![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
A user who made one edit in 2010 to an unrelated article has come back to life and is engaging in the same pattern of edits in destubbing the article, including restoring the old content. I am engaging them on their talk page but I have to suspect that this account has been compromised. Mangoe ( talk) 15:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Long-term pattern of COI editing by an agency of the Canadian federal government. Article was created by a COI editor and has been extensively edited over the years by other COI editors with WP:ORGNAME accounts. Copyvios are repeatedly added, and references are all to primary sources. Drm310 ( talk) 19:08, 1 February 2013 (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.
For many years, this page had correctly stated Rumi's place of birth as Balk, Afghanistan. The content has been falsified and changed to indicate Rumi is a native of Tajikistan. This is false information that must be corrected immediately. Many Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poets fan ( talk • contribs) 22:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
This probably explains itself nicely. -- Jayron 32 02:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Indian company; at least he's honest about it! His first 2 days worth all reverted, but no warnings issued. No doubt he'll just go underground. Johnbod ( talk) 17:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Greetings, I am a representative of Moody's, and I wish to ask for specific assistance about some recent problematic changes on company-specific articles. This past weekend, one or more individuals based at the IP addresses 24.45.162.83 and 98.14.243.231 (IPs with no prior history) made a series of edits to the three articles about Moody's listed here:
In some cases, verified and useful information about the company's history was deemed "irrelevant" and summarily deleted, and on MIS and MCO warning tags questioning the articles' neutrality were added. However, no comments were added explaining what was in question. I believe these edits are simply mischief and should be reverted by an uninvolved editor, so I wish to ask someone here to consider that now. Many thanks, Mysidae ( talk) 16:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I am posting here as a COI editor with a request that I hope someone can help with. As you might guess from my username, I work for BP, and I have been offering resources and drafts to help improve accuracy and depth of information about the company on Wikipedia since last summer. Last week I made a request on the BP article's Talk page to update the infobox with new financial data from the company's Quarter 4 and full year 2012 financial results. As that request has not received a response, I wanted to ask here if anyone could make these simple updates. Thanks. Arturo at BP ( talk) 00:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Username report was denied as not blatant, not sure how this was misunderstood...Article made was Minedas (page has been moved), a promotional article, Hence the acronym Minedas Public Relations Info or Mprinfo. Requesting username block as this is a promotion only account Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 15:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Folks, an e-mail as been sent to OTRS making us aware of this freelancer.com posting. Just making you aware of it so that articles that may be created as a result, if any, can be properly scrutinised. Thanks.-- ukexpat ( talk) 20:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Morryone has been identified as a corporate colleague of the subject of the article Trent Leyshan, and notified of COI issues multiple times. Edits also to ClarkMorgan where he is or was a corp officer, yet continues to only be contributing to COI articles like these. — Brianhe ( talk) 18:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The subject is the Attorney-General of Iowa and his article has been greatly expanded by a new user with an evident COI, who is currently username-blocked and requesting unblock. I am minded to remove the whole "Significant legal cases, events" section, which is sourced almost entirely to Mr Miller's own press releases and, while factual, reads like (what it presumably is) something put together by his PR people listing achievements to make him look good. Moreover it gives me copyright concerns - sentences put into Google turn up sources like this and this - evidently state AGs combine in these legal actions and all put out similar press releases. Comments welcome. JohnCD ( talk) 23:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Both accounts claim to work for the subject [16], [17], and both have persisted in promotional edits, copying text from the network's website. They've even registered separate votes at Talk:Tuff TV. 99.136.254.88 ( talk) 00:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I'll add the information along with a source and a summary. Seems like quite a hassle, and the total removal of content from the page is an over reaction. Sjmckeeman ( talk) 21:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
All edits by ManagerUSA and the listed IP appear to relate directly or indirectly to Bruce Edwin (a talent manager) and his websites. If I recall correctly, Edwin is associated with the Church of Scientology. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 04:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Creation of articles linking to user's website and related unreliable sources. Appears promotional. 99.136.254.88 ( talk) 14:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
This article and this editor appear to have a conflict of interest, if the article is not speedyily deleated, I beleve this situation needs to be monitored. CombatWombat42 ( talk) 22:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Obvious COI, but there has only been one edit made so far by the editor. Andrew 327 19:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
WP:SPA accounts working together, extremely likely that the ip is just IbankingMM not logged in.
IbankingMM appears to work for have a professional relationship
Pegasus Intellectual Capital Solutions in some capacity given his claim that he made
File:Schematic_of_Intellectual_Capital_and_its_components.png which he made for and was copyrighted by Pegasus. (Given the response
below, it appears he doesn't actually works for Pegasus.--
Ronz (
talk)
22:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC))
IbankingMM has created multiple articles all related to Pegasus and it's services, incorporating links to pegasusics.com articles. In a similar fashion, he's very prominently introduced similar information to already existing articles.
He had been notified of WP:COI after making his first few edits back in December '12. I've removed all the inappropriate pegasusics.com links and references, as well as the most blatant advertising.
The new articles should all be reviewed against WP:NAD, and his edits as a whole should probably be examined closer for undue bias and promotion. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Ronz is engaging in harassment outside his/her area of expertise. A cursory review of the work of the work of Leif Edvinsson and Karl-Erik Sveiby, et.al would establish the veracity of every article or edit made and the value of the addition to the knowledge available in Wikipedia. Intellectual Capital is a new (1990's concept) that is poorly understood outside of the largest or most forward thinking corporations. I have no objective other than to further the awareness of corporate finance in general and Intellectual Capital in particular.
Ronz is engaging in disruptive editing. He is clearly not operating withing his/her area of expertise, and should adhere to the Wikipedia mandate to avoid harassment and the deletion of material. From what I have seen, he/she not an Editor. He/she is nothing but a self-assigned vigilante.
It is abundantly clear from his/her 'contributions' that Ronz don't actually make any contributions to Wikipedia such as an article submission or modification. Rather, he/she simply deletes the material of others without due process. Wikipedia explicitly states that deletions of material should be used with greatest of caution, above and beyond any suspicion of self-interest, of which I have none. Ronz, however, does not research the material she/he deletes, since, apparently, that would require effort. It is clear that she/he does not do any research because she/he had deleted my entry in Human Capital before I had a chance to even review it myself.
It is quite clear from the record that Ronz is fond of deleting material, as she/he has no positive contributions to any articles. It would seem that this is the case as it is so much easier to harass than create. I would suggest that Ronz might try writing something, certainly something more substantial than a malicious 'talk' entry.
I have authored the following, de novo. This is entirely new material, relevant, and well documented.
Ronz is engaging in Vandalism, and I respectfully request that she/he desist. IbankingMM (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Qworty, in all due respect, I believe I have used the English language correctly in connection with my use of the term 'vigilante'. As defined by Merriam-Webster it means: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily. It is my observation and solemn opinion that there was indeed a summary judgment by a member of a volunteer committee, and thus, my use of the term was accurate. If I am incorrect, please explain. Ronz had deleted my work before I had even finished editing it, and he took tremendous umbrage that when I re-saved my work it appeared I was defying him. He then decided to attempt to tear apart every piece of work I have done. That does not appear to be a cool-headed analytical debate with independent third parties making an impartial judgement after hearing the facts.
I believe, in all candor and due respect, that the summary deletions of my work are to the detriment of readers and users of Wikipedia. I point to your own reference regarding WP:AGF. I do not believe I have been given the couresy of being shown good faith. Rather, my work was summarily deleted with a minimum or no diligence. How can I consider this anything but vigilantism? Mere suspicion is sufficient to get one's work deleted. Actual harm is not the least bit necessary. Am I wrong?
I posit this question to you: How are the interests of the users of Wikipedia aided by the deletion of the schematic [ [21]] which simply delineated the breakdown of Enterprise Value into its component parts? The schematic was simply a crisp representation of the work of Leif Edvinsson, Karl-Erik Sveiby, et.al. so that a common reader (those which Wikipedia attempt to reach) could grasp an emerging but obtuse concept. Second, how could such a schematic possibly be advertising when the entire work was based solely on concepts not associated in any manner with any party of interest, or any company? The schematic included categories which are themselves topics in Wikipedia, including Enterprise value, Intellectual capital, Human capital, Structural capital, Relational capital, Organizational capital, etc.?
I do not wish to engage in some kind of power struggle with you or anyone else. I do, however, desire that:
At this point I am flummoxed and need clarification as to what has happened and why Please provide cogent detail. The Wikipedia section on Civility, which you suggest that I read, outlines this: "Be careful with user warning templates. Be careful about issuing templated messages to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with, and exercise caution when using templated messages for newcomers (see Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers). Consider using a personal message instead of, or at least in addition to, the templated message.
I have unexplained templates that I cannot grasp the genesis of.
Qworty, please take the time to read everything I've written. If it is important enough for my work to be deleted, it is important enough to study and understand. I want to make clear that my work is accurate in every respect, with the goal of furthering knowledge in the area of (no pun intended) Knowledge management, which is directly connected with Intellectual capital, which is directly connected with Corporate finance, and by connection Mergers and acquisitions and a host of interrelated topics. I believe in my heart that my work is as complete as any academic would want his work to be.
I have far less of an interest in furthering my claim that Ronz is more interested in deleting material than is creating it. I do suggest that you glance as her/his contributions history and focus on her deletions compared to additions: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Ronz&offset=&limit=500&action=history. Unless I am terribly mistaken, it is clear that Ronz is not a creator. If I am incorrect, than I will need to study in greater depth the 'contributions' nomenclature.
Regardless, I am not inclined to further my argument as to the conduct or possible bias of Ronz. Rather, I seek third party affirmation of my work with an eye towards the best interests of the users of Wikipedia in obtaining accurate and thoughtful information.
OlYeller21, my apologies for missing your entrance into this discussion. We were not appropriately introduced. I am a 69 year old retired banker, former Army Major, writer and volunteer. I worked in corporate finance my entire career. I have no vested interest in any commercial interest or personal relationship. I do however have a great number of connections and relationships to call upon, but that does not constitute a conflict of interest. Still, I believe that even if you assumed I had a bias of some sort, I do not believe it is in any way reflected in my work. I believe my work is dry, analytical, descriptive and well written. I do not believe my work advances any commercial interest, let alone more than it advances Wikipedia, which is the standard that it must bear.
My position is that Ronz, and Qworty are not following the very basic tenant of COI guidelines, to wit: An edit by a COIN declared COI editor may not meet a requirement of the COI guideline when the edit advances outside interests more than it advances the aims of Wikipedia
Rather, Ronz, and Qworty simply delete work without (1) notice, or (2) any attempt to propose changes to the content. Ronz and Qworty both simply made wholesale deletions (i.e. "blanking", which unless I am mistaken, is a hallmark of vandalism, as there is no attempt to discuss or resolve point of contention) of work that had no possible connection with any COI, e.g. the schematic File:Schematic_of_Intellectual_Capital_and_its_components.png. I believe the record will be clear that there was no attempt to propose changes to any content. IbankingMM ( talk) 13:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Sirs and Madams, I am a retired corporate finance professional that has noted the shift in the value of the S&P 500 from being derived 80% from tangible assets in the late 1970's, to 80% intangible assets today (now referred to as Intellectual Capital). As a corporate finance professional, a retiree with time on his hands and an investment portfolio to protect, this has been a subject of great personal, as well as professional interest. Intellectual Capital as the source of wealth creation will become even more important over the next 10 and 20 years. To that point, one of the companies I watch closely is Ocean Tomo (the firm that did the research on the shift in value in the S&P 500), which is a leader in its field. Ocean Tomo is one of my interests, but more of my work has been on the basic background research on Intellectual capital and Knowledge management. My contact with PegasusICS was in connection with obtaining a second opinion regarding my schematic. In return for their proof and verification, they requested and I approved their right to use it. I own the rights to the schematic, and I assigned those rights over to Wikipedia Commons. No copyright by PegasusICS is in force, as our agreement is that they would not file or attempt to enforce, and they are aware that I have assigned all rights to Wikipedia Commons. I requested a second opinion from PegasusICS because they are one of the few firms I know of that have attempted to integrate IC and KM into corporate finance. Ocean Tomo, the other company I track, is focusing more on IP (a much narrower field than IC). I have a career worth of contacts among the Fortune 500, banks and business community, and borrow from all that I can. As such, I am biased towards the most creative thinkers and I write about them as a part of my own learning, because we don't really know anything very well until we can teach someone else. I admire certain individuals and companies, and reference them often in my work. I admire Steve Jobs and equate Apple have seen them as practically synonymous, and if I were writing about innovation in personal electronics, you would see the same crossover in my work. But admiration and respect are not the same as bias or conflict of interest. If, however, the administrators on Wikipedia believe that prior contact constitutes a conflict of interest, then I request to you that my work be looked at in light of the Wikipedia's tenant as to whether any of my writing "advances outside interests more than it advances the aims of Wikipedia". I believe a critical review by the administrators will establish that my work advances the aims of Wikipedia far more than it does any outside interest. Respectfully IbankingMM ( talk) 19:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Sir or Madam,
There have been any number of schematics that outline some part of the relationship between Intellectual Capital and its components. None, however, adequately do it in a readable fashion. This is NOT original research whatsoever. Please see http://business.queensu.ca/centres/monieson/events/scott_erickson%20seminar%20presentation.pdf as but one unwieldy example. Reformatting a schematic is not research. As a very simple example, using the color blue instead of read does not render something as original research. And no, the schematics I worked off of are not copyrighted.
Under U.S. law, any creative work, whether song, painting, photograph, automatically is copyrighted. The author/creator does not have to do anything to have title to that work. Thus, I had the right to contribute it to Wikipedia Commons. My statement that was that I owned the rights to it, and assigned them to Wikipedia Commons. As a result, Wikipedia is the owner, as is every work contributed to Wikipedia Commons, not me. This is the case with any photograph. If you take a photograph, you have a copyright to that photo. No one can use it without your permission. You are free to sell or assign it. You can assign it to Wikipedia Commons. That, after all, is how stuff gets there. It is then in the public domain. Wikipedia requires an affidavit regarding the origins of anything uploaded to Wikipedia for this very reason, that a copyright automatically vests with the originator, and thus, they could run afoul of copyright law if anyone but the owner contributes it.
