This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Avi Harel has confirmed a conflict of interest with the material material he's been adding related to Ergolight in the creation of his now-removed user page [1], as "President & CEO of ErgoLight". (A quick skim suggests there other areas where he has a conflict of interest).
I've identified some of the articles. I'll update the list and this discussion as I look further.
He was notified of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline 18:52, 29 July 2016, but did not respond. He returned to edit on 10 Sep, creating many of the articles identified above, continuing to promote his work. I left him a few comments on his talk, and he's responded at User_talk:Ronz#My_user_page_is_empty_now. He's now asking what should be done to eliminate any coi-violating edits. I thought it best to start a discussion here to respond.
Note on his editing in general, coi aside: I haven't looked closely at the sourcing, but there appears to be a great deal of original research and undue weight problems, beyond the promotion. I'm very concerned that there is little or no proper historical context and he's instead been just writing from his own experience. As a result, some of what he's done appears to be point of view (POV) forks. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I am the inventor of several methods and concepts related to usability assurance, and a new methodology for resilience assurance. I believe that it is the interest of the public, and therefore of Wikipedia, that people will know about these inventions. I do not know of anybody else who can publish them, and I feel obliged to do it myself.
I understand that Wikipedia is not intended for advertising original stuff. Therefore, I did not publish anything that was not documented elsewhere. Almost everything that I added to Wikipedia was previously published in conference articles or in book chapters. Of course, it would be nice if people know that I am the inventor, but I understand the COI issue, and I am looking for ways to publish the new concepts and methods with no mention of my own contribution.
I found it difficult to understand what is right and what is wrong in editing Wikipedia pages, so I tried several ways; and each time I received a discouraging feedback from the reviewers. Initially, I thought I may publish my company, which was active 15 years ago, but not any more. Consequently, I was warned about speedy deletion. I did not respond on time them, because I was on vacation. Later, I tried to apply Ergolight as he name of my methodology. I did not think I should be required to change the name of the methodology, to be different from that of the company. It seems that I was wrong on this as well.
I was afraid of being accused of self promotion, therefore I was careful not to mention the awards achieved for my methods, and the fame of the co-authors of my articles. Ironically, when I did not cite any reference, I was notified about publishing stuff which is not verifiable, and not notable. When I subsequently added the references, I was accused of spamming.
For example, I would like to present and discuss the WebTester method. This method was invented in 1999, when commercial analyzers of server log files were used to provide usage statistics, with no insight about the user experience (in these days, people still did not use the term UX). I presented WebTester, which was the first to elicit the user behavior from records of the users' activity, in the Comdex/Israel show, and got the Best Of Comdex/Israel award in the category of Internet applications. This achievement was advertised on the Israel version of the PC magazine. I did not mention this in my edits, in order to avoid being accused of advertising myself. Unfortunately, the reviewers concluded that this method is not notable.
Prof. Ron Kenett is a co-author of most of my articles about WebTester. He wrote 10 books on Statistics. I quote here part of his CV:
Prof. Ron Kenett would not ask me to be a co-author if WebTester was not verifiable and notable.
I would appreciate the reviewers' advice on how to publish my methods in Wikipedia without breaking the rules. Thanks Avi Harel ( talk) 20:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
It looks like COI editing, including recreation of multiple bios. - Brianhe ( talk) 20:55, 11 September 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.
This article was apparently written by its subject. He got a COI warning at the time but it doesn't look like anything else was done. Just reading it, it doesn't seem likely this was written by scratch from reliable sources. And there is an allegation on the talk page that the article was copied from the subject's sales brochure. This would be a copyvio, even if the subject wrote these words, unless he also conveyed a license to WP. It's not clear the subject is even notable. Not sure where to go from here, advice please. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 18:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
This company has been adding links to its own website for > 5 years through various accounts, with Plant Stress Doctor currently being active. I've removed some of the links, but more remain that need attention. I just wanted to post here to make it clear to record that this has been going on for so long and that it needs to stop. SmartSE ( talk) 17:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Blacklisted. MER-C 08:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be some edit warring over these articles. The two sides seem to represent critics of these organizations attempting to add negative information and supporters trying to remove it. All editors are single-purpose accounts which likely have a conflict of interest, one way or the other, here. TimBuck2 ( talk) 16:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Autobiography. Article's creator has placed an 'in progress' template, but it's thus far unsourced and tending toward the standard tone of COI articles. At best, the editor can use assistance; at worst, he may be urged not to write about himself here. I've issued a COI warning, to no avail. 2601:188:1:AEA0:30F8:873F:7608:6364 ( talk) 18:03, 19 September 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'm reporting the two users, who appear to be employees of 2 Leaf Press. I became aware of this after this request to have the page for 2 Leaf Press restored, which contained some comments that seemed borderline WP:UNCIVIL.
The long and short of why I deleted the publisher page was ultimately that it fell under G11 (unambiguous promotion) more so than A7, although notability was absolutely a concern. If it'd just been the notability issues I'd have likely just asked Reddogsix to send the article to AfD, but the page was so spammy that it was extremely promotional. Below are examples of the promotional content:
As far as I can tell, both editors appear to be here in order to edit about things related to IAAS, their publications, and the people related to this organization. There's enough to suggest that one of the editors is strongly tied to the organization and one of the people whose article is up for deletion, given the similarity of their username and the article name. I'm not intending to out anyone, which is why I'm not mentioning the specific article, but the tie here seems to be very obvious and one that most editors would be able to make just looking at the username and the articles created.
Now what makes this an issue for the COI noticeboard is that neither editor has ever disclosed their COI, not even when requesting the article restoration. They've never been officially asked, but I will note that Gdavid01 has been editing since 2012. The edits for Gdavid01 and Rubyperl appear to center entirely on IAAS related topics, either adding the article to Wikipedia or making related edits. They appear to have made any edits that aren't potential COI. I also note that several of the articles were deleted at least once (The Intercultural Alliance of Artists & Scholars, Inc. (IAAS), Sean Frederick Forbes, 2Leaf Press), so at some level these editors had to know that there were problems with the articles but kept trying to re-add the content. Draftspace seems to really only be done as a way to keep a copy of the content in order to re-add it to the mainspace, honestly.
My concern here is that the articles are very promotional, some have notability concerns, and there has been no disclosure. I'm also concerned about the editors' ability to edit in a neutral fashion. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 01:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Summary
|
---|
This is a bit long, so I figured I'd add a basic overview here of the events. In 2012 the editor Gdavid01 signed up for an account and created an article for Jesús Papoleto Meléndez. This article was extremely promotional, but wasn't found and deleted as a G11 issue. It's believed that Gdavid01 is Gabrielle David, who runs IAAS and by extension, their publishing arm 2Leaf Press and their magazine Phati'tude Literary Magazine. She has not specifically disclosed herself and I was trying to avoid naming her, but another person has done that already and at this point it seems very obvious, given the username and the IAAS focus. She did not make any more edits until September 2016, when a new editor by the name of Rubyperl began creating IAAS related entries, with an emphasis on people related to 2Leaf Press. All of the articles were written in a similar promotional style as the article for Meléndez and when Rubyperl contested the speedy deletions, they were written in a similar style as oppositions written by Gdavid01. Several of the articles had been deleted multiple times, typically through A7 or G11, but were quickly recreated by Rubyperl, apparently from drafts they had created at AfC. I came into this because I had speedied 2Leaf Press and Gdavid01 had contested its deletion at the editor helpboard ( linked here). To summarize this, she didn't seem to understand why the article was deleted, why it was promotional, and why A7 was a factor. I had deleted it more for G11 than A7, although the lack of notability seemed clear enough to where I also thought it unlikely that it would survive an AfD to where I left the A7 tag in the deletion history. It wasn't until I pushed for a disclosure that Gdavid01 said that she had a COI and even then, she was not completely forthcoming about the ties she or Rubyperl had to IAAS. All she said was that she had a COI and that students had been asking her about 2Leaf Press articles. She didn't explain the context of how she knew these students, although she did say that they were students at the University of Connecticut. This is the university where one of the IAAS's employees, Sean Frederick Forbes, works as a professor. Assuming that Gdavid01 is David, there was nothing in the article to suggest that she worked at UoC and as such it makes it somewhat less likely that she would be in contact with multiple students unless they were part of Forbes's classes and/or they were interns with IAAS in some form or fashion (online, in-person, etc). This looks to be a clear attempt to evade COI guidelines by enlisting a student to do the work for them. The similarity in the arguments and the articles gives off the strong impression that Rubyperl was either given pre-written articles to publish or they were given very specific instructions on what should be in the article, such as particular buzzwords and marketing PR. I note that in the discussion with Gdavid01, she was very keen on including specific phrases and sentences out of the ones that I had highlighted as examples of promotional prose. Overall I'm concerned that if Rubyperl is a student and my suspicions are correct that she's either a student of Forbes, an intern, or both, about how ethical it would be to put them in this position. Gdavid was blocked for one week for meatpuppetry. Since then I've noticed a new account, A. Robert Lee, made minor edits to his article here and here. Both are minor edits, but one was specifically for 2Leaf Press related titles. The timing is quite bad, considering that he signed up for an account on 21 September 2016, after all of the 2Leaf Press related matters. It's possible that he was watching his article and only became active after the article was PRODed by David Gerard, but it's also possible that he was alerted to this by Gdavid01. Another thing to note is that a look at the editors who have created the the other two pages related to 2Leaf Press have been blocked for various offenses. Pohick2 created A. Robert Lee and was blocked in 2010 for repeated COPYVIO despite warnings. Another article, Tony Medina (poet), was created by Duckduckstop, a sockpuppet of Slowking4, who was blocked in 2013. His block was altered temporarily because of the DC conference last year (they needed to change autoblock settings), so I'm going to be nominating that article for block evasion. This is somewhat of an aside since I'm not sure if either was a COI editor (one of my first concerns with 2Leaf Press articles at this moment), but it's something that just sort of adds on to how off everything feels here as a whole. |
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.
