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 02:07, 15 March 2011 view sourceWareh (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,046 edits →Orlando Figes: That's just 10 words of the whole, and no reason to think unsupported by Sunday Times article← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:43, 17 January 2025 view source Vegantics (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,252 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 = 48 |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 ==
== On tree shaping article an COI editor is trying censor content ==
* {{pagelinks|Chris Antonopoulos (footballer)}}

* {{userlinks|Amplifyplantz33}}
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{la|Tree shaping}}
* {{userlinks|Slowart}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
To ensure there is no confusion ] am Becky Northey co-founder of Pooktre with a potential COI as an artist in this field. The pro Arborsculpture camp have stated I in fact am the one with a COI. Multiple editors have stated I don't have one, and can edit the main page. Example

] has linked this account with ] who has self outed as Richard Reames the creator of the word Arborsculpture. He has a potential COI as an artist in this field. He has also stated in the past that he has a COI in regards to the word Arborsculpture.

] is censoring the page to suit his marketing of his method of shaping trees and the word Arborsculpture. His minor COI started when he replaced the alternative names in the lead . Please note, I didn't originally remove the alternative names , but I did state I agree with the editor who removed them as it follows ] and stated why on the . I've repeatably asked him to talk on the discussion page in my edit summaries. Which he is yet to do. I have filed for which in the past he agree to, but hasn't yet replied on the listing.
The edit that brought me to listing him (]) here was this where he has removed cited content about his methods of Arborsculpture. I have also listed at the and they have locked the page for 72 hours.He is not talking on the article page talk and has asked me not to talk on his page, What happens now? ] ]</span> 03:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
:hmm. That's certainly an interesting dispute there. Mediation certainly seems appropriate, but it can only work if both parties are willing to participate in good faith, and it seems like Slowart is unwilling to do so? Perhaps a neutral editor can persuade him to work with the mediation process. It seems the mediation committee also rejected the request because of your comment that you were "going to relist Arborsculpture for Arbitration." It seems clear to me from the context that you meant "mediation" instead, as the dispute previously went to mediation so now you would be re-listing it for further mediation. As such, I imagine the mediation committee might accept the case if Slowart agreed to participate in good faith.
:Obviously, this is something that should be handled with tactics below the level of arbitration. It seems to me that ] and ] imply a requirement that editors either cooperate with reasonable dispute resolution measures or disengage from the topic. If he won't agree to some kind of good faith discussion or mediation, then he's edit warring. I really think the best approach to resolving this would be if he would agree to cooperate in the mediation process in good faith, and I imagine MedCom might well be willing to reconsider if that happens.
:Also, can you tell us how the first mediation went? Did you reach agreement on any issues? If so, administrator enforcement of that consensus might be justified if parties are editing contrary to the prior agreement without good reason. Perhaps other editors have ideas? ] (]) 04:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
::Yes I meant Mediation. On the tree shaping talk page mediation, formal mediation and Arbitration where all throw around and I mixed up my words. I will let the mediator know. Thanks this is helping already.
::As far as I can tell Slowart is not talking to anyone.
::The first mediation I filed was about the title of the tree shaping article and how the alternative names of the art-form should be used in the article and related articles. Both Slowart and I agreed to mediation. When the time came up for mediation I missed it (I was checking the listing page and not the talk page). By the time I realized my mistake the article had settled down, so rather than kick the bee hive I stated I would leave it unless the Arborsculpture issue come up again.] ]</span> 05:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
:::I just left a message on Slowart's talk page to sound out his feelings on whether he is amenable to participating in mediation in good faith. If he is, and if you (Blackash) and any other relevant parties are also in agreement and can also commit to regular participation in the discussion, we can ask MedCom to consider accepting the case. I think that's probably the best shot at dispute resolution right now. Note that arbitration is not only a drastic step, it is also not as helpful to actually resolving a dispute, as ArbCom only rules on editors' actions and Misplaced Pages policies, not on the underlying content dispute. Let's see how Slowart responds (or if he responds) and we can figure out where to go from there. In the meantime, I'd encourage all parties to avoid edit-warring on the issue, even if others are acting in bad faith. Thanks. ] (]) 06:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I am an editor with no commercial interest in the subject who has taken an interest in the article. There are clearly two editors with a potential conflict of interest here, Blackash and Slowart. I strongly believe that both these editors should withdraw from editing and commercially sensitive issues in the article and allow editors with no commercial interest in the subject to deal with these matters. ] (]) 10:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

:Martin you may be an editor with no commercial interest but you aren't neutral. To quote from the about the issues of Arborsculpture. Blue Rasberry Quote " Thanks for an explanation of the issue, Martin. I would not call you neutral anymore because in some instances you have made shows of support in the article talkspace without contributing additional points or arguments. I see hostility on this board against user:Blackash. There are good arguments in place by Blackash and others, and perhaps the counterarguments are good also, but they too frequently contain rude language. I posted something; it could use other uninvolved editors' viewpoints also. Blue Rasberry 15:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)"
:Please note on the talk page Martin believes I have a higher COI than Slowart. Martin Quote "Blackash, as someone with no direct interest in the subject but a regular observer of the article, the greatest conflict of interest seems to relate to yourself. I think this case should be referred to the COI noticeboard. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)" I rebut his allegation of COI in the talk page. Martin seems to use the claim of COI as a way of not answering my points in discussion. ] ]</span> 10:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

::Just a quick opinion. It seems both these editors are experts, which we need. Where does the commercialism enter into it, other than the fact that perhaps they both get paid for engaging in this art? You know, many an expert gets paid for his or her expertise. Maybe a good "]" would help? Hoping they can work it out to everybody's profit, I am, yours sincerely, ] (]) 16:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Blackash runs the 2nd and 3rd highest ranked websites in a google search for "tree shaping" (the highest ranked site is the wikipedia page). Slowart coined the term "arborsculpture", runs equivalently high-search-ranked sites for that term, and has written books with arborsculpture in the title. Whichever term wins out, whoever runs the site associated with that name will have a huge advantage in terms of media coverage, book sales, interviews, contract work, website hits, etc.

:::There are also some less-commercial aspects/motivations in this. Slowart truly believes that arbosculpture is a better term, and has been actively promoting the term since long before wikipedia existed. Blackash and some other artists don't like this - they see slowart's actions as "pushing" his unwanted term onto their art. Similarly, slowart harbors some resentment over the first move when he was a relatively new wikipedian. From his perspective an outsider (me) came in and changed the title to his article without even discussing with him, and after the move he felt like he had no recourse. ] (]) 08:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages cares about whether you are using Misplaced Pages to promote yourself or some end other than a good encyclopedia. The fact that you're connected to the subject or have some personal opinions about it doesn't count as a COI.

As an example: Surgeons are invited to write articles about surgery. Computer programmers are invited to write articles about computers. Artists are invited to write articles about art.

The problems appear only if you write these articles so that they benefit you: If the surgeon declares himself (or herself) the best surgeon in the world, the computer programmer removes sourced complaints about his software, the artist spams links to his website to drive up sales, etc.

