This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
TBH, I am bringing this up as I do not know anymore if this editor is really is a legitimate editor or a COI paid editor. The heading is given as this is the only article this editor have declared as a paid editor.
It appears that either this zoology enthusiast have been corrupted by paid editing or has been a paid editor since day 1. His edits is either written like a resume or in a promotional manner. Whilst these are different to each other, they appear to have their similarities to one and the other.
Zootrainer appears to be at best a one of those or a SPA editor since he has a 4 edit history. Other than those listed, there appears to be more paid editing by this user. Donnie Park ( talk) 19:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Editors, I'm really not conspiring to establish notability for anyone and I'm sorry if I have drawn such negative attention. I enjoy contributing to Wikipedia and recently, in a few cases, I have been offered compensation, which I accepted and noted on respective pages. It has caused much more trouble than it was worth, as I've learned this week. I'm not unscrupulous or even that smart to plan such a PR stunt. On some other pages, I have added articles I've written just because I'm aware of them. I will take them down if they are of concern. For instance, I wrote an article on Jef Levy for Huffington Post. It occurred to me that it could be added to his Wikipedia page, but I doubt he needed it to add to his notability, I just thought it was a helpful and interesting addition.
Amy Andersen is a social media contact and I approached her about writing for her blog. I wrote a few articles for her blog, which she compensated me for. I did suggest that she get a Wikipedia profile for both her business and herself because after learning more about her industry, I noticed that a lot of matchmakers had Wikipedia pages. After I started contributing to Huffington Post and learned that they encouraged reposting articles from other sources, it occurred to me that one article I wrote for her blog would be a good article to repost on Huffington Post. If I added it to her Wikipedia page, which I don't think I did, it was really just an afterthought. I don't see it on her page. I'm really sorry for raising such concern. I really liked contributing to Wikipedia and I regret that I accepted compensation to do any. It has been fun to contribute, but now I'm kind of afraid to create any more articles, which I've really just done on occasion. I do come across people who I think are notable and I have been approached by people to do biographical articles. It is fun to link articles, and I enjoy writing biographies, but I really don't want to create any trouble. I'm sorry that I raised concerns. I hope this helps. Thanks Jpop73 ( talk) 05:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I had one other account that I think I used to contribute to a page for Dr. Grey Stafford and Sandra Dee Robinson when when I first started. Is there a way to find out out what contributions those accounts made. I don't recall the name I used before. I didn't know anyone associated, though. I could have had zoo in the name, but I don't remember. Is there a way to find out any more information. Thanks Jpop73 ( talk) 22:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I found another "crossover" account User:Wallabyguy, which edits some of the same articles as Jpop73, zooaction, Zootrainer and Zookeeper4u, e.g. Grey Stafford (where Zootrainer and Wallabyguy are SPAs). One thing they all have in common, at least on the histories I've seen, is not providing an edit summary. LaMona ( talk) 22:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear LaMona and Lemongirl942, I do know Grey Stafford very well. Would it be helpful if I asked him if he has a user name and logged in to make changes. I believe I'm the one who created his account and it wouldn't surprise me if he or an associate of his updated the account at a later time. Forgive me, but I'm really not clear on why this would be against policy or a conflict of interest, but I certainly apologize if I did something wrong. I thought what I added was neutral and objective. In addition, one reason, I suspect there are no edit summaries is because I was pretty new at this. I can't really speak for why others didn't add them. By now I should know to add one, but I still often forget and didn't know they were required. Do you need the IP address of my old computer. Would that help? Jpop73 ( talk) 05:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, when I was curator I contributed updates on the BEAR CENTER, which actually never came to fruition so that could be removed, but I did warn E Tyler about removing factual information, albeit it negative about the center. I think it involved the acquisition of black tailed deer that we shouldn't have had in our possession. He's is a marketing person and did not seem to grasp that you can't just delete something because it is negative. We had a heated discussion about it, which I remember clearly. Jpop73 ( talk) 01:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC) At the same time, I should have been carelful about mentioning the bear center because it was only in the planning stages. Jpop73 ( talk) 01:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Here is one example of a media outlet, which interviewed me on the future of zoos for Minnesota Public Radio. This a secondary reference, not a primary source, but is just one example that the editors refuse to consider as a source where my expertise on zoos was valued. The coverage was on me as the subject of the interview. http://www.mprnews.org/story/2012/07/12/daily-circuit-future-of-zoos I just don't understand why the editors/administrators who nominated my article for deletion continue to dismiss this kind of information. Jpop73 ( talk) 05:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
In the case of Amy Andersen and her company, they have received more notable press than just about anyone else I created an article for (from the New York Times to Vanity Fair). However, these articles have been the first to be deleted, presumably because I was compensated for writing about her. These seem to be really quite discriminatory actions against people like me who were just trying to follow the rules. Jpop73 ( talk) 05:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Sandra Dee Robinson's article was already created when I elected to make some edits and update it. She is a notable and veteran daytime and Primetive television actress and she was Miss Pennsylvania USA. Her bio is another that was tagged AFD, and yet she is the subject of one of the more prominant profiles I've worked on, and only made edits. I feel this is clearly becoming a punitive effort to punish me and in many cases people I 've tried to help who have done nothing wrong. I may have inadvertently imposed a conflict of interest in some cases, but I have spent a great deal of my time this week trying to be helpful, honest and transparent. I don't know what more I can do to try to cooperate with people who are adamant about deleting my article and those that I have worked on Jpop73 ( talk) 05:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Eden Sassoon is more than just the daughter of Vidal Sassoon. She gets more global regular press about her hairstyling and and cosmetics empire than most in her industry. Try a Google news search on her. Again, she was quickly deleted, when she is quite notobale. I just don't understand where all this AFD tagging is coming from it seems unfair and personal. Jpop73 ( talk) 05:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
General John Michel was the the Commanding General, NATO Air Training Command-Afghanistan; NATO Training Mission/Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan; and Commander, 438th Air Expeditionary Wing, Kabul, Afghanistan. http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/108791/brigadier-general-john-e-michel.aspx. Again, I don't understand why he was tagged AFD. This seems very suspicious to me Jpop73 ( talk) 05:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear ( talk). Thank you for your reassurance. It means a lot. I have been very distressed by this whole thing. I'm am reluctant to contribute to Wikipedia because I don't want to inadvertently incite anyone or create another conflict of interest. I just feel that my article and others I have worked on met the notability requirements before and I don't know why they are now more heavily scrutinized when they have hopefully only been improved over time. I worked with editor Tenebrae for two years to not only improve my article but others and they passed reviews by other editors. So I am a bit perplexed, but I thank you again. Sincerely Jpop73 ( talk) 06:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I understand your questions, I think, but I was not paid by National Geographic nor am I paid by Huffington Post- I was an invited courtesy contract contributing editor for NGS. In one case, I was paid by one of the bloggers, who I later contributed a Wikipedia article to. At the same time, I can see how adding an article to a Wikipedia entry could be a conflict of interest if it is used specificically to increase the notability of the subject, but I'm not sure how you determine its specific influence or whether or not that was the intention. In the cases, I can recall where I added something I wrote to the Wikipedia article, the subjects were already deemed notable (I think in almost every case) and the articles I added were used to expand or support more information.I'm not sure if this answers your questions Jpop73 ( talk) 22:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm happy to help however I can. As much as I enjoyed contributing, I'm not so sure I'm prepared to confront this kind of experience again. This has been more critical than scholarly reviews. But I will gladly provide any information you need. As I mentioned, I've seen tons of articles, which only list primary resources (tagged or not) in my research when I'm looking to find templates for how to draft an article. Hence,I still feel like my own article has been very critically reviewed considering it was reviewed and accepted and because another editor worked closely with me to improve it. In some ways, I see that the issue of my own article stems from a deemed conflict of interest, which I apologize for. However, we did everything under the sun to address such concern. There are some articles that I created, which were probably done in haste and need work, but from my impression those that did not meet the notability requirements were quickly deleted or removed in short order.thanks again Jpop73 ( talk) 23:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
An unsourced portion of Jefery Levy I removed got reverted by 2605:E000:849C:5300:81AF:9809:C827:7570 (presumably a COI user hiding behind a private network), just saying because this user could be one of those, considering there have been no recent editors other than that concerned. Donnie Park ( talk) 22:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Donnie, A representative for John Currie, who is a friend of Michael Hutchins (a colleague of mine) asked me to create a new page for him and as a favor I created one, which has since been vandalized. I'm sorry that this upsets you so much. I would guess that every single article I've created has a conflict of interest. Please stop treating me like I am a malicious criminal. I don't even know what you mean when you mention credits. I don't know what they are and I'm not interested in accumulating them. I'm not interesting in competing with other editors or ascending the hierarchy of Wikipedia. I enjoy writing and I'd made the mistake of documenting two instances for which I was paid to create articles, which I thought was an important to policy. I was afraid of creating a conflict of interest and instead it as created all this controversy. Little did I know, every article I have created is some kind of conflict of interest, albeit unintended. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but my guess is that there are a lot of people who contribute to Wikipedia and are inadvertently making these mistakes. There may be some people with mal intent, but for the most part I don't think most people, like myself even know how it works.