Around a year ago I tried to improve this article and quickly ran into user JYTDOG that used the argument that I have an COI on Cynefin. I found that a bit weird but still it all ended with both a COI declaration by user Snowded and myself.
I have refrained from editing since. I've noticed that user Snowded still occasionally edits the Cynefin article while he claims he is the inventor of Cynefin. This seems wrong to me.
I'm refraining on further comments about these claims as I agree that independent people should bring that article into ordered shape. These people will be hard to find as most that can will have a COI (unless someone decides otherwise). So I wonder how in such circumstances proper changes (or deletion?) must take place. Hvgard ( talk) 20:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
There is compelling off-wiki evidence that this is a paid editor related to a Cyprus brand communications firm, backed up by evidence of long-term promotional editing. Taking a look at the user's talkpage shows a litany of attempted insertion of copyvio to articles like:
Additional evidence on user talkpage of many improper corporate logos, etc. I have been unable to locate any COI disclosures on article or editor pages. - Brianhe ( talk) 00:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
First off, I am not accusing this user of doing anything wrong. As far as I can tell he has followed all the proper COI procedures.
Having said that, the article reads to me like it was written by Walmart's PR department, and in fact most of the current content came from a Walmart employee. We've got an entire article on Criticism of Walmart yet there is nothing in this article but good things to say about Mr. McMillon, who is the CEO.
There has already been a bit of discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography (which I did not initiate) and I hope I'm not guilty of forum shopping here, I just think this article could use some outside attention. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 02:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Teamsanborn2016 started editing Andy Sanborn almost as soon as the account was created. Most of the user's edits were minor rewordings and rephrasings, but some of them included removal of properly-cited information, especailly of those critical of the article subject, such as 1 and 2, and unproperly-sourced BLP information like 3.
In addition, the name of the user directly suggests a conflict of interest, and the word "Team" in the name also suggests a likelihood of shared use. As such, I feel this user is extremely concerning, especially with the scope of the single-purpose account, being the POV-pushing through removal of content et. al. on an article of a United States politician. Optakeover (U) (T) (C) 14:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
All the articles named above have been badly polluted by promotional editors and need a checkup. Sourcing to random forex websites is questionable, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Forex trading websites and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Euclidthalis for further information. - Brianhe ( talk) 17:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Have just added Hellenic Bank to the list as it was visited by several of the promotional editors. Also was wondering if anybody knows why this which looks like an ad for the bank is hosted at the US Embassy Cyprus website? - Brianhe ( talk) 00:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
The BSP directory is intended to provide an additional resource to U.S. exporters doing business in this geographic area. The BSP directory is not comprehensive. Inclusion does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation by the U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service. We have performed limited due diligence research; but we strongly recommend that you perform your own due diligence investigation and background research on any company. We assume no responsibility for the professional ability or integrity of the providers listed. We reserve the right not to list any particular company.
If you would like to list your company here (the company must be registered with the Republic of Cyprus Registrar of Companies), please call us at 22-393520 or 22-393362, email us at nicosiaecon@state.gov or fill out our online registration form here:</nowiki>
( edit conflict)They did a good job with those articles. It looks like there's a tight network of news sites covering FOREX and binary options that are themselves almost completely non-notable, but give the appearance of reliable independent sourcing. In at least the articles I've looked at, the only references are primary sources, trivial mentions in actual reliable sources, and this type of FOREX fansite. Many of these should go to AFD, but it may be worthwhile to first list the sources being used and discuss whether any of these can be used as indicators of notability. Someguy1221 ( talk) 00:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I declare I'm going to create an article called "Legal Tech" in Russian Wikipedia on paid editing for benefit of www.freshdoc.ru. — Дмитрий Кошелев ( talk) 14:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
@ Дмитрий Кошелев: This seems like a translation error. The page has been tagged with ru:Шаблон:Плохой перевод. 80.221.159.67 ( talk) 09:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Clearly here only to promote themselves- before I cleaned up the article, it looked like this. I have templated him but he has not complied with disclosure as required. jcc ( tea and biscuits) 16:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
This sockfarm has created a number of likely undisclosed paid articles that need some scrutiny. The spamming of healthwhoop.com has already been taken care of. MER-C 00:38, 30 September 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.
There has been a flurry of highly promotional editing happening on this page today by the three users above (or the one user, it would seem). I reverted the edits, which are all unsourced and fly in the face of WP:NOTADVERT several times, but the content keeps getting re-inserted. Not sure what the appropriate next step is (an SPI maybe?) but wanted to get this page on other editors' radars so we can address the promotional issues. Safehaven86 ( talk) 23:03, 3 October 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:Dalfood editing the Dal Food article seems both having COI and inappropriate username. -- CiaPan ( talk) 09:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I've COI-templated SPA Wikeditt and they're still editing the article without declaring their COI status. Meanwhile, likely sock ComTruise has appeared. Not sure what happens next. Also, I'm not sure if we really want that article to be a trophy hall for legal victories. Geogene ( talk) 01:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
s an SPA attempting to push his Effective Altruism for Animals organisation in Effective altruism. I note a call to action on Facebook (archive). See Talk:Effective_altruism#Outside_brigading_of_this_article_from_Facebook. More eyes welcomed - David Gerard ( talk) 15:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, user Brianhe, I'm scratching my head after your notification arrived in my mailbox: "Conflict of interest"? How exactly? Alas I haven't had time to do any Wikipedia editing since August; I wasn't aware of this spat. Please assume good faith.-- Davidcpearce ( talk) 16:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
All of these editors are single-purpose accounts which have created articles for products sold by a company called Eltima Software, or they have been adding links to Eltima.com and flexihub.com (an Eltima website). The articles are fairly promotional in content and are of marginal notability (a couple have survived AFD). To me this appears to be an organized effort by this company to promote itself and its products on Wikipedia. Deli nk ( talk) 17:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the Help Desk of interest to this board
Discussion at Wikipedia:Help desk#Grey Gardens conflict of interest? DuncanHill ( talk) 23:19, 5 October 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.
This is an important Australian constitutional case. However, over several years the subject of the case, Gregory Kable, has been editing this article, including edit warring and inserting spurious claims, such as saying that he has copyright over his own name. He has been open about his identity, and the conflict of interest issue has been pointed out several times.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 20:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
~~ Yes but I have been totaly missrepresented.There are allot of negative and wrong things said about my case on this page however l have not interfeared with that. At some stage I have added more facts and corrected some too as a wiki member. A fact is a fact not bias. The Kable Doctrine is visited by every law student in Australia I chose to stop vandalism and keep references and links working and updated thats all.
Subsequently I happened to find this page on 16/10/ 2016 links disrupted by a user called Find Bruce. All I did was atempt to make the links work again. When clicking a link the link would refer to possible corrupt file and ask the user to secure link. Please see edit by Find bruce. Or talk to me about my attempt to mearely correct the links. Drm310 please talk?
Typically vandals who dont like the truth attack the page often now 17/10/2016 Smartse removed the external links that have been there for over 5 years? How do those external links overshadow wikipedia?
