This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Hello,
The Pixetell article has carried tags for a number of problems for several months. I have been working on a new draft, attempting to address those issues. I work for the company, but it is not my desire to use Wikipedia inappropriately as a marketing tool; I have read all relevant policies and guidelines, and have consulted with several longtime Wikipedians in the process.
I am hoping someone will review the changes, and make a new determination of whether or not the tag highlighting that an editor with a conflict of interest has worked on the article is still needed. Or if there are still problems with the article, hopefully those here will be able to fix them or offer specific feedback, so that I can make/suggest further improvements.
After some discussion with Wikipedians, I have posted this new version posted this new version. Please take a look at Talk:Pixetell for further background on the development of this new version.
Thanks for any guidance, -Dan Cook 03:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DDcook ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for your response. It means a lot to me. I am waiting for the others to have a chance to comment. One is taking a wiki break. I want to make sure the article is fully evaluated.Dan Cook 16:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
James M. Cahill ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Cahill is mayor of New Brunswick, New Jersey. In recent days a pair of anonymous editors have been removing information they regard as unfavorable from the article. The second editor replaced all the references with a link to the web site for Cahill's election campaign. Additional eyes on the article would be welcome. Dppowell ( talk) 14:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I can't support the re-addition of that material without proper in-line citations. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 14:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
167.167.96.2 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing articles about Universal Music Group artists. The most recent example was adding YouTube and Facebook links to the Tiffany Page ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. According to WHOIS results for this IP address, the edits are clearly a conflict of interest. I had already notified the IP about this last month. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Many claims are made, but no precise citations are given. Only one paper is referenced, which is "available on line". The external site seems to be a commercial venture, so this may have the appearance of COI or self-promotion. (An iterative method with that name has been studied by Arkadi Nemiroskii, etc., also; an expansion of the article might be the most constructive way of dealing with the appearance of COI.) Thanks Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 22:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Xenium88 says on my talk page that he is manager of this institute. I deleted the article as obvious copyvio, he has reinstated it saying on the talk page " this page has been submitted to permissions-en@wikimedia.org for approval of use of copyright materials ". I advised him to ask for its creation, citing COI, but he hasn't done that. I think he needs some advice and help and RL is going to keep me too busy for a while to do this adequately. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 08:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Greetings Arakunem,
Herding dogs is one of the areas of my area of expertise. Citations are required to ensure that all Wikipedia content is verifiable (and a reliable source) and not just an opinion. I could cite any number of books or articles. The book just happens to be a comprehensive study on the work and training of more than 60 different breeds.
It has numerous references to the Australian Cattle Dog as well as pictures of the breed in action. For example, page 7: "At present, Australian Cattle Dogs, Australian Shepherds, Border Collies, English Shepherds, Kelpies and McNabs are still the breeds most frequently found on farms and ranches in North American, but with fewer ranch jobs available for dogs, more herding dogs have found their way into urban and suburban homes. Page 13 includes a picture of an ACD heeling a steer with the caption: "A red Australian Cattle Dog illustrates how the breed gained the nickname "Heeler."
Here is a link to the Table of Contents: http://www.dogwise.com/Item_Inside.cfm?ID=DHE171&curImage=1
TOC 9 shows the breed is included in the breed profiles: http://www.dogwise.com/Item_Inside.cfm?ID=DHE171&curImage=11
Book Review from the Border Collie Museum: http://www.gis.net/~shepdog/BC_Museum/Permanent/Bibliography/BC_Bibliography.html
Cheers, Errata addendum ( talk) 18:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
can someone please look at Sevan Aydinian
each statement seems to be verified including links to MTV's website and what not. I believe it should be cleared of it's stamps' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Massmarkpro ( talk • contribs) 00:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I am a third-party working with the management company. Since Polly Samson now has a Web site, I added it. Then, I noticed a stack of incorrect titles. We are just seeking accuracy. No more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JABEYE ( talk • contribs) 11:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Possible freelance editor account, User:Rexjoec:
Note also spamming links to external sites. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 19:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Autobiographical article - speedy delete candidate? - for not terribly notable artist who self-identifies as the subject. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 15:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
HereMedia ( talk · contribs) was previously blocked due to violating username policy, and made edits in articles about the company and its products/services. MarkUmbach ( talk · contribs) has since been editing exclusively in Here Media Inc. related articles, and a simple Google search suggests user is affiliated with company's PR dept. Subst'ed the COI warning to the user talk, alerting admins here in case other action is needed. Thx, Wikignome0530 ( talk) 07:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Despite warning her on her talk page, Guineveretoo ( talk · contribs) continues to edit, almost exclusively in fact, on the FDA, its leaders Jonathan Baume and Elizabeth Symons and controversies regarding them and the organisation, despite being one of its employees and thus in breach of WP:COI. Haldraper ( talk) 16:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have a possible conflict of interest issue and Im wondering what other people think. I placed a link to a company site on the purple martin wiki page, and I guess it could be considered an advertisement. The way I see it, I'm providing a link to purple martin houses for anyone interested in them. But since it is a commercial website, Im wondering if i should take it down and refrain from putting any other links of the same nature. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ervatool ( talk • contribs) 12:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
User RBRBooks ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created possible COI article Independent Online Booksellers Association (IOBA) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tckma ( talk) 13:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Macdonald martin ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - working on his (auto)biography Martin MacDonald per this edit. The existing info may need to be oversighted. — Jeff G. ツ 16:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to call attention people's attention to Lauraeabbott ( talk · contribs). She is a single-purpose account editing journals published by the BMJ Group, and a "Laura Abbott" is listed as a marketing contact on their website. Her edits generally appear to be good, but I'd like it if someone else could take a look at her. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 16:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Kfredricks ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Seemingly sole author of the page Karen Fredricks, now adding links on other pages not to that page but to Amazon book references. Not clear that any of the contributions are valid under WP:EL And WP:Autobiography rules. SteveLoughran ( talk) 20:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
In April a blatantly self-promotional article on someone named David Golshan was AfDed and deleted after being deemed to be non-notable. [4] One of the proponents for keeping the article was The-alechmist (who, incidentally, had to be warned for removing the AfD notice [5]). This week, A. B. discovered something very interesting. Someone (likely David Golshan or his publicist) had placed an ad on Elance.com, soliciting bids for people to write a Wikipedia article on Golshan. [6] [7] The winning bidder, who was awarded the job (and paid $55 to write the article) was named “The-Alchemist”. I don’t know if there is a specific policy on this kind of thing, but perhaps this case will set a precedent that will establish such a policy, because I strongly believe that editors bidding to be paid to write articles about third parties for those third parties threatens to undermine the integrity of our project. How can Wikipedia be trusted to have a neutral point of view, or we be able to continue to assume good faith if editors can be paid to write articles to promote people or organizations, and not be sanctioned when they are found out? Mmyers1976 ( talk) 16:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Food safety risk analysis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article created by JennJifsan ( talk · contribs), containing a susbtantial section about JIFSAN (Joint Institute for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition). I removed this as it was a copyvio of http://www.foodrisk.org/about/index.cfm and http://www.jifsan.umd.edu/about/ and was promoting their courses, and gave the user a coi notice with a note about copyright. I reverted an attempt to re-add it and gave a copyvio warning, it's now been added again by JennChetty ( talk · contribs). Cassandra 73 ( talk) 12:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I was told above that I was feel free to take paid paid editing cases here, so here I am. The majority of this user's editing history appears to be the creation of paid editing articles from her corresponding account on freelancer.com. The paid-for articles and their corresponding freelancer pages are listed below.
Discussion continued from here
If User talk:WKTU was truly concerned about correct sources, you have to wonder why he deleted a source which says 75% here and changed it to a source which says 90%.
He has been a hampering my efforts to get FA status for Islam page and you can see our discussions here. Its almost certain he's a Sunni as you can see he is also boosting Sunni Islam proportions while deleting well sourced material. Iwanttoeditthissh ( talk) 12:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
There are many more sources that agree with the 87-90% PRC figure and if you believe this is wrong it's your duty to provide a reliable source that is more stronger than PRC and Britannica. I'm being fair like a judge here, and I personally like to insert Sunnis 85-90% but that will create conflict with the PRC source and editors will constantly try to change it or edit-war over it. These are all realistic guesses and not the precise numbers. Please don't label me as a Sunni or anything else, and don't get personal with me.-- WKTU ( talk) 13:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I am quite positive User:WKTU is a Sunni who is overrepresenting unfairly and unproportionately in favor of boosting figures for his own denomination, for example ;
Islam is undergoing article review for FA status and i'm contributing. Iwanttoeditthissh ( talk) 20:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
In what way is this a COI issue? Hundreds of millions of people (and probably a fair share of Wikipedians) are Sunnis, and belonging to a certain religious community cannot be grounds from hindering people to edit of COI grounds. By that logic Christians shouldn't be allowed to edit Christianity related articles, Jews not allowed to edit Judaism-related article, etc.. -- Soman ( talk) 21:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Also a valid name for a radio station. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3h 1337 b0y ( talk • contribs) 21:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
It appears that journalist Katy Butler (offered to compensate another user, who has exercised the right to vanish - edited by Philippe Beaudette, WMF ( talk) 17:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)) to edit Wikipedia for her. Could some folks here please keep an eye on things? The Wordsmith Communicate 19:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
PATdiane ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a an employee of Bill Moyers and she had been making mostly noncontroversial edits to the Bill Moyers article. Yesterday, she made an edit [15] which casts an opponent of Moyers, Kenneth Tomlinson, in a worse light and omits his side of the story. I reverted the edits, but Ronz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted me, ignoring the obvious conflict of interest in this situation. Please revert the edits, warn PATdiane (she has already been warned about making COI edits on her user Talk page), and require her to disclose whether she is performing such edits directly at the behest of Bill Moyers. Drrll ( talk) 14:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Besides the violation of the COI guideline against making edits of controversial material, there is a violation of the COI guidelines that states "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests." Clearly, the edits are designed to promote her own interests (Bill Moyers) in denigrating an opponent of Moyers (Kenneth Tomlinson). Drrll ( talk) 13:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Would an admin please look over this section?
Drrll (
talk)
19:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid_editing_%28policy%29
Prohibited activities...
It would appear that number three above prohibits Missylisa153 from editing. Teapot george Talk 22:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Bsanders246 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - has been vehemently pushing that press-releases and PR material from PRISM (Project Management Software) and Megafoo qualify as independent coverage. When attempts are made to show him established Wikipedia policies stating that this type of coverage does not satisfy WP:N, he gets very defensive (and in one case accused me of sock-puppetry and threatened to request a checkuser). Not sure whether we're dealing with a conflict of interest, paid editing, a difficult contributor or a combination of the three, but this should be monitored, .02 from a neutral third party would also be helpful. 2 says you, says two 04:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Middle 8 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Basically, this user is flouting our policy in attempting to whitewash the acupuncture page of any points that might cost him clientele or legitimacy in his acupuncture practice.
While it is true that professionals in a subject are not necessarily acting inappropriately according to WP:COI, unequivocally this is what is going on here with his single-purpose account campaign. His User page proudly proclaims,
People who make those accusations probably haven't read this, from WP:COI: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." So, STFU about COI.
Shall I ask for a ban of this individual from acupuncture pages? ScienceApologist ( talk) 02:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I would support such a ban. This editor is clearly here to promote acupuncture, and does have a conflict of interest. A topic ban from the area from some time would stop the immediate problems and should hopefully cause the editor to realise this isn't acceptable in future. Verbal chat 09:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The editor in question has made it clear on his personal website what his opinions are. They are decidedly slanted towards accepting acupuncture theorizing and taking at face-value the pseudoscientific claims of his "profession". If Middle 8 were a snake oil salesman deleting critical material from snake oil, that would essentially be the same thing. His protestations to the contrary are made based on some perceived protection for his chosen line of work that he just doesn't get to claim. Acupuncture is an alternative medicine field that has been heavily criticized as being based on superstition, shoddy post-hoc theorizing, and an almost complete lack of honesty within the field. We have impeccable sources to that effect, but this editor who makes his living off of doing the very things being criticized in the sourced text he continually attacks and tries to downplay. Eventually the single-purpose nature of his campaign to paint acupuncture as legitimized needs to be acknowledged and dealt with. I have no problem with him being part of the discussion, but the heavy-handed manner in which he is censoring material at acupuncture needs to be dealt with promptly. ScienceApologist ( talk) 21:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Every last one of your previous 50 contributions to talk space (do a special filter) seems to me to indicate a distinct POV-pushing mentality where you adopt a new stricture for sources, attempt to excise text which disagrees with your perspective, and generally attack any editor who dares to question your ownership of the acupuncture article. You are a hardline promoter of acupuncture which probably is good for business but is bad for Wikipedia. Your protestations that you include studies regardless of their results strikes me as disingenuous at best. Any attempt to summarize the facts regarding the pseudoscientific nature of qi and meridians is meant with outright indignation. You tend to knee-jerk revert and have yet to engage with the fundamental issues WLU and I are hashing out on the talkpage. Again, I ask, if this isn't evidence for a COI in the sense of Dana Ullman, what would be evidence? ScienceApologist ( talk) 18:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that Middle 8 doesn't think it's a problem that he derives an income from promoting himself in ways that are contradicted by a variety of sources that he impugns while keeping text based on those sources out of Wikipedia. If this isn't a conflict-of-interest, what is? The "in itself" rejoinder in the Middle 8's favorite sentence of COI seems to him to excuse his behavior in entirety. "Oh, I'm only acting in the sense of being a professional or having academic expertise," he seems to be saying. "I can't possibly have a conflict of interest with regards to critiques of my pet subject being included in Wikipedia. Oh yeah, and that's also the only thing I'm really interested in keeping an eye on here, by the way." ScienceApologist ( talk) 09:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Note - I won't be on wiki for a few days but can be reached via email if anyone needs to ask me a question. --
Middle 8 (
talk)
21:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Since this case is still open, I am adding some comments from an old page version of WP:AN that are directly germaine. They may be unnecessary, but because I want to get a fair shake, I believe they should be considered here if anyone still believes my editing has been inappropriate. (The AN case was amicably resolved between myself and ScienceApologist.) These comments are specifically about COI and, in part, whether it exists in my case.
