![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Continuation of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 79#Bert_Martinez
Widefox; talk 11:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Update on previous listing (I hadn't noticed these):
Editor is removing content and re-writing content at the request of the subject, who supposedly employs them. Haminoon ( talk) 05:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Said user has stated explicitly on their talk page that they are employed by Microsoft and are here to correct and éxpand MS related articles. AFAIK, this constitutes a Conflict of Interest here. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 19:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course I am here to keep a track especially on Microsoft Mobile articles(and may not be only the one. Many other colleagues may also be there. But none may have explicitly stated.:)) And my edit definitely fits (A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.) criteria. Article is definitely neutral, no anti-Nokia statements were made.... Reliably sourced, as i provided with sources and really no conflict between my aim and Wikipedia's aim. (If seen on other European language articles on Wikipedia about Nokia and Microsoft, my edit on English one would look perfectly fine)
If you see, Microsoft Mobile and Nokia stuff confuses a lot of people. The information is rapidly changing say every few days. It is true that one day MS Mobile will definitely discard almost all things related to Nokia. But people have a sentiment that if products are available on the site, then they are in production, which is NOT TRUE, REALLY REALLY NOT TRUE. They may be, and in this case definitely are stock clearance. Hence transferred Series 40 and Asha to Nokia page.
Online services was a legacy of Nokia inherited by Microsoft. MS never never worked on them. Hence the section was transferred to (List_of_Nokia_products#Services_and_solutions) If seen carefully, there are many other services which were already mentioned in the section, but never mentioned to MS Mobile article.
I believe these explains everything. Feel free to have a discussion. Please let me know if anything incorrect by my side. Please try to revert to my edit, if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicrosoftBoy ( talk • contribs) 03:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I have written an article about a relative of mine. Per policy, I have disclosed my COI on the talk page. While I fully believe my work to be neutral, I am asking for at least one uninvolved party to take a look and "sign off" on it before I consider moving it to mainspace (will add a picture and maybe make a few tweaks before then, but the content is basically done now). This will eventually go to GA, so any comments on improvement of any kind are welcome. Thanks, ThaddeusB ( talk) 19:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
There is no article for Paycoin. Yet. However, the people behind Paycoin are asking others to create one: "I am not proficient in publishing Wiki articles but i think we need some exposure to boost our search ranking." [14] Because Paycoin is controversial (it may be a scam) [15], watch for promotional articles. Thanks. John Nagle ( talk) 08:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The user CharlesPierceestate claims to be the court appointed representative of the late Charles B. Pierce's estate here and in that same edit summary claimed to be "Setting The Record Straight From False Statements". Only edits have been to the Charles B. Pierce article. 331dot ( talk) 13:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
This editor claims to be the son of the founder of this (unaccredited) institution and has posted in the article's Talk page that "in memory of my father [he is] taking it upon [him]self to correct this page." I've tried pointing this editor to some of our relevant policies but I don't seem to be making much progress so help from others would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! ElKevbo ( talk) 01:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I just happened to come across this article and user. They say "The current owners of heathenfront.com are not affiliated with or related to any of the organisations shown on this page." That was posted directly into the article not the talkpage. I wasn't sure if this needed any sort of attention. Kap 7 ( talk) 04:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Initally filed at UAA as a potential violation for suggestion of shared editing, this user appears to have a COI since they look to be editing the article as a representative of an entire website - they are disassociating the website they represent from the subject of the article. I am aware this is only a single edit, but the possibility is that they may edit in the future on the same article. Either way this in my opinion, something which needs investigating. Thanks! CharlieTheCabbie| paġna utenti| diskussjoni 04:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Someone appears to be soliciting editors to do paid edits without disclosure. The following is recent correspondence; I've redacted the name and email address, but can make them available to appropriate parties if needed; I'm not sure about the policy on revealing such things.
On 12/29/2014 12:44 PM, [REDACTED] wrote:
Hi Joseph,
I am [REDACTED] user from Wiki, sorry if I spend your time. I found your personal page at Wiki and see you are very experienced user with solid reputation.
Can you help me to add strong related 2 links from my website to the Wiki's pages?
I can compensate your time and your expertise. Please if it possible tell me your price and your "ok" if your interested.
Thank you
I responded: "I just want to make sure: you do understand that if I do this, Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies require that make it clear that I was paid, and that if you solicit me or someone else to do this without revealing that, you are asking them to violate policy."
Today I received a follow-up email:
Yeah, of course I understand. Only me and you must know this. I asking from you because you are experienced user in wiki and nobody doubt about your additions.
If you ready tell me your price and I send you details.
Thank you
In short, he is asking me to keep this paid editing secret, and he understands that is a request to violate policy. I wrote back, "So you *are* asking me to violate policy. No, I will not do that, thank you."
I presume that having failed with me he will be soliciting others, hence the notice here. - Jmabel | Talk 19:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm starting with just the one at the moment but this looks like a problem with Gerontology Research Group. There's an old case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity about it. This article is about the list of oldest Belgian people. User:Scarface181268 created his own list on his own userpage with much more material. The userpage is up for deletion along with the article. @ Scarface1812: (presumably related) began blanking the page directed at me and admitted that he was angry because he has been a correspondent for GRG and this was five years of his own research. Should there be a COI notice on top (if the article survives AFD) and should we look further into the conduct of other GRG consultants here? Note that every article such as List of living supercentenarians, Oldest people including listings all cases that GRG has not verified which seems to promote GRG while including names (BLPs) without any reliable sources (and birth dates as well) (also discussed at BLPN noticeboard. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 02:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Ricky, the problem is not us (the GRG correspondents) but you because you don't understand that we can't disclose the birth certificate as a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarface1812 ( talk • contribs) .
See the message here Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#COI_at_OpenDNA - Kdraps declared herself a paid editor here and has been directly editing the article. I've added connected contributor to the Talk page and a COI tag to the article, and provided notice to the editor. Jytdog ( talk) 21:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
This and prior editors persist in putting detailed conference program item details for the most recent of these conferences, instead of improving the actual article and its references. The persistence leads me to suspect they have some connection with that year's conference. Orange Mike | Talk 18:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I have asked EmmaJoanne to provide some further explanation about her interests that led her to contribute the above body of work to Wikipedia. Since joining WP last week, all of her articles appear to be about obscure CEOs (named James), which are only sourced (and can only be sourced, due to a complete lack of any other information in RS) to executive databases and official company websites. DOCUMENT ★ ERROR 09:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
NiSmale is a student there. When queried, he acknowledged that he works there, originally said was editing for money but then said he would not accept it. Still has a COI. Needs eyes. Also see related articles Graeme Clark (doctor), Visual prosthesis. I tagged the relevant articles and have watchlisted them but they need review. Jytdog ( talk) 06:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
David Ross (businessman) has a long history of POV editing. It has recently been reported at ANI and that is when I noticed it. I've done a lot of cleaning up etc since 6 January but am being challenged by people who have either outright admitted to being aggrieved shareholders in one of the guy's companies or give the impression of being such.
In the spirit of open-ness, having spotted something of which I was not initially aware, I posted this note. I've subsequently added this one. I would be grateful if someone could review the situation, which will probably entail reading the entire talk page and at least sampling my many recent edits to the article. Thanks. - Sitush ( talk) 13:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The paid editor for Jerry Yang (entrepreneur) sent me this: "Hello! I've created a new draft of the article for Jerry Yang, per an earlier discussion on the article's Talk page. I know you had some trepidation about a COI editor writing a new draft, so I wanted to be sure you have a chance to take a look and share feedback if you like. Thanks, and happy new year! Mary Gaulke (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)" [16]. Do we have a policy that COI editors can't try to replace the entire article? This is the third article where some paid editor has proposed a "new draft". Such "new drafts" typically contain little if any critical or negative information. A new COI draft makes the COI editor's content the default. Rebalancing the article requires extensive editor time. Comments? John Nagle ( talk) 19:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Jim_Webb.2C_current_U.S._political_candidate. Account is a WP:SPA working as of today only on this article, and edits are mostly promo/puffery, and the account has not talked to other editors on his/her talk page nor on artucle Talk page. Looks very much like WP:NOTHERE. I COI-tagged the article and added the connected contributor tag to the Talk page. Jytdog ( talk) 19:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm concerned about a SPA editor 71.57.118.25 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and now 7157.118.25a ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who showed up a few days ago to add some rather laudatory content to Mike Huckabee, a former US Governor who is a speculative candidate for US President in 2016. The editor has also removed some content critical of the subject. Here is their first edit. I would like to see if anyone else thinks this might be an editor with a COI. Thank you.- Mr X 13:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Appreciated the notification Jytdog. In reality my concerns, as outlined on the Talk:Mike Huckabee page were that the former Mike Huckabee page had some overly negative sections. For example, the Mike Huckabee Recent Controversies section was in bad shape originally. [17] Both the Clemency Controversies and Recent Controversies sections when I arrived were clearly negative criticism sections designed to disparage, in violation of the WP:BLP policy. My understanding of the WP:BLP policy is that:
“ | Biographies of living persons ('BLP's) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy... Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; see below. Non-administrators should tag them with db-attack. Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or in bad faith, is grounds for immediate blocking. | ” |
As I furthermore pointed out in Talk:Mike_Huckabee#Recommendation_on_Controversy_Sections such sections are seemingly in violation of the WP:CRITS policy which states:
“ | An article dedicated to negative criticism of a topic is usually discouraged because it tends to be a point-of-view fork, which is generally prohibited by the neutral point-of-view policy.