That said, none of the few diffs I looked at seemed egregious. For example, it's pretty normal for articles to provide all the significant names for a subject in the first sentence, even if some of them are related to specific businesses. See, for example, ], which provides four brand names. Providing multiple names helps readers figure out whether they're on the right page, especially if they arrived at it by clicking on a ]. ] (]) 19:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

:If course we need experts. No one is suggesting that these editors should not be allowed to edit this article, just that should not get involved with commercially sensitive issues such as naming of the art. The point is that an editor with a commercial interest in the subject should not be making decisions on the use of specific names for the art. For example the manufacturers of a specific brand if ibuprofen should not be adding or removing brand names from the article, they should leave it up to others. ] (]) 19:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

::I think ] here might be that there is nothing that can be done on this page but that the aggrieved people should just keep trying to work out the problems or go to ] or some other forum. A look at the article's talk page indicates lively to-and-fro, which is just as it should be. The parties, maybe, should not expect everything to be decided quickly. ] (]) 19:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

:@ ] did you look at this ? This is cited content about Slowart, his methods and word. This is the edit that really brought me here. Are you saying it is correct for Slowart to remove this cited content?
:As to the alternative names:
:*There are 8 cite-able names for the art form.
:*The had been a consensus to create an a name section and remove the names from the lead.
:The removal of the names out of the lead follows ]. To see in more detail why I support this edit please go to

:::@], the problem is the Slowart is not talking only editing stuff about himself. Have a closer look at the to and fro, Martin and Johnuniq haven't addressed one of my points. ] ]</span> 21:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the ] issue at a noticeboard in June 2010 and have been half-heartedly watching developments since then. On the article talk page, I have pointed out that there has been a protracted campaign to minimize use of "arborscultpure" in the article. The vigor with which some editors are pursuing that line shows that some strong principles are involved, yet examining the contributions of the editors shows that they generally are not concerned with any other topics where Misplaced Pages's principles might be contravened. Accordingly, it seems reasonable to conclude that the desire to minimize use of "arborscultpure" is due to some off-wiki reason. It is true that a "pro arborscultpure" editor with a COI has unwisely edit warred over the issue, but it takes more than one editor to edit war. It is time for all those with a commercial interest in the field to step back and let independent editors assess arguments for how "arborscultpure" should be used in the article. ] (]) 22:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

:@Johnuniq,
#We were going down the road to edit warring and this is why I listed on the edit warring noticeboard and here.
#As to the minimizing Arborsculpture I when to about the amount of weight given to arborsculpture in the article. I then did a compromise between how many times Arborsculpture appeared on the page at that time and the suggestions at the (which was to basically change all instances of arborsculpture to tree shaping) .
#As to not being part of discussion and editing.
##Early on when discussing how content should be changed, I stated that Slowart and I don't count as part of consensus. I was told that we do too, quote "As to the question of consensus, the two of you definitely do count as part of generating consensus. HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:18, 11 May 2009" (UTC) . Multiple editors have stated it fine for me to be part of the discussions and for me to edit the article.
##Without discussion/editing with people from the field how are you going to know which content is in multiple sources and therefore should be on the page to something that was written in 1 source and not really relevant?
:Please I still have discussion points on the talk page and I would be happy to talk about content there if you like. ] accusation</span> 13:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
::From my prespective the invention of '''instant tree shaping''' in regards to my work is like calling it '''sloppy'''.] is simply using wikipeda to bring down the competition, reduce redefine and eliminate the word '''arborsculpture''' and build up Pooktre.com and ] other web site www.treeshapers.net so you can see the COI, what do think ? Protracted arguments have work out well for some, but not for me. Without some page protection, this is like pissing in the wind and a waist of time. Slowart (talk | contribs)02:37, 27 February 2011
:::Slowart, if the name of the '''instant tree shaping''' section is a problem lets change it. Do you have any suggestions of a different heading? As to bringing you Reames down, please give diffs.
:::I would love for other editors to go to www.treeshapers.net as I believe this site is an excellent example of my ability to edit neutrally. I contacted everyone and most replied, a few wanted some changes which I did. Slowart and others commented in emails that I had done some good work with this site. Please feel free to start with ] ]</span> 22:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

:Blackash, the section removed by Slowart says, "Richard Reames is the biggest name in America for Arborsculpture". Now I don't know anything about this form of art—it might be the ] for alll I know—but that sounds pretty ]y to me. Do you think that was a good sentence to have in the article? Does it sound like something you'd find in ''Encyclopedia Brittanica''? And on the point of this particular noticeboard, do actually you think that Reames' removal of that sort of puffery about himself is somehow an effort to unfairly ''promote'' himself? ] (]) 01:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

::WhatamIdoing and Johnuniq I'd like to point out some important points. Blackash starts a page titled Pooktre, at the AFD and without any notice anywhere ] changes the Arborsculpture page to Tree shaping.http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pooktre ]The article was created with the name arborsculpture and is the most accepted name for this art as found in a preponderance of reliable verifiable sources, IMHO '''' *''''*'''' *'''' *''''The best of the crop is
::Basically what you have here is a page title that should be reverted to Arbosculpture as it was incorrectly changed and then it should have some semi protection from those who are just way too close to the subject to be unbiased.] (]) 05:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Even if everyone agreed with you, ] would be useless, as it prevents only unregistered users and the very newest accounts from changing the article. ] (]) 07:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
:::: I have just followed the links for Blackash spams the world and believe that the sites I looked at do NOT put down anyone, different tree trainers have links to their sites I think it is pretty fair. Go look for your self, don't take one person opinion. ] (]) 09:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

::@WhatamIdoing. I would be interested in reading your suggestion how to make "Richard Reames is the biggest name in America for Arborsculpture" more encyclopedic. Slowart removed a header, 5 cited pieces of information and an image then comes here and states he didn't like the header. Somehow I don't think he was worried by the ] of the only non cite part of that paragraft. If that was all that was bothering him he could have add {{fact}}. ] ]</span> 11:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
:::You don't. The closest you could come is saying "Alice Smith calls Richard Reames 'the biggest name in America for arborsculpture'," with an ] to the source of this direct quotation.
:::Here's why this matters: 'Being an artist' is not a conflict of interest as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned. 'Being an artist who is trying to turn Misplaced Pages into an advertisement for yourself' is. There are all sorts of ways to do this, including adding puffery about yourself and removing favorable information about your competitors. But removing favorable information about yourself doesn't actually fall into the category of 'abusing a conflict of interest'—which means that while you have a ], you don't apparently have a dispute ''about someone abusing a conflict of interest'', which is the point of this particular noticeboard. ] (]) 16:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

::::Ok about the '''biggest''' I don't and didn't have an issue about that sentence being removed, I'll just remove it.
::::Now as to the rest of Slowart's removal 5 cited pieces of info and an image, this content is about Slowart's method of shaping trees. I think you have missed a key piece of information. Slowart/Reames is not just an Artist he is also an Author of two books. (If he had be willing to talk about removing the content it would have only been a potential COI.) An author who removes cited information from wikipedia because it doesn't match their branding is editing in COI. ] ]</span> 07:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