(begin comments from WP:AN)
Clearly, the guideline says the right thing. I think the best practice is to pretend there's no conflict of interest. So rather than jumping to the personal attack of WP:COI/N, try WP:NPOV/N or WP:RS/N. Conflict of interests and ad hominen attacks are a dirty way to engage in a content dispute. It's also helpful that Middle 8's COI is relatively narrow; we have an editor who suspiciously deletes scholarly material from Western academics if it is critical to China ( Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/PCPP), which spans hundreds or even thousands of articles, yet he got a pass on the RfC/U. II | ( t - c) 06:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Dealing with suspected conflicted editors: The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to dispute resolution may help. Another option is to initiate discussion at WP:COIN, where experienced editors may be able to help you resolve the matter without recourse to publishing assertions and accusations on Wikipedia. Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban. Wikipedia places importance on both the neutrality of articles and the ability of editors to edit pseudonymously. Do not out an editor's real life identity in order to prove a conflict of interest. Wikipedia's policy against harassment prohibits this...
(end comments from old page version of WP:AN)
thanks, Middle 8 ( talk) 19:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I suggest the following as a ruling:
A conflict-of-interest may exist when a user is editing in an area in Wikipedia of significant personal interest to the user. The existence of a conflict-of-interest need not disqualify a user from discussing or editing Wikipedia content, but in conjunction with other problematic behavior can be used as evidence that the user is being inappropriately disruptive.
This should be added to COI.
Middle 8 has a potential conflict-of-interest. I think he should acknowledge this or at least acknowledge that others feel this is a strong possibility considering his chosen profession and the field itself. I'm not sure whether COI/N should exist anymore. Perhaps DE/N should exist instead.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 23:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Done
There is an interesting partnership developing with the British Museum at Wikipedia:GLAM/BM. It would be appreciated if uninvolved eyes from this page were to have a look and comment - whether to reassure us at Wikipedia_talk:GLAM/BM#COI_/_paid_editing that we are on the right lines or suggest any additional safeguards that might be needed. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Xanderliptak ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This editor appears to be using Wikipedia for self-promotion. There is a discussion at Talk:Irish people#Coat of arms where he is arguing for the inclusion of a fictional (as it bears no resemblance to any known coat of arms) image ( File:Coat of arms of the Uí Néills, Princes of Tyrone by Alexander Liptak.png). Note the image includes his name, and his easily found website (as it has his name) shows he sells images such as these. My concern is that he has no interest in producing accurate depictions of the actual coats of arms (accurate ones can be see at O'Neill dynasty#Coats of Arms) only producing highly jazzed up ones that bear little resemblance to the actual coats of arms in order to promote himself. Thank you. O Fenian ( talk) 21:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Scolaire, If you read my posts, you will notice I answered the questions already. How many times must I show the O'Neills need to have a left hand, and the City of Ulster uses a right? How is me showing my knowledge of heraldry a ill placed here? This is a heraldry question, after all. And yes, as long as the symbols and colours on the shield are set to the basic design, you can make the shield any shape you wish; in fact, that is the whole idea behind heraldry. :-O You may use a lozenge, cartouche, heater shield, horse-headed shield, buckler, Norman shield and so forth.
And why can't I have humour in this all? This is insane. O Fenian wanted people to look at O'Neill dynasty to see the expert arms there, which I made. The disputed image is also there, shown in the lead. My work has been used for almost a year on that page because no editor familiar with the O'Neills can find fault. And, somehow, O Fenian thought this expertise on three images could be used as evidence against me concerning the lead image. So his argument is something like, "See how right he is? He must be wrong." That is hilarious. :-D
Hmm, original research notice board, despite my showing you numerous sources? Interesting plan; throw any and everything at me and hope that there are enough people online at a given time that don't know about heraldry that will err on your side to be safe? I mean, eventually you will find a notice board for that purpose, right? It is statistics, just you need persistent patience to pull it off. You could always go to the appropriate WikiProject and ask those familiar on the subject. The WikiProject Heraldry, I mean, that is why is exists. For these issues. But you won't, because you are aware I am active there. Not only active, you probably see that I am knowledgeable there, and have conversations about minute details there and might actually know what I am talking about. That other editors there are as knowledgeable as me, and will know I am correct, as well. That I actually get approached to create coats of arms, and I answer requests for new creations, because I am both knowledgeable and capable. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 04:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to do with this. I stumbled across User:Mtbrown8 who has been editing Emergy and Emergy synthesis. It appears to be a conflict of interest because Mtrown8 recently completely rewrote Emergy synthesis including reference to a researcher named M. T. Brown. The userpage may be inappropriate too. Can someone else please take a look? Peacock ( talk) 13:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The user RepublicanJacobite is reverting my edits to the article. My edits are referenced from a reputable source and provide a lot more detail; clearly written, and without writing a large paragraph. Including that jazz originated from the "melting pot" of Louisiana's numerous ethnic groups living in close proximity, and not the "African American communities" of "Southern United States". Which is highly contentious and not referenced. The information I added is what is taught in universities and music colleges.
The article itself is quite prejudice, and lacks a lot of details on the other ethnic groups that created jazz. To the point, where it seems like the article is trying to remove these people from jazz history, and trying to state that jazz is a creation of "African-American" people. I added a small paragraph with two references about Papa Jack Laine, who is one of the most important figures in jazz development. As it didn't appear to even be in the article! and it provides some detail on the other ethnic groups who contributed to jazz formation. This was also removed by the same user.
RepublicanJacobite has provided no valid reason for the removal of my edits; claiming I have "muddled" it up and that it was better before. Then claiming I have not made an improvement to the article, and that "I am no position to talk". The users talk page is semi-protected, but I don't have a lot of time to sit around discussing concerns on the wikepedia. I am not sure if the "noticeboard" is the correct place to find help in resolving this matter, but it would be appreciated. As I do not believe I am in the wrong, and that removing a citation from a government sourced reference in favor of a personal statement is wrong!
I was going to report this matter to the 3RR board, however after creating a new topic, I learnt this required 4 reverts to be considered. Thus I came to this board, as it looked like the next best thing. The user recently warned me on my talk page, claiming I am edit warring, and that I should discuss the matter first because it is controversial. Even though the information I am replacing is not referenced, and that the information I am providing is almost the same, just referenced from a reputable source and in more detail. I don't see that is a valid remark given that users reasons for removal of the content, especially when I stated in the revision log that he/she should use the talk page before removing cited material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.46.229 ( talk) 02:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
DVilla21 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) only seems to edit the David Villa article and information related to that individual in other Football related articles (namely where David Villa is mentioned in FIFA and Spanish National team articles). When I tagged the David Villa article with COI, due to my concerns, the user removed it stating that they are not that individual [24]. However given the extremely limited scope of the users' edits, as well as the appearance of WP:OWN [25] in some of their edit summaries, I am having difficulty accepting Good Faith that this individual is not David Villa and does not have a COI. Given the nature of the situation, I was not sure where I should bring this up -- or even if I should bring this up somewhere. While it is entirely possible that the editor is indeed just a big fan of David Villa and only is interested in editing articles related to him, there is a very strong appearance of COI. Since WP:BLP applies in this situation, I'm even more concerned about the appearance of COI edits. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 18:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Gniniv ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user is editing numerous articles, predominantly Objections to evolution by making POV changes from the perspective of a young earth creationist. This has been going on since May. Furthermore, he is monopolizing talk pages with off-topic content related discussion which violates WP:NOTFORUM. No matter how often he's reminded of this policy, asked for sources to back up his POV claims, or asked to follow basic WP etiquette, he ignores responses without reading or understanding them and continues to make article changes and post inappropriate discussion. Talk:Objections to evolution is a good example of this behavior, noting that the majority of discussion with him on that page has already been archived, since his discussion had made the page unmanageable. Any help dealing with this matter would be appreciated. Jess talk cs 06:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Editor is - according to his own comments - the subject of the article Stuart Campbell (journalist). Editor is repeatedly trying to make disputed claims about himself in the article. [26] [27]
-- 88.105.252.76 ( talk) 18:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Johnadonovan, who according to his user page is "a long term critic of senior management of the Royal Dutch Shell Group" made two edits to the above article here and here. I reverted the edits on both occasions because I feel they fail WP:UNDUE as I do not feel the "indecent" is a Controversy.
There has been some discussion on the talk page and on my talk page about it, the upshot being that Johnadonovan feels he would like an admin to look at it.
So hence the post here.
Codf1977 (
talk)
21:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
:Replied on article talk page. Yes this is a conflict of interest, but the addition is in line with the other entries on the main page.
Netalarm
talk
23:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
It may help to set out the issues.
1. Should there be an article of this kind focusing on controversies surrounding RDS?
2. If the answer is yes, was the section I added appropriate for inclusion in the article?
3. If the answer is yes, was the content in line with Wikipedia requirements in terms of impartiality and being sourced from verifiable, independent, reputable publishers?
4. Being an openly declared critic of Shell management from the outset, should I be banned or restricted from making any contributions to Wikipedia articles relating to RDS?
The only article authored by me which was deleted after referral here, was on the grounds that it was impartial in favour of RDS. I originated the article in response to a request from another contributor for a "positives" article. I did so in good faith because I could see the merit in a counter-balancing article. The collective view was that this was inappropriate, which I accept.
If Wikipedia bans or restricts contributions from individuals who openly declare their background and abide by Wikipedia requirements, this will encourage those wishing to conceal their identities and any conflicts of interest. Is it in the public interest to know as much about the track record of companies like Shell and BP as possible, provided the information is accurate and impartial? Oil exploration is an extremely risky enterprise as has become very clear.
RDS does closely monitor at the highest level my contributions to Wikipedia articles relating to the company. I know this because I have under a Subject Access Request, obtained Shell internal documents and communications over a number of years covering the matter. Shell carefully considered if it could surreptitiously edit the information, but was concerned about being caught doing so. Wikiscanners did discover editing of the RDS related articles from Shell offices. -- Johnadonovan ( talk) 10:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I do not for one moment accept your description of "attack pages". Someone else, not me, devised the heading "Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell. If I recall correctly, it was agreed on a consensus basis. Since then, I have added content appropriate to this heading. All factually based, unbiased and supported by verifiable independent reputable sources. The weight of such content must be distressing to Shell PR, but the events and related information have been generated by Shell's actions, not by me. The content is highly informative for the public, researchers, the media and investors, providing numerous links to supporting detailed evidence.
I have not been involved in any litigation with Shell for over a decade. No litigation is pending. I am a Shell shareholder and have been so for many years. I campaign for Shell management to uphold and abide with Shell's much proclaimed ethical code, the Statement of General Business Principles. Does that make me anti-Shell? Is it proper for all individuals openly campaigning for companies or organisations to act in accordance with legal statutes and their own advertised principles to be restricted from adding content to Wikipedia when done so openly and in accordance with Wikipedia requirements mentioned above. Others less scrupulous - I am not referring to you - will continue to make contributions without declaring an interest, hiding behind an alias which allows them to be rude, blatantly biased, make false allegations and be generally unpleasant to those who are completely open. If they attract too much attention, they can simply start again under a new alias. Returning to where this started, the Tony Blair letter, I think your position is completely wrong and indefensible. You claim that the matter is not controversial. Why then did The Times and The Daily Mail newspapers both publish major articles on the subject, both supplied as verifiable evidence in the section you deleted? I think your bias is showing.
With regard to your suggestion that I should list all proposed edits on the talk page, I did exactly that on the article Royaldutchshellplc.com. They remain waiting approval nearly a year later. There is a conflict of interest in respect of that article because it is about our website and my father and me. The Royal Dutch Shell articles are not about us or our website and I should have as much right as anyone else to edit providing I do so within Wikipedia rules. Please point out any example of my editing on the article in question, which displayed an anti-Shell bias on my part?-- Johnadonovan ( talk) 22:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I have not commented on the "Tony Blair/Shell/Gaddafi" section as my issue has always been that it was not a controversy, I have asked you to to provide sources indicating it is, and none have been forth coming.
You mention "If I ever have cause to add information to an RDS article in which my website or my father and I are involved in any way, then I will post it on the discussion page and seek review on the draft" well I would contend that this is the case here, you have written about this on your website and as such you should follow the COI procedure and list it on the talk page before publishing it, you will also notice that Netalarm said on the talk page "Regarding the new addition, I think it would require more discussion among editors to establish a consensus as to whether it is added or not" so that should make it clear that at the moment there is NO consensus for it to be added. No amount of words from you can hide your conflict of interest in relation to Shell and you should understand that and follow the advice offered on the WP:COI page and use {{ Request edit}} template wherever you wish to edit on matters relating to Shell. Codf1977 ( talk) 13:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The Huffington Post 26 June 2010: BP, Gadhafi, and Britain's Oil Comeuppance
REUTERS 27 April 2010: SHELL DICTATED BLAIR'S LETTER TO GADDAFI
The Observer 30 August 2009: " Revealed: how Shell won the fight for Libyan gas and oil"
The Times: 25 March, 2004: " Gaddafi welcomes Blair with handshake"
BBC News 25 March 2004: " Blair hails new Libyan relations"
Daily Mail 05 June 2010: " Tony Blair our very special adviser by dictator Gaddafi's son" 44 comments.
