![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Users stated above appear to be representatives of Studio Roosegaarde/Daan Roosegaarde according to their associated website [1]. That implies a conflict of interest as it can be found in Wikipedia:NOPR. Editing an article on Wikipedia with the intent to derive monetary or other benefits may undermine the ability to remain neutral. Mcczech ( talk) 16:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm watching.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer
14:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
User:Eddiecomic is repeatedly reverting well-sourced and cited information from the Eddie Brill article. Because the effect of these edits is to remove public yet negative information, and based on the user name, I believe this to be a conflict of interest -- Brill appears to be editing the article himself to remove material he is not happy with. Most of the rest of the article as written is uncited and written in a POV style. 208.120.1.55 ( talk) 00:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the procedures here, but I came across Jean Holden and it seems to be almost completely written by the article's subject. Notability isn't established and there aren't really any good sources. Not sure what, if anything, to do with it. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 02:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
First editor's only contributions have been to attempt to turn this article into yet another billboard for this low-income car dealership chain by removing content against the company and adding promotional information about the chain's latest dealership openings and NASCAR team accomplishments that reads like a Facebook post. Others have the same trademarks but ducked and covered once they hit the fourth warning. The last should have obviously been a promotional block on sight, but in 2006 we hadn't built our guidelines up to where they are today. Nate • ( chatter) 03:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The article has multiple edits from the IP subnets 134.171 and 200.72 which belongs to ESO, the employer of the person. All other anonymous edits are from IP addresses used by M-net, an ISP located in Munich the city nearest to ESO. No edits coming from the M-net adresses have contributions to the German Wikipedia. This is an indication that those edits are made by a non-German. There are many non-Germans at ESO. The small remainder of contributions to this article are from named wikipedia accounts, mostly bots, in one case from an account matching the name of the article. The article is basically a CV, with activities which are not so unusual for an astronomer/PR-person. Is the person actually notable ? Smerenda ( talk) 20:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
This editor (who I've introduced to Wikipedia a bit because I volunteer with the education program) is interested in becoming a campus volunteer. They would like input at Talk:California_Lutheran_University#Lots_of_Disclosure. Biosthmors ( talk) 20:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
This article states:
ExxonMobil, one of BP's rivals, says it strictly follows Wikipedia procedures to not alter its page. Instead, its staff clearly identifies itself when reaching out to editors and focuses on specific errors that can be easily proven wrong, such as an incorrect number. Bigger requests can be viewed as more subjective in nature. “There's a lot of information on there that's not true or factual,” explains Alan Jeffers, media relations manager at ExxonMobil. “However, it's impossible to prove a negative.”
— Dickson, Virgil (March 20, 2013). "Corporate comms execs pick their battles on Wikipedia". PRWeek. Retrieved 29 March 2013.
Looking at Talk:ExxonMobil, and the 2 archives: 1 and 2, I don't see anyone explicitly identified. Also, there is no {{ Connected contributor}} on the talk page. Am I missing something, or is the article wrong? Smallman12q ( talk) 21:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Not necessarily an autobiography, but a conflict of interest may be in place, especially considering the username involved. hmssolent\ Let's convene My patrols 06:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I am the employee of ACT Holdings Pte Ltd, a company founded by Mr Toh Aik Choon himself. I've been tasked to do a wikipedia input from Mr AC Toh's son, who is now the owner and managing director of the group. We will be most appreciative if you can allow the article which is by no means any conflict with anybody. All materials have not been plagiarized or is fictitious. For clarifications, we can be contacted via details on the website www.act-holdings.com.sg. Thank you - C.Y Lim Toh Aik Choon ( talk) 01:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Last fall, User:Dreamyshade identified problems with several articles related to the company MicroStrategy and posted about it on this noticeboard ( see here). As she correctly noted, someone from the company was editing directly, and the resulting articles were well outside of Wikipedia guidelines. Since then I've agreed to work with the company on a consulting basis, and I've prepared written replacements for two: one about the company MicroStrategy ( current article | proposed version | Talk proposal) and another about CEO co-founder, Michael J. Saylor ( current article | proposed version | Talk proposal).
It's always my goal to follow Jimbo's "bright line" and not edit directly, however I need a bit more assistance than I've been able to find so far. Since first posting my drafts two weeks back, I've had positive responses from Dreamyshade, User:FurrySings and a mixed take on the company article from User:Qwyrxian, but I'm afraid I haven't been able to get a follow-up response from any. FurrySings thought the Saylor article was ready to go and suggested I move it, but I won't for reasons stated. Perhaps that's a good place to start: is anyone willing to review the Saylor article and draft and comment on whether it's ready to move? I'm happy to continue this conversation here or on one of the article Talk pages, just let me know. WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 15:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
COI-spamming on numerous Mad Men articles by the above IPs. Comments left on the article talk page suggest that the IPs are associated with the links in question unitcritic.blogspot.com SFK2 ( talk) 02:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
These edits: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] seem kinda problematic. See also this and, especially, this prior warning. David in DC ( talk) 02:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Very obvious COI, username is the same name as the article. User has been warned of his username on his talk page. User has also removed the COI tag once. ToastyMallows ( talk) 16:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Folks, a recent e-mail to OTRS brought this to our attention. In an e-mail exchange between this individual and the e-mailer, he claims to "have a Wikiepdia Admin on staff who can get your pages up and keep them up. He is also very good at fixing client's pages who have gotten slandered online. Get in touch for more details. Our price is $2,500."
Not sure there is much we can do without further data, so I am just bringing this here for wider attention.-- ukexpat ( talk) 20:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Relevant diffs here [7] and [8] here. Summary: person claiming to be subject of article (apparent from username, as well as message on my talk page [9]) is removing mention of findings of academic misconduct from the lead. I don't wish to get into an edit war on the subject, but I think the declared COI is rather blatant, and would rather an administrator or somebody more experienced in handling COI issues on biographies deal with this editor. Ray Talk 21:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
"Jiga" is the name used by one of the three members of this obscure band. The only edits by that account were to this article. Orange Mike | Talk 23:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The user sent an email to me after I warned them about their username which was apologetic and asked what they had done wrong and how they should improve their editing. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 23:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeoberry is edit-warring to add a paper by "John B. Carpenter" to the above articles. When Doug Weller asked the editor if he has any connection to John B. Carpenter the editor, via an IP, reverted his message: User talk:Yeoberry: Difference between revisions Revision as of 16:38, 18 March 2013 174.53.88.54.