And then why do I get attacked by two admins now that I talked? Why did an admin remove the vandalised links I talked about. What kind of bulliing is that? Admins should also be accountable and could appreciate help in tackling vandalism? Why isnt that important smartse and dm310? How come niether of them addressed the real problem I came there to fix, a link bug put there by find bruce? They have just gone along with the vandalism. So why didnt they look at what that person did to cause the edit? Or did they send in the clown first?
What did they remove? External link Getting Justice Wrong. The Law according to Gregory Kable opening speech he gave at the First National Conference of Community Based Criminal Justice Activists. The Conference was hosted by Justice Action.
Anyone can look it up but why not from here? This is a civil rights issue why not wiki?
The edits I made are not in conflict of interest of the article. But in conflict of interest of numerous attacks of vandalism and updating broken links and bugs not fixed by admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkable ( talk • contribs) 23:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
~~Do you know what liable is? Defamatory and wrong and untrue information spread by people that give no reply to the article by the person they defame. Only the CIA would be so low as to undermine the truth. What about balance? I didnt remove lies just gave a balanced view. What is wrong with correcting vandalism? Bugs put there by anyone! Youd rather Id take Wikpedia to court? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkable ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
~~Now Tagishsimon the third bully removes Kable 2 an article posted by somone else in respect of hiding the civil and democratic right of reply to a well balanced article. Why not take the lot off? What right do you have to print defamation on line. See you in court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkable ( talk • contribs) 00:01, 17 October 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 been having extended debates with J. Johnson (aka JJ) at the EQ prediction talk page. I believe JJ is some sort of earth science professional, and he consistently represents what he considers to be mainstream seismologist viewpoints.
Now, the last thing I want is to discourage JJ's participation at the encyclopedia, or at the article. His expertise is tremendously valuable. Wikipedia is often viewed as a hostile environment for real experts and professionals, and I don't want to contribute to that.
But there seems to be a sort of inter-disciplinary rivalry going on in this field, with some physicists having views that are orthogonal to the seismologists. It would not be appropriate to give undue weight to the physicists. But I believe JJ is going to the opposite extreme, trying to dismiss the physicists as pseudoscience, and give them zero positive weight. JJ will only allow disparaging comments regarding views that he considers 'fringe'.
I don't doubt JJ's good will, or his dedication to his sincerely held beliefs. But perhaps his closeness to the subject has led to ownership behavior, and uncivil and disparaging relations with other editors.
There is another editor involved in the ongoing discussions, an unregistered editor who identifies himself as "IP202". This editor also has a clear COI as an advocate of VAN, a Greek research group. However, none of us question that IP202 is a single purpose advocate account, and IP202 does not deny it. So in my view his COI is less of a problem. However, in JJ's view, I am taking IP202's side too often.
I recently found this statement from JJ which I consider a sort of confession of his COI:
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Earthquakes#VAN_.22natural_time.22: If some of you folks with knowledge of, or at least some kind of familiarity with, this topic don't join in there is a strong chance of EP becoming a fluff piece for the very dubious "VAN method". Anyone that works in the field should consider how much professional embarrassment will be incurred if we let this key article devolve. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
My view, on the contrary, is that adherence to wiki NPOV policy is more important than any possible embarrassment to seismologists.
user:Jytdog recently looked at the article and said that its condition is
[14] the product of squabbles among editors who have completely lost sight of the article and the mission of WP.
And I'm certainly not saying that I or the other editors involved are not partly to blame. But is there anything that can be said about JJ's possible COI and his role in the problems? Should his votes in RfC's and other discussions be tagged as potential COI?
I'm hoping it will help just to get some more editors' thoughts about this situation. JerryRussell ( talk) 16:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
A good first step would be to follow the advice at various synonyms for said and banish the loaded terms 'accused', 'touted', 'claimed', 'disputed', 'challenged', 'complained', etc. Replace all those with "said". Both sides rely heavily on passive voice: "It was suggested by whom? that..." " have been criticized by whom? on various grounds...", "some critics who? say... ", " has been criticized by whom? on several occasions...". Replace all that weasly passive voice with plain, boring old "X said Y". Never characterize the statement. Don't be coy about who said it. And no breathless "raised a wave of generalized skepticism" or any of that.
Earthquake prediction is controversial; we've verified that fact. Any assertion in a controversial field is going to draw criticism. Just write: VAN said this, Professor A said that, VAN said something else, Professor B said something more. If a Professor C said "The VAN method is pseudoscience", then, write, "Professor C said the VAN method is pseudoscience". If professor C didn't say that, then don't write it.
The wordyness and excessive detail of the VAN sections exists more to placate warring editors than to help the reader understand the topic. A lot of that can be moved to the VAN method article. The advice avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies should be given serious consideration.
Integrate it, only write "said", and identify the who said it. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
IMO this is not COI problem. The language like "But that doesn't give Staszek (or anyone else) a warrant to whack away freely without any further discussion," is a prime indication of WP:OWN problem. Staszek Lem ( talk) 00:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Topics affected:
Users involved (so far):
Highly promotional and poorly sourced claims (e.g. claiming to be one of the 50 richest people in Germany, claiming to have sold a company for $480m with no sources except quotes from Michael Gastauer). Repeated deletions of critical news reports (Financial Times, Süddeutsche Zeitung, etc.). Michael Gastauer is currently attempting to raise €200m investment in his company, the ability of potential investors to do due diligence should not be hampered. Fin3999 ( talk) 08:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I was going to bring this up here last week when one of the article had been except the David SK Lee article had been WP:PROD without much issues except for a once off removal of PROD notice. Shortly after, Veri854 recreated the article. At that time, I noticed that he only created two articles that he may have connection with. Donnie Park ( talk) 05:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
This is only to inform you that in de:WP a recent CheckUser detected at least three Accounts managed by one person ( see here). All three Users are also present in en:WP. Best regards -- KarlV 10:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
So weit technisch nachweisbar ist damit ziemlich sicher, dass die beiden Konten vom gleichen Benutzer betrieben wurden., essentially meaning that as technically demonstrable, the two (sic) accounts were operated by the same user. A later comment mentions the third account -- samtar talk or stalk 10:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
{{
subst:coin-notice|thread=Socketpuppets detected in Germany}}
on all three users. WeserStrom has been soft blocked here for a username policy issue for a long time. I'm not opening a
WP:SPI case at this point, as we have not yet determined that the two remaining accounts have been used abusively on EN-WP, and they have no previous blocks logged.
Murph9000 (
talk) 11:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)JoannaPaulaC is a undeclared shill. All editing is promotional. Took over two jobs previously done by paid advocate
User:Renzoy16
[15].
Just like other paid promoters. Posting
Rocky Williform at
Rocky D. Williform to separate it from previous deletion.
duffbeerforme (
talk) 03:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the above information is enough to show a conflict of interest for the above editors. I haven't had time to dig through the entire page's history but I have a hunch more would be found if done so. Zlassiter ( talk) 10:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Appears to be written for hire about a band with dubious notability. - Brianhe ( talk) 21:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Carrying on from the spamming done by User:Jpoindex (see COIN Archive). These accounts are all dedicated to the promotion of Creative Nation, Carnival and their artists. duffbeerforme ( talk) 03:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I came across this via the AfD for The Third World; Country or People?. While I was looking for sources I quickly found evidence that Arash Titan is a pen name for the book's author, which is openly stated on various different author pages for Nejad and Titan like on Lulu. This was never disclosed anywhere on Wikipedia that I can find.
Looking at both accounts' actions, both editors seem to have made a lot of edits concerning Alireza Salehi Nejad. Bmajlesara made this edit to remove problem tags from the article for the book and also tried to link to a WikiData page for Salehi Nejad on two pages. A look at the page history on WikiData shows that both editors have heavily edited that page, which makes me concerned that this might be their way of trying to get around WP:NBIO on Wikipedia.
Arashtitan has the most edits of the two and a look at their history shows that they have frequently tried to Wikipedia. Here's a link of some the other ways he's tried to add him work to Wikipedia, including what I linked to above:
There appears to be more and I'll add it as I find and clean it out. I'm leaning very heavily to just blocking at least Areshtitan for spamming himself on Wikipedia, given that this has been fairly constant and makes up a large portion of his edits - plus he's been doing this since fairly early on. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
For background on this case, refer to
This editor, who was blocked for copyright vio by Doc James, has just been confirmed as part of a large sockring. The wake of promotional film articles is extensive. I have provided links to a sampling above, but a fuller investigation is needed. Note that the editor was taking paid editing jobs as indicated in the COIN archive link. It was never disclosed on his userpage or on any of the film, film company or actor articles that I'm aware of. This disclosure lists exactly one article.
