![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
User has admitted on my talk page that they are an RA to this professor, representing an obvious COI issue. Jodamaster ( talk) 23:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Strightforward COI editing of autobiography, with reverts and deletion tag removals. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 16:57, 21 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.
User is creating a page whose name shares their username. Jodamaster ( talk) 08:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
It looks like there are several newly created or newly active WP:SPA accounts posting to a recent series of deletion discussions, centered around the topic of effective altruism (though not on that article itself). Some searches on Facebook have provided evidence of canvassing by involved organizations, to try and get people to prevent deletion. As I'm also involved in the discussions, I'll declare upfront that I have no COI with respect to any of these articles. NeatGrey ( talk) 02:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
The user created an article, Humanity Protecting Party Sri Lanka, an article on a Sri Lankan political party, which I tagged for speedy. He went on and created Humanity protecting party, a recreation of the first article, and messaged me on my talk page at User_talk:Optakeover#speedy_deletion_of_humanity_protecting_party saying he is the general secretary of the party, and requesting that the article not be speedily deleted. I am making this report as this is the first time I'm dealing with what I see as a COI issue, with a user directly associated with an organisation creating and editing an article of his/her organisation. Request for comment and/or action, thank you. Optakeover (U) (T) (C) 14:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I just have a hunch that this is not the nost objective editing possible as there is astrong promotional tone to these articles. The novel pages both list/listed a list of other works by the author. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 23:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you much Lemongirl942 not only for pointing out to me that lists of publications of an author shouldn't be included in a book page, but also fixing it. I actually didn't know that. I will go now to the Arabic pages and fix accordingly. As someone new here and despite intensive time in educating myself about Wikipedia rules, it seems there is always something new to know. so thanks for people like you who help in that regard. In terms of any relationship with the author, I don't know him in person and he is not a relative or a friend or a colleague. I wrote about him as someone who is interested in the situation in the middle east (wars and human tragedies), he is a known writer that I found his work and publications unique in terms of his approach to what is facing this area. thanks again for your help. I will actually go back to all the posts in few days time to look at them with a fresh eye. let me know if I can do anything to make them better please. Katib-mo ( talk) 07:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi LaMona, do you mean the list of books published by the author, as it has been removed by another editor thankfully (please see my response to Lemongirl942 above)?. If there is are other remarks, kindly share with me. Thank you. Katib-mo ( talk) 07:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
This article was just created by a new account and has all signs of a paid job: the new account made a number of inconsequential edits to a bunch of random articles and then created this article in just 5 edits. It has a grand total of 24 (!) references, but a quick check shows that it's the usual: either very minor coverage, unreliable sources, or really absolutely trivial stuff ([ http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2014/09/02/denver-business-journal-names-2014-power-book.html?page=all "In September 2014, Watson was included in the list of Denver Business Journal Power Book finalists"). I have currently no time to look into this in more detail, perhaps somebody here can have a look and see whether I am just being paranoid... Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 16:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I'm not sure if this applies, and I don't know exactly how to initiate conversation if it does, so please forgive me if I'm out of my lane. A large number of edits to this article, which is about a film, seem to be made by the film's director, who is registered but whose user page hasn't been created. If this user is the director, is this a conflict of interest (is a creative work a "company?"), and if it is a COI, should I create the user page and seek clarification? Mitchell k dwyer ( talk) 03:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Something fishy going on with the above accounts. The two pages mentioned are connected, as, I believe, are the editors. Looking at the references used in one of the pages, I was able to establish that ahasalone probably has a strong conflict and is behind the engineering/creation of references that support the notability for these page. USer aliciadewi only leaves the edit comment "Improved article and references" or "improved article", regardless of what was done. Strange. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 15:51, 1 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.
IP is repeatedly removing significant chunks of referenced material from the article, doing so once with the edit summary I like it this way if you change it I will change it back and this is the way amanda wants it. Unsure if genuine CoI or just a fan? Gricehead ( talk) 13:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I've admin deleted content on the user talk page which is relevant, but cant do or say much more at the moment, except to say that I know who the editor is, that the underlying problem is legitimate, and I am talking with people closer to the subject to better understand the underlying problem myself so I can determine whether it calls for WP:RFO or not. John Vandenberg ( chat) 07:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
VA IP's:
something else
I noticed the very tidy and professional-sounding page for the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center in the new pages feed. Page created by Katomin, who interestingly has an edit on his/her user page for "PM&R Mnemonics" by 152.132.10.197. In whois, 152.132.10.197 and the similar Ip's above resolve to the "Department of Veterans Affairs" near Pasadena California. 152.132.10.197 has done 28 edits to the UCLA/VA Multicampus PM&R Residency Program since 2007. There are other potentially connected pages in the histories. Given the promotional edits to the pages of certain doctors and the rsidency program, I thought this was the work of bored medical students at first, but the network of edits to VA-related hospitals might be a more professional effort. I asked Katomin about potential conflicts but no answer as of yet. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 18:09, 2 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.
User:Wikijan2016 has three times removed an allegation made in the Sarawak Report (referenced to http://www.sarawakreport.org/2016/04/how-1mdbs-stolen-money-funded-top-uk-private-schools/ and based in turn on the Panama Papers}, that money from the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal was used to fund Bellevue Education.
Wikijan2016 has also added the comment that "Bellevue Education has no financial stake in the Bellevue Education Trust" which is not obvious in the reference, http://www.bpet.co.uk. This specific comment would not be directly relevant to the allegation made. It appears to be an attempt to confuse any reader who may have heard of the allegation (as if the ownership structure wasn't complicated enough already).
Wikijan2016's other substantive contributions so far are all on the articles of other Bellevue schools etc. These edits may generally be described as puffery, relying on the websites of the organizations themselves.
Wikijan2016 has been warned not to make statements that could appear to be legal threats: "the applicable processes will be taken with wikipedia to ensure wikipedia is not misused to promote incorrect information" and "The last sentences refers to a discredited and illegal blog, and is as such not a trusted source that can be used. This will be reported to wikipedia.".
I note that to date Wikijan2016 has not posted on the talk page despite being invited to do so. Instead, they have for the third time removed the allegations and their reference, though this time without the legal threats. (I also notice some minor changes in this diff that may in fact be marginal improvements to the article.)