Specifically Doug had asked him:
Yeoberry, it's not just me asking this - have you any relationship to the Covenant Reformed Baptist Church? It's a yes/no question and just requires a bit of honesty and openness. Dougweller ( talk) 05:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
and
And the creation of an article about its pastor (edit summaries "curriculum vita of Dr. John B. Carpenter" and "Description of John B. Carpenter" with a lot of detail but no sources suggests you do. There's no shame in saying you have a COI but hiding a major COI is a bad idea. Dougweller ( talk) 05:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
In addition the paper he is edit-warring to add across many articles is non-existent in Google Scholar. He is also engaging in personal attacks against me in his edit-summaries, accusing me of COI and for not "having enough expertise", and on his messages on my talk. Please see also Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church: Challenge to Claim to Continuity with the Early Church. He also created another article on his church which was also deleted. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 18:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The article is not non-existent: it is newly published by the International Society for Christian Apologetics, edited by Norman Geisler (a well-known scholar), available for purchase here: http://www.isca-apologetics.org/jisca. Yeoberry ( talk) 19:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
This seems to be the minimum required under the circumstances. I would like to point out however that this is not the only issue with this editor. He has deleted messages from Doug and accused him of having "become obsessed with stalking him". He also left a message on my talk : [14] saying:
You've deleted material from a lengthy article on Eastern Orthodox Church with adequate citations from an academic article in a peer reviewed journal. Rather than seeking consensus with other editors, you simply deleted the material. Given your images and symbols here, there may be a COI on your part. You are asked to cease further deletion of properly cited material before seeking consensus with other editors.
where he uses my information to accuse me of COI. I find the behaviour of this user quite disturbing. He seems not to understand basic principles of what constitutes a reliable source and does not hesitate to promote his COI by attacking other editors based on their personal identifiers, as he has done in my case, or for no reason at all, as in Doug's case. Let us just hope that these are all a bunch of newbie mistakes, for if they are not, there will be more problems down the line with this editor. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 11:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
The user Swtechwr ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made most of his edits to the pages of the Parasoft company, that company products, that company CEO (Adam Kolawa), listed the company products and papers on pages about what the products are meant to do, and listing them on the page of prizes the software received. This has been over a few years. The user has been questioned on his talk page a few times, but never replied.
In addition, the user also attempted twice to add Parasoft products to disambiguation ( Soatest for EDI, and Parasoft C/C++test for CWE).
In October 2010 the user was warned with UW:SPAM3 and the following extra message Stop spamming wikipedia with your parasoft website which he blanked with the edit message incorrect warning - not adding spam links; adding references to papers authored by a recognized industry expert. I have no way to confirm this since the link on the edit being mentioned requires an account on the parasoft website, but the "paper" seems to have been published by parasoft itself.
I recently unblanked this warning, and left another comment asking if he was connected with Parasoft. His reply was blanking his whole talk page which I reverted. He then blanked it one more time and I got an edit on my own talk page from AliveFreeHappy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) saying that users are free to blank their pages and making reference to WP:BLANKING.
While this user (AliveFreeHappy) has made plenty of edits, a few of them are also related to Parasoft, including updating Parasoft board member list, and suggesting Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Integrity_(software). While I do not have access to the deleted page content (and googling for integrity software returns nothing useful), the comments on the discussion say that Integrity is software to help people make software, the same use of Parasoft products, possibly making Integrity a competitor of Parasoft products.
The list of parasoft products that the user has been involved in writing (even completely written by him) are:
In addition, he added references to Parasoft products on pages about the type of service provided:
Note that this is not a complete list of his edits, I got tired after going through a couple of them. Also, I did not look at the other user (AliveFreeHappy) but his edits appear very often next to Swtechwr edits.
-- Carandraug ( talk) 03:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
User names and edit histories suggest that these users may be related in some way to the subject of the article:
Edits marked as minor, new username apparently created after talk feedback to the first, and so on... -- The Anome ( talk) 11:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I have noticed in the article about Bob Brinker that a dynamic IP from Henderson, Nevada (the city where the person lives) has been removing the birth date from the article despite the date cited to the Who's Who in America directory. Arbor to SJ ( talk) 21:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
User is clearly editing his own article. Finkellium ( talk) 06:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
This article was originally poorly-sourced, off-topic and promotional due to COI editing. In January, I requested a quick cleanup of the article on their behalf to reduce it to the salvageable elements, while I work with them on an improved article. Late last month, I offered a revised draft here, which I think is a huge improvement. The content includes their legal dispute with National Media Corp, the creation of failed subsidiaries and the down-scaling of operations during the Gulf War.
I've waited a couple weeks and pinged all the appropriate editors I could think of, so I wanted to advertise my request here for Wikipedians to consider the proposed content at: Talk:Guthy-Renker#First_draft. If I'm being impatient, just let me know! Cheers. CorporateM ( Talk) 16:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
The username suggests an affiliation with the airline, and indeed the edits seem to be of a non-neutral, promotional nature. -- FoxyOrange ( talk) 19:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Recently, I posted a request on the Talk page of the article linked in the header, aiming to point out some false information within the article and propose a replacement section correcting this, along with a few other issues. So far, I haven't had any luck getting help from an independent editor, hence my follow-up here. And myy COI is with the NFLPA, of which Mackey was formerly president. I'll be watching this page or the Mackey Talk page for replies, thanks! WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 13:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Anon IP claiming to be subject of the article is editing the article. Subject is frequently complaining on Talk:Sagarika Ghose and removing or adding contents. Recent edit by anon IP, same IP which claimed to be subject, has blanked 'controversy' section. I had removed controversial text which is not directly related to the article. But it appears that subject don't want to allow slightest controversy. Also anon IP claiming to be subject is using threatning tone on talkpage of the article. neo ( talk) 06:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I mean anon IP/subject has talked about 'defamation case against wikipedia' here and 'sexual harassment, crime against women, new anti-rape law, punishable etc' here. Such language is enough to frighten users like me. So I refrained from reverting recent edit. neo ( talk) 07:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion the offending article should not have been approved for creation in the first place. The banners were added warning that the article did not meet notablity criteria, read like an advertisement, was an orphan article and had no footnotes. Some of these issues have now been cleared up, however the banners were repeatedly removed without these issues being cleared up. All edits to the page have been by Picknick99
Going to Picknick99's talk page you can see they have also attempted to create a page for Greg Day, who is managing director of the company. See:
http://www.cloutcom.co.uk/about-clout/
It seems obvious that there is some conflict of interest going on and that the page is being used in contravention to wikipedia's policies, for promotion and advertising.
Rushton2010 ( talk) 14:18, 17 April 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.
This is to declare a conflict of interest under Wikipedia's Conflicts of Interest Policy in accordance with your Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, section 3(3), and to request reinstatement of the deleted article “GNU C-Graph” amended and uploaded to my user sandbox.
Please see my talkpage for the remainder of this notice. 72.252.229.15 ( talk) 03:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Visionat ( talk) 12:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I've posted the full article below as users/admins may find this more convenient. Visionat ( talk) 16:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
This is to declare a conflict of interest under Wikipedia's Conflicts of Interest Policy in accordance with your Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, section 3(3), and to request reinstatement of the deleted article “GNU C-Graph” amended and uploaded to my user sandbox.
I argue that:
I am the author of the software package "GNU C-Graph" and the author of the draft article of the same name. While Wikipedia discourages the creation and editing of articles by authors closely connected with the subject, doing so is not prohibited; nor was I aware of the relevance of the COI policy until 3 April 2013, when the newly created article was “speedily deleted” (see [[User:Talk:Visionat#April_2013| message from User:Gold Standard]]. The purported criterion for deletion stated that the article appeared “to be written like an advertisement” serving “only to promote an entity, person or product”.
An objective reading of the deleted GNU C-Graph article would reveal that its content sought not to advertise, but to present verifiable factual information and evidence substantiating assertions that define the history of the software (typical software articles in Wikipedia devote a section to history). Rather than being promotional, the description of the software seeks to underscore its technical significance in the field as recommended in Wikipedia:NSOFTWARE. As I pointed out in the ensuing deletion discussion, Wikipedia's articles on software are all inherently promotional. Accordingly, the stated deletion criterion of promotion/advertising gives the appearance of bias.
