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 16:23, 29 July 2011 view sourceWhatamIdoing (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers122,311 edits →COI on astrology pages: You know...← 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 
(1,000 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
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 = 50 |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 ==
== Gihan Sami Soliman ==
* {{pagelinks|Chris Antonopoulos (footballer)}}
* {{userlinks|Amplifyplantz33}}


] and numerous ] related articles, which Antonopoulos appears to have been a player for, have been edited by ]. The user seems to be Antonopoulos and received a notice to disclose their conflict of interest on December 4 by @]. The user did not respond and does not appear to have made an effort to disclose a conflict of interest as they are required to. The user also created the Antonopoulos article and is responsible for the majority of the content added to it. The only indication the user appears to have made to disclose their potential conflict of interest was to write "Chris Antonopoulos" on their user page. ] (]) 07:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{la|Gihan Sami Soliman}}
* {{userlinks|Doveye71}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
This editor (and quite possibly the same as ]) has created an extensive autobiographical article that clearly contains a lot of material that is not NPOV. External links are repeatedly added within the article text to author's own websites. I have asked her repeatedly, in both edit summaries and via talk page messages, to abide by Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines on COI, autobiographies, reliable references, and external links. She continues to undo these changes and add the information and external links back to this and other articles that she is creating/editing that all represent a COI. The article is currently at AfD, but the author has so far chosen to continue these editing behaviors. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 15:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


:Seems to be using multiple accounts - 'dove.eye' is another one. --] (]) 15:31, 17 July 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)
::The user has now denied on their talk page that they are Antonopoulos. It must be admitted, however, that they appear to be a ] dedicated solely to promoting Antonopoulos and mentioning him on as many articles as possible.
::It seems unclear whether the user has a COI or is just a fan who is unaware of the policies on sourcing and promotion.
::Any thoughts on whether Antonopoulos satisfies ] and whether detailed info on beach soccer activities is usually considered suitable for inclusion? ] (]) 15:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It seems unlikely that they would be so obsessed with Antonopoulos if they were not either him or someone closely associated with him, and their response is quite odd. There does appear to be a Chris Antonopoulos who signed a professional contract with the Fort Lauderdale Strikers, and to me that satisfies notability as the beach soccer and pre-professional soccer contract section of his career would not make Antonopoulos notable enough to have an article alone. It is of note that Antonopoulos does not appear to have been the primary goalkeeper during his tenure and that the primary goalkeepers were Jorge Valenzuela, Mario Jimenez, and ] at this time. It appears Antonopoulos only made two appearances between 1993 and 1994 which is when he was apparently signed to the team. From the perspective of someone who was not directly involved with the Strikers but would want to write about them, Valenzuela and Jimenez would probably be higher on the priority list than a goalkeeper who only made two appearances. The only parts about Antonopoulos in the article that are specific to him are praising his accomplishments. ] (]) 22:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Agreed 100%. ] (]) 22:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Additionally, the appear to indicate that whoever is writing the article had close connections with Antonopoulos throughout his career if they in fact have the right to upload them. ] (]) 23:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::The user continues to obsess over this article and to add large amounts of trivial non-encyclopaedic detail and generally promotional material. Are we really sure that the subject satisfies ]? ] (]) 00:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I generally go by pro athletes being notable enough to have an article, but Antonopoulos appears to have barely been a pro athlete, and like I brought up with the writer before they accused me of acting uncivil, it would make more sense to write articles about Antonopoulos' teammates. I'm not in favor of having an article on Misplaced Pages who's express purpose is to promote someone, even if they may meet the requirement of general notability. This is the first time I've dealt with an issue like this, so I apologize if I am not understanding things correctly as to what makes someone notable enough. ] (]) 01:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Article is notable. And I deem there's a consensus to proceed with option #1 - tag the 2 pages. ] (]) 22:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== Marc Jorgenson ==
::This seems to be getting out of hand. The article was looking good despite not establishing notability until it was rightfully nominated for an AfD. Since then, the subject of the article has been adding in several links to self-published information that wouldn't establish notability. I've asked them on their talk page to discontinue editing so we'll see what happens. They claim to be an English consultant but their English doesn't seem great (that may just be their written English) so I'm not sure how much is getting through to them. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 20:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
{{atop

| result = No edits since 2008. No need for action. ] (]/]) 01:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The editor has agreed to no longer edit the article. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 22:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
}}
::::Well, she resumed editing it again. Hmmmphh. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 21:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::I was just about to post this here. I asked them to stop, they agreed, and have since ignored my messages ] on their talk page. Last night she left on the talk page of the article about her. It seemed like she understood the guidelines then immediately started talking about supporting her cause. It's obviously a COI, that she's here with an agenda, and that she isn't going to stop editing the article even when asked to. On one hand, I suggest a block but on the other hand, the article is going to be deleted soon anyway. The real issue is with the related articles that she's editing at ] and ]. I no longer see how a block can be avoided with such a blatant disregard for of ] and the requests of other editors. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 21:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::I agree. She also added more external links to the article today, then claimed "she didn't know better." That is certainly not true. She had been warned MANY times about this, even at the beginning of this AfD. She cannot grasp the COI issues with this article and the others you mentioned. At this point, further disregard for Misplaced Pages policies should be treated like vandalism, IMHO. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 21:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::She's socking the AfD now. She mistakenly replied as another SPA user then tried to remove the comment after sinebot signed for her. I'm going to initiate an SPI. Lots of people have been jumping through hoops to help her with the article and understand WP policies and guidelines and I think this is way out of line. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 14:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::SPI can be found ]. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 14:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
{{outdent}}The SPI has concluded and Doveye71 has been blocked for 48 hours and her socks have been indefinitely blocked. The article was deleted this morning at the conclusion of the AfD. I'm hoping this issue just goes away but I'll keep an eye on things. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 13:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

== L3C ==


<!-- 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|L3C}} * {{pagelinks|Marc Jorgenson}}
* {{userlinks|RobertMLangJr}} * {{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)
{{abot}}


== State University of New York at Geneseo ==
Can I get another set of eyes to take a look at this article? A user who is apparently Robert Lang is deleting references in the article with the claim "Deleted Credit to Lane. Robert Lang stated this in documents and he copied it from Langs information" and similar. The editor has refused to discuss it other than in edit summaries, even though I've invited him to discuss the matter at the article talk page. He's deleted other references and links from the article. There may be other issues with the sources cited; however, the basis of his edits smacks of a conflict of interest. —''']''' (]) 04:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
{{atop
:I asked the user to either identify themselves per ] on their talk page. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 12:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
| result = Soft blocked for promotional username representing Geneseo's Communications and Marketing (CommMark) team. ] (]/]) 01:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::Things have turned fairly nasty on his talk page. He seems to feel rather attacked ("I have to say I very much resent the implications and insinuations made here.") and feels that he should be able to post what he wants here because its his own voice. He's also mentioned that, "Please call me at if you wish to discuss. I do not have time for a protracted email exchange and if you put me into that space I will merely turn it over to one of our attorneys." Not a legal threat exactly but not exactly a good start. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 18:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
}}
:::The article is currently a copyright violation. In an attempt to convince the author and movement/organization creator to talk with us, I've let him know that the article will be deleted soon if the copyright violation is addressed. I gave him a link to ]. I'm going to wait to see what happens. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 20:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

== Miami Vice ==


<!-- 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}}
* {Miami Vice}
* {{userlinks|CommMark1871}}
* {srobak}
<!-- 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)
I have added links to a Miami Vice website that contains valuable information for all fans of the show. (miamiviceonline.com) I am an administrator of this site. My link is repeatedly removed by srobak. srobak was banned from other Miami Vice sites in the past by me and his deletion of my information is clearly an act of revenge against me. I request that my account be unblocked and my links reinstated. I would also request that some type of action be taken against srobak. A look at his user talk page will show his repeated acts of bullying and editing other members. ] (]) 03:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC) <small>''Edited ]<sup>]</sup> 11:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)''</small>
{{abot}}
:I've not looked at our ] article, or at the article history - I'll leave it for others to comment on whether srobak has done anything wrong. I will point out however that ] policy, in particular ], would suggest that your website should ''not'' be linked too in our article: we aren't here to provide a directory to other websites. ] (]) 03:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


== Kathryn Babayan ==
::Andy's right, and if you want a third (fourth?) opinion on the matter, you might want to post at ], which specializes in evaluating links like this. ] (]) 04:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

:As you have indicated here that you are the administrator of the fan forum, it appears that by linking to it that you are also violating ], in addition to ], ] and ]. Add to that you have now also violated ] for '''A SECOND TIME'''. This continued conduct needs to cease. ] (]) 11:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::To further your own COI, . This is a clear violation of ]/] and has resulted in other edits being reverted, users being blocked, and now the Your COI is apparent in this instance, as are your ] ] (]) 12:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Has this "call for action" resulted in anything? Ferrariman1954 is on the edge of an indefinite block, from where I'm standing, but since the most recent warning for outing I see no action taken on-wiki. If his off-wiki actions lead to disruption here then I'll block without hesitation. -- ''']'''] 16:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Never mind, I see that it probably has... I'll wait for the protection to go and if it starts up again, then I'm blocking. -- ''']'''] 16:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
::::<s>You may wish to also take a look at Search for "Outing Violation". ] (]) 08:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)</s>
::::Disregard, I have now refreshed the original ANI as he has now OUTed for a 3rd time. ] (]) 17:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::EyeSerene blocked Ferrariman1954 indefinitely, and beat me to it in the process. -- ''']'''] 18:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