As to your assertion that I was "spamming" the schematic, this is nonsensical. I was neither furthering a personal view or that of a commercial enterprise. Please do some research on the subject before you make any further accusations. I would suggest your read the work of Leif Edvinsson, Karl-Erik Sveiby as a primer. You will see from http://business.queensu.ca/centres/monieson/events/scott_erickson%20seminar%20presentation.pdf that I certainly was not furthering a personal view. And I pray there is no accusation that I was furthering a commercial interest.
As a point to consider, when you edit any work on Wikipedia, you are modifying a creative work to simplify it, expand on it, or clarify it, and hopefully the process improve it. There is no difference between doing that with words in an article or words on a schematic. A written work is copyrighted by law automatically. However, those that contribute to Wikipedia waive those rights. This is the case with the schematic in question. It simply used pre-existing concepts, clarified them by reducing the size of the area needed to put all the words in the boxes, and aligned them for ease of understanding. This is no different than if you rewrite a sentence for clarity. IbankingMM ( talk) 22:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Brianhe You can't be serious about wikistalking.
As another issue, you have deleted material of mine for copyright infringement when nothing even close to 10% of any article was ever directly quoted. As is fairly well known in intellectual property law, as a general rule, you may quote or closely paraphrase (a) up to 250 words from a book, (b) 10 percent of the text of an article.
It is increasingly clear that Ronz, Qworty and Brianhe are free to make whatever accusations they want, yet I am not supposed to point out that you (1) you aren't providing prior notice of an issue so that it can be rectified, (2) you aren't doing your research of the facts, whether about intellectual property law, the complete absence of any commercial or personal interest in the schematic you deleted, or (3) research into what constitutes fair use under U.S. copyright law. I feel like I am in caught in the movie "Mean Girls". Are there any serious academics in the house? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IbankingMM ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Quorty. Please make your specific, logical, point-by-point argument for each of you alleged infractions. WP:COI, WP:OR, WP:PROMO, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:SPS, and WP:PRIMARY. You make no case for any of them. If this matters enough for you to protest, then do so in detail, point by point, and how it overrides the benefit to Wikipedia users IbankingMM ( talk) 01:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Qworty No, I did not spam. There was no personal or commercial interest. You will need to state your case clearly as to why it was "spam". Please be specific. Also, there was no original research WP:OR. Any reasonable person that reviews http://business.queensu.ca/centres/monieson/events/scott_erickson%20seminar%20presentation.pdf (and others I can provide as reference)would conclude that my schematic was a reconfiguration for ease of reading and represents nothing other than editing. Please try to not be so harsh in your judgement.
Seems to be COI. Revolving Records is the Christine Owman's own record label. Only makes edits on Owman article and Mark Lanegan, who made a collaboration with her. Christine Owman article is created by this user as well. Also User:94.234.170.25 may have a connection with this issue, as he/she started to make simultaneous edits with User:RevolvingRecords on same articles. Myxomatosis57 ( talk) 14:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Per another user's suggestion, I am posting here about a conflict of interest I have. I am a Wikipedian in Residence at a United States-based non-profit organization, Consumer Reports, and I am employed to develop health articles on Wikipedia using the information generated by United States-based medical specialty organizations for a health educational campaign called " Choosing Wisely". I felt that it was necessary to create a Wikipedia article on the Choosing Wisely campaign to explain my work to others. To that end, and because it is not completely clear how I should get community approval for this, I created a Wikipedia article for "Choosing Wisely" posted my draft to WP:AfC and also informed WikiProject Medicine, WikiProject Open Access, and the proposed thematic chapter for supporting the development of health content on Wikimedia projects, Wiki Project Med. I am now posting here also. I would like to request that someone review my article and, if it passes Wikipedia inclusion criteria, to move it from the AfC talkspace into the article mainspace. I have a more complete explanation of this at the WikiProject Medicine talk space. Thank you for your attention. If someone would like to talk to me I am available through my talk page, on message boards, by phone, or by Skype. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Seeming History self promotion of self, own book and wiki washing. 85.115.157.244 ( talk) 19:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Please review this diff. I warned this IP editor here in November, about this editing behavior. In light of this edit history, I conclude that this is the IP address of an incorrigible editor with an impermissable single purpose David in DC ( talk) 18:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
This AfC submission, and the account who created it, appears to have a conflict of interest. I declined the submission as I have reservations over notability and reliability over its sources. hmssolent\ Let's convene My patrols 05:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I just saw this edit summary: Page overhaul under the direction of Dr. Eilat Mazar [22]. It is the user's first edit. I don't have time to go through the changes in detail, but Mazar and her approach have raised controversy from some other investigators who don't share her outlook, and I note that at least one quite pointed quote questioning her approach has been removed. As I said, I don't have time to wade into this now, so I thought I should hand it over to the specialists with this sort of change. Note that it is the user's first edit, so they may need to be walked quite gently through what is and is not a good idea per WP's COI policies. Jheald ( talk) 11:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
For the record, this issue has been here at COIN before. You can find those reports here, here, and here. As has always been the case, Jsteininger edits the article regularly. I do my best to check each edit but it's difficult as there are many. As proof that the COI is still problematic, this edit shows that he's still attempting to conflate his own notoriety.
Recently, Insomesia has been removing the COI template and demanding specific issues with the article. I feel that the tag is intend to notify readers that a user with a conflict of interest has been editing the article and it "may" require cleanup or in other words, it may not follow WP's policies and guidelines. As it's obvious that the COI editor as still editing heavily and, to my knowledge, no one has combed the article, a tag stating that the article "may" have issues seems perfectly suitable to me. Still, Insomnesia has refused invitations to the talk page and continues to remove the tag.
I don't care if the tag stays or goes but I don't enjoy edit warring and only want the article to conform to WP's policies and guidelines. Still, I'm not going to spend hours going through the article only to have the subject of the article, who was repeatedly refused to communicate with others, continues to edit the page.
So, what do we do here? Do any of you feel like checking the page? I would if I felt that others would be watching and helping to keep it clean of issues presented by Steininger. Not sure what to do here. OlYeller21 Talktome 05:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Randy's edits have improved from yesterday, when his contribution Christian parenting was speedily deleted as promotion. However, Randy appears to still be here solely to advance book publisher's agenda, though I can't see his deleted contributions to see what exactly the overlap is from yesterday's deleted content. Randy seems to be unaware of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:SECONDARY, and WP:COI. So far, Randy has also been uncommunicative on his talk page. Biosthmors ( talk) 17:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I came across this user, Squidwarddthe2nd, whose 51 edits include 43 on the article Rock Mafia (a group of music producers) and the rest are on related subjects. The article is very positive, and very detailed - containing every track they've produced, in a list longer than is normal. Someone tried to add a picture and it was removed by this user with the reason 'I am the copyright owner at Rock Mafia' This user hasn't been very active recently but the article does also have a lot of edits from unregistered users who've not edited other articles. I also note similar trends in the article on Antonina Armato, a member of Rock Mafia.
Not sure what can be done but does definitely seem like a COI. Rayman60 ( talk) 21:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC) update: twitter account for squidwardthe2nd is for someone who describes themselves as 'studio elf at Rock Mafia'
I came across this article which had several issues I tried to address, namely lack of sources, poor spelling & grammar, slang and a rather detailed discography with poor formatting. My edits were reverted by this user with this reason: Why are you taking out productions i have done?-like Travie McCoy"Need You"?.It is not up to you what goes in. It has been noted on the talk page many years ago that there are issues with this page, but this has not been fixed. There are several unregistered users active on this account, whose sole contributions are adding info to this article and corresponding links on related articles e.g. if this artist works with another one, that other artist's page will be edited to reflect the fact. It seems this page is monitored and unfavourable edits are resisted. Rather than getting drawn into an edit war, I thought I'd bring it to the attention of the COI board. Thanks Rayman60 ( talk) 21:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
This user has just spent the last two hours doing nothing but adding citations to the external links section of perhaps two dozen articles. Judging from his/her username, they may have a CoI here. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk] #_ 03:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I am the founder and president of Bloomex- the floral company oeprating in Canada, USA and Australia. The current article does not reflect true picture about me and my company mainly because of efforts of editors CliffC and recently User:Gwickwire , who I believe is the same person. You can see that their comments are very subjective and directed againts me personally. I appreciate if you can ban them from article editing and let other people edit the article to reflect true story. Dimitri Lokhonia ( talk) 22:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The user is edit-warring - removing referenced information about controversy without explanation, while adding promotional-sounding content glorifying the corporation that is building this airport. I have warned him twice already to which he didn't respond. I think it's clear from his editing pattern that he has a COI. — Yerpo Eh? 07:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I came across this article which rang a few alarm bells. I fixed some formatting issues and looked at the history. I saw the article was created and dominated by a person whose only contributions were to this article. I googled them and there are many sources saying someone of the same name is head of PR at the company at which the article subject is CEO/founder. I had also expected the article on the company Daisy Group to have the same issues and it also has been written with a positive slant on the subject, but this time with several unregistered users with no other edits and one user Angelj38 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whose only contributions are on this article. Rayman60 ( talk) 23:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
On recent changes I came across the above article and nominated it under CSD. After it was deleted I saw that it had been deleted four times before. Looking at the editor's other edits, there was some other material that seemed promotional, both images and text, added to History of Clark Air Base and Clark Veterans Cemetery. Previously, an ip editor ( 119.93.66.202) had made similarly promotional-toned edits, often referencing Global Gateway Logistics City, to Pugo, La Union, Angeles, Philippines, and History of Clark Air Base. This leads me to suspect a CoI, possibly through involvement with Peregrine development (a name referenced frequently in some of the additions) or the Clark Veterans Cemetery Restoration Association, also frequently referenced with a promotional tone. I am not sure how to proceed. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk] #_ 10:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
A Perth-based communications agency with the name of Clarity Communications states First Quantum Minerals, owner of the Ravensthorpe Nickel Mine, as one of its customers on its website. Seems there is a conflict of interest to me there. Calistemon ( talk) 16:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
User may be photographer mentioned in their edits of this article. May be using article as a convenient anti-gravity vehicle for promotion of their photography business. has inserted more or less the same content here, here, and here. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk] #_ 21:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I ran across this article just now: FAU Stadium’s New Prison Sponsor Is Frantically Trying To Wipe Abuse Allegations From Wikipedia. I'm running a temperature of about 103 right now so I'm not sure what's going on but the article needs attention. OlYeller21 Talktome 02:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
This user, with a declared COI, needs help in updating the article. After he tried to post a rather un-neutral version, I explained things on his talk page, and encouraged him to do a sandbox draft, which he has done at User:Prokurator/sandbox; but although it is more neutral in tone, it still reads as the ISDA telling the world about itself, and is referenced only to the ISDA website. The current article has some references, though they are more about the association's "Master Agreement" than the association itself. I have suggested that he (a) look for independent references and (b) consider what is actually inaccurate in the present article. Any assistance in either making the new draft encyclopedic or improving the current article to be accurate and up-to-date would be welcome. JohnCD ( talk) 17:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
This article has largely been written by its subject. Could someone experienced at doing so please drop by her user talk and explain nicely about our policy on autobiographical editing - thanks. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
User JDeMarcos is a trustee of the Michael Servetus Institute. His books have been paid by the Michael Servetus institute. Now he tries to destroy any information on a new theory, based on primary sources, which is groundbreaking and would mean that the Michael Servetus institute is not located in the previous birthplace. Biographies have been relying on a falsification in an Act, or Notarial protocol. A registry made by a Civil Notay in 1504, but which contains surprisingly, information from 1537 and 1529. It was althered, after those years and very possibly in the XX century. Basically the previous theory does not have any primary official source that would assure for instance that Pedro is a brother of Michael. And DeMarcos cannot provide any new primary source on this. Many parts of the article do not take in count when a document is official or not, and how the name " Servetus" does not show up in any official document, ( every document that requires previous inspected information). This user is trying to block a groundbreaking theory, because it would mean the institute would lose influence in the Servetus experts (it is actually kind of late for that) , and would not be able to pay for his works anymore. Works by DeMarcos, paid by the Michael Servetus Institute http://www.miguelservet.org/servetus/publications.htm#19
Of course, Dr Gonzalez has all his publications and communications, inspected by the International Society for the HIstory of Medicine, Specialiced Magazines such as Pliegos de Bibliofilia. For instance one can check how the whole government of Tunis went to his lecture in 1998, or how the president of Spain went to his Malaga Congress in 1996. http://michaelservetusresearch.com/ENGLISH/profile.html ( 25 pdf's some in english)He was also granted the Palace of Bo Magna Room, in Padua congress, and he is praised in the reviews of the ISHM, even by the president, and the editor and secretaries, Check here Tricot, Lellouche, Kottek, etc, on Other authro's publications. http://michaelservetusresearch.com/ENGLISH/links.html Every member has to be historian or physician. And every communication is Peer reviewed, by a scientific comitee. He is also a member of the French History of Medicine. And his discoveries where presented also in the Royal academy of Medicine of Barcelona. www.scoop.it/t/discovered-new-works-and-true-identity-of-michael-servetus-proofs There in 1996 one can check how he was giving a lecture in the Michael Servetus Institute, one can see the major of Villanueva de Sijena, the promotor, and director too. And many news. But basically, now DeMarcos, tries to deny any discovery this person made, cause it can mean, less money for his books from the institute. Gonzalez was expelled in 2005 from the MSI, cause of thinking differently, and now the MSI, has asked DeMarcos to attack and prevent information of Gonzalez to be in the wikipedia article. And he removed as much as he could. It makes sense. He gets his book paid.
DeMarcos means maybe there were 7 editors who denounced this, maybe they are " a few".No access to pdf sources were gotten in the previous DNR study, nor it was accounted that Marcos gets his books paid by the MSI, even twice.WP:NOPAY-- Alice Alaster ( talk) 16:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
1-page 153 second paragraph- Francisco Javier Gonzalez Echeverria," La naturalizacio Francesa de Miguel de Villanueva( Miguel Servet)" Principe de Viana, nº 255 year 2012
Basically this is the conclusion to all his previous pages of documents, where he shows documents of Anton Servetus, De Villanueva here and there, the French royal document of naturalization, verification in the chamber des comptes, and registry at Paris University.