;Slowart this discussion is not about the title but...
:::I'll do my best keep it brief, mainly summing up and giving links to help other edits get an overview. There has been disagreements about arborsculpture since 2007 . Google arborsculpture and see where it goes.
:::I start where Slowart did and go till now. Anyone interest in knowing more can ask at the tree shaping talk page and I'm sure you'll get answers.
:::*Article page before the move, Please note the amount of content and how frequently Arborsculpture is used in the article.
:::*Page created for the references of the different names of the art-form.
:::*Discussion about moving Arborsculpture to Tree shaping 4 editors out of 6 editors discuss using a less secret topic or a neutral name:- ] suggests merging Pooktre into a less secret topics like ] or ] ] suggests moving Arborsculpture to neutral name ] agreed as did I ]
:::*] moved the article and created on the talk page.
:::*Reames/Slowart disagreed with the move
:::*11 editors where part of the about the name after the move. The article stayed at ].
:::*During informal mediation the title come up again and after a lot of writing ] the mediator stated "...Tree shaping is the most neutral and appropriate and helpful name, and I would need a lot of convincing to change the name at this stage. SilkTork *YES! 17:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)"
:::*The title issue was raised again and then a day later a was created. Which resulted in no move.
:::*There was a request for references for tree shaping and talk about having a different title to tree shaping or arborsculpture which lead to me creating a group tables . Slowart added most of the sources for arborsculpture. Please note most of the sources for arborsculpture are based on interviews/book reviews of two self published books written by a non expert.
:::*There are 3 archives of talk about moving the title to arborsculpture or to '''holding''' or '''temporary''' title.
:::*I repeatedly suggested talking about a real alternative to Arborsculpture and Tree shaping, if it was found that tree shaping doesn't meet wikipedia policies/guidelines. I suggested Tree training, as had other editors and Slowart agreed to it as a title and it meets Misplaced Pages . The pro arborsculpture editors didn't like that title but didn't rebut my points . So that ended with no consensus.
:::*As to leaving comments around web, when arborsculpture appeared on our photos we left comments to correct misinformation. Also please read Blue Rasberry's quote "As to the links to ] posting to other websites, I see nothing wrong with this and I am not sure why you think this is bad. Blackash's posting on the off-wiki message boards about arborsculpture meets WP:CANVASS because she is making an off-site RfC without pushing a particular view, without soliciting people likely to take her side, without soliciting people who are unlikely to be interested (she posted on relevant boards), and by getting a message to a group of people who might not otherwise know about Misplaced Pages (perhaps older gardeners who might not use Misplaced Pages much). Misplaced Pages needs more editors and I see what she did as great advertising to direct traffic to Misplaced Pages, and I see no way for this to lead to financial gain for anyone. What do you see in her postings that you find contrary to Misplaced Pages policy or behavior standards?" Blue Rasberry 17:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC) .
:::*I've twice filed for formal mediation to do with the word Arborsculpture. As Slowart still feels the title was unfairly moved he should take it up the dispute ladder.
I've left a heap of the arguments from both sides out, if anyone is interested in reading further go to the history of the tree shaping talk page or asked questions there. As this discussion really should be on the Tree shaping talk page I'm going to copy my reply plus Slowart's comment so editors interested in tree shaping can reply. ] ]</span> 11:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
:@WhatamIdoing, I'm not surprised, is there any level of protection that is suitable for unrelenting COI editing from those who are way to close to the subject and their meat puppets?] (]) 16:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
::No. The closest we come is ], which (unlike ]) is not a technological solution. A topic ban is a promise from a sysop that if you edit articles about a given subject, s/he'll ] you so that you can't edit any articles. ] (]) 15:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Cool, how about myself and blackash and sydney bluegum accept ].Look @ the length of talk archive alone, and realize its all about the same sh_t, frankly it borders on insanity.] (]) 23:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
:Now it's meat-puppetry?? I'd say that COI charge cuts both ways here- & it was laid to rest in the first responses, plus most since. Someone here doesnt appear to be paying attention to the discussion. I think that was somewhere in the original complaint?
:Given both parties could have potential benefit, this falls more as a ] issue for me. Yet there has apparently been a tendency towards agreement that another change of article title would be the most NPOV solution. Any resistance to such a solution I would have to term as strictly partisan.
:Arborists techniques were in use long before either of these warring terms came into being. So the article in question ought to be subsumed into the currently too short-but more historically precedent article "]". Any distinctions made by warring partisans is artificial, and i do wonder at the article's purpose. Both the disputed terms seem ]-oriented rather than actually encyclopedic. Only the ''application'' of the art has evolved. ] as a concept-altering appearance of vegetation by stressors- is recognizable across millenia in both artists' works.
:In further favor of this resolution: the present ] actually informs us that ] is an historical synonym for both commercial terms. Has anyone disputed ''that?'' ''']''' '']'' 11:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
::Hi ]
::A couple of points ] left out
::*I didn't originally suggest the move form Arborsculpture or to change the title to Tree shaping.
::*When the article was moved to Tree shaping, it didn't lead to any one artist but Arborsculpture did and still does.
::*Tree shaping meets multiple Misplaced Pages polices for the title.
::*I've created this so editors could read the quotes for the references of the different Alternative names.
::*When the issue of the title has come up I have stated (and still do) I don't care what the name of the article is, as long as not linked to a method and that doesn't lead to one artist. I have made suggestions for different title names. The last being Tree training, which previously Slowart had agreed too. Tree training meets the ], ] and ] policies. Read the last 5 or 6 comments for my discussion on why it meets the different policies.
::*As to ] it weaving of living branches/trees to form fences or baskets. Neither I or Dr Chris Cattle shape trees that way, though Richard Reames does. To quote Colincbn "So if someone was to, for example, braid three already formed branches like one braids hair this would be arborsculpture but not pooktre. However you could achieve a similar result by training the branches to grow into a braid naturally using the pooktre method. Colincbn (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC). Tree shaping is actually closer to ] than ]
::**Actually Richard Reames (Slowart) did disputed the use the word Pleaching as synonym in his books.
::*I have a concern if the page is moved to a different title, the pro arborsculpture group will state the article is not stable and needs to go back to the title arborsculpture.
::*I suggest you do a search on the different names and see what you think. By the way the name for our art is Pooktre. ] ]</span> 14:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
=== 1 ===
:::SO what I see happening is no body cares really that Blackash edits about her professional rival. She finds references out of context that are in line with her thinking and then claims this can't be removed! Then she removes some puffery that was a direct quote from a hard back book by Ivan Hick, "Richard Reames is the biggest name in america...LOL. She knows this, but would rather just remove it, of course. Is there any way to stop this kind of editing? Please look at the edit history of the page. Balckash has just continued for years to try and put me and my work in a box of her choosing. Blackash is a professional rival of mine is simply working to eliminate or redefine my work. Sydney bluegum is a single purpose account that helps her. look at the photos that she replaced with her own drawings. I would rather just be completely removed from Misplaced Pages than to allow her to continue redefining me and my work. Help! My work is not "instant tree shaping" that is a slap in my face invented by my professional rival, to diminish my work. Anyone going to help? Sorry I can not continue on in this battle.] (]) 16:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
::::Slowart please don't just point the finger give diffs.
::::*Please go to this to see a discussion of cited content I've added that Slowart disagreed with. Please note, when asked I've always typed up the text around the cite/reference for other editors to check my interpretation, and I'm always willing to work towards a compromise.
::::*Slowart, I didn't remember Ivan Hicks saying that, I just added it. But now you've pointed it out, I've found it. On the talk page please give a example of how we can add it in encyclopediclly.
::::*Slowart I'll ask you again please offer some heading ideas to replace '''instant tree shaping''' and lets change it. I bought this up on the talk page.
::::*The drawings of Slowart's and Dr Chris Cattle's art where added to give examples for the different methods, I left the background out so the trees shape can clearly be seen. The drawings didn't replace any images as they were add to text that had no images.
::::*As to Sydney bluegum they stated they never intended to edit, but come to find out about how to shape trees. Slowart please ] the newcomers.
::::*Slowart, I'm sorry you view Pooktre (Pete and I) as your rival. We don't think of you as our rival, as we are not trying to name the art form. ] ]</span> 22:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
::::: Blackash uploads photos that belong to me to show my work in a poor light. The drawing of my living bench, that appears on the page today is a drawing of the my copyright photo Blackash attempted to upload once. more junk added Blackash removes all mention of arborsculture. one example. Blackash admits to calling an 500 person meat puppet party. Several single purpose editors join in. Blackash battles other editors Blackash offers help to single purpose account about adding photo of own work onto main space. and lastly some words from another independent editor ] (]) 04:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::#I chose photos Richard had used to promote his books. I uploaded Reames/Slowart's photos when I was a newbie and didn't know better. Slowart rightly pointed out I didn't have copyright and removed them.
::::::#The is '''not a tracing''' but was drawn free hand by me, based on multiple photos of Richard's growing bench chair. Richard has used his bench tree heavy in the media as a representation of his art and on the back of his 2nd book. Please note I asked for credit to be given Richard's site. on 7 July 2010 Slowart had commented I have some other free hand drawings online and
::::::#As to battling other editors, I asked them to discuss that edit on the talk before reverting other editors changes again. Which lead to them starting a discussion which I have been part of . I've given the reasons behind my edits and offered comprises.
::::::#1 July 2010 Duff removed two images of mine stating they had water marks I removed the water marks and informed Duff on his page and I commented on the Tree shaping talk page.
::::::##10 September 2010 Sydney Bluegum commented on my talk page about the and that it should be on the main page.
::::::##9 October 2010 I told Sydney Bluegum the file was now uploaded and here a page that may help you upload an image.
::::::##30 January 2011 Sydney comment on my page they had the image.
::::::#Yes I once send email to Pooktre mailing list about the fact I as talking on the arborsculputre talk page please note in the diff '''"When we first starting the discussion on the Arborsculpture talk page"''' that was back in August 2008. It was newbe mistake, I was an editor with only 26 edits under my belt. Slowart are you saying that some 3-4 months later some people from our mailing remembered the email I send out? Which editors are you claiming are only come because of an old email?
::::::#This is not by an neutral editor, 208.59.93.238 self outed as 96.233.40.199 and Griseum. From Griseum's first comments there has been a veiled hostility that would later become downright rude. Here is his first changes I disagreed and stated why on the talk page . In response he created this . ] ]</span> 09:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

