jeremy Bloom article. If the activity resumes after the block expires, I'm sure the blocking admin would be happy to extend/expand it. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Drm310: I would normally agree, but the editor is blocked because I put an RPP up for the page after my update above. The block is supposed to force the editor to discuss. At this point, if they just wait out the block, I have no absolute proof of COI (despite a pretty clear suspicion being warranted). FrederalBacon (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@FrederalBacon: If their contributions are promotion-only, then they can be blocked for that alone, even in the absence of definitive proof of COI. WP:AIV sees those types of users reported all the time. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this is hilarious for some reason. Like you can't assume its Jeremy Bloom (it could be some crazy fan or family or something), but it be pretty sad if it was actually him editing his own article over the course of 14 years. The state of self-loathing in some of the previously removed edits is incredible. Idiosincrático (talk) 10:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Lenwood S. Sharpe

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.

• Lenwood S. Sharpe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lumberwoods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Gumberoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thrilllander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tripodero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1702:2E30:C410:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Lenwood S. Sharpe is the director of Lumberwoods, a virtual museum on North American folklore.

The Thrilllander account (originally Thrillland) is Thrill Land, founded by Lenwood S. Sharpe. It simply uploads content by him or related entities to Wikimedia Commons. It doesn't edit Misplaced Pages.

The various IP editors mentioned above began editing Misplaced Pages in 2018, particularly on North American folklore but also Bumpass, Virginia. Since the Lenwood S. Sharpe and Lumberwoods article was created in early 2021, these IPs have edited both. According to an edit from this range, Bumpass, Virginia is Sharpe's hometown. Edits have been made from this range inserting one of Sharpe's films into the articles on Experimental film, List of vampire films, and Z movie, usually with edit summaries that suggest some other wording change. In particular, the change to Z movie came after Gumberoo had already added it but it was removed as self-promotion.

Tripodero's old user page said his name is Lenwood S. Sharpe, but that has been removed since 2011. When Thrilllander uploads content to the Commons, Tripodero is the one who adds it to Misplaced Pages shortly after (e.g.: ). Based on the timing of these edits to User:Tripodero/Campfire story , Tripodero is also the anonymous IPs and accidentally edited the page while logged out. Despite having claimed to be Lenwood S. Sharpe, Tripodero did not disclose his identity or affiliation when commenting at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lumberwoods or Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lenwood S. Sharpe.

Gumberoo has created two articles related to Sharpe—Lenwood S. Sharpe and Lumberwoods. Similar to the anonymous IPs, Gumberoo has made edits adding Sharpe's film to Z movie and B movie. As the creator of the Lumberwoods article, they also participated in its deletion discussion. This may or may not be another sockpuppet, but CheckUser would probably be needed to establish that and I'd like to take a step back to let someone impartial figure out if that's warranted. hinnk (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

So per another discussion, I again have no problem disclosing my identity. I am Lenwood. I have two user IDs on Misplaced Pages: User:Tripodero and User:Thrilllander. The prior is for personal use, the latter for uploading media I release into the public domain for free use. Since this media is released into the public domain under, "Thrill Land," I created this handle so the copyright waiver is verifiable. The latter's user page even reads: "This page has been created for the purposes of transparency." I have now linked to it from the Tripodero user page, as suggested recently by another user.

I do regularly share Wiki articles I'm currently working on and user space drafts with others for feedback. It's entirely possible that the user Gumberoo and the IP are the same user and may be someone I communicate with. Perhaps, they are someone unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages's policies. I do not know. I can remind others I know not to make edits related to me or my works, but there really isn’t much more I can do beyond that.

I participated in the discussion for the deletion of the Lumberwoods and Lenwood S. Sharpe articles, as I thought I was allowed to do so. I commented after noticing two articles adjacent to my area of study nominated for deletion by a user, hinnk, who has no previous engagement in this area. I discovered from hinnk's contributions that he had searched for articles and information related to myself with the purposes of removing any references to such from Misplaced Pages. Hinnk began with the removal of information regarding a film I made. I take it he did not like this film.

At any rate, this raised concerns of personal bias and vandalism which run contrary to Misplaced Pages's views on neutrality. I raise the concern on the discussion page. Now, I feel this is a one-off matter. I wish Hinnk well and encourage his/her future contributions to Misplaced Pages.

