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 23:53, 17 January 2011 view sourceSmartse (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators49,587 edits →Nicole Miller: indef← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:43, 17 January 2025 view source Vegantics (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,244 edits →Gilles Epié: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{redirect|WP:COIN|the WikiProject on articles about coins|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Numismatics}}
]
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}}
]
] ]
] ]
]
{{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 = 47 |counter = 217
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(7d) |algo = old(14d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__ }}__NEWSECTIONLINK__

<!-- All reports should be made at the bottom of the page. Do not modify the above when reporting! --> <!-- All reports should be made at the bottom of the page. Do not modify the above when reporting! -->


== Chris Antonopoulos (footballer) and Fort Lauderdale Strikers ==
== UTF-8 ==
* {{pagelinks|Chris Antonopoulos (footballer)}}
* {{userlinks|Amplifyplantz33}}

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


: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)
* {{la|UTF-8}}
::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.
* {{la|Drupal}}
::It seems unclear whether the user has a COI or is just a fan who is unaware of the policies on sourcing and promotion.
* {{la|AdSense}}
::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)
* {{la|WordPress}}
:::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)
* {{la|Nginx}}
::::Agreed 100%. ] (]) 22:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
* {{la|Ubuntu_(operating_system)}}
:::::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)
* {{la|Advertising.com}}
::::::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)
* {{la|AddThis}}
:::::::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)
* {{la|OpenX}}
::::::::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)
* {{la|Blink_element}}
* {{la|JQuery}}
* {{userlinks|Garazy}}
* {{userlinks|220.244.35.94}}
Garazy is running builtwith.com. Almost all of his contributions to Misplaced Pages consist in placing links to builtwith.com. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:29, 1 January 2011</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:Possibly this should be mentioned at ] (external links noticeboard) because people there are familiar with links that might be ]. ] (]) 02:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
::I've dropped them a note and pointed them towards this thread. I've also checked for links to builtwith.com and it looks as if most had already been reverted by other users, but I've finished the job off. Replacing references to your own site is definitely frowned upon and shouldn't be done. ] (]) 22:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
:::I just realised I only checked www.builtwith, but there are still >25 links to , I'm not sure whether it is a reliable source or not. Any opinions? ] (]) 16:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
::::I've added an IP who added a lot of links, last February. ] (]) 11:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


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


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> <!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{la|Monica Taylor}} * {{pagelinks|Marc Jorgenson}}
* {{userlinks|Momsmadeeasy}} * {{userlinks|Plus3db}}
* {{userlinks|Lexicon480}}
* {{userlinks|Bunny & J-Zone}}
* {{userlinks|24.82.146.94}}
* {{userlinks|24.82.146.152}}
* {{userlinks|24.86.250.211}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> <!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Blatantly promotional article and severe failure of ] with puffery removed by users before. 3 single-purpose accounts as well as 3 IPs of close proximity have edited the article in around 2008. There definitely is signs of paid editing or people connected with subject editing the article, so a block of these users and IPs should suffice alongside the deletion of the article. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: coral; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 06:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Username is '''Momsmadeeasy''', apparently a reference to the brand "MOMS made easy" promoted by the article she created. Article appears autobiographical or at least poses a COI concern. ] (]) 16:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:That username has been blocked as promotional and the article looks to have been stubbed. Anything left to do? ] (]) 14:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
::Nope. Archive away. ] (]) 23:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


== State University of New York at Geneseo ==
== Ciplex ==
{{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. --> <!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{pagelinks|State University of New York at Geneseo}}
* {{la|Ciplex}}
* {{userlinks|CommMark1871}}
* {{la|Von Dutch}} & Articles connected to entity "Planet Illogica."
* {{la|Vector Marketing}}
* {{userlinks|AkankshaG}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> <!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
This 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 ==
*'''Disclaimer''' - This user has stated a possible COI with me and ] in which we are in a editing dispute. I'll be happy to participate in any discussion on this board on that matter. However, I request that any such discussion be a separate COI report.

Per information I have presented on the AN/I board and recommendation to proceed here, I would to report a possible Conflict of Interest between AkankshaG and Ciplex. There is also other articles affected, however Ciplex is the main issue. During an editing dispute, A photograph uploaded for ] revealed a name for someone as an account executive at Ciplex, which leads me to believe that AkankshaG is an associate for Ciplex. I like to note that her editing behavior suggests that she might be being paid to create Puff Articles, and in one such article she had edited extensively, she participated in sockpuppeting ] at that article's AfD with other meatpuppets. Other editors and involved Admins have also voiced concerns of ].

An important note, Ciplex advertises not only website creation and hosting, but marketing services as well. Marketers often attempt to use Misplaced Pages as a ] (aware or unaware of policy), which its established its clearly ].

=== This is yet another attempt to intimidate me because of an editing dispute with ]/] at ] and attempted ] ===

I have been editing here since 2006, and have edited over 1,000 articles. I have no history of blocks or bans.