96.252.113.188 has removed cited content today. Their mirrors Slowarts edits which is what brought me to list Slowart in the first place. I've revert 96.252.113.188 changes and left them a message. ] ]</span> 09:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

66.87.0.71 has revert my edit and added a (Tag: references removed). ] ]</span> 08:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

:I'm beginning to think that Slowart's suggestion of a topic ban for both of you has some merits. ] (]) 21:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

::A topic ban has merit. On one hand this dispute is localised to a single article, and that article has benefited from the dispute both by it drawing attention from other editors to help build it, and by the attention to detail the dispute has encouraged in what is placed in the article. It is a by-product of disputes that they do sometimes hardened and improve an article. The dispute is not aggressive or out of policy as the two main contributors appear to be reasonable people who keep within guidelines. One the other hand, the article has taken up a fair amount of time of various editors. Other solutions have not stopped the dispute, and it could rumble on for ever, drawing others into the affair. While one negative result of a topic ban would be that the article stops developing, the other positive result would be that more time could be spent by the editors otherwise drawn into this dispute on other pressing matters. I would prefer the protagonists to both agree to formal mediation, but if they are not both prepared to do that, then opening a discussion for a topic ban does seem now the most appropriate course. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">''']''' *]</span> 02:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:::I agree that a topic ban of both parties from ] makes sense. There were attempts at mediation in the past but they did not work. The only other alternative I see is full protection of the article. ] (]) 04:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

::::I'll agree to formal meditation if any of the other editors would be interested in going.
::::I won't agree to a topic ban because:
:::#I'm still adding content to the article and finishing Duff's efforts on getting the references checked for reliability, I've been going to the NPOV notice board. I was only editing fortnightly base and would like to go back to that. I also do some Orphan work at these times.
:::#I edit with care and use references which I'm always happy to type up the text around the cite/reference for other editors to check my interpretation, and I'm always willing to discuss my reasoning and work towards a compromise.
:::#This issue goes further than Slowart and myself some examples:
::::*Griseum created a pooktre stub with the stated out come of removing the Pooktre content from ] and then getting the Pooktre article deleted. I listed pooktre article for AFD with my reasoning .
::::*Colincbn's where he is suggesting to edit the article to create a ].
::::*Duff has a commercial interest with arborsculpture, he also added wrong information for example Duff had it that Richard Reames taught Peter Cook (who is Co-founder of Pooktre) how to do tree shaping. If I had agreed to a topic ban at that time most likely this edit plus others wouldn't have been corrected. I also believe Duff tried to manufacture evidence to prove I have a COI. Here is my
::::*Colincbn and Martin Hogbin supported the removal of cited content ].It wasn't until I pointed out it is not appropriate to support the removal and why, that Colincbn replied and then we sorted it out into a better entry. Though Martin Hogbin didn't feel the need to comment after his support for the removal or to comment about the continued removal of .
::::*This is to give some insight into why I believe Richard Reames will do what ever he can to influence the content on the page be that though editing as himself, anonymously or somehow get others to do so. Prime example Richard emailed other artists in the field and Quote "Important... The name of this art ! I am trying to unify the field (at least in the English language) with the word Arborsculpture. Please note, the other word are rarely used and Pooktre is only used for Peter Cooks work in AU. His trees would be "Pooktre Arborsculptures". Do you agree with this?
::::I have other examples of Reames/Slowart's insistence that his word is the name regardless of how others feel about his banding their art. Arborsculpture has a method link to it and arborsculpture leads to Richard Reames.
::::So I won't agree to a topic ban, but I'm fine with going to formal mediation or if the decision is to protect the page that fine too. I will go back to editing fortnightly and putting up my suggestions on the talk page for discussion, or commenting on others' suggestions for the article until a consensus/comprise is reached to add the new content. ] ]</span> 13:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:Re SilkTork: mediation - They did agree to formal mediation. Last fall the mediation committee agreed to take the case, but then a mediator never showed up. They reapplied for mediation a few months later, and the request was rejected by the same person who accepted it before. ] (]) 11:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