You can find same peer reviewed information in Lellouche.in the academic Journal -Vesalius article PDF, which I referred: http://michaelservetusresearch.com/ENGLISH/pdf/Vessu2012.pdf
2-page 55-Third paragraph, 4th line Alain Lellouche -"El amor a la verdad ( vida y Obra de Miguel Servet)Tudela 2011"- Vesalius Journal Vol XVIII-No 1, 2012
Do I need to provide more exact citacions on every aspect that is contained in the article of Gonzalez peer reviewed by Principe de Viana editor council? I can. But it is basically that, wrong name and birthplace-- Noah Bernstein ( talk) 02:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
No, this document was lost and your sources, referred it wrongly during more than 50 years , cause nobody checked it. Gonzalez tracked it as Bernstein said, during months and finally found it, thanks to a relative of the original discoverer, Vellein, after checking the old castle it was supposed to be at. Again you come here to the same thing " Gonzalez did nothing" which is what you want people to hear. We do not talk about that. We talk about it was published there, after being peer reviewed, and your comments on this trying to talk of what you are interested should be noticed by the administrators. If we would have to talk about what he did we could talk of the Jewish converso origin , first proof in 1999, or we could talk of the new editions he found of the ex postremis doctorum bible of 1542, or the 10 new works, or the document of Juan Serveto, or things like that, but are we here for that? Gonzalez recovered the lost document, and showed it to the public for the first time ( his policy, when it comes to trust on publications he always publishes the primary sources, so everyrone can check he says the truth, a thing none else does. University of Paris registry published by him too, for the first time, or many other documents)and corrected multiple errors by Rude. What is new is THE PUBLICATION in the specialized magazine Principe de Viana is peer reviewed, do you have anything to say about it? Good. That is what we talk about, not about what you think on Gonzalez's research, but on what peer reviewed systems think of it.Second, the Academic Journal Vesalius too, with Prof Kottek and Allain Lellouche, too. Those are my fav authors too as you can see. And it is funny you talk about deep study, but the MSI did not research any of this, nor the new works, it is not what they say, it is what they dont say. Tell me a study, aside of the absurd two pages of Alcala, saying reasons for denying this. Can u provide anything? that is the best proof of the lack of honesty you have. It is required but nobody did any study or gave any data from your institute. It is a dogma. So, Kottek and Lellouche in the academic Journal Vesalius, and specialized Magazine peer reviewed too, Principe de Viana. You should not edit if you get such ammount of money for your books from the MSI, it is beyond a normal COI.-- Alice Alaster ( talk) 18:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC
We should not get distracted by the issue here. Gonzalez published this information in peer reviewed systems after august 2012, aprox Nov 2012. And other scholars praised him in peer reviewed academic journals of big international Societies with a peer reviewers, aprox dec 2012. I think that is what was asked from Alice. We are not here for talking on intentions, or the discoveries of Gonzalez. And DeMarcos true motivations are funds for his books, and to try do hide this researcher who is breaking the old theory up. SO it is all about the money he could not get, if the institute would not work someday. It has to be hard to pay for your own books.-- Noah Bernstein ( talk) 19:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Clearly this has become a discussion about a content dispute rather that a discussion about a conflict of interest. I suggest that this entire case be closed/collapsed, that anyone who wishes to discuss the potential conflict of interest be invited to file a new COI case with the promise that any content-dispute-related material will be removed or collapsed, and that anyone who wishes to discuss the content dispute be invited to file a new DRN case with the promise that any COI-related material will be removed or collapsed. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Please note everybody that user Alice Alaster has added these comments, insisting on her promotion of fringe research using Dr. Echeverría's book and articles as the only "valid" source on the topic, and concluding that I "will not be allowed" to keep editing the article. Apparently Alice Alaster has already made a decision about who can edit the Wikipedia and who can't... BTW her arguments and sources are the same as those used by user Anatoly Ilych Belousov in a previous DR (see here and here) and then a CoI. Same sources, same arguments, same purpose... Nothing new under the sun. -- Jdemarcos ( talk) 16:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Editor is dedicated to writing promotional articles based around
Jonathan Hay (publicist) (
afd) such as
Jonathan Hay Publicity (
afd),
Hoopla Worldwide (Another Hay publicity company),
Sabrina (pop singer) (Hay's partner wife, cofounder of Hoopla Worldwide),
Audio Stepchild (band featuring Sabrina and with Hoopla Worldwide),
Birdgang clothing (key people include Jonathan Hay and Sabrina Hale of Hoopla Worldwide),
A Different Kind Of Christmas (released on Hoopla Worldwide),
Knoc's Ville (released on Hoola Worldwide, Hay was a producer).
Earlier history has a wider variety of subjects but a closer look show how many are connected, eg:
Most articles are overly promotional and have a history of bad sourcing. Some contain what looks like straight out lies. duffbeerforme ( talk) 10:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
FYI, causeandedit ( talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely, so this issue can probably be closed. Most of the articles are in AfD, so their merits can be discussed there. -- GentlemanGhost ( talk) 19:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I am a staffer for California Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez. New Assembly rules allow us to start participating in social sites. I've made a number of suggested additions (contained in my Sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Reelpolitik/sandbox) for the Speaker's page — trying to Be Bold in the areas of legislation and leadership/management of the Assembly...while being respectful of COI guidelines and working my hardest to maintain NPOV and Verifiability.
I look forward to working with the community here to flesh out information on the Speaker, the Assembly, and its members — many of whom are new (the largest freshman class ever) and only have stubs for pages.
Apologies for missteps in practice and format by this humble noob. I am excited to grow as an editor here...about time I did my part for the site I so often rely on.
Thanks,
Jeremy D. Thompson — Special Assistant to John A. Pérez, Speaker of the California Assembly ( talk) 19:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
User is creating and editing articles relating to himself and his work. Repeated attempts at communication on his talk page have gone unanswered thus far. Drm310 ( talk) 16:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Username suggests COI and WP:SPA. Persistent removal of templates, lousy sourcing, etc. 99.137.210.226 ( talk) 17:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I believe Granttheron has a conflict of interest. Sure enough a quick google of "Grant Theron" and "Olympus games" gives us his twitter account. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/) [1] 10:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
The large non-profit organization I work for is wanting to improve their low-traffic Wikipedia article. (I mention low-traffic because I'm not sure there are any active non-COI editors who would be interested in taking suggestions for improvements, but it's definitely a notable topic.) Rather than having a single person responsible for it, I suggested maybe sending an e-mail out to all of the staff (though I suspect many staff don't read these announcements), suggesting that they look over our article and add content they feel should be in it, or make suggestions on the talk page. We'd include a brief note about neutral/non-promotional content and citing sources, and I'd monitor activity on it -- I'm definitely on board with the Wikipedia policies. Any thoughts on this? Testaccount55 ( talk) 20:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I brought these concerns to the attention of our public relations staff. They agreed that we should give it some time to see what the general consensus is here. So please comment! Generally I am hearing two answers: That it would be fine as long as we comply with Wikipedia guidelines (neutrality, verifiability, etc.), and that it is not a good idea under any circumstances. I'd also be open to any alternative suggestions. Thanks. Testaccount55 ( talk) 14:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. I'm going to recommend posting suggestions on the talk page, and may end up making additions to the article myself if I find there are no active non-COI editors (disclosing my COI and posting here as well). I'll give FreeRangeFrog's idea as an alternative, "riskier" option, but I suspect they'll err on the side of caution. Testaccount55 ( talk) 17:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I am asking for people familiar with a conflict of interest to pls take a look at Talk:Jack the Ripper#Proposal to add new information. Moxy ( talk) 09:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Michaeledmond keeps removing content on behalf of a person or company. I have already warned him. Cncmaster's slave ( my master) 17:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
This editor claimed to be the subject of the article multiple times ( [24] [25] [26]). I think he has a conflict of interest, and is using Wikipedia to promote his own interest at the expense of neutrality. 123.225.67.183 ( talk) 00:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
We are here to resolve the dispute, even if that means proving that the subject of the article is correct and you are wrong. We do not prohibit people from correcting errors in our articles about them.
The disputed changes seem a bit odd to me. They include:
The middle two are sourced, but it's entirely possible that they are outdated, i.e., that we should say that Jozef formerly was one half of the duo and formerly collaborated with these people. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I've come to the conclusion that people need to back down on this issue. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't see the evidence that some of these older statements are still true. Perhaps we can compromise on language that says they were true without committing to a current status on some of these issues? Meet me at the article talk page for further discussion. Mangoe ( talk) 13:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
User is creating and adding to articles about subjects with which they are self-identified. Subjects appear notable, but articles are sparsely sourced and contain much original research and plot descriptions, and little in the way of encyclopedic content, which gives the impression that they're promotional. 99.137.210.226 ( talk) 13:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Much of the recently added content consisted of plot descriptions copied from the director's website. I've removed as much as I could find. 99.137.210.226 ( talk) 14:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, all, I'd like to report an issue with User:Lmoughannexans and the article Nexans. This user, presumably the Nexans employee Lisa Moughan (as a quick check of the page history shows, she also has used the accounts User:LisaMoughan and User:Lmoughan), has been adding some seriously spammy stuff to the Nexans article, and reverting others when they try to remove the cruft. I decided to take it here instead of getting involved in an edit war or anything. Admittedly, I haven't tried talk page discussion, so this report might be premature, but I don't think that will be particularly effective in this case. Nevertheless, I'll try if y'all consider it a prerequisite to a report on this board. 208.87.234.180 ( talk) 14:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Joe Terranova ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Joeterranova ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Article heavily edited by subject. I have done some despamming and recommended that the subject use the talk page to discuss, advice that has so far gone unheeded.-- ukexpat ( talk) 04:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Bat Creek inscription ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
HuMcCulloch ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User:HuMcCulloch is self identified as one of the sources used in Bat Creek inscription. He has removed content from a published expert on hoaxes (who is citing a peer reviewed study) that runs counter to the theories that User:HuMcCulloch espouses. What is the appropriate manner to deal with User:HuMcCulloch's conflict of interest? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
As I pointed out in the Edit Summary for the indicated removal, "(Too detailed for lead paragraph, duplicates 2nd para. You may add Feder's opinion in section Recent Discussion if you like.)" I had previously announced my intention on the page's Talk page, in order to solicit informal discussion of the change there. According to WP:Lead, the lead paragraph should focus on what, where, when and who, leaving proposed interpretations for later paragraphs or the body. The removed opinion is already encompassed (though only in appropriate detail) in the second paragraph of the lead, making it redundant. I've invited User:TheRedPenOfDoom (or TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom, as the user prefers to be known) to insert the opinion in question as a direct quote in the appropriate section, "Recent Discussion", where this POV is discussed in greater detail. HuMcCulloch ( talk) 21:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
As User:Whatamidoing has noted, the WP:Conflict of Interest policy states, "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion" ( Citing yourself). The issue, then, seems to be one of relevance and extent, not one of COI, and then only when I am adding to references to my own work. If I am citing others' work, it may or may not be relevant, balanced, etc, but it is not a COI per se. As I mentioned above, it was User:PiCo, not myself, who added my name to the lead section recently. I in fact eliminated the reference PiCo added there to my 1993 BAR article, since I felt it gave that article undue attention for the lead.