As I said before, I didn't even understand the concept of a conflict of interest, except in the cases where I was paid. That was where I thought there was concern. I only understood a conflict of interest to be an example of someone getting paid to create a profile and even then I learned that there is a simple protocol of noting that a payment was made. Even on my own article, I don't understand the concept of a conflict of interest if I'm required to adequately and accurately source information. As I requested on your talk page, please stop making accusations Jpop73 ( talk) 23:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Cont. Dear Donnie, Again, thank you. Jef Levy and me and none of my friends, colleagues, organizations, etc. which are subjects of articles that are deemed a conflict of interest because of my misuse and understanding of policy are not trying to abuse or take advantage of Wikipedia. In fact, after personally apologizing to many of them for placing their pages in jeopardy, by accident, many of them are indifferent some are uninterested and some want to be removed altogether. You and some other editors have correctly identified that my articles (and probably all of them) contain a conflict of interest, for which I have apologized repeatedly. The only articles I write about are things or people that I know about. I clearly misunderstood how articles get written and by whom. I had no idea that it is a crime to write about subjects I know personally and I also didn't know that cross promomotion was prohibited. Furthermore, this wikipedia crisis all came about because I was honest about being paid for some articles that I created. I thought getting paid was the only issue that was relavant to a conflict of interest and I thought I handled it correctly. Instead, I have been publicly accused of intentionally violating policy, I have been humiliated in public discussions and treated like a malicious person, an outcast and labled a COI editor, as if I was operating under some contingent of underground evildoers. In addition, my own page, which I carefully worked on with an editor for two years following its acceptance has also been proposed for deletion. I don't know what else to say. Again, I have tried to be cooperative and helpful and you insist on trying to make defamatory remarks about me. I would ask you again to please stop the negative commentary.thank you Jpop73 ( talk) 00:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Donny, this is jpop73 responding from my phone that I'm not logged into. I'm sorry if I come off at all arogant. Im not arrogant. I have trouble following certain written and oral directions because I have Asperger's syndrome or high functioning autism. It is not intentional that I dismiss things, it is part of continual battle with a neurodevelopmental condition. You are welcome to read my story about it it the Huffington Post. It is a disability, but it does not excuse all behavior, but it does lead to misunderstandings. I'm sorry for the trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100F:B110:B9E1:5466:643D:FAF7:916F ( talk) 05:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I think there's a wider question raised by this case about what to do when an editor is communicating and cooperatively working with a COI investigation. First, just my evaluation of this particular case, Jpop73 has been cooperative. Second, to the wider question, should we treat articles they created any differently than a concealed, uncooperative editor or even a non-COI editor? For myself I haven't sorted all this out in my mind, but I do know that any deletion debates must be policy-based and don't need to include the editor's history unless it supports a pattern of clear advocacy, in which case the advocacy content is a valid part of the deletion debate. In no case should deletion be punitive or reactionary. Maybe there's a case to be made in separating editors doing the investigation from those proposing follow-up action, just to avoid this kind of appearance of bias against the COI editor. – Brianhe ( talk) 02:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationships.. Additionally, it is also stated that
Conflict of interest is not about actual bias. It is about a person's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when roles conflict. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity.
@Lemongirl942 Thank you very much for repeating. I have Asperger's Syndrome/ High functioning autism ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jordan-schaul/i-cant-fake-it-till-i-make-it-im-autistic_b_8583670.html) and sometimes need things repeated. I also as mentioned above sometimes have difficulty following direction. So I apologize for the misunderstanding. As far as notability regarding my article, my only reference or basis for reference is from what some other editors have stated. There seems to be disagreement on whether it is notable, while some have called it "borderline" and others marginally notable, others have said it is within the criteria of notability. Hence, notability seems fairly subjective on Wikipedia and I am still a little confused a bit on how something passes the review, gets frequently updated by editors and then is suddenly proposed for deletion. Some of the subjects I have created profiles for or edited had the same questions.thanks Jpop73 ( talk) 07:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Donnie, A representative for John Currie, who is a friend of Michael Hutchins (a colleague of mine) asked me to create a new page for him and as a favor I created one, which has since been vandalized. I'm sorry that this upsets you so much. I would guess that every single article I've created has a conflict of interest. Please stop treating me like I am a malicious criminal. I don't even know what you mean when you mention credits. I don't know what they are and I'm not interested in accumulating them. I'm not interesting in competing with other editors or ascending the hierarchy of Wikipedia. I enjoy writing and I'd made the mistake of documenting two instances for which I was paid to create articles, which I thought was an important to policy. I was afraid of creating a conflict of interest and instead it as created all this controversy. Little did I know, every article I have created is some kind of conflict of interest, albeit unintended. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but my guess is that there are a lot of people who contribute to Wikipedia and are inadvertently making these mistakes. There may be some people with mal intent, but for the most part I don't think most people, like myself even know how it works.
As I said before, I didn't even understand the concept of a conflict of interest, except in the cases where I was paid. That was where I thought there was concern. I only understood a conflict of interest to be an example of someone getting paid to create a profile and even then I learned that there is a simple protocol of noting that a payment was made. Even on my own article, I don't understand the concept of a conflict of interest if I'm required to adequately and accurately source information. As I requested on your talk page, please stop making accusationsJpop73 (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
A hyper-slick advertorial for a company called purple Wifi. Editor declares no COI-- yet. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 02:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Eleesa_Dadiani, art dealer from the UK admits being Paul Wager's dealer, creating a page for him and to having a strong COI Paul Wager. S/he's up to two reverts and counting. We need a magic wand for these things. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 19:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC) HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 19:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Update: Arch77168 seems to have created a new article Nina Mae Fowler and Wikilinked it here [7]. I have a hunch that this is somehow linked to "Dadiani art allery" again. I would recommend keeping a watch on the content. Thankfully, Nina Mae Fowler seems to be notable. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 15:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I work for a communications firm that represents Coupa Software, and I've proposed a few edits to the article, here—adding a few sentences to the lead, and reorganizing some information in the article into a new History section. Due to my COI, I won't be editing the article directly, so I would really appreciate it if someone could take a look and provide feedback. I've spelled out all my suggestions in as much detail as possible so they should be easy to implement if you agree with them. Thank you! Mary Gaulke ( talk) 01:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, Nagle and Brianhe.
As a starting point, I've found sources for some of the unsourced information that was removed from the article.
I also would love to hear any feedback pertaining to my initial request, which is still outstanding.
As for "spend management"—I see this is no longer a redlink, so we should be all set there.
And for what it's worth, I would find a standard guideline for corporate awards along the lines of what you're suggesting very helpful.
Thanks again! Mary Gaulke ( talk) 19:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
References
User:SMCKINNON has similar name to CEO of Scarborough Community Multicultural Festival in Toronto, and highly promotional article includes statement "approached us about a new brand" which confirms COI. Draft article contains serious POV problems like "In 2014 the Operational Management of Steven McKinnon & Alison Guerin-Cameron Associates Event Services Management partnership started to breakdown and one of the owners stopped communicating and didnt do anything else." As this is a draft it can be blocked, but user has been adding promotional material related to Steven McKinnon activities since at least 2012 to various articles, one of which is Caribana. I removed promotional material and was immediately reverted by this user diff. User has been warned in the past about COI (see [ [8]]) and has not responded, but continues to add promo. Username was permanently blocked per username policy User:SMCKINNON SBCCT in 2012, however, promo editing was evident and COI warning is on talk page. Note that user also has made what I read as NPOV edits to numerous articles about Toronto and Toronto businesses, as well as other topics, so convincing them of ending COI editing would be better than blocking, if user can be convinced to engage. LaMona ( talk) 15:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to discuss this situation, I wanted to clarify your concerns, the information pertaining to Caribana page is nothing that is conflict of interest nor anything promotional, this information is valid and accredited and wasn't deemed promotional as it has been on that page for last 3 years and now a concern.Now on to my page , there is nothing promotional, how you expect to get information if you do not have contributions from people involved to input them in. Yes me being a CEO of my company we own the festival and have new sources and reliable citing in the document.