I, myself, do not think it a conflict-of-interest to participate in an article's discussion, so long as I am not editing the article. Likewise, simply because a user does not readily identify themselves by their legal name does not mean they are concealing this information. Honestly, I didn't think it was a huge secret, because, as hinnk pointed out, I did previously disclose this on my user page. I removed it awhile back simply for increased privacy. I do not believe one is required to reveal their legal name on Misplaced Pages, but I am doing so here for transparency.

Much extraneous work can be avoided by simply reaching out to users to ask for clarification. Accordingly, if anyone has any questions just ask me. I will be glad to furnish such information.

I am here on Misplaced Pages to promote fearsome critters and related folklore. As for Lumberwoods, it contains no advertisements and produces no revenue. Rather it serves to promote folklore, provide public access to rare texts, and renew interest in storytelling and a cultural heritage. It is already on the first page of Google on relevant searches to include "fearsome critters” and my personal homepage is linked there. Consequently, there has never been any financial nor promotional incentive to me with aforementioned articles inclusion on Misplaced Pages. Tripodero (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Now that the AfDs have been closed, I think the remaining potential COI issues would require a sockpuppet investigation. Is the appropriate next step to open a request at WP:SPI? I want to be mindful of forum shoppping, would appreciate some feedback from someone more familiar with these processes. hinnk (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

If you already are certain of the accounts being one person, you've already got some strong evidence of illegitimate socking. There are votes from two of those accounts on the lumberwoods AfD First Second FrederalBacon (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I opened a request at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Tripodero, which will hopefully resolve any issues. hinnk (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Good call, sock blocked by User:Tamzin after that SPI. FrederalBacon (talk) 06:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Edits by Money.com employee

• CamerasAndCoffee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

CamerasAndCoffee is a "Community Engagement Specialist at Money.com". Despite my objections and my request that open a discussion, they continue to edit articles solely to promote their employer e.g., , . On their User page, they explicitly tell us their purpose here: "My name is Génesis Walker and I am a Community Engagement Specialist at Money.com (formerly Money Magazine). We’ve helped people live richer lives for over 50 years, and I'm here to continue providing you with the tools, resources, and answers needed to make important financial decisions for yourselves."

I again request that this editor cease adding their employer to articles until there has been further discussion and a consensus in favor of those edits. They have a clear conflict-of-interest that cannot be ignored. ElKevbo (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

We are a team dedicated to sharing our well-rounded and informative articles. in their reply to you certainly implies shared account, and should be indeffed as such. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I assumed that was some standard "about us" text that they copied or just have written many times before. ElKevbo (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I also found them editing other links to promote money, changing Time links to Money, under the guise of updating stale links, but the old links worked, they just loaded on Time, not Money.com. While I'm sure there were some that were legitimate, others, like changing a link on an SPER from 2016 in a talk archive, were not. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Is there an open investigation for this account or has this just been allowed to happen? It seems like a clear violation of COI editing as well as violating Misplaced Pages:NOTSOAPBOX guidelines also. Melancholyhelper (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I have not requested that a sockpuppet investigation be opened, if that is what you are asking. I have not seen another account making similar edits to articles about U.S. colleges and universities so I have not had any reason to make such a request. If you disagree or have other evidence, you are of course welcome to request an investigation be opened yourself! ElKevbo (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The hundreds of links that are going in, are nothing more than promotional trash. They are completely unencylcopedic. There are no redeeming features. They are not even notable as a ref. scope_creep 23:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I second this, I posted on the editor's talk and explained COI to them, in a way that made it explicit that despite the COI guidelines not explicitly stating he can't make his own paid edits, that most editors take thinly veiled WP:LINKSPAM as prohibited. The editor said they'd take it under advisement and haven't edited since, but that was just this morning. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I managed to get the editors user page deleted. It was straight-up advertising as well. scope_creep 07:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Ovedc

