This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user apply to edit Yemen Civil War template map without mention sources or web news link with regard to the warning given (1). while ago he had been warned by Admin because of violation three revert rule & edit warring (2). i start discuss for dispute resolution on talk page (3) but he refused to answering. it's important note that not his first sabotage, this action is repeated over and over again by him. to see can refer to "contributions" section in his profile. right now that i'm typing this matters he reverted two edit without giving decisive reason. (4) please stop this saboteur. K!lluminati ( talk) 23:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
WP:OFFTOPIC - this is a board for resolving possible conflict of interests as defined in WP:COI |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
@ Jytdog: Hello. I demand an immediate sanction against the puppet socket for general behavior on the encyclopedia. For Warring he did with @ LightandDark2000:, where it distorts the meaning of Article to deny that to update the map with the advancing troops Hadi . Furthermore, I demand punishment for his personal attacks, defamation that are calling me a vandal, saboteur and fanatical pro Hadi . Panam2014 ( talk) 09:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
The bio just plain needs more eyes on it from objective editors, since its content and tone appear to have been controlled, for a very long time, by the subject. The giveaway this morning is the flowery opening, but more issues may reside within. Thanks. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 13:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
The above editor has the following on their user page, "I work as manager of the GII, Global Innovation Index. My intention is to help improve and contribute to the GII and GII-related articles on Wikipedia in a neutral and accurate manner. I have taken note of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in particular of these relating to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Verifiability." and is heavily editing the article of their employer. Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 09:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
All editing promotionally around Shaun Bonétt and his Precision Group.
A parallel sock puppet investigation is being created for some of these accounts. duffbeerforme ( talk) 07:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
updated with SPI findings so far Jytdog ( talk) 01:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Edits are autobiographical or made on behalf of associated Belgian film and art projects and colleagues. The articles created by the editor require oversight from objective contributors to address promotional and/or unsourced content. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 15:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Article Arkady Shilkloper is being edited by user Arkady Shilkloper. Tayste ( edits) 23:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Morgan Berry and Danielle McRae, both with Funimation, showed up the same day and made articles about themselves. Now that both are up for deletion, two more accounts have popped up, Otaku.Unknown and TheOtakuClub, whose only edits are related to Morgan Berry. It seems a clear case of meatpuppetry at best. 206.41.25.114 ( talk) 14:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Looks like COI per User_talk:Glaurie#TearSolutions Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Editors who have admitted to being connected to the website are constantly reverting any criticism of the company, even when references are provided. Same editors are adding promotional content to the article. To be honest, I'm not even sure the website meets the notability requirements for inclusion, as outside of the ~3 articles referenced, there's not been any additional coverage in the years since it launched. Even the 3 references are weak, in that they're brief reviews of a newly launched website. Elaenia ( talk) 02:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Additional details available on Talk:Karma (WISP), but the gist is that an employee, along with a few IPs, are whitewashing the article by removing any criticism, even when properly cited. In its place, the connected editors are inserting promotional material. If you check the page's history, you'll see a long history of attempted removals of properly cited criticism and attempts to add content of a promotional nature to the article. Elaenia ( talk) 03:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Another article on a Rocket Internet subsidiary in the online coupon business. It looks like promo or nn for various reasons: Created and expanded in the last few days by SPAs. An section called The Swedish Housing Shortage concerns a dubious connection to refugees in Europe, and provides a quarter of the sourcing. The rest of the sources discuss routine startup funding, purchase of another nn company for undisclosed sum, and a self-cited factsheet. Brianhe ( talk) 02:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Cube b3 has two levels of conflict of interest. First is around his position as editor in chief for Dreamcast-Scene and has a blog Age-Media. This directly connects him to Redspotgames, Senile Team, NeoGeo Development Team, The GOAT Store and their products, as well as the use of Dreamcast-Scene as a source. See also User:Cube b3/sandbox/sg for a draft on a book where he (Bilal Zia) is the "external promo writer" (for those with admin tools, see the previous Dreamcast-Scene which if I recall correctly contained a de facto article for redspotgames after it's salting. (similar to the defacto article for Dreamcast-Scene currently in RedSpotGames)) See also the admission of bad faithed bypassing of salt at Talk:RedSpotGames [23].
Other more concerning side is what appears to be a clear case of undisclosed paid editing.
Treasure Data and Fluentd. Two adverts currently at afd.
Created Seller disclosure statement [24] to linkspam for KW San Antonio along with a promotional edit to Keller Williams Realty for KW San Antonio [25].
Cielo24. Promotional article with misreprented sourcing an unsource promo such as "Cielo24 has been positively received for its compliance to American Disability Act section 504 and 508"
BizBroker24. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BizBroker24. If User:Cube b3/ducksauce is anything to go by this was a blatant advert cobbled together from copyright violating copy pastes from various press releases.
Venom: Truth in Journalism. deleted 3 times in under ten minutes as Unambiguous advertising or promotion.
UK2 Group. Nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK2 Group simply as "advertising" which is what is was. duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
That BizBroker page was not created by me I was involved in the AfD. Venom: Truth in Journalism. This is a superhero short film by the creator of The Punisher: Dirty Laundry. Both projects have received about the same media coverage. The Venom article is extremely important towards my history as a Wikipedian because prior to Venom I did not know what a sandbox was. I would create an article on Wikipedia directly and edit it over and over until I was done with it. I was extremely agitated that my page got deleted and almost left this platform all together. It has been many years but fortunately a nurturing Admin came and had a talk with me and taught me how to use Sandbox. I didn't bother with the Venom article again because frankly I watched the film and was like it would be cool if I can create the article before anyone else. I am surprised none of the Marvel fan community has created an article for it yet.-- Cube b3 ( talk) 18:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I am a committed Wikipedian, I have been on this platform for almost a decade. My biggest mistake is that I have not read the rules and I have not read a lot of other things. I do not have a good defense, what I have to say may make me look worse but it is hard to read all the policies or even the tutorials for that matter. This is how I have learned how to tag pages: /info/en/?search=User:Cube_b3/sandbox I have done everything here by trial and error and thanks to Duffbeerforme, I have spoken to a few admins hopefully some of them will guide me in the right direction towards the future.-- Cube b3 ( talk) 19:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
This is just a heads-up. The Guardian reports the existence of "Russian Wikipedia trolls." [33] Seeing any suspicious edits to articles related to Latvia and Ukraine? John Nagle ( talk) 18:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I skimmed the original Stratfor paper cited by The Guardian. What they call "Wikipedia Trolls" (p. 62) are copy/pasting info from our articles out of context to other forums. Stratfor did not say they were altering Wikipedia, but did name the Trolls from Olgino aka Internet Research Agency as actors. Brianhe ( talk) 06:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
From OnTheMarket Wikipedia entry restored after 'abusive' messages published by EstateAgentToday, which runs ads for OnTheMarket (OTM)
"Like most Wikipedia entries about businesses OTM’s entry is normally a straightforward promotional description of its service; the text includes a brief history of the portal and a list of its six founding agents."
My goodness!