2. I am Steve McKinnon ( STEVEN MCKINNON ) there is no COI, there cant be a conflict of interest, because one I am no longer part of the organization of Caribana so the COI is mute and void, the material that LaMONDA removed was not promotional, nor was COI. its been on the page for well over 3 years and now for some reason its a problem. SMCKINNON ( talk) 07:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)SMCKINNON
Yes that is correct JYDOG - we are a not for profit incorporation, like Festival Management Committee that runs the Toronto Caribbean Carnival - we also launched last year our own festival - Scarborough Community Multicultural Festival. The Other thing we do , is we help put on events that contract us to do it. SMCKINNON ( talk) 19:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)SMCKINNON
LAMONA I noticed a big edit, I appreciate it , some of the material such as Letter Patent and Change in ownership can only be validated by the Business License and the Articles of Incorporation. I did some work on the article and made it netural. Some of the references are there in respect to the various items have been done. SMCKINNON ( talk) 22:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)SMCKINNON
User Gabriellemh has stated on my userpage,
Good afternoon,
I am new on wikipedia but I have some important information to update on Richard S. Newcombe. I was working on the updates and it seems that half of my submission wasn't saved correctly due to Kasperbot's rejection to the first save. I was saving because I didn't want to loose the information we had typed in. I realize I could have avoided this however I am in this situation of trying to recover valuable information. Also I do have sources to back my information I just didn't get around to updating them as I am slow to because I am new. I would appreciate your kindness towards this matter.
I am the marketing specialist for Creators Syndicate.
I replied both there and on her page, "In response to your comment on my page, I suggest you immediately read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest as your statement indicates you have a fundamental COI and should not be editing the Wikipedia pages in question."
I note that one of the edits appears to downplay alleged child sexual abuse. Ogress 23:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
User's edits are mainly laudatory contributions to Michael Smith article and his company Kronos Advisory. User is responsible for most of content on both pages. COI and sockpuppet concerns previously raised. 91.217.91.54 ( talk) 02:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Menon Holdings Group was quite the work of masterful obfiuscation when I fist came across it. I can only assume that this is what the work of paid professional editor looks like. I removed some promotional copy, and was promptly thanked by the creator, who then added back the removed material with the opposite edit comment: "removing advertorial copy". I had a go at the article again and found a mass of bogus references (Histopedia,World Heritage Encyclopedia). Most of the activity seems to be centered around propping up causes of Shilpa Menon-- ie. her book, company and bio. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 20:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
With the greatest of respect for you User:HappyValleyEditor I think what you are indulging in is plain slander against me. And since this piece you posted here refers to me, I need to clear the air on all the issues you raised. I am only trying to help build more content about Mauritius and I am new to Wikipedia. I am not paid to do any of the contents featured there so your allegation of COI is not well founded. Yes, you flagged a few sections for advertorial language and I promptly tried to correct it. I repeat, I am new to Wikipedia and am open to suggestions on improving articles I post. However, I don't agree with you that the references I have cited are bogus. All are live links. AM ( talk) 02:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I rest my case and request User:HappyValleyEditor to help make the articles I am submitting to have better content than to raise unfounded insinuation and indulge in disparaging work that has taken time to make. What you are doing borders on targeted harassment. AM ( talk) 02:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
A new |checked=
variable has been added {{
Connected contributor}} and {{
Connected contributor (paid)}}. That way, people checking the talk page know if they should still be worried about unfixed
NPOV issues, or whether the issue is historical and now fixed.
T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)
talk 12:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I noticed this after I saw it at ANI. The user JellyfishFilms seemed to have created multiple sockpuppets to vote at AfDs and recreate articles multiple times (with variant spellings). I am reasonably sure that " Nati Celebrity Services" is the one behind this. The strongest evidence is this twitter account of the CEO Domenick Nati, which contains a link to the deleted Wikipedia article Domenick Nati. The profile pic is incidentally a screenshot of the Wikipedia page. Bobo Norco seems to be linked to NatiCelebs as well. It would be great if others could keep a look out for any more sockpuppets/promotional articles by this agency. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 11:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
COI Editor SPA whitewashing well-sourced content SPECIFICO talk 22:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I think i understand, I am trying to figure this out as I go along. The lawsuit question is one I have to ask since i am sure they will bring it up. so basically what I am understanding is there is nothing someone can do about heving their privacy protected once it is up on wikki, because it was in a new article? Zendug ( talk) 21:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Stephaniefiteni is a SPA of someone who by their own admission works for Betsson ("changes [...] by the Betsson Group's Communications Director" and "we will [add] more accurate official content") [10] The user have already been warned about having a COI issue (by someone other than me), the article talk-page have also already been tagged, yet the account have continued to repeatedly make changes that amount to nothing more than removing sourced text, adding wikipuffery and introducing new unreferenced material [11] [12] The edits have all been reversed by User:Doc James, but maybe it's time to ban this user? / Gavleson ( talk) 18:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
And here we have a nice little garden of articles on Shaun Gladwell, his exhibition publication Patafunctions, his "masterpiece" video work Storm Sequence and Barbara Polla. By my count, the account User:Gladderz has logged 250 diligent edits on solely these three articles. Images of Gladwell's work added to the pages are mostly credited as "own work". It might be the artist in question editing the pages, or the gallery/dealer as suggested on the Gladwell talk page. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 16:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, HappyValleyEditor and Mduvekot Incriminating as it may seem, I am Gladwell's biographer but totally unaccustomed with WP protocol and made contributions specifically on Gladwell and associated work with possibly the worst Nom de Plume. Regardless of the issue of identity, I'm now too close to the subject due to four years of research and unrestricted access to Gladwell's archive, thus open to the COI charges. I am however looking for advice on NPOV and feel it could be someone like user:Zaddikskysong. Am I on the right track to neutralizing this bio and editing out puffery? Apologies for distraction. Should I just let go and avoid WP:OWN charges as well as blundering into COI?
additionally: User:HappyValleyEditor, I only mention user:Zaddikskysong after seeing they describe themselves as "a glorious dictator of NPOV", and hold and interest in Art history, have contributed to Australian artist bios such as Brett Whiteley et al and alma mater of two institutions connected to Gladwell– UNSW and Sydney College of the Arts. user:Zaddikskysong is also badged for verifiability. Incredibly qualified! Gladderz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gladderz ( talk • contribs) 22:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog, thanks for this response. and apologies for not previously signing. And yes, as Gladwell's biographer, employed independently but professionally engaged in this task, and with the access i have, there is COI and i have stopped editing the bio accordingly and will await feedback on COI management. Just read your own story WRT COI and the use of an oversighter etc. But I have stopped editing Gladwell and will hope the page can be neutralised. My impartial attempt was to add the 'criticisms' section. Thanks. ( talk Gladderz ( talk) 22:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
There appears to be a years long promotional effort associated with these articles. Charles Parks Richardson is a doctor that is affiliated with Cleveland Clinic and Reliant Heart. The four accounts named above are essentially single purpose accounts adding promotional content to these articles. The username DRCRichardson matches "Dr C Richardson". This user claims not to be Dr Richardson himself, but is rather creating articles "on behalf of Dr. Charles Richardson" ( diff). DRCRichardson created Charles Parks Richardson. The user Cleveland Heart, with an obvious username connection, started a second version of Charles Parks Richardson. The user ReliantHeart, again with an obvious username connection, has edited at ReliantHeart Inc. The user Jlambert1984 connects all the users and articles with promotional editing at each article. Deli nk ( talk) 20:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
The Reliant and Richardson articles contain(ed) a great deal of background information that is not directly related to the subject of the articles. I have removed that from the Reliant article - The Richardson article will take a greater effort, but in the end will be much briefer than it is today. LaMona ( talk) 14:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Article is target of suspected advocacy editing ("[the founder's] resilience and perseverance saw his brain child grow and expand into a country famous, super-specialty chain of hospitals") with usual dubious awards section, etc. I did some cleanup in January, now it looks like an anonymous editor is back on it. Brianhe ( talk) 13:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I've never edited wiki, so I'm not sure where to direct this, but just noticed that there is an article for the individual Benjamin Wey which is entirely self-promotional, lacks any reliable sources, and asserts patently fraudulent information about the subject. According to the following Bloomberg article I just read in my Longreads queue, Wey is an established con-man under criminal & civil investigation for fraud and is notorious for waging relentless on-line smear campaigns, doxxing & harassment of his whistleblowing victims, including the author of the Bloomberg article. The article should be quickly deleted for lack of reliable sourcing, fabricated content & conflict of interest. If this complaint belong in a different forum, could someone direct me to it or better yet just go ahead a move it there? Thank you
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Wey
http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-benjamin-wey/
75.137.237.5 ( talk) 15:52, 13 April 2016 (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.
If you look at Doors22's contribs you will see they are a WP:SPA for articles related to this drug and its side effects; this has been going on a long time and there have been many content disputes, in which I have been involved. I actually brought a long-term POV pushing case at ANI here, exactly a year ago, that drifted off into the archive because the case I brought was tldr and it got derailed.