The conduct of the administrators, which demonstrated (among other things) a lack of competence in matters of law, gave priority to responses comporting with bias: threats to block me for “a good long time”, disparaging remarks such as “soapboxing” and “boogeyman” claims. They failed to articulate what I have identified as the only breach of policy in the article – that although information likely to be challenged cited documents distributed by public authorities and public officials, the definition of “published” within the meaning of Wikipedia policy on verifiability pertains to sources distributed and accessible by the general public, not just individuals (see Wikipedia's definition of published in Wikipedia:Published, section 1.1.
It is evident from the amended draft article that under Wikipedia's Policy on Deletion, the administrators were obliged to first consider alternatives to deletion, and could simply have edited the article to remove proscribed content: “If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.”
I submit that the administrators' breach of policy was motivated by a root contention that the evidence of racial discrimination exposed in the deleted article (particularly under the section “Theft Apartheid and Obstruction of Justice”) publicized the theft of rights in respect of software authored by a black woman. The summary deletion of the article for reasons pertaining only to ancillary background content corroborates the showing of bias already made apparent by the criterion noted for speedy deletion.
I've now had an opportunity to peruse Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, conflict of interest, and neutral point of view, with which I believe the amended draft article complies:
I look forward to your comments - and action.
Sincerely
Adrienne Gaye Thompson
Visionat (
talk)
22:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, as Psychonaut told Visionat above, this is not the right place. But in case anybody here wants to know, there was a pretty short and clear discussion of the deletions of GNU C-Graph on WP:ANI in early April. Bishonen | talk 23:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC).
Obviously, it is the deletion discussion that is the subject of my complaint. The conduct of the administrators involved suggests that they have their own conflict of interest. Visionat ( talk) 15:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I added a "citation needed" tag to this article. It said "Neil Patel is an award-winning scenic designer...." This user has repeatedly removed the citation needed tag, and I have reverted it twice already and explained that there needs to be a reference. There are no references in the article at all, so there is no reference verifying that he is "award-winning". Thanks. Safehaven86 ( talk) 20:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Theurbanlink is a promotional website based around Jdobypr, Doby Public Relations, www.jdobypr.com/. see User:Jdobypr. Like User:Jdobypr they are trying to promote Edubb and are now promoting Blanco Caine. See [16] for Blanco Caine and [17] For Edubb. duffbeerforme ( talk) 14:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The username suggests that the user is be the person who is the subject of the article. It is also written like an autobiography and is self-promotive. Besides the conflict of interest of issues, the article is not notable and can be directed back to the original Sām article. Myxomatosis57 ( talk) 14:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I created this article about an adult film actress a week or so ago, and then when I looked at it later, I noticed that it looked like this, and the problem with that is that not only was much of that information either unsourced or unreliably sourced, but the addition was done by User:Stewiedv, which sounds a lot like the name of Vanilla DeVille's husband (Stewie). I told Stewiedv about the possible COI as well telling him(?) the problem with most of the new info, but he not only put everything back, he even added more information backed up by more unreliable sources (a forum on an adult video store's website, for example). Basically, Stewiedv doesn't seem to understand about WP:RS or WP:COI; can someone help out, please? (And as I stated in this edit summary, I am not trying to violate WP:OWN.) Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 21:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me Stewiedv, but I believe you should read WP:REALNAME and follow the instructions to confirm your identity with the Volunteer Response Team. You may be subject to blocking under the WP:USERNAME policy to prevent impersonators. The matter of the WP:COI should most likely be handled after your identity is confirmed. This policy exists to protect subjects of articles. This is not personal and is standard procedure for spouses and close relatives of a subject, as well as the subject themselves. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 13:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
The article Joshua Frank was deleted with a WP:SNOW 6 months ago: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joshua_Frank_(4th_nomination) Article reappears with an editor who appears to be closely related to the subject of the article PeterWesco ( talk) 05:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Fatimahj ( talk) 13:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Someone with the identification of 69.250.254.199 is posting incorrect personal information about me on my web page. Each time I try to delete this they come back and reassert this false information. It is a form of harassment. Please stop this individual form having the ability to edit my web page.
There's a COI between reported user/IP and the article because of an explicit advertising of a specific floppy disk hardware emulator product obviously [18] manufactured by user/IP.
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.
Cluebot reverted [ | this ] incorrectly as vandalim (by 98.222.148.20), it is poorly written but is not vandalsim. But it was replaced by [ | this]( a retype of the previous edits) of the user in question. The page is written like a ad for the city, i.e. unencyclopedic. CombatWombat42 ( talk) 17:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi - I've drafted an expanded and more detailed article for Puma Energy, located in my user space.
It is currently being reviewed by Beagel, and we've agreed that a notification should be posted here. I work for Bell Pottinger and Puma Energy/Trafigura is my client.
Our exchange is taking place on the Puma Energy talk page, and Beagel will begin editing the draft in my user space. Please feel free to chip in on either page.
Many thanks, HOgilvy ( talk) 08:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I am seeking a volunteer editor to help update a section of the article Credit rating agency. I work with Moody's Investors Service, a firm which is discussed in this article, so I would very strongly prefer to find an editor without a conflict-of-interest to look at my suggestion. On the discussion page of this article ( here) I have recently made the case for replacing the current section about CRA business models with one I have prepared which includes proper citations and, I believe, a better treatment of the subject. Any help or feedback would be great. Many thanks, Mysidae ( talk) 18:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
User had added "Ibrahim Yunus has confirmed that he will be playing a new character Sam who will appear in the second series. It was confirmed at a CBBC London studio office whilst on air and on Twitter", I then reverted and placed a COI warning on his talkpage, he then added "It was also confirmed through a CBBC London stduio office that Ibrahim Yunus will be playing a new character in Series 2 called Sam. He also confirmed this in an interview and on Twitter", –
→Davey2010→
→Talk to me!→
21:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Posting on behalf of LethargicParasite ( talk · contribs) who requested assistance at the HELPDESK and FrigidNinja ( talk · contribs) assisted him by posting over at WP:UAA but he was referred to COIN. This user is apparently making bias, promotional edits, such as statements such as "Rocket Science 3D is the leader in autostereo conversion" on 2D to 3D conversion. Tiggerjay ( talk) 03:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
COI is self-admitted. I'm wondering if the additions constitute copyright violations, since they're taken verbatim from NATO reports, or whether such content is exempted from normal copyright restrictions. 99.0.83.243 ( talk) 20:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I discovered that most of the article was a copyvio and tagged it for speedy deletion. The page creator contested the speedy on the talk page and identified himself as being associated with the article's subject. Andrew 327 16:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
An administrator speedily deleted this article upon my request. Andrew 327 23:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
This editor removed a bunch of material and good-faith edits with the change message of 'undo vandalism'. He has done this before (see his last set of edits on same page). Additionally, he's citing a URL from the bus company website that seems to exist for no other purpose than wikipedia references - it's not linked from anywhere else that I could find. This leads me to believe he might be an employee of the company, or otherwise COI.
I, myself, have a COI (The company once threatened to sue me over comments on Reddit), so I don't wish to make these changes myself. NegatedVoid ( talk) 14:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
User has had a couple notices and is still editing and no response to notices. Mlpearc ( powwow) 18:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Concerned that an new (but prolific) editor at this article may be closely tied to the subject (a politician). For example, he/she has cited documents that are not generally available to the public and I have to wonder how he/she obtained them. No proof... just a concern. Some extra eyes would be appreciated. Blueboar ( talk) 22:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
SPA whose sole purpose is to promote subjects related to Rocket Records. Over the top defense of Tim Coons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Coons. Coons is a cofounder of Rocket Records. Christopher Pasquin is a former member of Diverse and a cofounder of Rocket Records. Ryan Prescott is a former member of Diverse. Eric Veenstra is a former member of Diverse. Eric Veenstra is a former member of Diverse. duffbeerforme ( talk) 17:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I only want to request that a conflicted-of-interest (COI-affected) article, Evan Mandery, be reviewed for whether it has been sufficiently cleaned up of effects of the COI or COIs to justify deleting the COI template. Another editor has made efforts at editing the article for neutrality.