== Adam Leitman Bailey ==


<!-- 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|Adam Leitman Bailey}} * {{pagelinks|Kathryn Babayan}}
* {{userlinks|Internalb}} * {{userlinks|2601:401:100:46E0:B919:9891:DF5D:FC9F}}
* {{userlinks|Intern4AG}} * {{userlinks|2601:401:100:46E0:E169:2FC9:4E47:B104}}
* {{userlinks|Earthalf}}
* {{userlinks|Midget99}}
* {{userlinks|CU1912}}
* {{userlinks|Zqew}}

<!-- 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.
Can someone more experienced look at this for me, an intern ] is editing the article in a promotional way along with five possible sockpuppets. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">'''<font color="Black">]</font>'''<font color="silver">]</font></span>] 07:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:Every single one of those editors has been blocked as a sockpuppet, the article is currently semi-protected to prevent new sockpuppets or IPs from arriving to continue the disruption, and cleanup of the article has begun, so I think this is resolved. -- ''']'''] 18:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


Suggestions on what should be done? ]]<sup>]</sup> 22:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
== Rebel Wilson ==
: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|Rebel Wilson}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
I added to the ] article the fact that she is endorsing ]. This info was removed by an IP who signed their edit summary with the word "MANAGEMENT". I note that this IP has previously edited the page. Also, the fact that Wilson is Christian has been removed by another IP. It appears to me that Rebel Wilson and/or her management are exercising some type of editorial control over her biography. I request that my original edit stay in the article, but there is a more general problem here of conflict-of-interest, censorship and ] by the subject herself. - ] (]) 01:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
: I'm not going to reinsert the material just yet, but I will suggest that the phrase "is overweight" is not necessary to the sentence you've added. If she's endorsing Jenny Craig, I think it's implied. ] (]) 01:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
::I'm not too precious about keeping the 'overweight' part - that's just to put the endorsement in context. However, I don't think that anything should be "implied" on Misplaced Pages. We either say it or we don't say it. - ] (]) 02:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Dealing with COI IPs is always hard. With registered accounts you can leave a note on the person's talk page, or invite them to discuss matters at the article's talk page, etc. With IPs, you can try to contact the IP directly but if it's dynamic it's like trying to call someone up who keeps changing their phone number on a daily basis. In this case, ] has held steady for 4 days, but for two months prior they edited as ]. And I'm guessing from an IP geolocation and the nature of their edits, ] and ] are also from Rebel Wilson's management. (The other IPs I checked trace back to Australia, not LA as the management IPs do.) You might just have to deal with the IP edits on their own merits. I don't think the frequency of disruption on the user page warrants semi-protection, and the edits from other IPs on the page have been constructive. -- ''']'''] 18:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
::::That's pretty much what I thought as well. I am frustrated by her management/her having such influence over her biography. Note that she probably has representation both in the US and Australia, and may well be editing herself. - ] (]) 06:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

== Nationals Park ==

<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{la|Nationals Park}}
* {{userlinks|216.15.0.232}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
This IP made edits which were basically advertisements about the ballpark tours at Nationals Park . The edit describes the tours as "the best" in Major League Baseball and links to information about tickets. I tried and it locates to Washington DC (I put the coordinates in Google Earth and it went to the ], which I somehow don't think is the case, but nonetheless it does go to DC which seems accurate). Seems to me like this is some ] employee trying to advertise their tours. One more thing - the Nationals are on the road right now, meaning tours are the only thing going on at the ballpark. ] (]) 03:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
:Eh, the COI is probable, but incidental. This is really just a ], and attempts to advertise should be reverted. If they had kept going I'd maybe block them briefly to get them to stop, but they only made a few edits over the course of an hour and I doubt we'll see them around again. -- ''']'''] 22:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
::Okay, thanks. ] (]) 02:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

== KAYAK.com ==

* {{la|Kayak.com}}


*{{user3|CaptainBeany}}
Hi. Apologies in advance if this is not the right forum to bring this issue, but do appreciate any guidance you can provide on how to properly address my concerns. I am a KAYAK.com employee and have been monitoring the page and noticed that information on the page needs updating to reflect more accurate information now available in our S1 statement. Many news sources have been using our wiki page and reporting dated information that is no longer accurate. I wanted to be respectful to the community's COI values, so I posted a suggestions of factual updates I would make to the right hand summary info box on the entry's talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Kayak.com). However, there does not seem to be much if any editorial eyeballs on it. Is it possible to draw attention this page or make these changes myself?


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.
I also would like to elaborate on KAYAK.com's revenue model and products in a more organized fashion on the main entry of the page, but wanted to find out the appropriate manner to proceed with all of this. Happy to elaborate or draw out all proposed changes in depth on request. Really appreciate your response and guidance.


In 2010 they and asked for a sourced paragraph about a fraud conviction to be removed from the article. Discussions in response at
] (]) 03:40, 22 July 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)
: Thanks so much ! I think it's OK for you to be ] here and just make the changes, but if you get in a conflict just get administrator attention. Thanks. ] (]) 17:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
::I just wanted to add a thank you for disclosing your connection to the subject and taking the initiative to bring the matter to this noticeboard. If you do run into conflicts, that will weigh heavily in your favor if anyone objects to the information you want to add. I will second the suggestion that you should feel free to take the bold step yourself to implement the changes, and if anyone does in fact object then invite them to discuss matters on the article's talk page. Either result would be progress. -- ''']'''] 18:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


:The user to the COIN notification, though exactly what they're trying to communicate is beyond me. --] (]) 05:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== Pullman Memorial Universalist Church ==


== 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|Pullman Memorial Universalist Church }}
* {{userlinks|Pmucpastor}} * {{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)
Above user admits to being the current pastor of this church. The article in its current form is gigantic, weakly sourced, and full of inappropriate tone, NPOV violations and problematic assertions. I also suspect copyright violations, but haven't done the research yet. ] &#x007C; ] 13:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
:@], why haven't you attempted to discuss this at ] first? ]&nbsp;] 18:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:I left a message for the author on the talk page. It is huge which would usually suggest a copyright violation. Because the author was so forth-coming on the talk page, I'm going to try and help out as much as I can. My help may be misguided but it's refreshing to deal with a person with a COI who isn't combating the problem and seems to genuinely want to improve the product. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 14:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
::Agreed. Looking over the talk page and edits, I don't see anything suggesting Hipal has a COI. Nor do I see anything to evidence that Sokoreq has a vested interest in editing the article, although it is curious that they went straight to the noticeboard without participating in the talk page. —''']''' (]) 18:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::Nothing in the least misguided in what you're doing! Non-], welcoming, but firm; just the way to do it. The pastor is forthright and straightforward; I just fear he(?) may be a little weak in understanding our rules about NPOV, sourcing and copyright. --] &#x007C; ] 15:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
:::@] You are right, I was surprised that the editor keeps reverting my edits. This behavior suggests editor may have ] or feel a sense of ownership of the page. ] (]) 19:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The editor's username is also against our policy (]) and I will recommend that they change it, but I don't think the matter even comes close to warranting a block in this case. -- ''']'''] 18:45, 22 July 2011 (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}}


== David L. Gray == == ] ==
* {{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|David L. Gray}}
*]
* {{la|Saudia Mills}}
*]
* {{userlinks|Yosesphdaviyd}}
*]
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
*]
The aforementioned user created said articles. appears on davidlgray.info under "A Commentary on the Spiritual Life with Yoseph Daviyd", and references Saudia Mills as a personal friend. going up a level, the says "Welcome to my blog on the spiritual life. Feel liberated to post comments and pass along what you like. I update the blog about three times a week and write new articles at my website http://www.davidlgray.info/ about twice a month. Enjoy your visit and please keep me in your prayers! For updates about the blog, articles, and etc., just follow me on Facebook and Twitter. Blessings and Shalom! David L. Gray, Yoseph M. Daviyd". Therefore, the article on Gray is self-authored COI, and the one on Mills is also COI. I have warned the user, but I also believe that prodding the articles for not meeting GNG might lead to recreation. A CSD and SALT, I think, would be in order. ] (]) 20:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
*]
:Under what grounds would they be speedied? Neither one is unduly promotional (David L. Gray has some ] language to clean up but even mentions his 6 year prison sentence), both articles do a credible job of asserting significance enough to avoid A7. We don't yet have speedy criteria for autobiographies or other articles created by people with a COI. If you feel that a proposed deletion will be contested, and still feel that the articles deserve deletion, your best (and probably only) bet is to take them to ]. At that point, if the discussions result in a decision to delete, recreations can be speedily deleted through G4 and salted if they are repeatedly recreated (though I don't see any reason to think they would be at this point). -- ''']'''] 20:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
*]
::See, I would say A7 because they ''don't'' meet GNG. For example, Gray's article's sources are entirely from books written by Gray (some self-published) and "usage of personal knowledge" from the author, which is not acceptable. I have found a few mentions of Gray in Masonic circles, but he is no more noted than any other Masonic writer, most of whom don't meet GNG either. It's simply the nature of fraternal activities that they do not alone confer notability; otherwise we'd have Grand Masters who served for a year who were simple local businessmen having WP articles, and that just makes no sense.
Received a COI notice January 5th but has continued to edit without declaring any COI. ''']'''<sup>]]</sup> 02:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

::Mills' one claim to notability might be the show appearance, but according to the show's article, she was eliminated the week she appeared, and was an extra in all the other films listed. So I don't think she makes it, honestly.