On the Talk page of the article, Doors22 recently mentioned litigation against Merck and here mentioned being affected by the side effects and mentioned that they at least read PropeciaHelp (a support forum which has right in the middle of its menu, information on class action lawsuits) (The site is here: propeciahelp.com - I cannot link to it as it is blacklisted)
Involvement in that litigation would constitute a COI, and when I asked Doors22 if they were involved in the litigation, they said they would not answer in this discussion on my Talk page.
The COI is pretty clear; the advocacy is very clear. I am looking for the community to advise Doors22 that he has a COI and that he should declare that, and should stop directly editing the article. I am not looking to "win" by eliminating the competition through COI, what I want is that the disruption stops and I will agree to walk away from the article if Doors22 will follow the COI guideline.
This has become personalized and tangled up in content disputes which is never good, so I will not write here further unless asked to reply to something. Jytdog ( talk) 07:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
As Doors22 is claiming they are a victim of this treatment, that is a clear COI without even getting into what appears to be likely involvement in litigation on the matter. Not being involved in the topic, I don't know much more for details, but even not being directly involved in litigation could likely still be considered a COI if it's a class action lawsuit. As others have mentioned, Doors will have to realize that they should no longer be directly editing articles, and they will need to realize that if an idea of theirs isn't getting traction, they will need to drop the WP:STICK.
I'm seeing quite a bit of battleground behavior here with the it's not me it's them attitude while still not acknowledging this pretty straightforward COI. I think it's fair to say that a topic ban will be likely if such battleground behavior continues while also having a COI. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 19:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Doors22 ( talk) 22:24, 8 May 2016 (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.
Sorry to be so bold as to delete another person's post, but this is very serious. This edit needs to be blocked out. Whatever your feelings towards Alansohn, NO ONE should have their real identity "outed" on Wikipedia. This can be dealt with via email. Can an admin please remove this? This is serious. Thank you. Magnolia677 ( talk) 23:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the conclusion of this closure. I hope he follows it. Wasickta ( talk) 19:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
More articles in contribution history, the above are the recent ones.
Has been a longstanding PR editing account, with a lot of such articles and deletions in 2011/2012 including blocks for disruptive editing in this PR venture. I've just warned about COI editing and disclosure, but a deep look is required and possibly more articles have to be nominated for deletion. — Spaceman Spiff 15:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
First report. Please be gentle. Feedback appreciated.
User seems to be heavily promoting in the Gianfranco Lotti article, and is injecting the business name into other articles. He has also redirected a long-standing redirect page GFL (reverted by me since) and created generic redirects ( Florence Leather, Luxury handbags which would appear to be candidates for speedy deletion).
A couple of users attempted to engage the user via talkpage in February, without obvious reciprocation (ping @ Blythwood and Mabalu:)
Username suggests involvement with the company. Would appreciate experienced CoIers taking a look. Cheers, Gricehead ( talk) 13:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
It appears the page was CSD'd and deleted yesterday. User has recreated the page this morning and has suggested on his talk page that it will be unbiased. Still looks a bit like an advert to me. Gricehead ( talk) 11:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Autobiography/COI/puffery centered around Mike Savage. Radioexpress is also likely username volation. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 18:37, 23 April 2016 (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.
I have recently encountered 009o9 who has been here a long time and goes by the book in disclosing that they are a paid editor. Kudos for that. For the most part, they submit drafts through AfC and propose changes on Talk for changes they consider major. Kudos for that too. They are also a tough negotiator, not afraid to argue strongly for what they want. I respect that. They do push it at times (e.g this) but generally they are being a decent citizen.
What I am struggling with is that 009o9 has been directly editing guidellnes/help documents/template documentation/essays etc in ways that aid their ability to meet their client's objectives. Namely making it harder to get tags to stick and easier to take them off, and in my view working to lower the Notability bar, or perhaps better, making it easier for subjects to clear Notability.
For example they made this change to the Help document, adding "Don't add this tag simply because the material in the article shows a company or a product in an overall positive light or because it provides an encyclopedic summary of a product's features" in bold to the Help document and the same content here to the documentation for the Advert tag. And here pushing hard for easing requirements to remove tags, etc. These changes are all of a piece.
They then are using those edits at the article and AfD level, negotiating toughly. See for example the edit summaries here about removing tags:
I am sympathetic to paid editors having their work tag-bombed and understand the motivation to make it easier to have marginally notable companies declared notable, but at the same time conflicted editing of key guidance documents is not OK to me, and my sense is that it will not be OK to the community either. I have asked them not to directly edit these documents, and they (unsurprisingly) believe that they should be free to do it, since a) that editing is not actually paid and b) the COI guideline doesn't actually forbid direct editing of anything by anybody. (009o9, please feel free to correct that paraphrase if you find it inaccurate)
What I am asking here, is that the community let 009o9 know that they should not directly edit WP policies, guidelines, essays that are widely cited, help documents, and template documentation but should only offer proposals on the relevant Talk page. Jytdog ( talk) 09:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Let's start from the bottom up. For starters, nobody can really be certain of the current state of the COI guidelines, they are in a constant flux with the wiki-cop and prosecutor (Jytdog) also being a substantial contributor at or around the time of the perceived crime. [16] As of this writing, [17] WP:COI does not contain the word "forbid", but Jytdog should have a very clear my commitment to the Wikipedia guidance from when he was canvassed by User:Lemongirl942, [18] and he interrogated me on my talk page. [19] I claim he was canvassed in that COIN discussion, because his personal page contains a few hundred words regarding his position on "managing" COI editors and makes this statement: "In my experience, contract editors are more difficult. They tend to hide and when approached, tend to lie more." [20] So it seems that lemongirl942 could be assured on a non-neutral assistance with her COIN case. Additionally, when Lemongirl942 went to pruning an additional volunteer article I am involved with, Jytdog took that conversation private. [21]
Again, working up Jytdog's list. Tag bombing is just the beginning, slap a couple of tags on it with Twinkle, delete any content and associated references that support notability (in the lede per WP:LEAD) and then see if you can get a quick PROD or AfD. Removing the editor's ability to revert and challenge is ridiculous, what's next? Remove the editor's ability to remove a PROD?
For instance, the public face of the Advert tag says, "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement"; however, the template's documentation says: "The advert tag is for articles that are directly trying to sell a product to our readers. Don't add this tag simply because the material in the article shows a company or a product in an overall positive light or because it provides an encyclopedic summary of a product's features." In articles marked with the Advert tag, check for passages that, "tell users to buy the company's product, provide price lists, give links to online sellers, or use unencyclopedic or meaningless buzzwords", and if none exist, remove the tag.
Finally, when you have the same person writing the guidelines, enforcing them and becoming insulted when their guidelines are not follow to a "T", the result can become embarrassing in the press. [23] [24] This is just the short-list, I was expecting this to go to ANI, saving the rest for later. Regards and have at it! 009o9 Disclosure (Talk) 13:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Unjustly placed tags are vandalism per WP:VANDTYPES, and as such, perfectly reasonable to remove per WP:COIADVICE". Sorry, this is just incorrect! WP:VANDTYPES specifies
Bad-faith placing of non-content tags such as {{afd}}, {{delete}}, {{sprotected}}. So content tags are not included in vandalism. Per WP:COIADVICE#1, COI editors can "remove spam and unambiguous vandalism". Since content tags are not counted in unambiguous vandalism, a COI editor cannot remove these tags themselves. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 09:02, 2 June 2016 (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.
User:Sebagr recently posted 148 edits as a new User [30], which I reverted all of them as per WP:PROMOTION and WP:NOTABILITY guidelines, where these edits clearly violate by "attracting notice" just to one solitary website. Furthermore, few of the linked had any editing comments. I started a discussion on their User Page. [31]
It was clear to me that this was likely a certain WP:COI, and pointed out the problem here [32]. In the lengthy discussion of the last few days this User [33] has made many excuses but has not disclosed their association with this site even when asked. I.e. Responses like "With all due respect, what defines "promotion and advertising"?" and "How is it that my link is considered self promotion but that one isn't?" [34] It is direct evidence of avoiding necessary scrutiny.
Exposure of these 148 reverted edits by this User show they were certainly deliberate made, which I found on an external site. [35]. According to the words here [36], and also posted on 29th May 2016. "I'm constantly working on the site adding new features and pay special attention to user feedback."
This immediately discloses Sebagr as the actual owner of this site.
Further evidence of wanting to advertising the site. "If you find the site useful, please consider helping me spread the word among your friends, colleagues and clubs."
I have since found more than a dozen such places in a Google search made all in the last few days.
There is clear evidence that this User should likely be banned restricted for avoiding
WP:COI,
WP:NPOV and
WP:ADVERTISING, and using Wikipedia as deliberate means just for promotional purposes. Thanks.