I suggest that this is the pattern of an editor with a serious conflict of interest. I'd be grateful for any advice on how to handle this. Hunc ( talk) 22:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Hunk ( talk) and Daithidebara ( talk)have been seriously edit warring on the talk page for a while now, which is shocking and quite aggressive. I'd be grateful for some advice from senior admininstrators of wikipedia on this topic, so that this matter can come to a resolution. It is naturally very concerning that the two users are allowed to freely post accusations about a company with a highly loaded tone and language. Any information on wikipedia should be from reliable and accurate sources, and not posted with a clear agenda. The edits of which it is shocking that they continue to post (clearly in violation of the 3 edit rule) is that the company has received funding from sources of which it has not. Could someone please advice the best way forward to end this edit warring from Hunk ( talk) and Daithidebarra ( talk)? Thank you in advance. Please also note that the reason why I have not posted on a talk page until today is not because of no interest in resolving the matter, but simply because I do not know the ins and outs of wikipedia as well as the two users clearly. Please also note that whilst I may have edited on other pages that also belong to the group, that does not take away from the fact, that wikipedia should not support blatant accusations about an organisation - I merely wish for wikipedia to be a descent and accurate source of information for users. Wikjan2016. talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijan2016 ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your comments Jytdog Jytdog. I really appreciate it. I have absolutely no connection to the Trust whatsoever, but I do care about and know staff of Bellevue Education - hence my interest in the matter.
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
What frustrated me is that the user Daithidebarra ( Daithidebarra is allowed to publish very accusatory and aggressive posts. I just now tried to edit the content to present a more accurate and objective presentation of the content of which the user is edit warring me on, however, as soon as posted they revert back. He is by all means in breach of any proper edit etiquette or rules on wikipedia. I am not quite sure what or where the agenda is coming from. His posts are: "In April 2016, the true source of much of the investment funding behind Bellevue was exposed as being the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal, by the release of the Panama Papers, as covered by the Sarawak Report.[1] There has also been coverage of this matter in the Sunday Times, and the National Union of Teachers has called for a public enquiry[2]". I changed it to the following: "In April 2016, a blog based in Asia posted accusations about the group in relation to one of its silent investors and their separate business ventures internationally.[1] The Sunday Times followed up on the story and linked it to the Bellevue Place Education Trust, however they were forced to post a full statement from the Department of Education clearly stating that: "No one will be handed control of a school unless we are entirely happy with the results and checks. [2] The Link made to the Trust comes at a time when members of the media and NUT have been at war with the Department of Education in relation to the pending academies plans in the UK." with all relevant links highlighting all content presented. Not sure what more I can do my end to stop the edit warring and poor edit behaviour by Daithidebarra ( Daithidebarra)? Could we look into banning him from editing and as such using the article to convey some kind of agenda? Thank you so much. |
--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 19:41, 12 May 2016 ( talk • contribs) 19:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog, thanks so much for taking the matter seriously. It is much appreciated. Very happy to refrain from editing the page so you can look into the matter and the personal agenda that the Daithidebarra Daithidebarra user might have. My connection to Bellevue Education is of a personal matter, and I have edited some of their wikipedia school pages from personal interest - and professional as I myself work in digital communication independently.
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I would appreciate if you could look into the legal matter of posting accusations in a fairly loaded and biased tone. It is my understanding that the Asian blog has posted unproven allegations to support a case built against a silent investor in the group and their international business ventures - and is clearly in breach of UK and international media law from actions and presentation of content. The question then is whether it is ok for the user to re-publish such content - what is morally and legally correct here? Happy to provide any further information my end that might help you in looking into. |
-Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijan2016 ( talk • contribs) 20:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Ah sorry, not used to wikipedia - will sign off as requested. Nothing to pull out of me, apologies if I was not clear - I am not paid by the group, but I know and care about staff members there who are on the receiving end of these allegations. I am paid by my own company, with no relation to Bellevue Education. " Wikijan2016 ( talk) 20:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)"
Great. No they are not. That would be fairly interesting as I work in the comms department (on digital side) of a shipping insurance company. Do let me know once we can discuss the matter of legal and moral issue around the wording of the editing on the Bellevue Education page. That is really were the matter solely lies. Thanks so much for taking this seriously. " Wikijan2016 ( talk) 21:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)"
Sorry could you clarify what you mean by COI management process? Just so I am clear on the process here, and what the messiness you are referring to is? Could we possibly also obtain some more information on the other user so their personal or professional agenda also is a bit clearer? I think I mentioned earlier that I have edited a couple of other articles for them from a personal point of view, I have also edited other articles in the past, I think under different user names as I have changed computers and forgotten user name and passwords - nothing to hide there - again I wish I would have been paid for any editing, but unfortunately not. Logos have been available online already, as most are on google images. I assume you have been satisfied with information my end, and will obtain the required information regarding the other user, so we can look into the matter of the content as soon as possible - which is only where this dispute lies. Thanks so much again. Wikijan2016 ( talk) 21:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
All clear now. Thanks for clarifying again. It was not clear to me the first time. Again, nothing to hide - complete transparency my end, I do know staff members of the group as said all along, which is why I was horrified to see the tone and language used and the posting of the source as previously discussed - and have taken a personal interest in the page over the last few weeks as the user has gone to great lengths to ensure their edit is on the page. To be clear, I have all along stated that wikipedia should be an objective and reliable source of information - my latest attempt to edit the user's content to ensure just that is a testament to this - as it is a much more objective and clean way of presenting content vs their use of strong words such as "exposed" etc. Do let me know if you require any further information my end. I don't know whether it is worth looking into the other user and whether they have any connection with organisations/media etc that might benefit from sharing the supplied content in the way they have chosen to do so? Thanks. Look forward to hearing an update and to discussing this further. Wikijan2016 ( talk) 21:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
No I do not think that is the case, so I cannot tell you that I am afraid. My problem with all of this is the moral and legal aspect of someone posting content in a certain tone for their own agenda or to promote their political views. It is morally wrong - not to mention in this case also legally. I would be appalled if wikipedia supports such behaviour. As someone from a long line of lawyers I cannot sit back and say nothing to this. The reason why this morally wrong behaviour caught my attention is because I know hardworking people within the company, yes, but my interest is purely moral and legal so no conflict of interest. The only one with a conflict of interest is the other user, as the shear persistence suggests a very clear agenda - do I post a conflict of interest case against them perhaps, so we can look into this, or can you initiate it from there. That is actually the root of the problem, and why we are all wasting our time with this. Thanks again. Wikijan2016 ( talk) 05:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually, could you point me in the direction on wikipedia of where I can file a complaint of this user in terms of their moral and legal wrongdoings on wikipedia? Ultimately that is the aspect we need to get to discuss, otherwise we are all just enabling such behaviour. Thanks again. Wikijan2016 ( talk) 05:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Company page created, editied and reverted by founder of company. Editor name identical to founder name, also acknowledged " Yes, I am the founder!" on his/her talk page. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 00:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Would this be what I need to put at the top of the page to disclose the "COI" properly? If so, can I add the missing content again? (sorry, I'm a newbie in this)
{{Connected contributor|User1=mruizcamauer |U1-declared=yes| |U1-otherlinks=Founder of Kikai Labs}}
Mruizcamauer (
talk)
22:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Given the breadth of the topics and the persistent addition of advertorial content despite multipe AfC declines suggests paid COI that ought to be cleaned up. — Spaceman Spiff 12:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
User has indicated that he is working for the Syrian Interim Government, [6] [7] is editing at the instruction or request of the Interim Government, [8] and is a politician. [9] User has made changes based on a clearly partisan view [10] and has refused to provide secondary sourcing. Can another user provide assistance to make sure that policies on verifiability and neutrality are followed in this article? — C.Fred ( talk) 02:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
@ C.Fred: Can you remove the "all westerners are idiots" material from his user page, on basis of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL as he is attacking all western editors? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
AN/I started, go to WP:AN/I for more. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
this edit was made a few hours ago.