Kuwait Observer 27 April 2010: " Blair lobbies Gaddafi for Shell"
theage.com.au: Reuters report 26 March 2004: Blair, Gaddafi make history
London Evening Standard 28 August 2009: Tories renew attack on PM for ‘secret Libya deal’
Daily Mail 20 August 2009: " Blair, 'blood money' and a Lockerbie deal: Talks with Gaddafi hours before BP agreement"; 118 Comments.
The Sun 29 August 2009: Gaddafi: Prisoner deal was for oil
Daily Telegraph 30 May 2007: " Blair, Gaddafi and the BP oil deal"
There are many more articles. Surely they are not needed to prove beyond doubt the controversy surrounding this matter? -- Johnadonovan ( talk) 18:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I think I have done as much as I can to help on this despite the attacks on me by Johnadonovan, it is now over to other editiors to help please visit the Talk page. I know this is not an easy one to deal with. Codf1977 ( talk) 09:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Movieworld ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User Movieworld is a SPA that edits virtually nothing except articles, lists and templates dealing with Universal Studios, its movies and theme parks. User seems to be an agent of the company tasked with promoting its properties on Wikipedia. CliffC ( talk) 12:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
This article was driver-by tagged with {{ coi}} in April and no other action has been taken. Being a member of the research lab itself, I'm very cautious to take any action on the matter. Could someone review the article's content to see if the tag should be removed or changes should be made? -- EpochFail( talk| work) 20:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Autobio. I'm out of touch with regards to how we deal with these; could someone please look into it? J Milburn ( talk) 20:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
A Wellington politician who is running for mayor. The page is being edited by a User:Celia WB. Have given her a COI warning. Mattlore ( talk) 06:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
NTScun ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user has only created or made several edits to articles related to the Nisa-Today's group. The user name may be an abbreviation of Nisa-Today's Scunthorpe which indicates a possible COI. The user has been warned on their talk page about possible COI WhaleyTim ( talk) 12:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
It appears to me that Leastway ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is trying to push away a good amount of info at Qtrax ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and replacing it with typical corporate talk. The original try was [28] and at the same time created Qtrax Midem 2008 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (note the 'we' in one of the edits), which I PRODed shortly after creation, but after the Qtrax article was reverted by User:Agadant. The article was changed again by Leastway which I reverted, then almost the same thing was done by assumed sockpuppet Ccyypp ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which I also reverted. Not wanting to get into 3rr, I dropped a note on the talk page [29], and now Leastway changed the Qtrax article again. I apologize if this should probably be on some other board, but it seems to be a COI so I added it here. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 18:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Officiallyconnected ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Appears to be "connected" (sorry!) to Connected Boy Band. Directed here from WP:UAA. TFOWR 16:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
ScottSherrinFoundation ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - this editor has serious ownership issues and blatantly told another user that the edits they made to Scott Sherrin were in fact illegal and to stop editing the article. ArcAngel (talk) ) 22:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Regatta dog ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Regatta dog is an SPA who edits the Reid Stowe article. He contributed to a tabloid article via interview and was named as a source by journalist Adam Nichols in his article. [30] Soon after, Nichols published a related article which included unmistakable material that had been published 9 days earlier by Regatta dog on his blog. [31] (The blog is blacklisted - unable to link) Regatta dog then inserted material from both tabloid articles into the Wikipedia Reid Stowe article [32] [ [33]] and repeatedly inserted links to those articles and material from them into the discussion pages [ [34]] [ [35]] [ [36]] [ [37]] [ [38]] stating that he hopes readers will "trip over this Wiki discussion page" [ [39]] Other problems include edit waring. The article is now locked as a result. -- Zanthorp ( talk) 16:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see the article discussion page [ [40]] for more detail. -- Zanthorp ( talk) 17:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The disruption from this single purpose editors has been endless, please see his edit history. Multiple discussions have resulted in the rejection of child benefit non payment claim and a drug conviction from over ten years ago. This editor has been involved in the propagation of these claims at other locations of wiki and has also been involved in interviews that he has attempted to insert into the article, constant disruption of a BLP and when the article is locked as a result of the edit pattern then the disruption moves terminally to the talkpage. I would request some kind of resolution and end this disruption, please look at the users edit history which alone imo rings all the bells needed. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I have already discussed the direct personal connections between Regatta Dog and the sources he has tried to insert into the Reid Stowe article: please see Talk Pages at [41] and at [42].
Regatta Dog uses the same handle wherever he posts on the internet, which is not a secret. The following posts show his strong bias against Reid Stowe.
Postings of Regatta Dog:
1.
[43]
Cruisers Forum
2.
[44]
Sailing Anarchy Forum (starting in Oct. 2008)
3.
[45]
Weekend America (Oct. 25, 2008; Comments Section)
4. ...1000daysreality.blogspot.com
Reid Stowe and 1000 Days at Sea - Reality Check (blog run by Regatta Dog)
5. ...1000daysofhell.blogspot.com
1000 Days of Hell website (blog run by Regatta Dog; parody of Reid Stowe)
A recent article by Charles Doane of "Sail" magazine includes a telling portrait of this self-avowed critic of Reid Stowe, namely Regatta Dog, not to be confused with a different alias on Sailing Anarchy by the name of "regattadog"... COMPREHENDING REID STOWE: Crucified on the Internet
Regatta Dog has shown clear intent to harm the reputation of Reid Stowe, spreading falsehoods and defamatory remarks about Reid Stowe, using tainted sources as references in Wikipedia. He has a clear Conflict of Interest. Skol fir ( talk) 19:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
No, Zanthrop, they are not citing themselves unless they cite themselves. I appreciate your using the term (in effect). You have negated your own claim. There is no clear conflict of interest.
Very telling that in the Doane article cited above, the reporter unequivocally confirms the claims about the subject of the article's drug conviction and back child support with the word - "True".
I am very tired of unsubstantiated claims about me. I would like you to cite, specifically, anywhere where I have spread a single falsehood about Reid Stowe or made defamatory remarks. On the contrary, I have been an advocate for the truth about the subject and have put to rest many unsubstantiated rumors. When you respond please keep to the true definition of "defamatory" and not drag in opinions I may have posted - they are hugely different. I eagerly await either the proof to back up your statements or your apology for making completely unfounded accusations about another Wiki editor. This is outrageous and insulting.
The Doane article vindicates me and confirms what I have presented as facts. I'd be interested to know what handles the other editors here use when they post on line about Reid Stowe. Regatta dog ( talk) 11:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
We editors here at Wikipedia do not appreciate editors who are closely associated with the subject of an article editing said article. The COI rules are very clear on that. Simply claiming no association, while at the same time sharing intimate knowledge of the subject of the BLP and a blatant bias towards him, is the kind of COI that the COI rules were written for. Please re-read the COI section again, tone down the rhetoric, and avoid any attempts to edit this article in a a non-neutral way. Your COI will be noted again in your attempts to aggrandize the subject of this BLP.
Regatta dog (
talk)
03:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Again, Zanthrop, you failed to address the key issues here, which I asked for above and will repeat here -- I would like you to cite, specifically, anywhere where I have spread a single falsehood about Reid Stowe or made defamatory remarks. On the contrary, I have been an advocate for the truth about the subject and have put to rest many unsubstantiated rumors. When you respond please keep to the true definition of "defamatory" and not drag in opinions I may have posted - they are hugely different. I eagerly await either the proof to back up your statements or your apology for making completely unfounded accusations about another Wiki editor.
You've had 10 days since the original request. If you are going to make accusations, please be prepared to back them up with cites/references. Otherwise, you are making "defamatory statements" about another editor. Regatta dog ( talk) 00:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Are there administrators that look and opine on reports here? If there are could one have a look at this report and please comment. Off2riorob ( talk) 00:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Skol fir. As has been shown here and elsewhere on the internet, I never try to cover my tracks. I simply forgot to enter my signature above. Your trying to make that oversight some kind of conspiracy is humorous. I repeat once again - your claims I have made defamatory and false statements is not supported anywhere. A couple of editors, who appear to be very close to the subject of the BLP and who don't appreciate an editor trying to add balance to the article, have tossed out unsubstantiated claims about another editor. I will ask you again for specific examples where I have made defamatory comments or false statements. Specifics please. Why is that such a difficult task? Perhaps it is because defamatory statements and falsehoods are non-existent. I'm still waiting for specific examples to back up your claims. Regatta dog ( talk) 12:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Green Cardamom - I have my suspicions, but sticking to my philosophy not to make accusations without proof, I won't go there. I invite you to read all the discussion pages - including those archived. There are some telling signs to be found there. Besides, this is about a COI accusation against me.
I find it telling that after more than 10 days, Skol Fir is unable to provide evidence to back up his claim that I have made defamatory comments or false statements, the basis of his COI challenge. The same editor who cries "defamation" against Reid Stowe whenever well sourced drug or child support claims are raised, appears to be very comfortable defaming another editor. What could possibly be the motivation for such hypocrisy? Regatta dog ( talk) 12:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I am so tired of this user Regatta dog attacking of the living person Reid Stowe, have a look at his edit history, all this single purpose account has done at wikipedia is add anything negative he can find about the subject. He is at the same thing at other locations on thew web as well, his severe dilike of the subject is tenable , he is riddled with COI. Constant and continuous circular pushing his dislike. Repeatedly trying to insert links to interviews in which he is interviewed and attempting to insert his attack blog. Off2riorob ( talk) 14:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Conflict of interest in point of view disputes
Another case can arise in disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration. Regatta dog ( talk) 21:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
For the first time, I actually went through Skol Fir's links of evidence. This one, if you have the patience to read through, is quite telling of my supposed COI --
Weekend America. I will let other readers here make their own decision if Skol Fir is involved in the comments under a different name. PLEASE pay attention to what I wrote and let me know if I was libelous, defamed Reid Stowe in any way, or put forth any falsehoods.
This is almost comical. A bunch of "neutral" editors call me on COI and can't back up their accusations. Should Wikipedia allow proponents of the subject to hijacking an article? I don't think so.
BTW - I would be more than happy to out myself with a truly neutral editor and lay on the line who I am, if Skol Fir and Zanthrop would be willing to do the same. Take up the challenge? I don't think it will happen.
Still waiting on evidence of accusations about me. Regatta dog ( talk) 01:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Skol Fir - You have spent a lot of time typing, but no time whatever backing up your claims that I "have made defamatory comments or false statements" (and now add to the mix "libelous") about the subject of the article. Please, Skol Fir - evidence in the form of links where I was the source of "original" documents. Not court documents, mind you, but original documents created by me. The only "original" documents I have seen in the article come from the subject's own web site. The most egregious of these that you argue endlessly for is called a "Fact Sheet", which you assert is a reliable source. At the same time you claim the New York Daily News is not credible? If you do not know the subject of the article, I suggest you call his PR firm. They will probably compensate you for your efforts on their behalf. Regatta dog ( talk) 01:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Per your points above -
1) "Smuggling" was sourced to Gothamist and, more recently, can also be sourced to Charles Doane. The "served only 9 mos for conspiracy to import marijuana" has not been covered by any reputable source, to my knowledge. "Importing" illegal substances into the United States is smuggling, so I think Gothamist and Doane got it right.
2) "Deadbeat Dad" was sourced to the NY Daily News. It is also a generally accepted term for a parent who does not meet his/her child support obligation. I invite you to type the term into the Wiki search box and hit enter, or simply visit an article devoted to the subject/term here - Deadbeat Parent. You will note that on the blog you reference, once his back child support had been satisfied, that was duly and promptly noted. Whether the courts did or did not use that label is irrelevant. Can you source your claims that no tax payers were footing the bill for child support, that he didn't pay because he wasn't able to raise the money and that no one suffered as a result? You are either making assumptions or know more about this than is available in the press.
- "The amount of child support varies considerably both from state to state and from case to case. Some of the factors considered when deciding how much the supporting parent will pay include:
- * How much the parent with custody makes, has, and needs
- * How much the parent without custody can afford to pay
- * The children’s educational, health, and other needs
- * What the children’s standard of living was before the divorce
- The law takes child support payments seriously. If a parent fails to pay court-ordered child support, several different enforcement acts can be used to compel him or her to pay. In cases where the owing parent refuses to pay, he or she may face time in jail.
- Child support must be paid until one of the following conditions is met:
- * The child reaches the age of 18 or 21 (depending on the state)
- * The child is legally emancipated
- * The child goes on active military duty
- Support may be required longer if the child is in college or if he or she has special needs."
No one in the press has denied the age of his daughter at the time of his departure. Bakc "child support" is back child support. If it is owed when a child reaches the age a majority, the amount owed does not simply become "back adult support". I would agree that since the age of majority no additional money's would have been owed, but the outstanding debt is not simply erased. I have no idea what the specifics of the situation are here with regard to when the back support accumulated, what the father's financial situation was, or if the state might have been involved to collect public assistance that might have been extended to his daughter when he failed to pay, which is sometimes the case. Unlike a number of editors here, I'm not willing to speculate and simply dismiss the issue based on speculation that is not adequately sourced.
I repeat my concern with your personal slights. They have no place here. Regatta dog ( talk) 14:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
3) I never claimed anywhere that he was caught dumping anything into the river.
So again, I ask you, where have I made any false accusations? Please?