Likewise, sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism. Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. For example, if a politician received significant criticism about their public behavior, create a section entitled 'Public behavior' and include all information – positive and negative – within that section. If a book was heavily criticized, create a section in the book's article called 'Reception', and include positive and negative material in that section... Sections or article titles should generally not include the word 'controversies'. Instead, titles should simply name the event, for example, '2009 boycott' or 'Hunting incident'. The word 'controversy' should not appear in the title except in the rare situations when it has become part of the commonly accepted name for the event, such as Creation–evolution controversy. |
” |
At any rate, I did not try to remove all mentions of criticism. I simply tried to add detail mentioning Mike Huckabee's defense of his clemencies to the Clemency Controversy section (which I've since renamed Clemencies to adhere to WP:CRITS, he has cited 6 factors in his decision which were summarized as follows. [18]
I remain concerned that given the recent revert of those changes, both the Mike_Huckabee#Clemencies and Mike_Huckabee#Notoriety sections are in violation of WP:CRITS and WP:BLP with primarily negative material. I did try to add some positive material to what were some highly negative sections, for example two positive paragraphs to the Notoriety section (previously named Recent Controversies) so that they wouldn't be entirely negative. However, I believe that, per WP:CRITS, "sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged" and "pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once."
Both of these sections were clearly negative by using the word "Controversies" in their original titles and shouldn't have been named like they were in the first place. Even with the changes they still remain overly negative in tone. Both sections devote considerable writing to attacking Mike Huckabee and Mike Huckabee is not even quoted at all in the Clemency section now, and is only quoted in the Notoriety section when those quotes are being criticized.
I strongly believe that if negative criticism is to exist on the page of a living person, the person who the page is about should at least be quoted regarding the subject matter so their defense is presented as well. And the Notoriety section has 6 of 8 paragraphs that criticize Mike Huckabee, even with the two paragraph additions I recently added, and remains heavily negative in tone. -- 7157.118.25a ( talk) 06:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Also to clarify, I am not arguing for the deletion of the sections, just that if they are to remain they should be severely balanced so they are no longer pure criticism sections. Although, the Notoriety section is in such bad shape that I question whether it might be better off deleted, as it will be tough to salvage. The Clemency section though has figured prominently in the news and I agree the material deserves mention on the page.
However, I do think the section should be less clearly negative and present Mike Huckabee's side of what occurred more proportionally in the Clemency section, rather than trying to fit a single, barely noticeable sentence on his views in, and spending the rest of the section criticizing him, as is currently the case. I don't think the page comports to WP:BLP, WP:CRITS, or WP:UNDUE standards at all even with all the recent changes made (and most of my recent changes were not controversial and involved fixes to dead links and source formatting). -- 7157.118.25a ( talk) 06:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
User created article and is writing from a first person POV. e.g. "We offer several courses that prepare our students..." The Haz talk 05:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Can someone else please weigh in on the editing occurring in this article? I don't seem to be getting through to our colleague(s). Thanks! ElKevbo ( talk) 12:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
User:PR ERTICO is repeatedly adding inappropriate promotional content. Theroadislong ( talk) 15:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
(Previous mention on WP:COIN: [20])
A paid editor, HOgilvy ( talk · contribs) wants to replace Dany Bahar with their own draft. They sent me a note on my talk page. Discussion at Talk:Dany_Bahar#Article_rewrite. COI editor draft at User:HOgilvy/Dany_Bahar. Most of the issues revolve around Bahar being fired as head of Lotus and the subsequent litigation. Anyone want to look at this? Thanks. John Nagle ( talk) 02:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
With the best of intentions, the good folks of this small Iowa town have been overindulging in WP:PROMOTION, as was recently chronicled in the local paper and mentioned in the latest Signpost. Could some editors take a whack at it? A lot of fluff there, with the best of intentions; but Wikipedia does not exist to promote your cause, however noble you perceive it to be. Orange Mike | Talk 02:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The users listed above have been editing the Diosdado Cabello, Derwick Associates and other related articles removing controversial material. The users may be a collection of individuals or a single individual since user RealEditing stated "hi im back", even though they had no previous contributions. Each user has a short period of time showing contributions and is usually there for a single purpose. Each edit seems to be defending Diosdado Cabello, Derwick Associates and others related to a controversy. ZiaLater ( talk) 18:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
There are some weird edits going on at the Blair Hull page history [21], not over a few months but a period of many years. These accounts just stop in to make edits exclusively to the Blair Hull page and never create account pages. I could understand if it was over a few months, and they were just interested in resolving issues on a single page at first, but they consistently do not edit anything but that page. See the following accounts:
There is a definite 4-year period where these accounts show up, don't make user pages, make very few edits, and edit specifically to Blair Hull, sometimes over a period of several years. What's really strange is this is not a high-traffic page which sees any edit wars from looking at the page history.
Hull is a wealthy donor who had a severe scandal damage his political aspirations in his 2004 race against Obama, and the page seems to be getting routinely scrubbed of mentions of that occurrence. [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]
This is the first time I've ever filed a Conflict of Interest notice, but it seems appropriate here. Given the edit history I have no doubt Blair Hull himself is having the page managed to remove mention of that controversy. -- 7157.118.25a ( talk) 04:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
This is my second posting of an entry I have come across for Gustavo Ferraro. The editor DaltonCastle has continually re-inserted unsourced or non-Wiki worthy sources (gossip rags). This editor has created multiple entries against anyone the handle accuses has a connection to Néstor Kirchner or Cristina Fernández de Kirchner in order to defame them.
In addition to Gustavo Ferraro the editor has created the following fringe theory entries that, according to them, ALL have a close connection:(again, without a reliable source)
Esteban Pérez Corradi
Carlos Zannini
Miguel Ángel Pires
Carlos Molinari
Daniel Lalín
Enrique Omar Suárez
César Guido Forcieri
Raúl Jaime
Juan Pablo Schiavi
Federico Elaskar
Martin Báez
Carlos Bettini
Sergio Tasselli
Claudio Uberti
Claudio Cirigliano
Roberto Vignati
And that isn't even all of them. All of them have foreign language sources (Spanish) but no Spanish Wiki. This editor stated on the Gustavo Ferraro talk page,"If its defamatory, then it is the fault of a major newspaper which should publish a correction of their mistake," as reasoning why he uses defamatory sources versus logic.
So the question is really not about a lack of intelligence but intent. The attacks are one-sided, possibly Radical Civic Union, which is the opposition party. All follow the same format to try to mask the real intent by including an early life section, sometimes sourced (in Gustavo Ferraro's case sources do not exist). They are taking advantage of the flaw in the search engine algorithm to have a smear campaign show as a first page result for all the parties included. And in terms of content, what amounts to basically soapbox blogs.
The Neutral point of View page states that if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
Please do not excuse yourself from this matter by claiming you're not a subject matter expert. The subject is Wikipedia being hijacked for smear/political purposes.-- SimpleStitch ( talk) 00:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I've edited the talk page at Myitsone Dam and proposed some changes. I work for Bell Pottinger and represent China Power Investment Corporation, the major contractor in the project. If anyone wants to take a look, please post there or on my talk page. Thanks. Jthomlinson1 ( talk) 15:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Unexplained removal of scandalous material in an article about a warship exporting company after burying said material below adspeak in a rewrite of the history section. I post this here without first attempting "ordinary talk page discussion" because I hope to get the attention of uninvolved users who may not read that talk page, so that perhaps somebody will at some point bother to inspect the user's other contributions, as there may (or may not) be more such cases that would otherwise go unnoticed. I do not want to further investigate myself, but at the same time I don't want to just ignore such an edit. To the contributor's credit, he's neither hiding the fact that he "work[s] in a french public relation agency" on his user page, nor has he archived away from his talk page an "only warning" dated February 2013. I have notified the user on his talk page. Thank you. 82.83.83.63 ( talk) 01:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that searching this noticeboard's archives for the contributor's username returned no results. Wikipedia:Paid editing (essay) says: "It has, however, been made by consensus that editors who are paid represent a clear conflict-of-interest and are strongly encouraged to state this on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard what articles they are being paid to edit and declare whom they are working for before doing so." — By the way, I think there is at least one error in that sentence, but I am not a native speaker. 82.83.83.63 ( talk) 02:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The user contributions, both articles and materials still in their sandbox, shows a pattern that might possibly represent undeclared paid COI editing. I've given a warning for promotionalism, but I leave it to others to investigate further. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Johnmoor ( talk · contribs) appears to be a paid editor, editing against a conflict of interest to promote people and products on Wikipedia. There's little or nothing to add from the previous COIN discussion. It ended when Johnmoor apparently left Wikipedia. He's returned. He's never addressed the overwhelming evidence that he is here editing articles against our COI policy, likely being paid to do so. He's never denied his identity. He denies being the paid editor that uses his name, photographs of himself, and the same graphic that he has on his userpage. He ignores the evidence that he is editing against a COI. -- Ronz ( talk) 23:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
When you are in conflict with Ronz ( talk · contribs), you get accused of so many things! I am not paid to contribute, but in trying to get me to stop contributing to articles that I am in dispute with him, here are some of Ronz's numerous accusations:
There are also extensive discussions on the talk pages of
Talk:Grammarly and
Talk:Nofel Izz, and to ensure that I get blocked,
Ronz reached out to other users too —
User talk:Bilby#Johnmoor being discussed at COIN again and
User talk:Bilby/Archive 10#Nofel Izz. Thank you.