] 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)
===For what it's worth===
If anyone cares I was taking part in this battle about six months ago as a non involved editor but eventually burned out on it. Simply put Becky/Blackash owns the article and seems to have an endless amount of time to put into keeping it that way. Slowart and her both have CoIs but Slowart seems much more willing to step away from the article, until he gets heated up by seeing Blackash doing whatever she wants with it and he perceives that as her using it as a commercial tool against him. As far as I can see they should both cease editing on the topic in any way for at least six months and probably a year or indefinitely. I think this is the third CoI notice brought up about it with no resolution. Cheers, ] (]) 16:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:Agree- topic ban.] (]) 22:26, 8 March 2011 (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)
*Discussion started on proposed Topic Ban - ]. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">''']''' *]</span> 00:40, 9 March 2011 (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 ] dedicated solely to promoting Antonopoulos and mentioning him on as many articles as possible.
* ''<small>Related previous discussion: ]. – ] ] 02:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)</small>''
::It seems unclear whether the user has a COI or is just a fan who is unaware of the policies on sourcing and promotion.
::Any thoughts on whether Antonopoulos satisfies ] and whether detailed info on beach soccer activities is usually considered suitable for inclusion? ] (]) 15:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It seems unlikely that they would be so obsessed with Antonopoulos if they were not either him or someone closely associated with him, and their response is quite odd. There does appear to be a Chris Antonopoulos who signed a professional contract with the Fort Lauderdale Strikers, and to me that satisfies notability as the beach soccer and pre-professional soccer contract section of his career would not make Antonopoulos notable enough to have an article alone. It is of note that Antonopoulos does not appear to have been the primary goalkeeper during his tenure and that the primary goalkeepers were Jorge Valenzuela, Mario Jimenez, and ] at this time. It appears Antonopoulos only made two appearances between 1993 and 1994 which is when he was apparently signed to the team. From the perspective of someone who was not directly involved with the Strikers but would want to write about them, Valenzuela and Jimenez would probably be higher on the priority list than a goalkeeper who only made two appearances. The only parts about Antonopoulos in the article that are specific to him are praising his accomplishments. ] (]) 22:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Agreed 100%. ] (]) 22:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Additionally, the appear to indicate that whoever is writing the article had close connections with Antonopoulos throughout his career if they in fact have the right to upload them. ] (]) 23:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::The user continues to obsess over this article and to add large amounts of trivial non-encyclopaedic detail and generally promotional material. Are we really sure that the subject satisfies ]? ] (]) 00:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I generally go by pro athletes being notable enough to have an article, but Antonopoulos appears to have barely been a pro athlete, and like I brought up with the writer before they accused me of acting uncivil, it would make more sense to write articles about Antonopoulos' teammates. I'm not in favor of having an article on Misplaced Pages who's express purpose is to promote someone, even if they may meet the requirement of general notability. This is the first time I've dealt with an issue like this, so I apologize if I am not understanding things correctly as to what makes someone notable enough. ] (]) 01:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Article is notable. And I deem there's a consensus to proceed with option #1 - tag the 2 pages. ] (]) 22:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== Marc Jorgenson ==
== Dive (American based rock band) ==
{{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. -->
* {{pagelinks|Marc Jorgenson}}
* {{la|Dive (American based rock band)}}
* {{userlinks|Divemusicnj}} * {{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)
Editor that created the article appears to be a member of the band or closely related to the band's promotion. They have removed multiple issue tags, multiple times, without addressing those issues and have been warned for COI, 3RR, and for removing a CSD. ] (]) 07:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
{{abot}}
::* {{userlinks|Kimichelee}} also appears to have an inside interest in this article, per their edit history. ] (]) 00:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


== State University of New York at Geneseo ==
== Camp Moshava (Wisconsin) ==
{{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|Camp Moshava (Wisconsin)}}
* {{userlinks|JGotz}} * {{userlinks|CommMark1871}}
Gotz formerly worked for this camp (see his userpage), and has created a ]/advertisement for the camp. ] &#x007C; ] 14:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

== Matthew Shirk ==

<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{la|Matthew Shirk}}
* {{userlinks|Bushnellmacomb}}
* {{userlinks|Ashleyulm}}
* {{userlinks|205.173.35.131}}
<!-- 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)
These three obviously related accounts have been adding poorly sourced boosterism to this article for the last couple of weeks. This was previously brought up at , where it was noted that the IP is registered to the City of Jacksonville, suggesting that the edits are coming from Shirk's own office.] ]/] 15:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== {{user|Byzantinus}} ==

I would appreciate it if someone with experience and patience could have a look at this account's contributions & my comment on the user talk page. (] is also involved.) These edits all serve to promote the work of a Greek scholar D.S. Konstantinos. More often than not, the additions are to "References" sections, which is particularly unfortunate, because if undetected that contaminates the record of which sources were, in fact, used in creating the article. What to do when the edits continue but no response to the concerns at the talk page? I am reluctant to get anywhere near an edit war, though I also worry that if anything I'm being too conservative in my response (allowing persistent additions to stand as long as they are in "Further reading" or "Secondary literature," even though they come from a single-purpose promotional account that won't answer questions about COI). Anyway, I seem to be the only one paying attention, and it needs more eyes. P.S. At ] I'd let the works stand in the "Further reading" section, as their Greek titles indicate that they are devoted to Byzantine "Mirror for princes" literature. But it seems likely quite inappropriate to allow the works to be listed on every page on a topic that may be mentioned somewhere in these works, all the more so if there is a COI, as seems likely. ] (]) 17:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


== Shalom TV == == Kathryn Babayan ==


<!-- 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|Shalom TV}} * {{pagelinks|Kathryn Babayan}}
* {{userlinks|JewishTelevision}} * {{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.
Typical COI activity, keep changing it into the Attempted dialogue on the user page with no response. I have no idea what our Notability requirement are for television stations so that could be another issue. ] (] / ]) 21:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


Suggestions on what should be done? ]]<sup>]</sup> 22:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
== Tau Epsilon Phi ==
: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 ==
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{la|Tau Epsilon Phi}}
* {{userlinks|TEPs4justice}}
Edit warring about lawsuit, primary sources (court documents), etc. What one editor sees as "justice" another sees as a miscarriage thereof. ] &#x007C; ] 22:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


*{{user3|CaptainBeany}}
== Growing block universe ==


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.
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{la|Growing block universe}}
* {{userlinks|Alengleman2}}


In 2010 they and asked for a sourced paragraph about a fraud conviction to be removed from the article. Discussions in response at
User has added content, mentioning a book with the same author as the username. Worth a look. ] (]) 16:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
] and ] decided that this was appropriate biographical content and should not be removed.


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


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

Possible editing of one's own article. ] (]) 17:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