::So basically, there's a person with personal enough knowledge about these people to be friends with one of them and host a blog on the site of the other, who has professional photos of them he claims as his own work, and is writing articles about people who don't meet the GNG. I'd also note that a Google Books hit basically says one is the other , and I therefore have a serious issue with this user trying to pretend he's not this person and claim that he's writing from an NPOV position. So aside from a deletion item, the COI needs to be dealt with as well. ] (]) 22:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

:::A7 has nothing to do with GNG. As it states on the ]:
:::<blockquote>"The criterion does '''not''' apply to any article that makes '''any credible claim of significance or importance''' even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Misplaced Pages's ]."</blockquote>
:::The emphasis and wikilink aren't mine, they are in the policy itself. Furthermore, the ] for the A7 criterion states:
:::<blockquote>"It is irrelevant whether the claim of notability within the article falls below the ]. If the claim is credible, the A7 tag can '''not''' be applied."</blockquote>
:::Again, the emphasis and linking are preserved from the policy. Now, the COI is another issue. The editor's actions seem to suggest an intention to promote these people, so they are worth a review. I'll invite the editor to comment at this board, which we normally recommend anyway. -- ''']'''] 22:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
::::I think we're going to get into semantics regarding CSD, so it's probably not an avenue worth pursuing. The below comments have shed some light on what is probably just a "series of unfortunate events", and at least the editor is willing to learn and be guided. I think we can make some headway, though I can't say at this juncture that that headway will lead to an article that meets GNG or the relevant specific notability guidelines. ] (]) 04:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

+++ I am yosephdaviyd (a chosen handle for this wiki thing I wanted to do - sorry it is associated with my first file. I should have chosen barakobama I guess? How is one suppose to anonymous if their names are challenged?) - I am very new here. Had a discussion with MPJapan about the articles. I am in the process of adding citations right now, and removing what can't be cited in reliable sources. Before I untook my first wiki entries I research the COI and NPV and felt comfortable, even though I know the individuals that I am at the degree of friends with them to create a COI. As a Freemason I know 'Gray' the subject I write about - have read his books, was in his district were he worked, have listened to his lectures, but NOT friends other than facebook, but yes friends is a subjective word - though AGAIN I am comfortable to have a NPV there. Concerning 'Mill's', AGAIN, know of from High School, so I do have to remove the part about working in a factory - how esle would I know that than a Youtube video, but other than facebook, we are not friends as subjective as that word is. That she was on a reality show I thought she was notable. Same with Gray, author, speaker, television, radio, his work is cited by authors up and down that field. In closing, I am not so attached to any of these files that I will miss them, but they are my first and I am learning as I go - I appreciate your patience. This will help me in the future if I think it's worth the bother now. lol <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

+++ Moreover, I can't help who I write about adds an OPENSOURCE bio to their website. Who would do that anyway? Unless they don't care who edits it. I thought that was strange, but the guy must google himself daily. But that is the risk he takes, and it's does rise to the level of collusion. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

+++ Lastly, he is Yoseph M. Daviyd - my handle is yosephdaviyd - NO "M". <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:So you are saying that you aren't Yoseph Daviyd? That you only picked the person's name because you liked it? If so, you should probably change it, per ], '''"Do not register a username that includes the name of an identifiable living person unless it is your real name."''' -- ''']'''] 23:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Correct. I am neither David L. Gray (Yoseph M. Daviyd) or Saudia Mills or any other person I will write about. Joseph David in Hebrew is Yoseph or Yosef Daviyd that's all, and Joseph David is much related to my actual name. Do you recommend that I delete the account and register new?--] (]) 23:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

My username currently is Yosesphdaviyd not yosephdaviyd - it's not the same if you actually look at it - there is 's' BEFORE the 'p'. --] (]) 00:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
:You know, in my judgement I'd leave it up to you. I don't think it's close enough that you ''have'' to change it, you're right that it's not the same (I did miss that extra S as well, you're right). You might want to change it to avoid other people getting confused and assuming you are the same Daviyd mentioned on Gray's web site, but it's also possible that it won't ever come up again. If you really like the name, go ahead and keep it. You might want to consider putting a disclaimer on your user page to state that you aren't Yoseph M. Daviyd, but again I'll just leave it up to you.


: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)
:To get back to the COI question, if you do know the two people in question (Gray and Mills) you might want to at least have caution when editing articles about them or mentioning them. Mills, in particular, if you know her from high school, you could be considered to possibly have a conflict of interest. All that really means is that you should try to avoid any appearance that you are promoting them, and if anyone has concerns about contributions related to them, give the concerns some due consideration. But we don't forbid your editing about them. There a few subjects I might have a weak COI with, my employer has an article and I've never touched it, and ] is a distant relative of mine (she is a cousin of my deceased grandfather) and I choose to avoid such subjects just in case, but that's a personal choice. Anyway, MSJapan was the person who opened this conversation and so I'll wait for any other concerns to be raised. -- ''']'''] 00:36, 23 July 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)


== A.K.O.O Clothing == == John Ortberg ==


<!-- 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|A.K.O.O Clothing}}
* {{userlinks|David Krochalis}} * {{pagelinks|John Ortberg}}
Users:
* {{userlinks|Akoo Clothing Brand}}
* {{userlinks|Timothydw82}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> <!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Timothydw82 is a ] which is used solely to promote, defend and censor valid information about ]. Timothydw82 admits to consulting with Ortberg about the article on ] and has also used that page to make disparaging comments about Ortberg's son, Daniel Lavery. This is both a serious COI and POV problem. He has been warned before by other editors. My most recent warning (for POV editing) was met with what seems to be feigned incomprehension and "Do you work for Misplaced Pages?". I think it is time to put an end to this farce. ] (]) 02:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Recently, {{user|Akoo Clothing Brand}} made a large addition to the article. I reverted the edit and the user was blocked because of their username. Today, a new account posted the exact same information to the article. It should be obvious but the user has a COI and they're more than just a fan (I can say more but don't want to out them). I'm somewhat busy with some other articles and was wondering if someone can help out. I think the user is earnestly attempting to improve the article and I have seen no reason to think that there will be problems. Their addition also seems to be very well formatted for a first time user so it shouldn't be too difficult to handle if you're new to COIs and want to help out. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 22:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
:No time to look into this further right this moment, but I'd like to point out that the creation of a new account is not only allowed, but in this case it is officially encouraged, because the previous block was ''only'' for the username and not for any behavioral problems. If the editor needs assistance later I'll see what I can do. -- ''']'''] 22:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
::Of course. I'm not suggesting that there's a strong COI here; quite the contrary. If I had enough time, I'd help improve the article with the new editor but as I have a finite amount of time to edit and have promised myself to other areas, I don't' think it's responsible for me to promise/dedicate myself to helping in this situation. While the editor hasn't shown that he wants to do anything that's contrary to WP's goals, he works for the company and I think that attention should be paid to the changes made in the article. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 04:29, 23 July 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.
== COI on astrology pages ==
: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 ==
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{la|Astrology}}
* {{la|Algol}}
* {{la|Ophiuchus}}
* {{la|Robert Currey}}
* {{userlinks|Robertcurrey}}
* {{userlinks|Zachariel}}
* {{userlinks|Petersburg}}
* {{userlinks|Aquirata}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Robertcurrey is an editor who identified himself as being the subject of this article: ], see Talk. So off-wiki information can be considered for COI questions. I came across this Facebook page: , where he is asking for "help" and for people who know their way around the WP rules. This suggests a COI, and sounds like a "righting a great wrong" type of mission.
Robertcurrey was already mentioned in the context of a previous astrology banning in March: .<br />
When I tagged the ] article recently, two editors who never worked on the page before came out to remove the tag without addressing the problems on the page. This were Zachariel and Aquirata, an editor who was also involved in the same March bannings. Just see recent history on ]<br />
Zachariel is making edits which almost invariably bring in references to skyscript.co.uk website. You can try to count them in ], a page he edited extensively and is now awaiting peer review. On the ] page, Robertcurrey and Zachariel took turns to revert my edits that brought the article back to normal format for an astronomy page, even after several other editors pointed out that keeping astrology and astronomy to separate articles is a community concensus. Zachariel refused to put the astrology of Algol in ], and tried to delete that article to further his aim. Same scenario with ], where Zachariel goes on bringing back astrology stuff , even after ] was voted a Keep (he tried to delete that article as well). Continuing reverts against community concensus, and not responding to common sense questions. See the recent history on ] and on the Talk there. And all these edits bring in references to same site. No COI?<br />
Robertcurrey, Zachariel are now very busy on ], where they have been joined by Petersburg, another editor who was involved in the March bannings. It looks like a concerted effort.
Can somebody have a look? ] (]) 09:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

:*'''Comment''' – I have an interest in astrology (mainly historical), but not a conflict of interest. My when I started to contribute to the Astrology Talk pages discussions:

::“BTW, so you know where I'm coming from - I have an interest in astrology. That interest is mainly in the history and ''divinatory'' branches of astrology. The suggestion of astrology being divinatory does not offend my interest in the slightest. But it is incorrect.”