—
JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (
talk)
12:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
As expected, Johnmoor refuses to address the evidence. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
So two straightforward questions for Johnmoor:
Johnmoor has been indef blocked for denying his conflict of interest. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
While I've quickly skimmed his remaining contributions, a thorough review is needed given his habit of using primary sources (mostly press releases) with few if any better sources. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Account is being used only for promotional purposes - Malaprop's edits look like GF edits, however the user has only been heavily promoting the JAMA family of paid academic journals.
Adding promo to JAMA publications:
Adding multiple references in medicine-related articles to paid publications by the JAMA network:
Strongly smells of COI or marketing.
Additionally, edits are supposed to look like sources of the said information, whereas these are just external links mostly unrelated to the sentence or paragraph where they have been inserted.
kashmiri TALK 20:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
We also have User:Dempr who appears associated. As long as they are using secondary sources and those sources support the content in question do we have an issue? Of course we have the user name issue but that can be easily fixed. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
{u|Limit-theorem}} I don't understand where you are coming from. WP is not a vehicle for anybody to get "citations". We are trying to build an encyclopedia and access to medical journals for editors - especially high quality ones like JAMA - is a bar to building high quality content. Several journals have relationships with Wikipedia under which they donate accounts. In my view, if JAMA were to donate accounts, that would be a great, great thing. Do you see what I mean? Jytdog ( talk) 20:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I created the page "Bill Adair (journalist)" earlier today, my first wiki page. Although I believe I have written a neutral and factual bio page, essentially just dates and a few quotes, I think it is important for the integrity of the page that I disclose that I am a colleague of Bill Adair. The talk page and wiki page have been tagged accordingly. Further, I will hereon out refrain from making edits to the page and encourage other editors to make contributions/edits as they deem fit. I look forward to learning from the rest of the Wikipedia community as this page evolves. 24.162.254.114 ( talk) 03:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
This editor, who has created a string of promotional articles (some deleted), appears to be an undeclared paid editor, in violation of the TOU. See [29]. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 22:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
The IPs have been removing criticism of the company from the article. The hostname of
203.174.180.226 is mail1.qcoal.com.au
(
here). Furthermore IP103 said in an edit summary: "This has been requested by Q Coal" (
diff).
Stickee (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The Greta Berlin and Free Gaza Movement articles have been subject to advocacy in the past. The account Truegreta was indefinitely blocked after a discussion here. [33] The COI and was further discussed at an admin's talk page. [34]
A COI concern was addressed here regarding user:Tecspk@aol.com. [35] The email address shows affiliation with the subjects.
I believe the account should be blocked due to evasion. The advocacy concerns are secondary. Cptnono ( talk) 17:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Gingerjuice, which has been editing Coats PLC, is a social media company with Coats PLC as a client [36]. Yet it has not declared this conflict here, violating the TOU. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 23:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The user has only ever offered contributions in relation to the subject article. The username, Priory Flyer, may we refer to an affiliation with Priory Farm, a nearby airfield in competition with the subject of the article. The user added a section called Accidents and Incidents which details a list of occurrences at Old Buckenham Airport. No such similar section exists at other small airfields similar to Old Buckenham. Further, none of the reports cited infer at all that the accident or incident was as a result of the airfield's wrong doing, infrastructure or otherwise. When read, however, it appears that this section was deliberately designed to give the impression that Old Buckenham is unsafe, when that has not been found to be the case in any of the cited incidents. I have tried dialogue using their talk page, but no response has been given. It appears that this account has solely been set up to create this misleading section and edits to remove or change the section are undone by PrioryFlyer with no discourse. I believe that they are essentially attempting to use Wiki to benefit a rival organisation and therefore this is a COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 453rdenthusiast ( talk • contribs)
I have my doubts whether this editor is editing objectively. The article is full of primary sources affiliated with the subject, and seems to be rather fluffed up beyond what is really needed for an objective Wikipedia article. A "controversy" seems to have been manufactured out of thin air. What reliable third-party source has labelled this a "controversy"? Possible promotional intent? Skyerise ( talk) 16:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Self-apparent COI, in both name and in choice of articles to edit. Epeefleche ( talk) 22:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
TheDoctorsPR ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) A user called TheDoctorsPR has shown up at the article and other related BLPs. It definitely goes against WP:ORGNAME, but what's the best course of action in cases like this? Kingofaces43 ( talk) 19:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I have a few suggestions for edits to Dow Corning, which I've shared in a Talk page post. In addition to suggesting that one sentence be removed or reworded, I have citations for some unreferenced information currently in the article and suggestions for a few other basic facts to add. I'm not making any edits myself because I have a COI; I work for a communications agency that represents Dow Corning. I'd be very grateful if someone could take a look and offer feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke ( talk) 19:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Adam Blitz: added his self-published blog post as a source to Charlie Hebdo shooting. Can an admin warn him about COI, and why general Wikipedia articles are not the place for self-published criticism of Wikipedia articles? -- Aronzak ( talk) 18:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Note - I'm concerned about the doxing of User:Zero Serenity by media outlet The Federalist - low quality journalists may try to antagonise wikipedia editors (WP:NOTHERE) to then dox them and make a "story" out of how they disagree with Wikipedia. -- Aronzak ( talk) 18:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Adam Blitz ( talk) 00:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Sirs User:Aronzak and John Nagle I received a response from Mr. Nagle. (Thank you). I have attempted to explain that the other shootings merit coverage within the body of the article, "Charlie Hebdo Shooting", at least a line to convey the context. Île-de-France subsection is not the parent but the child. Mr. Nagle is mistaken, I believe. And the shootings at the kosher supermarket of Porte de Vincennes do not appear visibly within the sub-heading or the main article. There is no reason to exclude these especially when there is reference to other incidents such as Dammartin en Goele. I have no particular interest to promote my blog on Wikipedia. What I am interested in is illustrating that the causation of these subsequent anti-Semitic killings by A Coulibaly is clearly missing in the "Charlie Hebdo Shooting" article. My focus is academic scrutiny - not "political ideology" as User Aronzak writes. I would appreciate some help with the editing process. Please would you be kind enough to assist? I can be contacted at adam.blitzATcolumnist.com Thank you. Adam Blitz ( talk) 01:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Examples with Diffs (there are 10+ edits like these):
Steve Hanke https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Steve_Hanke&diff=prev&oldid=646638513
Jean-Claude Bastos de Morais https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Jean-Claude_Bastos_de_Morais&diff=prev&oldid=646525739
Paul Judge https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Paul_Judge&diff=prev&oldid=646648079
User EditorialatOMFIF has been rapidly adding sentences about involvement with
OMFIF to Blp pages. Given the user name, this appears a clear conflict of interest. In any case these are unreferenced blp changes, and the username doesn't appear to comply with the
username policy. EditorialatOMFIF was warned by
AllyD on his/her talk page, but has not responded and has continued to make
OMFIF-related edits. Also, the existence and editing history of
OMFIFlondon (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) and
OMFIF (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) (blocked) show a pattern of behavior.
Dialectric (
talk)
15:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Q.leroy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a coi with respect to Lendico ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He appears to deny this, but given the WP:SPA status and a trivial Google search I think that stretches credulity. He reverted a pruning of spam on the article. I doubt he'll stop. Guy ( Help!) 23:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Two editors with conflicts [45] [46] have repeatedly pushed an advocacy PoV relying on original research to blank sourced statements and revert to a version tagged for puffery last July; wiping out nearly all edits since. The talk page hectoring pushing the Landmark PoV and destructive reversions have been and are unproductive in moving the article forward. • Astynax talk 20:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I will respond to this frivolous accusation in more detail tomorrow. For now, I will confine my comments to pointing out that my sole relationship with Landmark is as a sometime customer who took several of their courses some years ago, which is what you will see if you follow the link given above to my user page. This no more constitutes a conflict than the fact that I have at times owned Apple computers would give me a CoI in editing on the Apple Inc page. I gain no advantage of any kind by my editing of the Landmark page, and I have no interest other than seeing that it is balanced, accurate, and in compliance with Wikipedia policies.