ViAndre6 has made a single edit to Wikipedia - the OTM article in full. Can I call him an WP:SPA? I've removed the advertising material. Smallbones( smalltalk) 02:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
See related Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#punjabigrooves.com ( permlink). Spammimg across 80-odd articles. Brianhe ( talk) 11:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I've proposed several edits to the article for Tile, here — a few factual updates, additional citations and basic details. I have a COI and won't be editing directly, but I would really appreciate it if someone could take a look and provide feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke ( talk) 04:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but alarm bells always ring when an article springs fully formed from a brand new editor, complete with formatted references, verging on overkill, and an equally well-formatted infobox, complete with company logo. I have removed the promotional section "Recognition" filled with non-awards. But this article will need eyes. The company is notable, although probably not for the reasons it would like to be, as you can see from the "Lawsuit" section added by another editor. The financier Benjamin Wey is alleged to have been a major (undisclosed) stakeholder in the company, and since 10 September 2015 is under several Federal indictments for securities fraud, stock manipulation, money laundering, and his role in an alleged fraudulent scheme to profit from undisclosed, controlling ownership of this and several other companies. Needless to say, the original editor did not mention anything of that, despite enormous press coverage. To their credit, they did state that NASDAQ had suspended trading in the company in September 2015, albeit without giving the reason. Voceditenore ( talk) 17:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Voceditenore You're welcome. OK I will adhere to the guidelines. I am not paid for the article in any way whatsoever. Thank you. Santanu.baruah.cincinnati ( talk) 13:14, 11 March 2016 (EST)
Add:
User:Santanu.baruah.cincinnati do you know anything about that account and the IP address? I note you haven't disclosed your COI on the talk of the article yet, I've done part of it, and listed these other two, which I presume are your's or someone you know? Widefox; talk 01:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What it used to be like
What it was changed to by group of Muslims
-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 04:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Misconceptions2: is it OK if I close this case now? Brianhe ( talk) 13:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Discussion has been moved here: /info/en/?search=Talk:List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad#Controversial_Islamic_Article-90.25_of_page_wiped_out_by_Muslims.2C_possible_bias I have already invited a few people who have edited the article before to comment. So I would recommend there not be an edit war please.-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 06:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The user is an SPA on the article of the same name. Added copyvio material to the article from Jason Grave's internet site. No response to multiple attempts to discuss the COI, username, and COPYVIO situation on his talk page [35]. The article had been tagged for having been edited by a probable COI editor but the tag was removed by Jason Graves [36]. When the tag was restored it was immediately removed again by an IP (just 2 minutes after Jason Grave's last edit) [37]. After a two month break Jason Graves has returned to the article, removing the COI tag again [38] and copying more material that is already online elsewhere. I have not yet determined if this is material that was at one time in this article and was mirrored before being deleted here, or if this is another copyvio.
It seems very likely to me that this user is indeed Jason Graves and thus has a COI. It's also likely that he has edited this article recently using at least one IP. Note that the article was created in 2008 by another SPA, User:Jasongmusic, who granted permission via OTRS to use copyrighted material in the article. I contacted OTRS about this article and was told that the original ticket could not be applied to the new material added by Jason Graves.
So, either we have a COI editor who is aware of the permission issues but is choosing not to follow the correct procedure for granting permission this time, or less likely, we have a case of WP:IMPERSONATE. Meters ( talk) 03:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I just stubified it, and copied the laundrylists and other unsourced content to the Talk page. There is absolutely COI going on here, and the article was bloated via abuse as a personal, promotional webpage. I don't think there is anything left to do now. The User:Jason Graves account has not been used since Feb 4 per its contribs. Thanks again for bringing this here Meters - it was the right thing to do. Jytdog ( talk) 20:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Could you please engage with me to try and find solutions to these problems, in is not the case that I was contacted 'numerous times' it is infact myself that had trouble contacting the volunteers. I am approaching this with honesty and a desire to create a long term and accurate solution for the page. Jason Graves —Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On February 17, 2016, I began working on Draft:Sorcha Faal (which is far from complete) with the assistance of two longtime experienced editors (ref: Draft talk:Sorcha Faal) as I’m basically new to this entire process.
During my research I discovered that a previous article on this subject had been created here with it being nominated for deletion July 26, 2012 and resulting in no consensus reached on August 18, 2012. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorcha Faal
On April 3, 2013, this article again was nominated for deletion by David Gerard resulting in it being deleted on April 10, 2013. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorcha Faal (2nd nomination)
In reviewing editor Gerard, I then discovered that he was a trustee of the Rational Media Foundation [1] that hosts RationalWiki, which is a wiki that treats its subject matter in degrading, offensive and demeaning ways they call snarky point of view (SPOV), and which after the Sorcha Faal article had been deleted from Wikipedia, he was instrumental in creating and editing [2] in creating one [3] for RationalWiki.
In further researching Gerard’s Wikipedia to RationalWiki editing practices, I then discovered he had, likewise, done so too with David Icke and Alec Jones [4] [5] for RationalWiki.
With an apparent bias, and conflict of interest, being evidenced by editor Gerard towards anti-war, anti-government conspiracy type writers, whose articles here reflect a neutral point of view here, I then queried him, on March 10th, at both Talk:RationalWiki (section: Bias of this sites editor?) and his user talk page.
Gerard’s initial March 10th response to my Talk:RationalWiki query refered me back to a reply he wrote at Draft talk:Sorcha Faal (section: Deletion review: Request to unban Sorcha Faal article), but which he started with u wot m8 that refers to You Wot Mate used in arguments or before a fight which is spoke in a quick aggressive manner.
On March 12th, at 20:05, Jytdog created a new section on my User talk:Picomtn titled Your question stating that he saw my query at Gerard’s talk page: I saw your question here, and if you like I would be happy to try to answer it. Let me know here, just below, and I will reply here.
On March 13th, at 11:55, I replied to Jytdog from User talk:Picomtn explaining all of my concerns and giving to this editor, too, a substantial background.
On March 13th, at 17:32, Gerard deleted the section from his talk page where I had queried him, and to this very second has yet to adequately and/or substantially respond to the concerns I’ve raised.
However, while Gerard has gone silent, Jytdog, whom I believed was actually going to help me, instead launched into a series of personal and offensive attacks against me, the last being on March 14th, at 09:32, when after I informed him that I was bringing this issue here to be (hopefully) resolved, stated: You don't know what you are doing and now you even want to go to a drama board.. Its just foolish, and by now it is about your ego.
I am far from being an expert in such things, but is it possible that editors Gerard and Jytdog are the same entity? Or, are they associated in such a way that they work with each other? Am I wrong in questioning the strange disappearance of one, and then the other one suddenly appearing to attack me?
In clarification too, I freely admit how new I am to this entire process, while at the same time knowing that the two excellent editors who have been guiding me have proved the validity of many things here—including this process I’m now embarking on.
And in summation, this request is being submitted here due to my belief that a conflict of interest currently exists with editor Gerard (and possibly Jytdog) who has a close personal and/or business connection with articles and article topics he edits on both Wikipedia and RationalWiki. Respectfully submitted, and Thanks for listening. Picomtn ( talk) 11:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
References
Respectfully David Gerard, Your stating that the actual objection here appears to be that I am not a Sorcha Faal fan is neither rooted in fact nor intention, and which merely by your saying that it is doesn’t make it true, particularly when not evidenced by facts. You being baffled that conspiracy is the go-to hypothesis is, likewise, not rooted in fact as what I’ve posited is a logical assumption (though not necessarily true) based upon the observed facts. (e.g. smoke rises over the hill, assumption is that a fire is burning, but could be something else.) By the very definition of the word competitor (an organism that lives in competition with another), Wikipedia and RationalWiki do, in fact, compete—the first striving for NPV of subject matter, the second existing in ridicule. Also, this COI submission has nothing whatsoever to do with the Draft:Sorcha Faal article and by your implying that it does constitutes your use of a red herring. Thank you. Picomtn ( talk) 12:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, and again respectfully David Gerard, your statement that I wasn't a trustee of RMF in 2013 at the time of the deletion of Sorcha Faal can be described as disingenuous (not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does), if not an outright falsehood, as the facts prove that in 2010 you were one of the editors for the RationalWiki main history page [1], which for a site that describes itself as April 2007 The history of RationalWiki is shrouded in mystery at this point. [2] most certainly demands a more complete investigation. Thanks Picomtn ( talk) 12:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
References
Please note, and respectfully too David Gerard, your statement that there is no meaningful COI in editing another wiki is not supported by the facts outlined in Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide that says: Be transparent about your conflict of interest. Do not edit articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors. With RationalWiki being your organization, you did, in fact, edit it without disclosing your COI ((21:53, 27 April 2013 David Gerard (talk | contribs) [1])—not to mention the citied Wikipedia articles you edit and nominate for deletion, while at the same time editing them on your RationalWiki site. Thanks. Picomtn ( talk) 12:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi @ Brianhe: Succinctly stated here, by me, are the facts provable by the aforementioned evidence and links:
Your suggestion of editing harmony is not possible due to the personal attacks/threats made against me by both David Gerard and Jytdog, both of whom, when this query was first made, and as the cited evidence proves, clearly shows their combined effort to intimidate me without offering substantive corrections and/or advice. Thank you. Picomtn ( talk) 17:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog Your statement that I am in violation of about every behavioral policy and guideline we have is not supported any evidence you’ve provided to substantiate your claim. Also, I did not, nor does any evidence prove, that I decided something must be wrong and go hunting. In fact, the evidence proves that in my research I found a glaring COI and then notified the editor about it, to which he did not respond with facts supporting his/her position and, instead, engaged, along with you, in an intimidation onslaught against me. You are correct that in my query I titled the section "Bias of this sites editor"—but in your mentioning that here you failed to correctly cite this sections actual title that I wrote as being "Bias of this sites editor?"—and by your leaving out that question mark here you have attempted to change my original intent of questioning to one of accusation. (Shame on you.) Picomtn ( talk) 18:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi @ Jytdog: Your accusation that my actions and/or motivations are a "wrong-headed attempt to right the wrong that you perceive with regard to the AfD nomination" is neither supported by fact or any evidence, with it being, instead, another red herring. The true facts (and as the voluminous record at Draft:Sorcha Faal and Draft talk:Sorcha Faal proves) that I, in point of fact:
These are called facts, nothing more, nothing less. For your accusation to be true I would have, from day one, not done any of these things and would have immediately done what you claim I’m doing. (And again, shame on you.) Picomtn ( talk) 18:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi @ Jytdog: The definition of glaring is, highly obvious or conspicuous, which this COI issue is—and the number of times this rule has been broken is not relevant, once is enough. And I still find it interesting that you and Gerard are working in tandem, hope someone more experienced here can figure out why. Picomtn ( talk) 19:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi @ NatGertler: In your making the statement you've not shown he had any conflict on the edits he made, nor shown why the edits were problematic your are missing the central issue—which is so critical that, this past October, Wikipedia and Wikimedia filed a lawsuit about it as they were being specifically targeted by the NSA for surveillance. [1] Let me explain.