== LJV Sports Management Limited ==


== 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|LJV Sports Management Limited}}
* {{userlinks|Vladimir LJVSM}} * {{userlinks|Hipal}}
<!-- 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)
Only purpose of this account is to spam for the company and some of the obscure jocks it manages. The name itself is a borderline UAA violation, and the account is clearly COI in purpose. ] &#x007C; ] 14:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
:@], why haven't you attempted to discuss this at ] first? ]&nbsp;] 18:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::Agreed. Looking over the talk page and edits, I don't see anything suggesting Hipal has a COI. Nor do I see anything to evidence that Sokoreq has a vested interest in editing the article, although it is curious that they went straight to the noticeboard without participating in the talk page. —''']''' (]) 18:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@] You are right, I was surprised that the editor keeps reverting my edits. This behavior suggests editor may have ] or feel a sense of ownership of the page. ] (]) 19:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Reverting your edits is evidence that they disagree with you, which is allowed. Disagreeing with you is in no way evidence of a conflict of interest. ] (]) 19:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::@] Yeh, I agree with you, but how many times ? And why? did you check my edit ? The editor was doing endless reverts, even after I requested clarification about their concerns on the talk page. ] (]) 20:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::You were also 'doing endless reverts'. Do you have a conflict of interest? ] (]) 20:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Did you check my edit? What is wrong with that edit? I would like to know so that I can improve myself for next time. Please be specific. Thanks ] (]) 20:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::You can improve yourself for next time by recognizing that reverts are a normal part of Misplaced Pages's editing process (see ]), and by refraining from making unfounded accusations towards other editors just because they reverted you. ] (]) 20:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I followed ], but the editor didn't adhere to the discussion part: 'Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement.' Anyway, did you check my edit that the editor reverted several times? That would be really helpful. ] (]) 20:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::No, you began edit warring after you were reverted. That is not following ]. And you still have not posted at ]. ] (]) 20:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::The editor reverted my edits without any explanation and did so repeatedly. I am still waiting for your insight. Did you check my edit? What mistake did I make? I want to understand; any help would be appreciated. ] (]) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Some of the mistakes that you made were edit warring and posting spurious talk page warnings (and now a noticeboard entry) rather than discussing your edits on the article's associated talk page. I'm not going to contribute to compounding those errors by debating the content with you here. If you want to continue with this, I would suggest that you withdraw the allegations you have made against Hipal, including the spurious vandalism, COI, and harrassment warnings you placed on their talk page, apologize to Hipal, and then go to ] where active discussions are currently taking place without your participation. ] (]) 20:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::You are trying to make it seem like it's my fault only, and you are missing the point. Anyway, thanks; I have already explained my COI concern below. ] (]) 21:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] Already, there is a lot going on in that talk page. ] (]) 18:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@] I agree that it's daunting. However, you don't get to override discussion by jumping straight to a noticeboard, and especially not COIN.—''']''' (]) 18:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@] I apologize, but the editor's behavior was strange and did not make any sense. Now, after seeing the article history, it looks like the editor has a sense of ownership or maybe a conflict of interest. other than that, I don't have any other evidence to prove the COI. I leave the final decision to you, but now I am feeling Anxious about whether I should touch that article because it seems like that editor owns it. This is strange! ] (]) 19:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:I think this can be closed as a groundless complaint. Sokoreq has continued to edit since opening this complaint but has yet to try to discuss the edits in question at ]. No evidence has been provided for conflict of interest, other than the OP's apparent assumption that there is no other possible reason that their edits would be reverted. ]&nbsp;] 21:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


== The Gleeson Group == == ] ==
* {{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|The Gleeson Group}}
*]
* {{userlinks|Ledger-91}}
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
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've created a page on ], but it is only after that i realise there could be a COI issue as I have a business conection with this company. I felt I might just bring it up here just in case another user might flag the issue, thanks. ] (]) 14:54, 9 March 2011 (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? ] (]) 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 ==
== Internationan Association of Project Managers (IAPM) ==


<!-- 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:
International Association of Project Managers (IAPM)
* {{pagelinks|John Ortberg}}

Users:

* {{userlinks|Timothydw82}}
Subject: Deletion of the entry for the reason of "unbiased advertising".
<!-- 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)
IAPM is an international non-profit organization that promotes and supports the art of project management. This is done by the contribution of specialists and scientists, who do not receive any compensation for their contributions. It is felt by the author of the entry that the rationale for the deletion is not justified. The entry is rather an encyclopedic article about an international association, which is globally oriented and not for profit. How could the article be improved to avoid deletion?

] (]) 15:35, 9 March 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.
:The primary question is whether the organization is ], which briefly defined means that it has received significant coverage in third-party ]. I find ''no results'' in Google news, and a simple mention in three books on Google books. That doesn't give sufficient material to write anything more about it than "The International Association of Project Managers is an international association of project managers", which is not particularly encyclopedic. ] (]) 15:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
:First, while my account may appear to have a narrow focus, my goal has always been to ensure that articles on Misplaced Pages adhere to its principles of neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sourcing. My edits related to John Ortberg and related topics are aimed at upholding these standards, not promoting or censoring information. If there are specific examples where you believe I’ve violated these principles, I welcome a constructive discussion to address them.
:Second, regarding my consultation with John Ortberg: I acknowledge that I have communicated with him, as I’ve disclosed on my user talk page. However, my involvement has been strictly limited to ensuring that edits align with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines and reflect accurate information.
:Third, concerning the comments about Daniel Lavery, I understand how sensitive these matters are. My intent was not to disparage anyone, and if any of my remarks were perceived as inappropriate, please bring them to my attention.
:I'd also like to express my disappointment in your accusing me via direct message of treating you like "idiots". That felt like a curt, uncalled for accusation with little to no dialogue or support. You have not engaged in a discussion with me but clearly expressed your desire to see me blocked for little to no good reason I can discern.
:Finally, regarding warnings from other editors: I value feedback and strive to learn from it. I am more than willing to engage in dialogue to resolve disputes and improve the quality of articles. If there are ongoing concerns about my edits, I encourage the use of formal dispute resolution processes so we can work collaboratively toward a solution. ] (]) 02:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Is that AI generated text? I ran it through a few different detectors and most thought that it was at least partially AI generated. ] (]) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Unbelievable. Indeffed. Thank you, ]. ] &#124; ] 20:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC).


== Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation ==
== Festival Foods ==


<!-- 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|Festival Foods}}
* {{pagelinks|Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation}}
* {{userlinks|TurnerJQ}}
* {{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.
This user appears to work for the company discussed on this page. This edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Festival_Foods&action=historysubmit&diff=412035176&oldid=411793437 specifically requests another user to contact the first user at an email address with a domain that looks like it is owned by the company the page discusses. (The edit in question was reverted by a vandalism bot.)


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 user has made several changes to this page in January and February 2011 and to no others. Also, the page reads like self-promotion.


I recently rewrote ] entirely to get rid of the unsourced promotional-like writing . State of article before the rewrite: .
Forgot to sign: --] (]) 19:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


Also worth noting the is similarly fluffy. I suspect Park/his foundation are watching these articles.
== Svetlana K-Lie ==


] (]) 05:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{la|Svetlana K-Lie}}
* {{userlinks|Svetaklie}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
User name of the creator of the article and the article name appear to be similar. Potentially it is self promotional auto-biography. I am submitting it here for review by other editors for a thorough examination of the situation


: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)
] (]) 19:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


== Misplaced Pages Writers Marks a Milestone with 1,000 Successful Misplaced Pages Page Publications ==
== Pennhurst State School and Hospital ==


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|Pennhurst State School and Hospital}}
* {{userlinks|Davidferleger}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
I don't think this is too serious, but is unreferenced and raises some questions. Could somebody review this, as well as the user's other 2 edits? I've left a note at ] ] (]) 16:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


== Paul Devlin (footballer) ==
== Mary Turzillo; husband/wp editor Geoffrey Landis ==


<!-- 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|Mary Turzillo}}
* {{userlinks|Geoffrey.landis}} * {{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)
] is both the creator and by far the of an article on his wife, ].
: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)


== ] ==
*Landis is engaging in a spirited effort to the tagging of his wife's article (I tagged it for notability, and subsequently when he appeared for COI). This, despite his clear and admitted COI.
{{pagelinks|User:SHEJO VARGHESE}}
Undisclosed COI editor writing an autobiography at ].<span id="LunaEclipse:1736800296227:WikipediaFTTCLNConflict_of_interest/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 20:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
:With the page in draft space and placed for CSD, and the copious user page warnings, with a grand total of 3 edits by this apparent COI editor, I would caution ]. I think no further action is likely necessary as their draft page will either be deleted under CSD but failing that would most certainly fail a formal AfD. ]&thinsp;] 20:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::], my bad :( I had no intention to come off as overly harsh.<span id="LunaEclipse:1736801352397:WikipediaFTTCLNConflict_of_interest/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 20:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
:::Just remember to have good faith -- when they have only made three edits and stopped editing at 16:52, and then subsequently 4 consecutive posts to their talk page is a bit overbearing. It would be one thing if they were editing between your posts (so it appears they are ignoring you), but in this case, zero edits since the first notice, there's not a huge need to escalate unless they continue to persist in unconstructive behavior after the notifications. ]&thinsp;] 00:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


== Gilles Epié ==
*In addition, ''18 minutes'' after I tagged the article, a weighed in with ''its first edits ever'' to dispute the tag. That IP and Turzillo's husband (who works at Cleveland's Glenn Research Center) are the only two to do so.