The COI guidelines are primarily concerned with financial interest. If this were an article about a privately owned artifact of questioned authenticity, the owner would have a clear financial COI. However, I have no financial stake in this Smithsonian-owned artifact. In fact, the Smithsonian Mound Survey made a point of requiring landowners to relinquish any claim to artifacts the Mound Survey teams found, expressly to eliminate any financial incentive for fraud. HuMcCulloch ( talk) 18:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
If users think that PiCo's addition of my name to the lead section gives me undue attention, the first two sentences of the third paragraph could be changed to, "A 1988 article in Tennessee Anthropologist compared the letters of the inscription to both Paleo-Hebrew and Cherokee and concluded that the fit as Paleo-Hebrew was substantially better than Cherokee. It also reported a radiocarbon date on associated wood fragments consistent with Gordon's dating of the script." — Preceding unsigned comment added by HuMcCulloch ( talk • contribs) 18:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC) HuMcCulloch ( talk) 19:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I guess there's only one way to test User:Stalwart111's "friendly warning" that I might be electrocuted or something if I dare touch a word on the Bat Creek inscription page, so I plan to test this by correcting the erroneous attribution by the complainant, User:TheRedPenOfDoom, of a direct quote by McCarter (1993) to Mainfort and Kwas (1993). I don't see what conceivable COI I would have in giving McCarter his just credit. If I light up like a Christmas tree, we'll know Stalwart was right. (I'll be away from internet for about 3 days starting tomorrow morning, so I'll have to remain in suspense until I reconnect.) HuMcCulloch ( talk) 00:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
This user appears to have a preoccupation with getting a name check for a particular academic. Virtually every source cited is by this academic at the website http://academia.edu/ .-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The article in question actually removed any suspected "name dropping" prior to this entry, although the article retains the relevant reference, which is properly included and conforms with standard policy on Wikipedia. TracedInAir ( talk) 19:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
And all these edits have been entirely relevant to the discussions in which they take place and add to the content of the Wikipedia entry, as is the purpose of this website after all. You do not have a valid point here whatsoever. So what if I made some edits in a short period of time? I felt compelled to make a contribution and in each instance I have added context and proper citation. The bigger and more important question here is why have you taken my contributions as your own personal crusade, which suggests you have some kind of conflict of interest with "one particular academic" more than anything else. But beyond this, to suggest my entries have only mentioned "one particular academic" is disingenuous, as clearly I have included the works of more than just one academic when and where relevant in the edits I have made. TracedInAir ( talk) 00:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The is pretty obvious WP:BOOKSPAM - the mass addition of links to Springer's articles to the 'Further reading' section and trying to weave in references to Springer in every single article. Perhaps the most telling example is the edits to Discourse where IP 154.20.33.119 (either the same person as TracedInAir or an accomplice) added a paragraph on Foucault's analysis of dicourse, which had a little plug for Springer tagged at the end. I removed the part mentioning Springer. IP returned to restore the reference. If they are concerned with improving the page, why should it matter who is mentioned as the contemporary theorist? The fact that this is repeated across a number of pages (some of which aren't even directed relevant to the subect) suggests that the intent is to bring attention to the author. - SFK2 ( talk) 08:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Simply not true on many levels. To suggest "some of which aren't even directed relevant to the subject" shows a clear ignorance of the substantive content of the concepts you are editing, perhaps if you followed the links and read the articles that are being referenced you could stand to actually learn something... which in itself is a testament to the importance of their inclusion. Also to suggest that any time a theorist's name is mentioned it is a "conflict of interest" or a "little plug" strains your credibility. It is actually called proper citation within academia, but perhaps Wikipedia marches to its own drum. Your contradiction here is so glaringly obvious it almost hurts. In the entry on Discourse for example you delete the passage "Simon Springer in particular has attempted to bring greater conceptual clarity to how neoliberalim might be understood through a Foucauldian notion of discourse" but you leave in place "Chris Weedon, one of the best known scholars working in the feminist poststructuralist tradition". The latter is much more of a plug in terms of highlighting the ostensible importance or preeminence of a scholar, while the former is merely citing the work one particular scholar has done which is of primary relevance to the discussion at hand. The clear conflict of interest here is SFK2 and ianmacm, who evidently have some sort of grude against Springer and don't want to see his work mentioned. Otherwise, why are you deleting references to his work that exist in entries like WikiLeaks that predate my own edit, which was done merely to clean up the citation? TracedInAir ( talk) 15:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
This AfD discussion [31] sheds tremendous light on this issue. Qworty ( talk) 20:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
And by "cleaning up" you mean targeted vandalism by going through and erasing any and every mention of Springer and his work despite the relevance and obvious contribution of this work to the themes and entries in question. How fascinating that you have such extensive knowledge of all the areas in which he works to make such sweeping judgements. Am I the only one who sees a problem with this? Oh but wait, he's just some "lesser academic", so who cares right? Grab the pitchforks and charge full steam ahead! This is the modern day equivalent of a bonafide witch hunt. Well done! My question though, is when do we start going through and deleting references to all those other "lesser academics" who are mentioned in various articles across Wikipedia? After all, it would seem that one has to be Michel Foucault, David Harvey or Judith Butler to be worthy of inclusion lest the "senior editors" rise up and strike down those who dare to recognize that valuable contributions are often made by newer academics and even by noobs to Wikipedia. It never ceases to amaze me just how much people get off on bullying. Hope you're satisfied now that you've cleansed this website from the terrible threat that any mention of Springer posed to the happy Wikipedia community! Better hope his career goes in the tank too, because otherwise you might be faced with the prospect of users other than myself including mention of him too and that would keep you really busy burning books, er, I mean deleting edits. TracedInAir ( talk) 06:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Sure, if it makes you feel better to dismiss legitimate concerns as "hyperbole" then so be it. This has so obviously turned into a crusade it actually makes my head spin. I can play the same as you too though... I suggest you and your friends read WP:VANDAL, WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:EQ, WP:UNRESPONSIVE and WP:GAME. There, now I feel a glowing sense of puffed up self-importance too! Part of the problem here is the whole "consensus" mentality that exists on Wikipedia, so it is the ultimate in irony that this all came up in the entry on Agonism, which as a concept is all about the importance of dissensus (no such entry on Wikipedia! Go figure! lol) and the notion that all individuals are presupposed as equals and treated as legitimate claimants to public considerations. Dissensus is absolutely essential for democratic practice and functioning, where systems that rely exclusively on consensus are actually representative of the tyranny of the majority. But then again, I don't expect that you and your team know anything about agonism or any of the other topics that you have deleted Springer from, because if you actually did you wouldn't have engaged in the rampant acts of vandalism that you have committed. TracedInAir ( talk) 15:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
So let me get this straight... if you say I "BOOKSPAMmed" that is somehow a totally legitimate comment, but if I say someone else engaged in vandalism then that is a "personal attack"? The contradictions just get deeper and deeper. Here I am thinking both comments are opinions. I suppose the difference is that where as I've been quite willing to try and learn as I go and modify my edits to meet with website policies, the editors that have come out to greet me so warmly have made it a personal campaign to annihilate any and all references to Springer on this entire website, despite the clear relevance and appropriateness of his inclusion in most of the entries where reference to him has appeared. So yes, I see very clearly that you work not on democracy, but consensus (i.e., tyranny of the majority). What a great system! TracedInAir ( talk) 16:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Another brilliant response where you position yourself as the voice of god. "I said you bookspammed. You bookspammed. You called other users vandals, which they aren't. You can't do that." I mean honestly, do you actually hear yourself? Do you seriously not recognize the contradiction? You think it is ok to state as a matter of fact what you think I know? When did you get inside my head and become me? Good grief. TracedInAir ( talk) 18:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Your suggestion that I added anything that "isn't even related to (or only remotely)" the entries demonstrates your clear, profound and utter ignorance of the topics in question. Each of the edits I made inserts an article that has a clear and relevant linkage to the discussion, so the inclusion of the author is most definitely warranted. Simply because you don't recognize that connection yourself doesn't make it any less true. I assume that you are a smart, sane individual and can admit when you don't have even so much as a working knowledge of these topics, whereas in contrast, I actually do and was attempting to make meaningful contributions. Deleting these additions constitutes blanking vandalism precisely because my edits attempted to make a meaningful contribution to the entries on the basis of good faith and the deletions were made without explanation other than an assumed COI. So much for good faith! I have admitted that initially I inserted mere citations in the "further reading" sections. I didn't know any better as a noob. Other editors warned me that this was wrong, and so I went back and added paragraph descriptions of what the actual contribution was, cited additional authors to add content and description, and spent significant time and energy to demonstrate the relevance and improve the entry. In other words, I tried to make good, I really did. But to no avail, I was immediately pegged as a "bookspammer" and good faith was most certainly not extended to me. Instead, I was pounced on and persecuted, which kicked off an "edit war", which again I had no knowledge of what such a thing even was as a newcomer. This was followed by a campaign to purge any mention of Springer from this website through multiple acts of vandalism (again unexplained deletions) that for some bizarre reason is being tolerated. All the hard work I put in to adding paragraphs of text was wiped out or selectively edited to keep the other authors I cited and only delete Springer. If it looks like a witch hunt, swims like a witch hunt, and quacks like a witch hunt, well then... Also, your instance that I'm a bookspammer is insulting and ill-informed, so again I will refer you here WP:BITE and ask you to stop using this term to describe me as I interpret it as a personal attack. Thank you. TracedInAir ( talk) 00:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Careful now, you're engaging in what can be considered an attempt at outing WP:OUTING, which is strictly forbidden by this community. Yes I am a fan of Springer's work and a great many other geographers as well. I saw value in adding some of this insight into the articles I edited. My bad for the way I initially went about this, but again, I tried to make good but wasn't given the chance. Also, do you think it is only non-fans editing the Justin Bieber entry? Or non-Christians editing the Jesus Christ entry? Your suspicions are irrelevant. Most people edit where their interests are. I'm not going to start editing the quantum physics entry, because it is not in my interest. So I suggest you knock it off with the speculation, which seems to me to be a pretty serious violation of the rules around here. In addition, I don't have to bow or concede anything to you so quit thinking of yourself as somehow above me. You're not. Want me to shut up? Stop posting your personal attacks here W:NPA and I'll gladly drop it. I defend my actions because my only "crime" was a desire to contribute and a lack of experience with how to actually do that in a way that was acceptable to the community. You're insistence that I was acting in bad faith is what is so offensive, because I was actually acting in good faith. If you feel you need to attempt to have me banned, then go for it. What have I got to lose? Any edit I ever make from here on out will just be deleted anyway so I could really care less. TracedInAir ( talk) 15:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
IP 195.47.223.5, which is registered to Pearson plc has been editing the article on their adviser Sir Michael Barber, as well as other articles relating to Pearson (and articles on a variety of unrelated topics). Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I just got this message by user:strs2010:
“ | You continue to post an insulting photo of my client on the wikipedia which is difficult to understand...you twice neglected to remove clearly false and defamatory text that had been inserted on his page in the last month. Please refrain from using wikipedia as a platform to in
any way denigrate the reputation of other people. |
” |
Strs2010's account is a single-use account that's been wiping the Snyder article since 2010 including facts referred to in this article. See this edit of Strs2010 I reverted. Arbor to SJ ( talk) 19:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on the BLP noticeboard. It will probably be more productive to direct Strs2010 there, rather than carry on trying to get someone blocked for removing obviously defamatory statements. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 20:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
User:PCC1924 is a representative of Pasadena City College, founded in 1924. This diff confirms the COI in the edit summary. User:PCC1924 has been continually blanking content and entire sections, in an attempt to manage the article and remove negative content about the school. Another editor requested help from the community, to which I responded. See User talk:Johnmperry#Need to report persistent vandalism. Over the past couple of days, there has been a continual battle between User:PCC1924 and User:Johnmperry, who has been attempting to address the removal of content by reverting the actions of User:PCC1924. Warnings have been offered, which have been ignored. I think at this point, we need some intervention. Cindy( need help?) 19:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Danh108 ( talk) 19:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Kind Regards, Danh108 ( talk) 19:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Advice: The two of you should calm down and stop attacking each other. It's time for both of you to WP:WALK for a while. I've reviewed the article and made some adjustments and I think it's in pretty good shape right now. Certainly, other seasoned editors should take a look at it as well. But you two need to stop your WP:EDITWAR and back off this article--and back off from each other. Serving as a referee between you two will soon become tedious for any admins who become involved, and blocks may ensue. Thank you for your patience. Qworty ( talk) 19:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion, if the drafts prepared by editor who has declared his COI and have been posted for reviewing/editing at the article's talk page, should be considered as as unpublished primary sources or not. Interpretation of WP:COI and WP:PSTS is needed. Please feel free to comment at the BP's talk page. Beagel ( talk) 19:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi folks,
If you've been following the controversy surrounding Arturo at BP's proposing talk page drafts at the BP article, you'll note there's a lot of discussion about COI. I originally explained that I had connected Arturo to an active editor at the article, Rangoon 11 through OTRS, but I was mixing up prior work I had done. Arturo didn't write in to OTRS and I didn't put him in contact with Rangoon, who became more controversial over 2012 editing debates.
In another situation I was asked, this time through OTRS to provide guidance to a government representative from the U.S. Government at NDAA 2012. I made a disclosure on the talk page about this originating from OTRS and had the gov representative also make a COI disclsoure on the talk page as well. After that an active talk page editor Darouet engaged with this representative and they came to some consensus about appropriate changes.
Concerns have been raised that there is some kind of "pipeline" wherein an ticket from OTRS or from other sources will direct a COI representative to the talk page where they will link up with an editor who will implement their changes by proxy.
My question is, what kinds of COI disclosures are required from us, as we provide guidance to these COI folks. Noting that I tell them to stick to the talk page, of course. But still, there are concerns that this process is somehow putting COI reps in touch with active but biased Wikipedians at the article. How do we remove that perception of impropriety?
Specifically, if you lead a COI rep to a talk page, and someone responds to their suggestions, is our role done? How do we make clear that we are not blessing the COI reps' suggestions or facilitating some biased process?
This is important to resolve, for me at least, as I frequently provide guidance to folks with COI and want to avoid the appearance of something untowards going on and want to make our review processes more robust so that inadvertent bias doesn't creep in to the article.
Best,
Ocaasi t | c 17:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
(ec) I put in the ec note before even trying to save this - the edits are going fast and furious. Slim's links to your discussions look pretty scary, "slippery slope" comes to mind. I don't see any special reason to help put large organizations' welfare over the regular editor's welfare. Why not just help you basic individual editor instead? Smallbones( smalltalk) 19:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's exactly the problem, Darouet; you express it very well. Actually, I'd be willing to bet that Quirin42 was surprised that he was allowed to do it.
I think some editors (and I'm not directing this at anyone in particular, but because of several of these cases that I've looked at) are finding themselves in the same position as physicians trying to deal with the pharmaceutical industry. They are flattered, made to feel important, asked to give talks, language and sources are suggested, whole draft articles are offered that the physician can put her name to, gifts and money flow freely. Wikipedia has to resist this, or we'll end up with a host of articles ghostwritten by companies and governments, and volunteer editors made to feel uncomfortable, pressured, or so burned out arguing against it that they stop editing.
Another editor wrote that pride was getting in the way of solving this problem, because editors don't want to acknowledge that they can be hoodwinked by PR departments (or governments, or whatever). We all like to think that we're smart enough to see through inappropriate approaches or charm offensives, but the reality is that otherwise intelligent people get caught up in this kind of thing every day. This is why the academic community is increasingly looking for ways to deal with conflict of interest. Wikipedia can't turn in the opposite direction and try to take us back to the 1980s.
There's a good New York Times article here about a physician who became a drug rep and eventually realized that the roles were mutually exclusive; it's worth reading to see how he slid out of the physician role without even realizing it. Similarly, we have to be really careful that we're not sliding out of the Wikipedian role without realizing it. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me this is making a mountain out of a mole hill. One isn't in conflict of interest when one follows the guidelines and is not compromising the project. We have a behavioral guideline for editors to follow. When they do they are not a COI editor, they just have close associations. There is a difference and of all of the discussion going on, this is the one issue being exaggerated, ignored or just misinterpreted. If Arturo of BP is not placing his outside interest above those of Wikipedia...he is not a COI editor.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 04:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Ocaasi, is there guidance anywhere for the types of content issues OTRS volunteers should get involved in? My understanding was always that regular edit requests should be referred to the article talk page; that is, OTRS volunteers shouldn't act as "super editors" for regular content issues (as opposed to legal ones or sensitive BLP issues). But I can't find that written down anywhere, so I could be wrong. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
A user who made one edit in 2010 to an unrelated article has come back to life and is engaging in the same pattern of edits in destubbing the article, including restoring the old content. I am engaging them on their talk page but I have to suspect that this account has been compromised. Mangoe ( talk) 15:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Long-term pattern of COI editing by an agency of the Canadian federal government. Article was created by a COI editor and has been extensively edited over the years by other COI editors with WP:ORGNAME accounts. Copyvios are repeatedly added, and references are all to primary sources. Drm310 ( talk) 19:08, 1 February 2013 (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.