The specific targeting being done by the NSA against Wikipedia (and others) was detailed by Glen Greenwald using the secret documents provided to him by Edward Snowden that described the dirty trick tactics used by GCHQ’s previously secret unit, JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in utilizing extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction against their targets. [2]
Last year too, the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) [3] gave an intensive two-day series of presentations (which I attended) outlining these NSA dirty trick tactics against Wikipedia (and others) and how to spot them, specifically in identifying NSA sockpuppets (an online identity used for purposes of deception).
The specific targets the EEF noted for attack were almost all writers whose articles opposed the US government, war, etc., including Glen Beck, Alex Jones, David Icke and, yes, even the anonymous writer Draft:Sorcha Faal—who, you should note, is apparently so feared that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) used 10 of this writers reports in compiling their document of right-wing terrorism. [4]
Now as I’ve outlined here (and the other references to this submission I’ve included too) and in having the EFF’s knowledge of what to look for in spotting NSA tactics used by their sockpuppets against their targets, it took only about two weeks for me to discover the questionable/suspicious use of Wikipedia by David Gerard, that include:
His successful nomination for deletion of the Sorcha Faal article on Wikipedia, then editing on RationalWiki: Sorcha Faal is the alleged author of an ongoing series of "reports" published at WhatDoesItMean.com, whose work is of such quality that even other conspiracy nutters don't think much of it. [5] [6]
His editing on RationalWiki of David Icke: Wikipedia: David Icke is an English writer, public speaker and former professional footballer and sports broadcaster. He promotes conspiracy theories about global politics and has written extensively about them. RationalWiki David Icke is a human singularity of insanity best known for his reptoid conspiracy theory. [7] [8]
His editing on RationalWiki of Alex Jones: Wikipedia: Alex Jones is an American conspiracy theorist, radio show host, documentary filmmaker, and writer. RationalWiki: Alex Jones is a far right radio personality who never met a conspiracy theory he didn't like. [9] [10]
His editing on RationalWiki of Glen Beck: Wikipedia: Glenn Lee Beck is an American television personality and radio host, conservative political commentator, author, television network producer, filmmaker, and entrepreneur. RationalWiki: Glenn Beck, former rodeo clown and Fox News clown, is an American right-wing "commentator" and a high school graduate who got lucky. [11] [12]
Though none of this proves that Gerard (or his cohort Jytdog ) are NSA sockpuppets, operating on Wikipedia for the express purpose of destroying the reputation of their targets, the prima facie (first encounter or at first sight) evidence does deserve to be more closely examined by someone here with much greater experience, and expertise, than myself.
After all, if Wikipedia and Wikimedia believed this issue to so critical that they filed a lawsuit against the NSA, shouldn’t it be important to all of us too? By the way, their lawsuit was thrown out of court by the judge who said Wikipedia isn't widely read enough. [13]
I hope this has made you understand my concerns. Thanks.
References
- Picomtn ( talk) 07:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
This user has not edited for a couple of years, but everything in their history is promting the work of a single academic, Kuo-Chen Chou, including at least three complete articles on effects purportedly named after Chou: Chou's distorted key theory for peptide drugs ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Chou's invariance theorem ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Chou's pseudo amino acid composition ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (now a redirect).
This could really do with a knowledgeable editor reviewing with a view to cleanup. Guy ( Help!) 10:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Just recommend a warnng as to the purpose of WP. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
External link spamming by connected users. Judging by the page's history (and other editors' explanation on the talk page here and here, it's been a long standing issue going back at least 5 years. It appears the latest IP is connected due to the interest in links, but geolocation of the involved IPs is all over the place. See historical examples here, here, here, and here. There are several more incidents in the page history, so it looks like someone has a concerted effort to include commercial links which add nothing to the article and fall under WP:ELNO. Elaenia ( talk) 17:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Disaster_recovery#Insertion_of_spam_links - current talk page discussion started, although I question the usefulness because the same issue has been brought up a few times in the article's history and several other editors have already given good reasons for not including such promotional links when neutral resources exist. Elaenia ( talk) 18:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Posted to editor about possible COI then my rollback was reverted. While it's not certain that there is a COI the username is open to question. New image and deletion of text suggest promotion. Pjefts ( talk) 04:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
User has been repeatedly inserting material about Libby Schaaf (current mayor of Oakland) sourced to mayor's or city's own website, which other editors have repeatedly reverted due to WP:RS and WP:UNDUE concerns, as well as in some cases WP:COPYVIO. User was three weeks ago blocked for sock-puppeting (hence the second listed account), apparently to avoid WP:3RR sanctions, and four days ago received a 72 hour block for 3RR. User has now returned reinserting the exact same edits as before. Under their appeal of the sock block, user stated that they "work at the mayor's office". The only engagement that user has appeared to have made on the talk page is an IP request for permission to edit the page while it was in semi-protected mode; they've not engaged in a thread there that was started about their edits. They have perviously been notified on their talk page about both COI concerns and the need to engage on the Talk page. User is a pure WP:SPA, and seems WP:NOTHERE. An extended block seems appropriate, and given the user's history of sockpuppetry, the article could probably use semi-protection as well. Nat Gertler ( talk) 16:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I won't name the example, but I just came across an editor most of whose edits are pushing a particular brand in a desultory fashion and not doing it very well. What's a good way to let them know they've been spotted and ask them to cool it without appearing to call the wrath of Hell down on their heads? - David Gerard ( talk) 10:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
This is an interesting situation. I have gotten into a content dispute with Anupmehra at the subject article, which came to a head when they made this dif which is a clear violation of the NPOV policy - adding promotional (albeit well sourced) content that Stork's people use to market him, and removing critical content that is even better sourced. I opened a discussion with them on their talk page, in which they disclosed that they were responding to an OTRS ticket. People who work at OTRS do difficult and important work, but I have had experience, and I believe others have as well, of OTRS volunteers basically getting into a COI situation due to their interactions with the folks who raised concerns there, and becoming advocates at the article, instead of neutral editors. This is what I believe has happened here. The discussion at the both the article Talk page and the User's Talk page has become unworkable. I am not contesting the promotional content about Stork's degrees and honors (I would not add it, but it is well sourced and I cannot justify deleting it) but the deletion by Anupmehra of the critical content has no valid basis, in my view, and is driven by Anupmehra getting too close to the subject they started out trying to assist. They are claiming my adding it is WP:COATRACK. The content dispute is whether to include that, or not. I added it back here, and that is where this stands now, albeit with Anupmehra contesting it on the Talk page.