• Yosef Abramowitz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Technion Faculty of Architecture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ovedc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Those two, as well as other articles. The pattern of editing suggests that the user, who have had a run in for undisclosed paid editing seems to be under the impression that as long as they disclose they're paid, they're free to make promotional puffery and mold the articles to be more favorable to the clients than encyclopedic. Inclusive of, but not limited to this edit. I've reviewed many of their edits and I am seeing a clear conflict between encyclopedic goals vs doing advocacy editing in the best interest of their clients. Graywalls (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, but this only half of the problem. The other half is: he submit drafts and at least 70 percent of them don't approved and he submit PR stuff again and again, and the reviewrs need to work hard to check them, User:Ovedc exhaust the volunteers trying to check his drafts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14F:1FC:B2D2:0:0:B37:3CCD (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I find this edit very questionable where the COI/U tagged the code to make the contents they do not like invisible from public view. Graywalls (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

As someone who has dealt with Ovedc in the past, I find their tenacious paid editing & shoehorning of non-notable subjects into the mainspace disruptive. Would love to get some fresh eyes on their edits. -FASTILY 03:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The earlier articles seem a bit puffy but the later ones aren't. The newer article are tend to be eminent doctors and they are all notable with little puff. It might have taken out right enough. The last artist articles is notable and fine. The editor seems to be improving over time with less promo content. scope_creep 09:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Leroy Cronin

• Leroy Cronin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Alfienoakes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Alfienoakes has an apparent conflict of interest. This has been raised several times on their user talk page and on the talk page of the article Leroy Cronin. Several other users have expressed concern @ToBeFree, Carver1889, and Skywatcher68:. I recently advised the user they must declare their conflict of interest, they have failed to do so and have resumed editing the article to restore a NNPOV, including removing information about recent controversy. Polyamorph (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked Alfienoakes from editing the article about Leroy Cronin to prevent further edit warring. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Some advice from Entrepreneur (magazine)

Need a Business Wiki? Here are 5 Ways to Get Your Brand on Misplaced Pages

"Once your account is created, you don't want to dive into building your business's page immediately — odds are it will be rejected immediately, as your user doesn't have any associated credibility. Instead, spend some time contributing to various articles on Misplaced Pages under your username so that the platform knows you can be trusted. An excellent way to do this is to look for pages related to your industry and add brief, citable additions that relate to your company. For instance, if you're in the lumber industry, link to a newspaper article or press release about your business on pages that make sense."

They went pretty "dark arts" this time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: While the Misplaced Pages community may detest articles like this, what's the point of bringing it here? There's nothing anyone here can do about external journal articles, and there is no evidence that the author of the article is a Misplaced Pages editor. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 18:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Just saw this. My thinking is that articles like these can be of general interest to Wikipedians who edit in the COI-area. A "know your opponent" kind of thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Animal Justice Project

• Animal Justice Project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• AJPNGO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Username suggests COI, and what do you know, it is. User has been making edits to the article, adding primary sources, POV praise of the AJP, and some of it was copied from the AJP's website. Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I just raised the issue at WP:UAA, not sure if it counts as a promotional username, but to me, it is close enough for me to at least report it to see if an admin can deal with it. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked as promotional account indefinitely by User:Jauerback. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Decentralized finance

• Decentralized finance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• FrankoYnd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Username suggests connection to Yanda.io, a source the editor has added to the article linked above (diff). — Ixtal ⁂ Non nobis solum. 17:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Karen Miga

• Karen Miga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Khmiga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Username matches the page name. I've sent a COI template already, with no response. LilianaUwU 05:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• LilianaUwU, you left the COI template eleven minutes before you reported to this noticeboard. Perhaps give a little more time for a response? I also note that the editor has only edited the article within the previous two hours - see the note at the top of this noticeboard (emphasis added) which says "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." Thanks Melcous (talk) 06:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Also, please see the note in red at the top of this noticeboard which says you must notify any editor who is the subject of discussion here. Melcous (talk) 06:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

    Disregard, then. I may be a bit unfamiliar with the whole COIN thing still. LilianaUwU 06:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

    • No worries LilianaUwU, hopefully she will respond on the talk page or stop editing. If not and the issue persists, please do bring it back here. Melcous (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Centre for Heritage, Arts and Textile

User:LittleNirvana was blocked by @GeneralNotability: on 8 Sept. Apparently, they are back with another sock User:WikiwikiTIKA and have moved the page, Centre for Heritage, Arts and Textile, back to mainspace without disclosing their status. 70.55.10.116 (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I've moved back to draft so that an independent reviewer can see if its any good. The editor here was trying to blank the page for some reason, even after it was moved out of draft. There is something odd going on. scope_creep 08:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Simufilam 2

