![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
User continues to replace article with his personal biography, which focuses on his businesses (which are not notable) rather than his professional racing career (which is notable). Also consistently removes facts about his racing career that could be viewed negatively (such as failing to complete rookie orientation for the Indy 500 twice). Then created another article Scott A. Mayer (now redirected) with his content. Drdisque ( talk) 17:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
User adding material referenced to works by "Ronald Grisanti". I have not reverted any of it because as a layman it's hard to know what is an accepted medical field and what is not. An external link to a related Quackwatch article was deleted in February.
Article was tagged COI on March 2; user was warned for COI on March 3. User has identified himself at EAR here, stating "I am medical director for Functional Medicine University." I just now removed external links to 'Functional Medicine University' and an apparently similar organization, 'Institute for Functional Medicine', that didn't seem to add anything to the article. The article history shows a struggle for dominance between promoters of the two institutions. -- CliffC ( talk) 19:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
This long biography appears to be a self-promotional piece written and maintained by a WP:SPA named User:Asterysk, and there is good reason to believe this editor is the subject of the article. Contains over 40 (!) external links, not including at least a dozen interspersed in the body of the article. About half the sourcing seems subpar. List of recent lectures and talks. Numerous unsourced assertions. While Dr. De Brouwer may merit a biography, I propose we remove any materials not properly sourced. Jokestress ( talk) 17:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
There has been a lengthy series of text blanking from user in question. Issue was widely discussed in BLPN, and issue had been previously resolved until recent round of deletion. User claims to be related to article subject. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 12:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
User appears to be conducting a promotional campaign for Gold's products, and continues to do so after a COI warning. Guyonthesubway ( talk) 15:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Article created by owner of business; edits suggest a primarily promotional agenda. 99.170.155.202 ( talk) 00:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
The PeopleBrowsr article, and others on related topics, seem to be largely the work of a small group of contributors who post nothing but PeopleBrowsr-related articles, or material promoting PeopleBrowsr in other articles. This makes me suspect that some or all of these editors are sock puppets, or are employed by or otherwise have an interest in PeopleBrowsr. All relevant articles ought to be double-checked for promotional language, neutrality, and to ensure the sources are indeed reliable and establish notability. I regret I don't have the time to do all this now, but am posting this message here in hopes that someone else can.
Some of the relevant articles:
Here are some of the editors in question:
— Psychonaut ( talk) 17:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if I filed out that form wrong, but I never have filed this out before!
NPOV, COI, violations of WP:Good Faith, abusive language, for NXIVM, Keith Raniere
I think we have a serious problem on our hands. We seem to have a group of people who believe that NXIVM is a cult and are willing to do everything to make it so that the entire page reads that way. On the other hand, we have a group of people who want people to be able to understand what NXIVM is on its own terms, much the same way that they understand the Church of Latter-Day Saints, Scientology, or the Catholic faith. If Wikipedia is about educating people, which it is, this seems obvious.
The first group's edits are almost exclusively about NXIVM, Keith Raniere, and the Bronfmans. This is because they have been directed to participate on Wikipedia by a blog post on a website Saratoga in Decline, which has an obsessive focus on NXIVM and is run by a Mr. John Tighe, who has posted repeatedly, who doesn't want consensus, just to attack NXIVM and anyone wanting to edit it fairly. You can read his two posts about the "Wiki wars" here and here. [1] The author of that website it would seem is John Tighe, the blogger who created an attack site and is to some degree boasting about his edits: http://saratogaindecline.blogspot.com/ His website is on a server in Russia so the edits happen in that time zone. I recommend banning him from the NXVIM, Raniere and Bronfman pages.
Tighe has since all but admitted that he is maintaining two usernames. I recommend filing a CheckUser request on those two usernames. I would be that they are the same person. Redacted per WP:OUTING. -- Atama 頭 19:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC) JamesChambers666 ( talk) 18:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I believe James has no interest in the truth and I believe is is a paid NXIVM employee clearly a conflict of interest. He only hopes to attack Mr.Tighe,a person who runs a critical blog about NXIVM but also allows NXIVM to answer unedited on his blog.He also signs his blog and takes full responsibility for what is written there by him. Hardy the behavior of an “attack” blog. Hopefully Wiki will return to being the largest collection of knowledge in the world and not a sugar coated revisionist history and advertising and recruitment tool for a organization that 6 publications some international have labeled a cult. Just like the edit james made about an Bouchey "extortion letter" that he postet as neutral, which as never let to any criminal indictment I stand behind every edit I have made. I hope he does the same. Link1914 ( talk)
I quote,
Well the edits were flying as over a hundred edits were entered in the Wiki-Keith Raniere self-promoting bullshit wars. Complaint after complaint was filed over every claim the dirty one ever made. A special fight erupted over the famous “I’ve had people killed tape” For now the page stands as it is till until June 8, 2011. The augment is being adjudicated by wiki administrators. Remember you can join the fray and Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
Please file a CheckUser request and ask them to stop engaging in meatpuppery and canvassing. Moreover, I revealed no personal information that wasn't readily accessible from that blogger's own about me page... His personal information is available for the world to see. Please investigate for yourself. [3]-- JamesChambers666 ( talk) 22:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Well James I see you are still obsessing and attracting Mr.tighe me and a blog. First I will not confirm or deney who I am I take my name Keyser Sözetigho from the movie the Usual suspects. I had quite a bit of difficulty in getting Keyser Söze as it appears to be a popular moniker. The usual suspects is my favorite movie and I am a fan of the blog Saratogaindecline. Maybe I took some NXIVM classes and want my money back. Maybe my 18 year old sister joined this cult or one like i. Maybe I’m related to 35-year-old Kristin Snyder the environmentalist who vanished from an Alaska hotel after taking NXIVM classes. Her body was never found. But you seem to think I’m posting from “Russian servers” Perhaps with your keen investigative skills you should be in law enforcement I see you chose the numbers 666 in your name. I believe that is the number of the beast. Did I accuse you of being a beast? Instead of obsessing over my identity why don’t you concentrate on my edits? I’m sure you don’t like them but each one is referenced to a publication and not cult recurring material. I find the unsubstantiated claims of Mr.Ranier to be the smartest, fastest and also good at judo absurd. Wiki administrators are well aware that I and link 1914 are at different locations using different computers but you complain away. I guess next you will claim I’m using a proxy. Wiki isn’t about you promoting NXIVM but about fair neutral information. I am thinking of starting some wiki pages of my own. 1. On the disappearance of Kristin Snyder 2. The highly controversial visit of the NXIVM sponsored trip of the Dali Lama to Albany You will of course be able to enter your own edits if they need wiki NPOV standards Keyser Sözetigho ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC).
I read that comment and he didn't tell people what to wrire just that they can Keyser Sözetigho ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC).
This is funny, I choose 1914 as it was widely predicted to be the year the world would end. I thought it apropos a as a Christian cult predicted this year. Little did I know that number would link me to a conspiracy involving :Russians” Good thing I didn’t choose 1917,that would make me a Bolshevik or heaven forbid 2001 that would make a terrorist. Link1914 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC).
"isn’t about you promoting NXIVM but about fair neutral information" What part of that don't you understand. Cutting and posting material from NXIVM produced propaganda is far from neutral.All I am doing is presenting a balanced view. So if NXIVM is a cult that is my belief others can decide whatever they want. But this is not a promotional website for NXIVM Link1914 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC).
I believe it was in bad faith for you James to heavily edit the article on NXIVM and then agree to and support a no editing agreement. This is typical NXIVM behavior. Link1914 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC).
Comment: Just as a heads-up to all involved in this discussion, it was confirmed that Link1914 == Keyser Sözetigho. I've blocked Link as a sockpuppet but have left Keyser Sözetigho alone as he is involved in this discussion. If you have any questions about this, please feel free to ask me. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
So as any employee of NXIVM knows critics only post from public portals. So link and Soze shared a portal that doesn't discredit any thing they edited. One only has to seach NXIVN in google to find a host of derogatory and outright scary stories about NXIVM. All anyone ever sought is fairness and balance and not a public relations piece on an organization that many,many respected people beieve is a cult. I don't suspect this controversy will go away anytime soon NXIVMwatch ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC).
Note that a researcher, a proponent of his own theories of "Tired Light" which are not published in mainstream literature is trying to insert his ideas at tired light. All the IP addresses resolving to Tampa and Clearwater are his. I have cross-posted this notice to WP:FTN where they can help evaluate the fact that this is a tiny minority idea that receives no notice in the relevant field. 198.202.202.22 ( talk) 17:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
It is a Violation of wikipedia rules to attack living persons. 71.98.139.122 ( talk) 12:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello, a couple of days ago I posted a request to Talk:Eloqua to request an uninvolved editor consider removing an uncited section that has recently been added to the Eloqua article. I haven't received any reply there, so hope that someone here will be able to offer advice or make the change I suggested. The section is very short, just a couple of sentences long, and has no citations at all. In fact, to the extent of my knowledge, what has been written is not true. As I'm the VP of Content Marketing at Eloqua, it would be a COI issue for me to make changes to the article without getting the ok from other editors. Preferably another editor can look at this and remove it if that's the right action to take. Can anyone here be of assistance? Best, Jchernov ( talk) 18:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
This user has created many articles. He appears to be Eduard Irimia, a promoter, who owns SuperKombat and I don't know what else. According to the Irimia logo file page, which he uploaded (and has been nominated for deletion):
To be able to make this picture, I've spent lots of money (mainly equipment) and time. If you want to use this picture (even commercially), you can use it free of charge — if you comply with the license under which this image is released. This is required in any medium (internet, print, ...). The image has to appear with a copy of, or a full (hyperlinked) URL to the license. In addition, attribution of this image to me is required in a prominent location near to the image.
That seems to say that the logo is his, in which case these articles are incredible self-promotion. The deletion nomination says that the logo is that of an organization and therefore cannot be his. That is, of course, a possibility, but it is just as possible that the organization belongs to Cyperuspapyrus. This should be sorted out.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Anjanim (Anjani Millet) claims to be the founder and president of the organization and website added in this diff and this diff, despite one intervening COI warning. These are her only edits; account may be single-purpose. Thanks! JFHJr ( ㊟) 01:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Extremely similar username to article name. The user has made edits only to that article. (other than creating his userpage). Probable COI here. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/ Sign mine 18:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Amarie2 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), a new WP:SPA user, has admitted a WP:COI with respect to C. John Collins and Casey Luskin (two articles recently merged after consensus on Talk:Center for Science and Culture), but has been edit-warring to restore these articles. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The user appears to work for the police force and added the facebook and twitter pages for the force to the article as well as their phone number. Heyitsme22 ( talk) 14:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
User:BarbaraBigham re-wrote the article World Chiropractic Alliance, to completely whitewash it of all the negative information, despite that that was all referenced and documented. In the process, she lists herself as their Director of Communications, and this is a clear violation of WP:NOPAY. As she lists herself in the article, I presume that my citing this issue is not itself an outing of the editor. Д-р СДжП,ДС 00:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, the user above made an edit to the above page which seemed to be a COI. Here it is. Island Monkey talk the talk 07:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm a little confused because the article is his name, so if I put his username, it "outs" him. So.... for the sake of following rules, I'm not going to put his username unless specifically requested, and this pretty much makes my case that much more difficult. Anyway, I believe I have found this Hollywood personage (not necessarily a celebrity) to be editing his own article. None of the additions are sourced, some of the edits are seemingly allowed (adding brackets, quotation marks), and some are fuzzy on the neutral bit, like adding and removing names and awards, all of which are unsourced (even the removals). I could tag the article with a template at the top, but out of privacy of the person, I wouldn't be able to add the user warning on their talk page, because suddenly their privacy no longer exists (anyone could make the connection through my edit history). Their edits are very few and far between, I suppose, in comparison to other potential COI editors. However, the edits are 90% on his article. Finally, what little proof I may have of the COI would give away his username again. So from this point forward, someone tell me what to do :D – Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 08:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Aside from the obvious COI betrayed by the user's username, the edits are very favorable to and from the POV of the Maryknollers. This is no longer a balanced article. Orange Mike | Talk 18:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
User created a spam article. Obvious COI. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/ Sign mine 19:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Here's an situation which needs some attention. At Talk:Lowell Milken, a new editor identifies themself with "I work for Lowell Milken and we intend to add additional unbiased biographical information to his page in the next few days.". They've made a number of edits to polish the reputation of Lowell Milken.
There's some history here. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_47#Milken_family_reputation_enhancement_project. That resulted in a sockpuppet investigation and some blocks and bans. Last time, though, the edits were rather blatant attempts to remove well-sourced negative information. (Lowell Milken is the brother and former business associate of Michael Milken, one of the biggest white-collar crooks of the 1980s.) This time, it's not so heavy-handed.
I'm not sure what to do here, but the situation bears watching. -- John Nagle ( talk) 03:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I am a relatively new editor and I am not sure what is the best course of action here. I see a COI in the recent edit by Cjjohnson73 since the addition to the article is presumably the recent world record for consecutive jumps by "Caleb Johnson." The user name suggests a COI with this article. Additionally, no sources are cited for the claim. In any case, the article should revert back to the previous version. What is the proper course for an editor to make in this case?
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pogo_stick&oldid=432951676. Kjmonkey ( talk) 22:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Per this talk page message, Jinxxed4life claims to be Jinxx, of the band, Black Veil Brides. As the edit history of this article shows, they have made multiple edits to the article about the band, which is clearly a COI violation. Also, the user BeAwareX1 claims to be the band's management, per this edit summary. Strikerforce Talk Review me! 10:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
An article (about "the twelfth largest law firm in Northeast Ohio" - hardly notable, I'd think?) clearly created by someone with a COI, judging from the user name. Also adding multiple links to the law firm's blog, e.g. at WikiLeaks [5]. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 20:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
An admin suggested I bring this here, and I realize now that perhaps I should have done so before nominating the article for deletion, but too late now. Anyway, given that the article contained a lot of text and no sources attesting notability, I suspected a promotional page, and ran the creator's username through Google. Sure enough, Michael Ramey is the communications director for the organization that's promoting the bill, ie. he is paid to promote the subject of an article he wrote. He admits as much on his talk page. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 00:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Similarly named SPA's adding promotional language, many deleting (article's sole, independently-sourced) sentence about Evan's global warming letter to The Nation. No edits outside Bill Evans (meteorologist). None reply to Talk page warnings. Accounts seem temporary, then abandoned, with BillEvans777 ( talk · contribs) being the currently active account. Diffs are shown for erasing Global warming position only. IP editors not listed. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC) edg ☺ ☭ 12:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be engaged in press-agentry for various
HBO series, the artists appearing in them, and perhaps for other Hollywood/media figures.