What ] has failed to disclose here is that he and I are in an editing dispute over at ], which is owned by Cutco Cutlery. If you click on ], it resolves to ]. See where he states: “Hello, I'm Phearson, I originally came to Misplaced Pages to patrol a very disputed article relating to the Cutco Corporation (formally Alcas) and its Marketing arm "Vector Marketing". Needless to say, if you understand what Multi-level marketing is, and what Scientology is. You probably will know what I'm talking about.” Phearson/Cutno provides in : “I disagree, Vector marketing when I worked for them told me not to say that I worked for them and that I was an "independent contractor." User:Cutno|Cutno (User talk:Cutno|talk) 19:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)”

Phearson/Cutno has apparently been locked in a fierce and protracted battle with the forces of evil over the Vector article, where one side wants a decidedly positive piece, and the other side apparently wants a decidedly negative piece. The primary contention seems to be the characterization of the company as a direct sales company vs. a characterization of them as a multi-level marketing company, and questions about whether the representatives are employees or contractors.

I’ve been watching the article for awhile, and left a message on the talk page Dec 11th indicating that I thought the article was , and needed to look more like a regular company article does on Misplaced Pages, citing the ] article as one that contains historical, organizational, marketing, outside activities and critical information about the company. I didn’t get any response from Phearson/Cutno, so on December 27th I uploaded a new version of the article, which included a controversy and criticism section. I didn’t include the materials from the SAVE site or the Consumeraffairs sites, as that material is from the Anti-Cutco SAVE organization, which isn’t ]. Rather than any discussion at all, Phearson/Cutno immediately reverted back to his version. On Dec 27th I Phearson/Cutno to revert to the draft plus add back the entire controversy and criticism section that he authored, which I asked him to add back his version of the controversy & criticism section, and comment, I think a complete article needs to have a controversy and criticism section, it just shouldn’t be the whole article. My last correspondence on the talk page was a to Phearson to wait until the New Year’s weekend to allow me to address his issues, as I needed to do actual work work during the week and nut be futzing around with Misplaced Pages. Rather than trying to work through the editing issues with me and waiting for the weekend as I requested, Phearson/Cutno launched a series of attacks on me and articles I’ve edited, apparently believing that the best way to maintain his version of the article is to crush any editor who challenges it. And now we’re here.

]/] didn't get the result he wanted in one ANI, then another ANI, and a sockpuppet investigation, and now he's ] and trying to get a different result here. He's also tried to ] me, which he was cautioned against by an ] administrator. Not satisfied with that, ]/] has tried to intimidate me from editing the Vector article by going around and nominating my work for deletion.

I don’t work for mywikibiz, viziworks, ciplex, scientology, vector, or cutco (all theories offered by Phearson/Cutno at one time or another). I do work in the video game industry, beyond that, I’m not willing to say more, as I’m greatly concerned that there are some editors in our community who have lots of time on their hands and would take that information and track me down in RL. Our ] policies are here for a reason, and that is to discourage intimidation tactics, and I hope you all will respect that and remove any theorized ruminations about my RL identity.

Lastly, I’ll say this. Misplaced Pages has been mostly a happy and safe place for me over the years, someplace I can relax to and have fun with. Bizarre as it may seem to an outsider, I enjoy taking a craptastic article like Vector and completely redrafting it, tracking down every last little bit of information I can find and turning it into something worthy of an encyclopedia. Disagree with my approach to drafting or my edits, fine, let’s work it out on the talk page, but going after me personally both on Misplaced Pages and off-Misplaced Pages: That’s just not cool. ] (]) 02:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

=== Response===
:I replied to most of these accusations already in the ANI. It was suggested that I take my concerns here. For the record, I stated that I would work with Akanksha on ] should she not be blocked. But she is not going to her POV way either, and repeating the large wall of text of allegations of intimidation here and other pages are not helpful. I'm sorry you feel offended, but I'm not happy doing this either. And if nothing comes of this, I will stop here. But I think that there is clear COI regarding Ciplex. I also have never accused you of working for Scientology, or Viziworks. And I have placed a disclaimer stating your concern about me, and you have ignored my request to begin a separate COI notice. ] (]) 04:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::What I want is for you to stop stalking me and attempting to ] me in some effort to prevent me from editing your favorite article ]. All of your faux politeness does not cover your dozen attempts to chase me away from your precious article. And you have no right to edit my comments here either. ] (]) 14:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:::It's not just me objecting to your changes to the article, ] has also raised an objection to your insertion of blatantly promotional material on the article's talk page. As for the stalking charge, I have acted within the law of Florida and other jurisdictions when I connected the author of the photograph with someone listed as an account executive at ]. You have effectively '''outed yourself via the license of that photograph''', and you have been called out on it. Nothing unlawful occurred here. And I did not edit your comments here, other then to put them in a box like ] did at Ciplex's AfD. ] (]) 17:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
the main argument here seems to be over the decidedly negative tone of the article regarding vector marketing. i would like to point out this is the case because literally all of the ] used in the article are discussing the company in a negative light. if you read the sources, even the sources used to reference neutral parts of the article talk about the company negatively. if the sources used to reference the vector marketing article all discuss the company in a negative light, this is what the wikipedia article should reflect. ] (]) 06:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
:This COI is not specific to that article in which a dispute has occurred. ] in particular was edited heavily by AkankshaG who as I keep pointing out, has ties to Ciplex. I've already gone ahead and AfD it awhile back, if its not deleted, a heavy review of its sources is needed, including articles connected to ] who was also edited heavily by AkankshaG. ] (]) 22:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

While I am also concern with the edits on other articles, I went and tagged a few that were loosely connected to ]. AkankshaG is claiming further that I am stalking her and is reverting tags I have placed on them & . ] (]) 19:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