There is another editor listed at SPI but not yet confirmed. CorrectionLab 3000 also edited many of the same film related articles. - Brianhe ( talk) 16:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
See this post at ANI about a suspicious AfD Close. It seems there might be editors who are paid to close AfDs. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 10:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
[USER:JBH] is DELETING comments in SUPPORT of an article in clear VIOLATION of policy. The users comments must be REMOVED from the discussion and his "edit of positive comments in support of the aritcle" undone. This user should be removed from admin access and is clearly an unsavory person using their admin privilages to andvance their own peronal bias. The article on J Barry Grenga should be kept and support of his article from members of the Academy Of Motion Picuture should be - put back into the discussion - as their comments were UNETHICALLY removed by [USER:JBH] . Mrcitizenx ( talk) 04:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Unformatted samples
|
---|
Keep The main person objecting to this article USER:JBH is violating wikipedia regulations and will be reported to the site. He keeps deleting comments in favor of the article. He deleted the following comments ... Keep SEVEN members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences are huddled around a desk as I comment. Our membership in the Academy ranges from 3 years to 27 years. In terms of notability of J Barry Grenga and his contributions to the reputation of FSU Film School, his participation in launching that film school into the "internal los angeles discussions" are incalculable in our collective opinions. We are the authority on the matter not you. Mr. Grenga's film was as mentioned the first of it's kind at FSU receiving an Oscar & Emmy & in Cannes. The article should absolutely remain and if it doesn't members of the "retired" Hollywood community will repost the article. The notion that some person sitting behind their computer would question the absolute honor of winning those awards is preposterous. His article was brought to our attention this last week. To comment on the references the point was made of these awards dating to the founding of google so yes there was an article in Variety the La Times and so forth however google was not in existence to record said article. Someone at the Emmy's has also noticed the lack of his Emmy noted on IMDB and that was taken care of this past week & should be listed on IMDB shortly. In our opinions FSU film school was also as mentioned just barely noticeable. After Mr. Grenga received his Emmy and a few months later Mr. Jackson his Oscar, the "notability" as you folks harp on of FSU Film School went through the roof ! End of story. SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep Though you've never heard of Mr. Grenga I can assure you his name is know in hollywood circles though he's not worked there in many years. I think the lot of you have no real understanding of what it means to be accepted in an MFA Film School. From a statistical point of view it's easier to get into Harvard Medical School than it is any graduate film school. MFA film programs are coveted by students around the globe and tens of thousands of people apply and very few get accepted. Of the few accepted many quit from the pressure and workload and of those left still fewer are , selected , by the faculty to play key roles in the MFA thesis film process. Of say 50,000 applicants from around the globe Mr. J Barry Grenga was selected for as we understand several MFA programs of which he has his choice. So on the notion of what is "notable" lets really explore that. What is notable ? Someone like Kim Kardashian becomes notable from a sex tape and step father Bruce Jenner for gold metals initially. Notability is not just a general public issue as in these cases but also it's category specific. Right now all around the world young men and woman probably to the tune of more than 100,000 are hurriedly filling out applications to MFA film shcools (NYU, USC, AFI). Twenty years ago that was the list of MFA film programs of note, of notability. The list now reads (NYU, USC, AFI, FSU). Mr. Grenga is no small part responsible for the catapulting of FSU's reputation. Not being from the world of film you folks seem not to understand the gravity of the EMMY and OSCAR, and it's relevancy and affect on a film schools reputation ! SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences-participant-ONE SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences-participant-TWO SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences-participant-THREE SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences-participant-FOUR SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences-participant-FIVE SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences-participant-SIX SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences-participant-SEVEN SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep More to the point it can be said the Mr. J Barry Grenga is single handedly responsible for the erudite & exalted reputation of FSU Film School. His MFA thesis film won the EMMY and OSCAR and CANNES triple combination of awards because he convinced Kodak to supply a voluminous amount of film stock. His procurement of extra film stock allowed Slow Dancing to be filmed in the same way a professional production would be shot. What that means is you just keep shooting the scene until you get the performances needed from the actor VS having to stop short of a quality performance to make sure you have enough film left for the film shoot. Mr. Grenga made sure his film had MORE film stock than any other MFA thesis film in FSU history. The winning of the EMMY the OSCAR the screening at CANNES was due to extra film stock which allowed the director good performances from the actors. Let's suppose Mr Grenga hadn't gone to fsu and went to another film school. His film there at say NYU would probably have also won the awards. In that case FSU film school might to this day still not have won both the EMMY and OSCAR. In that case the reputation of FSU film school would be much less and the list would still be (NYU, USC, AFI). SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep There is a reason HE was selected Valedictorian and not the films Director Tom Jackson ! At the MFA screening the audience loved the film ! The faculty knew they had a winner on their hands ! The faculty knew who was responsible for what ! SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC) |
I will try to contact wikiepedia and report his obvious bios and unethical behavior, as well as redact his edit. Mrcitizenx (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC) Mrcitizenx ( talk) 04:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC) Mrcitizenx ( talk) 04:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi there: this article about Martin Chávez, a former mayor of Albuquerque has been heavily edited by a user named MartyChavez. Also, MartyChavez has never edited any other wikipedia article. I will flag the page. Incidentally, a similar situation exists on the article for the current major, Richard J. Berry, although there someone has already flagged the page (but not, as far as I can tell, opened a post here. I can confirm that the IP address is being reported by whois; there is something on the talk page about one of the user names being very close to a city employee's, but that part I have not confirmed. Elinruby ( talk) 14:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
The article has been going back and forth for a while, been trying to clean up some of the language and use some better sources. Been working on it with User:LoveSometimesLoses but it seems like this editor has a personal relationship w the subject of some kind: the user description is "Hi Eric!" and the user has made claims to know the subject's educational background that's outside of public knowledge as far as I can tell. The name also seems to be a dig at somebody who previously edited the page (LoveAlwaysWins). I sent him a message suggesting that he not edit the page if he has a personal relationship with the subject and he sent back an accusatory message at me. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizenlandi ( talk • contribs) 19:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
1. I'm not a sockpuppet. I don't believe that LoveSometimesLoses is acting in good faith by accusing me of being one. I'm not the subject, Eric LeCompte. I've been editing pages before LoveSometimesLoses set up an account. I came across this page because I've heard of the organization (Jubilee) and LeCompte and then came across this person editing the page and writing notes like "Hi Eric" on the wikipage and found it weird. I'm not a frequent wiki editor but you can see in my contribs I don't edit random articles - I edit things I'm interested in.
2. On the other hand, this is the ONLY page that LoveSometimesLoses has ever edited.
3. The account LovesSometimesLoses seems as if it was set up to mock an account that previously edited this page, LoveAlwaysWins. It also seems that LoveSometimesLoses regularly misrepresents sources and primary citations about the subject. LovesSometimesLoses seems to have a personal relationship or bias towards the subject.
4. I don't think School of the Americas Watch should be removed from the article. I just think it shouldn't be in the first paragraph. I've noted that before and cited wiki guidelines for why. Nor have I ever tried to remove it from where it's referenced lower in the article.
5. It's strange to me that this person seems to feel that LeCompte isn't worthy of having a wiki page but spends a lot of time editing and commenting on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizenlandi ( talk • contribs) 16:25, 13 October 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 noticed edits to the Capital Teas article made by PalomaCapTeas. They were first rolled back by Kleuske citing NOTPROMO. After the user repeated them I rolled them back again and posted notices on their user talk page, but they were not replied to. They made the same edits and I reverted them again, along with those of KnitItAndQuitIt. I'm not sure if they are the same person or not- but whether they are or not, they both may be paid representatives of the company; at least "PalomaCapTeas" which I interpret to mean "Paloma of Capital Teas". 331dot ( talk) 00:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
User PhilOt repeated adds an uncited 2016 publication to the article, authored by Otto Philip. Clearly, this fails notability and COI guidelines and is Spam. Please semi-protect the page. HelpUsStopSpam ( talk) 19:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
User PhilOt repeated adds an uncited 2016 publication to the article, authored by Otto Philip. Clearly, this fails notability and COI guidelines and is Spam. Please semi-protect the page. HelpUsStopSpam ( talk) 19:32, 21 October 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. |
Avi Harel has confirmed a conflict of interest with the material material he's been adding related to Ergolight in the creation of his now-removed user page [1], as "President & CEO of ErgoLight". (A quick skim suggests there other areas where he has a conflict of interest).