Examples
[10],
[11],
[12],
[13] and
[14]. --
CliffC (
talk) 19:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
This IP user, who appears to occasionally edit as BermudaWoman going by the IP's editing of a comment previously left by BermudaWoman and by their sharing the exact same editing patterns and edit summary style, edits only in articles and discussions relating to the Crouch family, a group of Christian TV evangelists, and to the TV stations they own. These edits tend to be of a promotional nature and are generally sourced to SPS or to other sources that are unreliable for notability purposes. Currently, the user is stonewalling an AfD discussion by overwhelming it with vast walls of text that claim to assert the notability of the subject, although none of the text or references in fact do so (either the sources are unreliable or they're an attempt to borrow notability for him from the TV network his parents founded). The same user is also being rather ornery about a proposed merge of the Jan Crouch article, claiming independent notability (I'd suggested a merge and rename rather than a delete because she and Paul Sr. founded TBN together) that is not supported by sources.
Given this, it's extremely likely that the user is a paid employee of, or otherwise closely associated with, the Crouch family or Trinity Broadcasting Network. It would be helpful if they were warned about Wikipedia's COI policy and advised not to edit on behalf of employers, etc. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I am a new Wiki user, and I am not an employee of TBN. I am a fan. Just as Roscelese is a fan of the artists and authors that she writes about. When I saw how horribly written the articles were for TBN, I attempted to improve them. If i am responding too much on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Crouch, Jr. ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)it is not intended to be nonconforming to Wiki protocol, but a logical response to some of the responses which seem illogical and verging on malicious. It would appear that Roscelese has targeted TBN, and those associated to this network, in a egregiously bias fashion. Speech used in the discussion on Paul Crouch, regarding a page merge with Jan Crouch, were based on very demeaning descriptions of Jan Crouch, and no apparent reasoning when it comes to the presentation of the facts. Jan Crouch was referred to as 'sweeping the floors at Holy Land Experience', when in fact she is the Director and CEO. The arguments seemed to go on and on in spite of several NPOV sources proving the articles notability. This user then went on to use the same broad sweeping, unsourced verbiage on all TBN related articles. My response is rather wordy because I believe this user is very biased about this network, and it's owners/management. In this users profile, they state quite clearly that they specifically look for any article that uses non-NPOV buzzwords with conservative themes. That in itself is non-NPOV. As the author of so many articles on well know artists/writers, it is even more illogical to me that this user cannot recognize and give credit to individuals that have contributed so much to the media field? This entire discussion baffles me. I am confident that neutral Wikipedia editors will actually read the articles, and the sources, and acknowledge credibility and notability. 71.97.55.109 ( talk) 18:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Bold text
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quilla_Constance
This page is being used as self promotion and is not in following with the Wikipedia guidelines.
It contains: Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages. Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.
This page is written by her about herself and is blatantly self promotional.... it is a "puff" piece and is basically an ad for her music career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.129.62 ( talk) 17:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Charlie Richmond, in addition to reference issues, looks like it was edited by User:Charlierichmond -- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 01:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Article created by the magazine's founder. Only sourcing is to the magazine itself. The Mark of the Beast ( talk) 01:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if I am in the right place. A new editor, User talk:Tim Ellis RIBA , has been removing cited material from the article on Sleddale Hall. On his talk page he says he is the Tim Ellis who now owns Sleddale Hall (and I have no proof he is, but then again no reason to doubt him). The material he has been removing is about the Hall being boarded up, as he wishes to discourage people from breaking in. It is a historic fact that the Hall has been boarded up for years and a Guardian article reflected this in its reporting; I am somewhat loathe to remove this reference as it is part of the 'story' of Sleddale Hall. But I am no expert on COI editing or what would be prudent in this situation: does what he want take precedence over objective reporting of facts? How much can we 'bend' to help him, if at all? Can anyone step in and advise please? And what's the position on his COI editing? (I assume I haven't outed him, given his editing name ...) Stronach ( talk) 21:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Long story short it has come to my attention that an editor with a direct connection to Phi Alpha has been editing the Phi Alpha article and removing content from the Illinois College article off and on since at least 2008. The editor has also been involved with deletion debates involving articles of past Phi Alpha members always voting keep. I counted over 200 edits before I stopped counting. I did the investigation on the editor after he insisted the removal of an alum he feels is not notable enough to be listed in the notable alumni section of the Illinois College article. This alum has been considered notable by Wikipedia consensus for several years now and yet single IP address editors have removed his name from the alumni section list on Illinois College several times. This editor used his legal name as his Wikipedia name and has a link on his user page that once visited mentions Phi Alpha and links to other material that made his identity clear. I called him out on it. From what I understand I did not violate his privacy because he made that information available on Wikipedia. Since 2008 he has not revealed his connection to Phi Alpha until now after being exposed. I've had suspicions that the Illinois College article has been 'gatekeeped' and in my opinion this discover confirms that. I've never had to deal with a COI directly before so do take that in mind if I've handled it wrong. It is just very frustrating to see editors making their own rules about content. Even more so when I find out they are connected to the articles they are editing and removing stuff from. Can someone please come take a look? SunRiddled ( talk) 16:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
( ←) There may be a concern here. An undisclosed connection to a subject (for 4 years) combined with being a single-purpose account toward that subject, that's at least worth noting. I'm not sure what can be done, though, especially since you haven't provided any diffs or even named any editors in this complaint. I'm particularly interested in where this individual (or any others) have mentioned that he is a member of the society (on Wikipedia). -- Atama 頭 17:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The editor Kimscipes, who previously outed himself as Assoc. Professor Kim Scipes of a regional campus of Purdue U., has again engaged in self-promotion and POV pushing on this page, adding a copy of his book, with this text in the article:
An academic book published in 2010, AFL-CIO's Secret War against Developing Country Workers: Solidarity or Sabotage? by Kim Scipes (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2010) examined the AFL-CIO's foreign policy program in general, including the Solidarity Center. After examining the origins of US Labor's foreign policy under American Federation of Labor President Samuel Gompers in the late 1890s, Scipes claims to have established that the AFL-CIO's foreign policy leadership--acting behind the backs, and without the knowledge, of American union workers--has engaged in "labor imperialism." Scipes makes the point that the Solidarity Center has never given an honest and complete accounting of its activities to AFL-CIO affiliated union members.
Scipes previously posted this section on the talk page:
NPOV WATCH!!
The following writer claims the article is "blatantly POV." As one who has done the most writing on the AFL-CIO's foreign policy program over the past 17 years, I would agree: I have a "point of view," and it guides my writing: I am against imperialism in all forms, and against all oppression. As I (and a number of other writers) have documented, again and again, the leadership of the AFL-CIO has been carrying out a foreign policy program out of sight, behind the backs, and against the interests of workers in the US and around the world--and done everything possible to keep US union members from learning about these activities, and have even corrupted what democratic processes that exist within the national labor movement to do so.
Don't take my word for this--read the literature on AFL-CIO foreign operations and make up your own mind. The largest bibliography of material on this subject--including many articles on both sides of the debate, and with many articles downloadable from the Internet--is on my "Contemporary Labor Issues" web site at http://faculty.pnc.edu/kscipes/LaborBib.htm#AFL-CIO_foreign_operations .
My work is carefully documented, and often has extended references. The three most important articles I have written are each on-line (and listed in the above bibliography), but I would like to draw people's attention to them:
- "AFL-CIO in Venezuela: Deja Vu All Over Again." Labor Notes, April 1994. On-line at www.labornotes.org/archives/2004/04/articles/e.html . (This details the AFL-CIO's "Solidarity Center's" work in helping to lay the groundwork in Venezuela for the 2002 attempted coup against democratically-elected President Hugo Chavez.)
- "Labor Imperialism Redux? The AFL-CIO's Foreign Policy Since 1995." Monthly Review, May 2005. On-line at www.monthlyreview.org/0505scipes.htm .
- "An Unholy Alliance: The AFL-CIO and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in Venezuela." Z Net, July 2005. On-line at www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?sectionID=19&itemID=8268 . (This especially provides information on the involvement of the AFL-CIO's Solidarity Center as one of four "core institutes"--along with the international wing of the Democratic Party, the international wing of the Republican Party, and the international wing of the US Chamber of Commerce--of the National Endowment for Democracy, a misnamed project started by the Reagan Administration to do the work overtly that the CIA had previously done covertly.)
For more information on the AFL-CIO's Foreign Policy Program, I suggest you check out the Worker to Worker Solidarity Committee's web site at www.workertoworker.net .And, for the record, in case any one considers me an ideologue, please note that I am a former Sergeant in the US Marine Corps (serving 1969-73, although staying in the States all four years), and am a current member of the National Writers Union, affiliated to the United Auto Workers and the AFL-CIO. (I have also been a member of the Graphic Communications Union, AFL-CIO; the National Education Association; and the American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO.) I currently teach sociology for one of the regional campuses of Purdue University.
Kim Scipes, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Sociology Purdue University North Central 1410 S. US Hwy 421 Westville, IN 46391 E-mail: kscipes@pnc.edu
Scipes's POV pushing has driven other editors up the wall. One editor has already removed the following list of "further reading":
- Diana Barahona, 2005, Venezuela's National Workers Union" Counterpunch, October 25 [15]
- Kim Scipes, 2000, “It’s Time to Come Clean: Open the AFL-CIO Archives on International Labor Operations.” Labor Studies Journal, Vol. 25, No. 2, Summer: 4-25. [Posted on-line in English by LabourNet Germany at http://www.labournet.de/diskussion/gewerkschaft/scipes2.html .]
- Kim Scipes, 2004, “AFL-CIO in Venezuela: Déjà vu All Over Again.” Labor Notes, April: 5. On-line at http://www.counterpunch.org/scipes03292004.html l
- Kim Scipes, 2005, "Labor Imperialism Redux? The AFL-CIO's Foreign Policy Since 1999" Monthly Review, May [16]
- Kim Scipes, 2005, "Unholy Alliance: The AFL-CIO and the National Endowment for Democracy in Venezuela" Z Net, July 10 [17]
- Kim Scipes, 2006, "Worker-to-Worker Solidarity Committee to AFL-CIO: Cut All Ties with NED" [18]
- Kim Scipes, 2007, "The AFL-CIO Foreign Policy Program and the 2002 Coup in Venezuela: Was the AFL-CIO Involved?" Journal of the Indiana Academy of the Social Sciences, Vol. X: 133-147. [An earlier version of this peer-reviewed article is on-line at http://www.workertoworker.net/afl_cio_foreign_policy_venezuela_kim_scipes.html .]
- Lee Sustar, 2005. “Revolution and Counter-revolution in Venezuela: Assessing the Role of the AFL-CIO” and “Lee Sustar Responds to Stan Gacek.” New Labor Forum, Vol. 14, No. 3, Fall: 97-108. On-line at http://www.selvesandothers.org/article10406.html .
- Kim Scipes, "Contemporary Labor Issues" Bibliography—most extensive listing of references on AFL-CIO foreign operations. On-line at http://faculty.pnc.edu/kscipes/LaborBib.htm#AFL-CIO_Foreign_Operations
The writing he cites is mostly published with extremely left-wing groups, mostly on the totalitarian left. The "journal" Labor Notes used to be associated with a less-nutty-than-usual Trotskyist organization calling itself Solidarity. The Monthly Review is the main Marxist/small-c communist "theoretical journal" in the USA, the source of the understatement "40 years is too long to go without an election" when it switched to Mao's China (and since to Castro's Cuba, and then to North Korea ...).
The last paragraph should clarify that I am not the editor best equipped to deal with totalitarian leftists ....
The article most distorted fails to mention that most of the money from NED went to fund Poland's Solidarity. Indeed, it fails to mention Poland at all. (Today, the AFL-CIO's aid to Solidarity is mentioned in a DYK I wrote.)
Sincerely, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 01:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Page is full of instances of self promotion. 86.19.238.17 ( talk) 22:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
This is getting increasingly messy, and I'm somewhat out of my depth here. The above contributors appear to have links with competing concerns, and are engaged in an edit war over article content, combined with some dubious claims being made in the AfD discussion (I've had to redact one as potentially libellous already). Outside assistance would be much appreciated. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
User claims: "We are entertainment counsel for a number of celebrities and public figures, and, at times, submit or revise information in a client's biography to correct inaccurate facts." Similar claims are found in numerous other edit summaries. Has also edited Stan Lee and Stan Lee Media in the past under the same pretext. Username is also probably a violation of WP:CORPNAME. TDL ( talk) 22:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Ken Ring hit the headlines in New Zealand a couple of months ago when the Christchurch earthquakes struck. His main business is predicting weather years in advance by using the position of the moon. He has also used the moon to predict when Earthquakes could occur. His noteworthyness comes from one of his earthquake predictions occuring near the date of one of the Earthquakes. Duely an article was stated [19], which in my opinion used a lot of unreliable sources [20] [21]. I put the article up for deletion, partly because I did not think he was notable and partly because I wanted to fix the issues and not waste my time on an article that might later be deleted. At the time it was decided that the article was worth keeping [22]. One issue is that not many reliable sources exist about Ring before the earthquakes, so most of the information either comes from his own website [23] (which has meet opposition [24]) and an interview conducted in 2008 [25].
Ken Ring himself has now got involved in editing the article. This is not outing as he now signs his names as Ken Ring [26] and has identified himself on the talk page [27]. I have no problem with someone editing there own article but his are problematic. [28]. I am not sure what, if anything, needs to be done, but think it would be good for someone who is experienced in dealing with this, is outside of New Zealand and who has not heard of Ring previously to keep an eye on it. Personally I do not beleive Ring can use the moon to accurately predict weather or the moon, but have tried to keep the article as neutral as possible despite my POV.