I am asking for the community to look at this, and determine whether Anupmehra has indeed become too close and lost neutrality and should declare a COI via contact at OTRS. In my view, their advocacy/COI is interfering with their judgement about NPOV (this is what COI/advocacy does, and folks are often not even aware of it) I am pinging guy who is one of the people who established OTRS and helped write BLP, to get his input, along with other folks who watch this board. Jytdog ( talk) 22:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Just wanted to add my opinion on this as someone who has also made some edits to the article and read the talk page/user page discussion/dispute. (I've never used this board before so apologies if I'm posting in the wrong place/not supposed to add my view here!) I think Jytdog has a good explanation for what has happened here. While I don't think Anupmehra has any personal connection with the subject, they are talking some things seemingly personally instead of engaging in productive discussion about the edits. Being part of the volunteer response team definitely could have triggered this. That said, they did initially bring up question/concerns about reverts on the article's talk page, appropriately. The content/edits did seem a bit biased and I'm not sure they warrant inclusion in the article, but as Jytdog said, it's not anything that's huge deal. The critical content in the article should definitely stay and I'm glad Jytdog added it back. Personally my recommendation is to continue the discussion on the talk page of the article- Anupmehra has been fine on there and open to discussion, the issue seems to be more of taking offense at the discussion being brought to their user page/this page. - KaJunl ( talk) 16:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
It was stated in the edit summaries that the articles' subjects are about the parents of this user. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 20:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
They state right on their userpage that they are "...the public affairs officer for the U.S. Pacific Command...
". (hence the username; "United States Pacific Command - Public Affairs Office"). This certainly should be reviewed by an editor or admin familiar with COI policy. I don't think they mean any harm, but they are making a lot of changes and adding significant content to that page, it would be a too bad if it was all for naught. Thanks. -
theWOLFchild 06:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I've been talking with Dcbennett2, a scientific writer who did a bunch of work in WP for the biotech company, Cellectis, whose editing was called to my attention by another editor. Dcbennett2 has been gracious and receptive in responding, and has been happy to learn about the ToU and our COI guideline. He's made a disclosure on his user page and I have tagged the Talk pages of the articles listed above. As I reviewed the history of the articles I bit, I saw that some of them had been edited by a "Cellectis" account from 2013-2015, and that even earlier, a different editor, Sofike68, had clearly been paid by Cellectis to work on these articles. I have listed the articles roughly in the order of the Dcbennett2's effect on them. There is no dispute here - the articles just need to be reviewed for NPOV and sourcing. Smartse has already done some of that work. Thanks! Jytdog ( talk) 04:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Username is apparently the name of a pair of music producers, ( also reported to WP:UAA). They are editing (apparently related) music articles, and also attempted to create a BLP(?) about the pair. - theWOLFchild 23:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Geckodan recently recreated an article GECKO MUSIC GROUP (speedy deleted once). I asked them if they are related to "Gecko Music Group" in any way, but they said that they are a "fan of Gecko" (see here [43]). I am not sure how to handle this although I have a strong suspicion of COI. In addition, try searching "Geckodan" along with "Gecko Music". If this is not COI, then possibly a username violation? -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 09:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
This user seems to have done substantial work on an article that appears to relate to himself. The user has also been warned about unrelated copyright issues in the past. Zell Faze ( talk) 13:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Could somebody take a look at the recent edits on this article by User:CFitzp and also the immediately preceding edits by an IP editor. The article already had a number of tags on it, and I see that {{ COI}} has now been added.
One issue appears to be a spat that evolved between her and Benjamin Kyle, an amnesiac whose identity was discovered by genetic genealogy. It appears that after initially giving Fitzpatrick full access to his genetic information, the relationship between the two soured, according to a Facebook post by Kyle, leading to him serving her with a cease and desist notice. Mention of this in the article was removed by the IP editor, then User:CFitzp removed the corresponding links from the External Links section with the edit summary "removed derogatory comments". It would be useful if somebody with more experience could look this over, and assess whether this is indeed WP:UNDUE for a WP:BLP and/or an inappropriate use of WP:PRIMARY material; or whether it is significant information in the context of the role in which she is presented as notable in the article, and so should remain.
A second issue appears to be the multiple additions of the term "Forensic Genealogy" to the article in this edit, a neologism which appears to have been created and to be promoted by Ms Fitzpatrick, use of which appears to be rather limited, outwith those closely associated with her.
I don't have time to pursue this myself in the next few days, and in any case I would rather this was taken up by somebody more experienced with the WP:BLP issues involved; but I would be grateful if somebody could take this in hand, and perhaps offer some mentoring to User:CFitzp in appropriate ways to handle perceived disproportionate or unfair material in such an article while remaining safely on the right side of the WP:COI minefield. Jheald ( talk) 22:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Discussion also notified at WT:WikiProject Human Genetic History, in section "Forensic Genealogy". Jheald ( talk) 23:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The Steve Hassan bio [ [45]] is not consistent with Wikipedia guidelines and policies regarding reliable sources and the treatment of self-published books. Wikipeida: No original research Claims based solely on a self-published online bio at a personal website is not a reliable source. Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion and Peacock claims. The Investigation of Korean-American Relations makes no mention of Steve Hassan testifying. It does source one sentence (p.319) [46] to his testimony before the New York City Tax Commission, Jan.5, 1977 as a "former member" not an expert. There is no evidence to support Hassan's claim regarding expert testimony and the official report contradicts that claim. There is also no independent support of Hassan's claim concerning his past position in the Unification Church. The Unification Church has officially denied Hassan's claim [47] [48]. Hassan's books are self-published and should be identified and treated as self-published books. Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 13:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
User has added long list of unsourced awards to listing; added multiple "official" pages to External Links and restored them when they were pared back to the recommended one. COI greeting has been left on talk page, COI tag raised on article page, but such editing continues. Nat Gertler ( talk) 17:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Please see post at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Media_attention_for_edit_conflicts_at_3D_printer_project. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I've traced edits by 82.110.75.2 to the PR firm Hudson Sandler Ltd who represents Reward Gateway. This is a clear conflict of interest.
They also represent Joules (clothing) as well as Bakkavör, similarly undisclosed conflicts of interests. Deku-shrub ( talk) 20:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I've relisting this from the archive as I'm uncertain what my next steps are r.e. action against the IP/organisation or review/revert of the edits made. Deku-shrub ( talk) 23:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Username "Erandrade" most likely refers to Ewerton R. Andrade, one of the authors of the Lyra2 key derivation function. To me it appears that the article is written in an excessively favorable tone, without attributing points of view or sufficiently citing secondary sources.
I have notified the user of conflict of interest guidelines, and there have been messages by other users, but Erandrade has not contacted anyone by talk pages. The sources cited in the article probably don't pass WP:GNG; the ones that do talk about Lyra2 are mostly papers co-authored by Andrade and mailing list posts. The only exception appears to be a thesis by Sascha Schmidt, which has one paragraph about Lyra2. I wasn't sure whether I should pursue AfD, hence I'm posting here to get some opinions. -- intgr [talk] 15:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the previous discussion [53] on this topic in June 2015, I'd just like to point out that there are still IPs spamming the same old McCallum references in articles, as recently as today [54]. See also 76.0.44.131, 184.6.91.52. Do we still want to pretend there's no COI here? Geogene ( talk) 19:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
From SPI:
Diffs for blanking/NPOV promo/COI on Donald Trump (over months):
Not sure if I'm doing this correctly here. My other account I can't recall the password to. No conflict of interest, just trying to do my part as a new member on someone who didn't have a page and needed one. :( 591J ( talk) 12:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
There's an edit war going on at the Diamond and Silk article, and the same edits keep being made by a single-purpose editor and an IP address, the latter of whom geolocates to North Carolina, where Diamond and Silk are from. I suspect a possible conflict of interest, especially given the promotional tone of the material that Saundra4you and the IP keep inserting. FiredanceThroughTheNight ( talk) 16:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
FiredanceThroughTheNight is removing my content and replacing it with his or hers. Don't remove my content and replace with a derogatory message. This is not fair to the users of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saundra4you ( talk • contribs) 16:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Neoeinstein added a paragraph to the article. For reasons laid out on the talk page, I think that paragraph should be either improved or removed. Due to my conflict of interest with the subject, I don’t want to attempt improving it myself, but I think that removing the paragraph (restoring the article to its previous state, except for this other edit) would be an edit with very little risk of me introducing bias (since I’m not really introducing anything new to the article). As there hasn’t been any response on the talk page by the author (who was pinged) or anyone else, I’d like to go ahead and remove the paragraph… but perhaps it would be better if someone else could first judge whether that removal would indeed be acceptable for me to do. Lucas Werkmeister ( talk) 15:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user apply to edit Yemen Civil War template map without mention sources or web news link with regard to the warning given (1). while ago he had been warned by Admin because of violation three revert rule & edit warring (2). i start discuss for dispute resolution on talk page (3) but he refused to answering. it's important note that not his first sabotage, this action is repeated over and over again by him. to see can refer to "contributions" section in his profile. right now that i'm typing this matters he reverted two edit without giving decisive reason. (4) please stop this saboteur. K!lluminati ( talk) 23:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
WP:OFFTOPIC - this is a board for resolving possible conflict of interests as defined in WP:COI |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
@ Jytdog: Hello. I demand an immediate sanction against the puppet socket for general behavior on the encyclopedia. For Warring he did with @ LightandDark2000:, where it distorts the meaning of Article to deny that to update the map with the advancing troops Hadi . Furthermore, I demand punishment for his personal attacks, defamation that are calling me a vandal, saboteur and fanatical pro Hadi . Panam2014 ( talk) 09:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
The bio just plain needs more eyes on it from objective editors, since its content and tone appear to have been controlled, for a very long time, by the subject. The giveaway this morning is the flowery opening, but more issues may reside within. Thanks. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 13:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
The above editor has the following on their user page, "I work as manager of the GII, Global Innovation Index. My intention is to help improve and contribute to the GII and GII-related articles on Wikipedia in a neutral and accurate manner. I have taken note of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in particular of these relating to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Verifiability." and is heavily editing the article of their employer. Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 09:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
All editing promotionally around Shaun Bonétt and his Precision Group.