An editor with an apparent but undisclosed COI edited the article; I notified the editor. I also have a COI for that article; I disclosed my COI. My only edit to the article was to insert the {{ COI}} template on a blank line. I've also posted to the talk page, including tagging that there is a {{ Connected contributor}}. Another editor has since edited. That last editor has apparently addressed every issue I identified except one, and I'm assuming good faith and have reposted that issue where that (or any) editor will likely see it for reconsideration. (Some copyediting is probably in order but I consider that as outside the scope of this issue.) A question has been raised about whether that editor has a COI (I can link to that if you wish) but has not been raised formally or, to my knowledge, to that editor, and so I think that editor should be considered innocent of a COI until shown otherwise.
While the COI template normally may be removed by any editor, this is an unusual case that I think should be resolved by someone likely to be assuredly neutral of a COI. Thank you for your assistance.
Nick Levinson ( talk) 17:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you everyone. Sourov0000 ( talk) 01:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Crossposted from WP:AN/I (by Hoary at 03:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)):
Carol M. Highsmith eminently merits an article; but as has been pointed out on that article's talk page, the article she's got has been promotional and undersourced. SPA Tedland ( contributions) has been adding material, some good, some so-so; some sourced well, some not. Nothing much out of the ordinary so far, but he's been repeatedly removing the odd "citation needed" flag, with no explanation. (To his credit, most of these flags he either leaves alone or replaces with sources.) He doesn't show any sign of having read any of the commentary on and requests for his edits. At this point, I think I'd be justified in addressing him rather more forcefully, but I hold back for two reasons. First, having attempted to ameliorate the article, I might be seen as an "involved" editor. (I'd deny this, but I want to keep this message short.) Secondly, I'm not even certain that he's noticing the existence of the messages directed to him. (The old "You have new messages" thingie was so easy to notice and understand.....) He certainly hasn't done anything calling for a block, but I'd appreciate comments to him by some admin who can't possibly be called "involved". -- Hoary ( talk) 01:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd instead say: frustrated with the repeated ignoring of polite requests and warnings. But anyway, over to others. And I'll stay away from the article for three days. -- Hoary ( talk) 03:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Non-specific, general comments about COI, V and NPOV posted. There is no reason to stay away from the article, it is in dire need of NPOV editing. Just don't get hot and bothered, and message me if you need a referee on anything. Manning ( talk) 23:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Jim09 ( talk) 05:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC) This user is clearly a single purpose account that was created solely to update the company's own page. Numerous edits have been made to the page, and the user is practically the only contributor to the page. The user is also clearly using a shared company account in breach of the username policy, however they have not been active for some time so it is frivolous to follow that up. The content of the page is worthy of review, as is the page's entire existence. There is only one page that links to it, being the building where it does business from.
Reem Acra is unquestionably notable, but the article reads mostly like an advertisement. -- B ( talk) 15:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Article has a lengthy history over many years of problematic edits concerning the naming of the architects. Edit summaries provided by the three most recent IPs involved clearly indicate conflict of interest. This is by no means a comprehensive list of the IPs involved. Previous IPs have included some assigned to Marks Barfield. See also Marksbarfieldarchitects ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Mayabmarks ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Benjamin Barfield Marks ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). 92.40.118.151 ( talk) 14:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Article is being used as a battleground between representatives of various internet dating agencies. The account User:Mcbrooks and User:Iri2101 are reps of this website. They are trying to put a positive spin on it, others are trying to do the opposite. I have stubbed the article back to basics and would appreciate more eyes on it, please. Thanks. Black Kite ( talk) 21:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Related users User:Coquee and User:Scintella seem also to be focused on the positive side, as well as linking to onlinepersonalswatch and socialnetworkingwatch, which are a closely held company of Anastasia management. Likely related. Entyre ( talk) 17:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I had reported this problem to this forum on 17 April 2013. Subject again made edit through anon IP (and posted so on article's talk page) and it looks admin User:Smartse is supporting this COI by giving ref. Earlier same Admin had removed controversial content citing no refs or trivial. Subject has taken complete control over the article.
But my main complaint is that subject has issued serious threats to influence the contents of the article. I seek info if there is any wikipedia policy which clarify this situation. neo ( talk) 14:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I created a 2nd account for this question so as to keep the discussion general and not get into the specific organization. I am a member of X organization (it is a voluntary religious organization (part of Y world religion that is big enough to have it's own WikiProject) with thousands but not a million members a few thousand of who like myself are full time). I edit Wikipedia in my spare time: I have never been asked, been told, been paid, or received any compensation for doing so (actually I have received some hassle from other members when I mentioned I did). I announce on top of my user page that am a member of X organization and Y religion but edit Wikipedia in my free time and try to be objective in my edits to Wikipedia (plus I have userboxes - one for X organization and a number for Y religion).
I do live edits on articles and I have never been accused on pages about X organization of being biased (only twice have issues of bias come up regarding Y religion and both times I admitted that I may be biased - once was over the use of a certain honorific and once over the relevance of claim that I thought was WP:FRINGE; the result being I admitted consensus against me in the honorific issue and the other theory was restated less prominently as opinion not fact). I have over 1,000 edits on a variety of topics but given my interest the majority are on pages related to Y religion and a number on pages related to X organization.
I think this is acceptable. Right?
I had thought so until the following incident. A new leader has recently been named for X organization and I happened to be at an event with him and took photos. Afterwards, I sent him a brief e-mail asking if I could use these photos for the article about him on Wikipedia and mentioned I had written a decent part of it (this article has no WP:NPOV or WP:BLP issues since the there is no controversy and I all wrote was a summary of the various positions he had held prior to becoming the top dog citing news stories about being named the top dog and 2 press releases of organization X). (This e-mail was informal, I was going to follow up with the forms to approve the use of these photos for Wikipedia use since the event was borderline as far as public or private.) Anyways, he forwarded this to a secretary who responded to me that he is worried I am breaking WP:COI.
Anyways, I want to know if I am involved in a conflict of interest and what I need to do if I am. Sorry for all my parentheses and detail, I am trying to be complete. MyHiddenLife ( talk) 13:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
This article has a lengthy history of being edited in ways favorably to the company by various IP Editors, including much edit warring and bad-faith edits.
The editor in question has removed good-faith edits by User:CorporateM and restored old, promotional sounding content (CorporateM is often a paid editor, but I don't believe he was in this case).