Note: Gadfium (another kiwi) has reverted while I was preparing this, so there are other eyes on it. AIRcorn (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
An article created some time ago by User:Exeko. I quote Moonriddengirl (in the article's talk page): According to the source primarily used in constructing this article, here, "Exeko represents the American artist photographer and philanthropist Wayne Schoenfeld in Canada, and selected markets in United States." Recently the article has been edited and augmented by User:Wschoenfeld, whose additions have included the extraordinary claim that International exhibitions of Schoenfeld's self styled and staged circus imagery, "Icons/Iconoclasts" have drawn crowds of over ten thousand visitors each in Paris and Montreal, a claim accompanied by footnotes, but footnotes that seem to elaborate -- incidentally, suggesting that the exhibitions drew hundreds of viewers per hour -- rather than providing any evidence. -- Hoary ( talk) 06:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't sure where this should go but anyway. Upon investigation I found out that a previous page called Victoria Preobrazhenskaya was deleted as db-g11. It seems that the user has resurrected that page and is planning on writing up another one. Contribs shows no other edits than the project at hand. That's why I didn't know where this should go.. it's a user page and not an actual article. I've looked all over but I can't seem to find any protocol for such a situation even though I've encountered it a couple of times. When a user starts making an autobiographical page using their user page, are we supposed to let them make the page on their user page to their heart's content, and put a deletion tag on them only once they try to publish? Or do we nip it at the bud and tag for speedy deletion under db-spam? Can someone please clarify? Sorry, I'm kinda new at this stuff. -- Motherfrakker ( talk) 12:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I removed a redundant section from the Pashtun people article and explained my reason in the edit sumamry [29] but my edit was quickly reverted by User:Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan [30] who seems to be making alot of strange edits based on his personal POV. I explained to him that this is not how you edit articles, but he came with a reply talking nonsense about reporting me. [31]. Can someone please explain to User:Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan that the information he added in that way is not needed in the article. I don't think he will listen to me since he feels like he owns the article. He acts like if he owns the articles in Wikipedia and that others cannot even add a word to them. [32]-- AlimNaz ( talk) 10:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I have done some edits on the article on Dresden and Johnston since the article was written in a highly non-neutral manner. From the pattern of the contributions of the editors it seems they are someone associated to the duo because that is the only work edited. There is a constant addition of itunes spam links or twitter and facebook accounts. Most of the edits are coming from MathewFaust ( talk · contribs) or 2 IP addresses. Could someone look into it and see what needs to be done? At the moment, I have requested semi-protection to avoid IP edits. Hassan514 ( talk) 17:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Does someone have time to look at Balance board and the editing by the above accounts? They all appear to be the same person, and have a conflict of interest with at least some of the links/references and related material that they've added to the article. It appears that they've added considerable material to the article since December '07, so I'm not sure how to proceed. -- Ronz ( talk) 01:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
The operator of this website brags that this pic is bringing him traffic from all over the world via Wikipedia. -- Orange Mike | Talk 15:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I previously made a request on this noticeboard regarding the Eloqua article and an editor here was very helpful, so I would like to ask for some further assistance with a couple of additions to the article. I posted a request on Talk:Eloqua a couple of weeks ago, but haven't received any response so far. There are two additions I'd like to suggest for the Clients and recognition section: adding a recent client, Fidelity Investments, and also adding a recent award from the Word of Mouth Marketing Association. In my Talk page note I had suggested replacing the Miami Heat with Fidelity Investments, but on second thoughts I would be happy to simply add this client to the existing list. While I don't think that these edits are controversial, since I work for Eloqua (as VP of Content Marketing) and there is a potential COI it seemed best to check with other editors. Please can another editor take a look at the suggested additions and make the edits, if this is appropriate. Thanks, Jchernov ( talk) 20:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Despite previous warning, user has returned to remove COI/AUTO tags and to reintroduce unsourced puffery. It appears the editor is the subject of the article. I am recusing myself from further edits in the article space. Please consider reverting and warning this editor again. Jokestress ( talk) 05:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
User identifies himself as an "organisers of Pink Dot" and appears to be "Roy Tan" here. Roy Tan started Pink Dot, see here. Editor is engaged in a slow edit war at the article which includes: repeatedly inserting content sourced to Facebook, youtube, blogs; at least twice removing the {{ advert}} template. Editor is exerting ownership of Pink Dot and has created an homage to the org featuring walls of unsourced claims. Editor has been warned but persists in adding poorly sourced content. Request that the editor be required to use {{ request edit}} at this page to arrest the promotional editing. – Lionel ( talk) 04:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
This article was originally written by StuartKerr, Tecnical Director of Liberty Games. http://www.linkedin.com/pub/stuart-kerr/15/a57/7a5 Not only if it a conflict of interest but it has no value to Wikipedia and is something that has been created purely for SEO purposes. There is nothing notable in this article that is worthy of a wiki page. I believe it should be removed. The Novotable company has ceased trading for a few years not http://www.novotable.com/ Also the offside football table is not a exclusive product as it is also sold in John Lewis. http://www.trifledesign.co.uk/ Kookieshell ( talk) 23:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
The user, either the actual person or someone else, created an autobiography page of Jamal Al-Karboli. FWIW, I've brought the matter to the attention of UAA but was asked to report here instead. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
PIM seems an awful lot like Parking In Motion to me; Only edits were on Parking In Motion, which included deleting a Speedy deletion template. Swimnteach ( talk) 01:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
This user account was created to edit this article, and no others. In 15 consecutive edits, the user managed to add a lot of text to the article. Fortunately, he or she admits to being the author of the software (and thus the official website, most likely) on the article's talk page. Unfortunately, most of the contributed text comes from the official (and copyrighted!) website. I genuinely believe they are acting in good faith, but WP:COI or not, this is at minimum a WP:COPYVIO and WP:PRIMARY problem.
In my time on Wikipedia, I've never dealt with this type of situation. I read WP:COI, but hope to learn from your ruling/response how best to deal with these situations in the future. — voidxor ( talk | contrib) 05:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the correct place but I think this matter qualifies as a conflict of interest. More editors need to watchlist Rudolph Valentino as author David Bret (under the username David Bret ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is inserting the title of his book about Valentino and also adding unsourced content about Valentino being gay and a blurb about a new book he is supposedly writing about Valentino. He recently removed a large amount of sourced content that presents the content about Valentino's alleged homosexuality in a neutral point of view and instead just added a bunch of unsourced crap in its place. Two days previous to that edit, he edited the article to disparage what I assume is rival author Evelyn Zumaya, but removed the content in the following edit. Bret's biographies are regularly derided by most people who can group two sentences together and read past a third grade level, so I do not believe his books qualify as reliable source for even the most basic information. He cites no sources in his books and always writes about. Ever. I brought this here as Bret has a nasty habit of stalking and harassing those who challenge his opinion or disagree with him and I'm not at all interested in having him create blogs about me or follow me around the internet. Before anyone thinks I'm wearing a tinfoil hat, look on Amazon.com and look at his whiny author's page. Also note the many deleted comments made by him as "rebuttals" to negative reviews on a books. He's also done the same thing on LiveJournal. Someone needs to have a word with him about trying to pimp yet another of his books on Wikipedia or at least keep an eye on the article to keep the unsubstantiated salacious bullshit out. 70.241.28.1 ( talk) 02:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I take great exception to the opening paragraph of this debate posted by 70-241-28-1 aka Hala Pickford aka Hala Pickford, the publisher of Evelyn Zumaya's biography of Valentino. This woman as pointed out elsewhere has had all of her blogs closed down by a court order, she has been fined $100,000, she has been found guilty of common assault and issued with a 24-month restraining order, and following a non-show at the Burbank Court House currently has a warrant out for her arrest. Terms such as "bunch of unsourced" crap" and "Bret's biographies are regularly derided by most people who can group two sentences together" and "unsubstantiated salacious bullshit" are highly offensive. Again, just because hers and Zumaya's views differ from mine, there is no need for such rudeness. Yes, I did add my books to various Wikipedia because I believed I was allowed to do this. I would like all of the above comments by Birchard and Zumaya to be removed from here, otherwise this information will be posted to the file already in the possession of the Burbank Police. I would also point out that Evelyn Zumaya and Birchard, besides posting salacious articles hither and thither in my name, opened a Boycott David Bret Blog (currently by invitation only) accusing me of some of the most heinous crimes--so heinous that, before the Blog was privatized, Birchard was questioned by the Burbank police. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Bret ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC) The paragraph posted by 70.241.28.1 which begins, "Bret's biographies are regularly derided..." should be removed. This is a spiteful attack on my books for no other reason than the writer is prejudiced because she has been sued for slander. There is NO blog by me against this writer, though she does have two very litigious blogs about me. If these comments remain here I shall have no alternative but to report this to the police to add to their current file about her, and to instigate legal action. Just because I believe that Valentino was gay and she does not, and whether this is sourced or not, does not excuse this type of behaviour and comment. David Bret ( talk) 18:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Adding DesignMerge that has been around longer, comparable to xmpie and makes plug-in software for Adobe InDesign.
DesignMerge is at the top of the Adobe partners page.... http://www.adobe.com/products/vdp/partners.html and there are many others to include in this article as well...just putting in directsmile and xmpie seems biased to me...
VDP Software & Services
There are many software packages available to merge text and images into VDP print files. Some are stand-alone software packages for VDP, however most of the advanced VDP software packages, such as DesignMerge, DirectSmile and XMPie from Xerox, are actually plug-in modules for one or more publishing software packages such as Adobe Creative Suite [6].
Besides VDP software, other software packages may be necessary for VDP print projects. Mailing software is necessary in the United States (United States Postal Service) and Canada to take advantage of reduced postage for bulk mailing [2]. Used prior to the VDP print file creation, mailing software presorts and validates and generates bar codes for mailing addresses. Pieces can then be printed in the proper sequence for sorting by postal code. Software to manage data quality (e.g. for duplicate removal or handling of bad records) and uniformity may also be needed[7].
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Gbane ( talk) 17:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Based on their edits, SisterSister00 appears to have a conflict of interest. All of their edits have included adding reviews to video games articles from a website called GameZone. Although the edits are valid as the website is considered a reliable source, it seems clear that the user has some affiliation with GameZone and has a vested interest in promoting the website which may conflict with the goals of Wikipedia. I have posted a notice on the user's talk page warning them of Wikipedia's policy on such practices but I wasn't sure if I should do anything else considering the volume of edits made in just the last couple of days? I also wanted to make administrators aware of the situation, although it's unlikely that any action is required from them at this stage. Cheers. Chimpanzee+ Us | Ta | Co 09:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Would appreciate some extra eyes on this one. I just reverted it back to a much less spammy version removing edits by one of their employees. – ukexpat ( talk) 19:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
One of a series of articles written about marginally notable musicians and bands who are associated with a collective known as the Brooklyn Hive. The author is user:DeborahHoney who from the name I assume is associated with the hive . Porturology ( talk) 03:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, don't know where to put this, as this whole wiki way of reporting things and saving them as changes is very wierd, but anyways..... I NEED AN INOUT FROM SEVERAL NEUTRAL EDITORS.... several weeks ago i put links to my railfan pages on appropriate pages, such as the Hiawatha (Minneapolis MN) light rail page, because my pages are guides for railfans visiting said location, to help them find what they want, get around town, etc, and, in many ways, is the same kind of information receptacle as Wikipedia is, it just isn't in an encyclopedia type format, so my problem is that the links have been removed because your link police have deemed them as COI's..... (my stuff appears at www.railroadsignals.us or rawww.railfanguides.us, BTW) if this is truly your policy, to cut off the learning experience for your uses, then I guess I will have to take the same stance and go thru each and every one of my 700+ pages and remove the links to Wiki for the same reasons, and also because the information placed on Wikipedia may be of suspect informational value because any fool out there can make changes (as the owner of a number one website on railroad signals, I have found many descrepencies, but I have never bothered to do anything about them because the process is way too difficult..... in fact, I'm not even sure why I am writing this, cause I kinda don't really care anymore because my love affair with Wikipedia is over, and I won't be using ya'll any more for research or sending anyone there... and to think I almost gave in to your founder's request for contributions, shame on me..... Toddgp30 ( talk) 14:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
User keeps creating a page for this subject. He is the lead singer of this band. All information added is information found on the band's article. Endlessdan ( talk) 20:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I need help with a potential COI. Yesterday I was told I appeared on Wikipedia and out of curiosity i went and checked it out. and sure enough i am. i have no idea how i got on wikipedia. Unfortunately, i found a mess of an article on me with numerous errors and huge gaps in career and publishing and speaking info. so, i started to fix things then thought to myself, "wait a minute, am i even allowed to do this?". at the same time i was staring at the mark up language used and thank god i didn't put a bunch of time into it because it most certainly looks like it is taboo to edit your own article.
So, is there advice on what to do? i most certainly cannot be unique in this situation of being caught between a "rock and a hard place".
tim— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timhuckaby ( talk • contribs) — Timhuckaby ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Article being edited by employee of Luby's. Originally with a corporate name but that was blocked, still adding promotional material. I've reverted some but it comes back. Dougweller ( talk) 20:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Check out the contribs, this user was canvassing users to create an article with pre-written content, presumably looking to lend the article credibility. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I've not included specific articles because there are many--this has previously been discussed several times at the visual arts project page, and perhaps here as well, though I don't recall. The contributor is an author and art historian who has written hundreds of articles on Wikipedia, often using his book as a source. Given Wikipedia guidelines, this calls into question neutrality and promotional concerns--in proposing deletion of several articles an editor noted a possible connection with the estates of artists whose works are being written about [37]. My thinking is that if there's deemed to be no COI or promotional issue, very well. If there is, then the question is why has this been permitted to continue for so long? Much appreciated, JNW ( talk) 20:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Edits to Michael Lissack. Swimnteach ( talk) 23:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Added self "((Sally Randell)) - Artist, Crafter, Photographer, Singer, Inventor" to List of New Zealand artists. Also tried to add a promotional facebook page ( https://www.facebook.com/pages/Sally-Randell-CreatioNZ/161297000564992) to the same article. Swimnteach ( talk) 23:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Lloyd Segan
Employee (he admits this here [39]) of Piller/Segan/Shepherd promoting business by editing articles of Scott Shepherd Lloyd Segan Shawn Piller . Teapot george Talk 19:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
He is back at it again. Currently his edits are not horrible, but I am off so could someone else keep an eye on this. There are enough warnings on the talk page to maybe justify a stronger message.. AIRcorn (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
User adding works by "Berger, Martin A" to 'Bibliography' and 'Reference' sections of various articles. So far the user has added no text, cited or otherwise, to any article, so these 'Bibliography' and 'Reference' additions seem purely promotional. User sometimes adds Berger works to "Further reading" sections, which I suppose might be acceptable if it turns out there is no COI. -- CliffC ( talk) 20:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Again article is full of self promotion and subject is in my opinion not notable. His recording career is also self financed and little more than a self recorded karaoke CD.