See previous discussion at Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_192#Simufilam

I'm done with this suite of articles (simufilam, Cassava Sciences, Lindsay Burns). With all my efforts to help, and try to decipher reams of confusing talk page posts, SighSci, a declared COI editor, has now leveled accusations at me on Talk:Simufilam. Someone else can take over trying to understand their requests and keep the articles accurate and neutral. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ponyo: There has still been no COI disclosure from SighSci and now they are spuriously accusing Sandy of having a COI. If I wasn't involved I'd be indeffing right now, so please take a look. SmartSE (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I've modified the block to site wide. I appreciate the patience of everyone who attempted to work with Sighsci while the partial block was in place.-- Jezebel's Ponyo 19:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately appropriate at this juncture. At one point, I felt SighSci's input could be helpful in trying to understand what was what, and get the (very confusing) situation with all the different journal articles sorted, and I was willing to work with them, and even tried to help; in return, SighSci was ever so gracious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Another autopatrolled UPE

• Nazan Saatci (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Doreen Majala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Calin Ile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lisa Punch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Pat the Baker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Luscious Cosmetics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Insight_3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It was obvious when they started pushing Nigerian spam like Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kiriku (a spam page created by a global spammer) and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Grace Ofure (where they did everything to save it) and then this (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Adenekan Mayowa. Nazan Saatci is their oldest client as they did some Urdu translations of their website. There are a plenty more in their profile. For Nazan Saatci, Doreen Majala, Calin Ile, and Lisa Punch, explicit private evidence is available. 2A02:C7C:40:2500:31F2:747A:76A6:814 (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Any chance they're related to the global spammer? If they're operating in areas a sock operator was working in, and defending sock work, and socks are defending their work, might be worth an SPI. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

In this case I think it is unlikely that they are the same. It seems more likely that they were hired separately or by the other UPE editor. - Bilby (talk) 04:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll give them a bit more time to respond. If they don't I may have to block unless they agree to meet the ToU. - Bilby (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Given the lack of edits since the COIN report, I’d say a namespace block would be warranted at any time, to prevent them from flying under the radar until this report is gone. If they engage, the paid editing can be dealt with. If not, takes care of the issue of the paid editing anyway. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree - I normally give a week to respond, but I won't wait that long. If they haven't responded in the next two days I'll block unless they start disclosing. In the meantime I've removed auto patrolled as that isn't going to stay even if they disclose. - Bilby (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Apostolic Catholic Church (Philippines)

• Apostolic Catholic Church (Philippines) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ploreky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi folks, this user has declared their role as a Catechist of the Apostolic Catholic Church in the Philippines, and they have persistently edited in that self-same topic area, adding massive amounts of unsourced information and ignoring all warnings. More eyes and comments, including admins considering sanctions, would be welcomed. Elizium23 (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

This might not be a COI per se, in the Catholic church, a Catechist is a lay person, essentially a volunteer Sunday school teacher. I was one when I was 18. They hold no rank, position, or power in the church, and are not paid for their services. If the editor is disruptive, it’s probably their own views, rather than one the church is telling them to push. ANI maybe? FrederalBacon (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that both volunteers and teachers have COI with regards to the institution they volunteer or teach for, although we generally leave it up to the individual to moderate that COI (not all COI mean you can't edit a subject after all). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely, I understand it doesn’t necessarily mean there isn’t a COI, but I was more suggesting that if there is disruptive editing, being a volunteer doesn’t necessarily mean there ‘’is’’ one either, it might be better to take it to ANI. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, the contributions are iffy regardless of any COI... The most recent set is basically spam. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Catechists are some of the top contributors to Catholic topics, why would being a catechist in a niche Catholic church disqualifies someone but being the same in the mainstream Catholic church doesn't? Either all catechists regardless of sect have a COI or none do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Elizium23 Oh come on now, I thought we already had a consensus regarding that. That issue was already ages ago, and has already been solved by Mr.@Veverve. Why are you bringing it back now? Is it because my talk in Talk:Catholic Church? Come on, I already stopped editing in the article ages ages ago, and now you're just randomly reporting me to the admins with false accusations. Geez, atleast give some proofs about those 'massive amounts of unsourced information' and those 'ignoring "all" warnings'. Hath those existed and done by me, I would've long been restricted from editing. And please, stop with the disruptive labeling. @FrederalBacon @Horse Eye's Back Ploreky (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Elizium23: You got diffs of the edits?