A parallel sock puppet investigation is being created for some of these accounts. duffbeerforme ( talk) 07:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
updated with SPI findings so far Jytdog ( talk) 01:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Edits are autobiographical or made on behalf of associated Belgian film and art projects and colleagues. The articles created by the editor require oversight from objective contributors to address promotional and/or unsourced content. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 15:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Article Arkady Shilkloper is being edited by user Arkady Shilkloper. Tayste ( edits) 23:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Morgan Berry and Danielle McRae, both with Funimation, showed up the same day and made articles about themselves. Now that both are up for deletion, two more accounts have popped up, Otaku.Unknown and TheOtakuClub, whose only edits are related to Morgan Berry. It seems a clear case of meatpuppetry at best. 206.41.25.114 ( talk) 14:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Looks like COI per User_talk:Glaurie#TearSolutions Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Editors who have admitted to being connected to the website are constantly reverting any criticism of the company, even when references are provided. Same editors are adding promotional content to the article. To be honest, I'm not even sure the website meets the notability requirements for inclusion, as outside of the ~3 articles referenced, there's not been any additional coverage in the years since it launched. Even the 3 references are weak, in that they're brief reviews of a newly launched website. Elaenia ( talk) 02:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Additional details available on Talk:Karma (WISP), but the gist is that an employee, along with a few IPs, are whitewashing the article by removing any criticism, even when properly cited. In its place, the connected editors are inserting promotional material. If you check the page's history, you'll see a long history of attempted removals of properly cited criticism and attempts to add content of a promotional nature to the article. Elaenia ( talk) 03:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Another article on a Rocket Internet subsidiary in the online coupon business. It looks like promo or nn for various reasons: Created and expanded in the last few days by SPAs. An section called The Swedish Housing Shortage concerns a dubious connection to refugees in Europe, and provides a quarter of the sourcing. The rest of the sources discuss routine startup funding, purchase of another nn company for undisclosed sum, and a self-cited factsheet. Brianhe ( talk) 02:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Cube b3 has two levels of conflict of interest. First is around his position as editor in chief for Dreamcast-Scene and has a blog Age-Media. This directly connects him to Redspotgames, Senile Team, NeoGeo Development Team, The GOAT Store and their products, as well as the use of Dreamcast-Scene as a source. See also User:Cube b3/sandbox/sg for a draft on a book where he (Bilal Zia) is the "external promo writer" (for those with admin tools, see the previous Dreamcast-Scene which if I recall correctly contained a de facto article for redspotgames after it's salting. (similar to the defacto article for Dreamcast-Scene currently in RedSpotGames)) See also the admission of bad faithed bypassing of salt at Talk:RedSpotGames [23].
Other more concerning side is what appears to be a clear case of undisclosed paid editing.
Treasure Data and Fluentd. Two adverts currently at afd.
Created Seller disclosure statement [24] to linkspam for KW San Antonio along with a promotional edit to Keller Williams Realty for KW San Antonio [25].
Cielo24. Promotional article with misreprented sourcing an unsource promo such as "Cielo24 has been positively received for its compliance to American Disability Act section 504 and 508"
BizBroker24. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BizBroker24. If User:Cube b3/ducksauce is anything to go by this was a blatant advert cobbled together from copyright violating copy pastes from various press releases.
Venom: Truth in Journalism. deleted 3 times in under ten minutes as Unambiguous advertising or promotion.
UK2 Group. Nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK2 Group simply as "advertising" which is what is was. duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
That BizBroker page was not created by me I was involved in the AfD. Venom: Truth in Journalism. This is a superhero short film by the creator of The Punisher: Dirty Laundry. Both projects have received about the same media coverage. The Venom article is extremely important towards my history as a Wikipedian because prior to Venom I did not know what a sandbox was. I would create an article on Wikipedia directly and edit it over and over until I was done with it. I was extremely agitated that my page got deleted and almost left this platform all together. It has been many years but fortunately a nurturing Admin came and had a talk with me and taught me how to use Sandbox. I didn't bother with the Venom article again because frankly I watched the film and was like it would be cool if I can create the article before anyone else. I am surprised none of the Marvel fan community has created an article for it yet.-- Cube b3 ( talk) 18:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I am a committed Wikipedian, I have been on this platform for almost a decade. My biggest mistake is that I have not read the rules and I have not read a lot of other things. I do not have a good defense, what I have to say may make me look worse but it is hard to read all the policies or even the tutorials for that matter. This is how I have learned how to tag pages: /info/en/?search=User:Cube_b3/sandbox I have done everything here by trial and error and thanks to Duffbeerforme, I have spoken to a few admins hopefully some of them will guide me in the right direction towards the future.-- Cube b3 ( talk) 19:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
This is just a heads-up. The Guardian reports the existence of "Russian Wikipedia trolls." [33] Seeing any suspicious edits to articles related to Latvia and Ukraine? John Nagle ( talk) 18:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I skimmed the original Stratfor paper cited by The Guardian. What they call "Wikipedia Trolls" (p. 62) are copy/pasting info from our articles out of context to other forums. Stratfor did not say they were altering Wikipedia, but did name the Trolls from Olgino aka Internet Research Agency as actors. Brianhe ( talk) 06:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
From OnTheMarket Wikipedia entry restored after 'abusive' messages published by EstateAgentToday, which runs ads for OnTheMarket (OTM)
"Like most Wikipedia entries about businesses OTM’s entry is normally a straightforward promotional description of its service; the text includes a brief history of the portal and a list of its six founding agents."
My goodness!