References
Thoughts on whether we have a conflicted editor here? Jytdog ( talk) 23:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
New contributor writing about their career. Film maker's resume featuring unsourced trivia (number of theaters in which a movie ran) as well as listings of awards. If notability is met, this needs be restarted in prose format, and properly sourced. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 21:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
A few of the accounts involved:
Dormant accounts involved:
This is only the tip of the iceberg, there are more accounts involved that I haven't touched yet. I filed this SPI -- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Satya satapathy but the main account doesn't appear to be technically linked to the rest. However, from the draft article and stuff it looks like the main account is the boss of the company. There are also many other articles that I haven't yet come across (I've deleted a few G11) and the account linkage to other accounts needs investigation to get there. — Spaceman Spiff 17:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Editor who in this diff performs a section blanking and noted in the comment 'Edit by Band / tony@getmorechevelle.com / manager)' COI warning given on the Talk page of the editor and since then two different editors have performed similar edits. Karst ( talk) 07:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
This is really more of a request for comment at this point, than a request for action.
Olejjoerges has admitted a COI, but doesn't seem to have disclosed anywhere what that COI is. To their credit, they are trying to do right by WP and are getting a bit spammy with edit requests on a shot gun blast of people who have been a part of the Red Bull Music Academy, rather than doing the edits themselves.
Still, the overall effect seems to be more promotional than encyclopedic, pasting Red Bull and links to the RBMA in lot of articles for its own sake. Doesn't quite feel in line with the spirit of COI requests. Moreso, each edit request taken independently seems fine, but taken as a whole seems somewhat less so. TimothyJosephWood 22:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
New editor adding external links to academic papers he's written. Perhaps his notability as a scholar ought to be established first. Further opinions welcome. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 00:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
All this editor does is add fake content to have reference spam on. Am not providing diffs as this is what all their contribs are. These are the sites they have used as references:
This person is WP:NOTHERE; please indefinitely block them. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 06:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
You threw up all these warnings at once. Not all of us who contribute to Wiki monitor it every day. You took down my page for American Board of Criminal Lawyers which was actually a legitimate page. I have put this through the Wiki dispute process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Ehrmant ( talk • contribs) 08:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
There is some undisclosed paid editing going on here with a possible abuse of WP:CLEANSTART. I have offline evidence of this, but I am not going to present it here for risk of WP:OUTING. I have listed some user accounts who seem to be working in close cooperation. Could others have a look at it? Pinging Brianhe, SpacemanSpiff, HappyValleyEditor -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 10:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
A previous version of the De Molliere family [15] article was an Orangemoody job. Geogene ( talk) 02:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there are other edits I made. Majority of them are more of clean-up and maintenance. I've never engaged in vandalism, tag removal or any unruly behaviour. In fact, one of my recent articles was tagged for speedy deletion and was eventually deleted. I never contested it. I respect the opinion of every editor here.
But, I must admit that some of the clean-up edits are helps I rendered to friends who don't really know how to go about the wiki-editing process. You know how difficult wiki editing can be especially that of "Orphan Tag". I never get paid for them. Most of the edits are geared towards making the pages better. If this is considered conflict of interest, then I promise I won't engage in it any more. I'll continue to use my account for medical research and other digital-related research topics. Thanks. Xandyxyz ( talk) 11:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Pls Lemongirl942, I'm seriously engaged in some events right now. I may be off and on the internet network. I'll still respond to further questions when I'm back. But, I think I've cleared myself here. I edit Wikipedia once in a while when I have the time. Thank you Xandyxyz ( talk) 18:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Following users were confirmed
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Boskit190. A bunch of socks have been found -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 18:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
One editor hasTwo editorsThree editors have created the articles above, or uploaded their logos. There may be a connection to the creator of
TaxiForSure. I'd like someone else to tell me if this looks like COI editing. -
Brianhe (
talk)
12:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Seems to be someone who has created an autobiographical article. It is sourced, but the user has not responded to posts inquiring about their COI. 331dot ( talk) 17:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Has also created a page about a film he appeared in, I Miss You (2014 film). 331dot ( talk) 10:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Article is entirely unsourced. I have tried to reduce the amount of promotional material within the article, but WP:SPA continues to reintroduce promotional material without explanation. The following diff gives further insight into the situation. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 20:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I accepted this AfC submission but the article still needs in serious copyediting. I do not have an impression that the edits of the subject of the article improve the text, but of course I am not a native English speaker (neither is she). Ymblanter ( talk) 16:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello Lemongirl942, I did not add anything, I deleted [ ] around O. Sidlin, and it was missing the Reference from the text, so I included this Ref to the text. But now you deleted it. Someone of you deleted almost all the text/pictures, sections/references and now I got the missing of Notability message, asking to add the References. How I can do it if you are laughing at me, and I'm not permitted to do any editing? I need help to fix the problem. I did not expect too much stress from how the editors handle it. Please help with the article problem. Should some material be restored/rephrased, etc? Thanks. Toreeva ( talk) 17:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello Lemongirl942 and thanks for your response. You included Ref only for the exhibitions, but about Museums and Publishing was all deleted. I did not use any blogs, so all ref. were reliable and can be used as you feel more appropriate to use. But delete all? I did not have before question of Notability, only promotional tendency but since all material was deleted now I got notability. Someone from Teahouse told that since I was an artist and emigrated from USSR, it is automatically should be in Notability category. Now, it is problem since, I think, it was all deleted that I emigrated from USSR. I understand the text needed to be edited but delete everything I don't understand the goal. Please check all my references in Museums and Publishing, what you think it is appropriate, I would incl. back. But in the format of 1 line I don;t think it is enough for the article. Please help me with the article to be appropriate to be accepted. Thanks. Toreeva ( talk) 18:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello again, Lemongirl942, sorry I'm writing from our library since my computer does not work. I just want to add the following: When I started article I looked other's artists articles whom I know from St. Petersburg to follow the structure. I don't want to show the wrong things, I'm happy for them that they are included in wiki, but look at their articles, for example, Alek Rapoport, Anatoly Belkin, Alexander Ney, Vladimir Lisunov, etc. They have their Sections as Early life, Careers, Exhibitions, Museums, and almost no References. If the reference, it is only ref. to Museum itself, but no artist's name there. It is because, the Museums don't list the artists in their collections. So you should not delete the Museums where the artwork in their collection, since no reference is