I agree that original research has no place here at Wiki, which is why I have avoided the use of it. I would argue that citing the subject of the article's own web site and "Fact Sheet" are citing original research. Unfortunately, a number of editors don't agree with my assessment.
Your out of hand accusations are very troubling. Regatta dog ( talk) 16:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Skol Fir for the specifics above and your apparent attempt to exonerate me from the accusations you yourself made about me.
Importing marijuana is drug smuggling, is it not? Whatever reliable sources call it is beyond my control. I believe this "falsehood" originated when Reid was arrested, plead guilty, was convicted and served time. Regatta dog ( talk) 22:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Proof of that Skol Fir? The NYDN writer interviewed an official representative of the NY agency responsible for collecting overdue support, not me. Regatta dog ( talk) 22:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The cardinal rule when accusing people of something like lying and defamation is to be able to cite specific examples, which you have yet to do. Regatta dog ( talk) 14:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
You have yet to identify a single defamatory statement or lie. Further personal insults directed against me? I'm not surprised. 76.24.226.181 ( talk) 20:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I can say what I said because I clearly prefaced it with an assumption. It is not as if I claimed Reid Stowe turned 180 degrees off of Cape Horn. That would have been a stretch. Regatta dog ( talk) 22:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
How many attempts have you made now to justify your outrageous claims against me? You still haven't shown that I defamed or lied about the subject. Regatta dog ( talk) 22:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I guess you buy into the concept that if you repeat a lie often enough, people accept it as truth. Keep lying about me, Skol Fir. Thank goodness you can't erase your ramblings here. You mentioned earlier on the Reid Stowe talk page that 4 out of 6 editors don't want any mention of his drug conviction/child support. I invite you to read up on Wiki rules. 1/3 is not a "tiny minority". Coverage in the mainstream press, including links on the subject's own website, call in to play his past transgressions. They deserve a mention. Maybe not their own section, but definitely a mention -- in a neutral way. Your wording above is acceptable using the phrase "importing marijuana" instead of "smuggling" is good by me. I also have no problem with "owed back child support" with the amount owed upon his departure instead of "deadbeat dad". Are we in agreement on the terminology? Seems like a pretty good compromise to me. Regatta dog ( talk) 02:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Off2riorob and I are in full agreement here. I'd also like to see Skol Fir admonished for personal attacks and making false accusations. I disagree that I am involved in a negative portrayal of a BLP. I have challenged proposed edits based on facts available through reliable sources, challenged the reliability of some sources (blogs and the users own self promotional website), pointed out major inconsistencies and introduced information that would be of interest to wiki readers. I have relied on credible sources. I am simply trying to balance to article. Regatta dog ( talk) 14:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I would argue that the attempt of editors who appear to blindly support the subject of the article and turn the article into a promotional billboard is also unending. The credibility of Wiki suffers in the absence of balance. So refusing to toe the "Stowe is the greatest" line is disruptive? Regatta dog ( talk) 15:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for agreeing with me in part, though I'm not sure if the "yes" is referring to the problem with blind support, the wiki credibility issue or both. I have not tried to keep anything positive out of the article if it was presented in a neutral manner, was non-promotional and could be backed up by reliable sources. The same can not be said about the information which you and others consider "negative" but which meets the criteria above. I have no dislike of the subject, having never met him. My crusade is a crusade for truth and balance and the only personal conflict I have with the subject and article is the conflict between what people are trying to portray him and is mission and reality -- on and off Wikipedia. Regatta dog ( talk) 17:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
A person's right to privacy is not a valid argument, when a guy thrives on POSITIVE media attention as Stowe has done and continues to do. The subject's "dignity" is in his own hands and words.
Much like the debate here - "Stowe positive" is the rule, dictated by a couple editors and how dare anyone challenge him as "hero adventurer". IMO, when a person seeks the spotlight for 20 years promoting his own ambitions and tries to solicit funds so that he can take a scientific journey of a "Mars Analogous" bent, and then, after receiving donor money based on the premise of "scientific research" changes his mind (because the media doesn't care [see link above]) turns the research voyage into a "love voyage". It's kind of like happily paying your tax dollars for NASA for a Mars mission, only to find out you were actually buying group hugs for some folks in Ecuador. Not a bad thing, but not what one signed up for.
Your insinuation that I am "secretly fond of him" is so out of control and scary; and shows your own lack of impartiality. Quite frankly, it is sick, in a reverse-Freudian kind of way. That you would try to intimidate me through psychology, because you appear to lack skills in Aristotelian logic....or any other form of logic, is telling. I've suffered that accusation on blogs from people similar to you, but it has no room here on Wikipedia -- Unless we want to quote Reid Stowe in an interview where he says about people of my ilk -
My Mom might have a problem with that. Don't buy the subject's line and he's going to toss me and my parents under the bus? This is your guy, Skol Fir, Off2riorob, and Zanthrop. What does this guy know about children? Well here you go 22:15 into this video--
Let's put that in the article. Then we'll debate whether the child support is an issue. Who's up for that?
Jealous of his personal freedom? No way. I'm very happy spending time with my kids, my friends and sailing... with the sails up.
BTW - What is up with this comment about me? -- "you are secretly fond of him and jealous of his personal freedom"
COI? Please, someone rescue me from this guy. That's just some very, very scary stuff. Regatta dog ( talk) 05:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I still insist that the best approach is to concentrate on what rules have been broken by insertion of defamatory statements (with very little supporting sources besides "own research" and a newspaper article that has conflict-of-interest written all over it). Furthermore, these harmful statements are irrelevant to the biography, besides amounting to an invasion of privacy, as they are of no concern to the public, i.e., the readers of Wikipedia. I will familiarize myself with the procedure for submitting a request for mediation, and go that route.
- Skol fir ( talk) 16:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Arakunem - I appreciate you taking the time and effort to review the material and for helping point us in the right direction. I also support moving discussion of these content issues to a forum where they can be discussed rationally without ad hominem attacks. I am not familiar with RFC. Can you please provide a link? Any additional guidance would also be appreciated. Thanks again. Regatta dog ( talk) 19:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
76.89.233.174 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Has been editing the article to conform to his own POV and removing cited material, and it's clear that he's either the singer of the band or connected with the band and is editing for him.
Here is a screencap of his Facebook profile where he asks if anybody is a moderator on Wikipedia. This proves that he's either editing the article himself or is having somebody edit it for him. http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a389/dieglamourous/coiproof.jpg rzrscm ( talk) 03:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
User identifies himself as director Adam Green in his first edit summary. His entire contribution history is exclusively repeatedly conflict-of-interest violations. What brought this to my attention was watching Spiral, checking out the film's article, and noticing that the critical reception section sounded like advertising copy. A quick Google search revealed that the copy was pulled from Green's own website, and further investigation revealed that Green replaced the previously standardized NPOV section with the advertising copy. Nearly all of his contributions are in need of reversal, but I have no desire to get into an edit war with this user without pre-emptive administrator assistance. Although the whole contribution history as a package needs reversion, other particularly egregious COI edits of note that stood out to me during a quick review include this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. Shame that he's pulling this kind of stunt, since I actually liked the film. Also, since Ariescope is the name of his company, I also gave WP:UAA a heads-up. Finally, if anyone wants to add the affected articles to their watchlist, I'd appreciate having another pair of eyes on the situation -- since life has been exceptionally crazy for me lately and holds the potential of getting crazier over the weeks to come, if he tries this again under a new account, I may not catch it. WCityMike 03:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
This article already has been known for conflicts of interests issues. This is typical editing (removing all the controversies section), but two new editors concern me. First, there's User:Hookahsmoker who remove one controversy in favor of a list of current Senate committee and keeps a cleaner version for his user page. Second, you have User:Salerachel who's first edits were quite sophisticated inclusion of Lee's "legislative accomplishments" and then edit Hookahsmoker's user page here. Seems like the attempts at discussion last year weren't effective. I'm close to blocking both editors and locking the article up for a long time but other suggestions would be appreciated. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Recent page creation of semi-notable rapper by User_talk:Lemusique who states in their original edit summary that they are a PR person for the subject. [46]. Left a warning on their talk page, but continues to edit. Falcon8765 ( talk) 23:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Peter von Puttkamer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--I have reason to believe that the creator of this page, User:Ssmediaco, is the company who designed the website for Puttkamer's production company, and that much of the information in the article was taken directly from the website--see that "About Us" section. The user has already been banned for advertising, and I wonder if this page qualifies as well. I also notice SSMediaCo is also the only editor to contribute any actual content to the page--all the other edits were copyediting, etc. Should this page be deleted? Aristophanes68 ( talk) 17:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Physfac ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This editor submitted this article to the AFC team but it reads like an advertisement (and so it was declined for that reason). I thought about reporting the editor to the UAA board, but decided this might be the better place for it. I have also placed the {{uw-coi}} notice on their talk page. ArcAngel (talk) ) 21:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I hope I am formatting this correctly, please forgive me if not. Annie Lobert is an article authored primarily by an editor named Cindamuse who currently identifies herself as Cindy Crawford Nelson on her user page, where she also provides a link to her Facebook page. There have been issues concerning the neutrality of these articles; much of the text appearing in them is used as copy at the Hookers For Jesus website, which is primarily a fundraising tool for Annie Lobert's organization.
Cindamuse has presented herself as a disinterested party, but in January of this year she made a Facebook posting announcing the publication of the Hookers For Jesus Annual Report, and soliciting donations. I have posted an image of this Facebook posting on the Hookers For Jesus Talk page.
There seems to be more than one party attempting to game the system and use the Wiki to support fundraising efforts for their "good cause." Unfortunately, the COI is quite clear. Folks are circling the wagons, though, ans some experienced hands are needed to manage this issue. Thanks in Advance Bustter ( talk) 23:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I really could use some help on this, I am being attacked by others because I found the evidence of COI -- I can't deal with it. I will leave them to their use of Wikipedia to draw donations for Jesus, but if anyone else cares, please look into this. Bustter ( talk)
Nicholas Pandolfi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs to be looked at.
Thundergusty ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims with this edit summary [47] to be the person that the article is about. Especially questionable is line of praise that keeps being added to the references section. It has several problems including POV, sourcing and notablity. If those of you who oversee these things find the article and editor to be okay then that is okay with me, I just thought it should be checked out. Thank you for taking the time to double check this. MarnetteD | Talk 14:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Charlotte Bunch had an autobiography and COI tag placed on a couple years ago. User 732 has come along and removed them [48]. In researching the history, it is not entirely clear while why the tags were there to begin with... so I let them stay down for now.
Anyway, the article is very promotional, user732 and IPs have been aggressively editing it with praise. It has been cleaned up a bit. Another flag is that IP 204.52.215.7 has also recently done some aggressive editing, and a quick whois search shows it is coming from Rutgers University - where Ms. Bunch currently teaches. The related Center for Women's Global Leadership has also updated by both editors as well.
Thank you for your time. -- Omarcheeseboro ( talk) 16:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
173.162.192.81 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) and
Ford.joe.j (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) seem to be two SPAs intent on adding the same links to HR related articles, and to two three new articles that looks like neologisms, two of which are identical.--
JohnBlackburne
words
deeds
19:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
urusHyby ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be connected with and is promoting Wialon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), not only through text in the article itself, but also by inserting screenshots from this product in GPS-related articles. The COI notice on his talk page has not been heeded. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 09:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I have had numerous links to recipes that I added deleted by another editor that I feel were incorrectly deleted. Their stated reason for the deletion was that the links violated the COI policy, as the links were to a blog posting of a recipe. Links to non-commercial sites from a cuisine page does nothing but enhance the article, and I wanted to know the feeling of others when it comes to adding non-copyrighted, non-commercial links directly going to recipes relevant to the article. There are MANY other cuisine related articles that are linked to "personal" websites, and they also do not appear to be either commercial or causing any conflict of interest. Aktormedic ( talk) 21:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Am I allowed then to link from Wikibooks without violating anything? Can I cite my own blog as a source for the recipe? My biggest gripe with all of this is the fact that most of the cuisine articles have links to commercial sites or bogs that are no more or less relevant than my own, but their links remain. Inconsistency drives me crazy. Aktormedic ( talk) 22:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know whether this is the right place to bring this, but I'm concerned about several recent edits made to the above article concerning an ongoing legal case against the subject. It was brought to my attention with this posting. I was not aware of the individual at the time, so had not edited the page. Referenced information has been removed several times by the same ip, with virtually all edits from the ip concerning this issue. Not sure what the correct procedure with this should be but after reading the guidelines I thought I should open a discussion here to gauge the opinion of other editors. Cheers TheRetroGuy ( talk) 21:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Ooyala ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Last revision of 373485274
This page reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia. There are no references. The page describes the company and product with numerous superlatives, but there is no evidence listed to support its claims.
The page was created and subsequently edited several times since by the same user, "parghandi." The user appears to have a conflict of interest. It would take significant work to achieve neutrality, so the page should be rewritten or removed. Tjbron ( talk) 23:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
(Re-added this section on behalf of Tjbron who inadvertently blanked the rest of the page) Arakunem Talk 23:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Editor's only edits have been to an article about a film produced by the same fellow who would later produce the TV show The Life and Times of Grizzly Adams. Given a COI warning. -- Orange Mike | Talk 18:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
What are the chances of two brand new users turning up just after an apparent role account is blocked, and working on exactly the same article - at more than one title? It's things like this that make me the cynic I am. Guy ( Help!) 14:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Andrew Jones (politician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - three successive edits on 22 July by an unregistered user at 194.60.38.198 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), which turns out to be from within the Houses of Parliament. The additions read like an advert, so I have tagged the article with {{ neutrality}} and {{ coi}}. It may be appropriate to revert these additions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Hello,
The Pixetell article has carried tags for a number of problems for several months. I have been working on a new draft, attempting to address those issues. I work for the company, but it is not my desire to use Wikipedia inappropriately as a marketing tool; I have read all relevant policies and guidelines, and have consulted with several longtime Wikipedians in the process.