== PayPal ==


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> <!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{la|PayPal}} * {{pagelinks|Kathryn Babayan}}
* {{userlinks|jpgordon}} * {{userlinks|2601:401:100:46E0:B919:9891:DF5D:FC9F}}
* {{userlinks|2601:401:100:46E0:E169:2FC9:4E47:B104}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> <!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Kathryn Babayan was an academic article I made two weeks ago. As of the past 24 hours, there is an IP editor on a rotating IP address that has been making wholesale wording changes to the article. Some of the changes are okay, more detailed than I had been, but I'm wondering if they're edging into promotional territory for her books. I tried asking the first version of the IP editor if they were Babayan themselves, which I feel is likely, but I received no response. And they're back to making changes just now with a different IP.
] has repeatedly over the last three years accused me of a conflict of interest at ]. Here's a statement I made in December of 2007:
<blockquote>I've been retired since May 2002, before eBay purchased PayPal, and have not been connected with either PayPal or its parent since then; 99% of my employee stock options have been disposed of, and the remainder is earmarked for a ], primarily dedicated to arts and cultural development in rural ], and to a lesser degree in ] and ]. </blockquote> I think I'm in the clear; I'd like some other opinions, though. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


Suggestions on what should be done? ]]<sup>]</sup> 22:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
at January 1, 2 and 9, 2011 and then moved to jpgordon's talk page before coming here.]--] (]) 20:47, 9 January 2011 (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 ==


*{{user3|CaptainBeany}}
:Personally I don't see a problem. I haven't reviewed all your edits to PayPal, but a look through the last 500 edits to the page doesn't bring up anything problematic. The most recent edit warring is a content dispute, rather than anything to do with a COI and I'm inclined to agree that the edits you made were sensible, we don't need a list of every single competitor to PayPal in the see also section. Elvey looks to have been a bit aggressive towards you, and it would have helped it they had AGFd and calmly asked you why you removed some of the competitors, rather than accusing you of censorship. If Elvey can provide diffs that show you removing well sourced critical information about PayPal or adding overly promotional information about it, then I'd be prepared to take a deeper look, but at the moment I don't see any issue with your edits. ] (]) 12:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::(The link you posted above doesn't work for me btw) ] (]) 12:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Link fixed, thanks. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


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


In 2010 they and asked for a sourced paragraph about a fraud conviction to be removed from the article. Discussions in response at
:Your '''language''' and understanding is off, jpgordon: There's nothing wrong with having a conflict of interest, so there's no sense in complaining that I've repeatedly accused let alone falsely accused you of a conflict of interest. Rather, there is such a thing as claiming someone has a conflict of interest. You most certainly do, as you admit. Do you disagree with this argument about language? <!-- A '''conflict of interest''' ('''COI''') occurs when an ] or ] is involved in multiple interests, one of which could ''possibly'' ] the motivation for an act in the other. --Misplaced Pages. -->
] and ] decided that this was appropriate biographical content and should not be removed.
:SmartSE, I found jpgordon's initial language a bit agressive: Who are you? - as in the sense of '''Who am _I_ to be questioning _Him_?''' - as if that was relevant!). If identifying censorship is aggressive, then my language was as well. Jpgordon is '''often''' ''very'' aggressive on the paypal talk page.


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)
:SmartSE, you apply the wrong criteria. There's a problem not just when an editor with a CoI "remov well sourced critical information about PayPal or add overly promotional information." Our rules on what's appropriate when there's a CoI are far broader than that. It is clear that ALL edits in mainspace where there is a clear conflict of interest are strongly discouraged, with a few narrow exceptions, which AFACIT don't apply here. The main focus of Jpgordon's edits to ] is on shifting the article to portray PayPal in a better light, and the edits currently in question are an example of this. ] is especially relevant, IMO, when ] is an issue.


:The user to the COIN notification, though exactly what they're trying to communicate is beyond me. --] (]) 05:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:Anyway, this discussion is getting far afield from the question of whether jpgordon's edits I questioned were ones that are discouraged on Misplaced Pages. Also of import is whether jpgordon was being deceptive and aggressive in defending said deletions. --] (]) 20:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

:John, obviously, you care a great deal about eBay and PayPal, and that's great. Going back and looking at again, I see it differently now. The link to the list of competitors should suffice, once the info you deleted is incorporated. <s>remain unable to make sense of it without coming to troubling conclusions. </s>

:BTW, I note you didn't link directly to the discussion, so I added links near the top of this section.--] (]) 20:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

::You're right that a COI isn't always that simple, but in a situation like this, there is no reason why Jpgordon shouldn't edit an article about PayPal, because as they have disclosed they have little, if anything to gain from editing the article. I asked you to provide evidence to show that his edits are problematic, but I guess from the lack of any evidence that there is no evidence. You've made accusations but they appear to be hollow, if I'm incorrect then please show how he has been "shifting the article to portray PayPal in a better light". Looking at ] you started on the talk page it looks as if you have a bit of an axe to grind against PayPal and that may not make you the best judge of whether Jpgordon is editing appropriately. The article is hardly a corporate whitewash at the moment, with a mention of WikiLeaks in the lead (]), a section on criticism and another on litigation. (Just for the record, I'm no particular fan of PayPal, they withheld ~£100k in payments for an event I helped organise, but I like to read everything from a NPOV here). ] (]) 11:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I see no conflict here. <font color="green">]</font> 01:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