Hi, I'm a new contributor and I re-wrote this article Ross Hauser. I do know Hauser, but not very well. I adressed the specifics of it on the article's talk page because I read in guidelines somewhere that this is what I was supposed to do. I was directed here to ask if someone could read over the article and check that it is properly balanced and follows Wikipedia guidelines so that the tag could be removed Thanks! Savethelastbook ( talk) 14:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
This user has tried to rework the article into a promotional piece and can be seen to have edited the article in May in the same way as well to eliminate anyone else's work on the article and replace it with their version. They've asserted in OTRS ticket 2011070110008751 that they have full authority over her page and no other person has the right unless Adrianna or they are notified. – Adrignola talk 15:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The user appears to be a family member or other interested party of the subject and attempts to place any negative information or remove material that may not meet WP:RS that support the subject are met with opposition. Only one other article is edited by the user and it is listed below. What concerns me is that material from a discussion group outside of Wikipedia is being brought against me as is seen here: "you have stated as much on his discussion page recently". The problem is that I never made any comments of in any talk pages and this is an accusation from this discussion group. Editor could be referencing this edit. Any comments that suggest editor is in COI are met with hostility and in one instance, [40], a removal of the comment which can be more clearly seen with this series. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Similar to the above: the editor does not allow the removal of defamatory material about the subject. The claim that it is defamatory is from the subject as can be seen in the article's talk pages. Again, the editor does not show interest in other subjects, only these two. This article is about the director of a documentary that contains some damning but verifiable material about the previous subject. It appears that the goal of the editor is to make it seem as though the subject is an uneducated person. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Olirecords is a new user who appears to be affiliated with One Little Indian Records: The username connection is obvious, the user's userpage is a cut-n-paste copy of the One Little Indian Records article's lead, and all of the user's edits are to article's about the label's artists. Why this is a problem: The user has added unsourced POV peacock-type language that makes the articles read like a promotional piece, as in this edit. They are also uploading non-free promotional photos of living people and active bands, such as File:Flats.jpg and File:Astrid williamson.jpg. The user appears to either not be familiar with the relevant Wikipedia policies such as WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NFCC, or their aim is simply to promote the label's artists. Either way, they should probably be informed of these policies as well as WP:COI and WP:CORPNAME. IllaZilla ( talk) 16:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Akiban (Ah-kee-buhn) Technologies was founded in 2009 with the mission of delivering a database solution to allow high performance and scalability. The product, which is not yet in the market, allows companies to maintain existing relational databases, but restructures the storage of the data for scale. The company touts this approach as breaking “through the SQL scalability barrier”. The initial unreleased product appears to support MySQL, and we infer plans to support other relational databases in the future. [1] Akiban has a MIT cadre of DBMS developers like Jack Orenstein, who was an Object Design founder, Ori Herrnstadt from the Israeli Defense Forces, Mike McMahon who was a founder of Oberon and Blue Agarve Software and Peter Beaman who used to work for Intersystems. [2]
Operational databases with normalized schemas suffer from performance and scalability problems as schemas become complex. Scalability is the ability of a system, network, or process, to handle growing amounts of work in a graceful manner or its ability to be enlarged to accommodate that growth. [3] These problems are not inherent in the amount of data however, but rather in the SQL joins required to construct objects from that data. Typical workarounds for these challenges include de-normalization, materialized views, and alternative database solutions. Rather than compromising the integrity and benefits of a relational model through denormalization, the database technology will make SQL run better.
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 75.149.135.141 ( talk) 13:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes I am blocked on Akibantech, and submitted a username change that was processed for several days, then disappeared. Am I just suppose to have a Wikipedia account that I can never change the name, or use, or write anything? What would be the point of that.
"The company touts this approach as breaking 'through the SQL scalability barrier'" is taken from a third party article by a writer not at all related to the company. Everything that is positive is not necessarily advertising.
Thank you for the feedback — Preceding unsigned comment added by NO.Denormalization ( talk • contribs) 18:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that an IP range from Los Angeles, 76.213.227.230 and 76.213.226.18, has been scrubbing critical sources out of an article about a Los Angeles resident, Ben Shapiro. Probably either him or someone close to him? Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 19:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Article was created by Bamanh27 ( talk · contribs) a couple days after the ad was posted. The same user has created several other articles. I realize the community is divided over whether paid editing should be allowed, but in my opinion it's a huge COI problem. They can't be neutral, I'm certain the client would not accept or pay for an article with negative content in it. -- œ ™ 02:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
In:
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)Cohen continues his spat with fellow journalist Johann Hari, alleging improper editing of the articles about each of them, and others, by User:David r from meth productions; implying CoI. I have no views as to the veracity of his claims, but this seemed the best place to raise the matter. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Semi-protected both articles. The CU data is stale on User:David r from meth productions, so not much can be done there unless he returns. Brandon ( talk) 12:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
More, by
David Allen Green, who also writes for the Spectator [New Statesman], at
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2011/07/who-is-david-rose.html
Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing);
Andy's talk;
Andy's edits 17:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
The article's creator and major contributing editor has supplied two references that are from the subject's website (or its parent organisation). The article has a list of "Contributing Writers" which includes "Emily Swanson" and thus there appears to be a conflict of interest by self-citing or self-promotion. shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 09:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Over a period of more than a year this user has consistently been editing the above articles to delete negative sourced material, remove English sources, insert hagiography attributed sources which turn out not to be independent (either TV stations controlled by the church, or press releases which have been reprinted in mainstream newspapers), and use sockpuppets ( Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Presidentofctai/Archive). I have requested help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea but no one there is interested in looking into this situation. The article has also had problems with previous strings of sockpuppets, but I have no evidence of a concrete link between them and Presidentofctai. "CTAI" I believe refers to be the Christian Trade Association International, which has an association with Jaerock Lee's publisher Urim Books.
Some examples of recent problematic edits include:
Any help on this matter would be greatly appreciated as I am the only other editor watching this article and I do not have remotely enough time to scrutinise his numerous edits. Thank you, cab ( call) 04:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. DavideLerda ( talk) 13:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Hi, I created GrowVC page and I have 2 notifications: - possible conflict of interest - it lacks inline citations I'm going to work on point 2, since we have citations on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_equity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_funding but I want to know how to solve point 1. I wrote the article in a descriptive way, to avoid marketing, and added external links (BBC, LAtimes). Is it sufficient? Having thousands of users, we can ask on our website for somebody to create a descriptive page on Wikipedia. Let me know which way you prefer.
Article about online news site is being edited by account whose name matches the name of the editor and owner, Linda Solomon. Promotional material is being added. The Interior (Talk) 16:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
User Violinconcerto keeps adding links to his own website, and has started edit-warring over this. COI warnings have been ignored. MikeWazowski ( talk) 15:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Bobby london1 has claimed to actually be Bobby London, and has made a huge series of major changes to these articles, adding a wealth of unreferenced content, removing items that portrayed him in a negative light, and in general white-washing the articles into something entirely more promotional, IMHO. I've warned him about the COI, but this really needs more eyes on the articles. MikeWazowski ( talk) 15:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've noticed that this editor has a history of the largest contributor to editing articles on behalf of two large media law firms, DLA Piper and Clifford Chance, and on behalf of several large UK universities, e.g. Warwick University and University College London. They recently demonstrated an unexpected interest in editing (or preventing thereof) an article on Kingston University. Could any other editors review this editor's contributions and suggest whether or not they might have an undeclared COI? If they are going to edit in a paid capacity, I would hope they would at least declare this in their user talk pages.-- Lorifredrics ( talk) 04:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I've also noticed that Rangoon11 has a history of being blocked for sockpuppetry. When taken together I am beginning to wonder if he has an undeclared COI as a paid Wikipedia editor for these organizations. Anyone have any further thoughts or suggestions?-- Lorifredrics ( talk) 05:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Enough. I am going to ask that appropriate action now be taken to halt this ludicrous sequence of half-baked allegations. You clearly have no substantial evidence to back up your 'concerns', and are instead using this noticeboard as a platform for your attack on the integrity of contributors. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
( ←) Lori, here is the thing. Conflicts of interest are determined one of two ways... Either the editor admits to it, or does something on Wikipedia that makes it obvious. In other words, if they choose a username that identifies who they are (as you chose to), or that shows their affiliation (someone named "MicrosoftPR" editing the "Microsoft" article) or something similar. Showing an interest in a subject is not evidence of a COI. The vast majority of my article space edits have been related to World of Warcraft and iPhone, but I'm not affiliated in any way with either subject. So my suggestion to you is to drop the accusation. There is no harm in raising the question on this board about whether or not an editor might have a conflict of interest, and we could consider the matter closed. However, if you continue to insist that there is a conflict of interest, and especially that Rangoon11 is being paid to edit, based solely on the subjects she chooses, that can be considered a personal attack and isn't tolerated. I hope you can agree to gracefully withdraw your accusations and move on. -- Atama 頭 16:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I've run across Dew Tour 2010 which was tagged as a large unwikified new article. I can't find that it's a copyvio but the tone of the articles are on the line between unecyclopedic prose and an advert. The articles are well linked together but all that I have seen only have one included reference to the official website of the event. They even go as far as to make notes about companies not being mentioned at the event but not officially affiliated (e.g. Sony & PlayStation).
Here's where the COI starts:
Companies
Users
Pages edits
I don't even know where to start with this issue. The COI is vast in its reach and I'm not even sure that any of the events are even notable. I haven't touched on that because I'm assuming they are given the sponsorship and even if it's not, the COI needs to be addressed. What do we do here? I was originally going to tag the Dew Tour 2011 article as a G11 until I noticed that it's the tip of the iceberg. I was then going to tag several articles for G11 but noticed that once notified of the possible speedy deletion, anon SPAs pop up and decline the speedy. Even stranger, some of the pages were created by a now retired user ( Tv145033 ( talk · contribs)) with a seemingly unrelated user name (may mean nothing).
Lastly, I was thinking that a mass AfD nom would be the way to go but I think that may not be the best thing for WP. Whoever is behind the creations knows what they're doing and what hoops to jump through to keep the articles off the radar. Mass prods may work but that wouldn't address the COI and socking issue.
I'm taking all suggestions. If we can't come up with a better way to deal with this issue, I'll probably just do a mass AfD. in a few days. OlYeller Talktome 00:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Here's the information I've put together. I made it a subpage of my userspace as it's a rather large report. OlYeller Talktome 22:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I am the creator of the article quidco. I created the article because there was dearth of information on the phenomena of reward websites on wikipedia other than information from large corporations. Sadly the article has turned from a fairly neutral article into one that's more like an advert. Much of this content seems to have been added by the editor Stuartcoggins. Sadly there's a massive conflict of interest with this user editing the article as he appears to be the marketing manager of quidco. I hope this post isn't seen as outing as the users identify is contained in his username. [ [45]] Supposed ( talk) 20:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
User has edited recently the FX UK tv channel wikipedia page, from the username they have chosen there may be a conflict of interest. Surly the username violates username policy as well Ruth-2013 ( talk) 17:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 75.15.150.190 ( talk) 17:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC) why do you not give military discounts to the poeple that are giving their lifes for you?
As is explained on my User Page, I work with the communications department at Bloomberg L.P. I'm familiar with the WP:COI as well as Wikipedia's content policies. I've read the prior discussions about Bloomberg on WP:COIN ( here in November 2010 and here in July 2010) and I understand that these attempts fell short of appropriately editing articles with a Conflict of Interest. The reason I am here is not to edit Bloomberg-related articles directly, but to go to the Talk pages of these articles and propose edits for discussion. Several of these articles currently fail to meet basic standards, e.g. Dan Doctoroff, which is clearly cut and pasted and is a WP:COPYVIO. I've begun to put together working drafts in my own Sandboxes and I plan on proposing these changes gradually on each of the articles' Talk pages once I feel they are ready for others to consider. I welcome any thoughts about this approach. Thank you. Ordwayen ( talk) 14:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Created promotional article for their client - relationship noted on their website. Constantly removed COI tags from the article. MikeWazowski ( talk) 15:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
The article was created by User: Theoriste2, who used to use the account User:Theoriste. The name on Theoriste's user page matches that of Robert Taylor's daughter. [46]. Theoriste2's creation of this page and her participation in its AfD appear to violate the conflict of interest guidelines. -- Hirolovesswords ( talk) 16:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I came across one his articles on speedy deletion patrol, but I didn't know the problem was that bad. Per previous precedent at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress, there obviously should be some consequences for this mass creating articles for non-notable politicians; I suspect the user is an employee of the party. Should a CheckUser investigation be conducted to punish the party involved? Thanks. elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( be free) 20:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Can I get another set of eyes to take a look at this article? A user who is apparently Robert Lang is deleting references in the article with the claim "Deleted Credit to Lane. Robert Lang stated this in documents and he copied it from Langs information" and similar. [47] The editor has refused to discuss it other than in edit summaries, even though I've invited him to discuss the matter at the article talk page. He's deleted other references and links from the article. There may be other issues with the sources cited; however, the basis of his edits smacks of a conflict of interest. — C.Fred ( talk) 04:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I have added links to a Miami Vice website that contains valuable information for all fans of the show. (miamiviceonline.com) I am an administrator of this site. My link is repeatedly removed by srobak. srobak was banned from other Miami Vice sites in the past by me and his deletion of my information is clearly an act of revenge against me. I request that my account be unblocked and my links reinstated. I would also request that some type of action be taken against srobak. A look at his user talk page will show his repeated acts of bullying and editing other members. Ferrariman1954 ( talk) 03:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Edited EyeSerene talk 11:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
User continues to replace article with his personal biography, which focuses on his businesses (which are not notable) rather than his professional racing career (which is notable). Also consistently removes facts about his racing career that could be viewed negatively (such as failing to complete rookie orientation for the Indy 500 twice). Then created another article Scott A. Mayer (now redirected) with his content. Drdisque ( talk) 17:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
User adding material referenced to works by "Ronald Grisanti". I have not reverted any of it because as a layman it's hard to know what is an accepted medical field and what is not. An external link to a related Quackwatch article was deleted in February.