I am hoping someone will review the changes, and make a new determination of whether or not the tag highlighting that an editor with a conflict of interest has worked on the article is still needed. Or if there are still problems with the article, hopefully those here will be able to fix them or offer specific feedback, so that I can make/suggest further improvements.
After some discussion with Wikipedians, I have posted this new version posted this new version. Please take a look at Talk:Pixetell for further background on the development of this new version.
Thanks for any guidance, -Dan Cook 03:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DDcook ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for your response. It means a lot to me. I am waiting for the others to have a chance to comment. One is taking a wiki break. I want to make sure the article is fully evaluated.Dan Cook 16:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
James M. Cahill ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Cahill is mayor of New Brunswick, New Jersey. In recent days a pair of anonymous editors have been removing information they regard as unfavorable from the article. The second editor replaced all the references with a link to the web site for Cahill's election campaign. Additional eyes on the article would be welcome. Dppowell ( talk) 14:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I can't support the re-addition of that material without proper in-line citations. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 14:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
167.167.96.2 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing articles about Universal Music Group artists. The most recent example was adding YouTube and Facebook links to the Tiffany Page ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. According to WHOIS results for this IP address, the edits are clearly a conflict of interest. I had already notified the IP about this last month. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Many claims are made, but no precise citations are given. Only one paper is referenced, which is "available on line". The external site seems to be a commercial venture, so this may have the appearance of COI or self-promotion. (An iterative method with that name has been studied by Arkadi Nemiroskii, etc., also; an expansion of the article might be the most constructive way of dealing with the appearance of COI.) Thanks Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 22:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Xenium88 says on my talk page that he is manager of this institute. I deleted the article as obvious copyvio, he has reinstated it saying on the talk page " this page has been submitted to permissions-en@wikimedia.org for approval of use of copyright materials ". I advised him to ask for its creation, citing COI, but he hasn't done that. I think he needs some advice and help and RL is going to keep me too busy for a while to do this adequately. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 08:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Greetings Arakunem,
Herding dogs is one of the areas of my area of expertise. Citations are required to ensure that all Wikipedia content is verifiable (and a reliable source) and not just an opinion. I could cite any number of books or articles. The book just happens to be a comprehensive study on the work and training of more than 60 different breeds.
It has numerous references to the Australian Cattle Dog as well as pictures of the breed in action. For example, page 7: "At present, Australian Cattle Dogs, Australian Shepherds, Border Collies, English Shepherds, Kelpies and McNabs are still the breeds most frequently found on farms and ranches in North American, but with fewer ranch jobs available for dogs, more herding dogs have found their way into urban and suburban homes. Page 13 includes a picture of an ACD heeling a steer with the caption: "A red Australian Cattle Dog illustrates how the breed gained the nickname "Heeler."
Here is a link to the Table of Contents: http://www.dogwise.com/Item_Inside.cfm?ID=DHE171&curImage=1
TOC 9 shows the breed is included in the breed profiles: http://www.dogwise.com/Item_Inside.cfm?ID=DHE171&curImage=11
Book Review from the Border Collie Museum: http://www.gis.net/~shepdog/BC_Museum/Permanent/Bibliography/BC_Bibliography.html
Cheers, Errata addendum ( talk) 18:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
can someone please look at Sevan Aydinian
each statement seems to be verified including links to MTV's website and what not. I believe it should be cleared of it's stamps' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Massmarkpro ( talk • contribs) 00:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I am a third-party working with the management company. Since Polly Samson now has a Web site, I added it. Then, I noticed a stack of incorrect titles. We are just seeking accuracy. No more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JABEYE ( talk • contribs) 11:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Possible freelance editor account, User:Rexjoec:
Note also spamming links to external sites. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 19:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Autobiographical article - speedy delete candidate? - for not terribly notable artist who self-identifies as the subject. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 15:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
HereMedia ( talk · contribs) was previously blocked due to violating username policy, and made edits in articles about the company and its products/services. MarkUmbach ( talk · contribs) has since been editing exclusively in Here Media Inc. related articles, and a simple Google search suggests user is affiliated with company's PR dept. Subst'ed the COI warning to the user talk, alerting admins here in case other action is needed. Thx, Wikignome0530 ( talk) 07:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Despite warning her on her talk page, Guineveretoo ( talk · contribs) continues to edit, almost exclusively in fact, on the FDA, its leaders Jonathan Baume and Elizabeth Symons and controversies regarding them and the organisation, despite being one of its employees and thus in breach of WP:COI. Haldraper ( talk) 16:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have a possible conflict of interest issue and Im wondering what other people think. I placed a link to a company site on the purple martin wiki page, and I guess it could be considered an advertisement. The way I see it, I'm providing a link to purple martin houses for anyone interested in them. But since it is a commercial website, Im wondering if i should take it down and refrain from putting any other links of the same nature. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ervatool ( talk • contribs) 12:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
User RBRBooks ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created possible COI article Independent Online Booksellers Association (IOBA) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tckma ( talk) 13:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Macdonald martin ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - working on his (auto)biography Martin MacDonald per this edit. The existing info may need to be oversighted. — Jeff G. ツ 16:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to call attention people's attention to Lauraeabbott ( talk · contribs). She is a single-purpose account editing journals published by the BMJ Group, and a "Laura Abbott" is listed as a marketing contact on their website. Her edits generally appear to be good, but I'd like it if someone else could take a look at her. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 16:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Kfredricks ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Seemingly sole author of the page Karen Fredricks, now adding links on other pages not to that page but to Amazon book references. Not clear that any of the contributions are valid under WP:EL And WP:Autobiography rules. SteveLoughran ( talk) 20:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
In April a blatantly self-promotional article on someone named David Golshan was AfDed and deleted after being deemed to be non-notable. [4] One of the proponents for keeping the article was The-alechmist (who, incidentally, had to be warned for removing the AfD notice [5]). This week, A. B. discovered something very interesting. Someone (likely David Golshan or his publicist) had placed an ad on Elance.com, soliciting bids for people to write a Wikipedia article on Golshan. [6] [7] The winning bidder, who was awarded the job (and paid $55 to write the article) was named “The-Alchemist”. I don’t know if there is a specific policy on this kind of thing, but perhaps this case will set a precedent that will establish such a policy, because I strongly believe that editors bidding to be paid to write articles about third parties for those third parties threatens to undermine the integrity of our project. How can Wikipedia be trusted to have a neutral point of view, or we be able to continue to assume good faith if editors can be paid to write articles to promote people or organizations, and not be sanctioned when they are found out? Mmyers1976 ( talk) 16:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Food safety risk analysis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article created by JennJifsan ( talk · contribs), containing a susbtantial section about JIFSAN (Joint Institute for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition). I removed this as it was a copyvio of http://www.foodrisk.org/about/index.cfm and http://www.jifsan.umd.edu/about/ and was promoting their courses, and gave the user a coi notice with a note about copyright. I reverted an attempt to re-add it and gave a copyvio warning, it's now been added again by JennChetty ( talk · contribs). Cassandra 73 ( talk) 12:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I was told above that I was feel free to take paid paid editing cases here, so here I am. The majority of this user's editing history appears to be the creation of paid editing articles from her corresponding account on freelancer.com. The paid-for articles and their corresponding freelancer pages are listed below.
Discussion continued from here
If User talk:WKTU was truly concerned about correct sources, you have to wonder why he deleted a source which says 75% here and changed it to a source which says 90%.
He has been a hampering my efforts to get FA status for Islam page and you can see our discussions here. Its almost certain he's a Sunni as you can see he is also boosting Sunni Islam proportions while deleting well sourced material. Iwanttoeditthissh ( talk) 12:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
There are many more sources that agree with the 87-90% PRC figure and if you believe this is wrong it's your duty to provide a reliable source that is more stronger than PRC and Britannica. I'm being fair like a judge here, and I personally like to insert Sunnis 85-90% but that will create conflict with the PRC source and editors will constantly try to change it or edit-war over it. These are all realistic guesses and not the precise numbers. Please don't label me as a Sunni or anything else, and don't get personal with me.-- WKTU ( talk) 13:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I am quite positive User:WKTU is a Sunni who is overrepresenting unfairly and unproportionately in favor of boosting figures for his own denomination, for example ;
Islam is undergoing article review for FA status and i'm contributing. Iwanttoeditthissh ( talk) 20:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
In what way is this a COI issue? Hundreds of millions of people (and probably a fair share of Wikipedians) are Sunnis, and belonging to a certain religious community cannot be grounds from hindering people to edit of COI grounds. By that logic Christians shouldn't be allowed to edit Christianity related articles, Jews not allowed to edit Judaism-related article, etc.. -- Soman ( talk) 21:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Also a valid name for a radio station. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3h 1337 b0y ( talk • contribs) 21:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
It appears that journalist Katy Butler (offered to compensate another user, who has exercised the right to vanish - edited by Philippe Beaudette, WMF ( talk) 17:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)) to edit Wikipedia for her. Could some folks here please keep an eye on things? The Wordsmith Communicate 19:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
PATdiane ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a an employee of Bill Moyers and she had been making mostly noncontroversial edits to the Bill Moyers article. Yesterday, she made an edit [15] which casts an opponent of Moyers, Kenneth Tomlinson, in a worse light and omits his side of the story. I reverted the edits, but Ronz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted me, ignoring the obvious conflict of interest in this situation. Please revert the edits, warn PATdiane (she has already been warned about making COI edits on her user Talk page), and require her to disclose whether she is performing such edits directly at the behest of Bill Moyers. Drrll ( talk) 14:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Besides the violation of the COI guideline against making edits of controversial material, there is a violation of the COI guidelines that states "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests." Clearly, the edits are designed to promote her own interests (Bill Moyers) in denigrating an opponent of Moyers (Kenneth Tomlinson). Drrll ( talk) 13:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Would an admin please look over this section?
Drrll (
talk)
19:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid_editing_%28policy%29
Prohibited activities...
It would appear that number three above prohibits Missylisa153 from editing. Teapot george Talk 22:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Bsanders246 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - has been vehemently pushing that press-releases and PR material from PRISM (Project Management Software) and Megafoo qualify as independent coverage. When attempts are made to show him established Wikipedia policies stating that this type of coverage does not satisfy WP:N, he gets very defensive (and in one case accused me of sock-puppetry and threatened to request a checkuser). Not sure whether we're dealing with a conflict of interest, paid editing, a difficult contributor or a combination of the three, but this should be monitored, .02 from a neutral third party would also be helpful. 2 says you, says two 04:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Middle 8 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Basically, this user is flouting our policy in attempting to whitewash the acupuncture page of any points that might cost him clientele or legitimacy in his acupuncture practice.
While it is true that professionals in a subject are not necessarily acting inappropriately according to WP:COI, unequivocally this is what is going on here with his single-purpose account campaign. His User page proudly proclaims,
People who make those accusations probably haven't read this, from WP:COI: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." So, STFU about COI.
Shall I ask for a ban of this individual from acupuncture pages? ScienceApologist ( talk) 02:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I would support such a ban. This editor is clearly here to promote acupuncture, and does have a conflict of interest. A topic ban from the area from some time would stop the immediate problems and should hopefully cause the editor to realise this isn't acceptable in future. Verbal chat 09:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The editor in question has made it clear on his personal website what his opinions are. They are decidedly slanted towards accepting acupuncture theorizing and taking at face-value the pseudoscientific claims of his "profession". If Middle 8 were a snake oil salesman deleting critical material from snake oil, that would essentially be the same thing. His protestations to the contrary are made based on some perceived protection for his chosen line of work that he just doesn't get to claim. Acupuncture is an alternative medicine field that has been heavily criticized as being based on superstition, shoddy post-hoc theorizing, and an almost complete lack of honesty within the field. We have impeccable sources to that effect, but this editor who makes his living off of doing the very things being criticized in the sourced text he continually attacks and tries to downplay. Eventually the single-purpose nature of his campaign to paint acupuncture as legitimized needs to be acknowledged and dealt with. I have no problem with him being part of the discussion, but the heavy-handed manner in which he is censoring material at acupuncture needs to be dealt with promptly. ScienceApologist ( talk) 21:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Every last one of your previous 50 contributions to talk space (do a special filter) seems to me to indicate a distinct POV-pushing mentality where you adopt a new stricture for sources, attempt to excise text which disagrees with your perspective, and generally attack any editor who dares to question your ownership of the acupuncture article. You are a hardline promoter of acupuncture which probably is good for business but is bad for Wikipedia. Your protestations that you include studies regardless of their results strikes me as disingenuous at best. Any attempt to summarize the facts regarding the pseudoscientific nature of qi and meridians is meant with outright indignation. You tend to knee-jerk revert and have yet to engage with the fundamental issues WLU and I are hashing out on the talkpage. Again, I ask, if this isn't evidence for a COI in the sense of Dana Ullman, what would be evidence? ScienceApologist ( talk) 18:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that Middle 8 doesn't think it's a problem that he derives an income from promoting himself in ways that are contradicted by a variety of sources that he impugns while keeping text based on those sources out of Wikipedia. If this isn't a conflict-of-interest, what is? The "in itself" rejoinder in the Middle 8's favorite sentence of COI seems to him to excuse his behavior in entirety. "Oh, I'm only acting in the sense of being a professional or having academic expertise," he seems to be saying. "I can't possibly have a conflict of interest with regards to critiques of my pet subject being included in Wikipedia. Oh yeah, and that's also the only thing I'm really interested in keeping an eye on here, by the way." ScienceApologist ( talk) 09:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Note - I won't be on wiki for a few days but can be reached via email if anyone needs to ask me a question. --
Middle 8 (
talk)
21:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Since this case is still open, I am adding some comments from an old page version of WP:AN that are directly germaine. They may be unnecessary, but because I want to get a fair shake, I believe they should be considered here if anyone still believes my editing has been inappropriate. (The AN case was amicably resolved between myself and ScienceApologist.) These comments are specifically about COI and, in part, whether it exists in my case.