== IP POV campaign ==


== Science of Identity Foundation ==
{{archive top|No substantial evidence indicating a conflict of interest has been presented in this complaint. As such, I am closing this discussion as groundless/.{{pb}}When filing at this board, {{u|Sokoreq}} is reminded to explicitly state the reasons that they believe a conflict of interest (as defined in ]). In particular, it is important to to avoid ] by making complaints here while failing to state a reasonable case to conclude that a COI exists. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 04:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> <!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{pagelinks|Science of Identity Foundation}}
* {{la|Georgia (country)}}
* {{la|Western Asia}} * {{userlinks|Hipal}}
* {{userlinks|69.142.134.249}}
An IP has appeared who appears to be on a heavy POV campaign to exclude Georgia from West Asia. The IP's contributions appear to be exclusively aimed at this goal. Perhaps an experienced editor could investigate. It appears there might be a relationship between the IP and {{userlinks|Polgraf}} if one looks beyond the 'warning' Polgraf placed on the IP's talk page and examines their shared arguments on ]. Looking deeper it appears that the IP and Polgraf may be {{userlinks|Satt 2}} as they appear to have the same agenda (amongst other things - ]). ] (]) 07:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:I think ] is a better venue for this as there don't seem to be any COI issues. ] (]) 12:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::Well this has nothing to do with ethnic or religious conflicts. From ]: "A Misplaced Pages conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Misplaced Pages, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." The aims of this individual IP appear to be a COI with the aims of Misplaced Pages, as the IP clearly has a single-purpose POV mission. ] (]) 14:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Generally COIs are when editors have some way of gaining due to the edits they make, rather than it being a POV problem. I was just mentioning that board as somewhere you are more likely to find someone with experience of dealing with issues like this. Not many people swing by here unfortunately so if it needs to be dealt with, another venue might be better. ] (]) 11:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

== Guy Bavli ==

<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{la|Guy Bavli}}
* {{userlinks|Eclipsed}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> <!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
This senior editor reverting my constructive edits repeatedly, in which I created a new section to simplify the content and cited reference. However, it appears that the editor is maintaining the article and may have a conflict of interest. Even though I have warned the editor, but now editor has started an edit war. ] (]) 18:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I have removed the <nowiki>{{coi}}</nowiki> tag from the BLP article ], and replaced it with an <nowiki>{{underconstruction}}</nowiki> tag. Some improvements have already been made (See the ]) I am in contact with the subject of the article, and they have expressed interest in helping in a wikipedia-friendly manner. Thanks. <span style="color:#000000;background:#FFFFFF"> &nbsp; &nbsp; ] &nbsp; ] &nbsp; ] &nbsp; &nbsp; </span> 20:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
:@], why haven't you attempted to discuss this at ] first? ]&nbsp;] 18:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:The coi tag was put back today. I left a ] on the talk page of the editor. If there are any disagreements regarding this article, then a coi tag may be appropriate. However I'm not aware of any disagreements. Thanks. <span style="color:#000000;background:#FFFFFF"> &nbsp; &nbsp; ] &nbsp; ] &nbsp; ] &nbsp; &nbsp; </span> 17:37, 15 January 2011 (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)
::The COI tag is not solely for disagreements. In this case it marks an article edited with a conflict of interest that requires clean up. I think it is entirely appropriate. --] (]) 17:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Agreed, large sections of the article are unreferenced and presumably based on OR by the paid editors and I'm not exactly sure we need the level of detail regarding the TV program either. ] (]) 17:57, 17 January 2011 (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}}


== Pierre-Louis Parant == == ] ==
* {{userlinks|Kateblau}}


Multiple draft creations of spammy company articles in a relatively short period of time:
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
*]
* {{la|Pierre-Louis Parant}}
*]
* {{userlinks|Bograndrole}}
*]
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
*]
While searching Google to try to find more sources for this article, I noticed that on what is currently hit #9 , although the Twitter link does not actually work, the title matches the name of this article and the username in the URL matches the author of the article. This suggests to me the possibility that the article may be written by the subject himself. I'm a newbie here, so I'm not sure how to proceed in this situation. Any advice? ] (]) 01:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
*]
:The lack of secondary sources - reliable third-party coverage - places doubts on the notability anyway, making the COI irrelevant. ] (]) 11:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
*]
::OK, thanks. I've taken the article to AFD. ] (]) 20:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
*]
Received a COI notice January 5th but has continued to edit without declaring any COI. ''']'''<sup>]]</sup> 02:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:здравствуйте! я создаю статьи о компаниях по киборгизации и автоматизации, научных деятелей в этой области, это будет сделано в короткий промежуток времени, потому что проделана большая аналитическая работа по данным компаниям и я загружаю уже составленную ранее информацию, это не реклама, я допустил несколько ошибок, потому что впервые на википедии как автор, пожалуйста, я могу дальше создавать страницы? ] (]) 18:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== I can't remember basic procedure ==
: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 ==
I've recently discovered that my church has received significant attention in multiple independent reliable sources as a historic site, so at some point down the line, I'm planning on writing an NPOV and properly-sourced article about it. As a longtime editor, I'm well aware of WP:COI and wish to be as transparent as possible, but I'm not generally aware of the procedures that are best to follow. Would it be considered appropriate to write the article in userspace and leave a note here asking an unrelated party to review the article and move it into mainspace if warranted? ] (]) 06:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
:If you've declared your potential conflict (which you mostly did here), then userspace draft seems like a good idea. For an unrelated party review, better places might be ] or ]. <span style="color:#000000;background:#FFFFFF"> &nbsp; &nbsp; ] &nbsp; ] &nbsp; ] &nbsp; &nbsp; </span> 10:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
:In your position I don't think making a userspace draft is necessary as you don't have anything to gain from writing an article about your church and (I assume) would be writing it with the primary aim of improving the project. To me this is the crux of the COI policy, regardless of possible links between the editor and the article. From what I see at DYK, most historic churches are notable, so as long as you make sure everything is sourced and not based on your experience then it should be fine. You can disclose that it is your church, but I don't think there is any need to and you may not want to, to maintain your privacy. ] (]) 22:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