Article was tagged COI on March 2; user was warned for COI on March 3. User has identified himself at EAR here, stating "I am medical director for Functional Medicine University." I just now removed external links to 'Functional Medicine University' and an apparently similar organization, 'Institute for Functional Medicine', that didn't seem to add anything to the article. The article history shows a struggle for dominance between promoters of the two institutions. -- CliffC ( talk) 19:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
This long biography appears to be a self-promotional piece written and maintained by a WP:SPA named User:Asterysk, and there is good reason to believe this editor is the subject of the article. Contains over 40 (!) external links, not including at least a dozen interspersed in the body of the article. About half the sourcing seems subpar. List of recent lectures and talks. Numerous unsourced assertions. While Dr. De Brouwer may merit a biography, I propose we remove any materials not properly sourced. Jokestress ( talk) 17:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
There has been a lengthy series of text blanking from user in question. Issue was widely discussed in BLPN, and issue had been previously resolved until recent round of deletion. User claims to be related to article subject. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 12:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
User appears to be conducting a promotional campaign for Gold's products, and continues to do so after a COI warning. Guyonthesubway ( talk) 15:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Article created by owner of business; edits suggest a primarily promotional agenda. 99.170.155.202 ( talk) 00:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
The PeopleBrowsr article, and others on related topics, seem to be largely the work of a small group of contributors who post nothing but PeopleBrowsr-related articles, or material promoting PeopleBrowsr in other articles. This makes me suspect that some or all of these editors are sock puppets, or are employed by or otherwise have an interest in PeopleBrowsr. All relevant articles ought to be double-checked for promotional language, neutrality, and to ensure the sources are indeed reliable and establish notability. I regret I don't have the time to do all this now, but am posting this message here in hopes that someone else can.
Some of the relevant articles:
Here are some of the editors in question:
— Psychonaut ( talk) 17:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if I filed out that form wrong, but I never have filed this out before!
NPOV, COI, violations of WP:Good Faith, abusive language, for NXIVM, Keith Raniere
I think we have a serious problem on our hands. We seem to have a group of people who believe that NXIVM is a cult and are willing to do everything to make it so that the entire page reads that way. On the other hand, we have a group of people who want people to be able to understand what NXIVM is on its own terms, much the same way that they understand the Church of Latter-Day Saints, Scientology, or the Catholic faith. If Wikipedia is about educating people, which it is, this seems obvious.
The first group's edits are almost exclusively about NXIVM, Keith Raniere, and the Bronfmans. This is because they have been directed to participate on Wikipedia by a blog post on a website Saratoga in Decline, which has an obsessive focus on NXIVM and is run by a Mr. John Tighe, who has posted repeatedly, who doesn't want consensus, just to attack NXIVM and anyone wanting to edit it fairly. You can read his two posts about the "Wiki wars" here and here. [1] The author of that website it would seem is John Tighe, the blogger who created an attack site and is to some degree boasting about his edits: http://saratogaindecline.blogspot.com/ His website is on a server in Russia so the edits happen in that time zone. I recommend banning him from the NXVIM, Raniere and Bronfman pages.
Tighe has since all but admitted that he is maintaining two usernames. I recommend filing a CheckUser request on those two usernames. I would be that they are the same person. Redacted per WP:OUTING. -- Atama 頭 19:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC) JamesChambers666 ( talk) 18:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I believe James has no interest in the truth and I believe is is a paid NXIVM employee clearly a conflict of interest. He only hopes to attack Mr.Tighe,a person who runs a critical blog about NXIVM but also allows NXIVM to answer unedited on his blog.He also signs his blog and takes full responsibility for what is written there by him. Hardy the behavior of an “attack” blog. Hopefully Wiki will return to being the largest collection of knowledge in the world and not a sugar coated revisionist history and advertising and recruitment tool for a organization that 6 publications some international have labeled a cult. Just like the edit james made about an Bouchey "extortion letter" that he postet as neutral, which as never let to any criminal indictment I stand behind every edit I have made. I hope he does the same. Link1914 ( talk)
I quote,
Well the edits were flying as over a hundred edits were entered in the Wiki-Keith Raniere self-promoting bullshit wars. Complaint after complaint was filed over every claim the dirty one ever made. A special fight erupted over the famous “I’ve had people killed tape” For now the page stands as it is till until June 8, 2011. The augment is being adjudicated by wiki administrators. Remember you can join the fray and Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
Please file a CheckUser request and ask them to stop engaging in meatpuppery and canvassing. Moreover, I revealed no personal information that wasn't readily accessible from that blogger's own about me page... His personal information is available for the world to see. Please investigate for yourself. [3]-- JamesChambers666 ( talk) 22:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Well James I see you are still obsessing and attracting Mr.tighe me and a blog. First I will not confirm or deney who I am I take my name Keyser Sözetigho from the movie the Usual suspects. I had quite a bit of difficulty in getting Keyser Söze as it appears to be a popular moniker. The usual suspects is my favorite movie and I am a fan of the blog Saratogaindecline. Maybe I took some NXIVM classes and want my money back. Maybe my 18 year old sister joined this cult or one like i. Maybe I’m related to 35-year-old Kristin Snyder the environmentalist who vanished from an Alaska hotel after taking NXIVM classes. Her body was never found. But you seem to think I’m posting from “Russian servers” Perhaps with your keen investigative skills you should be in law enforcement I see you chose the numbers 666 in your name. I believe that is the number of the beast. Did I accuse you of being a beast? Instead of obsessing over my identity why don’t you concentrate on my edits? I’m sure you don’t like them but each one is referenced to a publication and not cult recurring material. I find the unsubstantiated claims of Mr.Ranier to be the smartest, fastest and also good at judo absurd. Wiki administrators are well aware that I and link 1914 are at different locations using different computers but you complain away. I guess next you will claim I’m using a proxy. Wiki isn’t about you promoting NXIVM but about fair neutral information. I am thinking of starting some wiki pages of my own. 1. On the disappearance of Kristin Snyder 2. The highly controversial visit of the NXIVM sponsored trip of the Dali Lama to Albany You will of course be able to enter your own edits if they need wiki NPOV standards Keyser Sözetigho ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC).
I read that comment and he didn't tell people what to wrire just that they can Keyser Sözetigho ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC).
This is funny, I choose 1914 as it was widely predicted to be the year the world would end. I thought it apropos a as a Christian cult predicted this year. Little did I know that number would link me to a conspiracy involving :Russians” Good thing I didn’t choose 1917,that would make me a Bolshevik or heaven forbid 2001 that would make a terrorist. Link1914 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC).
"isn’t about you promoting NXIVM but about fair neutral information" What part of that don't you understand. Cutting and posting material from NXIVM produced propaganda is far from neutral.All I am doing is presenting a balanced view. So if NXIVM is a cult that is my belief others can decide whatever they want. But this is not a promotional website for NXIVM Link1914 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC).
I believe it was in bad faith for you James to heavily edit the article on NXIVM and then agree to and support a no editing agreement. This is typical NXIVM behavior. Link1914 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC).
Comment: Just as a heads-up to all involved in this discussion, it was confirmed that Link1914 == Keyser Sözetigho. I've blocked Link as a sockpuppet but have left Keyser Sözetigho alone as he is involved in this discussion. If you have any questions about this, please feel free to ask me. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
So as any employee of NXIVM knows critics only post from public portals. So link and Soze shared a portal that doesn't discredit any thing they edited. One only has to seach NXIVN in google to find a host of derogatory and outright scary stories about NXIVM. All anyone ever sought is fairness and balance and not a public relations piece on an organization that many,many respected people beieve is a cult. I don't suspect this controversy will go away anytime soon NXIVMwatch ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC).
Note that a researcher, a proponent of his own theories of "Tired Light" which are not published in mainstream literature is trying to insert his ideas at tired light. All the IP addresses resolving to Tampa and Clearwater are his. I have cross-posted this notice to WP:FTN where they can help evaluate the fact that this is a tiny minority idea that receives no notice in the relevant field. 198.202.202.22 ( talk) 17:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
It is a Violation of wikipedia rules to attack living persons. 71.98.139.122 ( talk) 12:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello, a couple of days ago I posted a request to Talk:Eloqua to request an uninvolved editor consider removing an uncited section that has recently been added to the Eloqua article. I haven't received any reply there, so hope that someone here will be able to offer advice or make the change I suggested. The section is very short, just a couple of sentences long, and has no citations at all. In fact, to the extent of my knowledge, what has been written is not true. As I'm the VP of Content Marketing at Eloqua, it would be a COI issue for me to make changes to the article without getting the ok from other editors. Preferably another editor can look at this and remove it if that's the right action to take. Can anyone here be of assistance? Best, Jchernov ( talk) 18:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
This user has created many articles. He appears to be Eduard Irimia, a promoter, who owns SuperKombat and I don't know what else. According to the Irimia logo file page, which he uploaded (and has been nominated for deletion):
To be able to make this picture, I've spent lots of money (mainly equipment) and time. If you want to use this picture (even commercially), you can use it free of charge — if you comply with the license under which this image is released. This is required in any medium (internet, print, ...). The image has to appear with a copy of, or a full (hyperlinked) URL to the license. In addition, attribution of this image to me is required in a prominent location near to the image.
That seems to say that the logo is his, in which case these articles are incredible self-promotion. The deletion nomination says that the logo is that of an organization and therefore cannot be his. That is, of course, a possibility, but it is just as possible that the organization belongs to Cyperuspapyrus. This should be sorted out.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Anjanim (Anjani Millet) claims to be the founder and president of the organization and website added in this diff and this diff, despite one intervening COI warning. These are her only edits; account may be single-purpose. Thanks! JFHJr ( ㊟) 01:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Extremely similar username to article name. The user has made edits only to that article. (other than creating his userpage). Probable COI here. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/ Sign mine 18:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Amarie2 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), a new WP:SPA user, has admitted a WP:COI with respect to C. John Collins and Casey Luskin (two articles recently merged after consensus on Talk:Center for Science and Culture), but has been edit-warring to restore these articles. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The user appears to work for the police force and added the facebook and twitter pages for the force to the article as well as their phone number. Heyitsme22 ( talk) 14:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
User:BarbaraBigham re-wrote the article World Chiropractic Alliance, to completely whitewash it of all the negative information, despite that that was all referenced and documented. In the process, she lists herself as their Director of Communications, and this is a clear violation of WP:NOPAY. As she lists herself in the article, I presume that my citing this issue is not itself an outing of the editor. Д-р СДжП,ДС 00:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, the user above made an edit to the above page which seemed to be a COI. Here it is. Island Monkey talk the talk 07:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm a little confused because the article is his name, so if I put his username, it "outs" him. So.... for the sake of following rules, I'm not going to put his username unless specifically requested, and this pretty much makes my case that much more difficult. Anyway, I believe I have found this Hollywood personage (not necessarily a celebrity) to be editing his own article. None of the additions are sourced, some of the edits are seemingly allowed (adding brackets, quotation marks), and some are fuzzy on the neutral bit, like adding and removing names and awards, all of which are unsourced (even the removals). I could tag the article with a template at the top, but out of privacy of the person, I wouldn't be able to add the user warning on their talk page, because suddenly their privacy no longer exists (anyone could make the connection through my edit history). Their edits are very few and far between, I suppose, in comparison to other potential COI editors. However, the edits are 90% on his article. Finally, what little proof I may have of the COI would give away his username again. So from this point forward, someone tell me what to do :D – Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 08:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Aside from the obvious COI betrayed by the user's username, the edits are very favorable to and from the POV of the Maryknollers. This is no longer a balanced article. Orange Mike | Talk 18:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
User created a spam article. Obvious COI. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/ Sign mine 19:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Here's an situation which needs some attention. At Talk:Lowell Milken, a new editor identifies themself with "I work for Lowell Milken and we intend to add additional unbiased biographical information to his page in the next few days.". They've made a number of edits to polish the reputation of Lowell Milken.
There's some history here. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_47#Milken_family_reputation_enhancement_project. That resulted in a sockpuppet investigation and some blocks and bans. Last time, though, the edits were rather blatant attempts to remove well-sourced negative information. (Lowell Milken is the brother and former business associate of Michael Milken, one of the biggest white-collar crooks of the 1980s.) This time, it's not so heavy-handed.
I'm not sure what to do here, but the situation bears watching. -- John Nagle ( talk) 03:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I am a relatively new editor and I am not sure what is the best course of action here. I see a COI in the recent edit by Cjjohnson73 since the addition to the article is presumably the recent world record for consecutive jumps by "Caleb Johnson." The user name suggests a COI with this article. Additionally, no sources are cited for the claim. In any case, the article should revert back to the previous version. What is the proper course for an editor to make in this case?
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pogo_stick&oldid=432951676. Kjmonkey ( talk) 22:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Per this talk page message, Jinxxed4life claims to be Jinxx, of the band, Black Veil Brides. As the edit history of this article shows, they have made multiple edits to the article about the band, which is clearly a COI violation. Also, the user BeAwareX1 claims to be the band's management, per this edit summary. Strikerforce Talk Review me! 10:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
An article (about "the twelfth largest law firm in Northeast Ohio" - hardly notable, I'd think?) clearly created by someone with a COI, judging from the user name. Also adding multiple links to the law firm's blog, e.g. at WikiLeaks [5]. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 20:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
An admin suggested I bring this here, and I realize now that perhaps I should have done so before nominating the article for deletion, but too late now. Anyway, given that the article contained a lot of text and no sources attesting notability, I suspected a promotional page, and ran the creator's username through Google. Sure enough, Michael Ramey is the communications director for the organization that's promoting the bill, ie. he is paid to promote the subject of an article he wrote. He admits as much on his talk page. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 00:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Similarly named SPA's adding promotional language, many deleting (article's sole, independently-sourced) sentence about Evan's global warming letter to The Nation. No edits outside Bill Evans (meteorologist). None reply to Talk page warnings. Accounts seem temporary, then abandoned, with BillEvans777 ( talk · contribs) being the currently active account. Diffs are shown for erasing Global warming position only. IP editors not listed. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC) edg ☺ ☭ 12:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be engaged in press-agentry for various
HBO series, the artists appearing in them, and perhaps for other Hollywood/media figures.