For many years, this page had correctly stated Rumi's place of birth as Balk, Afghanistan. The content has been falsified and changed to indicate Rumi is a native of Tajikistan. This is false information that must be corrected immediately. Many Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poets fan ( talk • contribs) 22:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
This probably explains itself nicely. -- Jayron 32 02:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Indian company; at least he's honest about it! His first 2 days worth all reverted, but no warnings issued. No doubt he'll just go underground. Johnbod ( talk) 17:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Greetings, I am a representative of Moody's, and I wish to ask for specific assistance about some recent problematic changes on company-specific articles. This past weekend, one or more individuals based at the IP addresses 24.45.162.83 and 98.14.243.231 (IPs with no prior history) made a series of edits to the three articles about Moody's listed here:
In some cases, verified and useful information about the company's history was deemed "irrelevant" and summarily deleted, and on MIS and MCO warning tags questioning the articles' neutrality were added. However, no comments were added explaining what was in question. I believe these edits are simply mischief and should be reverted by an uninvolved editor, so I wish to ask someone here to consider that now. Many thanks, Mysidae ( talk) 16:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I am posting here as a COI editor with a request that I hope someone can help with. As you might guess from my username, I work for BP, and I have been offering resources and drafts to help improve accuracy and depth of information about the company on Wikipedia since last summer. Last week I made a request on the BP article's Talk page to update the infobox with new financial data from the company's Quarter 4 and full year 2012 financial results. As that request has not received a response, I wanted to ask here if anyone could make these simple updates. Thanks. Arturo at BP ( talk) 00:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Username report was denied as not blatant, not sure how this was misunderstood...Article made was Minedas (page has been moved), a promotional article, Hence the acronym Minedas Public Relations Info or Mprinfo. Requesting username block as this is a promotion only account Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 15:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Folks, an e-mail as been sent to OTRS making us aware of this freelancer.com posting. Just making you aware of it so that articles that may be created as a result, if any, can be properly scrutinised. Thanks.-- ukexpat ( talk) 20:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Morryone has been identified as a corporate colleague of the subject of the article Trent Leyshan, and notified of COI issues multiple times. Edits also to ClarkMorgan where he is or was a corp officer, yet continues to only be contributing to COI articles like these. — Brianhe ( talk) 18:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The subject is the Attorney-General of Iowa and his article has been greatly expanded by a new user with an evident COI, who is currently username-blocked and requesting unblock. I am minded to remove the whole "Significant legal cases, events" section, which is sourced almost entirely to Mr Miller's own press releases and, while factual, reads like (what it presumably is) something put together by his PR people listing achievements to make him look good. Moreover it gives me copyright concerns - sentences put into Google turn up sources like this and this - evidently state AGs combine in these legal actions and all put out similar press releases. Comments welcome. JohnCD ( talk) 23:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Both accounts claim to work for the subject [16], [17], and both have persisted in promotional edits, copying text from the network's website. They've even registered separate votes at Talk:Tuff TV. 99.136.254.88 ( talk) 00:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I'll add the information along with a source and a summary. Seems like quite a hassle, and the total removal of content from the page is an over reaction. Sjmckeeman ( talk) 21:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
All edits by ManagerUSA and the listed IP appear to relate directly or indirectly to Bruce Edwin (a talent manager) and his websites. If I recall correctly, Edwin is associated with the Church of Scientology. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 04:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Creation of articles linking to user's website and related unreliable sources. Appears promotional. 99.136.254.88 ( talk) 14:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
This article and this editor appear to have a conflict of interest, if the article is not speedyily deleated, I beleve this situation needs to be monitored. CombatWombat42 ( talk) 22:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Obvious COI, but there has only been one edit made so far by the editor. Andrew 327 19:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
WP:SPA accounts working together, extremely likely that the ip is just IbankingMM not logged in.
IbankingMM appears to work for have a professional relationship
Pegasus Intellectual Capital Solutions in some capacity given his claim that he made
File:Schematic_of_Intellectual_Capital_and_its_components.png which he made for and was copyrighted by Pegasus. (Given the response
below, it appears he doesn't actually works for Pegasus.--
Ronz (
talk)
22:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC))
IbankingMM has created multiple articles all related to Pegasus and it's services, incorporating links to pegasusics.com articles. In a similar fashion, he's very prominently introduced similar information to already existing articles.
He had been notified of WP:COI after making his first few edits back in December '12. I've removed all the inappropriate pegasusics.com links and references, as well as the most blatant advertising.
The new articles should all be reviewed against WP:NAD, and his edits as a whole should probably be examined closer for undue bias and promotion. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Ronz is engaging in harassment outside his/her area of expertise. A cursory review of the work of the work of Leif Edvinsson and Karl-Erik Sveiby, et.al would establish the veracity of every article or edit made and the value of the addition to the knowledge available in Wikipedia. Intellectual Capital is a new (1990's concept) that is poorly understood outside of the largest or most forward thinking corporations. I have no objective other than to further the awareness of corporate finance in general and Intellectual Capital in particular.
Ronz is engaging in disruptive editing. He is clearly not operating withing his/her area of expertise, and should adhere to the Wikipedia mandate to avoid harassment and the deletion of material. From what I have seen, he/she not an Editor. He/she is nothing but a self-assigned vigilante.
It is abundantly clear from his/her 'contributions' that Ronz don't actually make any contributions to Wikipedia such as an article submission or modification. Rather, he/she simply deletes the material of others without due process. Wikipedia explicitly states that deletions of material should be used with greatest of caution, above and beyond any suspicion of self-interest, of which I have none. Ronz, however, does not research the material she/he deletes, since, apparently, that would require effort. It is clear that she/he does not do any research because she/he had deleted my entry in Human Capital before I had a chance to even review it myself.
It is quite clear from the record that Ronz is fond of deleting material, as she/he has no positive contributions to any articles. It would seem that this is the case as it is so much easier to harass than create. I would suggest that Ronz might try writing something, certainly something more substantial than a malicious 'talk' entry.
I have authored the following, de novo. This is entirely new material, relevant, and well documented.
Ronz is engaging in Vandalism, and I respectfully request that she/he desist. IbankingMM (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Qworty, in all due respect, I believe I have used the English language correctly in connection with my use of the term 'vigilante'. As defined by Merriam-Webster it means: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily. It is my observation and solemn opinion that there was indeed a summary judgment by a member of a volunteer committee, and thus, my use of the term was accurate. If I am incorrect, please explain. Ronz had deleted my work before I had even finished editing it, and he took tremendous umbrage that when I re-saved my work it appeared I was defying him. He then decided to attempt to tear apart every piece of work I have done. That does not appear to be a cool-headed analytical debate with independent third parties making an impartial judgement after hearing the facts.
I believe, in all candor and due respect, that the summary deletions of my work are to the detriment of readers and users of Wikipedia. I point to your own reference regarding WP:AGF. I do not believe I have been given the couresy of being shown good faith. Rather, my work was summarily deleted with a minimum or no diligence. How can I consider this anything but vigilantism? Mere suspicion is sufficient to get one's work deleted. Actual harm is not the least bit necessary. Am I wrong?
I posit this question to you: How are the interests of the users of Wikipedia aided by the deletion of the schematic [ [21]] which simply delineated the breakdown of Enterprise Value into its component parts? The schematic was simply a crisp representation of the work of Leif Edvinsson, Karl-Erik Sveiby, et.al. so that a common reader (those which Wikipedia attempt to reach) could grasp an emerging but obtuse concept. Second, how could such a schematic possibly be advertising when the entire work was based solely on concepts not associated in any manner with any party of interest, or any company? The schematic included categories which are themselves topics in Wikipedia, including Enterprise value, Intellectual capital, Human capital, Structural capital, Relational capital, Organizational capital, etc.?
I do not wish to engage in some kind of power struggle with you or anyone else. I do, however, desire that:
At this point I am flummoxed and need clarification as to what has happened and why Please provide cogent detail. The Wikipedia section on Civility, which you suggest that I read, outlines this: "Be careful with user warning templates. Be careful about issuing templated messages to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with, and exercise caution when using templated messages for newcomers (see Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers). Consider using a personal message instead of, or at least in addition to, the templated message.
I have unexplained templates that I cannot grasp the genesis of.
Qworty, please take the time to read everything I've written. If it is important enough for my work to be deleted, it is important enough to study and understand. I want to make clear that my work is accurate in every respect, with the goal of furthering knowledge in the area of (no pun intended) Knowledge management, which is directly connected with Intellectual capital, which is directly connected with Corporate finance, and by connection Mergers and acquisitions and a host of interrelated topics. I believe in my heart that my work is as complete as any academic would want his work to be.
I have far less of an interest in furthering my claim that Ronz is more interested in deleting material than is creating it. I do suggest that you glance as her/his contributions history and focus on her deletions compared to additions: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Ronz&offset=&limit=500&action=history. Unless I am terribly mistaken, it is clear that Ronz is not a creator. If I am incorrect, than I will need to study in greater depth the 'contributions' nomenclature.
Regardless, I am not inclined to further my argument as to the conduct or possible bias of Ronz. Rather, I seek third party affirmation of my work with an eye towards the best interests of the users of Wikipedia in obtaining accurate and thoughtful information.
OlYeller21, my apologies for missing your entrance into this discussion. We were not appropriately introduced. I am a 69 year old retired banker, former Army Major, writer and volunteer. I worked in corporate finance my entire career. I have no vested interest in any commercial interest or personal relationship. I do however have a great number of connections and relationships to call upon, but that does not constitute a conflict of interest. Still, I believe that even if you assumed I had a bias of some sort, I do not believe it is in any way reflected in my work. I believe my work is dry, analytical, descriptive and well written. I do not believe my work advances any commercial interest, let alone more than it advances Wikipedia, which is the standard that it must bear.
My position is that Ronz, and Qworty are not following the very basic tenant of COI guidelines, to wit: An edit by a COIN declared COI editor may not meet a requirement of the COI guideline when the edit advances outside interests more than it advances the aims of Wikipedia
Rather, Ronz, and Qworty simply delete work without (1) notice, or (2) any attempt to propose changes to the content. Ronz and Qworty both simply made wholesale deletions (i.e. "blanking", which unless I am mistaken, is a hallmark of vandalism, as there is no attempt to discuss or resolve point of contention) of work that had no possible connection with any COI, e.g. the schematic File:Schematic_of_Intellectual_Capital_and_its_components.png. I believe the record will be clear that there was no attempt to propose changes to any content. IbankingMM ( talk) 13:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Sirs and Madams, I am a retired corporate finance professional that has noted the shift in the value of the S&P 500 from being derived 80% from tangible assets in the late 1970's, to 80% intangible assets today (now referred to as Intellectual Capital). As a corporate finance professional, a retiree with time on his hands and an investment portfolio to protect, this has been a subject of great personal, as well as professional interest. Intellectual Capital as the source of wealth creation will become even more important over the next 10 and 20 years. To that point, one of the companies I watch closely is Ocean Tomo (the firm that did the research on the shift in value in the S&P 500), which is a leader in its field. Ocean Tomo is one of my interests, but more of my work has been on the basic background research on Intellectual capital and Knowledge management. My contact with PegasusICS was in connection with obtaining a second opinion regarding my schematic. In return for their proof and verification, they requested and I approved their right to use it. I own the rights to the schematic, and I assigned those rights over to Wikipedia Commons. No copyright by PegasusICS is in force, as our agreement is that they would not file or attempt to enforce, and they are aware that I have assigned all rights to Wikipedia Commons. I requested a second opinion from PegasusICS because they are one of the few firms I know of that have attempted to integrate IC and KM into corporate finance. Ocean Tomo, the other company I track, is focusing more on IP (a much narrower field than IC). I have a career worth of contacts among the Fortune 500, banks and business community, and borrow from all that I can. As such, I am biased towards the most creative thinkers and I write about them as a part of my own learning, because we don't really know anything very well until we can teach someone else. I admire certain individuals and companies, and reference them often in my work. I admire Steve Jobs and equate Apple have seen them as practically synonymous, and if I were writing about innovation in personal electronics, you would see the same crossover in my work. But admiration and respect are not the same as bias or conflict of interest. If, however, the administrators on Wikipedia believe that prior contact constitutes a conflict of interest, then I request to you that my work be looked at in light of the Wikipedia's tenant as to whether any of my writing "advances outside interests more than it advances the aims of Wikipedia". I believe a critical review by the administrators will establish that my work advances the aims of Wikipedia far more than it does any outside interest. Respectfully IbankingMM ( talk) 19:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Sir or Madam,
There have been any number of schematics that outline some part of the relationship between Intellectual Capital and its components. None, however, adequately do it in a readable fashion. This is NOT original research whatsoever. Please see http://business.queensu.ca/centres/monieson/events/scott_erickson%20seminar%20presentation.pdf as but one unwieldy example. Reformatting a schematic is not research. As a very simple example, using the color blue instead of read does not render something as original research. And no, the schematics I worked off of are not copyrighted.
Under U.S. law, any creative work, whether song, painting, photograph, automatically is copyrighted. The author/creator does not have to do anything to have title to that work. Thus, I had the right to contribute it to Wikipedia Commons. My statement that was that I owned the rights to it, and assigned them to Wikipedia Commons. As a result, Wikipedia is the owner, as is every work contributed to Wikipedia Commons, not me. This is the case with any photograph. If you take a photograph, you have a copyright to that photo. No one can use it without your permission. You are free to sell or assign it. You can assign it to Wikipedia Commons. That, after all, is how stuff gets there. It is then in the public domain. Wikipedia requires an affidavit regarding the origins of anything uploaded to Wikipedia for this very reason, that a copyright automatically vests with the originator, and thus, they could run afoul of copyright law if anyone but the owner contributes it.