== User:Gjshisha ==


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> <!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
Pages:
* {{userlinks|Gjshisha}}
* {{pagelinks|John Ortberg}}
Users:
* {{userlinks|Timothydw82}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> <!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
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)
The actions of {{user|Gjshisha}} seem to be directed at promoting someone ]. In particular, this user on several occasions have edited other articles by adding references to Szekely's works, even when such references are either non-notable or even irrelevant. Examples: , , , , etc. <font color="#aaa"> // <b>]</b> » </font> 06:49, 13 January 2011 (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.
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
: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.
* {{la|The Library is on Fire}}
: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.
* {{la|Steve Five}}
: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)
* {{userlinks|MaraRobinson}}
::Clearly and openly editing on behalf of her client and his projects. ''"Can this be fixed so I can restore it to my client's page?"'' ] &#x007C; ] 22:25, 14 January 2011 (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 ==
== Paul Vitale ==


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> <!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
Pages:
* {{la|Paul Vitale}}
* {{pagelinks|Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation}}
* {{userlinks|Griffey35jsb}}
* {{pagelinks|Park Hyeon-joo}}
Users:
* {{userlinks|Channy Jung}}
* {{userlinks|203.239.154.130}}
* {{userlinks|Chisu1020}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> <!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Suspected undisclosed COI editors. Single-purpose accounts used exclusively to edit on this person and his foundation. All of the edits are complimentary, and almost entirely unsourced.


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.
The original author is ] and ]. This is all promotional as I see it. I note that the photo was uploaded by the article subject (PAVitale) but can't find history of that user. I will notify user of this posting so they have an opportunity to explain.<br>] (]) 00:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


I recently rewrote ] entirely to get rid of the unsourced promotional-like writing . State of article before the rewrite: .
*This user has also been seen , where he also wrote an article of Paul Vitale quotes that may reasonablly be characterized as "spam", which article was deleted per . ] (]) 18:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


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


] (]) 05:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{la|Jamaica Kincaid}}
* {{userlinks|76.90.238.160 }}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
The IP is repeatedly removing criticisms of Ms. Kincaid from her article. The IP resolves to Claremont, California, which is where Ms. Kincaid teaches. <font family="Comic sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 02:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


:Those accounts, as well as ], all seem to be SPA/COI accounts which are not responding to multiple discussion attempts, and should be blocked for some period of time to get their attention. The "foundation" article seems like it would also fail GNG, and should probably be either deleted or merged into the Hyeon-joo article. ]&thinsp;] 06:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:I've removed the controversy section because I felt it was ] and in particular, I couldn't see where it was being classified as a controversy. Unfortunately no one tried to speak to the IP and they ended up getting blocked. The article is severely lacking in sources, so it is possible that the IP was legitimately removing incorrect material from the early life section per ] "you should feel free to remove mistaken or unreferenced out-of-date facts about yourself". I'll drop them a note to try and get them discussing it, rather than just editing. ] (]) 11:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


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


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)
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
:{{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)
* {{la|Rolling paper}}
* {{la|List of oldest companies}}
* {{userlinks|Lostsociety}}
* {{userlinks|ArnaudMS}}


== Paul Devlin (footballer) ==
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
We have all been through this before. I had to re-report it as they're back at it again. There are various accounts used by Bambu Brand promoters on Wiki. This is because they use Wiki for advertising and even link their own website http://www.bambu.com/history.php to our ]. Admins have warned them not to re-post the 1764 year without verifiable references but they can't resist. It's imperative to their branding and thus here we are again. The now-blanked talk pages of ] and ] are filled with warnings relating to Bambu, including 6 bambu images that were taken down for improper licensing and many other types of promotional text warnings, have a look. They were asked not to insert the 1764 year again without verifiable references, however they couldn't resist and went right back at it again.