: gives as a clear an explanation as I am able to give as to why I do not have a COI, (for those who have not been able to witness the extent to which my contribution to WP has involved the supply of substantiating references, content with improved reliability, and frequent reminders of the need for consensus on edits based on verifiability through reliable sources).

: Makesense64 has failed to inform you that he is the subject of involving, disruptive and tendentious editing, and ''his'' COI. The Skyscript site he mentions is notable as a web reservoir of hundreds of authorised articles that have been published in print elsewhere. (With regard to the Dennis Elwell biography, it is the only website which presents his material, including many of his well known articles published in other journals as well as a book-published interview with the subject). It is relevant that Makesense64 commenced his recent WP activity, after a 2-year hiatus, with a suggestion that the site owner’s biography lacked notability, and that links or references to that site . It later transpired this was two days after being banned from the forum of that site, and whilst he was engaging in a web-based hate campaign against the site owner who had banned him. Although presenting himself on WP as a sceptic, it is only western astrology/astrologers that he targets critically, having himself a notable commercial interest in Chinese astrology.

: For the details, see the complaint . The other complaints he raises here have been discussed and answered there. (Robert Currey, incidentally, initiated that complaint saying: “his agenda appears to be to promote his Chinese branch of astrology by discrediting only Western Astrology under the pretence of being a sceptic to disguise his ] (Conflict of Interest). His divisive style seeks to inflame edit war and his frequent editing is disruptive and time-wasting to other editors "

: I was unaware of this complaint until just now, and assume the other editors are also uninformed (should they be?). I will make a note about this on the ANI complaint. ]] 09:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
::The only issue where I see our ] guideline being applicable is in Robert Currey editing his own biography (which is already a self-acknowledged COI). Any issues outside of that are beyond the scope of this noticeboard, so if you have any current issues with Robert's actions at his own biography, I'm sure people would be interested in hearing about them (saying "Just see recent history on ]" isn't sufficient to explain your concerns). If you're alleging that Zac or anyone else has a COI in regards to skyscript.co.uk (because they have a financial stake in the site, or are otherwise affiliated with it) you need to present clear evidence of this (without violating ]), otherwise be aware of the bolded statement at the top of this noticeboard that states, '''"accusing another editor of having a conflict of interest in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited and may result in sanctions against you."''' If your concerns are unrelated to COI, considering that there is a very active thread on this topic already at ], this request could be considered ]. -- ''']'''] 21:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
::: @Atama. Why is the scope of possible COI limited to Robert Currey editing his own biography?
::: He was warned for possible COI in astrology articles, as mentioned in the context of previous astrology bannings that I referred to.
::: He identifies himself as this editor who was not banned but warned, in a public facebook note where he is asking for "Help" in a group of astrologers. How does that rhyme with the WP policies? Where are the WP guidelines that explain to me how I can recruit editors on facebook to "Help" me? If this is how WP works then I have to start my own recruiting on facebook. Would that be OK? This is going to set an interesting precedent , if you ask me.
::: Only you are talking about possible financial stakes in skyscript.co.uk. I simply mention that most of Zac's edits that bring new sources, always seem to have references to the same dedicated astrology website. That's pointing out on-wiki activity isn't it? And once his reference is in, he is defending it with tooth and nail, as he did on ] and now again on ], both being astronomy pages. If you were to check out all links to skyscript.co.uk on WP, then I guess you would find that more than half of them were added by the same editor Zac. That doesn't raise any red flags for possible COI?
::: My questions on ] were not addressed, so I took them here.
::: Have you seen Robert Currey and Zac address any of my questions? Where?
::: For example my questions about possible votestacking were never addressed by Robert. Then the artificial "concensus" based on that straw poll was used in the complaint against me. Not bad.
::: With regards to the ANI complaint Robert filed against me. I now notice that the complaining party invited several editors of their own choice through , who interestingly introduces himself on his User page as "I am a Virgo born in a year.." (probably not the epitome of neutrality in a complaint about astrology). Here you can see the names that were submitted for invitation . Why was I not asked to submit a few names for invitation as well, just to keep it fair?
::: If I can also give a few names to have a look at this case, then I suggest ], who handled the previous problems on ], which involved several of the names that have now returned to the same scene. He knows what kind of bans were given and whether they are still in effect.
::: I can also suggest ], who has earlier removed Zacs constant rehashings of material related to an OUTING attempt that was deleted months ago, so he may remember something on that side of the story.
::: My tags on ] being quickly undone by first Zachariel and then Aquirata cannot be brushed away as meaningless. Both editors had never done anything on that article before, so it is pure coincidence? How did they know about the tags? No MEAT? Just see the page history since July 9th (there have only been 8 edits since, so you can easily see it without me bringing the diffs.)
::: Awaiting some answers... ] (]) 10:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

:::: As a matter of fact, I have contributed a mass of references and citations from primary sources, secondary sources, tertiary sources, academic works and independently published popular works, as well as the ones from the site that is notable for its large reservoir of specialist articles that have been previously published in independent journals and books distributed by respected publishers. You are the one with the Skyscript hang-up, not me. Given the site owner’s statement that you were banned from this website just two days before you reinitiated your WP editing, and targetted her WP biography negatively whilst simultaneously engineering a hate campaign against her, for no other reason than because she banned you from the Skyscript forum for being a trouble-maker, I think it's clear to see where the issue of COI really lies. The ANI discussion covered all these points in full, and the editor ], who I have had no other connection with ever, merely interceded to ensure that fair play was observed. You are foolish to keep trying to raise controversy again, and suspicions of plots (for what? improved verification of WP content?). It seems to me that you cannot help acting disruptively, and will never cease ] onto other editors who are contributing positively, the dubious motives that underlie your own troublesome behaviour.]] 16:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