there. They put names of the Museums only. And if they put the books, it does not show their names there. I can included the ISBN in the books I mentioned if you want. I don't understand why someone deleted Museums and Publications sections with the reasonable list of References, but comparing with other artists Articles, these sections should not be deleted. As I see that for the Articles for the artists, probably who understand the art and specifically the Russian/Soviet art 1970s-1980s, would understand that you can't find any record/references of the artists of that time (before falling of Soviet Union), but it does not mean that those artists were not notable. So, it should not be deleted the sections of their activities at that time as the artists. Same with the Education. Only art schools are mentioned, so the Education section also should not be deleted. I asked to correct grammar, sentences structure, but delete all material? And now it is 'notability' problem, how I can prove notability if all participation in Museums, and publishing were deleted? Probably to the artist's article, it should be some specific approach. And why Filmography was deleted? Is it part of the Career in USSR? Does someone checked why the pictures were also deleted? The copyright numbers sent to the wiki review, should not have the problem. Then, why they were deleted? Hope you would look again to the article and correct it in the way it would not have a problem. Thanks. Toreeva ( talk) 20:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Lemongirl942, You can check: 1) www.artdialogues.narod.ru/1997 for "Dialogues: Biennial of Contemporary art. Central Exhibition Hall "Manege", 1997, where 3d Dialoques exh was presented. 2) artunion.ru/painters/e2-17-1.htm, where Natalia Toreeva is registered in the Register of Professional Artists of Russia Empire, Russian emigration, etc. 3) best.artunion.ru/be2-20.htm or best.artunion.ru/best_engl.htm, then click on 'T' or http://www.10000best.com/be2-20.htm 4) http://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/2182510/ The book "Twenty Thousand Faces of Pasternak" is there. 5) http://encspb.ru/object/2855704621?lc=ru "School of Sidlin" and its members of this art group included in St. Petersburg Encyclopedia (in Russian), but you can go to their web and click on "Translate this page". All these references could be valuable from wiki point of view. Thanks. Toreeva ( talk) 22:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Lemongirl942. Also, in the Ref #6 the word "smena" is in red. "Smena" is the Russian on-line newspaper. I did not see this article before, very good info. But Red color probably meaning that the word "smena" is in [ ], so please check it, and if indeed it is the problem, just delete [ ] around "smena". Thanks. Toreeva ( talk) 01:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello Ymblanter, I submitted my Article to you seeking the editor's and grammar help, but instead you put my article to conflict section, and someone deleted almost everything. I don't teach wiki what to do, but it looks someone needs to have more experience in art, since in the artists articles, you don't have the references in museums, since they don't have an official web to list all the artists in their collection. So, museums references, as I see in another artists articles, don't have the references, and should not be deleted. I value your opinion to stop working on improvement my article. Thank you. Toreeva ( talk) 15:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello Lemongirl942, I understand that everyone is busy, but what is the next step? Does someone working to improve the article, or can I make the input for the references I mentioned above? Waiting for your response. Thanks. Toreeva ( talk) 00:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC) Hi, Lemongirl942, would you answer, if you or someone else is looking into websites I submitted on my Talk page to you to improve the Article? What is my next step if you will not answer about the progress? Can you suggest if you don't have time to look into it, what to do? Thanks. Toreeva ( talk) 20:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
An account named User:Lesbianadvocate has been POV-pushing, edit-warring, and adding copyrighted material to an article named American Council for Capital Formation. After consulting with User:1990'sguy, who had a similar run in with her on another article, I started investigating why she's writing so many hit pieces, and it looks like all of her articles for the past few years correspond with clients of the digital PR firm FP1 Strategies. (Her edit history can be seen here).
In short, all of LA’s major article projects for the past four years seem to be FP1 clients or their opponents, taken on exactly when FP1 takes on the clients. It would be mind-boggling if this was coincidence, right? Can any action be taken? More details about her problematic editing, including some examples of her copyright violations can be seen here if necessary. I'd be hugely grateful for any help or assistance you could offer. -- EllenMcGill ( talk) 15:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lesbianadvocate. -- Brianhe ( talk) 20:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
great. Jytdog ( talk) 21:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I've nominated File:TerryNelson.jpg for deletion on Commons because I see no indication in the file page or in the related OTRS ticket that permission has been granted by the copyright owner shown in the EXIF data, Michael Temchine. The file was uploaded by Lesbianadvocate and FP1 Strategies is listed as source and as author. I note that a licence was added to the page by Iliketoeatpotatoesalot; I'm very curious to know how that user – who was not the uploader and (I believe) is not an OTRS agent – was able to determine what licence to add. Neither Lesbianadvocate nor Iliketoeatpotatoesalot has edited any other Commons page.
Taken with the other evidence presented above, this is enough to convince me beyond doubt that there has been collusion (at the very least) between these two editors and that there is every likelihood of a connection to the company. I'm going to add the paragraph above to the SPI too in case that helps. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 14:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I just noticed that Iliketoeatpotatoesalot and Intermittentgardener have both been editing the article PJ Media. I looked up online and found this link at the official website of PJ Media, which clearly states For Media Inquiries please contact:FP1 Strategies. I'm adding it to the list of pages above. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 14:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The SPI has concluded that the following editors are socks of User:Lesbianadvocate and at least some of their edits fit the modus operandi of PR:
This is an earlier SPA Lenovo editor from 2011-2012 with hundreds of edits by they've been trying to own articles since 2008
There are quite a few articles affected but the main ones to check are related to these:
SmartSE ( talk) 20:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I spotted a new account Averyevilcentipede whose editing patterns indicate that they are not new to Wikipedia. The edits (at least the edit summary descriptions) are similar to Singaporebobby. Pinging Brianhe, Smartse, EllenMcGill. Let me know what you think. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 16:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Significant contributors to the Medopad article include Emk123, whose only other edit appear to have involved adding mentions of the company to articles such as Google Glass and Vodafone, and two IPs have host names that include "medopad". Cordless Larry ( talk) 06:41, 9 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.
Possible COI in article about filmmaker Emily Carmichael. The article has primarily been written by one editor, and this editor has edited only on Emily Carmichael's page, and on Joel Carmichael's page (Emily's grandfather). The article contains an excessive amount of detail and promotional material added by this editor that, while sourced, is certainly suspicious. It at least seems excessive given the relative noteworthiness of the subject. Seems like something worth taking a look at. Tomtomglove ( talk) 00:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Jytdog. I certainly will. Thanks for walking me through the policies. I appreciate the help. FilmCriticAlpha ( talk) 02:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC) FilmCriticAlpha
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
User has admitted on my talk page that they are an RA to this professor, representing an obvious COI issue. Jodamaster ( talk) 23:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Strightforward COI editing of autobiography, with reverts and deletion tag removals. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 16:57, 21 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.