(begin comments from WP:AN)
Clearly, the guideline says the right thing. I think the best practice is to pretend there's no conflict of interest. So rather than jumping to the personal attack of WP:COI/N, try WP:NPOV/N or WP:RS/N. Conflict of interests and ad hominen attacks are a dirty way to engage in a content dispute. It's also helpful that Middle 8's COI is relatively narrow; we have an editor who suspiciously deletes scholarly material from Western academics if it is critical to China ( Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/PCPP), which spans hundreds or even thousands of articles, yet he got a pass on the RfC/U. II | ( t - c) 06:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Dealing with suspected conflicted editors: The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to dispute resolution may help. Another option is to initiate discussion at WP:COIN, where experienced editors may be able to help you resolve the matter without recourse to publishing assertions and accusations on Wikipedia. Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban. Wikipedia places importance on both the neutrality of articles and the ability of editors to edit pseudonymously. Do not out an editor's real life identity in order to prove a conflict of interest. Wikipedia's policy against harassment prohibits this...
(end comments from old page version of WP:AN)
thanks, Middle 8 ( talk) 19:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I suggest the following as a ruling:
A conflict-of-interest may exist when a user is editing in an area in Wikipedia of significant personal interest to the user. The existence of a conflict-of-interest need not disqualify a user from discussing or editing Wikipedia content, but in conjunction with other problematic behavior can be used as evidence that the user is being inappropriately disruptive.
This should be added to COI.
Middle 8 has a potential conflict-of-interest. I think he should acknowledge this or at least acknowledge that others feel this is a strong possibility considering his chosen profession and the field itself. I'm not sure whether COI/N should exist anymore. Perhaps DE/N should exist instead.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 23:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Done
There is an interesting partnership developing with the British Museum at Wikipedia:GLAM/BM. It would be appreciated if uninvolved eyes from this page were to have a look and comment - whether to reassure us at Wikipedia_talk:GLAM/BM#COI_/_paid_editing that we are on the right lines or suggest any additional safeguards that might be needed. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Xanderliptak ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This editor appears to be using Wikipedia for self-promotion. There is a discussion at Talk:Irish people#Coat of arms where he is arguing for the inclusion of a fictional (as it bears no resemblance to any known coat of arms) image ( File:Coat of arms of the Uí Néills, Princes of Tyrone by Alexander Liptak.png). Note the image includes his name, and his easily found website (as it has his name) shows he sells images such as these. My concern is that he has no interest in producing accurate depictions of the actual coats of arms (accurate ones can be see at O'Neill dynasty#Coats of Arms) only producing highly jazzed up ones that bear little resemblance to the actual coats of arms in order to promote himself. Thank you. O Fenian ( talk) 21:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Scolaire, If you read my posts, you will notice I answered the questions already. How many times must I show the O'Neills need to have a left hand, and the City of Ulster uses a right? How is me showing my knowledge of heraldry a ill placed here? This is a heraldry question, after all. And yes, as long as the symbols and colours on the shield are set to the basic design, you can make the shield any shape you wish; in fact, that is the whole idea behind heraldry. :-O You may use a lozenge, cartouche, heater shield, horse-headed shield, buckler, Norman shield and so forth.
And why can't I have humour in this all? This is insane. O Fenian wanted people to look at O'Neill dynasty to see the expert arms there, which I made. The disputed image is also there, shown in the lead. My work has been used for almost a year on that page because no editor familiar with the O'Neills can find fault. And, somehow, O Fenian thought this expertise on three images could be used as evidence against me concerning the lead image. So his argument is something like, "See how right he is? He must be wrong." That is hilarious. :-D
Hmm, original research notice board, despite my showing you numerous sources? Interesting plan; throw any and everything at me and hope that there are enough people online at a given time that don't know about heraldry that will err on your side to be safe? I mean, eventually you will find a notice board for that purpose, right? It is statistics, just you need persistent patience to pull it off. You could always go to the appropriate WikiProject and ask those familiar on the subject. The WikiProject Heraldry, I mean, that is why is exists. For these issues. But you won't, because you are aware I am active there. Not only active, you probably see that I am knowledgeable there, and have conversations about minute details there and might actually know what I am talking about. That other editors there are as knowledgeable as me, and will know I am correct, as well. That I actually get approached to create coats of arms, and I answer requests for new creations, because I am both knowledgeable and capable. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 04:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to do with this. I stumbled across User:Mtbrown8 who has been editing Emergy and Emergy synthesis. It appears to be a conflict of interest because Mtrown8 recently completely rewrote Emergy synthesis including reference to a researcher named M. T. Brown. The userpage may be inappropriate too. Can someone else please take a look? Peacock ( talk) 13:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The user RepublicanJacobite is reverting my edits to the article. My edits are referenced from a reputable source and provide a lot more detail; clearly written, and without writing a large paragraph. Including that jazz originated from the "melting pot" of Louisiana's numerous ethnic groups living in close proximity, and not the "African American communities" of "Southern United States". Which is highly contentious and not referenced. The information I added is what is taught in universities and music colleges.
The article itself is quite prejudice, and lacks a lot of details on the other ethnic groups that created jazz. To the point, where it seems like the article is trying to remove these people from jazz history, and trying to state that jazz is a creation of "African-American" people. I added a small paragraph with two references about Papa Jack Laine, who is one of the most important figures in jazz development. As it didn't appear to even be in the article! and it provides some detail on the other ethnic groups who contributed to jazz formation. This was also removed by the same user.
RepublicanJacobite has provided no valid reason for the removal of my edits; claiming I have "muddled" it up and that it was better before. Then claiming I have not made an improvement to the article, and that "I am no position to talk". The users talk page is semi-protected, but I don't have a lot of time to sit around discussing concerns on the wikepedia. I am not sure if the "noticeboard" is the correct place to find help in resolving this matter, but it would be appreciated. As I do not believe I am in the wrong, and that removing a citation from a government sourced reference in favor of a personal statement is wrong!
I was going to report this matter to the 3RR board, however after creating a new topic, I learnt this required 4 reverts to be considered. Thus I came to this board, as it looked like the next best thing. The user recently warned me on my talk page, claiming I am edit warring, and that I should discuss the matter first because it is controversial. Even though the information I am replacing is not referenced, and that the information I am providing is almost the same, just referenced from a reputable source and in more detail. I don't see that is a valid remark given that users reasons for removal of the content, especially when I stated in the revision log that he/she should use the talk page before removing cited material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.46.229 ( talk) 02:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
DVilla21 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) only seems to edit the David Villa article and information related to that individual in other Football related articles (namely where David Villa is mentioned in FIFA and Spanish National team articles). When I tagged the David Villa article with COI, due to my concerns, the user removed it stating that they are not that individual [24]. However given the extremely limited scope of the users' edits, as well as the appearance of WP:OWN [25] in some of their edit summaries, I am having difficulty accepting Good Faith that this individual is not David Villa and does not have a COI. Given the nature of the situation, I was not sure where I should bring this up -- or even if I should bring this up somewhere. While it is entirely possible that the editor is indeed just a big fan of David Villa and only is interested in editing articles related to him, there is a very strong appearance of COI. Since WP:BLP applies in this situation, I'm even more concerned about the appearance of COI edits. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 18:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Gniniv ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user is editing numerous articles, predominantly Objections to evolution by making POV changes from the perspective of a young earth creationist. This has been going on since May. Furthermore, he is monopolizing talk pages with off-topic content related discussion which violates WP:NOTFORUM. No matter how often he's reminded of this policy, asked for sources to back up his POV claims, or asked to follow basic WP etiquette, he ignores responses without reading or understanding them and continues to make article changes and post inappropriate discussion. Talk:Objections to evolution is a good example of this behavior, noting that the majority of discussion with him on that page has already been archived, since his discussion had made the page unmanageable. Any help dealing with this matter would be appreciated. Jess talk cs 06:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Editor is - according to his own comments - the subject of the article Stuart Campbell (journalist). Editor is repeatedly trying to make disputed claims about himself in the article. [26] [27]
-- 88.105.252.76 ( talk) 18:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Johnadonovan, who according to his user page is "a long term critic of senior management of the Royal Dutch Shell Group" made two edits to the above article here and here. I reverted the edits on both occasions because I feel they fail WP:UNDUE as I do not feel the "indecent" is a Controversy.
There has been some discussion on the talk page and on my talk page about it, the upshot being that Johnadonovan feels he would like an admin to look at it.
So hence the post here.
Codf1977 (
talk)
21:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
:Replied on article talk page. Yes this is a conflict of interest, but the addition is in line with the other entries on the main page.
Netalarm
talk
23:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
It may help to set out the issues.
1. Should there be an article of this kind focusing on controversies surrounding RDS?
2. If the answer is yes, was the section I added appropriate for inclusion in the article?
3. If the answer is yes, was the content in line with Wikipedia requirements in terms of impartiality and being sourced from verifiable, independent, reputable publishers?
4. Being an openly declared critic of Shell management from the outset, should I be banned or restricted from making any contributions to Wikipedia articles relating to RDS?
The only article authored by me which was deleted after referral here, was on the grounds that it was impartial in favour of RDS. I originated the article in response to a request from another contributor for a "positives" article. I did so in good faith because I could see the merit in a counter-balancing article. The collective view was that this was inappropriate, which I accept.
If Wikipedia bans or restricts contributions from individuals who openly declare their background and abide by Wikipedia requirements, this will encourage those wishing to conceal their identities and any conflicts of interest. Is it in the public interest to know as much about the track record of companies like Shell and BP as possible, provided the information is accurate and impartial? Oil exploration is an extremely risky enterprise as has become very clear.
RDS does closely monitor at the highest level my contributions to Wikipedia articles relating to the company. I know this because I have under a Subject Access Request, obtained Shell internal documents and communications over a number of years covering the matter. Shell carefully considered if it could surreptitiously edit the information, but was concerned about being caught doing so. Wikiscanners did discover editing of the RDS related articles from Shell offices. -- Johnadonovan ( talk) 10:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I do not for one moment accept your description of "attack pages". Someone else, not me, devised the heading "Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell. If I recall correctly, it was agreed on a consensus basis. Since then, I have added content appropriate to this heading. All factually based, unbiased and supported by verifiable independent reputable sources. The weight of such content must be distressing to Shell PR, but the events and related information have been generated by Shell's actions, not by me. The content is highly informative for the public, researchers, the media and investors, providing numerous links to supporting detailed evidence.
I have not been involved in any litigation with Shell for over a decade. No litigation is pending. I am a Shell shareholder and have been so for many years. I campaign for Shell management to uphold and abide with Shell's much proclaimed ethical code, the Statement of General Business Principles. Does that make me anti-Shell? Is it proper for all individuals openly campaigning for companies or organisations to act in accordance with legal statutes and their own advertised principles to be restricted from adding content to Wikipedia when done so openly and in accordance with Wikipedia requirements mentioned above. Others less scrupulous - I am not referring to you - will continue to make contributions without declaring an interest, hiding behind an alias which allows them to be rude, blatantly biased, make false allegations and be generally unpleasant to those who are completely open. If they attract too much attention, they can simply start again under a new alias. Returning to where this started, the Tony Blair letter, I think your position is completely wrong and indefensible. You claim that the matter is not controversial. Why then did The Times and The Daily Mail newspapers both publish major articles on the subject, both supplied as verifiable evidence in the section you deleted? I think your bias is showing.
With regard to your suggestion that I should list all proposed edits on the talk page, I did exactly that on the article Royaldutchshellplc.com. They remain waiting approval nearly a year later. There is a conflict of interest in respect of that article because it is about our website and my father and me. The Royal Dutch Shell articles are not about us or our website and I should have as much right as anyone else to edit providing I do so within Wikipedia rules. Please point out any example of my editing on the article in question, which displayed an anti-Shell bias on my part?-- Johnadonovan ( talk) 22:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I have not commented on the "Tony Blair/Shell/Gaddafi" section as my issue has always been that it was not a controversy, I have asked you to to provide sources indicating it is, and none have been forth coming.
You mention "If I ever have cause to add information to an RDS article in which my website or my father and I are involved in any way, then I will post it on the discussion page and seek review on the draft" well I would contend that this is the case here, you have written about this on your website and as such you should follow the COI procedure and list it on the talk page before publishing it, you will also notice that Netalarm said on the talk page "Regarding the new addition, I think it would require more discussion among editors to establish a consensus as to whether it is added or not" so that should make it clear that at the moment there is NO consensus for it to be added. No amount of words from you can hide your conflict of interest in relation to Shell and you should understand that and follow the advice offered on the WP:COI page and use {{ Request edit}} template wherever you wish to edit on matters relating to Shell. Codf1977 ( talk) 13:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The Huffington Post 26 June 2010: BP, Gadhafi, and Britain's Oil Comeuppance
REUTERS 27 April 2010: SHELL DICTATED BLAIR'S LETTER TO GADDAFI
The Observer 30 August 2009: " Revealed: how Shell won the fight for Libyan gas and oil"
The Times: 25 March, 2004: " Gaddafi welcomes Blair with handshake"
BBC News 25 March 2004: " Blair hails new Libyan relations"
Daily Mail 05 June 2010: " Tony Blair our very special adviser by dictator Gaddafi's son" 44 comments.