@Ploreky: I know that sometimes, even if we aren't intending to be, it's possible to be disruptive to articles we are passionate about, due to that passion. If other editors are finding you disruptive in Catholic topic articles, it might actually be at that point. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ploreky, I came here because you made over 50 additions to saints' articles without benefit of reliable sources. You have no proof that those saints are venerated in your church but you added them anyway. You can't do that here. I reverted all of those edits but you've been warned plenty about your behavior. Time for sanctions to be considered at this point. Elizium23 (talk) 05:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

All of those edits were made before this section was opened and that time has only weakened any case for sanctions as there is no ongoing disruption. Yes they made unsourced additions, but they were making additions to infobox sections which didn't have sources for *any* of the given sects... So why are we picking out this unsourced sect and not the others? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, none of that looks much worse than what was already in the article. It's unsourced, but the others were, and I'm sure it could all be sourced if someone wanted to put the effort into going through it. Should the editor adding it do so? Yes. But I really don't think adding additional sects of catholicism that revere a certain saint indicates a COI. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Elizium23 Is that really you're only problem???? Geez, you shouldn't have deleted those 50 edits for goodness sake. I've spent 2 hours just adding those for someone just to destroy it.

For goodness sake, if you want it https://religion.fandom.com/Apostolic_Catholic_Church here it is. Ploreky (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

A Fandom wiki is not a reliable source, per WP:USERGEN. I don't see any support for your claims of saints venerated in that religion. Elizium23 (talk) 07:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh come on, do i really need to cite it? Like what user Horse Eye's Back said, Citations are irrelevant.

Why?

1. Since Apostolic Catholic Church in an "Independent Catholic" Denomination, that it is automatic that we venerate saints.
2. If other sects like Anglicanism, Lutheranism, IFI, and any other sects didn't even gave any refs to add the name of their church, then why would we need to?
3. Members of the church are named after saints, added to the apo title. Example: Apo Timoteo, which means "Timothy", is derived from a saint, St. Timothy, and like Apo Antonio, derived from "Anthony" refering to St. Anthony. These are what the church refers to the "New Name" that is stated in the book of revelations. Either way, I know which saints does the church venerate and which is not venerated. Even though the Apostolic Catholic Church venerate to all saints.

Ploreky (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I did not say that citations were irrelevant... Just that Elizium23 appeared to be applying a double standard. That doesn't mean that you should be going around adding unsourced information to wikipedia, please do not do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Of course Mr@Horse Eye's Back, I know that. I've been a wikipedia editor for a long time, and almost have 400 edits. With at least that much of experience, I already know wikipedia's basic rules Ploreky (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

For what is worth I'm closing in on 40k edits and I'm still learning new things. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Sh*t. Sorry for the word.@Elizium23 actually rollbacked my every edit. Now, I can't edit.

Was a sanction really needed for that???? In the first place, those edits were reasonable and not a vandalism. Why?????

@Horse Eye's Back @FrederalBacon, Brothers, can you please help me with this? In the first place there is nothing wrong with the edits I added. Was a sanction really needed without any warnings? Isn't that unfair?

@Favonian @Gyrofrog @JimRenge @Hog Farm Ploreky (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Just go to the saint section. Ploreky (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Imply Data

• Imply Data (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Briskmad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At Imply Data I reverted a large edit containing copyvios on 8 February this year. Briskmad soon added back an edited version of the content. I've removed that twice, repeatedly suggesting to Briskmad that she/he obtain consensus on the talk-page before re-adding it. Now it's back in the page. To my inexpert eye this seems to be ill-sourced and promotional, the kind of stuff we regularly see from paid or COI editors. Brinksmad has denied any paid connection to the company. Anyone care to take a look? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

While trying to avoid WP:OUTING here, there is an easily discoverable connection between this username and this company. - DoubleCross (‡) 19:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

That's either a direct connection to the company, or someone impersonating a direct connection to the company. It looks like in February, they very carefully worded their response to the COI claim to only specify they were not receiving any money for their editing. Based off the connection you reference, I don't believe that they do not have a COI when it comes to the article. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages conflict of interest editing