I've identified some of the articles. I'll update the list and this discussion as I look further.
He was notified of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline 18:52, 29 July 2016, but did not respond. He returned to edit on 10 Sep, creating many of the articles identified above, continuing to promote his work. I left him a few comments on his talk, and he's responded at User_talk:Ronz#My_user_page_is_empty_now. He's now asking what should be done to eliminate any coi-violating edits. I thought it best to start a discussion here to respond.
Note on his editing in general, coi aside: I haven't looked closely at the sourcing, but there appears to be a great deal of original research and undue weight problems, beyond the promotion. I'm very concerned that there is little or no proper historical context and he's instead been just writing from his own experience. As a result, some of what he's done appears to be point of view (POV) forks. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I am the inventor of several methods and concepts related to usability assurance, and a new methodology for resilience assurance. I believe that it is the interest of the public, and therefore of Wikipedia, that people will know about these inventions. I do not know of anybody else who can publish them, and I feel obliged to do it myself.
I understand that Wikipedia is not intended for advertising original stuff. Therefore, I did not publish anything that was not documented elsewhere. Almost everything that I added to Wikipedia was previously published in conference articles or in book chapters. Of course, it would be nice if people know that I am the inventor, but I understand the COI issue, and I am looking for ways to publish the new concepts and methods with no mention of my own contribution.
I found it difficult to understand what is right and what is wrong in editing Wikipedia pages, so I tried several ways; and each time I received a discouraging feedback from the reviewers. Initially, I thought I may publish my company, which was active 15 years ago, but not any more. Consequently, I was warned about speedy deletion. I did not respond on time them, because I was on vacation. Later, I tried to apply Ergolight as he name of my methodology. I did not think I should be required to change the name of the methodology, to be different from that of the company. It seems that I was wrong on this as well.
I was afraid of being accused of self promotion, therefore I was careful not to mention the awards achieved for my methods, and the fame of the co-authors of my articles. Ironically, when I did not cite any reference, I was notified about publishing stuff which is not verifiable, and not notable. When I subsequently added the references, I was accused of spamming.
For example, I would like to present and discuss the WebTester method. This method was invented in 1999, when commercial analyzers of server log files were used to provide usage statistics, with no insight about the user experience (in these days, people still did not use the term UX). I presented WebTester, which was the first to elicit the user behavior from records of the users' activity, in the Comdex/Israel show, and got the Best Of Comdex/Israel award in the category of Internet applications. This achievement was advertised on the Israel version of the PC magazine. I did not mention this in my edits, in order to avoid being accused of advertising myself. Unfortunately, the reviewers concluded that this method is not notable.
Prof. Ron Kenett is a co-author of most of my articles about WebTester. He wrote 10 books on Statistics. I quote here part of his CV:
Prof. Ron Kenett would not ask me to be a co-author if WebTester was not verifiable and notable.
I would appreciate the reviewers' advice on how to publish my methods in Wikipedia without breaking the rules. Thanks Avi Harel ( talk) 20:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
It looks like COI editing, including recreation of multiple bios. - Brianhe ( talk) 20:55, 11 September 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.
This article was apparently written by its subject. He got a COI warning at the time but it doesn't look like anything else was done. Just reading it, it doesn't seem likely this was written by scratch from reliable sources. And there is an allegation on the talk page that the article was copied from the subject's sales brochure. This would be a copyvio, even if the subject wrote these words, unless he also conveyed a license to WP. It's not clear the subject is even notable. Not sure where to go from here, advice please. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 18:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
This company has been adding links to its own website for > 5 years through various accounts, with Plant Stress Doctor currently being active. I've removed some of the links, but more remain that need attention. I just wanted to post here to make it clear to record that this has been going on for so long and that it needs to stop. SmartSE ( talk) 17:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Blacklisted. MER-C 08:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be some edit warring over these articles. The two sides seem to represent critics of these organizations attempting to add negative information and supporters trying to remove it. All editors are single-purpose accounts which likely have a conflict of interest, one way or the other, here. TimBuck2 ( talk) 16:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Autobiography. Article's creator has placed an 'in progress' template, but it's thus far unsourced and tending toward the standard tone of COI articles. At best, the editor can use assistance; at worst, he may be urged not to write about himself here. I've issued a COI warning, to no avail. 2601:188:1:AEA0:30F8:873F:7608:6364 ( talk) 18:03, 19 September 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'm reporting the two users, who appear to be employees of 2 Leaf Press. I became aware of this after this request to have the page for 2 Leaf Press restored, which contained some comments that seemed borderline WP:UNCIVIL.
The long and short of why I deleted the publisher page was ultimately that it fell under G11 (unambiguous promotion) more so than A7, although notability was absolutely a concern. If it'd just been the notability issues I'd have likely just asked Reddogsix to send the article to AfD, but the page was so spammy that it was extremely promotional. Below are examples of the promotional content:
As far as I can tell, both editors appear to be here in order to edit about things related to IAAS, their publications, and the people related to this organization. There's enough to suggest that one of the editors is strongly tied to the organization and one of the people whose article is up for deletion, given the similarity of their username and the article name. I'm not intending to out anyone, which is why I'm not mentioning the specific article, but the tie here seems to be very obvious and one that most editors would be able to make just looking at the username and the articles created.
Now what makes this an issue for the COI noticeboard is that neither editor has ever disclosed their COI, not even when requesting the article restoration. They've never been officially asked, but I will note that Gdavid01 has been editing since 2012. The edits for Gdavid01 and Rubyperl appear to center entirely on IAAS related topics, either adding the article to Wikipedia or making related edits. They appear to have made any edits that aren't potential COI. I also note that several of the articles were deleted at least once (The Intercultural Alliance of Artists & Scholars, Inc. (IAAS), Sean Frederick Forbes, 2Leaf Press), so at some level these editors had to know that there were problems with the articles but kept trying to re-add the content. Draftspace seems to really only be done as a way to keep a copy of the content in order to re-add it to the mainspace, honestly.
My concern here is that the articles are very promotional, some have notability concerns, and there has been no disclosure. I'm also concerned about the editors' ability to edit in a neutral fashion. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 01:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Summary
|
---|
This is a bit long, so I figured I'd add a basic overview here of the events. In 2012 the editor Gdavid01 signed up for an account and created an article for Jesús Papoleto Meléndez. This article was extremely promotional, but wasn't found and deleted as a G11 issue. It's believed that Gdavid01 is Gabrielle David, who runs IAAS and by extension, their publishing arm 2Leaf Press and their magazine Phati'tude Literary Magazine. She has not specifically disclosed herself and I was trying to avoid naming her, but another person has done that already and at this point it seems very obvious, given the username and the IAAS focus. She did not make any more edits until September 2016, when a new editor by the name of Rubyperl began creating IAAS related entries, with an emphasis on people related to 2Leaf Press. All of the articles were written in a similar promotional style as the article for Meléndez and when Rubyperl contested the speedy deletions, they were written in a similar style as oppositions written by Gdavid01. Several of the articles had been deleted multiple times, typically through A7 or G11, but were quickly recreated by Rubyperl, apparently from drafts they had created at AfC. I came into this because I had speedied 2Leaf Press and Gdavid01 had contested its deletion at the editor helpboard ( linked here). To summarize this, she didn't seem to understand why the article was deleted, why it was promotional, and why A7 was a factor. I had deleted it more for G11 than A7, although the lack of notability seemed clear enough to where I also thought it unlikely that it would survive an AfD to where I left the A7 tag in the deletion history. It wasn't until I pushed for a disclosure that Gdavid01 said that she had a COI and even then, she was not completely forthcoming about the ties she or Rubyperl had to IAAS. All she said was that she had a COI and that students had been asking her about 2Leaf Press articles. She didn't explain the context of how she knew these students, although she did say that they were students at the University of Connecticut. This is the university where one of the IAAS's employees, Sean Frederick Forbes, works as a professor. Assuming that Gdavid01 is David, there was nothing in the article to suggest that she worked at UoC and as such it makes it somewhat less likely that she would be in contact with multiple students unless they were part of Forbes's classes and/or they were interns with IAAS in some form or fashion (online, in-person, etc). This looks to be a clear attempt to evade COI guidelines by enlisting a student to do the work for them. The similarity in the arguments and the articles gives off the strong impression that Rubyperl was either given pre-written articles to publish or they were given very specific instructions on what should be in the article, such as particular buzzwords and marketing PR. I note that in the discussion with Gdavid01, she was very keen on including specific phrases and sentences out of the ones that I had highlighted as examples of promotional prose. Overall I'm concerned that if Rubyperl is a student and my suspicions are correct that she's either a student of Forbes, an intern, or both, about how ethical it would be to put them in this position. Gdavid was blocked for one week for meatpuppetry. Since then I've noticed a new account, A. Robert Lee, made minor edits to his article here and here. Both are minor edits, but one was specifically for 2Leaf Press related titles. The timing is quite bad, considering that he signed up for an account on 21 September 2016, after all of the 2Leaf Press related matters. It's possible that he was watching his article and only became active after the article was PRODed by David Gerard, but it's also possible that he was alerted to this by Gdavid01. Another thing to note is that a look at the editors who have created the the other two pages related to 2Leaf Press have been blocked for various offenses. Pohick2 created A. Robert Lee and was blocked in 2010 for repeated COPYVIO despite warnings. Another article, Tony Medina (poet), was created by Duckduckstop, a sockpuppet of Slowking4, who was blocked in 2013. His block was altered temporarily because of the DC conference last year (they needed to change autoblock settings), so I'm going to be nominating that article for block evasion. This is somewhat of an aside since I'm not sure if either was a COI editor (one of my first concerns with 2Leaf Press articles at this moment), but it's something that just sort of adds on to how off everything feels here as a whole. |
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.