Arianewiki1 (
talk) 08:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to try to end this now and hope everyone cooperates. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 15:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
TBH, I am bringing this up as I do not know anymore if this editor is really is a legitimate editor or a COI paid editor. The heading is given as this is the only article this editor have declared as a paid editor.
It appears that either this zoology enthusiast have been corrupted by paid editing or has been a paid editor since day 1. His edits is either written like a resume or in a promotional manner. Whilst these are different to each other, they appear to have their similarities to one and the other.
Zootrainer appears to be at best a one of those or a SPA editor since he has a 4 edit history. Other than those listed, there appears to be more paid editing by this user. Donnie Park ( talk) 19:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Editors, I'm really not conspiring to establish notability for anyone and I'm sorry if I have drawn such negative attention. I enjoy contributing to Wikipedia and recently, in a few cases, I have been offered compensation, which I accepted and noted on respective pages. It has caused much more trouble than it was worth, as I've learned this week. I'm not unscrupulous or even that smart to plan such a PR stunt. On some other pages, I have added articles I've written just because I'm aware of them. I will take them down if they are of concern. For instance, I wrote an article on Jef Levy for Huffington Post. It occurred to me that it could be added to his Wikipedia page, but I doubt he needed it to add to his notability, I just thought it was a helpful and interesting addition.
Amy Andersen is a social media contact and I approached her about writing for her blog. I wrote a few articles for her blog, which she compensated me for. I did suggest that she get a Wikipedia profile for both her business and herself because after learning more about her industry, I noticed that a lot of matchmakers had Wikipedia pages. After I started contributing to Huffington Post and learned that they encouraged reposting articles from other sources, it occurred to me that one article I wrote for her blog would be a good article to repost on Huffington Post. If I added it to her Wikipedia page, which I don't think I did, it was really just an afterthought. I don't see it on her page. I'm really sorry for raising such concern. I really liked contributing to Wikipedia and I regret that I accepted compensation to do any. It has been fun to contribute, but now I'm kind of afraid to create any more articles, which I've really just done on occasion. I do come across people who I think are notable and I have been approached by people to do biographical articles. It is fun to link articles, and I enjoy writing biographies, but I really don't want to create any trouble. I'm sorry that I raised concerns. I hope this helps. Thanks Jpop73 ( talk) 05:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I had one other account that I think I used to contribute to a page for Dr. Grey Stafford and Sandra Dee Robinson when when I first started. Is there a way to find out out what contributions those accounts made. I don't recall the name I used before. I didn't know anyone associated, though. I could have had zoo in the name, but I don't remember. Is there a way to find out any more information. Thanks Jpop73 ( talk) 22:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I found another "crossover" account User:Wallabyguy, which edits some of the same articles as Jpop73, zooaction, Zootrainer and Zookeeper4u, e.g. Grey Stafford (where Zootrainer and Wallabyguy are SPAs). One thing they all have in common, at least on the histories I've seen, is not providing an edit summary. LaMona ( talk) 22:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear LaMona and Lemongirl942, I do know Grey Stafford very well. Would it be helpful if I asked him if he has a user name and logged in to make changes. I believe I'm the one who created his account and it wouldn't surprise me if he or an associate of his updated the account at a later time. Forgive me, but I'm really not clear on why this would be against policy or a conflict of interest, but I certainly apologize if I did something wrong. I thought what I added was neutral and objective. In addition, one reason, I suspect there are no edit summaries is because I was pretty new at this. I can't really speak for why others didn't add them. By now I should know to add one, but I still often forget and didn't know they were required. Do you need the IP address of my old computer. Would that help? Jpop73 ( talk) 05:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, when I was curator I contributed updates on the BEAR CENTER, which actually never came to fruition so that could be removed, but I did warn E Tyler about removing factual information, albeit it negative about the center. I think it involved the acquisition of black tailed deer that we shouldn't have had in our possession. He's is a marketing person and did not seem to grasp that you can't just delete something because it is negative. We had a heated discussion about it, which I remember clearly. Jpop73 ( talk) 01:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC) At the same time, I should have been carelful about mentioning the bear center because it was only in the planning stages. Jpop73 ( talk) 01:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Here is one example of a media outlet, which interviewed me on the future of zoos for Minnesota Public Radio. This a secondary reference, not a primary source, but is just one example that the editors refuse to consider as a source where my expertise on zoos was valued. The coverage was on me as the subject of the interview. http://www.mprnews.org/story/2012/07/12/daily-circuit-future-of-zoos I just don't understand why the editors/administrators who nominated my article for deletion continue to dismiss this kind of information. Jpop73 ( talk) 05:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
In the case of Amy Andersen and her company, they have received more notable press than just about anyone else I created an article for (from the New York Times to Vanity Fair). However, these articles have been the first to be deleted, presumably because I was compensated for writing about her. These seem to be really quite discriminatory actions against people like me who were just trying to follow the rules. Jpop73 ( talk) 05:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Sandra Dee Robinson's article was already created when I elected to make some edits and update it. She is a notable and veteran daytime and Primetive television actress and she was Miss Pennsylvania USA. Her bio is another that was tagged AFD, and yet she is the subject of one of the more prominant profiles I've worked on, and only made edits. I feel this is clearly becoming a punitive effort to punish me and in many cases people I 've tried to help who have done nothing wrong. I may have inadvertently imposed a conflict of interest in some cases, but I have spent a great deal of my time this week trying to be helpful, honest and transparent. I don't know what more I can do to try to cooperate with people who are adamant about deleting my article and those that I have worked on Jpop73 ( talk) 05:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Eden Sassoon is more than just the daughter of Vidal Sassoon. She gets more global regular press about her hairstyling and and cosmetics empire than most in her industry. Try a Google news search on her. Again, she was quickly deleted, when she is quite notobale. I just don't understand where all this AFD tagging is coming from it seems unfair and personal. Jpop73 ( talk) 05:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
General John Michel was the the Commanding General, NATO Air Training Command-Afghanistan; NATO Training Mission/Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan; and Commander, 438th Air Expeditionary Wing, Kabul, Afghanistan. http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/108791/brigadier-general-john-e-michel.aspx. Again, I don't understand why he was tagged AFD. This seems very suspicious to me Jpop73 ( talk) 05:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear ( talk). Thank you for your reassurance. It means a lot. I have been very distressed by this whole thing. I'm am reluctant to contribute to Wikipedia because I don't want to inadvertently incite anyone or create another conflict of interest. I just feel that my article and others I have worked on met the notability requirements before and I don't know why they are now more heavily scrutinized when they have hopefully only been improved over time. I worked with editor Tenebrae for two years to not only improve my article but others and they passed reviews by other editors. So I am a bit perplexed, but I thank you again. Sincerely Jpop73 ( talk) 06:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I understand your questions, I think, but I was not paid by National Geographic nor am I paid by Huffington Post- I was an invited courtesy contract contributing editor for NGS. In one case, I was paid by one of the bloggers, who I later contributed a Wikipedia article to. At the same time, I can see how adding an article to a Wikipedia entry could be a conflict of interest if it is used specificically to increase the notability of the subject, but I'm not sure how you determine its specific influence or whether or not that was the intention. In the cases, I can recall where I added something I wrote to the Wikipedia article, the subjects were already deemed notable (I think in almost every case) and the articles I added were used to expand or support more information.I'm not sure if this answers your questions Jpop73 ( talk) 22:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm happy to help however I can. As much as I enjoyed contributing, I'm not so sure I'm prepared to confront this kind of experience again. This has been more critical than scholarly reviews. But I will gladly provide any information you need. As I mentioned, I've seen tons of articles, which only list primary resources (tagged or not) in my research when I'm looking to find templates for how to draft an article. Hence,I still feel like my own article has been very critically reviewed considering it was reviewed and accepted and because another editor worked closely with me to improve it. In some ways, I see that the issue of my own article stems from a deemed conflict of interest, which I apologize for. However, we did everything under the sun to address such concern. There are some articles that I created, which were probably done in haste and need work, but from my impression those that did not meet the notability requirements were quickly deleted or removed in short order.thanks again Jpop73 ( talk) 23:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
An unsourced portion of Jefery Levy I removed got reverted by 2605:E000:849C:5300:81AF:9809:C827:7570 (presumably a COI user hiding behind a private network), just saying because this user could be one of those, considering there have been no recent editors other than that concerned. Donnie Park ( talk) 22:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Donnie, A representative for John Currie, who is a friend of Michael Hutchins (a colleague of mine) asked me to create a new page for him and as a favor I created one, which has since been vandalized. I'm sorry that this upsets you so much. I would guess that every single article I've created has a conflict of interest. Please stop treating me like I am a malicious criminal. I don't even know what you mean when you mention credits. I don't know what they are and I'm not interested in accumulating them. I'm not interesting in competing with other editors or ascending the hierarchy of Wikipedia. I enjoy writing and I'd made the mistake of documenting two instances for which I was paid to create articles, which I thought was an important to policy. I was afraid of creating a conflict of interest and instead it as created all this controversy. Little did I know, every article I have created is some kind of conflict of interest, albeit unintended. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but my guess is that there are a lot of people who contribute to Wikipedia and are inadvertently making these mistakes. There may be some people with mal intent, but for the most part I don't think most people, like myself even know how it works.