ViAndre6 has made a single edit to Wikipedia - the OTM article in full. Can I call him an WP:SPA? I've removed the advertising material. Smallbones( smalltalk) 02:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
See related Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#punjabigrooves.com ( permlink). Spammimg across 80-odd articles. Brianhe ( talk) 11:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I've proposed several edits to the article for Tile, here — a few factual updates, additional citations and basic details. I have a COI and won't be editing directly, but I would really appreciate it if someone could take a look and provide feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke ( talk) 04:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but alarm bells always ring when an article springs fully formed from a brand new editor, complete with formatted references, verging on overkill, and an equally well-formatted infobox, complete with company logo. I have removed the promotional section "Recognition" filled with non-awards. But this article will need eyes. The company is notable, although probably not for the reasons it would like to be, as you can see from the "Lawsuit" section added by another editor. The financier Benjamin Wey is alleged to have been a major (undisclosed) stakeholder in the company, and since 10 September 2015 is under several Federal indictments for securities fraud, stock manipulation, money laundering, and his role in an alleged fraudulent scheme to profit from undisclosed, controlling ownership of this and several other companies. Needless to say, the original editor did not mention anything of that, despite enormous press coverage. To their credit, they did state that NASDAQ had suspended trading in the company in September 2015, albeit without giving the reason. Voceditenore ( talk) 17:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Voceditenore You're welcome. OK I will adhere to the guidelines. I am not paid for the article in any way whatsoever. Thank you. Santanu.baruah.cincinnati ( talk) 13:14, 11 March 2016 (EST)
Add:
User:Santanu.baruah.cincinnati do you know anything about that account and the IP address? I note you haven't disclosed your COI on the talk of the article yet, I've done part of it, and listed these other two, which I presume are your's or someone you know? Widefox; talk 01:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What it used to be like
What it was changed to by group of Muslims
-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 04:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Misconceptions2: is it OK if I close this case now? Brianhe ( talk) 13:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Discussion has been moved here: /info/en/?search=Talk:List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad#Controversial_Islamic_Article-90.25_of_page_wiped_out_by_Muslims.2C_possible_bias I have already invited a few people who have edited the article before to comment. So I would recommend there not be an edit war please.-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 06:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The user is an SPA on the article of the same name. Added copyvio material to the article from Jason Grave's internet site. No response to multiple attempts to discuss the COI, username, and COPYVIO situation on his talk page [35]. The article had been tagged for having been edited by a probable COI editor but the tag was removed by Jason Graves [36]. When the tag was restored it was immediately removed again by an IP (just 2 minutes after Jason Grave's last edit) [37]. After a two month break Jason Graves has returned to the article, removing the COI tag again [38] and copying more material that is already online elsewhere. I have not yet determined if this is material that was at one time in this article and was mirrored before being deleted here, or if this is another copyvio.
It seems very likely to me that this user is indeed Jason Graves and thus has a COI. It's also likely that he has edited this article recently using at least one IP. Note that the article was created in 2008 by another SPA, User:Jasongmusic, who granted permission via OTRS to use copyrighted material in the article. I contacted OTRS about this article and was told that the original ticket could not be applied to the new material added by Jason Graves.
So, either we have a COI editor who is aware of the permission issues but is choosing not to follow the correct procedure for granting permission this time, or less likely, we have a case of WP:IMPERSONATE. Meters ( talk) 03:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I just stubified it, and copied the laundrylists and other unsourced content to the Talk page. There is absolutely COI going on here, and the article was bloated via abuse as a personal, promotional webpage. I don't think there is anything left to do now. The User:Jason Graves account has not been used since Feb 4 per its contribs. Thanks again for bringing this here Meters - it was the right thing to do. Jytdog ( talk) 20:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Could you please engage with me to try and find solutions to these problems, in is not the case that I was contacted 'numerous times' it is infact myself that had trouble contacting the volunteers. I am approaching this with honesty and a desire to create a long term and accurate solution for the page. Jason Graves —Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On February 17, 2016, I began working on Draft:Sorcha Faal (which is far from complete) with the assistance of two longtime experienced editors (ref: Draft talk:Sorcha Faal) as I’m basically new to this entire process.
During my research I discovered that a previous article on this subject had been created here with it being nominated for deletion July 26, 2012 and resulting in no consensus reached on August 18, 2012. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorcha Faal
On April 3, 2013, this article again was nominated for deletion by David Gerard resulting in it being deleted on April 10, 2013. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorcha Faal (2nd nomination)
In reviewing editor Gerard, I then discovered that he was a trustee of the Rational Media Foundation [1] that hosts RationalWiki, which is a wiki that treats its subject matter in degrading, offensive and demeaning ways they call snarky point of view (SPOV), and which after the Sorcha Faal article had been deleted from Wikipedia, he was instrumental in creating and editing [2] in creating one [3] for RationalWiki.
In further researching Gerard’s Wikipedia to RationalWiki editing practices, I then discovered he had, likewise, done so too with David Icke and Alec Jones [4] [5] for RationalWiki.
With an apparent bias, and conflict of interest, being evidenced by editor Gerard towards anti-war, anti-government conspiracy type writers, whose articles here reflect a neutral point of view here, I then queried him, on March 10th, at both Talk:RationalWiki (section: Bias of this sites editor?) and his user talk page.
Gerard’s initial March 10th response to my Talk:RationalWiki query refered me back to a reply he wrote at Draft talk:Sorcha Faal (section: Deletion review: Request to unban Sorcha Faal article), but which he started with u wot m8 that refers to You Wot Mate used in arguments or before a fight which is spoke in a quick aggressive manner.
On March 12th, at 20:05, Jytdog created a new section on my User talk:Picomtn titled Your question stating that he saw my query at Gerard’s talk page: I saw your question here, and if you like I would be happy to try to answer it. Let me know here, just below, and I will reply here.
On March 13th, at 11:55, I replied to Jytdog from User talk:Picomtn explaining all of my concerns and giving to this editor, too, a substantial background.
On March 13th, at 17:32, Gerard deleted the section from his talk page where I had queried him, and to this very second has yet to adequately and/or substantially respond to the concerns I’ve raised.
However, while Gerard has gone silent, Jytdog, whom I believed was actually going to help me, instead launched into a series of personal and offensive attacks against me, the last being on March 14th, at 09:32, when after I informed him that I was bringing this issue here to be (hopefully) resolved, stated: You don't know what you are doing and now you even want to go to a drama board.. Its just foolish, and by now it is about your ego.
I am far from being an expert in such things, but is it possible that editors Gerard and Jytdog are the same entity? Or, are they associated in such a way that they work with each other? Am I wrong in questioning the strange disappearance of one, and then the other one suddenly appearing to attack me?
In clarification too, I freely admit how new I am to this entire process, while at the same time knowing that the two excellent editors who have been guiding me have proved the validity of many things here—including this process I’m now embarking on.
And in summation, this request is being submitted here due to my belief that a conflict of interest currently exists with editor Gerard (and possibly Jytdog) who has a close personal and/or business connection with articles and article topics he edits on both Wikipedia and RationalWiki. Respectfully submitted, and Thanks for listening. Picomtn ( talk) 11:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
References
Respectfully David Gerard, Your stating that the actual objection here appears to be that I am not a Sorcha Faal fan is neither rooted in fact nor intention, and which merely by your saying that it is doesn’t make it true, particularly when not evidenced by facts. You being baffled that conspiracy is the go-to hypothesis is, likewise, not rooted in fact as what I’ve posited is a logical assumption (though not necessarily true) based upon the observed facts. (e.g. smoke rises over the hill, assumption is that a fire is burning, but could be something else.) By the very definition of the word competitor (an organism that lives in competition with another), Wikipedia and RationalWiki do, in fact, compete—the first striving for NPV of subject matter, the second existing in ridicule. Also, this COI submission has nothing whatsoever to do with the Draft:Sorcha Faal article and by your implying that it does constitutes your use of a red herring. Thank you. Picomtn ( talk) 12:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, and again respectfully David Gerard, your statement that I wasn't a trustee of RMF in 2013 at the time of the deletion of Sorcha Faal can be described as disingenuous (not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does), if not an outright falsehood, as the facts prove that in 2010 you were one of the editors for the RationalWiki main history page [1], which for a site that describes itself as April 2007 The history of RationalWiki is shrouded in mystery at this point. [2] most certainly demands a more complete investigation. Thanks Picomtn ( talk) 12:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
References
Please note, and respectfully too David Gerard, your statement that there is no meaningful COI in editing another wiki is not supported by the facts outlined in Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide that says: Be transparent about your conflict of interest. Do not edit articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors. With RationalWiki being your organization, you did, in fact, edit it without disclosing your COI ((21:53, 27 April 2013 David Gerard (talk | contribs) [1])—not to mention the citied Wikipedia articles you edit and nominate for deletion, while at the same time editing them on your RationalWiki site. Thanks. Picomtn ( talk) 12:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi @ Brianhe: Succinctly stated here, by me, are the facts provable by the aforementioned evidence and links:
Your suggestion of editing harmony is not possible due to the personal attacks/threats made against me by both David Gerard and Jytdog, both of whom, when this query was first made, and as the cited evidence proves, clearly shows their combined effort to intimidate me without offering substantive corrections and/or advice. Thank you. Picomtn ( talk) 17:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog Your statement that I am in violation of about every behavioral policy and guideline we have is not supported any evidence you’ve provided to substantiate your claim. Also, I did not, nor does any evidence prove, that I decided something must be wrong and go hunting. In fact, the evidence proves that in my research I found a glaring COI and then notified the editor about it, to which he did not respond with facts supporting his/her position and, instead, engaged, along with you, in an intimidation onslaught against me. You are correct that in my query I titled the section "Bias of this sites editor"—but in your mentioning that here you failed to correctly cite this sections actual title that I wrote as being "Bias of this sites editor?"—and by your leaving out that question mark here you have attempted to change my original intent of questioning to one of accusation. (Shame on you.) Picomtn ( talk) 18:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi @ Jytdog: Your accusation that my actions and/or motivations are a "wrong-headed attempt to right the wrong that you perceive with regard to the AfD nomination" is neither supported by fact or any evidence, with it being, instead, another red herring. The true facts (and as the voluminous record at Draft:Sorcha Faal and Draft talk:Sorcha Faal proves) that I, in point of fact:
These are called facts, nothing more, nothing less. For your accusation to be true I would have, from day one, not done any of these things and would have immediately done what you claim I’m doing. (And again, shame on you.) Picomtn ( talk) 18:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi @ Jytdog: The definition of glaring is, highly obvious or conspicuous, which this COI issue is—and the number of times this rule has been broken is not relevant, once is enough. And I still find it interesting that you and Gerard are working in tandem, hope someone more experienced here can figure out why. Picomtn ( talk) 19:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi @ NatGertler: In your making the statement you've not shown he had any conflict on the edits he made, nor shown why the edits were problematic your are missing the central issue—which is so critical that, this past October, Wikipedia and Wikimedia filed a lawsuit about it as they were being specifically targeted by the NSA for surveillance. [1] Let me explain.