The mentioned user is probably someone employed by the company. (I have a COI myself on this article). There has been extensive discussion on the Talk page (which this editor is aware of), and yet he choose to ignore it and whitewash the page. NegatedVoid ( talk) 01:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
User NegatedVoid has a COI yet has posted numerous self-promoting edits to article. NegatedVoid is the blogger who the section added by NegatedVoid refers to. Self-promoting section added by NegatedVoid fails to contribute to article in any sort of productive way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.246.227 ( talk) 13:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
This discussion can probably be closed in favor of a related Sockpuppet Investigation. I'll leave that up to someone more experienced. NegatedVoid ( talk) 15:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
ambush
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Users stated above appear to be representatives of Studio Roosegaarde/Daan Roosegaarde according to their associated website [1]. That implies a conflict of interest as it can be found in Wikipedia:NOPR. Editing an article on Wikipedia with the intent to derive monetary or other benefits may undermine the ability to remain neutral. Mcczech ( talk) 16:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm watching.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer
14:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
User:Eddiecomic is repeatedly reverting well-sourced and cited information from the Eddie Brill article. Because the effect of these edits is to remove public yet negative information, and based on the user name, I believe this to be a conflict of interest -- Brill appears to be editing the article himself to remove material he is not happy with. Most of the rest of the article as written is uncited and written in a POV style. 208.120.1.55 ( talk) 00:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the procedures here, but I came across Jean Holden and it seems to be almost completely written by the article's subject. Notability isn't established and there aren't really any good sources. Not sure what, if anything, to do with it. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 02:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
First editor's only contributions have been to attempt to turn this article into yet another billboard for this low-income car dealership chain by removing content against the company and adding promotional information about the chain's latest dealership openings and NASCAR team accomplishments that reads like a Facebook post. Others have the same trademarks but ducked and covered once they hit the fourth warning. The last should have obviously been a promotional block on sight, but in 2006 we hadn't built our guidelines up to where they are today. Nate • ( chatter) 03:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The article has multiple edits from the IP subnets 134.171 and 200.72 which belongs to ESO, the employer of the person. All other anonymous edits are from IP addresses used by M-net, an ISP located in Munich the city nearest to ESO. No edits coming from the M-net adresses have contributions to the German Wikipedia. This is an indication that those edits are made by a non-German. There are many non-Germans at ESO. The small remainder of contributions to this article are from named wikipedia accounts, mostly bots, in one case from an account matching the name of the article. The article is basically a CV, with activities which are not so unusual for an astronomer/PR-person. Is the person actually notable ? Smerenda ( talk) 20:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
This editor (who I've introduced to Wikipedia a bit because I volunteer with the education program) is interested in becoming a campus volunteer. They would like input at Talk:California_Lutheran_University#Lots_of_Disclosure. Biosthmors ( talk) 20:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
This article states:
ExxonMobil, one of BP's rivals, says it strictly follows Wikipedia procedures to not alter its page. Instead, its staff clearly identifies itself when reaching out to editors and focuses on specific errors that can be easily proven wrong, such as an incorrect number. Bigger requests can be viewed as more subjective in nature. “There's a lot of information on there that's not true or factual,” explains Alan Jeffers, media relations manager at ExxonMobil. “However, it's impossible to prove a negative.”
— Dickson, Virgil (March 20, 2013). "Corporate comms execs pick their battles on Wikipedia". PRWeek. Retrieved 29 March 2013.
Looking at Talk:ExxonMobil, and the 2 archives: 1 and 2, I don't see anyone explicitly identified. Also, there is no {{ Connected contributor}} on the talk page. Am I missing something, or is the article wrong? Smallman12q ( talk) 21:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Not necessarily an autobiography, but a conflict of interest may be in place, especially considering the username involved. hmssolent\ Let's convene My patrols 06:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I am the employee of ACT Holdings Pte Ltd, a company founded by Mr Toh Aik Choon himself. I've been tasked to do a wikipedia input from Mr AC Toh's son, who is now the owner and managing director of the group. We will be most appreciative if you can allow the article which is by no means any conflict with anybody. All materials have not been plagiarized or is fictitious. For clarifications, we can be contacted via details on the website www.act-holdings.com.sg. Thank you - C.Y Lim Toh Aik Choon ( talk) 01:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Last fall, User:Dreamyshade identified problems with several articles related to the company MicroStrategy and posted about it on this noticeboard ( see here). As she correctly noted, someone from the company was editing directly, and the resulting articles were well outside of Wikipedia guidelines. Since then I've agreed to work with the company on a consulting basis, and I've prepared written replacements for two: one about the company MicroStrategy ( current article | proposed version | Talk proposal) and another about CEO co-founder, Michael J. Saylor ( current article | proposed version | Talk proposal).
It's always my goal to follow Jimbo's "bright line" and not edit directly, however I need a bit more assistance than I've been able to find so far. Since first posting my drafts two weeks back, I've had positive responses from Dreamyshade, User:FurrySings and a mixed take on the company article from User:Qwyrxian, but I'm afraid I haven't been able to get a follow-up response from any. FurrySings thought the Saylor article was ready to go and suggested I move it, but I won't for reasons stated. Perhaps that's a good place to start: is anyone willing to review the Saylor article and draft and comment on whether it's ready to move? I'm happy to continue this conversation here or on one of the article Talk pages, just let me know. WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 15:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
COI-spamming on numerous Mad Men articles by the above IPs. Comments left on the article talk page suggest that the IPs are associated with the links in question unitcritic.blogspot.com SFK2 ( talk) 02:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
These edits: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] seem kinda problematic. See also this and, especially, this prior warning. David in DC ( talk) 02:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Very obvious COI, username is the same name as the article. User has been warned of his username on his talk page. User has also removed the COI tag once. ToastyMallows ( talk) 16:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Folks, a recent e-mail to OTRS brought this to our attention. In an e-mail exchange between this individual and the e-mailer, he claims to "have a Wikiepdia Admin on staff who can get your pages up and keep them up. He is also very good at fixing client's pages who have gotten slandered online. Get in touch for more details. Our price is $2,500."
Not sure there is much we can do without further data, so I am just bringing this here for wider attention.-- ukexpat ( talk) 20:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Relevant diffs here [7] and [8] here. Summary: person claiming to be subject of article (apparent from username, as well as message on my talk page [9]) is removing mention of findings of academic misconduct from the lead. I don't wish to get into an edit war on the subject, but I think the declared COI is rather blatant, and would rather an administrator or somebody more experienced in handling COI issues on biographies deal with this editor. Ray Talk 21:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
"Jiga" is the name used by one of the three members of this obscure band. The only edits by that account were to this article. Orange Mike | Talk 23:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The user sent an email to me after I warned them about their username which was apologetic and asked what they had done wrong and how they should improve their editing. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 23:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeoberry is edit-warring to add a paper by "John B. Carpenter" to the above articles. When Doug Weller asked the editor if he has any connection to John B. Carpenter the editor, via an IP, reverted his message: User talk:Yeoberry: Difference between revisions Revision as of 16:38, 18 March 2013 174.53.88.54.