*Landis has also been the of , which though well-written has suffered at times from . Some of the most dramatic claims in the article (such as that he has written 300 articles) are sourced to his own webpage.

I'm not sure, given the confluence of COI and socking issues, if it is best to bring this here or elsewhere (such as the AN/I page). At this point I thought I would start by bringing it here (though if the combination of issues can't be addressed here, perhaps it is better if I move this to AN/I).--] (]) 03:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

:'''Comment''' As Landis has declared his COI in this matter, I don't see what the issue is unless he gets particularly uncivil or goes into ] or similar. Reading over the conversation, I think there were certainly inflammatory comments made on both sides. The article has the COI tag and I think that this is all that is needed. ''Disclaimer: While Landis and I may have 50 or so mutual friends on facebook, I don't believe we've ever met or had any communication with each other. I came to this page as the COI noticeboard is on my watchlist and I recognised the names Landis and Turzillo and wondered what the fuss was about.''] (]) 06:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
::Punkrocker--Your user page indicates that you are highly sensitive to and familiar with our COI rules. You really see no problem with him--as long as he discloses his conflict--being the '''creator''' of '''his wife's''' article? The '''# 1''' contributor to it. The '''most vociferous debater''' by far in favor of it being notable (surely, the COI guideline is right on point here). Tag-teaming with an IP, who appeared ''18 minutes'' after the notability tag appeared, for ''its first edits ever''. With the IP editing from ''the same location'' that Landis works from. With Landis failing to answer my direct question, posed ''four times'', as to whether he has ever edited under ''a different name'' or under ''an IP address''. With him being the '''#2''' contributor to ''his own'' article. The talk page of which reflects '''puffery/POV''' issues going back many years. None of this concerns you? Not even in the slightest?<p>I'm also, frankly, scratching my head as to your sudden arrival at this page and the related one in which you have joined conversation. :You have only 100+ edits ''lifetime'' to your name, and had not edited in days. And had edited the two pages on which you have now joined this conversation. How is that you popped suddenly into this conversation? --] (]) 06:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
::As I said above, I came to this discussion as the COI Noticeboard is on my watchlist. As you noted, I am sensitive to the COI rules and follow discussion on a number of noticeboards in order to learn better how to interract on wikipedia. I read these almost daily, though as you have noted I do not edit daily, as i do not always have the time to edit. I'll also apologise that during the course of this discussion, I have not had time to look at your user profile and so have no idea who you are, or where you are coming from, so I apologise if I make any assumptions in my discourse that do not apply to you. I note that you have raised a number of issues, and before I respond further I would like to ask you something. Do you consider winning the Nebula Award as sufficient to confer notability? ] (]) 07:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
:::As a matter of good faith, as you may have noticed, I removed the notability tag so that we can focus on what I see as the more important issues that have now surfaced. COI, and possible sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry.--] (]) 08:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
::::Thank you for accepting the notability of the Nebula Awards. As to these new issues, I would suggest that we deal with these individually.
:'''Meatpuppetry''' I have one question I would like you to answer, that you have raised here and in this diff http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Mary_Turzillo&diff=418429063&oldid=418428987 -- do you believe that I am a meat puppet of editor Geoffrey.landis? If you believe yes then we will keep this word in the accusation. If no, we can dispense with this.
:'''Sockpuppetry''' There appears to be one IP edit, this diff http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Mary_Turzillo&diff=418217541&oldid=418217475 made by an IP address that is probably located in Cleveland, Ohio (pop 400,000). As this IP has only made the one contribution, I would suggest that a course of action to take would be to monitor this IP and if it makes any additional changes to the Turzillo article there may be grounds to take this further. As I understand it, the IP said that the article's subject was notable as she had won a Nebula, and hasn't weighed into the COI debate. While I believe that sockpuppetry is the most serious of the accusations made here, I think the evidence is weak.
:'''COI''' My understanding of ] is that it strongly argues against what Landis has done in creating this article. That said, it does not explicitly forbid it. Reading the article, 4 paragraphs, I see a lot of issues with it. I see a lack of references, some poor sentence structure, it's barely a stub and could so with a writer template box. Something i don't see is a particular POV. To me, the tone reads quite NPOV. There is very little loaded language, or adjectives, it is quite concise. Should Landis have created this article? Probably not. Should Landis now step away from the article and accept that ] will occur? Definitely. The subject meets ]. Landis has done something that he probably shouldn't have, but provided he accept what has happened and move forward and continue to edit productively I do not have a problem. One of the things I have seen said many times on ] is that blocks should be for prevention, not punishment. It may be a good idea to keep an eye on Landis for a while, but in doing so we should all avoid being antagonistic in our comments and actions. ] (]) 10:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
*COI aside, I am pleased to say that I did not see huge NPOV issues with the article. I ''did'' remove some linkspam, but it otherwise seems reasonably in line with what WP expects of a BLP. --] ] 02:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

'''Some replies'''
Sorry I haven't replied to this sooner-- busy weekend. A couple of points to note.
*1. I wrote that article back in 2005. If you are going to argue "Should Landis have created this article? Probably not", that's ok, and I'm not sure that I don't agree, but I do think that you have to judge it by the COI policy as it was back in 2005 (when it was called the "Vanity articles" policy). This was my ]. The "vanity articles" policy at the time gave this advice: "As Misplaced Pages aspires to be an online encyclopedia of quality, accuracy and integrity, the best rule of thumb while determining whether or not any such edits may contain vanity materials, is to ask one's self, 'Would this same type of material normally be found in a print encyclopedia?'" I had thought I was following that "rule of thumb" by sticking to bare facts, but (per this discussion) it looks like I may have been in error, although it took six years before somebody questioned it.
*2. One of the comments was that in Mary's talk page I was "The most vociferous debater by far in favor of it being notable." Well, no. In fact, I wrote a single post stating that a Nebula award meets the explicit written criteria for notability. This seemed legit to me at the time; apparently it was not. For what it's worth, I did mention that I was biased. ''All'' other posts by me in the topic were replies to attacks on me by another editor. These replies are all off topic in the particular article talk page, since they have nothing to do with Mary. If somebody wanted to move them off this page and onto my talk page, where they would be more appropriate, that would be fine with me. I have since decided to ignore all further taunts from that editor.
*3. I am not IP editor 76.241.135.35. Sorry: that may be a plausible guess, but it's not me. I don't quite follow the logic of why I would supposedly post anonymously, but then immediately destroy that anonymity by posting under my real name-- but in any case, it was not my edit. Science fiction fandom in Cleveland is not that big a community; an hour or two of detective work should be able to give you some other plausible guesses, if you wanted.
*4. I stopped editing my own article years ago, except for correcting trivial errors and adding a picture (since replaced by a different picture). As for the note "Some of the most dramatic claims in the article (such as that he has written 300 articles) are sourced to his own webpage." If I actually had been contributing to it, I would have linked to, say, googlescholar (I prefer Science Citation Index, but it's behind a paywall), , which lists 309 publications. Some journals have alternate conventions for names, so I could very likely add a few more by searching on author = Geoffrey Landis (without the middle initial), but I'd have to manually strip out false matches, and likewise by searching on GA Landis.
*Are there any more charges of substance here? ] (]) 04:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