I edited the Landmark article extensively in 2006-7 when it was under attack from advocates intent on preserving it as an attack piece, but over the last seven years I have averaged about eight edits a year (a minute proportion of my activity on Wikipedia), mostly reversions of clear vandalism. The two reverts I made today are only my second and third edits there since last September.
Astynax has made a determined effort to create an article which portrays an extreme viewpoint on the topic and resists any engagement with the normal Dispute Resolution Processes and ignores consensus when it does not fit with his agenda. Last October he initiated an Arbcom case against myself and two other editors, whose only shortcoming is that we do not share his extreme Point of View [47]. The Arbitrators made no findings of policy violations by any of us. I specifically asked them to settle the matter of whether I had a WP:COI and they made no such finding. That surely should be the end of the matter, but I have been continually harassed by Astynax and others ever since. DaveApter ( talk) 22:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I, like Dave Apter, will respond in more detail later but this is a baseless, ridiculous accusation. I am not an anonymous user, like my accuser, and have been open about my involvement with Landmark for ten years – I put it on my talk page and use my real name when editing, and it’s never been a problem. Also- the accusation of "repeated" changes- I posted my concerns on the talk page explicitly twice and asked for feedback, and then I made a single set of reverts to former accepted material. That does NOT represent "repeated" alterations.
Regarding any potential COI, I am editing this page solely on my own behalf and to improve the Wikipedia article. I have no stock in Landmark nor am I paid or recompensed by Landmark in any way. I have never have been paid or compensated by Landmark for my editing on Wikipedia. I also have not been active with Landmark for years.
Respectfully, Alex Jackl ( talk) 16:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you John Nagle. I feel like I accidentally stepped into a bear trap. Hopefully this will get the page top some stability. Alex Jackl ( talk) 20:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Self admitted here. That being said, I'm not up to date on the latest policies of paid contribution, so this may not be the correct venue. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Robhart9c is making substantial deletions of sourced material from this article. After first undo stated in edit summary [48] that he or she is "an employee of the subject." Has continued to make the edits and refused to discuss edits on talk page after two requests in edit summaries ( [49] and [50]) a COI template on his talk page [51], further discussion of the COI [52], and a level 3 disruptive editing warning with mention of the BRD procedure [53]. Meters ( talk) 22:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I just found this article and it seems to be almost entirely written by one user who only used the account to create the page. They did a really nice job too. Then another user who has the same first name as the page itself uploaded some pictures of the person who the page is supposedly about. As far as I know having two user accounts on Wikipedia and Wikicommons is not allowed but I also suspect it's not allowed to write an article about yourself (is the user "Craig mack378" is actually the same person as the person in the article). Anyway, this isn't my field of activity on Wikipedia so I simply wanted to bring this to the attention of more experienced editors who can decide if anything should be done about this. Thanks! Monopoly31121993 ( talk) 19:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, this is Craig Walendziak -- I did not write the article, but I did add the pictures. I did so for the sake of completeness, I did not think this was a conflict of interest.
Thanks,
Craig — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig mack378 ( talk • contribs) 15:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I am the drummer of Fear Tomorrow. Went to check Craig Mack's wiki page. Saw someone removed half the things? Craig Walendziak is a very popular musician in the hardcore scene. A lot of people know where Craig was born and his wife's name... I'm not sure why Jytdog is so confrontational? Thanks. Dilbert Grapes ( talk) 02:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
talk Hey I'm new here. I was in a band with him 15 years ago... that has long since disbanded. You are being very aggressive. You took a well written article and deleted half the content and replaced it poorly written sentences. Your edits were heavy handed. Those albums WERE verified in the post. (Check the discography links). You removed his whole education history? That seems weird. Many other people have their education listed. I'm just curious why you were so aggressive. And are still being aggressive. I'm not trying to be confrontational - just keeping an open source article enjoyable and accurate. Do you do this to every article? Dilbert Grapes ( talk) 03:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Article: Jason Dundas ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Users I suspect of conflict of interest:
OK, I have read the Jason Dundas article and it seems that these two users could be the subject of the article (it is on my watchlist). I'm just wondering if these users are actually allowed to edit the Jason Dundas article due to a conflict of interest. User:Jasonrobertdundas edited the article in April '14 (a bit old).
Here are the diffs: [55]- by User:Jasondundas [56]- by User:Jasonrobertdundas (for the record)
I highly suspect that the first diff by User:Jasondundas is conflict of interest as he has added links to his own Instagram pages etc. I have not reverted as I think it would be best for an administrator to decide. Thank you! TheCoffeeAddict talk| contribs 12:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The above mentioned user is removing content based on improving google results. Judging by the user name and the description in the removal, the user is an employee of the university removing information to avoid bad press for the school. This appears to be a clear COI violation. He was on the FBI most wanted list prior to his capture, and his background should not be excluded due to improving Google results. - Galatz ( talk) 21:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
There very clearly is a COI with Everfound (band). In addition to copyright issues raised at AN/I, his edits, focused on all things related to the band, demonstrate a lack of understanding or willingness to listen to policies:
JoeSperrazza ( talk) 12:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Was hoping to attract potential watchlisters and participants to the page in general and to this discussion in particular. The reason I brought it up here is because I have a disclosed COI with the man's former employer, Juniper Networks, having created this version of the article in a Bright Line(ish) format with @ FreeRangeFrog:. The other editor, Intchar*, has an editing pattern that very strongly suggests a non-disclosed COI. We seem unable to reach agreement on quite a few things spanning the inclusion of awards, unsourced patent claims, excluding products his team made that were unsuccessful, and so on. CorporateM ( Talk) 22:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Username says it all. Needs editing, review, and watching. I've tagged the article and the userpage (note - account has been closed down for username violation, but we can expect someone from there to come back. Jytdog ( talk) 15:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I note that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies there are several questions about COI issues. This is a WikiProject which is getting several posts a month, so is more popular than most. I stopped in there because my student in the Wikipedia Education Program went there. I responded to a couple of old queries but there are several there asking for help with COI. Is there a template response which anyone here routinely gives?
Also, if anyone is interested in watching these things, WikiProject Companies could use watchers. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
At least two registered accounts and some IP addresses from the Los Angeles area have been used to add information to a suspiciously small group of biographies, all of the biographies connected by the fact that the persons are being managed by an agency called THREEE, formerly Erik Eger Entertainment. The list of THREEE clients includes the following:
The following accounts and IPs are involved in promoting the above persons:
The account Markthree explicitly stated that "we manage kid harpoon". [66] When Markthree created the Robin Hannibal biography in 2013, it appeared to be a copy/paste job complete with old maintenance templates from 2010 and 2012, probably following a successful PROD. [67]
The IP editors show their hand when they add an external link to THREEE or Erik Eger Entertainment: [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75]
Various NPOV violations have been made including peacock prose to show the person in a better light. This person or management team has also reverted other editors in the effort to promote clients. For instance, Mayast and IPadPerson were reverted here and here to promote Kid Harpoon. Another reversion came here to promote Kid Harpoon against the judgement of My love is love.
I would like to see this person be restricted to just one account which acknowledges the conflict of interest. That way non-neutral additions can be managed better by uninvolved editors. Binksternet ( talk) 03:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Prod was removed from John Hill by the last-named IP above. I've sent it to AfD, with a rationale borrowed from Nagle. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 21:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Lastly, I see that a number of our pages have already been edited and have had a number of discographies deleted. I would hope that you understand that these pages are important for our clients and help potential artists and labels get an idea of what they have worked on. I maintain these pages not to promote our clients, but to make sure that the information listed is as up to date and correct. I work hard to make sure all pages are cited and credited properly. At the end of the day, deleting this information doesn't hurt our company specifically, but hurts the producers and writers who work tirelessly for these credits. And I don't think that is fair to take that away from them. Please reconsider. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Threee123 ( talk • contribs) 21:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
i try to stay out of music articles, but there is probably a username violation here, if anybody wants to go there. Jytdog ( talk) 00:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The Greta Berlin and Free Gaza Movement articles have been subject to advocacy in the past. The account Truegreta was indefinitely blocked after a discussion here. [76] The COI and was further discussed at an admin's talk page. [77]
A COI concern was addressed here regarding user:Tecspk@aol.com. [78]
It was again brought up with no comments:. [79]
The user name is the same as a publicly shared email address. Tecspk@aol.com is again removing content from the article.