:::::''Rewind noise.'' Hold on, let's back the train up here.
:::::'''With regards to the ANI complaint Robert filed against me. I now notice that the complaining party invited several editors of their own choice through , who interestingly introduces himself on his User page as "I am a Virgo born in a year.." (probably not the epitome of neutrality in a complaint about astrology).'''
:::::Some points:
:::::#I have not, to my knowledge, edited on a single astrology article. Yes, I say on my userpage that I am a Virgo, but that does not imply any sort of conflict of interest, merely that it's my astrological sign. Yes, I also say I'm a monkey, but that does not signify a conflict of interest, merely that it's my Zodiac sign. Nothing more, nothing less.
:::::#When Zac first appeared at AN/I indicating he could provide some information, I encouraged him to go ahead and comment while myself '''having no clue what was going on or what he would reveal'''. This was the first time I have met Zac on the wiki and since my minor involvement we have not communicated, except him notifying me that you mentioned my name as a possible COI. Even look on my talk page, it's right there, nothing archived yet. He indicated he knew some people who might have been involved with the dispute; I asked him to give me names and I would give neutral notifications of the thread. I have been accused in the past of Wikicanvassing (with one user *LOL*) and didn't want him accused of trying to get people to side with him, so I offered to be tyhe neutral third party. '''I AM STILL NEUTRAL.''' One of these editors commented at AN/I that they weren't really involved, so I left another note apologizing if I was in error, and didn't keep up contact with the other five people. Further, other than maybe one or two additional comments at AN/I, I have not even LOOKED at the debate (which is now ], incidentally).
:::::#I have not taken a side in this discussion, and I find it ridiculous that you seem to think I have some perceived conflict of interest just because I state on my user page that I'm a Virgin Monkey (so to speak). This is merely looking to create a conflict where none exists, and tends to point out that you are the type of editor who thrives on conflict - not the type of editor we need on Misplaced Pages.
:::::#I get the feeling also, from your comments, that you are implying that Zac and I are the same person. Go ahead. File an ]. Prepare to have egg on your face.
:::::I politely demand an apology for the accusation of a conflict of interest on a subject that has very little interest to me, either in profession or in editing patterns. ] (]) 16:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::#
:::::: Where do you see me accuse you as having a conflict of interest here? Your name was not added to the list, and my only comment about you was "(probably not the epitome of neutrality in a complaint about astrology)", which I think is a fair comment if somebody starts his user page by stating his star sign. Do you agree that I was not asked to suggest a few names as well? Which would only have been fair?
:::::: There are too many unanswered questions, and Zac is again not answering anything in his latest comment, just rehashing the same stuff for probably the 15th time. Does he actually know that continuing to repeat material that was removed according to OUTING policies is considered harassment?
:::::: Given all these irregularities, possible votestacking should be ruled out , and all I ask for is that some other admin also takes a look at this, not just the names that Zac gave you. Is that too much to ask? Let Atama answer my question, he is the only admin who has shown up for this case so far. ] (]) 16:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Why raise an issue if you don't intend to make any point of it? I notifed several parties at his request. That's all I did. I never saw such a request from you, so I couldn't exchange the favour. So why bring it up?
:::::::You will also note I am currently contacting an admin. regarding this per your request just now. ] (]) 17:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::: I think if you want to play an intermediary role, then you should always communicate directly with both sides. That clearly hasn't happened. I was supposed to notice Zac's request in between the long and repetitive rants he was giving there?
:::::::: Fact is that you notified seven or more names that he suggested to you, without even asking if I was OK with them. ] (]) 17:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::He was bringing an AN/I case against you and asked in the discussion, "Would it be a good thing or a bad thing for me to contact these editors via their talk pages, and ask if they would be willing to comment here? I'm not sure whether this would be viewed as canvassing." I of course encouraged him to give me the names so he wouldn't be seen as canvassing in the event his memo came off as being slanted on his side (which would be canvassing). You never made any such request that I saw, so if I incorrectly presumed you had no one to invite then I apologize. However, all I did was notify people, I did not provide my own opinion. Even in my first comment I merely asked if "we can get in touch with Ms. Houlding (or the logs, etc.) to verify". ] (]) 17:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::: OK. I just think you should be more carefully if you pick up a mediator role. Canvassing problems not only come from possibly writing a non-neutral message to invite other users, "posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions" is also a potential problem, so if you just invite the names passed on to you by one of the parties in a complaint, then there can be a problem. Do you agree? Atama now says that I can also notify a few users of my choice, so I will do that.
:::::::::: BTW, you say, "I am still neutral" in capital letters, but this doesn't look like the remarks by a neutral editor to me: ] (]) 08:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
{{od2}} So I'd like to address some questions posed to me earlier above by MakeSense64.
#Robert Currey shouldn't be warned about a COI at all astrology pages. COI doesn't work that way. A conflict of interest can't apply to a whole field of interest. In fact, our ] specifically states, ''"Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest."'' If someone warned Robert of a COI in the past on that matter, I believe that was a mistake. Now, that's not to say that Robert couldn't be warned about problematic behavior in general about astrology-related topics, that's what we have ] for. But that's different from having a COI.
#If Zac prefers Skyscript as a source, that doesn't in itself constitute a COI. We all have our favorite places to use as sources. As long as those sources follow ], it shouldn't be an issue. If there was any indication that Zac was personally involved with the site in any way, that would be a different story. From what Zac said above, the only COI I can see with the site is yours.
#If you feel that you had questions at ANI that weren't addressed, then they should be brought to an appropriate venue (including possibly another request at ANI), but this noticeboard is only for discussing COI-related issues. Please note that at the time I posted above (3 days ago) the ANI discussion was still active, and opening up another request at the same time at a different place for the same topic is at the very least frowned upon, and if it looks like you're just not accepting a decision in one venue and trying to find a favorable one in another, that could be considered forum shopping and is potentially sanctionable. (I'm not saying that's what you did but just know that it could be seen that way.)
#If you have specific questions for Zac and Robert that you feel haven't been addressed yet, ask them again here and I'll try to see that they get answered (even if you don't like the answers).
#If you're alleging ] from Robert for a straw poll, that should be addressed I agree, I don't see that it was when you had asked it before.
#I think it was obvious why you weren't asked to submit names for invitation to the ANI discussion, the complaint was about you after all. There's nothing unfair or inappropriate about that. ANI isn't like RfA or AfD or RfC where there is some kind of a vote or !vote being held, so if you're asking for people to back you up, there can't be any accusation of "votestacking". The only requirement at ANI is that you notify people who are being discussed, anyone else you choose to notify or not notify is up to the individual.
#If you want Moreschi to comment here, just ask him. There's nothing wrong with that, it might be helpful. The same with DMacks. It's up to them whether they have the time or desire to respond, of course.
#My guess about the tags being removed by Zac and Aquirata is that they were checking your contributions, and reverting edits they thought were problematic. There's nothing wrong with that, per ], ''"Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles."'' I do it myself for certain editors. If they were doing so just to cause distress for you, and no other reason, then that's considered harassment, but I don't see it that way.
I think those were all the questions posed to me before. -- ''']'''] 19:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
:: Thanks for taking your time. I will await Robert's comments on the votestacking questions.
:: These questions I didn't see addressed yet:
:: * "Where are the WP guidelines that explain to me how I can recruit editors on facebook to "Help" me? If this is how WP works then I have to start my own recruiting on facebook. Would that be OK?"
:: * What about Zac's constant rehashing of materials related to outing attempt that was removed by admin months ago?
:: In reply to your comments:
:: As for Zac adding sources from his "favorite site". At what point does that turn into ] ? Zac's earliest contributions to WP consisted mainly of adding external links to his "favorite site". He has continued doing so, and now ads them as references in articles, even though several other editors have pointed out that it is not a reliable source in most cases. I have removed a few of his edits where they are completely out of place, for example in astronomy articles.
:: So, Zac adding 20-30 such links is using a "favorite site", my removing a few of them is seen as COI. That looks like a nice set of double standards to me.
:: As for possible MEAT. Zac following my edits would not be a surprise. But where does Aquirata come from? I have never met him on any other page before, I only know this name because I saw it in the mentioned March bannings. So, how and why is he following my edit history?
:: As for this group of editors taking turns to revert my edits on ], here is the latest example: . A very reasonably edit if you ask me, but promptly reverted by ] , who went on to add a long list of names, making it look like an exagerated testimonials section.
:: I will invite Moreschi, DMacks and also Acabashi, who worked on the Dennis Elwell article with Zac and me.
:: On a related note: Am I the only one who thinks that the WP bureaucracy looks more funny by the day?
:: On ANI there is the request not to go into side discussions, but when I take my own complaint to COIN, then I am getting warned about "forum shopping". That's a nice catch 22.
:: Problems like MEAT, COI, harassment and tendentious editing often go hand and hand. But when making a complaint on one noticeboard a rather typical answer is that something belongs elsewhere. If I can only complain on one forum, then how is this supposed to work?
:: Wouldn't it be much easier and time effective to have one noticeboard for all these complaints, and one for request for comments, and just ditch all these sub departments? Just my POV.
:: ] (]) 09:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

:::Makesense64 says in his post above: “''Zac is again not answering anything in his latest comment, just rehashing the same stuff for probably the 15th time. Does he actually know that continuing to repeat material that was removed according to OUTING policies is considered harassment?”''

:::So let me answer as clearly as I can, because my contribution history is self-evident, and I’m willing to explore any question (in fact I have done this many times but Makesense64 prefers to ignore my responses and direct attention away from them). Also, I am not repeating information removed by the OUTING policy – the removed material revealed Maksesnse64’s off-wiki identity and other information that I have not referred to. I have asked for clarification of this point before and no one has said that referring to the material that has been allowed to remain, or discussing how it points to Makesense64 having a COI himself, is breaking any kind of policy. If someone other than Makesense64 (who was responsible for removing a lot of the relevant discussion himself) suggests it is; then I will cease to refer to it. However, it is hard to see how it is not directly relevant since the entire basis of his complaint against me is that I have provided references that utilise a website which he alone has a problem with (and this information reveals the reason why).

:::My contribution history shows that my otherwise quiet account became activated with my first discussion page contribution on 2nd June this year, directly in response to Makesense64 because I placed three relevant links to this site on WP. I was taken aback by the hostility of his notice and explained that I had seen the tags asking for references in support of notability and had placed three links to published interviews with biography subjects that were published on that site. My explanation was given clearly there and of the biography of the owner of the site: that web domain is a known and respected source of published articles and book extracts that are not readily available on the web elsewhere. ().

:::To verify that this is the simple fact of the matter, merely ''' take a look''' to see how many independently published books make use of that site in their own references and citations. Also note how it is also used as a reference by many works .

:::So we can be clear that this site is a suitable source for independent reference – and it is convenient to be able to check the content of the pre-published articles online.

:::I could not understand why Makesense64’s objected to references to that site, or , when I asked him to agree that it was not spamming to add an external link to a website which was created by the biography subject – especially when the creation of that website is part of the reason for her notability.

:::So I consider it very relevant that a few days later the site owner gave a statement to explain how this 'objecting editor' (Makesense64) was someone she had banned from the forum of her website a few days earlier, for creating a nuisance in his astrologcal arguments. Also, that he was perpetuating a hate campaign against her and her website, on off-wiki websites, at the same time that he was arguing here that any link which went to her website from Misplaced Pages was spam. And that his first action on reactivating his dormant WP account was to target her biography with suggestions that it lacked notability.

:::There has never been any inappropriate use of that site from me, and I have nothing to gain from adding links to it. It is merely convenient because it reproduces articles published in other independently published sources, which are not available on the web elsewhere. The most substantial reference to the site was in the case of the ] that Makesense64 has mentioned above – and here only because the site included an interview and reproduced published articles which substantiated the commentary in his biography.