As I said before, I didn't even understand the concept of a conflict of interest, except in the cases where I was paid. That was where I thought there was concern. I only understood a conflict of interest to be an example of someone getting paid to create a profile and even then I learned that there is a simple protocol of noting that a payment was made. Even on my own article, I don't understand the concept of a conflict of interest if I'm required to adequately and accurately source information. As I requested on your talk page, please stop making accusations Jpop73 ( talk) 23:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Cont. Dear Donnie, Again, thank you. Jef Levy and me and none of my friends, colleagues, organizations, etc. which are subjects of articles that are deemed a conflict of interest because of my misuse and understanding of policy are not trying to abuse or take advantage of Wikipedia. In fact, after personally apologizing to many of them for placing their pages in jeopardy, by accident, many of them are indifferent some are uninterested and some want to be removed altogether. You and some other editors have correctly identified that my articles (and probably all of them) contain a conflict of interest, for which I have apologized repeatedly. The only articles I write about are things or people that I know about. I clearly misunderstood how articles get written and by whom. I had no idea that it is a crime to write about subjects I know personally and I also didn't know that cross promomotion was prohibited. Furthermore, this wikipedia crisis all came about because I was honest about being paid for some articles that I created. I thought getting paid was the only issue that was relavant to a conflict of interest and I thought I handled it correctly. Instead, I have been publicly accused of intentionally violating policy, I have been humiliated in public discussions and treated like a malicious person, an outcast and labled a COI editor, as if I was operating under some contingent of underground evildoers. In addition, my own page, which I carefully worked on with an editor for two years following its acceptance has also been proposed for deletion. I don't know what else to say. Again, I have tried to be cooperative and helpful and you insist on trying to make defamatory remarks about me. I would ask you again to please stop the negative commentary.thank you Jpop73 ( talk) 00:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Donny, this is jpop73 responding from my phone that I'm not logged into. I'm sorry if I come off at all arogant. Im not arrogant. I have trouble following certain written and oral directions because I have Asperger's syndrome or high functioning autism. It is not intentional that I dismiss things, it is part of continual battle with a neurodevelopmental condition. You are welcome to read my story about it it the Huffington Post. It is a disability, but it does not excuse all behavior, but it does lead to misunderstandings. I'm sorry for the trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100F:B110:B9E1:5466:643D:FAF7:916F ( talk) 05:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I think there's a wider question raised by this case about what to do when an editor is communicating and cooperatively working with a COI investigation. First, just my evaluation of this particular case, Jpop73 has been cooperative. Second, to the wider question, should we treat articles they created any differently than a concealed, uncooperative editor or even a non-COI editor? For myself I haven't sorted all this out in my mind, but I do know that any deletion debates must be policy-based and don't need to include the editor's history unless it supports a pattern of clear advocacy, in which case the advocacy content is a valid part of the deletion debate. In no case should deletion be punitive or reactionary. Maybe there's a case to be made in separating editors doing the investigation from those proposing follow-up action, just to avoid this kind of appearance of bias against the COI editor. – Brianhe ( talk) 02:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationships.. Additionally, it is also stated that
Conflict of interest is not about actual bias. It is about a person's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when roles conflict. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity.
@Lemongirl942 Thank you very much for repeating. I have Asperger's Syndrome/ High functioning autism ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jordan-schaul/i-cant-fake-it-till-i-make-it-im-autistic_b_8583670.html) and sometimes need things repeated. I also as mentioned above sometimes have difficulty following direction. So I apologize for the misunderstanding. As far as notability regarding my article, my only reference or basis for reference is from what some other editors have stated. There seems to be disagreement on whether it is notable, while some have called it "borderline" and others marginally notable, others have said it is within the criteria of notability. Hence, notability seems fairly subjective on Wikipedia and I am still a little confused a bit on how something passes the review, gets frequently updated by editors and then is suddenly proposed for deletion. Some of the subjects I have created profiles for or edited had the same questions.thanks Jpop73 ( talk) 07:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Donnie, A representative for John Currie, who is a friend of Michael Hutchins (a colleague of mine) asked me to create a new page for him and as a favor I created one, which has since been vandalized. I'm sorry that this upsets you so much. I would guess that every single article I've created has a conflict of interest. Please stop treating me like I am a malicious criminal. I don't even know what you mean when you mention credits. I don't know what they are and I'm not interested in accumulating them. I'm not interesting in competing with other editors or ascending the hierarchy of Wikipedia. I enjoy writing and I'd made the mistake of documenting two instances for which I was paid to create articles, which I thought was an important to policy. I was afraid of creating a conflict of interest and instead it as created all this controversy. Little did I know, every article I have created is some kind of conflict of interest, albeit unintended. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but my guess is that there are a lot of people who contribute to Wikipedia and are inadvertently making these mistakes. There may be some people with mal intent, but for the most part I don't think most people, like myself even know how it works.
As I said before, I didn't even understand the concept of a conflict of interest, except in the cases where I was paid. That was where I thought there was concern. I only understood a conflict of interest to be an example of someone getting paid to create a profile and even then I learned that there is a simple protocol of noting that a payment was made. Even on my own article, I don't understand the concept of a conflict of interest if I'm required to adequately and accurately source information. As I requested on your talk page, please stop making accusationsJpop73 (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
A hyper-slick advertorial for a company called purple Wifi. Editor declares no COI-- yet. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 02:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Eleesa_Dadiani, art dealer from the UK admits being Paul Wager's dealer, creating a page for him and to having a strong COI Paul Wager. S/he's up to two reverts and counting. We need a magic wand for these things. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 19:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC) HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 19:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Update: Arch77168 seems to have created a new article Nina Mae Fowler and Wikilinked it here [7]. I have a hunch that this is somehow linked to "Dadiani art allery" again. I would recommend keeping a watch on the content. Thankfully, Nina Mae Fowler seems to be notable. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 15:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I work for a communications firm that represents Coupa Software, and I've proposed a few edits to the article, here—adding a few sentences to the lead, and reorganizing some information in the article into a new History section. Due to my COI, I won't be editing the article directly, so I would really appreciate it if someone could take a look and provide feedback. I've spelled out all my suggestions in as much detail as possible so they should be easy to implement if you agree with them. Thank you! Mary Gaulke ( talk) 01:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, Nagle and Brianhe.
As a starting point, I've found sources for some of the unsourced information that was removed from the article.
I also would love to hear any feedback pertaining to my initial request, which is still outstanding.
As for "spend management"—I see this is no longer a redlink, so we should be all set there.
And for what it's worth, I would find a standard guideline for corporate awards along the lines of what you're suggesting very helpful.
Thanks again! Mary Gaulke ( talk) 19:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
References
User:SMCKINNON has similar name to CEO of Scarborough Community Multicultural Festival in Toronto, and highly promotional article includes statement "approached us about a new brand" which confirms COI. Draft article contains serious POV problems like "In 2014 the Operational Management of Steven McKinnon & Alison Guerin-Cameron Associates Event Services Management partnership started to breakdown and one of the owners stopped communicating and didnt do anything else." As this is a draft it can be blocked, but user has been adding promotional material related to Steven McKinnon activities since at least 2012 to various articles, one of which is Caribana. I removed promotional material and was immediately reverted by this user diff. User has been warned in the past about COI (see [ [8]]) and has not responded, but continues to add promo. Username was permanently blocked per username policy User:SMCKINNON SBCCT in 2012, however, promo editing was evident and COI warning is on talk page. Note that user also has made what I read as NPOV edits to numerous articles about Toronto and Toronto businesses, as well as other topics, so convincing them of ending COI editing would be better than blocking, if user can be convinced to engage. LaMona ( talk) 15:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to discuss this situation, I wanted to clarify your concerns, the information pertaining to Caribana page is nothing that is conflict of interest nor anything promotional, this information is valid and accredited and wasn't deemed promotional as it has been on that page for last 3 years and now a concern.Now on to my page , there is nothing promotional, how you expect to get information if you do not have contributions from people involved to input them in. Yes me being a CEO of my company we own the festival and have new sources and reliable citing in the document.