I don't think there could be stronger language of warnings on their talk pages from various Admins. At this point I think we all need to move up to the next level. They are VERY good at writing long finger pointing posts whever anyone complains about them (one should be coming below shortly) '''so please don't beleive anything I have written here. Instead have a quick look at their actions and warnings and decide for yourself what you think.''' Have a great weekend and happy Wiki'ing! ] (]) 15:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

:This situation is not as simple as {{user|Nahome}} is portraying it. He recently requested page protection at ] to stop IPs and new accounts from removing criticism he was adding. I checked the article and found he was adding material that was either not in the sources he provided, or the sources weren't policy compliant. I have a concern that he's {{user|Mrtobacco}}, an account found to have a COI who stopped editing in 2009. They share exactly the same interests, the same writing style, and both have telephoned stores that other users said they worked in, to find out whether they really did work there. Here's Mrtobacco doing it in 2006. Here's Nahome doing it in 2011, and EdJohston warning him about it. It appeared that Mrtobacco worked for one of Bambu's competitors.

:I've added full protection to the article, have reduced it to a stub, and have asked Nahome to re-build it using only good sources and sticking to them very closely. See ]. <font color="blue">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 16:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

::SlimVirgin I don't want to rebuild that article by myself, I think I have already dedicated enough time to this. I appreciate your involvement and am kind of asking you and other editors to do it. The more I post the more I get called names, and now you think I'm someone who I really am not. The reason I called that store was because I was asked to. I admit that I did not read the link above to see if that was the same situation for Mrtobacco, but likely that was the cause. If we are both dealing with the same sockpuppets asking us to call them and hitting us in a similar manner, you can expect there to be similar responses. I really would prefer if you and other editors get involved and edit the articles to your (not my) standards. That way you can't say I'm a competitor or anything else. I asked you many times in the talk page to please do this - I hope you will look back and see this. Then, maybe you could consider getting involved enough to write the article YOUR way (not mine). Then, in a few weeks when you've been fully attacked by the Bambu Sockpuppets someone else will be up here saying they think you are Mrtobacco and me :) If that happens I will really laugh a good belly one. Anyway again please - edit it your way and keep the sockpuppets off that article. I won't edit it - but am asking you to - your way - so there is no way - you can say - it was done my way :) ] (]) 16:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

:::I have no interest in rebuilding it; I'm there only as an admin. But I'm glad to hear you're taking time away from the article, and I hope you'll extend that to related articles so the situation is allowed to calm down. <font color="blue">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 16:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

::::Well, I want to let it go but I kind of need you to confirm that you'll pick up the watching/protecting of the 3 articles in question which all related to that 1764 promotional year. Will you do that and oversee them to normal wiki standards? Please say yes so I can remove them from my watchlist. ] (]) 16:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::I have the three pages on my watchlist, yes. <font color="blue">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 16:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::Done, I feel the weight removed! Now I need to do some Ohms and enjoy my newfound freedom. Please talkpage me if you need anything and thank you again for the blessed release. "Free at last, free at last" ] (]) 17:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

{{od}} Just to update people, as several admins are involved now. I requested a CU. {{user|ArnaudMS}} and {{user|Lostsociety}} are the same. I've blocked the former for 24 hours, and the latter indefinitely.

{{user|Nahome}} is also linked to another account, but it involves a real name, so I won't post it. That real name is linked on the Web to a tobacco company. I'm going to ask him which account he wants to edit with, and block the other indefinitely; if it's the real-name account that needs to be blocked, I'll ask another admin to do it so I don't out him.

I'm thinking that both these users have a COI, so we should topic ban them from all tobacco-related articles. Any thoughts? <font color="blue">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 17:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

*Agree to a topic ban, broadly construed, on both these editors. --] (]) 17:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

:Nahome chose the real-name account to use from now on, so I've blocked the Nahome account indefinitely; see his talk page. If we agree a topic ban, I'll let the other account know by email. I'll also email the name of that account to the other admins dealing with this, so I'm not the only one keeping an eye on him. <font color="blue">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 18:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

*As a non-admin who had a bit of inconsequential copyediting to ] overwritten during the recent war, I think a topic ban is a good idea. IMO, the stubbed state of the article right now is sufficient coverage of the subject. --] (])
: Whew! Late start for this American today, but I agree with all that's been said so far. The longer this went, the louder the little bell in my head was tingling that there was way too much interest in these articles for _both_ parties. Sometimes, I AGF too much. Thanks, everybody! :-) ''']]''' 22:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
*I agree with a topic ban for Nahome and ArnaudMS from ] and from any Bambu-related edits anywhere, for instance at ]. Whoever closes the ban discussion should specify whether it includes talk pages. Nahome's other account should also be banned; I'm not sure how to manage that without disclosing which it is. Evidently all admins who may be able to enforce the ban should be told by email which account it is. Since it's not usually practical to topic ban an IP, and since some IPs have also caused a problem about Bambu, I suggest at least two months of semiprotection on ] to keep COI-affected IPs from editing. ] (]) 18:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

*As there seems to be agreement, I'll let the accounts know. I suggest we extend it to talk pages too; there was a lot of back and forth on the talk pages, including various insults. It's probably best to let it all die down. I've added six months semi-protection to ] and its talk page. <font color="blue">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 22:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