Examples
[10],
[11],
[12],
[13] and
[14]. --
CliffC (
talk) 19:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
This IP user, who appears to occasionally edit as BermudaWoman going by the IP's editing of a comment previously left by BermudaWoman and by their sharing the exact same editing patterns and edit summary style, edits only in articles and discussions relating to the Crouch family, a group of Christian TV evangelists, and to the TV stations they own. These edits tend to be of a promotional nature and are generally sourced to SPS or to other sources that are unreliable for notability purposes. Currently, the user is stonewalling an AfD discussion by overwhelming it with vast walls of text that claim to assert the notability of the subject, although none of the text or references in fact do so (either the sources are unreliable or they're an attempt to borrow notability for him from the TV network his parents founded). The same user is also being rather ornery about a proposed merge of the Jan Crouch article, claiming independent notability (I'd suggested a merge and rename rather than a delete because she and Paul Sr. founded TBN together) that is not supported by sources.
Given this, it's extremely likely that the user is a paid employee of, or otherwise closely associated with, the Crouch family or Trinity Broadcasting Network. It would be helpful if they were warned about Wikipedia's COI policy and advised not to edit on behalf of employers, etc. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I am a new Wiki user, and I am not an employee of TBN. I am a fan. Just as Roscelese is a fan of the artists and authors that she writes about. When I saw how horribly written the articles were for TBN, I attempted to improve them. If i am responding too much on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Crouch, Jr. ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)it is not intended to be nonconforming to Wiki protocol, but a logical response to some of the responses which seem illogical and verging on malicious. It would appear that Roscelese has targeted TBN, and those associated to this network, in a egregiously bias fashion. Speech used in the discussion on Paul Crouch, regarding a page merge with Jan Crouch, were based on very demeaning descriptions of Jan Crouch, and no apparent reasoning when it comes to the presentation of the facts. Jan Crouch was referred to as 'sweeping the floors at Holy Land Experience', when in fact she is the Director and CEO. The arguments seemed to go on and on in spite of several NPOV sources proving the articles notability. This user then went on to use the same broad sweeping, unsourced verbiage on all TBN related articles. My response is rather wordy because I believe this user is very biased about this network, and it's owners/management. In this users profile, they state quite clearly that they specifically look for any article that uses non-NPOV buzzwords with conservative themes. That in itself is non-NPOV. As the author of so many articles on well know artists/writers, it is even more illogical to me that this user cannot recognize and give credit to individuals that have contributed so much to the media field? This entire discussion baffles me. I am confident that neutral Wikipedia editors will actually read the articles, and the sources, and acknowledge credibility and notability. 71.97.55.109 ( talk) 18:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Bold text
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quilla_Constance
This page is being used as self promotion and is not in following with the Wikipedia guidelines.
It contains: Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages. Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.
This page is written by her about herself and is blatantly self promotional.... it is a "puff" piece and is basically an ad for her music career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.129.62 ( talk) 17:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Charlie Richmond, in addition to reference issues, looks like it was edited by User:Charlierichmond -- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 01:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Article created by the magazine's founder. Only sourcing is to the magazine itself. The Mark of the Beast ( talk) 01:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if I am in the right place. A new editor, User talk:Tim Ellis RIBA , has been removing cited material from the article on Sleddale Hall. On his talk page he says he is the Tim Ellis who now owns Sleddale Hall (and I have no proof he is, but then again no reason to doubt him). The material he has been removing is about the Hall being boarded up, as he wishes to discourage people from breaking in. It is a historic fact that the Hall has been boarded up for years and a Guardian article reflected this in its reporting; I am somewhat loathe to remove this reference as it is part of the 'story' of Sleddale Hall. But I am no expert on COI editing or what would be prudent in this situation: does what he want take precedence over objective reporting of facts? How much can we 'bend' to help him, if at all? Can anyone step in and advise please? And what's the position on his COI editing? (I assume I haven't outed him, given his editing name ...) Stronach ( talk) 21:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Long story short it has come to my attention that an editor with a direct connection to Phi Alpha has been editing the Phi Alpha article and removing content from the Illinois College article off and on since at least 2008. The editor has also been involved with deletion debates involving articles of past Phi Alpha members always voting keep. I counted over 200 edits before I stopped counting. I did the investigation on the editor after he insisted the removal of an alum he feels is not notable enough to be listed in the notable alumni section of the Illinois College article. This alum has been considered notable by Wikipedia consensus for several years now and yet single IP address editors have removed his name from the alumni section list on Illinois College several times. This editor used his legal name as his Wikipedia name and has a link on his user page that once visited mentions Phi Alpha and links to other material that made his identity clear. I called him out on it. From what I understand I did not violate his privacy because he made that information available on Wikipedia. Since 2008 he has not revealed his connection to Phi Alpha until now after being exposed. I've had suspicions that the Illinois College article has been 'gatekeeped' and in my opinion this discover confirms that. I've never had to deal with a COI directly before so do take that in mind if I've handled it wrong. It is just very frustrating to see editors making their own rules about content. Even more so when I find out they are connected to the articles they are editing and removing stuff from. Can someone please come take a look? SunRiddled ( talk) 16:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
( ←) There may be a concern here. An undisclosed connection to a subject (for 4 years) combined with being a single-purpose account toward that subject, that's at least worth noting. I'm not sure what can be done, though, especially since you haven't provided any diffs or even named any editors in this complaint. I'm particularly interested in where this individual (or any others) have mentioned that he is a member of the society (on Wikipedia). -- Atama 頭 17:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The editor Kimscipes, who previously outed himself as Assoc. Professor Kim Scipes of a regional campus of Purdue U., has again engaged in self-promotion and POV pushing on this page, adding a copy of his book, with this text in the article:
An academic book published in 2010, AFL-CIO's Secret War against Developing Country Workers: Solidarity or Sabotage? by Kim Scipes (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2010) examined the AFL-CIO's foreign policy program in general, including the Solidarity Center. After examining the origins of US Labor's foreign policy under American Federation of Labor President Samuel Gompers in the late 1890s, Scipes claims to have established that the AFL-CIO's foreign policy leadership--acting behind the backs, and without the knowledge, of American union workers--has engaged in "labor imperialism." Scipes makes the point that the Solidarity Center has never given an honest and complete accounting of its activities to AFL-CIO affiliated union members.
Scipes previously posted this section on the talk page:
NPOV WATCH!!
The following writer claims the article is "blatantly POV." As one who has done the most writing on the AFL-CIO's foreign policy program over the past 17 years, I would agree: I have a "point of view," and it guides my writing: I am against imperialism in all forms, and against all oppression. As I (and a number of other writers) have documented, again and again, the leadership of the AFL-CIO has been carrying out a foreign policy program out of sight, behind the backs, and against the interests of workers in the US and around the world--and done everything possible to keep US union members from learning about these activities, and have even corrupted what democratic processes that exist within the national labor movement to do so.
Don't take my word for this--read the literature on AFL-CIO foreign operations and make up your own mind. The largest bibliography of material on this subject--including many articles on both sides of the debate, and with many articles downloadable from the Internet--is on my "Contemporary Labor Issues" web site at http://faculty.pnc.edu/kscipes/LaborBib.htm#AFL-CIO_foreign_operations .
My work is carefully documented, and often has extended references. The three most important articles I have written are each on-line (and listed in the above bibliography), but I would like to draw people's attention to them:
- "AFL-CIO in Venezuela: Deja Vu All Over Again." Labor Notes, April 1994. On-line at www.labornotes.org/archives/2004/04/articles/e.html . (This details the AFL-CIO's "Solidarity Center's" work in helping to lay the groundwork in Venezuela for the 2002 attempted coup against democratically-elected President Hugo Chavez.)
- "Labor Imperialism Redux? The AFL-CIO's Foreign Policy Since 1995." Monthly Review, May 2005. On-line at www.monthlyreview.org/0505scipes.htm .
- "An Unholy Alliance: The AFL-CIO and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in Venezuela." Z Net, July 2005. On-line at www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?sectionID=19&itemID=8268 . (This especially provides information on the involvement of the AFL-CIO's Solidarity Center as one of four "core institutes"--along with the international wing of the Democratic Party, the international wing of the Republican Party, and the international wing of the US Chamber of Commerce--of the National Endowment for Democracy, a misnamed project started by the Reagan Administration to do the work overtly that the CIA had previously done covertly.)
For more information on the AFL-CIO's Foreign Policy Program, I suggest you check out the Worker to Worker Solidarity Committee's web site at www.workertoworker.net .And, for the record, in case any one considers me an ideologue, please note that I am a former Sergeant in the US Marine Corps (serving 1969-73, although staying in the States all four years), and am a current member of the National Writers Union, affiliated to the United Auto Workers and the AFL-CIO. (I have also been a member of the Graphic Communications Union, AFL-CIO; the National Education Association; and the American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO.) I currently teach sociology for one of the regional campuses of Purdue University.
Kim Scipes, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Sociology Purdue University North Central 1410 S. US Hwy 421 Westville, IN 46391 E-mail: kscipes@pnc.edu
Scipes's POV pushing has driven other editors up the wall. One editor has already removed the following list of "further reading":
- Diana Barahona, 2005, Venezuela's National Workers Union" Counterpunch, October 25 [15]
- Kim Scipes, 2000, “It’s Time to Come Clean: Open the AFL-CIO Archives on International Labor Operations.” Labor Studies Journal, Vol. 25, No. 2, Summer: 4-25. [Posted on-line in English by LabourNet Germany at http://www.labournet.de/diskussion/gewerkschaft/scipes2.html .]
- Kim Scipes, 2004, “AFL-CIO in Venezuela: Déjà vu All Over Again.” Labor Notes, April: 5. On-line at http://www.counterpunch.org/scipes03292004.html l
- Kim Scipes, 2005, "Labor Imperialism Redux? The AFL-CIO's Foreign Policy Since 1999" Monthly Review, May [16]
- Kim Scipes, 2005, "Unholy Alliance: The AFL-CIO and the National Endowment for Democracy in Venezuela" Z Net, July 10 [17]
- Kim Scipes, 2006, "Worker-to-Worker Solidarity Committee to AFL-CIO: Cut All Ties with NED" [18]
- Kim Scipes, 2007, "The AFL-CIO Foreign Policy Program and the 2002 Coup in Venezuela: Was the AFL-CIO Involved?" Journal of the Indiana Academy of the Social Sciences, Vol. X: 133-147. [An earlier version of this peer-reviewed article is on-line at http://www.workertoworker.net/afl_cio_foreign_policy_venezuela_kim_scipes.html .]
- Lee Sustar, 2005. “Revolution and Counter-revolution in Venezuela: Assessing the Role of the AFL-CIO” and “Lee Sustar Responds to Stan Gacek.” New Labor Forum, Vol. 14, No. 3, Fall: 97-108. On-line at http://www.selvesandothers.org/article10406.html .
- Kim Scipes, "Contemporary Labor Issues" Bibliography—most extensive listing of references on AFL-CIO foreign operations. On-line at http://faculty.pnc.edu/kscipes/LaborBib.htm#AFL-CIO_Foreign_Operations
The writing he cites is mostly published with extremely left-wing groups, mostly on the totalitarian left. The "journal" Labor Notes used to be associated with a less-nutty-than-usual Trotskyist organization calling itself Solidarity. The Monthly Review is the main Marxist/small-c communist "theoretical journal" in the USA, the source of the understatement "40 years is too long to go without an election" when it switched to Mao's China (and since to Castro's Cuba, and then to North Korea ...).
The last paragraph should clarify that I am not the editor best equipped to deal with totalitarian leftists ....
The article most distorted fails to mention that most of the money from NED went to fund Poland's Solidarity. Indeed, it fails to mention Poland at all. (Today, the AFL-CIO's aid to Solidarity is mentioned in a DYK I wrote.)
Sincerely, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 01:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Page is full of instances of self promotion. 86.19.238.17 ( talk) 22:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
This is getting increasingly messy, and I'm somewhat out of my depth here. The above contributors appear to have links with competing concerns, and are engaged in an edit war over article content, combined with some dubious claims being made in the AfD discussion (I've had to redact one as potentially libellous already). Outside assistance would be much appreciated. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
User claims: "We are entertainment counsel for a number of celebrities and public figures, and, at times, submit or revise information in a client's biography to correct inaccurate facts." Similar claims are found in numerous other edit summaries. Has also edited Stan Lee and Stan Lee Media in the past under the same pretext. Username is also probably a violation of WP:CORPNAME. TDL ( talk) 22:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Ken Ring hit the headlines in New Zealand a couple of months ago when the Christchurch earthquakes struck. His main business is predicting weather years in advance by using the position of the moon. He has also used the moon to predict when Earthquakes could occur. His noteworthyness comes from one of his earthquake predictions occuring near the date of one of the Earthquakes. Duely an article was stated [19], which in my opinion used a lot of unreliable sources [20] [21]. I put the article up for deletion, partly because I did not think he was notable and partly because I wanted to fix the issues and not waste my time on an article that might later be deleted. At the time it was decided that the article was worth keeping [22]. One issue is that not many reliable sources exist about Ring before the earthquakes, so most of the information either comes from his own website [23] (which has meet opposition [24]) and an interview conducted in 2008 [25].
Ken Ring himself has now got involved in editing the article. This is not outing as he now signs his names as Ken Ring [26] and has identified himself on the talk page [27]. I have no problem with someone editing there own article but his are problematic. [28]. I am not sure what, if anything, needs to be done, but think it would be good for someone who is experienced in dealing with this, is outside of New Zealand and who has not heard of Ring previously to keep an eye on it. Personally I do not beleive Ring can use the moon to accurately predict weather or the moon, but have tried to keep the article as neutral as possible despite my POV.