2. I am Steve McKinnon ( STEVEN MCKINNON ) there is no COI, there cant be a conflict of interest, because one I am no longer part of the organization of Caribana so the COI is mute and void, the material that LaMONDA removed was not promotional, nor was COI. its been on the page for well over 3 years and now for some reason its a problem. SMCKINNON ( talk) 07:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)SMCKINNON
Yes that is correct JYDOG - we are a not for profit incorporation, like Festival Management Committee that runs the Toronto Caribbean Carnival - we also launched last year our own festival - Scarborough Community Multicultural Festival. The Other thing we do , is we help put on events that contract us to do it. SMCKINNON ( talk) 19:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)SMCKINNON
LAMONA I noticed a big edit, I appreciate it , some of the material such as Letter Patent and Change in ownership can only be validated by the Business License and the Articles of Incorporation. I did some work on the article and made it netural. Some of the references are there in respect to the various items have been done. SMCKINNON ( talk) 22:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)SMCKINNON
User Gabriellemh has stated on my userpage,
Good afternoon,
I am new on wikipedia but I have some important information to update on Richard S. Newcombe. I was working on the updates and it seems that half of my submission wasn't saved correctly due to Kasperbot's rejection to the first save. I was saving because I didn't want to loose the information we had typed in. I realize I could have avoided this however I am in this situation of trying to recover valuable information. Also I do have sources to back my information I just didn't get around to updating them as I am slow to because I am new. I would appreciate your kindness towards this matter.
I am the marketing specialist for Creators Syndicate.
I replied both there and on her page, "In response to your comment on my page, I suggest you immediately read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest as your statement indicates you have a fundamental COI and should not be editing the Wikipedia pages in question."
I note that one of the edits appears to downplay alleged child sexual abuse. Ogress 23:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
User's edits are mainly laudatory contributions to Michael Smith article and his company Kronos Advisory. User is responsible for most of content on both pages. COI and sockpuppet concerns previously raised. 91.217.91.54 ( talk) 02:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Menon Holdings Group was quite the work of masterful obfiuscation when I fist came across it. I can only assume that this is what the work of paid professional editor looks like. I removed some promotional copy, and was promptly thanked by the creator, who then added back the removed material with the opposite edit comment: "removing advertorial copy". I had a go at the article again and found a mass of bogus references (Histopedia,World Heritage Encyclopedia). Most of the activity seems to be centered around propping up causes of Shilpa Menon-- ie. her book, company and bio. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 20:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
With the greatest of respect for you User:HappyValleyEditor I think what you are indulging in is plain slander against me. And since this piece you posted here refers to me, I need to clear the air on all the issues you raised. I am only trying to help build more content about Mauritius and I am new to Wikipedia. I am not paid to do any of the contents featured there so your allegation of COI is not well founded. Yes, you flagged a few sections for advertorial language and I promptly tried to correct it. I repeat, I am new to Wikipedia and am open to suggestions on improving articles I post. However, I don't agree with you that the references I have cited are bogus. All are live links. AM ( talk) 02:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I rest my case and request User:HappyValleyEditor to help make the articles I am submitting to have better content than to raise unfounded insinuation and indulge in disparaging work that has taken time to make. What you are doing borders on targeted harassment. AM ( talk) 02:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
A new |checked=
variable has been added {{
Connected contributor}} and {{
Connected contributor (paid)}}. That way, people checking the talk page know if they should still be worried about unfixed
NPOV issues, or whether the issue is historical and now fixed.
T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)
talk 12:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I noticed this after I saw it at ANI. The user JellyfishFilms seemed to have created multiple sockpuppets to vote at AfDs and recreate articles multiple times (with variant spellings). I am reasonably sure that " Nati Celebrity Services" is the one behind this. The strongest evidence is this twitter account of the CEO Domenick Nati, which contains a link to the deleted Wikipedia article Domenick Nati. The profile pic is incidentally a screenshot of the Wikipedia page. Bobo Norco seems to be linked to NatiCelebs as well. It would be great if others could keep a look out for any more sockpuppets/promotional articles by this agency. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 11:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
COI Editor SPA whitewashing well-sourced content SPECIFICO talk 22:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I think i understand, I am trying to figure this out as I go along. The lawsuit question is one I have to ask since i am sure they will bring it up. so basically what I am understanding is there is nothing someone can do about heving their privacy protected once it is up on wikki, because it was in a new article? Zendug ( talk) 21:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Stephaniefiteni is a SPA of someone who by their own admission works for Betsson ("changes [...] by the Betsson Group's Communications Director" and "we will [add] more accurate official content") [10] The user have already been warned about having a COI issue (by someone other than me), the article talk-page have also already been tagged, yet the account have continued to repeatedly make changes that amount to nothing more than removing sourced text, adding wikipuffery and introducing new unreferenced material [11] [12] The edits have all been reversed by User:Doc James, but maybe it's time to ban this user? / Gavleson ( talk) 18:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
And here we have a nice little garden of articles on Shaun Gladwell, his exhibition publication Patafunctions, his "masterpiece" video work Storm Sequence and Barbara Polla. By my count, the account User:Gladderz has logged 250 diligent edits on solely these three articles. Images of Gladwell's work added to the pages are mostly credited as "own work". It might be the artist in question editing the pages, or the gallery/dealer as suggested on the Gladwell talk page. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 16:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, HappyValleyEditor and Mduvekot Incriminating as it may seem, I am Gladwell's biographer but totally unaccustomed with WP protocol and made contributions specifically on Gladwell and associated work with possibly the worst Nom de Plume. Regardless of the issue of identity, I'm now too close to the subject due to four years of research and unrestricted access to Gladwell's archive, thus open to the COI charges. I am however looking for advice on NPOV and feel it could be someone like user:Zaddikskysong. Am I on the right track to neutralizing this bio and editing out puffery? Apologies for distraction. Should I just let go and avoid WP:OWN charges as well as blundering into COI?
additionally: User:HappyValleyEditor, I only mention user:Zaddikskysong after seeing they describe themselves as "a glorious dictator of NPOV", and hold and interest in Art history, have contributed to Australian artist bios such as Brett Whiteley et al and alma mater of two institutions connected to Gladwell– UNSW and Sydney College of the Arts. user:Zaddikskysong is also badged for verifiability. Incredibly qualified! Gladderz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gladderz ( talk • contribs) 22:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog, thanks for this response. and apologies for not previously signing. And yes, as Gladwell's biographer, employed independently but professionally engaged in this task, and with the access i have, there is COI and i have stopped editing the bio accordingly and will await feedback on COI management. Just read your own story WRT COI and the use of an oversighter etc. But I have stopped editing Gladwell and will hope the page can be neutralised. My impartial attempt was to add the 'criticisms' section. Thanks. ( talk Gladderz ( talk) 22:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
There appears to be a years long promotional effort associated with these articles. Charles Parks Richardson is a doctor that is affiliated with Cleveland Clinic and Reliant Heart. The four accounts named above are essentially single purpose accounts adding promotional content to these articles. The username DRCRichardson matches "Dr C Richardson". This user claims not to be Dr Richardson himself, but is rather creating articles "on behalf of Dr. Charles Richardson" ( diff). DRCRichardson created Charles Parks Richardson. The user Cleveland Heart, with an obvious username connection, started a second version of Charles Parks Richardson. The user ReliantHeart, again with an obvious username connection, has edited at ReliantHeart Inc. The user Jlambert1984 connects all the users and articles with promotional editing at each article. Deli nk ( talk) 20:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
The Reliant and Richardson articles contain(ed) a great deal of background information that is not directly related to the subject of the articles. I have removed that from the Reliant article - The Richardson article will take a greater effort, but in the end will be much briefer than it is today. LaMona ( talk) 14:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Article is target of suspected advocacy editing ("[the founder's] resilience and perseverance saw his brain child grow and expand into a country famous, super-specialty chain of hospitals") with usual dubious awards section, etc. I did some cleanup in January, now it looks like an anonymous editor is back on it. Brianhe ( talk) 13:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I've never edited wiki, so I'm not sure where to direct this, but just noticed that there is an article for the individual Benjamin Wey which is entirely self-promotional, lacks any reliable sources, and asserts patently fraudulent information about the subject. According to the following Bloomberg article I just read in my Longreads queue, Wey is an established con-man under criminal & civil investigation for fraud and is notorious for waging relentless on-line smear campaigns, doxxing & harassment of his whistleblowing victims, including the author of the Bloomberg article. The article should be quickly deleted for lack of reliable sourcing, fabricated content & conflict of interest. If this complaint belong in a different forum, could someone direct me to it or better yet just go ahead a move it there? Thank you
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Wey
http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-benjamin-wey/
75.137.237.5 ( talk) 15:52, 13 April 2016 (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.
If you look at Doors22's contribs you will see they are a WP:SPA for articles related to this drug and its side effects; this has been going on a long time and there have been many content disputes, in which I have been involved. I actually brought a long-term POV pushing case at ANI here, exactly a year ago, that drifted off into the archive because the case I brought was tldr and it got derailed.