Specifically Doug had asked him:
Yeoberry, it's not just me asking this - have you any relationship to the Covenant Reformed Baptist Church? It's a yes/no question and just requires a bit of honesty and openness. Dougweller ( talk) 05:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
and
And the creation of an article about its pastor (edit summaries "curriculum vita of Dr. John B. Carpenter" and "Description of John B. Carpenter" with a lot of detail but no sources suggests you do. There's no shame in saying you have a COI but hiding a major COI is a bad idea. Dougweller ( talk) 05:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
In addition the paper he is edit-warring to add across many articles is non-existent in Google Scholar. He is also engaging in personal attacks against me in his edit-summaries, accusing me of COI and for not "having enough expertise", and on his messages on my talk. Please see also Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church: Challenge to Claim to Continuity with the Early Church. He also created another article on his church which was also deleted. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 18:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The article is not non-existent: it is newly published by the International Society for Christian Apologetics, edited by Norman Geisler (a well-known scholar), available for purchase here: http://www.isca-apologetics.org/jisca. Yeoberry ( talk) 19:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
This seems to be the minimum required under the circumstances. I would like to point out however that this is not the only issue with this editor. He has deleted messages from Doug and accused him of having "become obsessed with stalking him". He also left a message on my talk : [14] saying:
You've deleted material from a lengthy article on Eastern Orthodox Church with adequate citations from an academic article in a peer reviewed journal. Rather than seeking consensus with other editors, you simply deleted the material. Given your images and symbols here, there may be a COI on your part. You are asked to cease further deletion of properly cited material before seeking consensus with other editors.
where he uses my information to accuse me of COI. I find the behaviour of this user quite disturbing. He seems not to understand basic principles of what constitutes a reliable source and does not hesitate to promote his COI by attacking other editors based on their personal identifiers, as he has done in my case, or for no reason at all, as in Doug's case. Let us just hope that these are all a bunch of newbie mistakes, for if they are not, there will be more problems down the line with this editor. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 11:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
The user Swtechwr ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made most of his edits to the pages of the Parasoft company, that company products, that company CEO (Adam Kolawa), listed the company products and papers on pages about what the products are meant to do, and listing them on the page of prizes the software received. This has been over a few years. The user has been questioned on his talk page a few times, but never replied.
In addition, the user also attempted twice to add Parasoft products to disambiguation ( Soatest for EDI, and Parasoft C/C++test for CWE).
In October 2010 the user was warned with UW:SPAM3 and the following extra message Stop spamming wikipedia with your parasoft website which he blanked with the edit message incorrect warning - not adding spam links; adding references to papers authored by a recognized industry expert. I have no way to confirm this since the link on the edit being mentioned requires an account on the parasoft website, but the "paper" seems to have been published by parasoft itself.
I recently unblanked this warning, and left another comment asking if he was connected with Parasoft. His reply was blanking his whole talk page which I reverted. He then blanked it one more time and I got an edit on my own talk page from AliveFreeHappy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) saying that users are free to blank their pages and making reference to WP:BLANKING.
While this user (AliveFreeHappy) has made plenty of edits, a few of them are also related to Parasoft, including updating Parasoft board member list, and suggesting Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Integrity_(software). While I do not have access to the deleted page content (and googling for integrity software returns nothing useful), the comments on the discussion say that Integrity is software to help people make software, the same use of Parasoft products, possibly making Integrity a competitor of Parasoft products.
The list of parasoft products that the user has been involved in writing (even completely written by him) are:
In addition, he added references to Parasoft products on pages about the type of service provided:
Note that this is not a complete list of his edits, I got tired after going through a couple of them. Also, I did not look at the other user (AliveFreeHappy) but his edits appear very often next to Swtechwr edits.
-- Carandraug ( talk) 03:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
User names and edit histories suggest that these users may be related in some way to the subject of the article:
Edits marked as minor, new username apparently created after talk feedback to the first, and so on... -- The Anome ( talk) 11:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I have noticed in the article about Bob Brinker that a dynamic IP from Henderson, Nevada (the city where the person lives) has been removing the birth date from the article despite the date cited to the Who's Who in America directory. Arbor to SJ ( talk) 21:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
User is clearly editing his own article. Finkellium ( talk) 06:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
This article was originally poorly-sourced, off-topic and promotional due to COI editing. In January, I requested a quick cleanup of the article on their behalf to reduce it to the salvageable elements, while I work with them on an improved article. Late last month, I offered a revised draft here, which I think is a huge improvement. The content includes their legal dispute with National Media Corp, the creation of failed subsidiaries and the down-scaling of operations during the Gulf War.
I've waited a couple weeks and pinged all the appropriate editors I could think of, so I wanted to advertise my request here for Wikipedians to consider the proposed content at: Talk:Guthy-Renker#First_draft. If I'm being impatient, just let me know! Cheers. CorporateM ( Talk) 16:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
The username suggests an affiliation with the airline, and indeed the edits seem to be of a non-neutral, promotional nature. -- FoxyOrange ( talk) 19:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Recently, I posted a request on the Talk page of the article linked in the header, aiming to point out some false information within the article and propose a replacement section correcting this, along with a few other issues. So far, I haven't had any luck getting help from an independent editor, hence my follow-up here. And myy COI is with the NFLPA, of which Mackey was formerly president. I'll be watching this page or the Mackey Talk page for replies, thanks! WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 13:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Anon IP claiming to be subject of the article is editing the article. Subject is frequently complaining on Talk:Sagarika Ghose and removing or adding contents. Recent edit by anon IP, same IP which claimed to be subject, has blanked 'controversy' section. I had removed controversial text which is not directly related to the article. But it appears that subject don't want to allow slightest controversy. Also anon IP claiming to be subject is using threatning tone on talkpage of the article. neo ( talk) 06:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I mean anon IP/subject has talked about 'defamation case against wikipedia' here and 'sexual harassment, crime against women, new anti-rape law, punishable etc' here. Such language is enough to frighten users like me. So I refrained from reverting recent edit. neo ( talk) 07:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion the offending article should not have been approved for creation in the first place. The banners were added warning that the article did not meet notablity criteria, read like an advertisement, was an orphan article and had no footnotes. Some of these issues have now been cleared up, however the banners were repeatedly removed without these issues being cleared up. All edits to the page have been by Picknick99
Going to Picknick99's talk page you can see they have also attempted to create a page for Greg Day, who is managing director of the company. See:
http://www.cloutcom.co.uk/about-clout/
It seems obvious that there is some conflict of interest going on and that the page is being used in contravention to wikipedia's policies, for promotion and advertising.
Rushton2010 ( talk) 14:18, 17 April 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.
This is to declare a conflict of interest under Wikipedia's Conflicts of Interest Policy in accordance with your Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, section 3(3), and to request reinstatement of the deleted article “GNU C-Graph” amended and uploaded to my user sandbox.
Please see my talkpage for the remainder of this notice. 72.252.229.15 ( talk) 03:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Visionat ( talk) 12:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I've posted the full article below as users/admins may find this more convenient. Visionat ( talk) 16:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
This is to declare a conflict of interest under Wikipedia's Conflicts of Interest Policy in accordance with your Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, section 3(3), and to request reinstatement of the deleted article “GNU C-Graph” amended and uploaded to my user sandbox.
I argue that:
I am the author of the software package "GNU C-Graph" and the author of the draft article of the same name. While Wikipedia discourages the creation and editing of articles by authors closely connected with the subject, doing so is not prohibited; nor was I aware of the relevance of the COI policy until 3 April 2013, when the newly created article was “speedily deleted” (see [[User:Talk:Visionat#April_2013| message from User:Gold Standard]]. The purported criterion for deletion stated that the article appeared “to be written like an advertisement” serving “only to promote an entity, person or product”.
An objective reading of the deleted GNU C-Graph article would reveal that its content sought not to advertise, but to present verifiable factual information and evidence substantiating assertions that define the history of the software (typical software articles in Wikipedia devote a section to history). Rather than being promotional, the description of the software seeks to underscore its technical significance in the field as recommended in Wikipedia:NSOFTWARE. As I pointed out in the ensuing deletion discussion, Wikipedia's articles on software are all inherently promotional. Accordingly, the stated deletion criterion of promotion/advertising gives the appearance of bias.