Note: Gadfium (another kiwi) has reverted while I was preparing this, so there are other eyes on it. AIRcorn (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
An article created some time ago by User:Exeko. I quote Moonriddengirl (in the article's talk page): According to the source primarily used in constructing this article, here, "Exeko represents the American artist photographer and philanthropist Wayne Schoenfeld in Canada, and selected markets in United States." Recently the article has been edited and augmented by User:Wschoenfeld, whose additions have included the extraordinary claim that International exhibitions of Schoenfeld's self styled and staged circus imagery, "Icons/Iconoclasts" have drawn crowds of over ten thousand visitors each in Paris and Montreal, a claim accompanied by footnotes, but footnotes that seem to elaborate -- incidentally, suggesting that the exhibitions drew hundreds of viewers per hour -- rather than providing any evidence. -- Hoary ( talk) 06:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't sure where this should go but anyway. Upon investigation I found out that a previous page called Victoria Preobrazhenskaya was deleted as db-g11. It seems that the user has resurrected that page and is planning on writing up another one. Contribs shows no other edits than the project at hand. That's why I didn't know where this should go.. it's a user page and not an actual article. I've looked all over but I can't seem to find any protocol for such a situation even though I've encountered it a couple of times. When a user starts making an autobiographical page using their user page, are we supposed to let them make the page on their user page to their heart's content, and put a deletion tag on them only once they try to publish? Or do we nip it at the bud and tag for speedy deletion under db-spam? Can someone please clarify? Sorry, I'm kinda new at this stuff. -- Motherfrakker ( talk) 12:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I removed a redundant section from the Pashtun people article and explained my reason in the edit sumamry [29] but my edit was quickly reverted by User:Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan [30] who seems to be making alot of strange edits based on his personal POV. I explained to him that this is not how you edit articles, but he came with a reply talking nonsense about reporting me. [31]. Can someone please explain to User:Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan that the information he added in that way is not needed in the article. I don't think he will listen to me since he feels like he owns the article. He acts like if he owns the articles in Wikipedia and that others cannot even add a word to them. [32]-- AlimNaz ( talk) 10:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I have done some edits on the article on Dresden and Johnston since the article was written in a highly non-neutral manner. From the pattern of the contributions of the editors it seems they are someone associated to the duo because that is the only work edited. There is a constant addition of itunes spam links or twitter and facebook accounts. Most of the edits are coming from MathewFaust ( talk · contribs) or 2 IP addresses. Could someone look into it and see what needs to be done? At the moment, I have requested semi-protection to avoid IP edits. Hassan514 ( talk) 17:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Does someone have time to look at Balance board and the editing by the above accounts? They all appear to be the same person, and have a conflict of interest with at least some of the links/references and related material that they've added to the article. It appears that they've added considerable material to the article since December '07, so I'm not sure how to proceed. -- Ronz ( talk) 01:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
The operator of this website brags that this pic is bringing him traffic from all over the world via Wikipedia. -- Orange Mike | Talk 15:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I previously made a request on this noticeboard regarding the Eloqua article and an editor here was very helpful, so I would like to ask for some further assistance with a couple of additions to the article. I posted a request on Talk:Eloqua a couple of weeks ago, but haven't received any response so far. There are two additions I'd like to suggest for the Clients and recognition section: adding a recent client, Fidelity Investments, and also adding a recent award from the Word of Mouth Marketing Association. In my Talk page note I had suggested replacing the Miami Heat with Fidelity Investments, but on second thoughts I would be happy to simply add this client to the existing list. While I don't think that these edits are controversial, since I work for Eloqua (as VP of Content Marketing) and there is a potential COI it seemed best to check with other editors. Please can another editor take a look at the suggested additions and make the edits, if this is appropriate. Thanks, Jchernov ( talk) 20:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Despite previous warning, user has returned to remove COI/AUTO tags and to reintroduce unsourced puffery. It appears the editor is the subject of the article. I am recusing myself from further edits in the article space. Please consider reverting and warning this editor again. Jokestress ( talk) 05:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
User identifies himself as an "organisers of Pink Dot" and appears to be "Roy Tan" here. Roy Tan started Pink Dot, see here. Editor is engaged in a slow edit war at the article which includes: repeatedly inserting content sourced to Facebook, youtube, blogs; at least twice removing the {{ advert}} template. Editor is exerting ownership of Pink Dot and has created an homage to the org featuring walls of unsourced claims. Editor has been warned but persists in adding poorly sourced content. Request that the editor be required to use {{ request edit}} at this page to arrest the promotional editing. – Lionel ( talk) 04:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
This article was originally written by StuartKerr, Tecnical Director of Liberty Games. http://www.linkedin.com/pub/stuart-kerr/15/a57/7a5 Not only if it a conflict of interest but it has no value to Wikipedia and is something that has been created purely for SEO purposes. There is nothing notable in this article that is worthy of a wiki page. I believe it should be removed. The Novotable company has ceased trading for a few years not http://www.novotable.com/ Also the offside football table is not a exclusive product as it is also sold in John Lewis. http://www.trifledesign.co.uk/ Kookieshell ( talk) 23:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
The user, either the actual person or someone else, created an autobiography page of Jamal Al-Karboli. FWIW, I've brought the matter to the attention of UAA but was asked to report here instead. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
PIM seems an awful lot like Parking In Motion to me; Only edits were on Parking In Motion, which included deleting a Speedy deletion template. Swimnteach ( talk) 01:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
This user account was created to edit this article, and no others. In 15 consecutive edits, the user managed to add a lot of text to the article. Fortunately, he or she admits to being the author of the software (and thus the official website, most likely) on the article's talk page. Unfortunately, most of the contributed text comes from the official (and copyrighted!) website. I genuinely believe they are acting in good faith, but WP:COI or not, this is at minimum a WP:COPYVIO and WP:PRIMARY problem.
In my time on Wikipedia, I've never dealt with this type of situation. I read WP:COI, but hope to learn from your ruling/response how best to deal with these situations in the future. — voidxor ( talk | contrib) 05:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the correct place but I think this matter qualifies as a conflict of interest. More editors need to watchlist Rudolph Valentino as author David Bret (under the username David Bret ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is inserting the title of his book about Valentino and also adding unsourced content about Valentino being gay and a blurb about a new book he is supposedly writing about Valentino. He recently removed a large amount of sourced content that presents the content about Valentino's alleged homosexuality in a neutral point of view and instead just added a bunch of unsourced crap in its place. Two days previous to that edit, he edited the article to disparage what I assume is rival author Evelyn Zumaya, but removed the content in the following edit. Bret's biographies are regularly derided by most people who can group two sentences together and read past a third grade level, so I do not believe his books qualify as reliable source for even the most basic information. He cites no sources in his books and always writes about. Ever. I brought this here as Bret has a nasty habit of stalking and harassing those who challenge his opinion or disagree with him and I'm not at all interested in having him create blogs about me or follow me around the internet. Before anyone thinks I'm wearing a tinfoil hat, look on Amazon.com and look at his whiny author's page. Also note the many deleted comments made by him as "rebuttals" to negative reviews on a books. He's also done the same thing on LiveJournal. Someone needs to have a word with him about trying to pimp yet another of his books on Wikipedia or at least keep an eye on the article to keep the unsubstantiated salacious bullshit out. 70.241.28.1 ( talk) 02:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I take great exception to the opening paragraph of this debate posted by 70-241-28-1 aka Hala Pickford aka Hala Pickford, the publisher of Evelyn Zumaya's biography of Valentino. This woman as pointed out elsewhere has had all of her blogs closed down by a court order, she has been fined $100,000, she has been found guilty of common assault and issued with a 24-month restraining order, and following a non-show at the Burbank Court House currently has a warrant out for her arrest. Terms such as "bunch of unsourced" crap" and "Bret's biographies are regularly derided by most people who can group two sentences together" and "unsubstantiated salacious bullshit" are highly offensive. Again, just because hers and Zumaya's views differ from mine, there is no need for such rudeness. Yes, I did add my books to various Wikipedia because I believed I was allowed to do this. I would like all of the above comments by Birchard and Zumaya to be removed from here, otherwise this information will be posted to the file already in the possession of the Burbank Police. I would also point out that Evelyn Zumaya and Birchard, besides posting salacious articles hither and thither in my name, opened a Boycott David Bret Blog (currently by invitation only) accusing me of some of the most heinous crimes--so heinous that, before the Blog was privatized, Birchard was questioned by the Burbank police. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Bret ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC) The paragraph posted by 70.241.28.1 which begins, "Bret's biographies are regularly derided..." should be removed. This is a spiteful attack on my books for no other reason than the writer is prejudiced because she has been sued for slander. There is NO blog by me against this writer, though she does have two very litigious blogs about me. If these comments remain here I shall have no alternative but to report this to the police to add to their current file about her, and to instigate legal action. Just because I believe that Valentino was gay and she does not, and whether this is sourced or not, does not excuse this type of behaviour and comment. David Bret ( talk) 18:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Adding DesignMerge that has been around longer, comparable to xmpie and makes plug-in software for Adobe InDesign.
DesignMerge is at the top of the Adobe partners page.... http://www.adobe.com/products/vdp/partners.html and there are many others to include in this article as well...just putting in directsmile and xmpie seems biased to me...
VDP Software & Services
There are many software packages available to merge text and images into VDP print files. Some are stand-alone software packages for VDP, however most of the advanced VDP software packages, such as DesignMerge, DirectSmile and XMPie from Xerox, are actually plug-in modules for one or more publishing software packages such as Adobe Creative Suite [6].
Besides VDP software, other software packages may be necessary for VDP print projects. Mailing software is necessary in the United States (United States Postal Service) and Canada to take advantage of reduced postage for bulk mailing [2]. Used prior to the VDP print file creation, mailing software presorts and validates and generates bar codes for mailing addresses. Pieces can then be printed in the proper sequence for sorting by postal code. Software to manage data quality (e.g. for duplicate removal or handling of bad records) and uniformity may also be needed[7].
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Gbane ( talk) 17:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Based on their edits, SisterSister00 appears to have a conflict of interest. All of their edits have included adding reviews to video games articles from a website called GameZone. Although the edits are valid as the website is considered a reliable source, it seems clear that the user has some affiliation with GameZone and has a vested interest in promoting the website which may conflict with the goals of Wikipedia. I have posted a notice on the user's talk page warning them of Wikipedia's policy on such practices but I wasn't sure if I should do anything else considering the volume of edits made in just the last couple of days? I also wanted to make administrators aware of the situation, although it's unlikely that any action is required from them at this stage. Cheers. Chimpanzee+ Us | Ta | Co 09:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Would appreciate some extra eyes on this one. I just reverted it back to a much less spammy version removing edits by one of their employees. – ukexpat ( talk) 19:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
One of a series of articles written about marginally notable musicians and bands who are associated with a collective known as the Brooklyn Hive. The author is user:DeborahHoney who from the name I assume is associated with the hive . Porturology ( talk) 03:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, don't know where to put this, as this whole wiki way of reporting things and saving them as changes is very wierd, but anyways..... I NEED AN INOUT FROM SEVERAL NEUTRAL EDITORS.... several weeks ago i put links to my railfan pages on appropriate pages, such as the Hiawatha (Minneapolis MN) light rail page, because my pages are guides for railfans visiting said location, to help them find what they want, get around town, etc, and, in many ways, is the same kind of information receptacle as Wikipedia is, it just isn't in an encyclopedia type format, so my problem is that the links have been removed because your link police have deemed them as COI's..... (my stuff appears at www.railroadsignals.us or rawww.railfanguides.us, BTW) if this is truly your policy, to cut off the learning experience for your uses, then I guess I will have to take the same stance and go thru each and every one of my 700+ pages and remove the links to Wiki for the same reasons, and also because the information placed on Wikipedia may be of suspect informational value because any fool out there can make changes (as the owner of a number one website on railroad signals, I have found many descrepencies, but I have never bothered to do anything about them because the process is way too difficult..... in fact, I'm not even sure why I am writing this, cause I kinda don't really care anymore because my love affair with Wikipedia is over, and I won't be using ya'll any more for research or sending anyone there... and to think I almost gave in to your founder's request for contributions, shame on me..... Toddgp30 ( talk) 14:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
User keeps creating a page for this subject. He is the lead singer of this band. All information added is information found on the band's article. Endlessdan ( talk) 20:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I need help with a potential COI. Yesterday I was told I appeared on Wikipedia and out of curiosity i went and checked it out. and sure enough i am. i have no idea how i got on wikipedia. Unfortunately, i found a mess of an article on me with numerous errors and huge gaps in career and publishing and speaking info. so, i started to fix things then thought to myself, "wait a minute, am i even allowed to do this?". at the same time i was staring at the mark up language used and thank god i didn't put a bunch of time into it because it most certainly looks like it is taboo to edit your own article.
So, is there advice on what to do? i most certainly cannot be unique in this situation of being caught between a "rock and a hard place".
tim— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timhuckaby ( talk • contribs) — Timhuckaby ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Article being edited by employee of Luby's. Originally with a corporate name but that was blocked, still adding promotional material. I've reverted some but it comes back. Dougweller ( talk) 20:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Check out the contribs, this user was canvassing users to create an article with pre-written content, presumably looking to lend the article credibility. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I've not included specific articles because there are many--this has previously been discussed several times at the visual arts project page, and perhaps here as well, though I don't recall. The contributor is an author and art historian who has written hundreds of articles on Wikipedia, often using his book as a source. Given Wikipedia guidelines, this calls into question neutrality and promotional concerns--in proposing deletion of several articles an editor noted a possible connection with the estates of artists whose works are being written about [37]. My thinking is that if there's deemed to be no COI or promotional issue, very well. If there is, then the question is why has this been permitted to continue for so long? Much appreciated, JNW ( talk) 20:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Edits to Michael Lissack. Swimnteach ( talk) 23:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Added self "((Sally Randell)) - Artist, Crafter, Photographer, Singer, Inventor" to List of New Zealand artists. Also tried to add a promotional facebook page ( https://www.facebook.com/pages/Sally-Randell-CreatioNZ/161297000564992) to the same article. Swimnteach ( talk) 23:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Lloyd Segan
Employee (he admits this here [39]) of Piller/Segan/Shepherd promoting business by editing articles of Scott Shepherd Lloyd Segan Shawn Piller . Teapot george Talk 19:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
He is back at it again. Currently his edits are not horrible, but I am off so could someone else keep an eye on this. There are enough warnings on the talk page to maybe justify a stronger message.. AIRcorn (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
User adding works by "Berger, Martin A" to 'Bibliography' and 'Reference' sections of various articles. So far the user has added no text, cited or otherwise, to any article, so these 'Bibliography' and 'Reference' additions seem purely promotional. User sometimes adds Berger works to "Further reading" sections, which I suppose might be acceptable if it turns out there is no COI. -- CliffC ( talk) 20:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Again article is full of self promotion and subject is in my opinion not notable. His recording career is also self financed and little more than a self recorded karaoke CD.