Around a year ago I tried to improve this article and quickly ran into user JYTDOG that used the argument that I have an COI on Cynefin. I found that a bit weird but still it all ended with both a COI declaration by user Snowded and myself.
I have refrained from editing since. I've noticed that user Snowded still occasionally edits the Cynefin article while he claims he is the inventor of Cynefin. This seems wrong to me.
I'm refraining on further comments about these claims as I agree that independent people should bring that article into ordered shape. These people will be hard to find as most that can will have a COI (unless someone decides otherwise). So I wonder how in such circumstances proper changes (or deletion?) must take place. Hvgard ( talk) 20:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
There is compelling off-wiki evidence that this is a paid editor related to a Cyprus brand communications firm, backed up by evidence of long-term promotional editing. Taking a look at the user's talkpage shows a litany of attempted insertion of copyvio to articles like:
Additional evidence on user talkpage of many improper corporate logos, etc. I have been unable to locate any COI disclosures on article or editor pages. - Brianhe ( talk) 00:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
First off, I am not accusing this user of doing anything wrong. As far as I can tell he has followed all the proper COI procedures.
Having said that, the article reads to me like it was written by Walmart's PR department, and in fact most of the current content came from a Walmart employee. We've got an entire article on Criticism of Walmart yet there is nothing in this article but good things to say about Mr. McMillon, who is the CEO.
There has already been a bit of discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography (which I did not initiate) and I hope I'm not guilty of forum shopping here, I just think this article could use some outside attention. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 02:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Teamsanborn2016 started editing Andy Sanborn almost as soon as the account was created. Most of the user's edits were minor rewordings and rephrasings, but some of them included removal of properly-cited information, especailly of those critical of the article subject, such as 1 and 2, and unproperly-sourced BLP information like 3.
In addition, the name of the user directly suggests a conflict of interest, and the word "Team" in the name also suggests a likelihood of shared use. As such, I feel this user is extremely concerning, especially with the scope of the single-purpose account, being the POV-pushing through removal of content et. al. on an article of a United States politician. Optakeover (U) (T) (C) 14:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
All the articles named above have been badly polluted by promotional editors and need a checkup. Sourcing to random forex websites is questionable, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Forex trading websites and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Euclidthalis for further information. - Brianhe ( talk) 17:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Have just added Hellenic Bank to the list as it was visited by several of the promotional editors. Also was wondering if anybody knows why this which looks like an ad for the bank is hosted at the US Embassy Cyprus website? - Brianhe ( talk) 00:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
The BSP directory is intended to provide an additional resource to U.S. exporters doing business in this geographic area. The BSP directory is not comprehensive. Inclusion does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation by the U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service. We have performed limited due diligence research; but we strongly recommend that you perform your own due diligence investigation and background research on any company. We assume no responsibility for the professional ability or integrity of the providers listed. We reserve the right not to list any particular company.
If you would like to list your company here (the company must be registered with the Republic of Cyprus Registrar of Companies), please call us at 22-393520 or 22-393362, email us at nicosiaecon@state.gov or fill out our online registration form here:</nowiki>
( edit conflict)They did a good job with those articles. It looks like there's a tight network of news sites covering FOREX and binary options that are themselves almost completely non-notable, but give the appearance of reliable independent sourcing. In at least the articles I've looked at, the only references are primary sources, trivial mentions in actual reliable sources, and this type of FOREX fansite. Many of these should go to AFD, but it may be worthwhile to first list the sources being used and discuss whether any of these can be used as indicators of notability. Someguy1221 ( talk) 00:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I declare I'm going to create an article called "Legal Tech" in Russian Wikipedia on paid editing for benefit of www.freshdoc.ru. — Дмитрий Кошелев ( talk) 14:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
@ Дмитрий Кошелев: This seems like a translation error. The page has been tagged with ru:Шаблон:Плохой перевод. 80.221.159.67 ( talk) 09:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Clearly here only to promote themselves- before I cleaned up the article, it looked like this. I have templated him but he has not complied with disclosure as required. jcc ( tea and biscuits) 16:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
This sockfarm has created a number of likely undisclosed paid articles that need some scrutiny. The spamming of healthwhoop.com has already been taken care of. MER-C 00:38, 30 September 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.
There has been a flurry of highly promotional editing happening on this page today by the three users above (or the one user, it would seem). I reverted the edits, which are all unsourced and fly in the face of WP:NOTADVERT several times, but the content keeps getting re-inserted. Not sure what the appropriate next step is (an SPI maybe?) but wanted to get this page on other editors' radars so we can address the promotional issues. Safehaven86 ( talk) 23:03, 3 October 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:Dalfood editing the Dal Food article seems both having COI and inappropriate username. -- CiaPan ( talk) 09:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I've COI-templated SPA Wikeditt and they're still editing the article without declaring their COI status. Meanwhile, likely sock ComTruise has appeared. Not sure what happens next. Also, I'm not sure if we really want that article to be a trophy hall for legal victories. Geogene ( talk) 01:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
s an SPA attempting to push his Effective Altruism for Animals organisation in Effective altruism. I note a call to action on Facebook (archive). See Talk:Effective_altruism#Outside_brigading_of_this_article_from_Facebook. More eyes welcomed - David Gerard ( talk) 15:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, user Brianhe, I'm scratching my head after your notification arrived in my mailbox: "Conflict of interest"? How exactly? Alas I haven't had time to do any Wikipedia editing since August; I wasn't aware of this spat. Please assume good faith.-- Davidcpearce ( talk) 16:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
All of these editors are single-purpose accounts which have created articles for products sold by a company called Eltima Software, or they have been adding links to Eltima.com and flexihub.com (an Eltima website). The articles are fairly promotional in content and are of marginal notability (a couple have survived AFD). To me this appears to be an organized effort by this company to promote itself and its products on Wikipedia. Deli nk ( talk) 17:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the Help Desk of interest to this board
Discussion at Wikipedia:Help desk#Grey Gardens conflict of interest? DuncanHill ( talk) 23:19, 5 October 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.
This is an important Australian constitutional case. However, over several years the subject of the case, Gregory Kable, has been editing this article, including edit warring and inserting spurious claims, such as saying that he has copyright over his own name. He has been open about his identity, and the conflict of interest issue has been pointed out several times.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 20:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
~~ Yes but I have been totaly missrepresented.There are allot of negative and wrong things said about my case on this page however l have not interfeared with that. At some stage I have added more facts and corrected some too as a wiki member. A fact is a fact not bias. The Kable Doctrine is visited by every law student in Australia I chose to stop vandalism and keep references and links working and updated thats all.
Subsequently I happened to find this page on 16/10/ 2016 links disrupted by a user called Find Bruce. All I did was atempt to make the links work again. When clicking a link the link would refer to possible corrupt file and ask the user to secure link. Please see edit by Find bruce. Or talk to me about my attempt to mearely correct the links. Drm310 please talk?
Typically vandals who dont like the truth attack the page often now 17/10/2016 Smartse removed the external links that have been there for over 5 years? How do those external links overshadow wikipedia?