I believe the account should be blocked due to evasion. The advocacy concerns are secondary. Cptnono ( talk) 00:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Continuation of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 79#Bert_Martinez
Widefox; talk 11:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Update on previous listing (I hadn't noticed these):
Editor is removing content and re-writing content at the request of the subject, who supposedly employs them. Haminoon ( talk) 05:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Said user has stated explicitly on their talk page that they are employed by Microsoft and are here to correct and éxpand MS related articles. AFAIK, this constitutes a Conflict of Interest here. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 19:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course I am here to keep a track especially on Microsoft Mobile articles(and may not be only the one. Many other colleagues may also be there. But none may have explicitly stated.:)) And my edit definitely fits (A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.) criteria. Article is definitely neutral, no anti-Nokia statements were made.... Reliably sourced, as i provided with sources and really no conflict between my aim and Wikipedia's aim. (If seen on other European language articles on Wikipedia about Nokia and Microsoft, my edit on English one would look perfectly fine)
If you see, Microsoft Mobile and Nokia stuff confuses a lot of people. The information is rapidly changing say every few days. It is true that one day MS Mobile will definitely discard almost all things related to Nokia. But people have a sentiment that if products are available on the site, then they are in production, which is NOT TRUE, REALLY REALLY NOT TRUE. They may be, and in this case definitely are stock clearance. Hence transferred Series 40 and Asha to Nokia page.
Online services was a legacy of Nokia inherited by Microsoft. MS never never worked on them. Hence the section was transferred to (List_of_Nokia_products#Services_and_solutions) If seen carefully, there are many other services which were already mentioned in the section, but never mentioned to MS Mobile article.
I believe these explains everything. Feel free to have a discussion. Please let me know if anything incorrect by my side. Please try to revert to my edit, if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicrosoftBoy ( talk • contribs) 03:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I have written an article about a relative of mine. Per policy, I have disclosed my COI on the talk page. While I fully believe my work to be neutral, I am asking for at least one uninvolved party to take a look and "sign off" on it before I consider moving it to mainspace (will add a picture and maybe make a few tweaks before then, but the content is basically done now). This will eventually go to GA, so any comments on improvement of any kind are welcome. Thanks, ThaddeusB ( talk) 19:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
There is no article for Paycoin. Yet. However, the people behind Paycoin are asking others to create one: "I am not proficient in publishing Wiki articles but i think we need some exposure to boost our search ranking." [14] Because Paycoin is controversial (it may be a scam) [15], watch for promotional articles. Thanks. John Nagle ( talk) 08:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The user CharlesPierceestate claims to be the court appointed representative of the late Charles B. Pierce's estate here and in that same edit summary claimed to be "Setting The Record Straight From False Statements". Only edits have been to the Charles B. Pierce article. 331dot ( talk) 13:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
This editor claims to be the son of the founder of this (unaccredited) institution and has posted in the article's Talk page that "in memory of my father [he is] taking it upon [him]self to correct this page." I've tried pointing this editor to some of our relevant policies but I don't seem to be making much progress so help from others would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! ElKevbo ( talk) 01:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I just happened to come across this article and user. They say "The current owners of heathenfront.com are not affiliated with or related to any of the organisations shown on this page." That was posted directly into the article not the talkpage. I wasn't sure if this needed any sort of attention. Kap 7 ( talk) 04:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Initally filed at UAA as a potential violation for suggestion of shared editing, this user appears to have a COI since they look to be editing the article as a representative of an entire website - they are disassociating the website they represent from the subject of the article. I am aware this is only a single edit, but the possibility is that they may edit in the future on the same article. Either way this in my opinion, something which needs investigating. Thanks! CharlieTheCabbie| paġna utenti| diskussjoni 04:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Someone appears to be soliciting editors to do paid edits without disclosure. The following is recent correspondence; I've redacted the name and email address, but can make them available to appropriate parties if needed; I'm not sure about the policy on revealing such things.
On 12/29/2014 12:44 PM, [REDACTED] wrote:
Hi Joseph,
I am [REDACTED] user from Wiki, sorry if I spend your time. I found your personal page at Wiki and see you are very experienced user with solid reputation.
Can you help me to add strong related 2 links from my website to the Wiki's pages?
I can compensate your time and your expertise. Please if it possible tell me your price and your "ok" if your interested.
Thank you
I responded: "I just want to make sure: you do understand that if I do this, Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies require that make it clear that I was paid, and that if you solicit me or someone else to do this without revealing that, you are asking them to violate policy."
Today I received a follow-up email:
Yeah, of course I understand. Only me and you must know this. I asking from you because you are experienced user in wiki and nobody doubt about your additions.
If you ready tell me your price and I send you details.
Thank you
In short, he is asking me to keep this paid editing secret, and he understands that is a request to violate policy. I wrote back, "So you *are* asking me to violate policy. No, I will not do that, thank you."
I presume that having failed with me he will be soliciting others, hence the notice here. - Jmabel | Talk 19:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm starting with just the one at the moment but this looks like a problem with Gerontology Research Group. There's an old case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity about it. This article is about the list of oldest Belgian people. User:Scarface181268 created his own list on his own userpage with much more material. The userpage is up for deletion along with the article. @ Scarface1812: (presumably related) began blanking the page directed at me and admitted that he was angry because he has been a correspondent for GRG and this was five years of his own research. Should there be a COI notice on top (if the article survives AFD) and should we look further into the conduct of other GRG consultants here? Note that every article such as List of living supercentenarians, Oldest people including listings all cases that GRG has not verified which seems to promote GRG while including names (BLPs) without any reliable sources (and birth dates as well) (also discussed at BLPN noticeboard. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 02:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Ricky, the problem is not us (the GRG correspondents) but you because you don't understand that we can't disclose the birth certificate as a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarface1812 ( talk • contribs) .
See the message here Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#COI_at_OpenDNA - Kdraps declared herself a paid editor here and has been directly editing the article. I've added connected contributor to the Talk page and a COI tag to the article, and provided notice to the editor. Jytdog ( talk) 21:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
This and prior editors persist in putting detailed conference program item details for the most recent of these conferences, instead of improving the actual article and its references. The persistence leads me to suspect they have some connection with that year's conference. Orange Mike | Talk 18:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I have asked EmmaJoanne to provide some further explanation about her interests that led her to contribute the above body of work to Wikipedia. Since joining WP last week, all of her articles appear to be about obscure CEOs (named James), which are only sourced (and can only be sourced, due to a complete lack of any other information in RS) to executive databases and official company websites. DOCUMENT ★ ERROR 09:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
NiSmale is a student there. When queried, he acknowledged that he works there, originally said was editing for money but then said he would not accept it. Still has a COI. Needs eyes. Also see related articles Graeme Clark (doctor), Visual prosthesis. I tagged the relevant articles and have watchlisted them but they need review. Jytdog ( talk) 06:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
David Ross (businessman) has a long history of POV editing. It has recently been reported at ANI and that is when I noticed it. I've done a lot of cleaning up etc since 6 January but am being challenged by people who have either outright admitted to being aggrieved shareholders in one of the guy's companies or give the impression of being such.
In the spirit of open-ness, having spotted something of which I was not initially aware, I posted this note. I've subsequently added this one. I would be grateful if someone could review the situation, which will probably entail reading the entire talk page and at least sampling my many recent edits to the article. Thanks. - Sitush ( talk) 13:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The paid editor for Jerry Yang (entrepreneur) sent me this: "Hello! I've created a new draft of the article for Jerry Yang, per an earlier discussion on the article's Talk page. I know you had some trepidation about a COI editor writing a new draft, so I wanted to be sure you have a chance to take a look and share feedback if you like. Thanks, and happy new year! Mary Gaulke (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)" [16]. Do we have a policy that COI editors can't try to replace the entire article? This is the third article where some paid editor has proposed a "new draft". Such "new drafts" typically contain little if any critical or negative information. A new COI draft makes the COI editor's content the default. Rebalancing the article requires extensive editor time. Comments? John Nagle ( talk) 19:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Jim_Webb.2C_current_U.S._political_candidate. Account is a WP:SPA working as of today only on this article, and edits are mostly promo/puffery, and the account has not talked to other editors on his/her talk page nor on artucle Talk page. Looks very much like WP:NOTHERE. I COI-tagged the article and added the connected contributor tag to the Talk page. Jytdog ( talk) 19:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm concerned about a SPA editor 71.57.118.25 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and now 7157.118.25a ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who showed up a few days ago to add some rather laudatory content to Mike Huckabee, a former US Governor who is a speculative candidate for US President in 2016. The editor has also removed some content critical of the subject. Here is their first edit. I would like to see if anyone else thinks this might be an editor with a COI. Thank you.- Mr X 13:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Appreciated the notification Jytdog. In reality my concerns, as outlined on the Talk:Mike Huckabee page were that the former Mike Huckabee page had some overly negative sections. For example, the Mike Huckabee Recent Controversies section was in bad shape originally. [17] Both the Clemency Controversies and Recent Controversies sections when I arrived were clearly negative criticism sections designed to disparage, in violation of the WP:BLP policy. My understanding of the WP:BLP policy is that:
“ | Biographies of living persons ('BLP's) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy... Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; see below. Non-administrators should tag them with db-attack. Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or in bad faith, is grounds for immediate blocking. | ” |
As I furthermore pointed out in Talk:Mike_Huckabee#Recommendation_on_Controversy_Sections such sections are seemingly in violation of the WP:CRITS policy which states:
“ | An article dedicated to negative criticism of a topic is usually discouraged because it tends to be a point-of-view fork, which is generally prohibited by the neutral point-of-view policy.