As to your assertion that I was "spamming" the schematic, this is nonsensical. I was neither furthering a personal view or that of a commercial enterprise. Please do some research on the subject before you make any further accusations. I would suggest your read the work of Leif Edvinsson, Karl-Erik Sveiby as a primer. You will see from http://business.queensu.ca/centres/monieson/events/scott_erickson%20seminar%20presentation.pdf that I certainly was not furthering a personal view. And I pray there is no accusation that I was furthering a commercial interest.
As a point to consider, when you edit any work on Wikipedia, you are modifying a creative work to simplify it, expand on it, or clarify it, and hopefully the process improve it. There is no difference between doing that with words in an article or words on a schematic. A written work is copyrighted by law automatically. However, those that contribute to Wikipedia waive those rights. This is the case with the schematic in question. It simply used pre-existing concepts, clarified them by reducing the size of the area needed to put all the words in the boxes, and aligned them for ease of understanding. This is no different than if you rewrite a sentence for clarity. IbankingMM ( talk) 22:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Brianhe You can't be serious about wikistalking.
As another issue, you have deleted material of mine for copyright infringement when nothing even close to 10% of any article was ever directly quoted. As is fairly well known in intellectual property law, as a general rule, you may quote or closely paraphrase (a) up to 250 words from a book, (b) 10 percent of the text of an article.
It is increasingly clear that Ronz, Qworty and Brianhe are free to make whatever accusations they want, yet I am not supposed to point out that you (1) you aren't providing prior notice of an issue so that it can be rectified, (2) you aren't doing your research of the facts, whether about intellectual property law, the complete absence of any commercial or personal interest in the schematic you deleted, or (3) research into what constitutes fair use under U.S. copyright law. I feel like I am in caught in the movie "Mean Girls". Are there any serious academics in the house? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IbankingMM ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Quorty. Please make your specific, logical, point-by-point argument for each of you alleged infractions. WP:COI, WP:OR, WP:PROMO, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:SPS, and WP:PRIMARY. You make no case for any of them. If this matters enough for you to protest, then do so in detail, point by point, and how it overrides the benefit to Wikipedia users IbankingMM ( talk) 01:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Qworty No, I did not spam. There was no personal or commercial interest. You will need to state your case clearly as to why it was "spam". Please be specific. Also, there was no original research WP:OR. Any reasonable person that reviews http://business.queensu.ca/centres/monieson/events/scott_erickson%20seminar%20presentation.pdf (and others I can provide as reference)would conclude that my schematic was a reconfiguration for ease of reading and represents nothing other than editing. Please try to not be so harsh in your judgement.
Seems to be COI. Revolving Records is the Christine Owman's own record label. Only makes edits on Owman article and Mark Lanegan, who made a collaboration with her. Christine Owman article is created by this user as well. Also User:94.234.170.25 may have a connection with this issue, as he/she started to make simultaneous edits with User:RevolvingRecords on same articles. Myxomatosis57 ( talk) 14:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Per another user's suggestion, I am posting here about a conflict of interest I have. I am a Wikipedian in Residence at a United States-based non-profit organization, Consumer Reports, and I am employed to develop health articles on Wikipedia using the information generated by United States-based medical specialty organizations for a health educational campaign called " Choosing Wisely". I felt that it was necessary to create a Wikipedia article on the Choosing Wisely campaign to explain my work to others. To that end, and because it is not completely clear how I should get community approval for this, I created a Wikipedia article for "Choosing Wisely" posted my draft to WP:AfC and also informed WikiProject Medicine, WikiProject Open Access, and the proposed thematic chapter for supporting the development of health content on Wikimedia projects, Wiki Project Med. I am now posting here also. I would like to request that someone review my article and, if it passes Wikipedia inclusion criteria, to move it from the AfC talkspace into the article mainspace. I have a more complete explanation of this at the WikiProject Medicine talk space. Thank you for your attention. If someone would like to talk to me I am available through my talk page, on message boards, by phone, or by Skype. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Seeming History self promotion of self, own book and wiki washing. 85.115.157.244 ( talk) 19:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Please review this diff. I warned this IP editor here in November, about this editing behavior. In light of this edit history, I conclude that this is the IP address of an incorrigible editor with an impermissable single purpose David in DC ( talk) 18:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
This AfC submission, and the account who created it, appears to have a conflict of interest. I declined the submission as I have reservations over notability and reliability over its sources. hmssolent\ Let's convene My patrols 05:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I just saw this edit summary: Page overhaul under the direction of Dr. Eilat Mazar [22]. It is the user's first edit. I don't have time to go through the changes in detail, but Mazar and her approach have raised controversy from some other investigators who don't share her outlook, and I note that at least one quite pointed quote questioning her approach has been removed. As I said, I don't have time to wade into this now, so I thought I should hand it over to the specialists with this sort of change. Note that it is the user's first edit, so they may need to be walked quite gently through what is and is not a good idea per WP's COI policies. Jheald ( talk) 11:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
For the record, this issue has been here at COIN before. You can find those reports here, here, and here. As has always been the case, Jsteininger edits the article regularly. I do my best to check each edit but it's difficult as there are many. As proof that the COI is still problematic, this edit shows that he's still attempting to conflate his own notoriety.
Recently, Insomesia has been removing the COI template and demanding specific issues with the article. I feel that the tag is intend to notify readers that a user with a conflict of interest has been editing the article and it "may" require cleanup or in other words, it may not follow WP's policies and guidelines. As it's obvious that the COI editor as still editing heavily and, to my knowledge, no one has combed the article, a tag stating that the article "may" have issues seems perfectly suitable to me. Still, Insomnesia has refused invitations to the talk page and continues to remove the tag.
I don't care if the tag stays or goes but I don't enjoy edit warring and only want the article to conform to WP's policies and guidelines. Still, I'm not going to spend hours going through the article only to have the subject of the article, who was repeatedly refused to communicate with others, continues to edit the page.
So, what do we do here? Do any of you feel like checking the page? I would if I felt that others would be watching and helping to keep it clean of issues presented by Steininger. Not sure what to do here. OlYeller21 Talktome 05:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Randy's edits have improved from yesterday, when his contribution Christian parenting was speedily deleted as promotion. However, Randy appears to still be here solely to advance book publisher's agenda, though I can't see his deleted contributions to see what exactly the overlap is from yesterday's deleted content. Randy seems to be unaware of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:SECONDARY, and WP:COI. So far, Randy has also been uncommunicative on his talk page. Biosthmors ( talk) 17:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I came across this user, Squidwarddthe2nd, whose 51 edits include 43 on the article Rock Mafia (a group of music producers) and the rest are on related subjects. The article is very positive, and very detailed - containing every track they've produced, in a list longer than is normal. Someone tried to add a picture and it was removed by this user with the reason 'I am the copyright owner at Rock Mafia' This user hasn't been very active recently but the article does also have a lot of edits from unregistered users who've not edited other articles. I also note similar trends in the article on Antonina Armato, a member of Rock Mafia.
Not sure what can be done but does definitely seem like a COI. Rayman60 ( talk) 21:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC) update: twitter account for squidwardthe2nd is for someone who describes themselves as 'studio elf at Rock Mafia'
I came across this article which had several issues I tried to address, namely lack of sources, poor spelling & grammar, slang and a rather detailed discography with poor formatting. My edits were reverted by this user with this reason: Why are you taking out productions i have done?-like Travie McCoy"Need You"?.It is not up to you what goes in. It has been noted on the talk page many years ago that there are issues with this page, but this has not been fixed. There are several unregistered users active on this account, whose sole contributions are adding info to this article and corresponding links on related articles e.g. if this artist works with another one, that other artist's page will be edited to reflect the fact. It seems this page is monitored and unfavourable edits are resisted. Rather than getting drawn into an edit war, I thought I'd bring it to the attention of the COI board. Thanks Rayman60 ( talk) 21:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
This user has just spent the last two hours doing nothing but adding citations to the external links section of perhaps two dozen articles. Judging from his/her username, they may have a CoI here. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk] #_ 03:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I am the founder and president of Bloomex- the floral company oeprating in Canada, USA and Australia. The current article does not reflect true picture about me and my company mainly because of efforts of editors CliffC and recently User:Gwickwire , who I believe is the same person. You can see that their comments are very subjective and directed againts me personally. I appreciate if you can ban them from article editing and let other people edit the article to reflect true story. Dimitri Lokhonia ( talk) 22:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The user is edit-warring - removing referenced information about controversy without explanation, while adding promotional-sounding content glorifying the corporation that is building this airport. I have warned him twice already to which he didn't respond. I think it's clear from his editing pattern that he has a COI. — Yerpo Eh? 07:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I came across this article which rang a few alarm bells. I fixed some formatting issues and looked at the history. I saw the article was created and dominated by a person whose only contributions were to this article. I googled them and there are many sources saying someone of the same name is head of PR at the company at which the article subject is CEO/founder. I had also expected the article on the company Daisy Group to have the same issues and it also has been written with a positive slant on the subject, but this time with several unregistered users with no other edits and one user Angelj38 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whose only contributions are on this article. Rayman60 ( talk) 23:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
On recent changes I came across the above article and nominated it under CSD. After it was deleted I saw that it had been deleted four times before. Looking at the editor's other edits, there was some other material that seemed promotional, both images and text, added to History of Clark Air Base and Clark Veterans Cemetery. Previously, an ip editor ( 119.93.66.202) had made similarly promotional-toned edits, often referencing Global Gateway Logistics City, to Pugo, La Union, Angeles, Philippines, and History of Clark Air Base. This leads me to suspect a CoI, possibly through involvement with Peregrine development (a name referenced frequently in some of the additions) or the Clark Veterans Cemetery Restoration Association, also frequently referenced with a promotional tone. I am not sure how to proceed. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk] #_ 10:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
A Perth-based communications agency with the name of Clarity Communications states First Quantum Minerals, owner of the Ravensthorpe Nickel Mine, as one of its customers on its website. Seems there is a conflict of interest to me there. Calistemon ( talk) 16:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
User may be photographer mentioned in their edits of this article. May be using article as a convenient anti-gravity vehicle for promotion of their photography business. has inserted more or less the same content here, here, and here. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk] #_ 21:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I ran across this article just now: FAU Stadium’s New Prison Sponsor Is Frantically Trying To Wipe Abuse Allegations From Wikipedia. I'm running a temperature of about 103 right now so I'm not sure what's going on but the article needs attention. OlYeller21 Talktome 02:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
This user, with a declared COI, needs help in updating the article. After he tried to post a rather un-neutral version, I explained things on his talk page, and encouraged him to do a sandbox draft, which he has done at User:Prokurator/sandbox; but although it is more neutral in tone, it still reads as the ISDA telling the world about itself, and is referenced only to the ISDA website. The current article has some references, though they are more about the association's "Master Agreement" than the association itself. I have suggested that he (a) look for independent references and (b) consider what is actually inaccurate in the present article. Any assistance in either making the new draft encyclopedic or improving the current article to be accurate and up-to-date would be welcome. JohnCD ( talk) 17:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
This article has largely been written by its subject. Could someone experienced at doing so please drop by her user talk and explain nicely about our policy on autobiographical editing - thanks. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
User JDeMarcos is a trustee of the Michael Servetus Institute. His books have been paid by the Michael Servetus institute. Now he tries to destroy any information on a new theory, based on primary sources, which is groundbreaking and would mean that the Michael Servetus institute is not located in the previous birthplace. Biographies have been relying on a falsification in an Act, or Notarial protocol. A registry made by a Civil Notay in 1504, but which contains surprisingly, information from 1537 and 1529. It was althered, after those years and very possibly in the XX century. Basically the previous theory does not have any primary official source that would assure for instance that Pedro is a brother of Michael. And DeMarcos cannot provide any new primary source on this. Many parts of the article do not take in count when a document is official or not, and how the name " Servetus" does not show up in any official document, ( every document that requires previous inspected information). This user is trying to block a groundbreaking theory, because it would mean the institute would lose influence in the Servetus experts (it is actually kind of late for that) , and would not be able to pay for his works anymore. Works by DeMarcos, paid by the Michael Servetus Institute http://www.miguelservet.org/servetus/publications.htm#19
Of course, Dr Gonzalez has all his publications and communications, inspected by the International Society for the HIstory of Medicine, Specialiced Magazines such as Pliegos de Bibliofilia. For instance one can check how the whole government of Tunis went to his lecture in 1998, or how the president of Spain went to his Malaga Congress in 1996. http://michaelservetusresearch.com/ENGLISH/profile.html ( 25 pdf's some in english)He was also granted the Palace of Bo Magna Room, in Padua congress, and he is praised in the reviews of the ISHM, even by the president, and the editor and secretaries, Check here Tricot, Lellouche, Kottek, etc, on Other authro's publications. http://michaelservetusresearch.com/ENGLISH/links.html Every member has to be historian or physician. And every communication is Peer reviewed, by a scientific comitee. He is also a member of the French History of Medicine. And his discoveries where presented also in the Royal academy of Medicine of Barcelona. www.scoop.it/t/discovered-new-works-and-true-identity-of-michael-servetus-proofs There in 1996 one can check how he was giving a lecture in the Michael Servetus Institute, one can see the major of Villanueva de Sijena, the promotor, and director too. And many news. But basically, now DeMarcos, tries to deny any discovery this person made, cause it can mean, less money for his books from the institute. Gonzalez was expelled in 2005 from the MSI, cause of thinking differently, and now the MSI, has asked DeMarcos to attack and prevent information of Gonzalez to be in the wikipedia article. And he removed as much as he could. It makes sense. He gets his book paid.
DeMarcos means maybe there were 7 editors who denounced this, maybe they are " a few".No access to pdf sources were gotten in the previous DNR study, nor it was accounted that Marcos gets his books paid by the MSI, even twice.WP:NOPAY-- Alice Alaster ( talk) 16:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
1-page 153 second paragraph- Francisco Javier Gonzalez Echeverria," La naturalizacio Francesa de Miguel de Villanueva( Miguel Servet)" Principe de Viana, nº 255 year 2012
Basically this is the conclusion to all his previous pages of documents, where he shows documents of Anton Servetus, De Villanueva here and there, the French royal document of naturalization, verification in the chamber des comptes, and registry at Paris University.