:::I have never argued in favour of retaining links to Skyscript where other sources could be used instead. Even when I have witnessed Makesense64 disingenuously trying to suggest that the site is not a reputable one – in which case I make the argument appropriately, without revealing my own knowledge of how he has his own personal vendetta against the owner of the site. In these situations I have also not revealed my own knowledge of how his vendetta is rooted in professional conflict which holds a financial interest for him, presenting another COI in the way that he champions Chinese astrology methods, whilst seeking to remove reference to (or retain misinformation about) western astrology. I can qualify that without revealing his off-wiki identity if it is appropriate to do so. I believe it is, since he has raised the issue of COI himself. Or I can submit it privately to arbitration if it sails too close to outing policy concerns.

:::I have nothing to gain professionally or financially by the contributions I make to Misplaced Pages. I was unaware of the astrology-content problems that needed correction until Makesense64 forced my attention towards them; and my motivation for contributing should be clear enough from the fact that my contributions have been positive ones, which have replaced a lot of unreliable information with clearer explanations attributed to reliable sources (as I said before: ''primary sources, secondary sources, tertiary sources, academic works and independently published popular works, as well as the ones from the site that is notable for its large reservoir of specialist articles that have been previously published in independent journals and books distributed by respected publishers'').

:::I too feel there is an apology owed to me from Makesense64, for suggesting that I spam, for suggesting that I have ulterior motives for providing the citations I provide, for suggesting that my arguments on the Algol and Ophiuchus pages were anything but legitimate, and for continually obstructing my well intentioned contributions to the extent that I even changed my user-name in the naive hope that it would free me from his ongoing harassment. If there is any reason for pursuing COI concerns here, the attention has to be returned to Makesense64 who has been criticized for being disruptive by many other editors – . I am not aware of that being the case for any of the other editors mentioned. I also feel it is relevant that he has initiated four groundless complaints against me so far, and despite all the good reasons why I could initiate complaints against him, I haven't bothered to do that because I'm here to contribute and substantiate content not pursue these endlessly destructive, time-wasting, editor-discussions. I only spoke out to support the ANI complaint made against Makesense64 initiated by Robert Currey because there was such good grounds to do so. From everything I have witnessed of Robert Curry's contributions here they have never been anything but constructive, civil, fair, and seeking to ensure neutrality at all times. My experience with Makesense64's 'contributions' is the direct opposite to that. ]] 13:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

::::I have not expressed my opinion formally before, but now am prepared to do so.

::::'''MakeSense64''': Using your being banished from another web site to take out a personal vendetta against it on Misplaced Pages is unacceptable. It is considered disruptive editing and is grounds for being blocked, and even completely banned if it continues after that. Further, going around and harassing users innocent of any wrongdoing of having a ] is entirely unfounded; there has to be some gain by the material being used in the article for them to have a COI. Also, this account above and the information provided in it convincingly shows that you are in the wrong here; not Zac, not Robert, not anyone else here. This is your vendetta.

::::I'm not going to close this myself (like I might at AN/I right now), but rather will suggest for administrative review having MakeSense64 topic-banned from all astrology articles. Having such a vendetta tells me that MakeSense64 has a COI of the opposite type; he feels wronged by the site and wants to have his revenge. A topic ban seems appropriate. This seems to be another instance of a ] being thrown and not noticed on its return. ] (]) 14:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

:::::You know, Cyclone, I've seen the same people with basically the same dispute at a couple of boards now over the last two months, and I'm beginning to think that you're right. It's a big encyclopedia: there's no need for these people to keep butting heads, and I don't think they would be, except that one of them is trying to (ab)use Misplaced Pages to accomplish a goal unrelated to Misplaced Pages's goals. ] (]) 16:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

== ] and ] ==

] that he is employed by ] to edit Reddy's Misplaced Pages page. I have warned him , but he keeps the same promotional, unsourced, material, removing maintenance templates, and refusing to discuss the problem. What should I do? --] (]) 13:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
:I have blocked the editor for 48 hours for edit warring, and given further warnings on promotion and conflict of interest. I will be willing to consider whether any further steps are needed if the problem continues. ] (]) 13:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

== Academia ==


{{Resolved|There seems to be consensus that the editing in question does not constitute a ]. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 17:26, 26 July 2011 (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. -->
Pages:
* {{la|Academia}}
* {{pagelinks|Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation}}
* {{pagelinks|Park Hyeon-joo}}
Users:
* {{userlinks|Channy Jung}}
* {{userlinks|203.239.154.130}}
* {{userlinks|Chisu1020}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> <!-- 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 article is a general article about insititutions concerned with acquiring and promulgating knowledge from ancient antiquity to present times. {{User|Miradre}} has suggested that, because he suspects Itsmejudith and me of being employed within academia, this creates a conflict of interest in editing this particular article. Was it appropriate for Miradre to raise such objections? ] (]) 07:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
:That is an incorrect and false description. I have certainly not stated that academics cannot edit that article. Rather, I asked them to consider if there may be a COI when academics edit (and in particular want to completely delete) material that are criticisms and or otherwise may have negative implications for them as a group (compare COI for organizations) and/or their employer. Such as this well-sourced material ] everything of which they want to exclude. (Obviously, I have no objections regarding academics editing their area of academic expertise.) Anyway, I just raised this point for consideration and discussion, I have not stated that this definitively precludes editing or made any complaint regarding this..] (]) 08:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
::Some diffs. Edits of this kind create a toxic editing environment. ] (]) 08:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Again, I just raised this point for consideration and discussion, I have not stated that this definitively precludes editing (as I see it not all COI prevents editing) or made any complaint regarding this. I asked if there may be a WP:COI, not that there is one that prevents editing, as well as asked if you are an academic (obviously no issue at all if you are not).] (]) 08:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
::::What business is it of yours who my employer is? Your questions are obnoxious and prying. ] (]) 09:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::WP:COI (My bolding): "COI editing is strongly discouraged. COI editors causing disruption may be blocked. Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Misplaced Pages policies and best practices scrupulously. They are also encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages and '''also on the talk page of the related article they are editing''', and to request others' views, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty." ] (]) 09:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::ArbCom is fully aware who I am because of recent outing problems. You have made an incorrect assumption about me and my employer (if you were reading about my wikipedia account on Stormfront, the information there is wrong). As far as the message above goes, please read ]. ] (]) 10:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I asked if you was an academic since, as I stated at the time, you describe yourself as a "professional pure mathematician". If you are not an academic, then obviously there is no possible COI regarding this for you.] (]) 10:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::I've told you that your double guessing about my employer is flawed. It is also against wikipedia policy. Some people would call anybody with a PhD an academic. Given that, don't you think it's about time to call an end to your failed attempt to ] the system? I'll give you two marks out of ten for determination with one mark subtracted for poor presentation. Class dismissed! ] (]) 11:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
*The suggestion implicit in "since you yourself are an academic, may there be a ] here?"<sup>{{diff|Talk:Academia|prev|441189827|first diff above}}</sup> (that an academic may have a COI when editing ]) is a total misunderstanding of ], or is an attempt to use any available technique in a disagreement. The text quoted above ending with "appreciate your honesty" is again misguided or indicative of a ] issue. ] (]) 10:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
::You misrepresent me. I have never claimed that simply editing the academia article is COI. Read above. Neither have I claimed that a COI would definitely prevent editing or made such a complaint. But at least a possible COI is useful to know for everyone involved and the policy encourages such a disclosure.] (]) 10:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
:::So when you suggest that an academic may have a ] on the talk page of an article, you don't mean it? Again, there is a total misunderstanding of WP:COI, or a WP:COMPETENCE issue. ] (]) 11:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
::::There is no COI for most material in the Academia article. I have certainly not stated that academics cannot edit the Academia article at all. Rather, I asked them to consider if there may be a COI when academics edit (and in particular want to completely delete) material that are criticisms and or otherwise may have negative implications for them as a group (compare COI for organizations) and/or their employer. Such as this well-sourced material: ]. ] (]) 11:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::No, there is no COI for an academic if they delete cherry-picked undue material from an article on academia. ] (]) 11:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::It is not "cherry-picked" and if it was then that is a reason for adding more balancing material but it is not a reason for deletion. If editing (and in particular completely deleting all the material) was a COI was the issue I wanted to discuss. ] (]) 11:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


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.
Is it OK for academics to edit the article ]? Someone has suggested that I have a conflict of interest because I am an academic. How about all the articles in the scope of WikiProject Universities? And membership of that WikiProject? Thanks. ] (]) 17:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
:See the section above with exactly the same name.] (]) 17:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
::I shall see it. I have asked some further questions here. ] (]) 17:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
:::<small>I've just merged this section with the previous one. Hope this is OK. ] (]) 20:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)] (]) 18:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)</small>
* I don't see anything that would properly be described as a conflict of interest here, as Misplaced Pages ]. Incidentally, one of the hallmarks of COI editing is "a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference." In that light, does an extensive rehash of 21st-century American conservative criticisms of U.S. academia belong in a general article on ]? Shoehorning that material into the general article seems to suggest the sort of myopia alluded to in ]. I mean, since we're here. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 19:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
::It is a notable debate in academic sources, major newspapers, and notable non-fiction books. Are you suggesting that these are not acceptable references for Misplaced Pages? ] (]) 19:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Since we're here, I suggested early on that some of it could go into ]. ] (]) 20:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
::::Before this moves further from the topic note that the issue is discussed here: ] ] (]) 20:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


I recently rewrote ] entirely to get rid of the unsourced promotional-like writing . State of article before the rewrite: .
I've reviewed this discussion, and first I want to point out -- whoever is bringing something to COIN, should ideally do a more diligent job of exposing what the debate is about. Please note that there has been very little input from uninvolved editors here; I'd suggest that simply including a diff in the initial posting (like , which shows the bulk of the content Miradre added) would make it much easier for others to weigh in.