Hi, I'm a new contributor and I re-wrote this article Ross Hauser. I do know Hauser, but not very well. I adressed the specifics of it on the article's talk page because I read in guidelines somewhere that this is what I was supposed to do. I was directed here to ask if someone could read over the article and check that it is properly balanced and follows Wikipedia guidelines so that the tag could be removed Thanks! Savethelastbook ( talk) 14:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
This user has tried to rework the article into a promotional piece and can be seen to have edited the article in May in the same way as well to eliminate anyone else's work on the article and replace it with their version. They've asserted in OTRS ticket 2011070110008751 that they have full authority over her page and no other person has the right unless Adrianna or they are notified. – Adrignola talk 15:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The user appears to be a family member or other interested party of the subject and attempts to place any negative information or remove material that may not meet WP:RS that support the subject are met with opposition. Only one other article is edited by the user and it is listed below. What concerns me is that material from a discussion group outside of Wikipedia is being brought against me as is seen here: "you have stated as much on his discussion page recently". The problem is that I never made any comments of in any talk pages and this is an accusation from this discussion group. Editor could be referencing this edit. Any comments that suggest editor is in COI are met with hostility and in one instance, [40], a removal of the comment which can be more clearly seen with this series. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Similar to the above: the editor does not allow the removal of defamatory material about the subject. The claim that it is defamatory is from the subject as can be seen in the article's talk pages. Again, the editor does not show interest in other subjects, only these two. This article is about the director of a documentary that contains some damning but verifiable material about the previous subject. It appears that the goal of the editor is to make it seem as though the subject is an uneducated person. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Olirecords is a new user who appears to be affiliated with One Little Indian Records: The username connection is obvious, the user's userpage is a cut-n-paste copy of the One Little Indian Records article's lead, and all of the user's edits are to article's about the label's artists. Why this is a problem: The user has added unsourced POV peacock-type language that makes the articles read like a promotional piece, as in this edit. They are also uploading non-free promotional photos of living people and active bands, such as File:Flats.jpg and File:Astrid williamson.jpg. The user appears to either not be familiar with the relevant Wikipedia policies such as WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NFCC, or their aim is simply to promote the label's artists. Either way, they should probably be informed of these policies as well as WP:COI and WP:CORPNAME. IllaZilla ( talk) 16:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Akiban (Ah-kee-buhn) Technologies was founded in 2009 with the mission of delivering a database solution to allow high performance and scalability. The product, which is not yet in the market, allows companies to maintain existing relational databases, but restructures the storage of the data for scale. The company touts this approach as breaking “through the SQL scalability barrier”. The initial unreleased product appears to support MySQL, and we infer plans to support other relational databases in the future. [1] Akiban has a MIT cadre of DBMS developers like Jack Orenstein, who was an Object Design founder, Ori Herrnstadt from the Israeli Defense Forces, Mike McMahon who was a founder of Oberon and Blue Agarve Software and Peter Beaman who used to work for Intersystems. [2]
Operational databases with normalized schemas suffer from performance and scalability problems as schemas become complex. Scalability is the ability of a system, network, or process, to handle growing amounts of work in a graceful manner or its ability to be enlarged to accommodate that growth. [3] These problems are not inherent in the amount of data however, but rather in the SQL joins required to construct objects from that data. Typical workarounds for these challenges include de-normalization, materialized views, and alternative database solutions. Rather than compromising the integrity and benefits of a relational model through denormalization, the database technology will make SQL run better.
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 75.149.135.141 ( talk) 13:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes I am blocked on Akibantech, and submitted a username change that was processed for several days, then disappeared. Am I just suppose to have a Wikipedia account that I can never change the name, or use, or write anything? What would be the point of that.
"The company touts this approach as breaking 'through the SQL scalability barrier'" is taken from a third party article by a writer not at all related to the company. Everything that is positive is not necessarily advertising.
Thank you for the feedback — Preceding unsigned comment added by NO.Denormalization ( talk • contribs) 18:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that an IP range from Los Angeles, 76.213.227.230 and 76.213.226.18, has been scrubbing critical sources out of an article about a Los Angeles resident, Ben Shapiro. Probably either him or someone close to him? Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 19:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Article was created by Bamanh27 ( talk · contribs) a couple days after the ad was posted. The same user has created several other articles. I realize the community is divided over whether paid editing should be allowed, but in my opinion it's a huge COI problem. They can't be neutral, I'm certain the client would not accept or pay for an article with negative content in it. -- œ ™ 02:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
In:
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)Cohen continues his spat with fellow journalist Johann Hari, alleging improper editing of the articles about each of them, and others, by User:David r from meth productions; implying CoI. I have no views as to the veracity of his claims, but this seemed the best place to raise the matter. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Semi-protected both articles. The CU data is stale on User:David r from meth productions, so not much can be done there unless he returns. Brandon ( talk) 12:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
More, by
David Allen Green, who also writes for the Spectator [New Statesman], at
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2011/07/who-is-david-rose.html
Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing);
Andy's talk;
Andy's edits 17:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
The article's creator and major contributing editor has supplied two references that are from the subject's website (or its parent organisation). The article has a list of "Contributing Writers" which includes "Emily Swanson" and thus there appears to be a conflict of interest by self-citing or self-promotion. shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 09:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Over a period of more than a year this user has consistently been editing the above articles to delete negative sourced material, remove English sources, insert hagiography attributed sources which turn out not to be independent (either TV stations controlled by the church, or press releases which have been reprinted in mainstream newspapers), and use sockpuppets ( Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Presidentofctai/Archive). I have requested help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea but no one there is interested in looking into this situation. The article has also had problems with previous strings of sockpuppets, but I have no evidence of a concrete link between them and Presidentofctai. "CTAI" I believe refers to be the Christian Trade Association International, which has an association with Jaerock Lee's publisher Urim Books.
Some examples of recent problematic edits include:
Any help on this matter would be greatly appreciated as I am the only other editor watching this article and I do not have remotely enough time to scrutinise his numerous edits. Thank you, cab ( call) 04:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. DavideLerda ( talk) 13:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Hi, I created GrowVC page and I have 2 notifications: - possible conflict of interest - it lacks inline citations I'm going to work on point 2, since we have citations on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_equity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_funding but I want to know how to solve point 1. I wrote the article in a descriptive way, to avoid marketing, and added external links (BBC, LAtimes). Is it sufficient? Having thousands of users, we can ask on our website for somebody to create a descriptive page on Wikipedia. Let me know which way you prefer.
Article about online news site is being edited by account whose name matches the name of the editor and owner, Linda Solomon. Promotional material is being added. The Interior (Talk) 16:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
User Violinconcerto keeps adding links to his own website, and has started edit-warring over this. COI warnings have been ignored. MikeWazowski ( talk) 15:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Bobby london1 has claimed to actually be Bobby London, and has made a huge series of major changes to these articles, adding a wealth of unreferenced content, removing items that portrayed him in a negative light, and in general white-washing the articles into something entirely more promotional, IMHO. I've warned him about the COI, but this really needs more eyes on the articles. MikeWazowski ( talk) 15:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've noticed that this editor has a history of the largest contributor to editing articles on behalf of two large media law firms, DLA Piper and Clifford Chance, and on behalf of several large UK universities, e.g. Warwick University and University College London. They recently demonstrated an unexpected interest in editing (or preventing thereof) an article on Kingston University. Could any other editors review this editor's contributions and suggest whether or not they might have an undeclared COI? If they are going to edit in a paid capacity, I would hope they would at least declare this in their user talk pages.-- Lorifredrics ( talk) 04:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I've also noticed that Rangoon11 has a history of being blocked for sockpuppetry. When taken together I am beginning to wonder if he has an undeclared COI as a paid Wikipedia editor for these organizations. Anyone have any further thoughts or suggestions?-- Lorifredrics ( talk) 05:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Enough. I am going to ask that appropriate action now be taken to halt this ludicrous sequence of half-baked allegations. You clearly have no substantial evidence to back up your 'concerns', and are instead using this noticeboard as a platform for your attack on the integrity of contributors. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
( ←) Lori, here is the thing. Conflicts of interest are determined one of two ways... Either the editor admits to it, or does something on Wikipedia that makes it obvious. In other words, if they choose a username that identifies who they are (as you chose to), or that shows their affiliation (someone named "MicrosoftPR" editing the "Microsoft" article) or something similar. Showing an interest in a subject is not evidence of a COI. The vast majority of my article space edits have been related to World of Warcraft and iPhone, but I'm not affiliated in any way with either subject. So my suggestion to you is to drop the accusation. There is no harm in raising the question on this board about whether or not an editor might have a conflict of interest, and we could consider the matter closed. However, if you continue to insist that there is a conflict of interest, and especially that Rangoon11 is being paid to edit, based solely on the subjects she chooses, that can be considered a personal attack and isn't tolerated. I hope you can agree to gracefully withdraw your accusations and move on. -- Atama 頭 16:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I've run across Dew Tour 2010 which was tagged as a large unwikified new article. I can't find that it's a copyvio but the tone of the articles are on the line between unecyclopedic prose and an advert. The articles are well linked together but all that I have seen only have one included reference to the official website of the event. They even go as far as to make notes about companies not being mentioned at the event but not officially affiliated (e.g. Sony & PlayStation).
Here's where the COI starts:
Companies
Users
Pages edits
I don't even know where to start with this issue. The COI is vast in its reach and I'm not even sure that any of the events are even notable. I haven't touched on that because I'm assuming they are given the sponsorship and even if it's not, the COI needs to be addressed. What do we do here? I was originally going to tag the Dew Tour 2011 article as a G11 until I noticed that it's the tip of the iceberg. I was then going to tag several articles for G11 but noticed that once notified of the possible speedy deletion, anon SPAs pop up and decline the speedy. Even stranger, some of the pages were created by a now retired user ( Tv145033 ( talk · contribs)) with a seemingly unrelated user name (may mean nothing).
Lastly, I was thinking that a mass AfD nom would be the way to go but I think that may not be the best thing for WP. Whoever is behind the creations knows what they're doing and what hoops to jump through to keep the articles off the radar. Mass prods may work but that wouldn't address the COI and socking issue.
I'm taking all suggestions. If we can't come up with a better way to deal with this issue, I'll probably just do a mass AfD. in a few days. OlYeller Talktome 00:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Here's the information I've put together. I made it a subpage of my userspace as it's a rather large report. OlYeller Talktome 22:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I am the creator of the article quidco. I created the article because there was dearth of information on the phenomena of reward websites on wikipedia other than information from large corporations. Sadly the article has turned from a fairly neutral article into one that's more like an advert. Much of this content seems to have been added by the editor Stuartcoggins. Sadly there's a massive conflict of interest with this user editing the article as he appears to be the marketing manager of quidco. I hope this post isn't seen as outing as the users identify is contained in his username. [ [45]] Supposed ( talk) 20:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
User has edited recently the FX UK tv channel wikipedia page, from the username they have chosen there may be a conflict of interest. Surly the username violates username policy as well Ruth-2013 ( talk) 17:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 75.15.150.190 ( talk) 17:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC) why do you not give military discounts to the poeple that are giving their lifes for you?
As is explained on my User Page, I work with the communications department at Bloomberg L.P. I'm familiar with the WP:COI as well as Wikipedia's content policies. I've read the prior discussions about Bloomberg on WP:COIN ( here in November 2010 and here in July 2010) and I understand that these attempts fell short of appropriately editing articles with a Conflict of Interest. The reason I am here is not to edit Bloomberg-related articles directly, but to go to the Talk pages of these articles and propose edits for discussion. Several of these articles currently fail to meet basic standards, e.g. Dan Doctoroff, which is clearly cut and pasted and is a WP:COPYVIO. I've begun to put together working drafts in my own Sandboxes and I plan on proposing these changes gradually on each of the articles' Talk pages once I feel they are ready for others to consider. I welcome any thoughts about this approach. Thank you. Ordwayen ( talk) 14:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Created promotional article for their client - relationship noted on their website. Constantly removed COI tags from the article. MikeWazowski ( talk) 15:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
The article was created by User: Theoriste2, who used to use the account User:Theoriste. The name on Theoriste's user page matches that of Robert Taylor's daughter. [46]. Theoriste2's creation of this page and her participation in its AfD appear to violate the conflict of interest guidelines. -- Hirolovesswords ( talk) 16:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I came across one his articles on speedy deletion patrol, but I didn't know the problem was that bad. Per previous precedent at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress, there obviously should be some consequences for this mass creating articles for non-notable politicians; I suspect the user is an employee of the party. Should a CheckUser investigation be conducted to punish the party involved? Thanks. elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( be free) 20:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Can I get another set of eyes to take a look at this article? A user who is apparently Robert Lang is deleting references in the article with the claim "Deleted Credit to Lane. Robert Lang stated this in documents and he copied it from Langs information" and similar. [47] The editor has refused to discuss it other than in edit summaries, even though I've invited him to discuss the matter at the article talk page. He's deleted other references and links from the article. There may be other issues with the sources cited; however, the basis of his edits smacks of a conflict of interest. — C.Fred ( talk) 04:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I have added links to a Miami Vice website that contains valuable information for all fans of the show. (miamiviceonline.com) I am an administrator of this site. My link is repeatedly removed by srobak. srobak was banned from other Miami Vice sites in the past by me and his deletion of my information is clearly an act of revenge against me. I request that my account be unblocked and my links reinstated. I would also request that some type of action be taken against srobak. A look at his user talk page will show his repeated acts of bullying and editing other members. Ferrariman1954 ( talk) 03:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Edited EyeSerene talk 11:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)