== Ageing - author promoting own works ==


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> <!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{pagelinks|Paul Devlin (footballer)}}
* {{la|Ageing}}
* {{userlinks|Plantforestsoil}} * {{userlinks|Pdfc2025}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> <!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
The editor claims to be the subject of the article and is repeatedly adding altered statistics, replacing ones which appear to be referenced. I and {{u|Struway2}} have made suggestions at the editor's talk page. I am reluctant to continue reverting in the circumstances (for all I know the edits are correct, if unsourced), but on the other hand it could be a hoax or subtle vandalism. What's the best way forwards? ] (]) 12:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Promotion of the author F. J. Ninivaggi. User received the standard COI warning on 18 October but has since dropped six more mentions of Ninivaggi works into Misplaced Pages articles. With the exception of two edits to ], user's edits all seem to promote Ninivaggi works, and a search finds about a dozen mentions. User identifies himself as Ninivaggi . --] (]) 16:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
:Their stats look correct for what they are, per the sources in the career stats table lower down the article where they appear in the totals columns, but they include data for matches that don't belong in the infobox. The editor has removed all but big-league clubs from the infobox, lumped together separate spells with the same club, and included statistics for cup competitions; I've explained to them that conventionally we don't do that. The editor also suggests there are errors and omissions, which could well be true, but they haven't yet elaborated. cheers, ] (]) 13:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::They are now blocked from making changes to that article. They are more than welcome to suggest changes on the article's talk page. <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 20:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] ==
*{{userlinks|Butterplantforest}} is an obvious previous account. It's a pretty clear cut case of ] in most cases. I've started to remove mentions that I find to his works, unless they have been added by other accounts to these. You were right to give a level 3 warning, if it continues then we'll have to think of a way to stop it. ] (]) 00:22, 17 January 2011 (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)


== Politics of the Maldives == == Gilles Epié ==


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> <!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{pagelinks|Gilles Epié}}
* {{la|Politics of the Maldives}}
* {{userlinks|Epie2020}}
*{{la|Ahmed Shafeeq Ibrahim Moosa}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
*{{la|Hill & Knowlton}}
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)
* {{userlinks|194.242.55.7}}
*{{userlinks|Niallcook}}


: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)
] openly admits on his user page to be director of marketing technology for the PR firm ]. The company is best known for making up the story of "]" who lied to the Congressional Human Rights Caucus that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers killing Kuwaiti babies by taking them out of incubators that were then transported to Iraq. This was done in order to gain support for the war against Iraq. Niall Cook keeps contributing to wikipedia. As , he sometimes uses an IP that can be . , they were found to that had hired the firm for improving its reputation that had been harmed by human rights violations. Although it was reported on several websites, apparently no one has ever reacted to it at wikipedia. <br>
::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)
The Hill & Knowlton article is not frequented by many editors but seems to be on the watchlist of ] with ] over wikipedia articles. Checking the IPs that contributed to the article about ] that Hill & Knowlton belongs to one can see that several belong to companies that belong to the group or have other professional interests. Not so surprising for an article about a big media company. But how can we deal with such things? Is there a tool to check all IPs that contributed to articles where they are from so that one can check if anything worrying was done? Can IPs that are known to belong to companies be blocked from editing articles related to them so that even if they log in with a user name they cannot edit? ] (]) 17:03, 16 January 2011 (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)
:There is no way as far as I know to block an IP in a way that prevents new accounts being made, although if an article was semiprotected new accounts would not be able to edit it for 4 days which may put them off. Have you tried reinserting the apparently removed criticism with sources etc.? If they are really just censoring, the information will be put in somewhere along the Dispute resolution process. I'll have a closer look later, but in the mean time go through normal editing, present a discussion on the talk page describing your edits (empty talk page). Additionally, if there's enough evidence it may be worth submitting a checkuser between the user and IP. ] (]) 18:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
::Most of these edits are ancient, and while I agree that they some are problematic there is not really anything to do at the moment. you gave about the Maldives isn't really problematic (and is from >5 years ago!) as it was removing unsourced controversial information e.g. "President Gayoom routinely uses ], ], and ] as a means to cling on to political power." which should obviously have been sourced. From what I can tell ] is following our COI guideline to the book, by disclosing who they are and only commenting on the talk page. Is there anything that actually needs attention? ] (]) 23:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
:::I agree that the diff link is old and I have not yet revealed anything urgent. I don't agree that the diff link I gave isn't problematic. Changing unsourced "Political parties in Maldives was not allowed, though the constitution allowed it, until June 2005." into unsourced "In June 2005, as part of an ongoing programme of democratic reform, new regulations were promulgated to formally recognise political parties within the framework of the electoral system." while being paid by the government is about as much a conflict of interest as you can get. Given that several websites reported about it, it is not surprising that the same IP was not used again to edit articles related to the Maldives. (And more surprising that someone who reveals himself to be marketing director of a PR firm continues to use it for obscene vandalism and for comments signed with his real name.) What I am worried about is that obviously professionals use wikipedia to improve their or their clients' reputation. They will have learned from experiences like the one with the Maldives and do it in a way more difficult to detect. If they edit articles that have not so many editors - like politicians from developing countries or about PR firms - it will often remain unnoticed. And if they log in we cannot detect the origin. So at least a tool would be handy that shows where IPs come from in articles suspected to have been influenced. And in striking cases like the one above in my opinion we should at least think about checking which other edits were made from the same IP ranges, logged in or not. ] (]) 10:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::Just because an IP address belongs to a company, that does not mean that one individual user using that IP address has made all the edits assigned to it. We have hundreds of employees who - just like many other companies - broadcast the same IP address on the public internet. Any edits that I have made have been made using my username (unless I've sometimes forgotten to log in, which I have then quickly rectified) and in line with Misplaced Pages's Conflict of Interest guidelines. If you have evidence to prove otherwise, then please present it here, otherwise withdraw your allegations. Your accusations that I have personally made anonymous edits is nothing short of ]. ] (]) 11:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::I don't claim that all edits by that IP were made by you. By signing several edits made by that IP you just showed that those were made by you. The IP can be tracked back to belong to your company, so for the conflict of interest issue it doesn't matter if it was you or anyone else. I don't know you personally and don't care. As a professional you should know that it does not shed a very positive light on you if clear POV and obscene edits are made by an IP that you use and that can be tracked back to your company. As a director you also have responsibility for your team. As I had already written, your reaction is not unexpected to me, but instead of counter attacking I insist you should apologize on behalf of your company and change your behaviour in the future. ] (]) 11:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Knopffabrik, I completely agree that this is a ''potential'' problem and one that is hard/imposssible to deal with. However ] has not done anything wrong as far as I can tell and there are no current problems that need dealing with. If you wish to propose a way in which we could detect such edits in general, then maybe post at the ] but this thread is not going to achieve anything. ] (]) 12:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::::It doesn't matter which person it was, and I am not after anyone personally, but there was wikipedia manipulation by a PR firm paid by a dictator. As I don't know much about Maldivian politics, I feel unable to deal with those content issues and would be very grateful if others could take a look at them.
::::::::For the more general question of how to deal with IPs and users that may have a conflict of interest, thank you very much for the link to the village pump, I guess that helps. There's already a page and the tool that was used to detect the Hill & Knowlton spin on the politics of the Maldives was ] - which doesn't seem to work right now because of an update. ] (]) 12:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::If you feel there is an issue with a statement in the article that is unsourced, slap a {{cn}} on it. That would at the same time alert ''possible'' POV, but also encourage those working on the article to find a source for it. ] (]) 13:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::Thank you, that is a good starting point. Both articles that were found by wikiscanner already had a note that they lack sources when I first looked at them. However, in the case I saw the problem was more deleted information than unsourced information that was added, so difficult to leave a tag there. Furthermore, as I know practically nothing about Maldivian politics I don't know which other articles may be involved. I already left a note on the talk page of the articles I found. ] (]) 14:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
{{outdent}}I believe we should keep a close eye on the ] article for any COI issues, but the present form of the article seems neutral. It includes some well-sourced negative information. Regarding the IP range: if you view from Hill & Knowlton's range, I see no problem with recent edits. There was some funny stuff about the Maldives from June 2005 as Knopffabrik noted, but edits since 2006 look OK to me. If the 2005 editing pattern were to recur, blocks should be considered. ] clearly discloses he works for Hill & Knowlton, even in his signature above, and is attempting to follow our COI policy. I am not aware of any current problems with the article on ]. ] (]) 16:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
:Oh thanks, that was exactly the kind of tool I was looking for. So let's hope it's not just that they have learned from the revelation and do all the evil things while logged in now. And I'll try and see if gives new information once it starts working. I'd appreciate if someone who feels able to do it could take a look at ] and check whether the problems caused by partisan editing still exist. ] (]) 22:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