You can find same peer reviewed information in Lellouche.in the academic Journal -Vesalius article PDF, which I referred: http://michaelservetusresearch.com/ENGLISH/pdf/Vessu2012.pdf
2-page 55-Third paragraph, 4th line Alain Lellouche -"El amor a la verdad ( vida y Obra de Miguel Servet)Tudela 2011"- Vesalius Journal Vol XVIII-No 1, 2012
Do I need to provide more exact citacions on every aspect that is contained in the article of Gonzalez peer reviewed by Principe de Viana editor council? I can. But it is basically that, wrong name and birthplace-- Noah Bernstein ( talk) 02:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
No, this document was lost and your sources, referred it wrongly during more than 50 years , cause nobody checked it. Gonzalez tracked it as Bernstein said, during months and finally found it, thanks to a relative of the original discoverer, Vellein, after checking the old castle it was supposed to be at. Again you come here to the same thing " Gonzalez did nothing" which is what you want people to hear. We do not talk about that. We talk about it was published there, after being peer reviewed, and your comments on this trying to talk of what you are interested should be noticed by the administrators. If we would have to talk about what he did we could talk of the Jewish converso origin , first proof in 1999, or we could talk of the new editions he found of the ex postremis doctorum bible of 1542, or the 10 new works, or the document of Juan Serveto, or things like that, but are we here for that? Gonzalez recovered the lost document, and showed it to the public for the first time ( his policy, when it comes to trust on publications he always publishes the primary sources, so everyrone can check he says the truth, a thing none else does. University of Paris registry published by him too, for the first time, or many other documents)and corrected multiple errors by Rude. What is new is THE PUBLICATION in the specialized magazine Principe de Viana is peer reviewed, do you have anything to say about it? Good. That is what we talk about, not about what you think on Gonzalez's research, but on what peer reviewed systems think of it.Second, the Academic Journal Vesalius too, with Prof Kottek and Allain Lellouche, too. Those are my fav authors too as you can see. And it is funny you talk about deep study, but the MSI did not research any of this, nor the new works, it is not what they say, it is what they dont say. Tell me a study, aside of the absurd two pages of Alcala, saying reasons for denying this. Can u provide anything? that is the best proof of the lack of honesty you have. It is required but nobody did any study or gave any data from your institute. It is a dogma. So, Kottek and Lellouche in the academic Journal Vesalius, and specialized Magazine peer reviewed too, Principe de Viana. You should not edit if you get such ammount of money for your books from the MSI, it is beyond a normal COI.-- Alice Alaster ( talk) 18:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC
We should not get distracted by the issue here. Gonzalez published this information in peer reviewed systems after august 2012, aprox Nov 2012. And other scholars praised him in peer reviewed academic journals of big international Societies with a peer reviewers, aprox dec 2012. I think that is what was asked from Alice. We are not here for talking on intentions, or the discoveries of Gonzalez. And DeMarcos true motivations are funds for his books, and to try do hide this researcher who is breaking the old theory up. SO it is all about the money he could not get, if the institute would not work someday. It has to be hard to pay for your own books.-- Noah Bernstein ( talk) 19:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Clearly this has become a discussion about a content dispute rather that a discussion about a conflict of interest. I suggest that this entire case be closed/collapsed, that anyone who wishes to discuss the potential conflict of interest be invited to file a new COI case with the promise that any content-dispute-related material will be removed or collapsed, and that anyone who wishes to discuss the content dispute be invited to file a new DRN case with the promise that any COI-related material will be removed or collapsed. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Please note everybody that user Alice Alaster has added these comments, insisting on her promotion of fringe research using Dr. Echeverría's book and articles as the only "valid" source on the topic, and concluding that I "will not be allowed" to keep editing the article. Apparently Alice Alaster has already made a decision about who can edit the Wikipedia and who can't... BTW her arguments and sources are the same as those used by user Anatoly Ilych Belousov in a previous DR (see here and here) and then a CoI. Same sources, same arguments, same purpose... Nothing new under the sun. -- Jdemarcos ( talk) 16:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Editor is dedicated to writing promotional articles based around
Jonathan Hay (publicist) (
afd) such as
Jonathan Hay Publicity (
afd),
Hoopla Worldwide (Another Hay publicity company),
Sabrina (pop singer) (Hay's partner wife, cofounder of Hoopla Worldwide),
Audio Stepchild (band featuring Sabrina and with Hoopla Worldwide),
Birdgang clothing (key people include Jonathan Hay and Sabrina Hale of Hoopla Worldwide),
A Different Kind Of Christmas (released on Hoopla Worldwide),
Knoc's Ville (released on Hoola Worldwide, Hay was a producer).
Earlier history has a wider variety of subjects but a closer look show how many are connected, eg:
Most articles are overly promotional and have a history of bad sourcing. Some contain what looks like straight out lies. duffbeerforme ( talk) 10:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
FYI, causeandedit ( talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely, so this issue can probably be closed. Most of the articles are in AfD, so their merits can be discussed there. -- GentlemanGhost ( talk) 19:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I am a staffer for California Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez. New Assembly rules allow us to start participating in social sites. I've made a number of suggested additions (contained in my Sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Reelpolitik/sandbox) for the Speaker's page — trying to Be Bold in the areas of legislation and leadership/management of the Assembly...while being respectful of COI guidelines and working my hardest to maintain NPOV and Verifiability.
I look forward to working with the community here to flesh out information on the Speaker, the Assembly, and its members — many of whom are new (the largest freshman class ever) and only have stubs for pages.
Apologies for missteps in practice and format by this humble noob. I am excited to grow as an editor here...about time I did my part for the site I so often rely on.
Thanks,
Jeremy D. Thompson — Special Assistant to John A. Pérez, Speaker of the California Assembly ( talk) 19:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
User is creating and editing articles relating to himself and his work. Repeated attempts at communication on his talk page have gone unanswered thus far. Drm310 ( talk) 16:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Username suggests COI and WP:SPA. Persistent removal of templates, lousy sourcing, etc. 99.137.210.226 ( talk) 17:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I believe Granttheron has a conflict of interest. Sure enough a quick google of "Grant Theron" and "Olympus games" gives us his twitter account. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/) [1] 10:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
The large non-profit organization I work for is wanting to improve their low-traffic Wikipedia article. (I mention low-traffic because I'm not sure there are any active non-COI editors who would be interested in taking suggestions for improvements, but it's definitely a notable topic.) Rather than having a single person responsible for it, I suggested maybe sending an e-mail out to all of the staff (though I suspect many staff don't read these announcements), suggesting that they look over our article and add content they feel should be in it, or make suggestions on the talk page. We'd include a brief note about neutral/non-promotional content and citing sources, and I'd monitor activity on it -- I'm definitely on board with the Wikipedia policies. Any thoughts on this? Testaccount55 ( talk) 20:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I brought these concerns to the attention of our public relations staff. They agreed that we should give it some time to see what the general consensus is here. So please comment! Generally I am hearing two answers: That it would be fine as long as we comply with Wikipedia guidelines (neutrality, verifiability, etc.), and that it is not a good idea under any circumstances. I'd also be open to any alternative suggestions. Thanks. Testaccount55 ( talk) 14:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. I'm going to recommend posting suggestions on the talk page, and may end up making additions to the article myself if I find there are no active non-COI editors (disclosing my COI and posting here as well). I'll give FreeRangeFrog's idea as an alternative, "riskier" option, but I suspect they'll err on the side of caution. Testaccount55 ( talk) 17:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I am asking for people familiar with a conflict of interest to pls take a look at Talk:Jack the Ripper#Proposal to add new information. Moxy ( talk) 09:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Michaeledmond keeps removing content on behalf of a person or company. I have already warned him. Cncmaster's slave ( my master) 17:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
This editor claimed to be the subject of the article multiple times ( [24] [25] [26]). I think he has a conflict of interest, and is using Wikipedia to promote his own interest at the expense of neutrality. 123.225.67.183 ( talk) 00:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
We are here to resolve the dispute, even if that means proving that the subject of the article is correct and you are wrong. We do not prohibit people from correcting errors in our articles about them.
The disputed changes seem a bit odd to me. They include:
The middle two are sourced, but it's entirely possible that they are outdated, i.e., that we should say that Jozef formerly was one half of the duo and formerly collaborated with these people. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I've come to the conclusion that people need to back down on this issue. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't see the evidence that some of these older statements are still true. Perhaps we can compromise on language that says they were true without committing to a current status on some of these issues? Meet me at the article talk page for further discussion. Mangoe ( talk) 13:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
User is creating and adding to articles about subjects with which they are self-identified. Subjects appear notable, but articles are sparsely sourced and contain much original research and plot descriptions, and little in the way of encyclopedic content, which gives the impression that they're promotional. 99.137.210.226 ( talk) 13:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Much of the recently added content consisted of plot descriptions copied from the director's website. I've removed as much as I could find. 99.137.210.226 ( talk) 14:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, all, I'd like to report an issue with User:Lmoughannexans and the article Nexans. This user, presumably the Nexans employee Lisa Moughan (as a quick check of the page history shows, she also has used the accounts User:LisaMoughan and User:Lmoughan), has been adding some seriously spammy stuff to the Nexans article, and reverting others when they try to remove the cruft. I decided to take it here instead of getting involved in an edit war or anything. Admittedly, I haven't tried talk page discussion, so this report might be premature, but I don't think that will be particularly effective in this case. Nevertheless, I'll try if y'all consider it a prerequisite to a report on this board. 208.87.234.180 ( talk) 14:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Joe Terranova ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Joeterranova ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Article heavily edited by subject. I have done some despamming and recommended that the subject use the talk page to discuss, advice that has so far gone unheeded.-- ukexpat ( talk) 04:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Bat Creek inscription ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
HuMcCulloch ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User:HuMcCulloch is self identified as one of the sources used in Bat Creek inscription. He has removed content from a published expert on hoaxes (who is citing a peer reviewed study) that runs counter to the theories that User:HuMcCulloch espouses. What is the appropriate manner to deal with User:HuMcCulloch's conflict of interest? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
As I pointed out in the Edit Summary for the indicated removal, "(Too detailed for lead paragraph, duplicates 2nd para. You may add Feder's opinion in section Recent Discussion if you like.)" I had previously announced my intention on the page's Talk page, in order to solicit informal discussion of the change there. According to WP:Lead, the lead paragraph should focus on what, where, when and who, leaving proposed interpretations for later paragraphs or the body. The removed opinion is already encompassed (though only in appropriate detail) in the second paragraph of the lead, making it redundant. I've invited User:TheRedPenOfDoom (or TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom, as the user prefers to be known) to insert the opinion in question as a direct quote in the appropriate section, "Recent Discussion", where this POV is discussed in greater detail. HuMcCulloch ( talk) 21:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
As User:Whatamidoing has noted, the WP:Conflict of Interest policy states, "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion" ( Citing yourself). The issue, then, seems to be one of relevance and extent, not one of COI, and then only when I am adding to references to my own work. If I am citing others' work, it may or may not be relevant, balanced, etc, but it is not a COI per se. As I mentioned above, it was User:PiCo, not myself, who added my name to the lead section recently. I in fact eliminated the reference PiCo added there to my 1993 BAR article, since I felt it gave that article undue attention for the lead.