User is creating a page whose name shares their username. Jodamaster ( talk) 08:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
It looks like there are several newly created or newly active WP:SPA accounts posting to a recent series of deletion discussions, centered around the topic of effective altruism (though not on that article itself). Some searches on Facebook have provided evidence of canvassing by involved organizations, to try and get people to prevent deletion. As I'm also involved in the discussions, I'll declare upfront that I have no COI with respect to any of these articles. NeatGrey ( talk) 02:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
The user created an article, Humanity Protecting Party Sri Lanka, an article on a Sri Lankan political party, which I tagged for speedy. He went on and created Humanity protecting party, a recreation of the first article, and messaged me on my talk page at User_talk:Optakeover#speedy_deletion_of_humanity_protecting_party saying he is the general secretary of the party, and requesting that the article not be speedily deleted. I am making this report as this is the first time I'm dealing with what I see as a COI issue, with a user directly associated with an organisation creating and editing an article of his/her organisation. Request for comment and/or action, thank you. Optakeover (U) (T) (C) 14:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I just have a hunch that this is not the nost objective editing possible as there is astrong promotional tone to these articles. The novel pages both list/listed a list of other works by the author. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 23:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you much Lemongirl942 not only for pointing out to me that lists of publications of an author shouldn't be included in a book page, but also fixing it. I actually didn't know that. I will go now to the Arabic pages and fix accordingly. As someone new here and despite intensive time in educating myself about Wikipedia rules, it seems there is always something new to know. so thanks for people like you who help in that regard. In terms of any relationship with the author, I don't know him in person and he is not a relative or a friend or a colleague. I wrote about him as someone who is interested in the situation in the middle east (wars and human tragedies), he is a known writer that I found his work and publications unique in terms of his approach to what is facing this area. thanks again for your help. I will actually go back to all the posts in few days time to look at them with a fresh eye. let me know if I can do anything to make them better please. Katib-mo ( talk) 07:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi LaMona, do you mean the list of books published by the author, as it has been removed by another editor thankfully (please see my response to Lemongirl942 above)?. If there is are other remarks, kindly share with me. Thank you. Katib-mo ( talk) 07:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
This article was just created by a new account and has all signs of a paid job: the new account made a number of inconsequential edits to a bunch of random articles and then created this article in just 5 edits. It has a grand total of 24 (!) references, but a quick check shows that it's the usual: either very minor coverage, unreliable sources, or really absolutely trivial stuff ([ http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2014/09/02/denver-business-journal-names-2014-power-book.html?page=all "In September 2014, Watson was included in the list of Denver Business Journal Power Book finalists"). I have currently no time to look into this in more detail, perhaps somebody here can have a look and see whether I am just being paranoid... Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 16:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I'm not sure if this applies, and I don't know exactly how to initiate conversation if it does, so please forgive me if I'm out of my lane. A large number of edits to this article, which is about a film, seem to be made by the film's director, who is registered but whose user page hasn't been created. If this user is the director, is this a conflict of interest (is a creative work a "company?"), and if it is a COI, should I create the user page and seek clarification? Mitchell k dwyer ( talk) 03:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Something fishy going on with the above accounts. The two pages mentioned are connected, as, I believe, are the editors. Looking at the references used in one of the pages, I was able to establish that ahasalone probably has a strong conflict and is behind the engineering/creation of references that support the notability for these page. USer aliciadewi only leaves the edit comment "Improved article and references" or "improved article", regardless of what was done. Strange. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 15:51, 1 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.
IP is repeatedly removing significant chunks of referenced material from the article, doing so once with the edit summary I like it this way if you change it I will change it back and this is the way amanda wants it. Unsure if genuine CoI or just a fan? Gricehead ( talk) 13:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I've admin deleted content on the user talk page which is relevant, but cant do or say much more at the moment, except to say that I know who the editor is, that the underlying problem is legitimate, and I am talking with people closer to the subject to better understand the underlying problem myself so I can determine whether it calls for WP:RFO or not. John Vandenberg ( chat) 07:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
VA IP's:
something else
I noticed the very tidy and professional-sounding page for the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center in the new pages feed. Page created by Katomin, who interestingly has an edit on his/her user page for "PM&R Mnemonics" by 152.132.10.197. In whois, 152.132.10.197 and the similar Ip's above resolve to the "Department of Veterans Affairs" near Pasadena California. 152.132.10.197 has done 28 edits to the UCLA/VA Multicampus PM&R Residency Program since 2007. There are other potentially connected pages in the histories. Given the promotional edits to the pages of certain doctors and the rsidency program, I thought this was the work of bored medical students at first, but the network of edits to VA-related hospitals might be a more professional effort. I asked Katomin about potential conflicts but no answer as of yet. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 18:09, 2 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.
User:Wikijan2016 has three times removed an allegation made in the Sarawak Report (referenced to http://www.sarawakreport.org/2016/04/how-1mdbs-stolen-money-funded-top-uk-private-schools/ and based in turn on the Panama Papers}, that money from the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal was used to fund Bellevue Education.
Wikijan2016 has also added the comment that "Bellevue Education has no financial stake in the Bellevue Education Trust" which is not obvious in the reference, http://www.bpet.co.uk. This specific comment would not be directly relevant to the allegation made. It appears to be an attempt to confuse any reader who may have heard of the allegation (as if the ownership structure wasn't complicated enough already).
Wikijan2016's other substantive contributions so far are all on the articles of other Bellevue schools etc. These edits may generally be described as puffery, relying on the websites of the organizations themselves.
Wikijan2016 has been warned not to make statements that could appear to be legal threats: "the applicable processes will be taken with wikipedia to ensure wikipedia is not misused to promote incorrect information" and "The last sentences refers to a discredited and illegal blog, and is as such not a trusted source that can be used. This will be reported to wikipedia.".
I note that to date Wikijan2016 has not posted on the talk page despite being invited to do so. Instead, they have for the third time removed the allegations and their reference, though this time without the legal threats. (I also notice some minor changes in this diff that may in fact be marginal improvements to the article.)