The specific targeting being done by the NSA against Wikipedia (and others) was detailed by Glen Greenwald using the secret documents provided to him by Edward Snowden that described the dirty trick tactics used by GCHQ’s previously secret unit, JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in utilizing extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction against their targets. [2]
Last year too, the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) [3] gave an intensive two-day series of presentations (which I attended) outlining these NSA dirty trick tactics against Wikipedia (and others) and how to spot them, specifically in identifying NSA sockpuppets (an online identity used for purposes of deception).
The specific targets the EEF noted for attack were almost all writers whose articles opposed the US government, war, etc., including Glen Beck, Alex Jones, David Icke and, yes, even the anonymous writer Draft:Sorcha Faal—who, you should note, is apparently so feared that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) used 10 of this writers reports in compiling their document of right-wing terrorism. [4]
Now as I’ve outlined here (and the other references to this submission I’ve included too) and in having the EFF’s knowledge of what to look for in spotting NSA tactics used by their sockpuppets against their targets, it took only about two weeks for me to discover the questionable/suspicious use of Wikipedia by David Gerard, that include:
His successful nomination for deletion of the Sorcha Faal article on Wikipedia, then editing on RationalWiki: Sorcha Faal is the alleged author of an ongoing series of "reports" published at WhatDoesItMean.com, whose work is of such quality that even other conspiracy nutters don't think much of it. [5] [6]
His editing on RationalWiki of David Icke: Wikipedia: David Icke is an English writer, public speaker and former professional footballer and sports broadcaster. He promotes conspiracy theories about global politics and has written extensively about them. RationalWiki David Icke is a human singularity of insanity best known for his reptoid conspiracy theory. [7] [8]
His editing on RationalWiki of Alex Jones: Wikipedia: Alex Jones is an American conspiracy theorist, radio show host, documentary filmmaker, and writer. RationalWiki: Alex Jones is a far right radio personality who never met a conspiracy theory he didn't like. [9] [10]
His editing on RationalWiki of Glen Beck: Wikipedia: Glenn Lee Beck is an American television personality and radio host, conservative political commentator, author, television network producer, filmmaker, and entrepreneur. RationalWiki: Glenn Beck, former rodeo clown and Fox News clown, is an American right-wing "commentator" and a high school graduate who got lucky. [11] [12]
Though none of this proves that Gerard (or his cohort Jytdog ) are NSA sockpuppets, operating on Wikipedia for the express purpose of destroying the reputation of their targets, the prima facie (first encounter or at first sight) evidence does deserve to be more closely examined by someone here with much greater experience, and expertise, than myself.
After all, if Wikipedia and Wikimedia believed this issue to so critical that they filed a lawsuit against the NSA, shouldn’t it be important to all of us too? By the way, their lawsuit was thrown out of court by the judge who said Wikipedia isn't widely read enough. [13]
I hope this has made you understand my concerns. Thanks.
References
- Picomtn ( talk) 07:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
This user has not edited for a couple of years, but everything in their history is promting the work of a single academic, Kuo-Chen Chou, including at least three complete articles on effects purportedly named after Chou: Chou's distorted key theory for peptide drugs ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Chou's invariance theorem ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Chou's pseudo amino acid composition ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (now a redirect).
This could really do with a knowledgeable editor reviewing with a view to cleanup. Guy ( Help!) 10:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Just recommend a warnng as to the purpose of WP. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
External link spamming by connected users. Judging by the page's history (and other editors' explanation on the talk page here and here, it's been a long standing issue going back at least 5 years. It appears the latest IP is connected due to the interest in links, but geolocation of the involved IPs is all over the place. See historical examples here, here, here, and here. There are several more incidents in the page history, so it looks like someone has a concerted effort to include commercial links which add nothing to the article and fall under WP:ELNO. Elaenia ( talk) 17:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Disaster_recovery#Insertion_of_spam_links - current talk page discussion started, although I question the usefulness because the same issue has been brought up a few times in the article's history and several other editors have already given good reasons for not including such promotional links when neutral resources exist. Elaenia ( talk) 18:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Posted to editor about possible COI then my rollback was reverted. While it's not certain that there is a COI the username is open to question. New image and deletion of text suggest promotion. Pjefts ( talk) 04:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
User has been repeatedly inserting material about Libby Schaaf (current mayor of Oakland) sourced to mayor's or city's own website, which other editors have repeatedly reverted due to WP:RS and WP:UNDUE concerns, as well as in some cases WP:COPYVIO. User was three weeks ago blocked for sock-puppeting (hence the second listed account), apparently to avoid WP:3RR sanctions, and four days ago received a 72 hour block for 3RR. User has now returned reinserting the exact same edits as before. Under their appeal of the sock block, user stated that they "work at the mayor's office". The only engagement that user has appeared to have made on the talk page is an IP request for permission to edit the page while it was in semi-protected mode; they've not engaged in a thread there that was started about their edits. They have perviously been notified on their talk page about both COI concerns and the need to engage on the Talk page. User is a pure WP:SPA, and seems WP:NOTHERE. An extended block seems appropriate, and given the user's history of sockpuppetry, the article could probably use semi-protection as well. Nat Gertler ( talk) 16:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I won't name the example, but I just came across an editor most of whose edits are pushing a particular brand in a desultory fashion and not doing it very well. What's a good way to let them know they've been spotted and ask them to cool it without appearing to call the wrath of Hell down on their heads? - David Gerard ( talk) 10:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
This is an interesting situation. I have gotten into a content dispute with Anupmehra at the subject article, which came to a head when they made this dif which is a clear violation of the NPOV policy - adding promotional (albeit well sourced) content that Stork's people use to market him, and removing critical content that is even better sourced. I opened a discussion with them on their talk page, in which they disclosed that they were responding to an OTRS ticket. People who work at OTRS do difficult and important work, but I have had experience, and I believe others have as well, of OTRS volunteers basically getting into a COI situation due to their interactions with the folks who raised concerns there, and becoming advocates at the article, instead of neutral editors. This is what I believe has happened here. The discussion at the both the article Talk page and the User's Talk page has become unworkable. I am not contesting the promotional content about Stork's degrees and honors (I would not add it, but it is well sourced and I cannot justify deleting it) but the deletion by Anupmehra of the critical content has no valid basis, in my view, and is driven by Anupmehra getting too close to the subject they started out trying to assist. They are claiming my adding it is WP:COATRACK. The content dispute is whether to include that, or not. I added it back here, and that is where this stands now, albeit with Anupmehra contesting it on the Talk page.