On the Talk page of the article, Doors22 recently mentioned litigation against Merck and here mentioned being affected by the side effects and mentioned that they at least read PropeciaHelp (a support forum which has right in the middle of its menu, information on class action lawsuits) (The site is here: propeciahelp.com - I cannot link to it as it is blacklisted)
Involvement in that litigation would constitute a COI, and when I asked Doors22 if they were involved in the litigation, they said they would not answer in this discussion on my Talk page.
The COI is pretty clear; the advocacy is very clear. I am looking for the community to advise Doors22 that he has a COI and that he should declare that, and should stop directly editing the article. I am not looking to "win" by eliminating the competition through COI, what I want is that the disruption stops and I will agree to walk away from the article if Doors22 will follow the COI guideline.
This has become personalized and tangled up in content disputes which is never good, so I will not write here further unless asked to reply to something. Jytdog ( talk) 07:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
As Doors22 is claiming they are a victim of this treatment, that is a clear COI without even getting into what appears to be likely involvement in litigation on the matter. Not being involved in the topic, I don't know much more for details, but even not being directly involved in litigation could likely still be considered a COI if it's a class action lawsuit. As others have mentioned, Doors will have to realize that they should no longer be directly editing articles, and they will need to realize that if an idea of theirs isn't getting traction, they will need to drop the WP:STICK.
I'm seeing quite a bit of battleground behavior here with the it's not me it's them attitude while still not acknowledging this pretty straightforward COI. I think it's fair to say that a topic ban will be likely if such battleground behavior continues while also having a COI. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 19:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Doors22 ( talk) 22:24, 8 May 2016 (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.
Sorry to be so bold as to delete another person's post, but this is very serious. This edit needs to be blocked out. Whatever your feelings towards Alansohn, NO ONE should have their real identity "outed" on Wikipedia. This can be dealt with via email. Can an admin please remove this? This is serious. Thank you. Magnolia677 ( talk) 23:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the conclusion of this closure. I hope he follows it. Wasickta ( talk) 19:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
More articles in contribution history, the above are the recent ones.
Has been a longstanding PR editing account, with a lot of such articles and deletions in 2011/2012 including blocks for disruptive editing in this PR venture. I've just warned about COI editing and disclosure, but a deep look is required and possibly more articles have to be nominated for deletion. — Spaceman Spiff 15:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
First report. Please be gentle. Feedback appreciated.
User seems to be heavily promoting in the Gianfranco Lotti article, and is injecting the business name into other articles. He has also redirected a long-standing redirect page GFL (reverted by me since) and created generic redirects ( Florence Leather, Luxury handbags which would appear to be candidates for speedy deletion).
A couple of users attempted to engage the user via talkpage in February, without obvious reciprocation (ping @ Blythwood and Mabalu:)
Username suggests involvement with the company. Would appreciate experienced CoIers taking a look. Cheers, Gricehead ( talk) 13:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
It appears the page was CSD'd and deleted yesterday. User has recreated the page this morning and has suggested on his talk page that it will be unbiased. Still looks a bit like an advert to me. Gricehead ( talk) 11:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Autobiography/COI/puffery centered around Mike Savage. Radioexpress is also likely username volation. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 18:37, 23 April 2016 (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.
I have recently encountered 009o9 who has been here a long time and goes by the book in disclosing that they are a paid editor. Kudos for that. For the most part, they submit drafts through AfC and propose changes on Talk for changes they consider major. Kudos for that too. They are also a tough negotiator, not afraid to argue strongly for what they want. I respect that. They do push it at times (e.g this) but generally they are being a decent citizen.
What I am struggling with is that 009o9 has been directly editing guidellnes/help documents/template documentation/essays etc in ways that aid their ability to meet their client's objectives. Namely making it harder to get tags to stick and easier to take them off, and in my view working to lower the Notability bar, or perhaps better, making it easier for subjects to clear Notability.
For example they made this change to the Help document, adding "Don't add this tag simply because the material in the article shows a company or a product in an overall positive light or because it provides an encyclopedic summary of a product's features" in bold to the Help document and the same content here to the documentation for the Advert tag. And here pushing hard for easing requirements to remove tags, etc. These changes are all of a piece.
They then are using those edits at the article and AfD level, negotiating toughly. See for example the edit summaries here about removing tags:
I am sympathetic to paid editors having their work tag-bombed and understand the motivation to make it easier to have marginally notable companies declared notable, but at the same time conflicted editing of key guidance documents is not OK to me, and my sense is that it will not be OK to the community either. I have asked them not to directly edit these documents, and they (unsurprisingly) believe that they should be free to do it, since a) that editing is not actually paid and b) the COI guideline doesn't actually forbid direct editing of anything by anybody. (009o9, please feel free to correct that paraphrase if you find it inaccurate)
What I am asking here, is that the community let 009o9 know that they should not directly edit WP policies, guidelines, essays that are widely cited, help documents, and template documentation but should only offer proposals on the relevant Talk page. Jytdog ( talk) 09:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Let's start from the bottom up. For starters, nobody can really be certain of the current state of the COI guidelines, they are in a constant flux with the wiki-cop and prosecutor (Jytdog) also being a substantial contributor at or around the time of the perceived crime. [16] As of this writing, [17] WP:COI does not contain the word "forbid", but Jytdog should have a very clear my commitment to the Wikipedia guidance from when he was canvassed by User:Lemongirl942, [18] and he interrogated me on my talk page. [19] I claim he was canvassed in that COIN discussion, because his personal page contains a few hundred words regarding his position on "managing" COI editors and makes this statement: "In my experience, contract editors are more difficult. They tend to hide and when approached, tend to lie more." [20] So it seems that lemongirl942 could be assured on a non-neutral assistance with her COIN case. Additionally, when Lemongirl942 went to pruning an additional volunteer article I am involved with, Jytdog took that conversation private. [21]
Again, working up Jytdog's list. Tag bombing is just the beginning, slap a couple of tags on it with Twinkle, delete any content and associated references that support notability (in the lede per WP:LEAD) and then see if you can get a quick PROD or AfD. Removing the editor's ability to revert and challenge is ridiculous, what's next? Remove the editor's ability to remove a PROD?
For instance, the public face of the Advert tag says, "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement"; however, the template's documentation says: "The advert tag is for articles that are directly trying to sell a product to our readers. Don't add this tag simply because the material in the article shows a company or a product in an overall positive light or because it provides an encyclopedic summary of a product's features." In articles marked with the Advert tag, check for passages that, "tell users to buy the company's product, provide price lists, give links to online sellers, or use unencyclopedic or meaningless buzzwords", and if none exist, remove the tag.
Finally, when you have the same person writing the guidelines, enforcing them and becoming insulted when their guidelines are not follow to a "T", the result can become embarrassing in the press. [23] [24] This is just the short-list, I was expecting this to go to ANI, saving the rest for later. Regards and have at it! 009o9 Disclosure (Talk) 13:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Unjustly placed tags are vandalism per WP:VANDTYPES, and as such, perfectly reasonable to remove per WP:COIADVICE". Sorry, this is just incorrect! WP:VANDTYPES specifies
Bad-faith placing of non-content tags such as {{afd}}, {{delete}}, {{sprotected}}. So content tags are not included in vandalism. Per WP:COIADVICE#1, COI editors can "remove spam and unambiguous vandalism". Since content tags are not counted in unambiguous vandalism, a COI editor cannot remove these tags themselves. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 09:02, 2 June 2016 (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.
User:Sebagr recently posted 148 edits as a new User [30], which I reverted all of them as per WP:PROMOTION and WP:NOTABILITY guidelines, where these edits clearly violate by "attracting notice" just to one solitary website. Furthermore, few of the linked had any editing comments. I started a discussion on their User Page. [31]
It was clear to me that this was likely a certain WP:COI, and pointed out the problem here [32]. In the lengthy discussion of the last few days this User [33] has made many excuses but has not disclosed their association with this site even when asked. I.e. Responses like "With all due respect, what defines "promotion and advertising"?" and "How is it that my link is considered self promotion but that one isn't?" [34] It is direct evidence of avoiding necessary scrutiny.
Exposure of these 148 reverted edits by this User show they were certainly deliberate made, which I found on an external site. [35]. According to the words here [36], and also posted on 29th May 2016. "I'm constantly working on the site adding new features and pay special attention to user feedback."
This immediately discloses Sebagr as the actual owner of this site.
Further evidence of wanting to advertising the site. "If you find the site useful, please consider helping me spread the word among your friends, colleagues and clubs."
I have since found more than a dozen such places in a Google search made all in the last few days.
There is clear evidence that this User should likely be banned restricted for avoiding
WP:COI,
WP:NPOV and
WP:ADVERTISING, and using Wikipedia as deliberate means just for promotional purposes. Thanks.
Arianewiki1 (
talk) 08:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to try to end this now and hope everyone cooperates. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 15:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)