I suggest that this is the pattern of an editor with a serious conflict of interest. I'd be grateful for any advice on how to handle this. Hunc ( talk) 22:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Hunk ( talk) and Daithidebara ( talk)have been seriously edit warring on the talk page for a while now, which is shocking and quite aggressive. I'd be grateful for some advice from senior admininstrators of wikipedia on this topic, so that this matter can come to a resolution. It is naturally very concerning that the two users are allowed to freely post accusations about a company with a highly loaded tone and language. Any information on wikipedia should be from reliable and accurate sources, and not posted with a clear agenda. The edits of which it is shocking that they continue to post (clearly in violation of the 3 edit rule) is that the company has received funding from sources of which it has not. Could someone please advice the best way forward to end this edit warring from Hunk ( talk) and Daithidebarra ( talk)? Thank you in advance. Please also note that the reason why I have not posted on a talk page until today is not because of no interest in resolving the matter, but simply because I do not know the ins and outs of wikipedia as well as the two users clearly. Please also note that whilst I may have edited on other pages that also belong to the group, that does not take away from the fact, that wikipedia should not support blatant accusations about an organisation - I merely wish for wikipedia to be a descent and accurate source of information for users. Wikjan2016. talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijan2016 ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your comments Jytdog Jytdog. I really appreciate it. I have absolutely no connection to the Trust whatsoever, but I do care about and know staff of Bellevue Education - hence my interest in the matter.
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
What frustrated me is that the user Daithidebarra ( Daithidebarra is allowed to publish very accusatory and aggressive posts. I just now tried to edit the content to present a more accurate and objective presentation of the content of which the user is edit warring me on, however, as soon as posted they revert back. He is by all means in breach of any proper edit etiquette or rules on wikipedia. I am not quite sure what or where the agenda is coming from. His posts are: "In April 2016, the true source of much of the investment funding behind Bellevue was exposed as being the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal, by the release of the Panama Papers, as covered by the Sarawak Report.[1] There has also been coverage of this matter in the Sunday Times, and the National Union of Teachers has called for a public enquiry[2]". I changed it to the following: "In April 2016, a blog based in Asia posted accusations about the group in relation to one of its silent investors and their separate business ventures internationally.[1] The Sunday Times followed up on the story and linked it to the Bellevue Place Education Trust, however they were forced to post a full statement from the Department of Education clearly stating that: "No one will be handed control of a school unless we are entirely happy with the results and checks. [2] The Link made to the Trust comes at a time when members of the media and NUT have been at war with the Department of Education in relation to the pending academies plans in the UK." with all relevant links highlighting all content presented. Not sure what more I can do my end to stop the edit warring and poor edit behaviour by Daithidebarra ( Daithidebarra)? Could we look into banning him from editing and as such using the article to convey some kind of agenda? Thank you so much. |
--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 19:41, 12 May 2016 ( talk • contribs) 19:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog, thanks so much for taking the matter seriously. It is much appreciated. Very happy to refrain from editing the page so you can look into the matter and the personal agenda that the Daithidebarra Daithidebarra user might have. My connection to Bellevue Education is of a personal matter, and I have edited some of their wikipedia school pages from personal interest - and professional as I myself work in digital communication independently.
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I would appreciate if you could look into the legal matter of posting accusations in a fairly loaded and biased tone. It is my understanding that the Asian blog has posted unproven allegations to support a case built against a silent investor in the group and their international business ventures - and is clearly in breach of UK and international media law from actions and presentation of content. The question then is whether it is ok for the user to re-publish such content - what is morally and legally correct here? Happy to provide any further information my end that might help you in looking into. |
-Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijan2016 ( talk • contribs) 20:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Ah sorry, not used to wikipedia - will sign off as requested. Nothing to pull out of me, apologies if I was not clear - I am not paid by the group, but I know and care about staff members there who are on the receiving end of these allegations. I am paid by my own company, with no relation to Bellevue Education. " Wikijan2016 ( talk) 20:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)"
Great. No they are not. That would be fairly interesting as I work in the comms department (on digital side) of a shipping insurance company. Do let me know once we can discuss the matter of legal and moral issue around the wording of the editing on the Bellevue Education page. That is really were the matter solely lies. Thanks so much for taking this seriously. " Wikijan2016 ( talk) 21:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)"
Sorry could you clarify what you mean by COI management process? Just so I am clear on the process here, and what the messiness you are referring to is? Could we possibly also obtain some more information on the other user so their personal or professional agenda also is a bit clearer? I think I mentioned earlier that I have edited a couple of other articles for them from a personal point of view, I have also edited other articles in the past, I think under different user names as I have changed computers and forgotten user name and passwords - nothing to hide there - again I wish I would have been paid for any editing, but unfortunately not. Logos have been available online already, as most are on google images. I assume you have been satisfied with information my end, and will obtain the required information regarding the other user, so we can look into the matter of the content as soon as possible - which is only where this dispute lies. Thanks so much again. Wikijan2016 ( talk) 21:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
All clear now. Thanks for clarifying again. It was not clear to me the first time. Again, nothing to hide - complete transparency my end, I do know staff members of the group as said all along, which is why I was horrified to see the tone and language used and the posting of the source as previously discussed - and have taken a personal interest in the page over the last few weeks as the user has gone to great lengths to ensure their edit is on the page. To be clear, I have all along stated that wikipedia should be an objective and reliable source of information - my latest attempt to edit the user's content to ensure just that is a testament to this - as it is a much more objective and clean way of presenting content vs their use of strong words such as "exposed" etc. Do let me know if you require any further information my end. I don't know whether it is worth looking into the other user and whether they have any connection with organisations/media etc that might benefit from sharing the supplied content in the way they have chosen to do so? Thanks. Look forward to hearing an update and to discussing this further. Wikijan2016 ( talk) 21:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
No I do not think that is the case, so I cannot tell you that I am afraid. My problem with all of this is the moral and legal aspect of someone posting content in a certain tone for their own agenda or to promote their political views. It is morally wrong - not to mention in this case also legally. I would be appalled if wikipedia supports such behaviour. As someone from a long line of lawyers I cannot sit back and say nothing to this. The reason why this morally wrong behaviour caught my attention is because I know hardworking people within the company, yes, but my interest is purely moral and legal so no conflict of interest. The only one with a conflict of interest is the other user, as the shear persistence suggests a very clear agenda - do I post a conflict of interest case against them perhaps, so we can look into this, or can you initiate it from there. That is actually the root of the problem, and why we are all wasting our time with this. Thanks again. Wikijan2016 ( talk) 05:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually, could you point me in the direction on wikipedia of where I can file a complaint of this user in terms of their moral and legal wrongdoings on wikipedia? Ultimately that is the aspect we need to get to discuss, otherwise we are all just enabling such behaviour. Thanks again. Wikijan2016 ( talk) 05:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Company page created, editied and reverted by founder of company. Editor name identical to founder name, also acknowledged " Yes, I am the founder!" on his/her talk page. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 00:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Would this be what I need to put at the top of the page to disclose the "COI" properly? If so, can I add the missing content again? (sorry, I'm a newbie in this)
{{Connected contributor|User1=mruizcamauer |U1-declared=yes| |U1-otherlinks=Founder of Kikai Labs}}
Mruizcamauer (
talk)
22:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Given the breadth of the topics and the persistent addition of advertorial content despite multipe AfC declines suggests paid COI that ought to be cleaned up. — Spaceman Spiff 12:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
User has indicated that he is working for the Syrian Interim Government, [6] [7] is editing at the instruction or request of the Interim Government, [8] and is a politician. [9] User has made changes based on a clearly partisan view [10] and has refused to provide secondary sourcing. Can another user provide assistance to make sure that policies on verifiability and neutrality are followed in this article? — C.Fred ( talk) 02:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
@ C.Fred: Can you remove the "all westerners are idiots" material from his user page, on basis of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL as he is attacking all western editors? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
AN/I started, go to WP:AN/I for more. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
this edit was made a few hours ago.