Also worth noting the is similarly fluffy. I suspect Park/his foundation are watching these articles.
On the content itself: it appears to me that this substantial content addition is going into the wrong article (though a summary or brief treatment of this topic may be appropriate to ]); and that regardless of where it is added, it's a delicate subject that should ideally be discussed in some depth as the content is developed.


] (]) 05:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
The accusation of a conflict of interest appears wholly without merit. Furthermore, by Miradre seems like an ill-advised step (see the warning at the top of this editing window about the harassment policy superseding the COI guideline). To make such a spurious accusation of COI strikes me as a deeply anti-collaborative step to take; better to address the merits of your fellow editors' arguments, than to question the legitimacy of their participation. I think this situation could benefit from some kind of intervention or informal mediation, but the COI noticeboard isn't the right venue. -] (]) 20:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
:Everything I added is here ] or here if you prefer a diff: . This version is in all aspects a better version. Regarding WP:COI we obviously have it for a reason. I am pretty sure academics can have COI issues just like everyone else. If nothing else declaring a possible COI is encouraged. As already stated, I took up the issue for discussion. But I have never stated that this prevented anyone from editing or made any complaint.] (]) 21:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
::: Miradre, you are responding here to accusations I did not make. My first paragraph, above, was not addressed to you, but to MathSci (the person who brought the complaint to COIN). I was merely making a practical suggestion to him/her, about setting up a discussion like this for more participation, not implicating anybody for failing to disclose anything. I've reread my post, and think I was pretty clear; your reaction seems out of proportion with what I said.
::: Regarding your last point, that you merely "took up the issue for discussion," I think Atama addresses it well below. In my view, there is nothing "mere" about "bringing it up" ''four times'' in rapid succession. -] (]) 21:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
::::See below for 4 times accusation.] (]) 21:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
::For Miradre, two things. First, does being an "academic" (which is such a broad term that it's almost meaningless as a label) mean that someone has a COI at the academia article? Essentially, is a person employed in a particular field considered to have a COI when editing an article about or related to that field? The answer to that question is an unambiguous '''no'''. This is very clearly covered in our ] where it states, with no ambiguity, ''"Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest."'' Aside from the official guideline, though, it would be absurd to suggest there could be. If Misplaced Pages actually discouraged professionals from editing articles that fall under their area of expertise, then Misplaced Pages would be a joke. You want to encourage experts when you can, as long as those experts are willing and able to follow our guidelines and policies in the process (since self-promotion or the advancement of pet theories, biases, or grudges are plausible for such persons). But again, it's not a COI to be a professional in the topic area and you should know that just by reading our guideline.


: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)
::The other issue is whether or not we can ask people if they have a COI or have a particular employer. If you have a justification for suspecting that a person does, because of that person's actions or other on-wiki information, you most certainly are allowed to ask, ''respectfully''. And if the person declines to answer, or gives an answer you don't like, you need to accept it. Asking it once is reasonable, asking 4 times is ]. I hope you won't repeat that behavior any further. -- ''']'''] 21:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
:::"Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." True, as I stated above. However, this is of course not the same as meaning that all academics are academic experts about the political views of the academia. Regarding asking if Mathsci was an academic I think I did it only once.] (]) 21:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
:::: Then you think wrong. MathSci listed four diffs above. -] (]) 21:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::First diff is not a reply to MathSci. Second and fourth are not questions. Only the third is question which I never repeated.] (]) 21:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::''"However, this is of course not the same as meaning that all academics are academic experts about the political views of the academia."'' That makes no sense to me, did that make sense to anyone else? That seems like a non sequitur to me, and seems to have nothing to do with conflicts of interest, or anything you have previously said on this board. You said, ''"I asked them to consider if there may be a COI when academics edit (and in particular want to completely delete) material that are criticisms and or otherwise may have negative implications for them as a group"''. That has nothing to do with whether or not "all academics are academic experts about the political views of the academia". And it doesn't matter if your statements are in the form of a question (this isn't '']''), just bringing up the fact that you suspect that a person has a COI on a talk page where the person is actively participating counts at least as an implicit question. And yes, there were 4 diffs there showing you doing exactly that. So all I'm saying on that matter is two things; drop it so that you can avoid sanctions for harassment (which I hope you've done by now) and as a general piece of advice, just ask someone and accept the answer or lack of an answer. -- ''']'''] 22:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Again, the basic misunderstanding is that not all academics are academic experts about the academia. The rule you cited only applies to that area of expertise. To make it clearer, one of my sources implies that there may be massive discrimination against women, practising Christian, and conservative academics. This a potentially gigantic problems for the academic institutions (lawsuits and so on) that employ academics. Not to mention to the academics that may have been discriminated (or reversely gained unfairly). Academics are not free from potential COI regarding their employment or employers just because they are academics and have academic expertise in one particular academic area. I only asked once and I repeat that only took this matter up for discussion and never claimed that someone could not edit the article or made no complaint here. I do not plan to do so in the future. Hopefully this will finish the matter.] (]) 23:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::How is this in any way relevant to me? Here is the relevant sequence of diffs from ] and here. Miradre apparently felt justified in making these comments and inferences because of what was written on my user page. Once I had refused to comment, Miradre should have dropped it. ] (]) 23:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::You opened a complaint here and expect me to not defend myself and explain my edits? You cite my explanations of my earlier edits on this page as evidence? Mathsci, for the last 4 days you done little except followed me around Misplaced Pages, including to articles you have never edited before, made complaints and reverted my edits, and made complaints to several different noticeboards. Stop the harassment. ] (]) 00:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::''"Academics are not free from potential COI regarding their employment or employers just because they are academics and have academic expertise in one particular academic area."'' Anyone, academic or not, would normally be considered to have a COI if they edit an article related to their employer. Editing related to their ''employment'' (i.e. the reason they are employed, as in their field) is not a COI. For example, if an MD made a change to the ] article that removed information from the ] section that said that "doctors make the worst patients", that's not a COI. Any benefit that the MD could personally receive from such an action is so remote that the accusation of COI is pretty far-fetched. Nor do we consider zookeepers to have a COI at articles about zoos in general, unless the zookeeper was editing related to their particular zoo. I want to make sure you understand this, because your statements in the past at the very least suggest a far stricter standard for determining COI than our guidelines suggest, to the extent of bothering at least one editor through repeated insinuations. I know you didn't suggest any sanctions against Mathsci, and in turn I'm not suggesting any against you, but I would really like to make sure we're clear so that you can avoid similar unnecessary disputes in the future. -- ''']'''] 00:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::OK. As I said I raised the issue for discussion. Also for clarifying the situation. Thanks for clarifying.] (]) 00:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::Mathsci, you opened the discussion, are you satisfied at this point? Miradre isn't going to pester you and I think the subject has been beaten up as much as it can be without getting repetitive. Multiple people in this thread (not just me) have confirmed that there shouldn't be any COI in regards to your edits to ] so I'd say your question has been answered. -- ''']'''] 00:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::(ec) Thanks. I had already prepared a response, so here is a slighty edited version. Miradre has already been warned by an adminstrator (Atama) to stop harrassing me. Another administrator (MastCell) has explained to Miradre that her claims of COI are without any merit. On ], on ArbCom case pages or indeed anywhere on wikipedia, user conduct is subject to scrutiny. Miradre should take stock of what has been said here and move on. That includes ceasing to make bad faith statements about experienced editors in similar circumstances. Miradre's claims of COI prompted me and later Itsmejudith separately and indepedently to open queries at this noticeboard, which I later merged. We were the victims and Miradre would do well to remember that. ] (]) 00:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: Strange as it may seem, I think everybody in this discussion is in agreement on the one point relevant to this noticeboard: there is no actionable COI. I agree that we should consider this matter closed. -] (]) 05:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