Likewise, sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism. Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. For example, if a politician received significant criticism about their public behavior, create a section entitled 'Public behavior' and include all information – positive and negative – within that section. If a book was heavily criticized, create a section in the book's article called 'Reception', and include positive and negative material in that section... Sections or article titles should generally not include the word 'controversies'. Instead, titles should simply name the event, for example, '2009 boycott' or 'Hunting incident'. The word 'controversy' should not appear in the title except in the rare situations when it has become part of the commonly accepted name for the event, such as Creation–evolution controversy. |
” |
At any rate, I did not try to remove all mentions of criticism. I simply tried to add detail mentioning Mike Huckabee's defense of his clemencies to the Clemency Controversy section (which I've since renamed Clemencies to adhere to WP:CRITS, he has cited 6 factors in his decision which were summarized as follows. [18]
I remain concerned that given the recent revert of those changes, both the Mike_Huckabee#Clemencies and Mike_Huckabee#Notoriety sections are in violation of WP:CRITS and WP:BLP with primarily negative material. I did try to add some positive material to what were some highly negative sections, for example two positive paragraphs to the Notoriety section (previously named Recent Controversies) so that they wouldn't be entirely negative. However, I believe that, per WP:CRITS, "sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged" and "pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once."
Both of these sections were clearly negative by using the word "Controversies" in their original titles and shouldn't have been named like they were in the first place. Even with the changes they still remain overly negative in tone. Both sections devote considerable writing to attacking Mike Huckabee and Mike Huckabee is not even quoted at all in the Clemency section now, and is only quoted in the Notoriety section when those quotes are being criticized.
I strongly believe that if negative criticism is to exist on the page of a living person, the person who the page is about should at least be quoted regarding the subject matter so their defense is presented as well. And the Notoriety section has 6 of 8 paragraphs that criticize Mike Huckabee, even with the two paragraph additions I recently added, and remains heavily negative in tone. -- 7157.118.25a ( talk) 06:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Also to clarify, I am not arguing for the deletion of the sections, just that if they are to remain they should be severely balanced so they are no longer pure criticism sections. Although, the Notoriety section is in such bad shape that I question whether it might be better off deleted, as it will be tough to salvage. The Clemency section though has figured prominently in the news and I agree the material deserves mention on the page.
However, I do think the section should be less clearly negative and present Mike Huckabee's side of what occurred more proportionally in the Clemency section, rather than trying to fit a single, barely noticeable sentence on his views in, and spending the rest of the section criticizing him, as is currently the case. I don't think the page comports to WP:BLP, WP:CRITS, or WP:UNDUE standards at all even with all the recent changes made (and most of my recent changes were not controversial and involved fixes to dead links and source formatting). -- 7157.118.25a ( talk) 06:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
User created article and is writing from a first person POV. e.g. "We offer several courses that prepare our students..." The Haz talk 05:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Can someone else please weigh in on the editing occurring in this article? I don't seem to be getting through to our colleague(s). Thanks! ElKevbo ( talk) 12:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
User:PR ERTICO is repeatedly adding inappropriate promotional content. Theroadislong ( talk) 15:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
(Previous mention on WP:COIN: [20])
A paid editor, HOgilvy ( talk · contribs) wants to replace Dany Bahar with their own draft. They sent me a note on my talk page. Discussion at Talk:Dany_Bahar#Article_rewrite. COI editor draft at User:HOgilvy/Dany_Bahar. Most of the issues revolve around Bahar being fired as head of Lotus and the subsequent litigation. Anyone want to look at this? Thanks. John Nagle ( talk) 02:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
With the best of intentions, the good folks of this small Iowa town have been overindulging in WP:PROMOTION, as was recently chronicled in the local paper and mentioned in the latest Signpost. Could some editors take a whack at it? A lot of fluff there, with the best of intentions; but Wikipedia does not exist to promote your cause, however noble you perceive it to be. Orange Mike | Talk 02:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The users listed above have been editing the Diosdado Cabello, Derwick Associates and other related articles removing controversial material. The users may be a collection of individuals or a single individual since user RealEditing stated "hi im back", even though they had no previous contributions. Each user has a short period of time showing contributions and is usually there for a single purpose. Each edit seems to be defending Diosdado Cabello, Derwick Associates and others related to a controversy. ZiaLater ( talk) 18:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
There are some weird edits going on at the Blair Hull page history [21], not over a few months but a period of many years. These accounts just stop in to make edits exclusively to the Blair Hull page and never create account pages. I could understand if it was over a few months, and they were just interested in resolving issues on a single page at first, but they consistently do not edit anything but that page. See the following accounts:
There is a definite 4-year period where these accounts show up, don't make user pages, make very few edits, and edit specifically to Blair Hull, sometimes over a period of several years. What's really strange is this is not a high-traffic page which sees any edit wars from looking at the page history.
Hull is a wealthy donor who had a severe scandal damage his political aspirations in his 2004 race against Obama, and the page seems to be getting routinely scrubbed of mentions of that occurrence. [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]
This is the first time I've ever filed a Conflict of Interest notice, but it seems appropriate here. Given the edit history I have no doubt Blair Hull himself is having the page managed to remove mention of that controversy. -- 7157.118.25a ( talk) 04:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
This is my second posting of an entry I have come across for Gustavo Ferraro. The editor DaltonCastle has continually re-inserted unsourced or non-Wiki worthy sources (gossip rags). This editor has created multiple entries against anyone the handle accuses has a connection to Néstor Kirchner or Cristina Fernández de Kirchner in order to defame them.
In addition to Gustavo Ferraro the editor has created the following fringe theory entries that, according to them, ALL have a close connection:(again, without a reliable source)
Esteban Pérez Corradi
Carlos Zannini
Miguel Ángel Pires
Carlos Molinari
Daniel Lalín
Enrique Omar Suárez
César Guido Forcieri
Raúl Jaime
Juan Pablo Schiavi
Federico Elaskar
Martin Báez
Carlos Bettini
Sergio Tasselli
Claudio Uberti
Claudio Cirigliano
Roberto Vignati
And that isn't even all of them. All of them have foreign language sources (Spanish) but no Spanish Wiki. This editor stated on the Gustavo Ferraro talk page,"If its defamatory, then it is the fault of a major newspaper which should publish a correction of their mistake," as reasoning why he uses defamatory sources versus logic.
So the question is really not about a lack of intelligence but intent. The attacks are one-sided, possibly Radical Civic Union, which is the opposition party. All follow the same format to try to mask the real intent by including an early life section, sometimes sourced (in Gustavo Ferraro's case sources do not exist). They are taking advantage of the flaw in the search engine algorithm to have a smear campaign show as a first page result for all the parties included. And in terms of content, what amounts to basically soapbox blogs.
The Neutral point of View page states that if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
Please do not excuse yourself from this matter by claiming you're not a subject matter expert. The subject is Wikipedia being hijacked for smear/political purposes.-- SimpleStitch ( talk) 00:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I've edited the talk page at Myitsone Dam and proposed some changes. I work for Bell Pottinger and represent China Power Investment Corporation, the major contractor in the project. If anyone wants to take a look, please post there or on my talk page. Thanks. Jthomlinson1 ( talk) 15:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Unexplained removal of scandalous material in an article about a warship exporting company after burying said material below adspeak in a rewrite of the history section. I post this here without first attempting "ordinary talk page discussion" because I hope to get the attention of uninvolved users who may not read that talk page, so that perhaps somebody will at some point bother to inspect the user's other contributions, as there may (or may not) be more such cases that would otherwise go unnoticed. I do not want to further investigate myself, but at the same time I don't want to just ignore such an edit. To the contributor's credit, he's neither hiding the fact that he "work[s] in a french public relation agency" on his user page, nor has he archived away from his talk page an "only warning" dated February 2013. I have notified the user on his talk page. Thank you. 82.83.83.63 ( talk) 01:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that searching this noticeboard's archives for the contributor's username returned no results. Wikipedia:Paid editing (essay) says: "It has, however, been made by consensus that editors who are paid represent a clear conflict-of-interest and are strongly encouraged to state this on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard what articles they are being paid to edit and declare whom they are working for before doing so." — By the way, I think there is at least one error in that sentence, but I am not a native speaker. 82.83.83.63 ( talk) 02:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The user contributions, both articles and materials still in their sandbox, shows a pattern that might possibly represent undeclared paid COI editing. I've given a warning for promotionalism, but I leave it to others to investigate further. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Johnmoor ( talk · contribs) appears to be a paid editor, editing against a conflict of interest to promote people and products on Wikipedia. There's little or nothing to add from the previous COIN discussion. It ended when Johnmoor apparently left Wikipedia. He's returned. He's never addressed the overwhelming evidence that he is here editing articles against our COI policy, likely being paid to do so. He's never denied his identity. He denies being the paid editor that uses his name, photographs of himself, and the same graphic that he has on his userpage. He ignores the evidence that he is editing against a COI. -- Ronz ( talk) 23:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
When you are in conflict with Ronz ( talk · contribs), you get accused of so many things! I am not paid to contribute, but in trying to get me to stop contributing to articles that I am in dispute with him, here are some of Ronz's numerous accusations:
There are also extensive discussions on the talk pages of
Talk:Grammarly and
Talk:Nofel Izz, and to ensure that I get blocked,
Ronz reached out to other users too —
User talk:Bilby#Johnmoor being discussed at COIN again and
User talk:Bilby/Archive 10#Nofel Izz. Thank you.