References
Thoughts on whether we have a conflicted editor here? Jytdog ( talk) 23:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
New contributor writing about their career. Film maker's resume featuring unsourced trivia (number of theaters in which a movie ran) as well as listings of awards. If notability is met, this needs be restarted in prose format, and properly sourced. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 21:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
A few of the accounts involved:
Dormant accounts involved:
This is only the tip of the iceberg, there are more accounts involved that I haven't touched yet. I filed this SPI -- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Satya satapathy but the main account doesn't appear to be technically linked to the rest. However, from the draft article and stuff it looks like the main account is the boss of the company. There are also many other articles that I haven't yet come across (I've deleted a few G11) and the account linkage to other accounts needs investigation to get there. — Spaceman Spiff 17:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Editor who in this diff performs a section blanking and noted in the comment 'Edit by Band / tony@getmorechevelle.com / manager)' COI warning given on the Talk page of the editor and since then two different editors have performed similar edits. Karst ( talk) 07:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
This is really more of a request for comment at this point, than a request for action.
Olejjoerges has admitted a COI, but doesn't seem to have disclosed anywhere what that COI is. To their credit, they are trying to do right by WP and are getting a bit spammy with edit requests on a shot gun blast of people who have been a part of the Red Bull Music Academy, rather than doing the edits themselves.
Still, the overall effect seems to be more promotional than encyclopedic, pasting Red Bull and links to the RBMA in lot of articles for its own sake. Doesn't quite feel in line with the spirit of COI requests. Moreso, each edit request taken independently seems fine, but taken as a whole seems somewhat less so. TimothyJosephWood 22:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
New editor adding external links to academic papers he's written. Perhaps his notability as a scholar ought to be established first. Further opinions welcome. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 00:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
All this editor does is add fake content to have reference spam on. Am not providing diffs as this is what all their contribs are. These are the sites they have used as references:
This person is WP:NOTHERE; please indefinitely block them. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 06:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
You threw up all these warnings at once. Not all of us who contribute to Wiki monitor it every day. You took down my page for American Board of Criminal Lawyers which was actually a legitimate page. I have put this through the Wiki dispute process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Ehrmant ( talk • contribs) 08:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
There is some undisclosed paid editing going on here with a possible abuse of WP:CLEANSTART. I have offline evidence of this, but I am not going to present it here for risk of WP:OUTING. I have listed some user accounts who seem to be working in close cooperation. Could others have a look at it? Pinging Brianhe, SpacemanSpiff, HappyValleyEditor -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 10:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
A previous version of the De Molliere family [15] article was an Orangemoody job. Geogene ( talk) 02:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there are other edits I made. Majority of them are more of clean-up and maintenance. I've never engaged in vandalism, tag removal or any unruly behaviour. In fact, one of my recent articles was tagged for speedy deletion and was eventually deleted. I never contested it. I respect the opinion of every editor here.
But, I must admit that some of the clean-up edits are helps I rendered to friends who don't really know how to go about the wiki-editing process. You know how difficult wiki editing can be especially that of "Orphan Tag". I never get paid for them. Most of the edits are geared towards making the pages better. If this is considered conflict of interest, then I promise I won't engage in it any more. I'll continue to use my account for medical research and other digital-related research topics. Thanks. Xandyxyz ( talk) 11:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Pls Lemongirl942, I'm seriously engaged in some events right now. I may be off and on the internet network. I'll still respond to further questions when I'm back. But, I think I've cleared myself here. I edit Wikipedia once in a while when I have the time. Thank you Xandyxyz ( talk) 18:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Following users were confirmed
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Boskit190. A bunch of socks have been found -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 18:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
One editor hasTwo editorsThree editors have created the articles above, or uploaded their logos. There may be a connection to the creator of
TaxiForSure. I'd like someone else to tell me if this looks like COI editing. -
Brianhe (
talk)
12:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Seems to be someone who has created an autobiographical article. It is sourced, but the user has not responded to posts inquiring about their COI. 331dot ( talk) 17:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Has also created a page about a film he appeared in, I Miss You (2014 film). 331dot ( talk) 10:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Article is entirely unsourced. I have tried to reduce the amount of promotional material within the article, but WP:SPA continues to reintroduce promotional material without explanation. The following diff gives further insight into the situation. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 20:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I accepted this AfC submission but the article still needs in serious copyediting. I do not have an impression that the edits of the subject of the article improve the text, but of course I am not a native English speaker (neither is she). Ymblanter ( talk) 16:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello Lemongirl942, I did not add anything, I deleted [ ] around O. Sidlin, and it was missing the Reference from the text, so I included this Ref to the text. But now you deleted it. Someone of you deleted almost all the text/pictures, sections/references and now I got the missing of Notability message, asking to add the References. How I can do it if you are laughing at me, and I'm not permitted to do any editing? I need help to fix the problem. I did not expect too much stress from how the editors handle it. Please help with the article problem. Should some material be restored/rephrased, etc? Thanks. Toreeva ( talk) 17:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello Lemongirl942 and thanks for your response. You included Ref only for the exhibitions, but about Museums and Publishing was all deleted. I did not use any blogs, so all ref. were reliable and can be used as you feel more appropriate to use. But delete all? I did not have before question of Notability, only promotional tendency but since all material was deleted now I got notability. Someone from Teahouse told that since I was an artist and emigrated from USSR, it is automatically should be in Notability category. Now, it is problem since, I think, it was all deleted that I emigrated from USSR. I understand the text needed to be edited but delete everything I don't understand the goal. Please check all my references in Museums and Publishing, what you think it is appropriate, I would incl. back. But in the format of 1 line I don;t think it is enough for the article. Please help me with the article to be appropriate to be accepted. Thanks. Toreeva ( talk) 18:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello again, Lemongirl942, sorry I'm writing from our library since my computer does not work. I just want to add the following: When I started article I looked other's artists articles whom I know from St. Petersburg to follow the structure. I don't want to show the wrong things, I'm happy for them that they are included in wiki, but look at their articles, for example, Alek Rapoport, Anatoly Belkin, Alexander Ney, Vladimir Lisunov, etc. They have their Sections as Early life, Careers, Exhibitions, Museums, and almost no References. If the reference, it is only