And then why do I get attacked by two admins now that I talked? Why did an admin remove the vandalised links I talked about. What kind of bulliing is that? Admins should also be accountable and could appreciate help in tackling vandalism? Why isnt that important smartse and dm310? How come niether of them addressed the real problem I came there to fix, a link bug put there by find bruce? They have just gone along with the vandalism. So why didnt they look at what that person did to cause the edit? Or did they send in the clown first?
What did they remove? External link Getting Justice Wrong. The Law according to Gregory Kable opening speech he gave at the First National Conference of Community Based Criminal Justice Activists. The Conference was hosted by Justice Action.
Anyone can look it up but why not from here? This is a civil rights issue why not wiki?
The edits I made are not in conflict of interest of the article. But in conflict of interest of numerous attacks of vandalism and updating broken links and bugs not fixed by admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkable ( talk • contribs) 23:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
~~Do you know what liable is? Defamatory and wrong and untrue information spread by people that give no reply to the article by the person they defame. Only the CIA would be so low as to undermine the truth. What about balance? I didnt remove lies just gave a balanced view. What is wrong with correcting vandalism? Bugs put there by anyone! Youd rather Id take Wikpedia to court? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkable ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
~~Now Tagishsimon the third bully removes Kable 2 an article posted by somone else in respect of hiding the civil and democratic right of reply to a well balanced article. Why not take the lot off? What right do you have to print defamation on line. See you in court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkable ( talk • contribs) 00:01, 17 October 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 been having extended debates with J. Johnson (aka JJ) at the EQ prediction talk page. I believe JJ is some sort of earth science professional, and he consistently represents what he considers to be mainstream seismologist viewpoints.
Now, the last thing I want is to discourage JJ's participation at the encyclopedia, or at the article. His expertise is tremendously valuable. Wikipedia is often viewed as a hostile environment for real experts and professionals, and I don't want to contribute to that.
But there seems to be a sort of inter-disciplinary rivalry going on in this field, with some physicists having views that are orthogonal to the seismologists. It would not be appropriate to give undue weight to the physicists. But I believe JJ is going to the opposite extreme, trying to dismiss the physicists as pseudoscience, and give them zero positive weight. JJ will only allow disparaging comments regarding views that he considers 'fringe'.
I don't doubt JJ's good will, or his dedication to his sincerely held beliefs. But perhaps his closeness to the subject has led to ownership behavior, and uncivil and disparaging relations with other editors.
There is another editor involved in the ongoing discussions, an unregistered editor who identifies himself as "IP202". This editor also has a clear COI as an advocate of VAN, a Greek research group. However, none of us question that IP202 is a single purpose advocate account, and IP202 does not deny it. So in my view his COI is less of a problem. However, in JJ's view, I am taking IP202's side too often.
I recently found this statement from JJ which I consider a sort of confession of his COI:
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Earthquakes#VAN_.22natural_time.22: If some of you folks with knowledge of, or at least some kind of familiarity with, this topic don't join in there is a strong chance of EP becoming a fluff piece for the very dubious "VAN method". Anyone that works in the field should consider how much professional embarrassment will be incurred if we let this key article devolve. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
My view, on the contrary, is that adherence to wiki NPOV policy is more important than any possible embarrassment to seismologists.
user:Jytdog recently looked at the article and said that its condition is
[14] the product of squabbles among editors who have completely lost sight of the article and the mission of WP.
And I'm certainly not saying that I or the other editors involved are not partly to blame. But is there anything that can be said about JJ's possible COI and his role in the problems? Should his votes in RfC's and other discussions be tagged as potential COI?
I'm hoping it will help just to get some more editors' thoughts about this situation. JerryRussell ( talk) 16:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
A good first step would be to follow the advice at various synonyms for said and banish the loaded terms 'accused', 'touted', 'claimed', 'disputed', 'challenged', 'complained', etc. Replace all those with "said". Both sides rely heavily on passive voice: "It was suggested by whom? that..." " have been criticized by whom? on various grounds...", "some critics who? say... ", " has been criticized by whom? on several occasions...". Replace all that weasly passive voice with plain, boring old "X said Y". Never characterize the statement. Don't be coy about who said it. And no breathless "raised a wave of generalized skepticism" or any of that.
Earthquake prediction is controversial; we've verified that fact. Any assertion in a controversial field is going to draw criticism. Just write: VAN said this, Professor A said that, VAN said something else, Professor B said something more. If a Professor C said "The VAN method is pseudoscience", then, write, "Professor C said the VAN method is pseudoscience". If professor C didn't say that, then don't write it.
The wordyness and excessive detail of the VAN sections exists more to placate warring editors than to help the reader understand the topic. A lot of that can be moved to the VAN method article. The advice avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies should be given serious consideration.
Integrate it, only write "said", and identify the who said it. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
IMO this is not COI problem. The language like "But that doesn't give Staszek (or anyone else) a warrant to whack away freely without any further discussion," is a prime indication of WP:OWN problem. Staszek Lem ( talk) 00:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Topics affected:
Users involved (so far):
Highly promotional and poorly sourced claims (e.g. claiming to be one of the 50 richest people in Germany, claiming to have sold a company for $480m with no sources except quotes from Michael Gastauer). Repeated deletions of critical news reports (Financial Times, Süddeutsche Zeitung, etc.). Michael Gastauer is currently attempting to raise €200m investment in his company, the ability of potential investors to do due diligence should not be hampered. Fin3999 ( talk) 08:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I was going to bring this up here last week when one of the article had been except the David SK Lee article had been WP:PROD without much issues except for a once off removal of PROD notice. Shortly after, Veri854 recreated the article. At that time, I noticed that he only created two articles that he may have connection with. Donnie Park ( talk) 05:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
This is only to inform you that in de:WP a recent CheckUser detected at least three Accounts managed by one person ( see here). All three Users are also present in en:WP. Best regards -- KarlV 10:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
So weit technisch nachweisbar ist damit ziemlich sicher, dass die beiden Konten vom gleichen Benutzer betrieben wurden., essentially meaning that as technically demonstrable, the two (sic) accounts were operated by the same user. A later comment mentions the third account -- samtar talk or stalk 10:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
{{
subst:coin-notice|thread=Socketpuppets detected in Germany}}
on all three users. WeserStrom has been soft blocked here for a username policy issue for a long time. I'm not opening a
WP:SPI case at this point, as we have not yet determined that the two remaining accounts have been used abusively on EN-WP, and they have no previous blocks logged.
Murph9000 (
talk) 11:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)JoannaPaulaC is a undeclared shill. All editing is promotional. Took over two jobs previously done by paid advocate
User:Renzoy16
[15].
Just like other paid promoters. Posting
Rocky Williform at
Rocky D. Williform to separate it from previous deletion.
duffbeerforme (
talk) 03:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the above information is enough to show a conflict of interest for the above editors. I haven't had time to dig through the entire page's history but I have a hunch more would be found if done so. Zlassiter ( talk) 10:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Appears to be written for hire about a band with dubious notability. - Brianhe ( talk) 21:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Carrying on from the spamming done by User:Jpoindex (see COIN Archive). These accounts are all dedicated to the promotion of Creative Nation, Carnival and their artists. duffbeerforme ( talk) 03:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I came across this via the AfD for The Third World; Country or People?. While I was looking for sources I quickly found evidence that Arash Titan is a pen name for the book's author, which is openly stated on various different author pages for Nejad and Titan like on Lulu. This was never disclosed anywhere on Wikipedia that I can find.
Looking at both accounts' actions, both editors seem to have made a lot of edits concerning Alireza Salehi Nejad. Bmajlesara made this edit to remove problem tags from the article for the book and also tried to link to a WikiData page for Salehi Nejad on two pages. A look at the page history on WikiData shows that both editors have heavily edited that page, which makes me concerned that this might be their way of trying to get around WP:NBIO on Wikipedia.
Arashtitan has the most edits of the two and a look at their history shows that they have frequently tried to Wikipedia. Here's a link of some the other ways he's tried to add him work to Wikipedia, including what I linked to above:
There appears to be more and I'll add it as I find and clean it out. I'm leaning very heavily to just blocking at least Areshtitan for spamming himself on Wikipedia, given that this has been fairly constant and makes up a large portion of his edits - plus he's been doing this since fairly early on. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
For background on this case, refer to
This editor, who was blocked for copyright vio by Doc James, has just been confirmed as part of a large sockring. The wake of promotional film articles is extensive. I have provided links to a sampling above, but a fuller investigation is needed. Note that the editor was taking paid editing jobs as indicated in the COIN archive link. It was never disclosed on his userpage or on any of the film, film company or actor articles that I'm aware of. This disclosure lists exactly one article.