I am asking for the community to look at this, and determine whether Anupmehra has indeed become too close and lost neutrality and should declare a COI via contact at OTRS. In my view, their advocacy/COI is interfering with their judgement about NPOV (this is what COI/advocacy does, and folks are often not even aware of it) I am pinging guy who is one of the people who established OTRS and helped write BLP, to get his input, along with other folks who watch this board. Jytdog ( talk) 22:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Just wanted to add my opinion on this as someone who has also made some edits to the article and read the talk page/user page discussion/dispute. (I've never used this board before so apologies if I'm posting in the wrong place/not supposed to add my view here!) I think Jytdog has a good explanation for what has happened here. While I don't think Anupmehra has any personal connection with the subject, they are talking some things seemingly personally instead of engaging in productive discussion about the edits. Being part of the volunteer response team definitely could have triggered this. That said, they did initially bring up question/concerns about reverts on the article's talk page, appropriately. The content/edits did seem a bit biased and I'm not sure they warrant inclusion in the article, but as Jytdog said, it's not anything that's huge deal. The critical content in the article should definitely stay and I'm glad Jytdog added it back. Personally my recommendation is to continue the discussion on the talk page of the article- Anupmehra has been fine on there and open to discussion, the issue seems to be more of taking offense at the discussion being brought to their user page/this page. - KaJunl ( talk) 16:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
It was stated in the edit summaries that the articles' subjects are about the parents of this user. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 20:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
They state right on their userpage that they are "...the public affairs officer for the U.S. Pacific Command...
". (hence the username; "United States Pacific Command - Public Affairs Office"). This certainly should be reviewed by an editor or admin familiar with COI policy. I don't think they mean any harm, but they are making a lot of changes and adding significant content to that page, it would be a too bad if it was all for naught. Thanks. -
theWOLFchild 06:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I've been talking with Dcbennett2, a scientific writer who did a bunch of work in WP for the biotech company, Cellectis, whose editing was called to my attention by another editor. Dcbennett2 has been gracious and receptive in responding, and has been happy to learn about the ToU and our COI guideline. He's made a disclosure on his user page and I have tagged the Talk pages of the articles listed above. As I reviewed the history of the articles I bit, I saw that some of them had been edited by a "Cellectis" account from 2013-2015, and that even earlier, a different editor, Sofike68, had clearly been paid by Cellectis to work on these articles. I have listed the articles roughly in the order of the Dcbennett2's effect on them. There is no dispute here - the articles just need to be reviewed for NPOV and sourcing. Smartse has already done some of that work. Thanks! Jytdog ( talk) 04:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Username is apparently the name of a pair of music producers, ( also reported to WP:UAA). They are editing (apparently related) music articles, and also attempted to create a BLP(?) about the pair. - theWOLFchild 23:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Geckodan recently recreated an article GECKO MUSIC GROUP (speedy deleted once). I asked them if they are related to "Gecko Music Group" in any way, but they said that they are a "fan of Gecko" (see here [43]). I am not sure how to handle this although I have a strong suspicion of COI. In addition, try searching "Geckodan" along with "Gecko Music". If this is not COI, then possibly a username violation? -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 09:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
This user seems to have done substantial work on an article that appears to relate to himself. The user has also been warned about unrelated copyright issues in the past. Zell Faze ( talk) 13:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Could somebody take a look at the recent edits on this article by User:CFitzp and also the immediately preceding edits by an IP editor. The article already had a number of tags on it, and I see that {{ COI}} has now been added.
One issue appears to be a spat that evolved between her and Benjamin Kyle, an amnesiac whose identity was discovered by genetic genealogy. It appears that after initially giving Fitzpatrick full access to his genetic information, the relationship between the two soured, according to a Facebook post by Kyle, leading to him serving her with a cease and desist notice. Mention of this in the article was removed by the IP editor, then User:CFitzp removed the corresponding links from the External Links section with the edit summary "removed derogatory comments". It would be useful if somebody with more experience could look this over, and assess whether this is indeed WP:UNDUE for a WP:BLP and/or an inappropriate use of WP:PRIMARY material; or whether it is significant information in the context of the role in which she is presented as notable in the article, and so should remain.
A second issue appears to be the multiple additions of the term "Forensic Genealogy" to the article in this edit, a neologism which appears to have been created and to be promoted by Ms Fitzpatrick, use of which appears to be rather limited, outwith those closely associated with her.
I don't have time to pursue this myself in the next few days, and in any case I would rather this was taken up by somebody more experienced with the WP:BLP issues involved; but I would be grateful if somebody could take this in hand, and perhaps offer some mentoring to User:CFitzp in appropriate ways to handle perceived disproportionate or unfair material in such an article while remaining safely on the right side of the WP:COI minefield. Jheald ( talk) 22:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Discussion also notified at WT:WikiProject Human Genetic History, in section "Forensic Genealogy". Jheald ( talk) 23:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The Steve Hassan bio [ [45]] is not consistent with Wikipedia guidelines and policies regarding reliable sources and the treatment of self-published books. Wikipeida: No original research Claims based solely on a self-published online bio at a personal website is not a reliable source. Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion and Peacock claims. The Investigation of Korean-American Relations makes no mention of Steve Hassan testifying. It does source one sentence (p.319) [46] to his testimony before the New York City Tax Commission, Jan.5, 1977 as a "former member" not an expert. There is no evidence to support Hassan's claim regarding expert testimony and the official report contradicts that claim. There is also no independent support of Hassan's claim concerning his past position in the Unification Church. The Unification Church has officially denied Hassan's claim [47] [48]. Hassan's books are self-published and should be identified and treated as self-published books. Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 13:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
User has added long list of unsourced awards to listing; added multiple "official" pages to External Links and restored them when they were pared back to the recommended one. COI greeting has been left on talk page, COI tag raised on article page, but such editing continues. Nat Gertler ( talk) 17:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Please see post at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Media_attention_for_edit_conflicts_at_3D_printer_project. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I've traced edits by 82.110.75.2 to the PR firm Hudson Sandler Ltd who represents Reward Gateway. This is a clear conflict of interest.
They also represent Joules (clothing) as well as Bakkavör, similarly undisclosed conflicts of interests. Deku-shrub ( talk) 20:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I've relisting this from the archive as I'm uncertain what my next steps are r.e. action against the IP/organisation or review/revert of the edits made. Deku-shrub ( talk) 23:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Username "Erandrade" most likely refers to Ewerton R. Andrade, one of the authors of the Lyra2 key derivation function. To me it appears that the article is written in an excessively favorable tone, without attributing points of view or sufficiently citing secondary sources.
I have notified the user of conflict of interest guidelines, and there have been messages by other users, but Erandrade has not contacted anyone by talk pages. The sources cited in the article probably don't pass WP:GNG; the ones that do talk about Lyra2 are mostly papers co-authored by Andrade and mailing list posts. The only exception appears to be a thesis by Sascha Schmidt, which has one paragraph about Lyra2. I wasn't sure whether I should pursue AfD, hence I'm posting here to get some opinions. -- intgr [talk] 15:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the previous discussion [53] on this topic in June 2015, I'd just like to point out that there are still IPs spamming the same old McCallum references in articles, as recently as today [54]. See also 76.0.44.131, 184.6.91.52. Do we still want to pretend there's no COI here? Geogene ( talk) 19:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
From SPI:
Diffs for blanking/NPOV promo/COI on Donald Trump (over months):
Not sure if I'm doing this correctly here. My other account I can't recall the password to. No conflict of interest, just trying to do my part as a new member on someone who didn't have a page and needed one. :( 591J ( talk) 12:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
There's an edit war going on at the Diamond and Silk article, and the same edits keep being made by a single-purpose editor and an IP address, the latter of whom geolocates to North Carolina, where Diamond and Silk are from. I suspect a possible conflict of interest, especially given the promotional tone of the material that Saundra4you and the IP keep inserting. FiredanceThroughTheNight ( talk) 16:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
FiredanceThroughTheNight is removing my content and replacing it with his or hers. Don't remove my content and replace with a derogatory message. This is not fair to the users of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saundra4you ( talk • contribs) 16:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Neoeinstein added a paragraph to the article. For reasons laid out on the talk page, I think that paragraph should be either improved or removed. Due to my conflict of interest with the subject, I don’t want to attempt improving it myself, but I think that removing the paragraph (restoring the article to its previous state, except for this other edit) would be an edit with very little risk of me introducing bias (since I’m not really introducing anything new to the article). As there hasn’t been any response on the talk page by the author (who was pinged) or anyone else, I’d like to go ahead and remove the paragraph… but perhaps it would be better if someone else could first judge whether that removal would indeed be acceptable for me to do. Lucas Werkmeister ( talk) 15:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)