The conduct of the administrators, which demonstrated (among other things) a lack of competence in matters of law, gave priority to responses comporting with bias: threats to block me for “a good long time”, disparaging remarks such as “soapboxing” and “boogeyman” claims. They failed to articulate what I have identified as the only breach of policy in the article – that although information likely to be challenged cited documents distributed by public authorities and public officials, the definition of “published” within the meaning of Wikipedia policy on verifiability pertains to sources distributed and accessible by the general public, not just individuals (see Wikipedia's definition of published in Wikipedia:Published, section 1.1.
It is evident from the amended draft article that under Wikipedia's Policy on Deletion, the administrators were obliged to first consider alternatives to deletion, and could simply have edited the article to remove proscribed content: “If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.”
I submit that the administrators' breach of policy was motivated by a root contention that the evidence of racial discrimination exposed in the deleted article (particularly under the section “Theft Apartheid and Obstruction of Justice”) publicized the theft of rights in respect of software authored by a black woman. The summary deletion of the article for reasons pertaining only to ancillary background content corroborates the showing of bias already made apparent by the criterion noted for speedy deletion.
I've now had an opportunity to peruse Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, conflict of interest, and neutral point of view, with which I believe the amended draft article complies:
I look forward to your comments - and action.
Sincerely
Adrienne Gaye Thompson
Visionat (
talk)
22:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, as Psychonaut told Visionat above, this is not the right place. But in case anybody here wants to know, there was a pretty short and clear discussion of the deletions of GNU C-Graph on WP:ANI in early April. Bishonen | talk 23:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC).
Obviously, it is the deletion discussion that is the subject of my complaint. The conduct of the administrators involved suggests that they have their own conflict of interest. Visionat ( talk) 15:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I added a "citation needed" tag to this article. It said "Neil Patel is an award-winning scenic designer...." This user has repeatedly removed the citation needed tag, and I have reverted it twice already and explained that there needs to be a reference. There are no references in the article at all, so there is no reference verifying that he is "award-winning". Thanks. Safehaven86 ( talk) 20:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Theurbanlink is a promotional website based around Jdobypr, Doby Public Relations, www.jdobypr.com/. see User:Jdobypr. Like User:Jdobypr they are trying to promote Edubb and are now promoting Blanco Caine. See [16] for Blanco Caine and [17] For Edubb. duffbeerforme ( talk) 14:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The username suggests that the user is be the person who is the subject of the article. It is also written like an autobiography and is self-promotive. Besides the conflict of interest of issues, the article is not notable and can be directed back to the original Sām article. Myxomatosis57 ( talk) 14:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I created this article about an adult film actress a week or so ago, and then when I looked at it later, I noticed that it looked like this, and the problem with that is that not only was much of that information either unsourced or unreliably sourced, but the addition was done by User:Stewiedv, which sounds a lot like the name of Vanilla DeVille's husband (Stewie). I told Stewiedv about the possible COI as well telling him(?) the problem with most of the new info, but he not only put everything back, he even added more information backed up by more unreliable sources (a forum on an adult video store's website, for example). Basically, Stewiedv doesn't seem to understand about WP:RS or WP:COI; can someone help out, please? (And as I stated in this edit summary, I am not trying to violate WP:OWN.) Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 21:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me Stewiedv, but I believe you should read WP:REALNAME and follow the instructions to confirm your identity with the Volunteer Response Team. You may be subject to blocking under the WP:USERNAME policy to prevent impersonators. The matter of the WP:COI should most likely be handled after your identity is confirmed. This policy exists to protect subjects of articles. This is not personal and is standard procedure for spouses and close relatives of a subject, as well as the subject themselves. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 13:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
The article Joshua Frank was deleted with a WP:SNOW 6 months ago: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joshua_Frank_(4th_nomination) Article reappears with an editor who appears to be closely related to the subject of the article PeterWesco ( talk) 05:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Fatimahj ( talk) 13:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Someone with the identification of 69.250.254.199 is posting incorrect personal information about me on my web page. Each time I try to delete this they come back and reassert this false information. It is a form of harassment. Please stop this individual form having the ability to edit my web page.
There's a COI between reported user/IP and the article because of an explicit advertising of a specific floppy disk hardware emulator product obviously [18] manufactured by user/IP.
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.
Cluebot reverted [ | this ] incorrectly as vandalim (by 98.222.148.20), it is poorly written but is not vandalsim. But it was replaced by [ | this]( a retype of the previous edits) of the user in question. The page is written like a ad for the city, i.e. unencyclopedic. CombatWombat42 ( talk) 17:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi - I've drafted an expanded and more detailed article for Puma Energy, located in my user space.
It is currently being reviewed by Beagel, and we've agreed that a notification should be posted here. I work for Bell Pottinger and Puma Energy/Trafigura is my client.
Our exchange is taking place on the Puma Energy talk page, and Beagel will begin editing the draft in my user space. Please feel free to chip in on either page.
Many thanks, HOgilvy ( talk) 08:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I am seeking a volunteer editor to help update a section of the article Credit rating agency. I work with Moody's Investors Service, a firm which is discussed in this article, so I would very strongly prefer to find an editor without a conflict-of-interest to look at my suggestion. On the discussion page of this article ( here) I have recently made the case for replacing the current section about CRA business models with one I have prepared which includes proper citations and, I believe, a better treatment of the subject. Any help or feedback would be great. Many thanks, Mysidae ( talk) 18:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
User had added "Ibrahim Yunus has confirmed that he will be playing a new character Sam who will appear in the second series. It was confirmed at a CBBC London studio office whilst on air and on Twitter", I then reverted and placed a COI warning on his talkpage, he then added "It was also confirmed through a CBBC London stduio office that Ibrahim Yunus will be playing a new character in Series 2 called Sam. He also confirmed this in an interview and on Twitter", –
→Davey2010→
→Talk to me!→
21:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Posting on behalf of LethargicParasite ( talk · contribs) who requested assistance at the HELPDESK and FrigidNinja ( talk · contribs) assisted him by posting over at WP:UAA but he was referred to COIN. This user is apparently making bias, promotional edits, such as statements such as "Rocket Science 3D is the leader in autostereo conversion" on 2D to 3D conversion. Tiggerjay ( talk) 03:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
COI is self-admitted. I'm wondering if the additions constitute copyright violations, since they're taken verbatim from NATO reports, or whether such content is exempted from normal copyright restrictions. 99.0.83.243 ( talk) 20:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I discovered that most of the article was a copyvio and tagged it for speedy deletion. The page creator contested the speedy on the talk page and identified himself as being associated with the article's subject. Andrew 327 16:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
An administrator speedily deleted this article upon my request. Andrew 327 23:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
This editor removed a bunch of material and good-faith edits with the change message of 'undo vandalism'. He has done this before (see his last set of edits on same page). Additionally, he's citing a URL from the bus company website that seems to exist for no other purpose than wikipedia references - it's not linked from anywhere else that I could find. This leads me to believe he might be an employee of the company, or otherwise COI.
I, myself, have a COI (The company once threatened to sue me over comments on Reddit), so I don't wish to make these changes myself. NegatedVoid ( talk) 14:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
User has had a couple notices and is still editing and no response to notices. Mlpearc ( powwow) 18:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Concerned that an new (but prolific) editor at this article may be closely tied to the subject (a politician). For example, he/she has cited documents that are not generally available to the public and I have to wonder how he/she obtained them. No proof... just a concern. Some extra eyes would be appreciated. Blueboar ( talk) 22:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
SPA whose sole purpose is to promote subjects related to Rocket Records. Over the top defense of Tim Coons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Coons. Coons is a cofounder of Rocket Records. Christopher Pasquin is a former member of Diverse and a cofounder of Rocket Records. Ryan Prescott is a former member of Diverse. Eric Veenstra is a former member of Diverse. Eric Veenstra is a former member of Diverse. duffbeerforme ( talk) 17:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I only want to request that a conflicted-of-interest (COI-affected) article, Evan Mandery, be reviewed for whether it has been sufficiently cleaned up of effects of the COI or COIs to justify deleting the COI template. Another editor has made efforts at editing the article for neutrality.