—
JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (
talk)
12:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
As expected, Johnmoor refuses to address the evidence. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
So two straightforward questions for Johnmoor:
Johnmoor has been indef blocked for denying his conflict of interest. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
While I've quickly skimmed his remaining contributions, a thorough review is needed given his habit of using primary sources (mostly press releases) with few if any better sources. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Account is being used only for promotional purposes - Malaprop's edits look like GF edits, however the user has only been heavily promoting the JAMA family of paid academic journals.
Adding promo to JAMA publications:
Adding multiple references in medicine-related articles to paid publications by the JAMA network:
Strongly smells of COI or marketing.
Additionally, edits are supposed to look like sources of the said information, whereas these are just external links mostly unrelated to the sentence or paragraph where they have been inserted.
kashmiri TALK 20:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
We also have User:Dempr who appears associated. As long as they are using secondary sources and those sources support the content in question do we have an issue? Of course we have the user name issue but that can be easily fixed. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
{u|Limit-theorem}} I don't understand where you are coming from. WP is not a vehicle for anybody to get "citations". We are trying to build an encyclopedia and access to medical journals for editors - especially high quality ones like JAMA - is a bar to building high quality content. Several journals have relationships with Wikipedia under which they donate accounts. In my view, if JAMA were to donate accounts, that would be a great, great thing. Do you see what I mean? Jytdog ( talk) 20:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I created the page "Bill Adair (journalist)" earlier today, my first wiki page. Although I believe I have written a neutral and factual bio page, essentially just dates and a few quotes, I think it is important for the integrity of the page that I disclose that I am a colleague of Bill Adair. The talk page and wiki page have been tagged accordingly. Further, I will hereon out refrain from making edits to the page and encourage other editors to make contributions/edits as they deem fit. I look forward to learning from the rest of the Wikipedia community as this page evolves. 24.162.254.114 ( talk) 03:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
This editor, who has created a string of promotional articles (some deleted), appears to be an undeclared paid editor, in violation of the TOU. See [29]. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 22:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
The IPs have been removing criticism of the company from the article. The hostname of
203.174.180.226 is mail1.qcoal.com.au
(
here). Furthermore IP103 said in an edit summary: "This has been requested by Q Coal" (
diff).
Stickee (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The Greta Berlin and Free Gaza Movement articles have been subject to advocacy in the past. The account Truegreta was indefinitely blocked after a discussion here. [33] The COI and was further discussed at an admin's talk page. [34]
A COI concern was addressed here regarding user:Tecspk@aol.com. [35] The email address shows affiliation with the subjects.
I believe the account should be blocked due to evasion. The advocacy concerns are secondary. Cptnono ( talk) 17:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Gingerjuice, which has been editing Coats PLC, is a social media company with Coats PLC as a client [36]. Yet it has not declared this conflict here, violating the TOU. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 23:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The user has only ever offered contributions in relation to the subject article. The username, Priory Flyer, may we refer to an affiliation with Priory Farm, a nearby airfield in competition with the subject of the article. The user added a section called Accidents and Incidents which details a list of occurrences at Old Buckenham Airport. No such similar section exists at other small airfields similar to Old Buckenham. Further, none of the reports cited infer at all that the accident or incident was as a result of the airfield's wrong doing, infrastructure or otherwise. When read, however, it appears that this section was deliberately designed to give the impression that Old Buckenham is unsafe, when that has not been found to be the case in any of the cited incidents. I have tried dialogue using their talk page, but no response has been given. It appears that this account has solely been set up to create this misleading section and edits to remove or change the section are undone by PrioryFlyer with no discourse. I believe that they are essentially attempting to use Wiki to benefit a rival organisation and therefore this is a COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 453rdenthusiast ( talk • contribs)
I have my doubts whether this editor is editing objectively. The article is full of primary sources affiliated with the subject, and seems to be rather fluffed up beyond what is really needed for an objective Wikipedia article. A "controversy" seems to have been manufactured out of thin air. What reliable third-party source has labelled this a "controversy"? Possible promotional intent? Skyerise ( talk) 16:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Self-apparent COI, in both name and in choice of articles to edit. Epeefleche ( talk) 22:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
TheDoctorsPR ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) A user called TheDoctorsPR has shown up at the article and other related BLPs. It definitely goes against WP:ORGNAME, but what's the best course of action in cases like this? Kingofaces43 ( talk) 19:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I have a few suggestions for edits to Dow Corning, which I've shared in a Talk page post. In addition to suggesting that one sentence be removed or reworded, I have citations for some unreferenced information currently in the article and suggestions for a few other basic facts to add. I'm not making any edits myself because I have a COI; I work for a communications agency that represents Dow Corning. I'd be very grateful if someone could take a look and offer feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke ( talk) 19:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Adam Blitz: added his self-published blog post as a source to Charlie Hebdo shooting. Can an admin warn him about COI, and why general Wikipedia articles are not the place for self-published criticism of Wikipedia articles? -- Aronzak ( talk) 18:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Note - I'm concerned about the doxing of User:Zero Serenity by media outlet The Federalist - low quality journalists may try to antagonise wikipedia editors (WP:NOTHERE) to then dox them and make a "story" out of how they disagree with Wikipedia. -- Aronzak ( talk) 18:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Adam Blitz ( talk) 00:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Sirs User:Aronzak and John Nagle I received a response from Mr. Nagle. (Thank you). I have attempted to explain that the other shootings merit coverage within the body of the article, "Charlie Hebdo Shooting", at least a line to convey the context. Île-de-France subsection is not the parent but the child. Mr. Nagle is mistaken, I believe. And the shootings at the kosher supermarket of Porte de Vincennes do not appear visibly within the sub-heading or the main article. There is no reason to exclude these especially when there is reference to other incidents such as Dammartin en Goele. I have no particular interest to promote my blog on Wikipedia. What I am interested in is illustrating that the causation of these subsequent anti-Semitic killings by A Coulibaly is clearly missing in the "Charlie Hebdo Shooting" article. My focus is academic scrutiny - not "political ideology" as User Aronzak writes. I would appreciate some help with the editing process. Please would you be kind enough to assist? I can be contacted at adam.blitzATcolumnist.com Thank you. Adam Blitz ( talk) 01:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Examples with Diffs (there are 10+ edits like these):
Steve Hanke https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Steve_Hanke&diff=prev&oldid=646638513
Jean-Claude Bastos de Morais https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Jean-Claude_Bastos_de_Morais&diff=prev&oldid=646525739
Paul Judge https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Paul_Judge&diff=prev&oldid=646648079
User EditorialatOMFIF has been rapidly adding sentences about involvement with
OMFIF to Blp pages. Given the user name, this appears a clear conflict of interest. In any case these are unreferenced blp changes, and the username doesn't appear to comply with the
username policy. EditorialatOMFIF was warned by
AllyD on his/her talk page, but has not responded and has continued to make
OMFIF-related edits. Also, the existence and editing history of
OMFIFlondon (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) and
OMFIF (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) (blocked) show a pattern of behavior.
Dialectric (
talk)
15:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Q.leroy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a coi with respect to Lendico ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He appears to deny this, but given the WP:SPA status and a trivial Google search I think that stretches credulity. He reverted a pruning of spam on the article. I doubt he'll stop. Guy ( Help!) 23:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Two editors with conflicts [45] [46] have repeatedly pushed an advocacy PoV relying on original research to blank sourced statements and revert to a version tagged for puffery last July; wiping out nearly all edits since. The talk page hectoring pushing the Landmark PoV and destructive reversions have been and are unproductive in moving the article forward. • Astynax talk 20:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I will respond to this frivolous accusation in more detail tomorrow. For now, I will confine my comments to pointing out that my sole relationship with Landmark is as a sometime customer who took several of their courses some years ago, which is what you will see if you follow the link given above to my user page. This no more constitutes a conflict than the fact that I have at times owned Apple computers would give me a CoI in editing on the Apple Inc page. I gain no advantage of any kind by my editing of the Landmark page, and I have no interest other than seeing that it is balanced, accurate, and in compliance with Wikipedia policies.