There is another editor listed at SPI but not yet confirmed. CorrectionLab 3000 also edited many of the same film related articles. - Brianhe ( talk) 16:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
See this post at ANI about a suspicious AfD Close. It seems there might be editors who are paid to close AfDs. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 10:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
[USER:JBH] is DELETING comments in SUPPORT of an article in clear VIOLATION of policy. The users comments must be REMOVED from the discussion and his "edit of positive comments in support of the aritcle" undone. This user should be removed from admin access and is clearly an unsavory person using their admin privilages to andvance their own peronal bias. The article on J Barry Grenga should be kept and support of his article from members of the Academy Of Motion Picuture should be - put back into the discussion - as their comments were UNETHICALLY removed by [USER:JBH] . Mrcitizenx ( talk) 04:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Unformatted samples
|
---|
Keep The main person objecting to this article USER:JBH is violating wikipedia regulations and will be reported to the site. He keeps deleting comments in favor of the article. He deleted the following comments ... Keep SEVEN members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences are huddled around a desk as I comment. Our membership in the Academy ranges from 3 years to 27 years. In terms of notability of J Barry Grenga and his contributions to the reputation of FSU Film School, his participation in launching that film school into the "internal los angeles discussions" are incalculable in our collective opinions. We are the authority on the matter not you. Mr. Grenga's film was as mentioned the first of it's kind at FSU receiving an Oscar & Emmy & in Cannes. The article should absolutely remain and if it doesn't members of the "retired" Hollywood community will repost the article. The notion that some person sitting behind their computer would question the absolute honor of winning those awards is preposterous. His article was brought to our attention this last week. To comment on the references the point was made of these awards dating to the founding of google so yes there was an article in Variety the La Times and so forth however google was not in existence to record said article. Someone at the Emmy's has also noticed the lack of his Emmy noted on IMDB and that was taken care of this past week & should be listed on IMDB shortly. In our opinions FSU film school was also as mentioned just barely noticeable. After Mr. Grenga received his Emmy and a few months later Mr. Jackson his Oscar, the "notability" as you folks harp on of FSU Film School went through the roof ! End of story. SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep Though you've never heard of Mr. Grenga I can assure you his name is know in hollywood circles though he's not worked there in many years. I think the lot of you have no real understanding of what it means to be accepted in an MFA Film School. From a statistical point of view it's easier to get into Harvard Medical School than it is any graduate film school. MFA film programs are coveted by students around the globe and tens of thousands of people apply and very few get accepted. Of the few accepted many quit from the pressure and workload and of those left still fewer are , selected , by the faculty to play key roles in the MFA thesis film process. Of say 50,000 applicants from around the globe Mr. J Barry Grenga was selected for as we understand several MFA programs of which he has his choice. So on the notion of what is "notable" lets really explore that. What is notable ? Someone like Kim Kardashian becomes notable from a sex tape and step father Bruce Jenner for gold metals initially. Notability is not just a general public issue as in these cases but also it's category specific. Right now all around the world young men and woman probably to the tune of more than 100,000 are hurriedly filling out applications to MFA film shcools (NYU, USC, AFI). Twenty years ago that was the list of MFA film programs of note, of notability. The list now reads (NYU, USC, AFI, FSU). Mr. Grenga is no small part responsible for the catapulting of FSU's reputation. Not being from the world of film you folks seem not to understand the gravity of the EMMY and OSCAR, and it's relevancy and affect on a film schools reputation ! SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences-participant-ONE SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences-participant-TWO SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences-participant-THREE SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences-participant-FOUR SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences-participant-FIVE SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences-participant-SIX SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences-participant-SEVEN SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep More to the point it can be said the Mr. J Barry Grenga is single handedly responsible for the erudite & exalted reputation of FSU Film School. His MFA thesis film won the EMMY and OSCAR and CANNES triple combination of awards because he convinced Kodak to supply a voluminous amount of film stock. His procurement of extra film stock allowed Slow Dancing to be filmed in the same way a professional production would be shot. What that means is you just keep shooting the scene until you get the performances needed from the actor VS having to stop short of a quality performance to make sure you have enough film left for the film shoot. Mr. Grenga made sure his film had MORE film stock than any other MFA thesis film in FSU history. The winning of the EMMY the OSCAR the screening at CANNES was due to extra film stock which allowed the director good performances from the actors. Let's suppose Mr Grenga hadn't gone to fsu and went to another film school. His film there at say NYU would probably have also won the awards. In that case FSU film school might to this day still not have won both the EMMY and OSCAR. In that case the reputation of FSU film school would be much less and the list would still be (NYU, USC, AFI). SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Keep There is a reason HE was selected Valedictorian and not the films Director Tom Jackson ! At the MFA screening the audience loved the film ! The faculty knew they had a winner on their hands ! The faculty knew who was responsible for what ! SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC) |
I will try to contact wikiepedia and report his obvious bios and unethical behavior, as well as redact his edit. Mrcitizenx (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC) Mrcitizenx ( talk) 04:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC) Mrcitizenx ( talk) 04:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi there: this article about Martin Chávez, a former mayor of Albuquerque has been heavily edited by a user named MartyChavez. Also, MartyChavez has never edited any other wikipedia article. I will flag the page. Incidentally, a similar situation exists on the article for the current major, Richard J. Berry, although there someone has already flagged the page (but not, as far as I can tell, opened a post here. I can confirm that the IP address is being reported by whois; there is something on the talk page about one of the user names being very close to a city employee's, but that part I have not confirmed. Elinruby ( talk) 14:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
The article has been going back and forth for a while, been trying to clean up some of the language and use some better sources. Been working on it with User:LoveSometimesLoses but it seems like this editor has a personal relationship w the subject of some kind: the user description is "Hi Eric!" and the user has made claims to know the subject's educational background that's outside of public knowledge as far as I can tell. The name also seems to be a dig at somebody who previously edited the page (LoveAlwaysWins). I sent him a message suggesting that he not edit the page if he has a personal relationship with the subject and he sent back an accusatory message at me. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizenlandi ( talk • contribs) 19:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
1. I'm not a sockpuppet. I don't believe that LoveSometimesLoses is acting in good faith by accusing me of being one. I'm not the subject, Eric LeCompte. I've been editing pages before LoveSometimesLoses set up an account. I came across this page because I've heard of the organization (Jubilee) and LeCompte and then came across this person editing the page and writing notes like "Hi Eric" on the wikipage and found it weird. I'm not a frequent wiki editor but you can see in my contribs I don't edit random articles - I edit things I'm interested in.
2. On the other hand, this is the ONLY page that LoveSometimesLoses has ever edited.
3. The account LovesSometimesLoses seems as if it was set up to mock an account that previously edited this page, LoveAlwaysWins. It also seems that LoveSometimesLoses regularly misrepresents sources and primary citations about the subject. LovesSometimesLoses seems to have a personal relationship or bias towards the subject.
4. I don't think School of the Americas Watch should be removed from the article. I just think it shouldn't be in the first paragraph. I've noted that before and cited wiki guidelines for why. Nor have I ever tried to remove it from where it's referenced lower in the article.
5. It's strange to me that this person seems to feel that LeCompte isn't worthy of having a wiki page but spends a lot of time editing and commenting on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizenlandi ( talk • contribs) 16:25, 13 October 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 noticed edits to the Capital Teas article made by PalomaCapTeas. They were first rolled back by Kleuske citing NOTPROMO. After the user repeated them I rolled them back again and posted notices on their user talk page, but they were not replied to. They made the same edits and I reverted them again, along with those of KnitItAndQuitIt. I'm not sure if they are the same person or not- but whether they are or not, they both may be paid representatives of the company; at least "PalomaCapTeas" which I interpret to mean "Paloma of Capital Teas". 331dot ( talk) 00:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
User PhilOt repeated adds an uncited 2016 publication to the article, authored by Otto Philip. Clearly, this fails notability and COI guidelines and is Spam. Please semi-protect the page. HelpUsStopSpam ( talk) 19:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
User PhilOt repeated adds an uncited 2016 publication to the article, authored by Otto Philip. Clearly, this fails notability and COI guidelines and is Spam. Please semi-protect the page. HelpUsStopSpam ( talk) 19:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)