Kuwait Observer 27 April 2010: " Blair lobbies Gaddafi for Shell"
theage.com.au: Reuters report 26 March 2004: Blair, Gaddafi make history
London Evening Standard 28 August 2009: Tories renew attack on PM for ‘secret Libya deal’
Daily Mail 20 August 2009: " Blair, 'blood money' and a Lockerbie deal: Talks with Gaddafi hours before BP agreement"; 118 Comments.
The Sun 29 August 2009: Gaddafi: Prisoner deal was for oil
Daily Telegraph 30 May 2007: " Blair, Gaddafi and the BP oil deal"
There are many more articles. Surely they are not needed to prove beyond doubt the controversy surrounding this matter? -- Johnadonovan ( talk) 18:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I think I have done as much as I can to help on this despite the attacks on me by Johnadonovan, it is now over to other editiors to help please visit the Talk page. I know this is not an easy one to deal with. Codf1977 ( talk) 09:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Movieworld ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User Movieworld is a SPA that edits virtually nothing except articles, lists and templates dealing with Universal Studios, its movies and theme parks. User seems to be an agent of the company tasked with promoting its properties on Wikipedia. CliffC ( talk) 12:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
This article was driver-by tagged with {{ coi}} in April and no other action has been taken. Being a member of the research lab itself, I'm very cautious to take any action on the matter. Could someone review the article's content to see if the tag should be removed or changes should be made? -- EpochFail( talk| work) 20:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Autobio. I'm out of touch with regards to how we deal with these; could someone please look into it? J Milburn ( talk) 20:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
A Wellington politician who is running for mayor. The page is being edited by a User:Celia WB. Have given her a COI warning. Mattlore ( talk) 06:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
NTScun ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user has only created or made several edits to articles related to the Nisa-Today's group. The user name may be an abbreviation of Nisa-Today's Scunthorpe which indicates a possible COI. The user has been warned on their talk page about possible COI WhaleyTim ( talk) 12:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
It appears to me that Leastway ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is trying to push away a good amount of info at Qtrax ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and replacing it with typical corporate talk. The original try was [28] and at the same time created Qtrax Midem 2008 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (note the 'we' in one of the edits), which I PRODed shortly after creation, but after the Qtrax article was reverted by User:Agadant. The article was changed again by Leastway which I reverted, then almost the same thing was done by assumed sockpuppet Ccyypp ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which I also reverted. Not wanting to get into 3rr, I dropped a note on the talk page [29], and now Leastway changed the Qtrax article again. I apologize if this should probably be on some other board, but it seems to be a COI so I added it here. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 18:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Officiallyconnected ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Appears to be "connected" (sorry!) to Connected Boy Band. Directed here from WP:UAA. TFOWR 16:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
ScottSherrinFoundation ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - this editor has serious ownership issues and blatantly told another user that the edits they made to Scott Sherrin were in fact illegal and to stop editing the article. ArcAngel (talk) ) 22:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Regatta dog ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Regatta dog is an SPA who edits the Reid Stowe article. He contributed to a tabloid article via interview and was named as a source by journalist Adam Nichols in his article. [30] Soon after, Nichols published a related article which included unmistakable material that had been published 9 days earlier by Regatta dog on his blog. [31] (The blog is blacklisted - unable to link) Regatta dog then inserted material from both tabloid articles into the Wikipedia Reid Stowe article [32] [ [33]] and repeatedly inserted links to those articles and material from them into the discussion pages [ [34]] [ [35]] [ [36]] [ [37]] [ [38]] stating that he hopes readers will "trip over this Wiki discussion page" [ [39]] Other problems include edit waring. The article is now locked as a result. -- Zanthorp ( talk) 16:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see the article discussion page [ [40]] for more detail. -- Zanthorp ( talk) 17:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The disruption from this single purpose editors has been endless, please see his edit history. Multiple discussions have resulted in the rejection of child benefit non payment claim and a drug conviction from over ten years ago. This editor has been involved in the propagation of these claims at other locations of wiki and has also been involved in interviews that he has attempted to insert into the article, constant disruption of a BLP and when the article is locked as a result of the edit pattern then the disruption moves terminally to the talkpage. I would request some kind of resolution and end this disruption, please look at the users edit history which alone imo rings all the bells needed. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I have already discussed the direct personal connections between Regatta Dog and the sources he has tried to insert into the Reid Stowe article: please see Talk Pages at [41] and at [42].
Regatta Dog uses the same handle wherever he posts on the internet, which is not a secret. The following posts show his strong bias against Reid Stowe.
Postings of Regatta Dog:
1.
[43]
Cruisers Forum
2.
[44]
Sailing Anarchy Forum (starting in Oct. 2008)
3.
[45]
Weekend America (Oct. 25, 2008; Comments Section)
4. ...1000daysreality.blogspot.com
Reid Stowe and 1000 Days at Sea - Reality Check (blog run by Regatta Dog)
5. ...1000daysofhell.blogspot.com
1000 Days of Hell website (blog run by Regatta Dog; parody of Reid Stowe)
A recent article by Charles Doane of "Sail" magazine includes a telling portrait of this self-avowed critic of Reid Stowe, namely Regatta Dog, not to be confused with a different alias on Sailing Anarchy by the name of "regattadog"... COMPREHENDING REID STOWE: Crucified on the Internet
Regatta Dog has shown clear intent to harm the reputation of Reid Stowe, spreading falsehoods and defamatory remarks about Reid Stowe, using tainted sources as references in Wikipedia. He has a clear Conflict of Interest. Skol fir ( talk) 19:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
No, Zanthrop, they are not citing themselves unless they cite themselves. I appreciate your using the term (in effect). You have negated your own claim. There is no clear conflict of interest.
Very telling that in the Doane article cited above, the reporter unequivocally confirms the claims about the subject of the article's drug conviction and back child support with the word - "True".
I am very tired of unsubstantiated claims about me. I would like you to cite, specifically, anywhere where I have spread a single falsehood about Reid Stowe or made defamatory remarks. On the contrary, I have been an advocate for the truth about the subject and have put to rest many unsubstantiated rumors. When you respond please keep to the true definition of "defamatory" and not drag in opinions I may have posted - they are hugely different. I eagerly await either the proof to back up your statements or your apology for making completely unfounded accusations about another Wiki editor. This is outrageous and insulting.
The Doane article vindicates me and confirms what I have presented as facts. I'd be interested to know what handles the other editors here use when they post on line about Reid Stowe. Regatta dog ( talk) 11:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
We editors here at Wikipedia do not appreciate editors who are closely associated with the subject of an article editing said article. The COI rules are very clear on that. Simply claiming no association, while at the same time sharing intimate knowledge of the subject of the BLP and a blatant bias towards him, is the kind of COI that the COI rules were written for. Please re-read the COI section again, tone down the rhetoric, and avoid any attempts to edit this article in a a non-neutral way. Your COI will be noted again in your attempts to aggrandize the subject of this BLP.
Regatta dog (
talk)
03:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Again, Zanthrop, you failed to address the key issues here, which I asked for above and will repeat here -- I would like you to cite, specifically, anywhere where I have spread a single falsehood about Reid Stowe or made defamatory remarks. On the contrary, I have been an advocate for the truth about the subject and have put to rest many unsubstantiated rumors. When you respond please keep to the true definition of "defamatory" and not drag in opinions I may have posted - they are hugely different. I eagerly await either the proof to back up your statements or your apology for making completely unfounded accusations about another Wiki editor.
You've had 10 days since the original request. If you are going to make accusations, please be prepared to back them up with cites/references. Otherwise, you are making "defamatory statements" about another editor. Regatta dog ( talk) 00:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Are there administrators that look and opine on reports here? If there are could one have a look at this report and please comment. Off2riorob ( talk) 00:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Skol fir. As has been shown here and elsewhere on the internet, I never try to cover my tracks. I simply forgot to enter my signature above. Your trying to make that oversight some kind of conspiracy is humorous. I repeat once again - your claims I have made defamatory and false statements is not supported anywhere. A couple of editors, who appear to be very close to the subject of the BLP and who don't appreciate an editor trying to add balance to the article, have tossed out unsubstantiated claims about another editor. I will ask you again for specific examples where I have made defamatory comments or false statements. Specifics please. Why is that such a difficult task? Perhaps it is because defamatory statements and falsehoods are non-existent. I'm still waiting for specific examples to back up your claims. Regatta dog ( talk) 12:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Green Cardamom - I have my suspicions, but sticking to my philosophy not to make accusations without proof, I won't go there. I invite you to read all the discussion pages - including those archived. There are some telling signs to be found there. Besides, this is about a COI accusation against me.
I find it telling that after more than 10 days, Skol Fir is unable to provide evidence to back up his claim that I have made defamatory comments or false statements, the basis of his COI challenge. The same editor who cries "defamation" against Reid Stowe whenever well sourced drug or child support claims are raised, appears to be very comfortable defaming another editor. What could possibly be the motivation for such hypocrisy? Regatta dog ( talk) 12:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I am so tired of this user Regatta dog attacking of the living person Reid Stowe, have a look at his edit history, all this single purpose account has done at wikipedia is add anything negative he can find about the subject. He is at the same thing at other locations on thew web as well, his severe dilike of the subject is tenable , he is riddled with COI. Constant and continuous circular pushing his dislike. Repeatedly trying to insert links to interviews in which he is interviewed and attempting to insert his attack blog. Off2riorob ( talk) 14:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Conflict of interest in point of view disputes
Another case can arise in disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration. Regatta dog ( talk) 21:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
For the first time, I actually went through Skol Fir's links of evidence. This one, if you have the patience to read through, is quite telling of my supposed COI --
Weekend America. I will let other readers here make their own decision if Skol Fir is involved in the comments under a different name. PLEASE pay attention to what I wrote and let me know if I was libelous, defamed Reid Stowe in any way, or put forth any falsehoods.
This is almost comical. A bunch of "neutral" editors call me on COI and can't back up their accusations. Should Wikipedia allow proponents of the subject to hijacking an article? I don't think so.
BTW - I would be more than happy to out myself with a truly neutral editor and lay on the line who I am, if Skol Fir and Zanthrop would be willing to do the same. Take up the challenge? I don't think it will happen.
Still waiting on evidence of accusations about me. Regatta dog ( talk) 01:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Skol Fir - You have spent a lot of time typing, but no time whatever backing up your claims that I "have made defamatory comments or false statements" (and now add to the mix "libelous") about the subject of the article. Please, Skol Fir - evidence in the form of links where I was the source of "original" documents. Not court documents, mind you, but original documents created by me. The only "original" documents I have seen in the article come from the subject's own web site. The most egregious of these that you argue endlessly for is called a "Fact Sheet", which you assert is a reliable source. At the same time you claim the New York Daily News is not credible? If you do not know the subject of the article, I suggest you call his PR firm. They will probably compensate you for your efforts on their behalf. Regatta dog ( talk) 01:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Per your points above -
1) "Smuggling" was sourced to Gothamist and, more recently, can also be sourced to Charles Doane. The "served only 9 mos for conspiracy to import marijuana" has not been covered by any reputable source, to my knowledge. "Importing" illegal substances into the United States is smuggling, so I think Gothamist and Doane got it right.
2) "Deadbeat Dad" was sourced to the NY Daily News. It is also a generally accepted term for a parent who does not meet his/her child support obligation. I invite you to type the term into the Wiki search box and hit enter, or simply visit an article devoted to the subject/term here - Deadbeat Parent. You will note that on the blog you reference, once his back child support had been satisfied, that was duly and promptly noted. Whether the courts did or did not use that label is irrelevant. Can you source your claims that no tax payers were footing the bill for child support, that he didn't pay because he wasn't able to raise the money and that no one suffered as a result? You are either making assumptions or know more about this than is available in the press.
- "The amount of child support varies considerably both from state to state and from case to case. Some of the factors considered when deciding how much the supporting parent will pay include:
- * How much the parent with custody makes, has, and needs
- * How much the parent without custody can afford to pay
- * The children’s educational, health, and other needs
- * What the children’s standard of living was before the divorce
- The law takes child support payments seriously. If a parent fails to pay court-ordered child support, several different enforcement acts can be used to compel him or her to pay. In cases where the owing parent refuses to pay, he or she may face time in jail.
- Child support must be paid until one of the following conditions is met:
- * The child reaches the age of 18 or 21 (depending on the state)
- * The child is legally emancipated
- * The child goes on active military duty
- Support may be required longer if the child is in college or if he or she has special needs."
No one in the press has denied the age of his daughter at the time of his departure. Bakc "child support" is back child support. If it is owed when a child reaches the age a majority, the amount owed does not simply become "back adult support". I would agree that since the age of majority no additional money's would have been owed, but the outstanding debt is not simply erased. I have no idea what the specifics of the situation are here with regard to when the back support accumulated, what the father's financial situation was, or if the state might have been involved to collect public assistance that might have been extended to his daughter when he failed to pay, which is sometimes the case. Unlike a number of editors here, I'm not willing to speculate and simply dismiss the issue based on speculation that is not adequately sourced.
I repeat my concern with your personal slights. They have no place here. Regatta dog ( talk) 14:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
3) I never claimed anywhere that he was caught dumping anything into the river.
So again, I ask you, where have I made any false accusations? Please?