An editor with an apparent but undisclosed COI edited the article; I notified the editor. I also have a COI for that article; I disclosed my COI. My only edit to the article was to insert the {{ COI}} template on a blank line. I've also posted to the talk page, including tagging that there is a {{ Connected contributor}}. Another editor has since edited. That last editor has apparently addressed every issue I identified except one, and I'm assuming good faith and have reposted that issue where that (or any) editor will likely see it for reconsideration. (Some copyediting is probably in order but I consider that as outside the scope of this issue.) A question has been raised about whether that editor has a COI (I can link to that if you wish) but has not been raised formally or, to my knowledge, to that editor, and so I think that editor should be considered innocent of a COI until shown otherwise.
While the COI template normally may be removed by any editor, this is an unusual case that I think should be resolved by someone likely to be assuredly neutral of a COI. Thank you for your assistance.
Nick Levinson ( talk) 17:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you everyone. Sourov0000 ( talk) 01:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Crossposted from WP:AN/I (by Hoary at 03:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)):
Carol M. Highsmith eminently merits an article; but as has been pointed out on that article's talk page, the article she's got has been promotional and undersourced. SPA Tedland ( contributions) has been adding material, some good, some so-so; some sourced well, some not. Nothing much out of the ordinary so far, but he's been repeatedly removing the odd "citation needed" flag, with no explanation. (To his credit, most of these flags he either leaves alone or replaces with sources.) He doesn't show any sign of having read any of the commentary on and requests for his edits. At this point, I think I'd be justified in addressing him rather more forcefully, but I hold back for two reasons. First, having attempted to ameliorate the article, I might be seen as an "involved" editor. (I'd deny this, but I want to keep this message short.) Secondly, I'm not even certain that he's noticing the existence of the messages directed to him. (The old "You have new messages" thingie was so easy to notice and understand.....) He certainly hasn't done anything calling for a block, but I'd appreciate comments to him by some admin who can't possibly be called "involved". -- Hoary ( talk) 01:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd instead say: frustrated with the repeated ignoring of polite requests and warnings. But anyway, over to others. And I'll stay away from the article for three days. -- Hoary ( talk) 03:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Non-specific, general comments about COI, V and NPOV posted. There is no reason to stay away from the article, it is in dire need of NPOV editing. Just don't get hot and bothered, and message me if you need a referee on anything. Manning ( talk) 23:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Jim09 ( talk) 05:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC) This user is clearly a single purpose account that was created solely to update the company's own page. Numerous edits have been made to the page, and the user is practically the only contributor to the page. The user is also clearly using a shared company account in breach of the username policy, however they have not been active for some time so it is frivolous to follow that up. The content of the page is worthy of review, as is the page's entire existence. There is only one page that links to it, being the building where it does business from.
Reem Acra is unquestionably notable, but the article reads mostly like an advertisement. -- B ( talk) 15:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Article has a lengthy history over many years of problematic edits concerning the naming of the architects. Edit summaries provided by the three most recent IPs involved clearly indicate conflict of interest. This is by no means a comprehensive list of the IPs involved. Previous IPs have included some assigned to Marks Barfield. See also Marksbarfieldarchitects ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Mayabmarks ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Benjamin Barfield Marks ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). 92.40.118.151 ( talk) 14:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Article is being used as a battleground between representatives of various internet dating agencies. The account User:Mcbrooks and User:Iri2101 are reps of this website. They are trying to put a positive spin on it, others are trying to do the opposite. I have stubbed the article back to basics and would appreciate more eyes on it, please. Thanks. Black Kite ( talk) 21:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Related users User:Coquee and User:Scintella seem also to be focused on the positive side, as well as linking to onlinepersonalswatch and socialnetworkingwatch, which are a closely held company of Anastasia management. Likely related. Entyre ( talk) 17:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I had reported this problem to this forum on 17 April 2013. Subject again made edit through anon IP (and posted so on article's talk page) and it looks admin User:Smartse is supporting this COI by giving ref. Earlier same Admin had removed controversial content citing no refs or trivial. Subject has taken complete control over the article.
But my main complaint is that subject has issued serious threats to influence the contents of the article. I seek info if there is any wikipedia policy which clarify this situation. neo ( talk) 14:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I created a 2nd account for this question so as to keep the discussion general and not get into the specific organization. I am a member of X organization (it is a voluntary religious organization (part of Y world religion that is big enough to have it's own WikiProject) with thousands but not a million members a few thousand of who like myself are full time). I edit Wikipedia in my spare time: I have never been asked, been told, been paid, or received any compensation for doing so (actually I have received some hassle from other members when I mentioned I did). I announce on top of my user page that am a member of X organization and Y religion but edit Wikipedia in my free time and try to be objective in my edits to Wikipedia (plus I have userboxes - one for X organization and a number for Y religion).
I do live edits on articles and I have never been accused on pages about X organization of being biased (only twice have issues of bias come up regarding Y religion and both times I admitted that I may be biased - once was over the use of a certain honorific and once over the relevance of claim that I thought was WP:FRINGE; the result being I admitted consensus against me in the honorific issue and the other theory was restated less prominently as opinion not fact). I have over 1,000 edits on a variety of topics but given my interest the majority are on pages related to Y religion and a number on pages related to X organization.
I think this is acceptable. Right?
I had thought so until the following incident. A new leader has recently been named for X organization and I happened to be at an event with him and took photos. Afterwards, I sent him a brief e-mail asking if I could use these photos for the article about him on Wikipedia and mentioned I had written a decent part of it (this article has no WP:NPOV or WP:BLP issues since the there is no controversy and I all wrote was a summary of the various positions he had held prior to becoming the top dog citing news stories about being named the top dog and 2 press releases of organization X). (This e-mail was informal, I was going to follow up with the forms to approve the use of these photos for Wikipedia use since the event was borderline as far as public or private.) Anyways, he forwarded this to a secretary who responded to me that he is worried I am breaking WP:COI.
Anyways, I want to know if I am involved in a conflict of interest and what I need to do if I am. Sorry for all my parentheses and detail, I am trying to be complete. MyHiddenLife ( talk) 13:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
This article has a lengthy history of being edited in ways favorably to the company by various IP Editors, including much edit warring and bad-faith edits.
The editor in question has removed good-faith edits by User:CorporateM and restored old, promotional sounding content (CorporateM is often a paid editor, but I don't believe he was in this case).
The mentioned user is probably someone employed by the company. (I have a COI myself on this article). There has been extensive discussion on the Talk page (which this editor is aware of), and yet he choose to ignore it and whitewash the page. NegatedVoid ( talk) 01:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
User NegatedVoid has a COI yet has posted numerous self-promoting edits to article. NegatedVoid is the blogger who the section added by NegatedVoid refers to. Self-promoting section added by NegatedVoid fails to contribute to article in any sort of productive way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.246.227 ( talk) 13:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
This discussion can probably be closed in favor of a related Sockpuppet Investigation. I'll leave that up to someone more experienced. NegatedVoid ( talk) 15:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
ambush
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).