== Xenia Tchoumitcheva == == Burning River Buckets ==


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> <!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{la|Xenia Tchoumitcheva}} * {{pagelinks|Burning River Buckets}}
* {{userlinks|Cioccolatina}} * {{userlinks|C.A. Buttons}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Can someone please review this situation. {{User|Cioccolatina}} appears to be a ] with a ] relating to the subject of the article. The user may be the subject, a friend or relative of the subject, or an associated of the subject's modelling agency. There is a history of adding promotional material to the article. There is a verified history of the subject's birth date being altered for professional reasons. Apparently, someone provided OTRS with convincing bt false information. This user was involved in adding the false birth year to the article. The user now wants to remove the known birth year. <br />
] 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)
My questions are:
*Should the user be banned from directly editing the article?
*Should the subject's birth date be included in the article?
*Should the article point to the conflicting sourced birth dates? Note the reference on the talk page showing that this has been subjected to public interest. --] (]) 22:25, 16 January 2011 (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)
:This was bought up ] but nothing much happened. This isn't the place to request a topic ban and COI doesn't prohibit someone editing an article, so it is best to treat their edits at face value, i.e. by warning against removal of sourced content etc. If, as is discussed on the talk page there are reliable independent sources for her DOB being in '87 then I see no reason not to include it. Similarly if the sources discuss how she says she is a different age, then this too should be included. ] (]) 00:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
::Went back and restored the external links section as well. --] (]) 20:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


== Nicole Miller == == ] ==


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)
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
: {{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)
* {{la|Nicole Miller}}
::my bad. i rushed / wasn't thinking {{facepalm}} // ] (]) 22:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|Nmiller25}}
::: No wirres {{u|Chchcheckit}}, thanks for responding. Hopefully they will respond either here or there. ] (]) 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
User has all sorts of warning templates on the user talk page -- ample warning, repeated edits to the Nicole Miller page. ] (]) 18:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
:User indeffed as a spam only account. ] (]) 23:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:43, 17 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:Edi Birsan Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Pamela Chesters Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Doncaster College 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:Polkadot (blockchain platform) Talk:QuinStreet Talk:Michael Savage (politician) Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:SolidWorks Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko Talk:Sysco 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)
    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions Add topic