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


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|Exhibition drill}}
* {{la|Drill team}}
* {{la|New Mexico Military Institute}}
* {{userlinks|Jkmarshall001}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
] inserted the following text, among other things, into the listed articles; the text appears to be conflict of interest at worst, and promotional in nature at best: *John K. Marshall developed and published a complete system (see both, The World Drill Association Adjudication Manual and Rule Book and Continuing Education for the Visual Adjudicator) for judging military drill competitions in 2009. The system can be used for all phases of a drill meet (XD, RD GC and honor guard), as of 2011 is currently used for some XD-only competitions including those hosted by the Exhibition Drill Competition Association . This system was derived from Marshall's extensive work in judging, teaching and/or performing with sister pageantry arts (indoor color guard and percussion, marching band/drum corps and military drill teams) around the world for more than 20 years. While this system is new and not widely used, it is the standard when judging a visual-based performance. -] (]) 17:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
:Just FYI, you're not being ignored here, I read this before and looked at the editor's talk page and have some concerns but I won't be able to address anything now, if anyone else wants to jump on it feel free. -- ''']'''] 00:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
::So to follow up... ] doesn't seem to have anything self-promotional from Marshall, his involvement at that article is primarily to try to redirect it. I did find that self-promotional material was added to the other two, and cleaned it out from ] (it was already removed from ]). I left the editor a notice about this noticeboard message and a warning about ] and ]. -- ''']'''] 17:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


== Walter De Brouwer == == Paul Devlin (footballer) ==


<!-- 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|Walter De Brouwer}} * {{pagelinks|Paul Devlin (footballer)}}
* {{userlinks|Lavidat8}} * {{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)
replicates made by SPA ] and reverted after an earlier COI/N. ] (]) 02:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
:Their stats look correct for what they are, per the sources in the career stats table lower down the article where they appear in the totals columns, but they include data for matches that don't belong in the infobox. The editor has removed all but big-league clubs from the infobox, lumped together separate spells with the same club, and included statistics for cup competitions; I've explained to them that conventionally we don't do that. The editor also suggests there are errors and omissions, which could well be true, but they haven't yet elaborated. cheers, ] (]) 13:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:I would have taken this to ] but it's so obvious that it's not worth the effort. Per ] these are the same people. Asterysk was reverted in their efforts to change the article, and made appeals to other editors for assistance, but kept receiving the same (correct) advice about following our policies and guidelines, and attempting to use the talk page to work out the dispute rather than repeatedly attempting to change the main page. And so Asterysk completely stopped editing, and Lavidat8 began editing the same article in the same manner, apparently to try to evade scrutiny, since the COI was established for Asterysk. Obviously that attempt was a failure. I've blocked Lavidat8 indefinitely, and blocked Asterysk for a week (I don't feel that these actions warrant an indefinite block). At the expiration of the week I hope that Asterysk begins taking the advice of other editors. -- ''']'''] 18:19, 27 July 2011 (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)


== ] ==
== ZenQuest Martial Arts Center ==
{{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 ==
Although this article seems to be well written, the primary editor on it even admited to, "creating a page for my dojo." I'm not an expert on this sort of thing but the page seems to be violating the WP:NPOV, notability and advertising policies.(] (]) 05:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC))
:Some observations... First, you were correct to bring this matter to this noticeboard, this is a clear conflict of interest and there certainly have been problems with the article due to that COI as you stated. However, the article is also fairly well-written as you said. The article's creator self-disclosed the COI in the article's creation, which we encourage. The editor in question (]) is a prolific and experienced Misplaced Pages editor, with a number of acknowledgements and awards from his contributions. ] has made a good start in cleaning up some of the biggest problems with the article, though more attention is probably needed (I might have a stab at it myself). I've reminded 3family6 of our ] and notified him of this noticeboard report. -- ''']'''] 19:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
::I'd appreciate it if someone did go over the article. When it was reviewed there was some mention of promo-like material, and I fixed some of it, and Ukexpat did further work on it, I realize that there could easily be more COI problems. I am fully that my relationship with the subject makes it difficult to notice NPOV issues and the like (and I've noticed that I tend to promote whatever subject I'm doing on Misplaced Pages, no matter my affiliation), so I would actually appreciate it if the article was looked over.--] (]) 21:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

== ] ==

Can we get more editors watching ] please? There's some requests that have been sitting there for months... We ask them to use ] and get them to jump through all these hoops and when they do and do their best to follow all our rules and their request just sits there without a response, I'm sure it must be very frustrating for them. I'm totally opposed to promotional editing, but I believe we should be as accommodating as possible when they do follow our guidelines to the letter. -- ]] 15:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
:It looks like maybe someone work has been done today (not many requests left). I removed two that no longer applied but ] needs help. At least two editors have repeatedly requested edits and it looks like they've gone ahead and made a few. If anyone goes there to help, I ask that you not template the page with {{tl|COI}}. The editors who have identified themselves as being "from" RED have been very forthcoming and requested changes be made several times so tagging the page now would be a slap in the face, in my opinion.
:I never realized requests sometimes took so long to fulfill. I'll keep an eye on that category from now on. I'll try to work on the RED page when I get time but it might be a little while as I've promised my help to some other pages. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 17:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

== A publishing company seems to have own account ==


<!-- 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|article name}} * {{pagelinks|Gilles Epié}}
* {{userlinks|username}} * {{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)
I came upon ] while new page patrolling. It was a page about an author. It was originally written by {{Userlinks|Massolitpublishing}}. Quite obviously, I have concerns about a new editor/editors not understanding Misplaced Pages policy. I will leave a message on the user talk page after I finish writing this, but request assistance in dealing with this situation. --] (]) @ 15:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
:Never mind. The user seems to be blocked, now. ] (]) @ 15:41, 26 July 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)
== Karen Gibson Roc ==
::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. -->
* {{la|Karen Gibson Roc}}
* {{userlinks|Karengibsonroc}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
User is working on what appears to be an autobiography. I've added COI, REF and notability tags to the article which were removed. I probably should have taken it to talk but since it's a COI matter first and foremost I figured I'd get it here and I will bring up those issues on the talk page when this issue is dealt with (either by block or not, I'm not sure what COI protocol is) I also left COI info on her talk page. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 00:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
:User is attempting to remove maintenance templates and add a discogs link for purchasing albums. They're currently on L3 warning for maintenance tag removal. Most disconcertingly, the last time the user removed the templates, they when they obviously had not been (falsified an edit summary to remove a COI tag from their autobiography). ]'''<sup>]</sup> 18:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
::Issued a L4 warning. The editor made a statement in the summary that, "Changes will no longer be made with this account, all changes have been made to adhere to the guidelines of wikipedia, all information included in this article are verifiable, therefore we have removed the alerts, thank you". I've replaced the BLPRefImprove template and Notability template until those issues can be addressed. I've also left the COI template on the article until the subject is no longer editing the page. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 18:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

== Mark Friedman ==


<!-- 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|Burning River Buckets}}
* {{la|Results-Based Accountability}}
* {{la|Mark Friedman (author)}} * {{userlinks|C.A. Buttons}}
* {{la|Accountability}}
* {{userlinks|Markfriedman28}}
<!-- 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 stumbled upon ] and noticed the signs of a COI. Page history shows that the page was edited by an account that shares the name of the person who allegedly invented "Results-Based Accountability". User has also edited other pages related to that person. Has added links to places where the products created by Mark Friedman can be purchased. I'd take care of it but I don't have time at the moment to run a comb through the account's edits and clean up the issues. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 14:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


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


== ] ==
{{Resolved|1=See below.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] (]) 17:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)}}
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{la|Maynilad Water Services Inc}}
* {{userlinks|MWSI CC}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
{{user|MWSI CC}}, clearly a representative of the company, is repeatedly removing my coi template, despite a request not to do so. They have also made a large number of edits to the article which show a conflict of interest. ] (]) 16:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
:That article is a monumental spamfest and I have tagged it for deletion as such. I have also reported the user name to ].&nbsp;–&nbsp;] (]) 17:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
::It's also a copyvio and I tagged it as such. I'd like to add to the report that two other accounts ({{user|Wicko665}} and {{user|Boogyboy1978}}) edited the article and are most likely puppets of some variety. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 17:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Editor is blocked. Article was deleted. Unless they pop back up again, this issue seems to be solved. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 18:51, 27 July 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)
== Richard Ebeling ==
: {{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)
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
::: No wirres {{u|Chchcheckit}}, thanks for responding. Hopefully they will respond either here or there. ] (]) 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{la|Richard Ebeling}}
* {{userlinks|Richard Ebeling}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
The biography article appears to be mostly being edited by the article's subject. I'm not sure how much inappropriate stuff is in the text of the article, but the writings seem to be pretty radically over-linked. I'd rather avoid working directly on the article because it might be perceived as part of mainstream-vs-mainstream economist conflict. ](]/]) 14:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

== Eva Zeisel ==

<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{la|Eva Zeisel}}
* {{userlinks|Eva zeisel}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Pretty obvious. I doubt this is actually Eva Zeisel (who is 104 years old), though it would be pretty cool if she's online (she is still designing.) --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

:I have asked the user to confirm whether or not they are indeed Eva Zeisel.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] (]) 20:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

== ] and about 40 others ==

<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{la|Joe Mantello}}
* {{userlinks|Danielle Drees}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
User adding ] and internal links to '']''. The material added typically describes an interview with the spammed article's subject and is cited to a BOMB article written by Jenefer Shute. User sometimes comes back later to add an external link as well. User page states they are an intern for BOMB. --] (]) 22:13, 28 July 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