The COI guidelines are primarily concerned with financial interest. If this were an article about a privately owned artifact of questioned authenticity, the owner would have a clear financial COI. However, I have no financial stake in this Smithsonian-owned artifact. In fact, the Smithsonian Mound Survey made a point of requiring landowners to relinquish any claim to artifacts the Mound Survey teams found, expressly to eliminate any financial incentive for fraud. HuMcCulloch ( talk) 18:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
If users think that PiCo's addition of my name to the lead section gives me undue attention, the first two sentences of the third paragraph could be changed to, "A 1988 article in Tennessee Anthropologist compared the letters of the inscription to both Paleo-Hebrew and Cherokee and concluded that the fit as Paleo-Hebrew was substantially better than Cherokee. It also reported a radiocarbon date on associated wood fragments consistent with Gordon's dating of the script." — Preceding unsigned comment added by HuMcCulloch ( talk • contribs) 18:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC) HuMcCulloch ( talk) 19:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I guess there's only one way to test User:Stalwart111's "friendly warning" that I might be electrocuted or something if I dare touch a word on the Bat Creek inscription page, so I plan to test this by correcting the erroneous attribution by the complainant, User:TheRedPenOfDoom, of a direct quote by McCarter (1993) to Mainfort and Kwas (1993). I don't see what conceivable COI I would have in giving McCarter his just credit. If I light up like a Christmas tree, we'll know Stalwart was right. (I'll be away from internet for about 3 days starting tomorrow morning, so I'll have to remain in suspense until I reconnect.) HuMcCulloch ( talk) 00:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
This user appears to have a preoccupation with getting a name check for a particular academic. Virtually every source cited is by this academic at the website http://academia.edu/ .-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The article in question actually removed any suspected "name dropping" prior to this entry, although the article retains the relevant reference, which is properly included and conforms with standard policy on Wikipedia. TracedInAir ( talk) 19:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
And all these edits have been entirely relevant to the discussions in which they take place and add to the content of the Wikipedia entry, as is the purpose of this website after all. You do not have a valid point here whatsoever. So what if I made some edits in a short period of time? I felt compelled to make a contribution and in each instance I have added context and proper citation. The bigger and more important question here is why have you taken my contributions as your own personal crusade, which suggests you have some kind of conflict of interest with "one particular academic" more than anything else. But beyond this, to suggest my entries have only mentioned "one particular academic" is disingenuous, as clearly I have included the works of more than just one academic when and where relevant in the edits I have made. TracedInAir ( talk) 00:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The is pretty obvious WP:BOOKSPAM - the mass addition of links to Springer's articles to the 'Further reading' section and trying to weave in references to Springer in every single article. Perhaps the most telling example is the edits to Discourse where IP 154.20.33.119 (either the same person as TracedInAir or an accomplice) added a paragraph on Foucault's analysis of dicourse, which had a little plug for Springer tagged at the end. I removed the part mentioning Springer. IP returned to restore the reference. If they are concerned with improving the page, why should it matter who is mentioned as the contemporary theorist? The fact that this is repeated across a number of pages (some of which aren't even directed relevant to the subect) suggests that the intent is to bring attention to the author. - SFK2 ( talk) 08:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Simply not true on many levels. To suggest "some of which aren't even directed relevant to the subject" shows a clear ignorance of the substantive content of the concepts you are editing, perhaps if you followed the links and read the articles that are being referenced you could stand to actually learn something... which in itself is a testament to the importance of their inclusion. Also to suggest that any time a theorist's name is mentioned it is a "conflict of interest" or a "little plug" strains your credibility. It is actually called proper citation within academia, but perhaps Wikipedia marches to its own drum. Your contradiction here is so glaringly obvious it almost hurts. In the entry on Discourse for example you delete the passage "Simon Springer in particular has attempted to bring greater conceptual clarity to how neoliberalim might be understood through a Foucauldian notion of discourse" but you leave in place "Chris Weedon, one of the best known scholars working in the feminist poststructuralist tradition". The latter is much more of a plug in terms of highlighting the ostensible importance or preeminence of a scholar, while the former is merely citing the work one particular scholar has done which is of primary relevance to the discussion at hand. The clear conflict of interest here is SFK2 and ianmacm, who evidently have some sort of grude against Springer and don't want to see his work mentioned. Otherwise, why are you deleting references to his work that exist in entries like WikiLeaks that predate my own edit, which was done merely to clean up the citation? TracedInAir ( talk) 15:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
This AfD discussion [31] sheds tremendous light on this issue. Qworty ( talk) 20:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
And by "cleaning up" you mean targeted vandalism by going through and erasing any and every mention of Springer and his work despite the relevance and obvious contribution of this work to the themes and entries in question. How fascinating that you have such extensive knowledge of all the areas in which he works to make such sweeping judgements. Am I the only one who sees a problem with this? Oh but wait, he's just some "lesser academic", so who cares right? Grab the pitchforks and charge full steam ahead! This is the modern day equivalent of a bonafide witch hunt. Well done! My question though, is when do we start going through and deleting references to all those other "lesser academics" who are mentioned in various articles across Wikipedia? After all, it would seem that one has to be Michel Foucault, David Harvey or Judith Butler to be worthy of inclusion lest the "senior editors" rise up and strike down those who dare to recognize that valuable contributions are often made by newer academics and even by noobs to Wikipedia. It never ceases to amaze me just how much people get off on bullying. Hope you're satisfied now that you've cleansed this website from the terrible threat that any mention of Springer posed to the happy Wikipedia community! Better hope his career goes in the tank too, because otherwise you might be faced with the prospect of users other than myself including mention of him too and that would keep you really busy burning books, er, I mean deleting edits. TracedInAir ( talk) 06:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Sure, if it makes you feel better to dismiss legitimate concerns as "hyperbole" then so be it. This has so obviously turned into a crusade it actually makes my head spin. I can play the same as you too though... I suggest you and your friends read WP:VANDAL, WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:EQ, WP:UNRESPONSIVE and WP:GAME. There, now I feel a glowing sense of puffed up self-importance too! Part of the problem here is the whole "consensus" mentality that exists on Wikipedia, so it is the ultimate in irony that this all came up in the entry on Agonism, which as a concept is all about the importance of dissensus (no such entry on Wikipedia! Go figure! lol) and the notion that all individuals are presupposed as equals and treated as legitimate claimants to public considerations. Dissensus is absolutely essential for democratic practice and functioning, where systems that rely exclusively on consensus are actually representative of the tyranny of the majority. But then again, I don't expect that you and your team know anything about agonism or any of the other topics that you have deleted Springer from, because if you actually did you wouldn't have engaged in the rampant acts of vandalism that you have committed. TracedInAir ( talk) 15:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
So let me get this straight... if you say I "BOOKSPAMmed" that is somehow a totally legitimate comment, but if I say someone else engaged in vandalism then that is a "personal attack"? The contradictions just get deeper and deeper. Here I am thinking both comments are opinions. I suppose the difference is that where as I've been quite willing to try and learn as I go and modify my edits to meet with website policies, the editors that have come out to greet me so warmly have made it a personal campaign to annihilate any and all references to Springer on this entire website, despite the clear relevance and appropriateness of his inclusion in most of the entries where reference to him has appeared. So yes, I see very clearly that you work not on democracy, but consensus (i.e., tyranny of the majority). What a great system! TracedInAir ( talk) 16:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Another brilliant response where you position yourself as the voice of god. "I said you bookspammed. You bookspammed. You called other users vandals, which they aren't. You can't do that." I mean honestly, do you actually hear yourself? Do you seriously not recognize the contradiction? You think it is ok to state as a matter of fact what you think I know? When did you get inside my head and become me? Good grief. TracedInAir ( talk) 18:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Your suggestion that I added anything that "isn't even related to (or only remotely)" the entries demonstrates your clear, profound and utter ignorance of the topics in question. Each of the edits I made inserts an article that has a clear and relevant linkage to the discussion, so the inclusion of the author is most definitely warranted. Simply because you don't recognize that connection yourself doesn't make it any less true. I assume that you are a smart, sane individual and can admit when you don't have even so much as a working knowledge of these topics, whereas in contrast, I actually do and was attempting to make meaningful contributions. Deleting these additions constitutes blanking vandalism precisely because my edits attempted to make a meaningful contribution to the entries on the basis of good faith and the deletions were made without explanation other than an assumed COI. So much for good faith! I have admitted that initially I inserted mere citations in the "further reading" sections. I didn't know any better as a noob. Other editors warned me that this was wrong, and so I went back and added paragraph descriptions of what the actual contribution was, cited additional authors to add content and description, and spent significant time and energy to demonstrate the relevance and improve the entry. In other words, I tried to make good, I really did. But to no avail, I was immediately pegged as a "bookspammer" and good faith was most certainly not extended to me. Instead, I was pounced on and persecuted, which kicked off an "edit war", which again I had no knowledge of what such a thing even was as a newcomer. This was followed by a campaign to purge any mention of Springer from this website through multiple acts of vandalism (again unexplained deletions) that for some bizarre reason is being tolerated. All the hard work I put in to adding paragraphs of text was wiped out or selectively edited to keep the other authors I cited and only delete Springer. If it looks like a witch hunt, swims like a witch hunt, and quacks like a witch hunt, well then... Also, your instance that I'm a bookspammer is insulting and ill-informed, so again I will refer you here WP:BITE and ask you to stop using this term to describe me as I interpret it as a personal attack. Thank you. TracedInAir ( talk) 00:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Careful now, you're engaging in what can be considered an attempt at outing WP:OUTING, which is strictly forbidden by this community. Yes I am a fan of Springer's work and a great many other geographers as well. I saw value in adding some of this insight into the articles I edited. My bad for the way I initially went about this, but again, I tried to make good but wasn't given the chance. Also, do you think it is only non-fans editing the Justin Bieber entry? Or non-Christians editing the Jesus Christ entry? Your suspicions are irrelevant. Most people edit where their interests are. I'm not going to start editing the quantum physics entry, because it is not in my interest. So I suggest you knock it off with the speculation, which seems to me to be a pretty serious violation of the rules around here. In addition, I don't have to bow or concede anything to you so quit thinking of yourself as somehow above me. You're not. Want me to shut up? Stop posting your personal attacks here W:NPA and I'll gladly drop it. I defend my actions because my only "crime" was a desire to contribute and a lack of experience with how to actually do that in a way that was acceptable to the community. You're insistence that I was acting in bad faith is what is so offensive, because I was actually acting in good faith. If you feel you need to attempt to have me banned, then go for it. What have I got to lose? Any edit I ever make from here on out will just be deleted anyway so I could really care less. TracedInAir ( talk) 15:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
IP 195.47.223.5, which is registered to Pearson plc has been editing the article on their adviser Sir Michael Barber, as well as other articles relating to Pearson (and articles on a variety of unrelated topics). Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I just got this message by user:strs2010:
“ | You continue to post an insulting photo of my client on the wikipedia which is difficult to understand...you twice neglected to remove clearly false and defamatory text that had been inserted on his page in the last month. Please refrain from using wikipedia as a platform to in
any way denigrate the reputation of other people. |
” |
Strs2010's account is a single-use account that's been wiping the Snyder article since 2010 including facts referred to in this article. See this edit of Strs2010 I reverted. Arbor to SJ ( talk) 19:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on the BLP noticeboard. It will probably be more productive to direct Strs2010 there, rather than carry on trying to get someone blocked for removing obviously defamatory statements. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 20:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
User:PCC1924 is a representative of Pasadena City College, founded in 1924. This diff confirms the COI in the edit summary. User:PCC1924 has been continually blanking content and entire sections, in an attempt to manage the article and remove negative content about the school. Another editor requested help from the community, to which I responded. See User talk:Johnmperry#Need to report persistent vandalism. Over the past couple of days, there has been a continual battle between User:PCC1924 and User:Johnmperry, who has been attempting to address the removal of content by reverting the actions of User:PCC1924. Warnings have been offered, which have been ignored. I think at this point, we need some intervention. Cindy( need help?) 19:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Danh108 ( talk) 19:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Kind Regards, Danh108 ( talk) 19:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Advice: The two of you should calm down and stop attacking each other. It's time for both of you to WP:WALK for a while. I've reviewed the article and made some adjustments and I think it's in pretty good shape right now. Certainly, other seasoned editors should take a look at it as well. But you two need to stop your WP:EDITWAR and back off this article--and back off from each other. Serving as a referee between you two will soon become tedious for any admins who become involved, and blocks may ensue. Thank you for your patience. Qworty ( talk) 19:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion, if the drafts prepared by editor who has declared his COI and have been posted for reviewing/editing at the article's talk page, should be considered as as unpublished primary sources or not. Interpretation of WP:COI and WP:PSTS is needed. Please feel free to comment at the BP's talk page. Beagel ( talk) 19:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi folks,
If you've been following the controversy surrounding Arturo at BP's proposing talk page drafts at the BP article, you'll note there's a lot of discussion about COI. I originally explained that I had connected Arturo to an active editor at the article, Rangoon 11 through OTRS, but I was mixing up prior work I had done. Arturo didn't write in to OTRS and I didn't put him in contact with Rangoon, who became more controversial over 2012 editing debates.
In another situation I was asked, this time through OTRS to provide guidance to a government representative from the U.S. Government at NDAA 2012. I made a disclosure on the talk page about this originating from OTRS and had the gov representative also make a COI disclsoure on the talk page as well. After that an active talk page editor Darouet engaged with this representative and they came to some consensus about appropriate changes.
Concerns have been raised that there is some kind of "pipeline" wherein an ticket from OTRS or from other sources will direct a COI representative to the talk page where they will link up with an editor who will implement their changes by proxy.
My question is, what kinds of COI disclosures are required from us, as we provide guidance to these COI folks. Noting that I tell them to stick to the talk page, of course. But still, there are concerns that this process is somehow putting COI reps in touch with active but biased Wikipedians at the article. How do we remove that perception of impropriety?
Specifically, if you lead a COI rep to a talk page, and someone responds to their suggestions, is our role done? How do we make clear that we are not blessing the COI reps' suggestions or facilitating some biased process?
This is important to resolve, for me at least, as I frequently provide guidance to folks with COI and want to avoid the appearance of something untowards going on and want to make our review processes more robust so that inadvertent bias doesn't creep in to the article.
Best,
Ocaasi t | c 17:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
(ec) I put in the ec note before even trying to save this - the edits are going fast and furious. Slim's links to your discussions look pretty scary, "slippery slope" comes to mind. I don't see any special reason to help put large organizations' welfare over the regular editor's welfare. Why not just help you basic individual editor instead? Smallbones( smalltalk) 19:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's exactly the problem, Darouet; you express it very well. Actually, I'd be willing to bet that Quirin42 was surprised that he was allowed to do it.
I think some editors (and I'm not directing this at anyone in particular, but because of several of these cases that I've looked at) are finding themselves in the same position as physicians trying to deal with the pharmaceutical industry. They are flattered, made to feel important, asked to give talks, language and sources are suggested, whole draft articles are offered that the physician can put her name to, gifts and money flow freely. Wikipedia has to resist this, or we'll end up with a host of articles ghostwritten by companies and governments, and volunteer editors made to feel uncomfortable, pressured, or so burned out arguing against it that they stop editing.
Another editor wrote that pride was getting in the way of solving this problem, because editors don't want to acknowledge that they can be hoodwinked by PR departments (or governments, or whatever). We all like to think that we're smart enough to see through inappropriate approaches or charm offensives, but the reality is that otherwise intelligent people get caught up in this kind of thing every day. This is why the academic community is increasingly looking for ways to deal with conflict of interest. Wikipedia can't turn in the opposite direction and try to take us back to the 1980s.
There's a good New York Times article here about a physician who became a drug rep and eventually realized that the roles were mutually exclusive; it's worth reading to see how he slid out of the physician role without even realizing it. Similarly, we have to be really careful that we're not sliding out of the Wikipedian role without realizing it. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me this is making a mountain out of a mole hill. One isn't in conflict of interest when one follows the guidelines and is not compromising the project. We have a behavioral guideline for editors to follow. When they do they are not a COI editor, they just have close associations. There is a difference and of all of the discussion going on, this is the one issue being exaggerated, ignored or just misinterpreted. If Arturo of BP is not placing his outside interest above those of Wikipedia...he is not a COI editor.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 04:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Ocaasi, is there guidance anywhere for the types of content issues OTRS volunteers should get involved in? My understanding was always that regular edit requests should be referred to the article talk page; that is, OTRS volunteers shouldn't act as "super editors" for regular content issues (as opposed to legal ones or sensitive BLP issues). But I can't find that written down anywhere, so I could be wrong. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)