== User:Lfp trademark ==


<!-- 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|Hustler}} * {{pagelinks|Gilles Epié}}
* {{userlinks|Lfp trademark}} * {{userlinks|Epie2020}}
<!-- 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. -->
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)
The user has made several edits to various articles all having to do with Hustler and Larry Flynt Publications. <span style="font-family:monospace;">]</span>|] 07:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


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


== Burning River Buckets ==
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{lw|Articles for deletion/Virginia Good}}
* {{userlinks|97.44.225.44}}
* {{userlinks|97.44.224.14}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
The subject AFD is about a biographical article about a person named Virginia Good, who is the subject of memoir of questionable ] (for which there is presently no Misplaced Pages article) entitled ''Ginny Good: A Mostly True Memoir'' written by an author of questionable ] (for whom there is also no Misplaced Pages article) named Gerard Jones (not to be confused with the ] for whom there ''is'' a Misplaced Pages article).

The listed IPs are both being used by the same person, who has admitted to being Gerard Jones (he signs with his own name prior to having his posts autosigned with the IP address), the author of the book, who is arguing vehemently for retention of the article, despite having been warned and about the obvious conflict of interest involved in his arguments. The IP editor has not recused himself from the discussion, but continues to cloud the discussion at the AFD with long verbose arguments over the merits of the book, but with no real arguments about the merits of the present Misplaced Pages article. <font color="green">]</font><font color="green" size="5px"></font><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 17:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

== Orlando Figes ==


<!-- 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|Orlando Figes}} * {{pagelinks|Burning River Buckets}}
* {{userlinks|IP:69.86.104.96}} * {{userlinks|C.A. Buttons}}
<!-- 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. -->
] has identified himself as the owner of the ] basketball team on , on , and on . I've tried over a period of months (and on each of those talk pages) to share information on the COI policy and the need for reliable sources, to no apparent avail. Perhaps others could give it try. -- ] (]) 01:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


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

The subject of this article was involved in a controversy a few years ago. Briefly: he wrote hostile reviews of members of his own academic community's (i.e. academic, History, Russia) work on Amazon under an assumed name; then threatened legal action against those newspapers who sought to report on it. It caused quite a stir in the UK, was reported widely both in newspapers and in respected journals like the TLS, and it's listed on Misplaced Pages's sockpuppet entry as a canonical example of that sort of activity.

Editor Biophys/Hodja Nasreddin has consistently deleted and argued against this being included in the Misplaced Pages entry from Orlando Figes. I don't know why - it's clearly notable, well sourced, and germane to understanding who Orlando Figes is in the culture. This has been argued cogently and with sources by many people on the Talk page for this article. Biophys/Hodja Nasreddin has responded to these with unhelpful and unargued comments asserting that what Figes did was fine - a value judgement that is beside the point, which is to clarify whether Figes's actions can be sourced (yes) and are notable (clearly so; for a leading academic to behave this unethically, and to be unapologetic and aggressive and deceitful when called on his behavior is why the sockpuppetry became a news story in the first place).

Biophys/Hodja Nasreddin has been banned from editing entries on Soviet History (I do not know why). Figes is notable as a professor of Russian History, specializing primarily in Soviet History. I suggest that Biophys/Hodja Nasreddin has a conflict of interest with regard to the subject of the Orlando Figes article, and that s/he should not be allowed to remove the material pertaining to Figes' sockpuppetry in the future.

:I did not remove anything from this article. Someone else did , and for a very good BLP reason: (you may check how all these IPs are doing right now). They are indeed socks of the same person. Not mentioning who said she deleted wrong information about herself. Yes, I am sure there are ] problems around, but this is not me.] (]) 01:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


== ] ==
:Let's copy-paste here my old message to AVI:
* Vandalism by multiple socks of a recently blocked user . (that was his favorite edit: )
*{{IPvandal|93.186.31.238}}: and also ,
*{{IPvandal|93.186.31.240}}: and it is now active.
*{{IPvandal|93.186.23.237}} This is also ,
*{{IPvandal|93.186.23.238}},
*{{IPvandal|93.186.31.236}} (look at their talk pages). ] (]) 01:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


User appears to be/is part of a (self-published) substack publication called ''Shatter the Standards'' and since joining on January 13 2025 have been adding the publication's reviews to album articles (]). For example/recently, on Mac Miller's '']'' (today). // ] (]) 20:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Well, I'm no IP, vandal, or sock puppet, and I'd never heard of Figes until now, but I think BLP worries are being taken too far here. The Amazon review scandal was widely reported in such media as New York ''Times'', London ''Times'', ''TLS'', ''The Guardian'', etc. We should certainly be careful to say only what is strictly attributable through these good sources, but on the other hand we certainly must give some account of what has been reported so widely. I'm sure there are all kinds of interests sympathetic to Figes that cringe at this, but I can't see the justification for keeping the notable and sourced incidents out of the article. I believe the content should be restored and some better eye kept on this page which is apparently well-patrolled by those who want to celebrate Figes and squelch this part of the story. ] (]) 01:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
:And you are very welcome to fix anything in agreement with ] policy. I know him as author of interesting books (and I actually read these books). I never heard about the "scandal" before reading this WP article. But whatever. There are other articles worse than that. ] (]) 01:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC) : {{u|Chchcheckit}} The top of this noticeboard clearly says {{tq|This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue}}. Why wasn't this done first? I have now left a COI notice on the user's talk page. ] (]) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::my bad. i rushed / wasn't thinking {{facepalm}} // ] (]) 22:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::I believe I have fixed it in accord with BLP by undoing the removal you linked. JzG in making this removal did not say there were proven and manifest BLP problems, he said that BLP controversy is best handled by removal pending discussion. In this case, no one brought any significant and specific critiques forward of how that section presents what the sources say. I have invited discussion on the talk page; if the article is guilty of saying more than the sources or not attributing it (and these are the only real BLP crimes), then it can be changed. But it appears such changes will either be wholly unnecessary or quite minor. ] (]) 01:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
::: No wirres {{u|Chchcheckit}}, thanks for responding. Hopefully they will respond either here or there. ] (]) 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Fine. This is now your responsibility if Ms. Polonsky (real person who was mentioned in the publications) will come again to blame Wikimedia foundation . ] (]) 01:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
::::Ok, but ] was to remove ten words from this section. It was subsequently stated on the talk page, in particular reference to these ten words, "The assertion is supported by the Sunday Times (a high quality source) which presumably checked its veracity..." Ms. Polonsky did not reenter the discussion to contest this or maintain any grievance, as far as I can tell. ] (]) 02:07, 15 March 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