I edited the Landmark article extensively in 2006-7 when it was under attack from advocates intent on preserving it as an attack piece, but over the last seven years I have averaged about eight edits a year (a minute proportion of my activity on Wikipedia), mostly reversions of clear vandalism. The two reverts I made today are only my second and third edits there since last September.
Astynax has made a determined effort to create an article which portrays an extreme viewpoint on the topic and resists any engagement with the normal Dispute Resolution Processes and ignores consensus when it does not fit with his agenda. Last October he initiated an Arbcom case against myself and two other editors, whose only shortcoming is that we do not share his extreme Point of View [47]. The Arbitrators made no findings of policy violations by any of us. I specifically asked them to settle the matter of whether I had a WP:COI and they made no such finding. That surely should be the end of the matter, but I have been continually harassed by Astynax and others ever since. DaveApter ( talk) 22:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I, like Dave Apter, will respond in more detail later but this is a baseless, ridiculous accusation. I am not an anonymous user, like my accuser, and have been open about my involvement with Landmark for ten years – I put it on my talk page and use my real name when editing, and it’s never been a problem. Also- the accusation of "repeated" changes- I posted my concerns on the talk page explicitly twice and asked for feedback, and then I made a single set of reverts to former accepted material. That does NOT represent "repeated" alterations.
Regarding any potential COI, I am editing this page solely on my own behalf and to improve the Wikipedia article. I have no stock in Landmark nor am I paid or recompensed by Landmark in any way. I have never have been paid or compensated by Landmark for my editing on Wikipedia. I also have not been active with Landmark for years.
Respectfully, Alex Jackl ( talk) 16:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you John Nagle. I feel like I accidentally stepped into a bear trap. Hopefully this will get the page top some stability. Alex Jackl ( talk) 20:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Self admitted here. That being said, I'm not up to date on the latest policies of paid contribution, so this may not be the correct venue. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Robhart9c is making substantial deletions of sourced material from this article. After first undo stated in edit summary [48] that he or she is "an employee of the subject." Has continued to make the edits and refused to discuss edits on talk page after two requests in edit summaries ( [49] and [50]) a COI template on his talk page [51], further discussion of the COI [52], and a level 3 disruptive editing warning with mention of the BRD procedure [53]. Meters ( talk) 22:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I just found this article and it seems to be almost entirely written by one user who only used the account to create the page. They did a really nice job too. Then another user who has the same first name as the page itself uploaded some pictures of the person who the page is supposedly about. As far as I know having two user accounts on Wikipedia and Wikicommons is not allowed but I also suspect it's not allowed to write an article about yourself (is the user "Craig mack378" is actually the same person as the person in the article). Anyway, this isn't my field of activity on Wikipedia so I simply wanted to bring this to the attention of more experienced editors who can decide if anything should be done about this. Thanks! Monopoly31121993 ( talk) 19:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, this is Craig Walendziak -- I did not write the article, but I did add the pictures. I did so for the sake of completeness, I did not think this was a conflict of interest.
Thanks,
Craig — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig mack378 ( talk • contribs) 15:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I am the drummer of Fear Tomorrow. Went to check Craig Mack's wiki page. Saw someone removed half the things? Craig Walendziak is a very popular musician in the hardcore scene. A lot of people know where Craig was born and his wife's name... I'm not sure why Jytdog is so confrontational? Thanks. Dilbert Grapes ( talk) 02:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
talk Hey I'm new here. I was in a band with him 15 years ago... that has long since disbanded. You are being very aggressive. You took a well written article and deleted half the content and replaced it poorly written sentences. Your edits were heavy handed. Those albums WERE verified in the post. (Check the discography links). You removed his whole education history? That seems weird. Many other people have their education listed. I'm just curious why you were so aggressive. And are still being aggressive. I'm not trying to be confrontational - just keeping an open source article enjoyable and accurate. Do you do this to every article? Dilbert Grapes ( talk) 03:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Article: Jason Dundas ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Users I suspect of conflict of interest:
OK, I have read the Jason Dundas article and it seems that these two users could be the subject of the article (it is on my watchlist). I'm just wondering if these users are actually allowed to edit the Jason Dundas article due to a conflict of interest. User:Jasonrobertdundas edited the article in April '14 (a bit old).
Here are the diffs: [55]- by User:Jasondundas [56]- by User:Jasonrobertdundas (for the record)
I highly suspect that the first diff by User:Jasondundas is conflict of interest as he has added links to his own Instagram pages etc. I have not reverted as I think it would be best for an administrator to decide. Thank you! TheCoffeeAddict talk| contribs 12:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The above mentioned user is removing content based on improving google results. Judging by the user name and the description in the removal, the user is an employee of the university removing information to avoid bad press for the school. This appears to be a clear COI violation. He was on the FBI most wanted list prior to his capture, and his background should not be excluded due to improving Google results. - Galatz ( talk) 21:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
There very clearly is a COI with Everfound (band). In addition to copyright issues raised at AN/I, his edits, focused on all things related to the band, demonstrate a lack of understanding or willingness to listen to policies:
JoeSperrazza ( talk) 12:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Was hoping to attract potential watchlisters and participants to the page in general and to this discussion in particular. The reason I brought it up here is because I have a disclosed COI with the man's former employer, Juniper Networks, having created this version of the article in a Bright Line(ish) format with @ FreeRangeFrog:. The other editor, Intchar*, has an editing pattern that very strongly suggests a non-disclosed COI. We seem unable to reach agreement on quite a few things spanning the inclusion of awards, unsourced patent claims, excluding products his team made that were unsuccessful, and so on. CorporateM ( Talk) 22:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Username says it all. Needs editing, review, and watching. I've tagged the article and the userpage (note - account has been closed down for username violation, but we can expect someone from there to come back. Jytdog ( talk) 15:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I note that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies there are several questions about COI issues. This is a WikiProject which is getting several posts a month, so is more popular than most. I stopped in there because my student in the Wikipedia Education Program went there. I responded to a couple of old queries but there are several there asking for help with COI. Is there a template response which anyone here routinely gives?
Also, if anyone is interested in watching these things, WikiProject Companies could use watchers. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
At least two registered accounts and some IP addresses from the Los Angeles area have been used to add information to a suspiciously small group of biographies, all of the biographies connected by the fact that the persons are being managed by an agency called THREEE, formerly Erik Eger Entertainment. The list of THREEE clients includes the following:
The following accounts and IPs are involved in promoting the above persons:
The account Markthree explicitly stated that "we manage kid harpoon". [66] When Markthree created the Robin Hannibal biography in 2013, it appeared to be a copy/paste job complete with old maintenance templates from 2010 and 2012, probably following a successful PROD. [67]
The IP editors show their hand when they add an external link to THREEE or Erik Eger Entertainment: [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75]
Various NPOV violations have been made including peacock prose to show the person in a better light. This person or management team has also reverted other editors in the effort to promote clients. For instance, Mayast and IPadPerson were reverted here and here to promote Kid Harpoon. Another reversion came here to promote Kid Harpoon against the judgement of My love is love.
I would like to see this person be restricted to just one account which acknowledges the conflict of interest. That way non-neutral additions can be managed better by uninvolved editors. Binksternet ( talk) 03:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Prod was removed from John Hill by the last-named IP above. I've sent it to AfD, with a rationale borrowed from Nagle. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 21:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Lastly, I see that a number of our pages have already been edited and have had a number of discographies deleted. I would hope that you understand that these pages are important for our clients and help potential artists and labels get an idea of what they have worked on. I maintain these pages not to promote our clients, but to make sure that the information listed is as up to date and correct. I work hard to make sure all pages are cited and credited properly. At the end of the day, deleting this information doesn't hurt our company specifically, but hurts the producers and writers who work tirelessly for these credits. And I don't think that is fair to take that away from them. Please reconsider. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Threee123 ( talk • contribs) 21:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
i try to stay out of music articles, but there is probably a username violation here, if anybody wants to go there. Jytdog ( talk) 00:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The Greta Berlin and Free Gaza Movement articles have been subject to advocacy in the past. The account Truegreta was indefinitely blocked after a discussion here. [76] The COI and was further discussed at an admin's talk page. [77]
A COI concern was addressed here regarding user:Tecspk@aol.com. [78]
It was again brought up with no comments:. [79]
The user name is the same as a publicly shared email address. Tecspk@aol.com is again removing content from the article.
I believe the account should be blocked due to evasion. The advocacy concerns are secondary. Cptnono ( talk) 00:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)