I agree that original research has no place here at Wiki, which is why I have avoided the use of it. I would argue that citing the subject of the article's own web site and "Fact Sheet" are citing original research. Unfortunately, a number of editors don't agree with my assessment.
Your out of hand accusations are very troubling. Regatta dog ( talk) 16:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Skol Fir for the specifics above and your apparent attempt to exonerate me from the accusations you yourself made about me.
Importing marijuana is drug smuggling, is it not? Whatever reliable sources call it is beyond my control. I believe this "falsehood" originated when Reid was arrested, plead guilty, was convicted and served time. Regatta dog ( talk) 22:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Proof of that Skol Fir? The NYDN writer interviewed an official representative of the NY agency responsible for collecting overdue support, not me. Regatta dog ( talk) 22:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The cardinal rule when accusing people of something like lying and defamation is to be able to cite specific examples, which you have yet to do. Regatta dog ( talk) 14:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
You have yet to identify a single defamatory statement or lie. Further personal insults directed against me? I'm not surprised. 76.24.226.181 ( talk) 20:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I can say what I said because I clearly prefaced it with an assumption. It is not as if I claimed Reid Stowe turned 180 degrees off of Cape Horn. That would have been a stretch. Regatta dog ( talk) 22:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
How many attempts have you made now to justify your outrageous claims against me? You still haven't shown that I defamed or lied about the subject. Regatta dog ( talk) 22:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I guess you buy into the concept that if you repeat a lie often enough, people accept it as truth. Keep lying about me, Skol Fir. Thank goodness you can't erase your ramblings here. You mentioned earlier on the Reid Stowe talk page that 4 out of 6 editors don't want any mention of his drug conviction/child support. I invite you to read up on Wiki rules. 1/3 is not a "tiny minority". Coverage in the mainstream press, including links on the subject's own website, call in to play his past transgressions. They deserve a mention. Maybe not their own section, but definitely a mention -- in a neutral way. Your wording above is acceptable using the phrase "importing marijuana" instead of "smuggling" is good by me. I also have no problem with "owed back child support" with the amount owed upon his departure instead of "deadbeat dad". Are we in agreement on the terminology? Seems like a pretty good compromise to me. Regatta dog ( talk) 02:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Off2riorob and I are in full agreement here. I'd also like to see Skol Fir admonished for personal attacks and making false accusations. I disagree that I am involved in a negative portrayal of a BLP. I have challenged proposed edits based on facts available through reliable sources, challenged the reliability of some sources (blogs and the users own self promotional website), pointed out major inconsistencies and introduced information that would be of interest to wiki readers. I have relied on credible sources. I am simply trying to balance to article. Regatta dog ( talk) 14:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I would argue that the attempt of editors who appear to blindly support the subject of the article and turn the article into a promotional billboard is also unending. The credibility of Wiki suffers in the absence of balance. So refusing to toe the "Stowe is the greatest" line is disruptive? Regatta dog ( talk) 15:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for agreeing with me in part, though I'm not sure if the "yes" is referring to the problem with blind support, the wiki credibility issue or both. I have not tried to keep anything positive out of the article if it was presented in a neutral manner, was non-promotional and could be backed up by reliable sources. The same can not be said about the information which you and others consider "negative" but which meets the criteria above. I have no dislike of the subject, having never met him. My crusade is a crusade for truth and balance and the only personal conflict I have with the subject and article is the conflict between what people are trying to portray him and is mission and reality -- on and off Wikipedia. Regatta dog ( talk) 17:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
A person's right to privacy is not a valid argument, when a guy thrives on POSITIVE media attention as Stowe has done and continues to do. The subject's "dignity" is in his own hands and words.
Much like the debate here - "Stowe positive" is the rule, dictated by a couple editors and how dare anyone challenge him as "hero adventurer". IMO, when a person seeks the spotlight for 20 years promoting his own ambitions and tries to solicit funds so that he can take a scientific journey of a "Mars Analogous" bent, and then, after receiving donor money based on the premise of "scientific research" changes his mind (because the media doesn't care [see link above]) turns the research voyage into a "love voyage". It's kind of like happily paying your tax dollars for NASA for a Mars mission, only to find out you were actually buying group hugs for some folks in Ecuador. Not a bad thing, but not what one signed up for.
Your insinuation that I am "secretly fond of him" is so out of control and scary; and shows your own lack of impartiality. Quite frankly, it is sick, in a reverse-Freudian kind of way. That you would try to intimidate me through psychology, because you appear to lack skills in Aristotelian logic....or any other form of logic, is telling. I've suffered that accusation on blogs from people similar to you, but it has no room here on Wikipedia -- Unless we want to quote Reid Stowe in an interview where he says about people of my ilk -
My Mom might have a problem with that. Don't buy the subject's line and he's going to toss me and my parents under the bus? This is your guy, Skol Fir, Off2riorob, and Zanthrop. What does this guy know about children? Well here you go 22:15 into this video--
Let's put that in the article. Then we'll debate whether the child support is an issue. Who's up for that?
Jealous of his personal freedom? No way. I'm very happy spending time with my kids, my friends and sailing... with the sails up.
BTW - What is up with this comment about me? -- "you are secretly fond of him and jealous of his personal freedom"
COI? Please, someone rescue me from this guy. That's just some very, very scary stuff. Regatta dog ( talk) 05:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I still insist that the best approach is to concentrate on what rules have been broken by insertion of defamatory statements (with very little supporting sources besides "own research" and a newspaper article that has conflict-of-interest written all over it). Furthermore, these harmful statements are irrelevant to the biography, besides amounting to an invasion of privacy, as they are of no concern to the public, i.e., the readers of Wikipedia. I will familiarize myself with the procedure for submitting a request for mediation, and go that route.
- Skol fir ( talk) 16:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Arakunem - I appreciate you taking the time and effort to review the material and for helping point us in the right direction. I also support moving discussion of these content issues to a forum where they can be discussed rationally without ad hominem attacks. I am not familiar with RFC. Can you please provide a link? Any additional guidance would also be appreciated. Thanks again. Regatta dog ( talk) 19:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
76.89.233.174 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Has been editing the article to conform to his own POV and removing cited material, and it's clear that he's either the singer of the band or connected with the band and is editing for him.
Here is a screencap of his Facebook profile where he asks if anybody is a moderator on Wikipedia. This proves that he's either editing the article himself or is having somebody edit it for him. http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a389/dieglamourous/coiproof.jpg rzrscm ( talk) 03:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
User identifies himself as director Adam Green in his first edit summary. His entire contribution history is exclusively repeatedly conflict-of-interest violations. What brought this to my attention was watching Spiral, checking out the film's article, and noticing that the critical reception section sounded like advertising copy. A quick Google search revealed that the copy was pulled from Green's own website, and further investigation revealed that Green replaced the previously standardized NPOV section with the advertising copy. Nearly all of his contributions are in need of reversal, but I have no desire to get into an edit war with this user without pre-emptive administrator assistance. Although the whole contribution history as a package needs reversion, other particularly egregious COI edits of note that stood out to me during a quick review include this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. Shame that he's pulling this kind of stunt, since I actually liked the film. Also, since Ariescope is the name of his company, I also gave WP:UAA a heads-up. Finally, if anyone wants to add the affected articles to their watchlist, I'd appreciate having another pair of eyes on the situation -- since life has been exceptionally crazy for me lately and holds the potential of getting crazier over the weeks to come, if he tries this again under a new account, I may not catch it. WCityMike 03:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
This article already has been known for conflicts of interests issues. This is typical editing (removing all the controversies section), but two new editors concern me. First, there's User:Hookahsmoker who remove one controversy in favor of a list of current Senate committee and keeps a cleaner version for his user page. Second, you have User:Salerachel who's first edits were quite sophisticated inclusion of Lee's "legislative accomplishments" and then edit Hookahsmoker's user page here. Seems like the attempts at discussion last year weren't effective. I'm close to blocking both editors and locking the article up for a long time but other suggestions would be appreciated. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Recent page creation of semi-notable rapper by User_talk:Lemusique who states in their original edit summary that they are a PR person for the subject. [46]. Left a warning on their talk page, but continues to edit. Falcon8765 ( talk) 23:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Peter von Puttkamer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--I have reason to believe that the creator of this page, User:Ssmediaco, is the company who designed the website for Puttkamer's production company, and that much of the information in the article was taken directly from the website--see that "About Us" section. The user has already been banned for advertising, and I wonder if this page qualifies as well. I also notice SSMediaCo is also the only editor to contribute any actual content to the page--all the other edits were copyediting, etc. Should this page be deleted? Aristophanes68 ( talk) 17:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Physfac ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This editor submitted this article to the AFC team but it reads like an advertisement (and so it was declined for that reason). I thought about reporting the editor to the UAA board, but decided this might be the better place for it. I have also placed the {{uw-coi}} notice on their talk page. ArcAngel (talk) ) 21:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I hope I am formatting this correctly, please forgive me if not. Annie Lobert is an article authored primarily by an editor named Cindamuse who currently identifies herself as Cindy Crawford Nelson on her user page, where she also provides a link to her Facebook page. There have been issues concerning the neutrality of these articles; much of the text appearing in them is used as copy at the Hookers For Jesus website, which is primarily a fundraising tool for Annie Lobert's organization.
Cindamuse has presented herself as a disinterested party, but in January of this year she made a Facebook posting announcing the publication of the Hookers For Jesus Annual Report, and soliciting donations. I have posted an image of this Facebook posting on the Hookers For Jesus Talk page.
There seems to be more than one party attempting to game the system and use the Wiki to support fundraising efforts for their "good cause." Unfortunately, the COI is quite clear. Folks are circling the wagons, though, ans some experienced hands are needed to manage this issue. Thanks in Advance Bustter ( talk) 23:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I really could use some help on this, I am being attacked by others because I found the evidence of COI -- I can't deal with it. I will leave them to their use of Wikipedia to draw donations for Jesus, but if anyone else cares, please look into this. Bustter ( talk)
Nicholas Pandolfi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs to be looked at.
Thundergusty ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims with this edit summary [47] to be the person that the article is about. Especially questionable is line of praise that keeps being added to the references section. It has several problems including POV, sourcing and notablity. If those of you who oversee these things find the article and editor to be okay then that is okay with me, I just thought it should be checked out. Thank you for taking the time to double check this. MarnetteD | Talk 14:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Charlotte Bunch had an autobiography and COI tag placed on a couple years ago. User 732 has come along and removed them [48]. In researching the history, it is not entirely clear while why the tags were there to begin with... so I let them stay down for now.
Anyway, the article is very promotional, user732 and IPs have been aggressively editing it with praise. It has been cleaned up a bit. Another flag is that IP 204.52.215.7 has also recently done some aggressive editing, and a quick whois search shows it is coming from Rutgers University - where Ms. Bunch currently teaches. The related Center for Women's Global Leadership has also updated by both editors as well.
Thank you for your time. -- Omarcheeseboro ( talk) 16:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
173.162.192.81 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) and
Ford.joe.j (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) seem to be two SPAs intent on adding the same links to HR related articles, and to two three new articles that looks like neologisms, two of which are identical.--
JohnBlackburne
words
deeds
19:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
urusHyby ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be connected with and is promoting Wialon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), not only through text in the article itself, but also by inserting screenshots from this product in GPS-related articles. The COI notice on his talk page has not been heeded. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 09:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I have had numerous links to recipes that I added deleted by another editor that I feel were incorrectly deleted. Their stated reason for the deletion was that the links violated the COI policy, as the links were to a blog posting of a recipe. Links to non-commercial sites from a cuisine page does nothing but enhance the article, and I wanted to know the feeling of others when it comes to adding non-copyrighted, non-commercial links directly going to recipes relevant to the article. There are MANY other cuisine related articles that are linked to "personal" websites, and they also do not appear to be either commercial or causing any conflict of interest. Aktormedic ( talk) 21:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Am I allowed then to link from Wikibooks without violating anything? Can I cite my own blog as a source for the recipe? My biggest gripe with all of this is the fact that most of the cuisine articles have links to commercial sites or bogs that are no more or less relevant than my own, but their links remain. Inconsistency drives me crazy. Aktormedic ( talk) 22:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know whether this is the right place to bring this, but I'm concerned about several recent edits made to the above article concerning an ongoing legal case against the subject. It was brought to my attention with this posting. I was not aware of the individual at the time, so had not edited the page. Referenced information has been removed several times by the same ip, with virtually all edits from the ip concerning this issue. Not sure what the correct procedure with this should be but after reading the guidelines I thought I should open a discussion here to gauge the opinion of other editors. Cheers TheRetroGuy ( talk) 21:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Ooyala ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Last revision of 373485274
This page reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia. There are no references. The page describes the company and product with numerous superlatives, but there is no evidence listed to support its claims.
The page was created and subsequently edited several times since by the same user, "parghandi." The user appears to have a conflict of interest. It would take significant work to achieve neutrality, so the page should be rewritten or removed. Tjbron ( talk) 23:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
(Re-added this section on behalf of Tjbron who inadvertently blanked the rest of the page) Arakunem Talk 23:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Editor's only edits have been to an article about a film produced by the same fellow who would later produce the TV show The Life and Times of Grizzly Adams. Given a COI warning. -- Orange Mike | Talk 18:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
What are the chances of two brand new users turning up just after an apparent role account is blocked, and working on exactly the same article - at more than one title? It's things like this that make me the cynic I am. Guy ( Help!) 14:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Andrew Jones (politician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - three successive edits on 22 July by an unregistered user at 194.60.38.198 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), which turns out to be from within the Houses of Parliament. The additions read like an advert, so I have tagged the article with {{ neutrality}} and {{ coi}}. It may be appropriate to revert these additions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)