ref. to Museum itself, but no artist's name there. It is because, the Museums don't list the artists in their collections. So you should not delete the Museums where the artwork in their collection, since no reference is there. They put names of the Museums only. And if they put the books, it does not show their names there. I can included the ISBN in the books I mentioned if you want. I don't understand why someone deleted Museums and Publications sections with the reasonable list of References, but comparing with other artists Articles, these sections should not be deleted. As I see that for the Articles for the artists, probably who understand the art and specifically the Russian/Soviet art 1970s-1980s, would understand that you can't find any record/references of the artists of that time (before falling of Soviet Union), but it does not mean that those artists were not notable. So, it should not be deleted the sections of their activities at that time as the artists. Same with the Education. Only art schools are mentioned, so the Education section also should not be deleted. I asked to correct grammar, sentences structure, but delete all material? And now it is 'notability' problem, how I can prove notability if all participation in Museums, and publishing were deleted? Probably to the artist's article, it should be some specific approach. And why Filmography was deleted? Is it part of the Career in USSR? Does someone checked why the pictures were also deleted? The copyright numbers sent to the wiki review, should not have the problem. Then, why they were deleted? Hope you would look again to the article and correct it in the way it would not have a problem. Thanks. Toreeva ( talk) 20:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Lemongirl942, You can check: 1) www.artdialogues.narod.ru/1997 for "Dialogues: Biennial of Contemporary art. Central Exhibition Hall "Manege", 1997, where 3d Dialoques exh was presented. 2) artunion.ru/painters/e2-17-1.htm, where Natalia Toreeva is registered in the Register of Professional Artists of Russia Empire, Russian emigration, etc. 3) best.artunion.ru/be2-20.htm or best.artunion.ru/best_engl.htm, then click on 'T' or http://www.10000best.com/be2-20.htm 4) http://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/2182510/ The book "Twenty Thousand Faces of Pasternak" is there. 5) http://encspb.ru/object/2855704621?lc=ru "School of Sidlin" and its members of this art group included in St. Petersburg Encyclopedia (in Russian), but you can go to their web and click on "Translate this page". All these references could be valuable from wiki point of view. Thanks. Toreeva ( talk) 22:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Lemongirl942. Also, in the Ref #6 the word "smena" is in red. "Smena" is the Russian on-line newspaper. I did not see this article before, very good info. But Red color probably meaning that the word "smena" is in [ ], so please check it, and if indeed it is the problem, just delete [ ] around "smena". Thanks. Toreeva ( talk) 01:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello Ymblanter, I submitted my Article to you seeking the editor's and grammar help, but instead you put my article to conflict section, and someone deleted almost everything. I don't teach wiki what to do, but it looks someone needs to have more experience in art, since in the artists articles, you don't have the references in museums, since they don't have an official web to list all the artists in their collection. So, museums references, as I see in another artists articles, don't have the references, and should not be deleted. I value your opinion to stop working on improvement my article. Thank you. Toreeva ( talk) 15:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello Lemongirl942, I understand that everyone is busy, but what is the next step? Does someone working to improve the article, or can I make the input for the references I mentioned above? Waiting for your response. Thanks. Toreeva ( talk) 00:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC) Hi, Lemongirl942, would you answer, if you or someone else is looking into websites I submitted on my Talk page to you to improve the Article? What is my next step if you will not answer about the progress? Can you suggest if you don't have time to look into it, what to do? Thanks. Toreeva ( talk) 20:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
An account named User:Lesbianadvocate has been POV-pushing, edit-warring, and adding copyrighted material to an article named American Council for Capital Formation. After consulting with User:1990'sguy, who had a similar run in with her on another article, I started investigating why she's writing so many hit pieces, and it looks like all of her articles for the past few years correspond with clients of the digital PR firm FP1 Strategies. (Her edit history can be seen here).
In short, all of LA’s major article projects for the past four years seem to be FP1 clients or their opponents, taken on exactly when FP1 takes on the clients. It would be mind-boggling if this was coincidence, right? Can any action be taken? More details about her problematic editing, including some examples of her copyright violations can be seen here if necessary. I'd be hugely grateful for any help or assistance you could offer. -- EllenMcGill ( talk) 15:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lesbianadvocate. -- Brianhe ( talk) 20:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
great. Jytdog ( talk) 21:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I've nominated File:TerryNelson.jpg for deletion on Commons because I see no indication in the file page or in the related OTRS ticket that permission has been granted by the copyright owner shown in the EXIF data, Michael Temchine. The file was uploaded by Lesbianadvocate and FP1 Strategies is listed as source and as author. I note that a licence was added to the page by Iliketoeatpotatoesalot; I'm very curious to know how that user – who was not the uploader and (I believe) is not an OTRS agent – was able to determine what licence to add. Neither Lesbianadvocate nor Iliketoeatpotatoesalot has edited any other Commons page.
Taken with the other evidence presented above, this is enough to convince me beyond doubt that there has been collusion (at the very least) between these two editors and that there is every likelihood of a connection to the company. I'm going to add the paragraph above to the SPI too in case that helps. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 14:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I just noticed that Iliketoeatpotatoesalot and Intermittentgardener have both been editing the article PJ Media. I looked up online and found this link at the official website of PJ Media, which clearly states For Media Inquiries please contact:FP1 Strategies. I'm adding it to the list of pages above. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 14:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The SPI has concluded that the following editors are socks of User:Lesbianadvocate and at least some of their edits fit the modus operandi of PR:
This is an earlier SPA Lenovo editor from 2011-2012 with hundreds of edits by they've been trying to own articles since 2008
There are quite a few articles affected but the main ones to check are related to these:
SmartSE ( talk) 20:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I spotted a new account Averyevilcentipede whose editing patterns indicate that they are not new to Wikipedia. The edits (at least the edit summary descriptions) are similar to Singaporebobby. Pinging Brianhe, Smartse, EllenMcGill. Let me know what you think. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 16:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Significant contributors to the Medopad article include Emk123, whose only other edit appear to have involved adding mentions of the company to articles such as Google Glass and Vodafone, and two IPs have host names that include "medopad". Cordless Larry ( talk) 06:41, 9 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.
Possible COI in article about filmmaker Emily Carmichael. The article has primarily been written by one editor, and this editor has edited only on Emily Carmichael's page, and on Joel Carmichael's page (Emily's grandfather). The article contains an excessive amount of detail and promotional material added by this editor that, while sourced, is certainly suspicious. It at least seems excessive given the relative noteworthiness of the subject. Seems like something worth taking a look at. Tomtomglove ( talk) 00:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Jytdog. I certainly will. Thanks for walking me through the policies. I appreciate the help. FilmCriticAlpha ( talk) 02:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC) FilmCriticAlpha