![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Two articles created by User:Infoiarm reference books by Alan Moran, who has a company called "Institute for Agile Risk Management (IARM)" . User denies a conflict of interest here User_talk:LaMona#10:21:34.2C_21_March_2016_review_of_submission_by_Infoiarm, (notified on their talk page on March 20) but does not explain the username. The articles are relatively NPOV, although both make mention of Alan Moran (and no other individual) in the opening text. LaMona ( talk) 18:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Infoiarm claims no COI as the articles do not refer to IARM or promote Moran (though authorship is cited). On point of fact other persons are also mentioned and cited in the articles and effort has been taken to create balanced and neutral content in spite of IARM own involvement in these fields. Some additional edits have been applied in light of recent discussions and a review of the articles to help improve them (e.g., recommend other changes or measures) would be very much appreciated.
Infoiarm ( talk) 09:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
The user is clearly affiliated with the publisher, and systematically drops book references into articles. The attempt to discuss this in WikiProject Spam was removed [5] instead of discussing with the commit message
This is nonsense: the additions contain no "important knowledge" but even are copied from the book (Edit by OnceAlpha: [7], book matches via Google and thus could violate the copyright). By any means, they also just reiterate what the article already says (and thus do not improve the article), but with a reference to a new book by this publisher (and thus are spam). We have at least 4 editors considering these additions to be worth reverting...
Given above commit message ("from some of our technical titles") this user and company appears to violate the Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and, of course, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. HelpUsStopSpam ( talk) 19:57, 30 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.
This article has been updated by only one unique content contributor umpteen times in over 3-4 months. Recent edits by MageLam over nearly 3-4 months are one-sided individual edits without any intermediate review by a qualified Wikipedia editor or administrator. Cuss words uttered by user include cow manure when her competence is questioned. Manner in which the article is being unilaterally edited by the user appears as intentional spamming over months. Linrx ( talk) 11:16, 5 April 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.
Per their contribs, this editor is 100% WP:SPA with regard to Alacris Theranostics. When I noticed that I reached out to them on March 30 to open a dialogue. They ignored that and kept editing the next day, so I followed up asking for a reply. They went away and came back today with more of the same, so I followed up with a last warning, sharper, and they have continued to refuse to respond but kept on adding content about Alacris.
Please indefinitely block this editor as being WP:NOTHERE, but rather here only to promote Alacris. They are ~probably~ a paid editor as well, and therefore are probably in violation of the ToU. Jytdog ( talk) 11:38, 4 April 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:Nthep's post at Signpost newsroom copied here verbatim.
See this thread at the Teahouse - Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#User:Uchu_RRFisher_and_an_apparent_requirement_for_applicants_to_be_in_Wikipedia - is the position being approached where being the subject of a WP article is necessary to be considered for an appointment? In this case the AIAA (presumably the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) commented on the fact that the applicant for a place on an advisory committee does not have a WP page about him whereas the other applicants do. Brianhe ( talk) 15:46, 3 April 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.
Unremarkable subject, seems to violate WP:NPOV. Username also indicates attempt to self promote . Music1201 ( talk) 17:47, 27 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.
FSillT seems like a decent enough person but they persist in editing the above page, of which they admit to being the organizer of. Is this kind of thing OK to let slide? User warned already but persists. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 04:43, 24 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 has been creating an autobiography since at least December 2012. His most recent edit was Feb. 15, 2016. He was warned about writing about himself in January, 2009 and about COI at that same time. I see no evidence of a reply. The article on himself is quite promotional (IMO). The article has been tagged for deletion but he has inserted his own works in other articles. LaMona ( talk) 01:58, 17 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.
Two news reports state that David Jolly's PR firm has been editing the article on him. He is a candidate for the US Senate in Florida. See Buzzfeed and The Hill. A staffer with a similar name has said s/he made edits to Jolly's page. They have only 2 edits, which look quite POV. They have disclosed in the Buzzfeed story.
I suppose there won't be further edits of this type from the staffer and suggest that if they make the required disclosure per WP:PAID that no further action be taken. But if there is no on-Wiki disclosure, then they should be formally banned. I've informed them on their talk page. Smallbones( smalltalk) 16:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into this matter,
— Cirt ( talk) 18:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The subject of the article is an MD, so the username Henryimillermd clearly seems to be the subject. The named account is a WP:SPA who has been active on this article since July 2014. No response to attempts to contact him on his talk page or to postings on the article's talk page. Continues to make contentious edits to the article, claiming in edit summaries that material is "inaccurate, defamatory and libelous". Note that in this edit summary [10] the user states "I made the statement" when referring to a quote made by Miller. Meters ( talk) 00:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
User דוקטורגלי promotes her book on these articles and others. Since she is an expert on these subjects, her contribution can be extremely valuable, but without referencing her own research. BrightRoundCircle ( talk) 20:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
The above comments ("barbaric", "blacklist", "vanity press" etc) are an insult to scholarship and to a scholar and scholar's books and papers. Please avoid insulting scholars and their papers and books. In light of the above comments I no longer wish to be an editor on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.8.204.55 ( talk • contribs)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a return of issues we had addressed previously, here at COIN that also involved a bunch of socks, dealt with in this SPI case, which resulted in all the Youth Time representatives being indeffed. (some of the socks had names like "Ytprograms" indicating they were part of the organization).
The group Youth Time has again turned their attention to Wikipedia. First Spaceludens made one edit, replacing our content about their mission with content from their website, with the edit note: "Replaced fake misson definition with the real one" which is all they have done so far. Getting their mission statement into WP was a point of concern for the sockfarm.
Then F aristocrat showed up with a re-write of the article, overwriting it here and then edit-warring that version in here and here. That content is sourced OK some, but also brings sources like their Facebook page and press releases. It also removed negative content and added specific positive content - same edits that the prior sock farm had made.
They stopped when I gave them notice of edit warring. They left this note on my Talk page saying: "yesterday one of their representatives asked me to edit this article for them and provided information to add."
I did the obvious thing to see if issues similar to last time are happening. I also opened a COI discussion with them at their talk page, here. They are replying, but are being combative and will not deal with the basic issues here, which is clear COI and perhaps more importantly, WP:PROXYING for the indefinitely blocked users. They have filed an ANI against me here, simultaneously with me filing this. (NB - now closed)
So I am bringing this to the community for discussion and action. Jytdog ( talk) 09:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC) (updated with ANI close Jytdog ( talk) 13:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC))
Brianhe ( talk I see no way of engaging Jytdog constructively as he/she simply undoes all of my edits without even indicating which information is incorrect or inappropriate. What is more Jytdog addressed my edits from the very start with comment "oh gosh they are back again". This is actually impolite of an editor. It's a pity you support such behaviour. Why should I try to engage with Jytdog after that? No, you are mistaken. I am not misleading you. My friend who is ambassador if YouthTime asked me for help as she is not acquainted with editing Wikipedia articles. I agreed to help her because I think this is a great movement for young people and more of them should know of such an organisation. So I am not acting on behalf of YouthTime, it just my social position! Hope you feel the difference. And also please keep in mind that you don't have a right to accuse me of working for YouthTime without providing any evidence. In fact, every person who writes an article on some topic has some interest towards the subject. For instance, if a person writes about United Nations, it clearly means this person has some particular interest towards this organisation. However, he is not necessary a part of this organisation. So please do not mislead the readers, making them think I am part of YouthTime. F aristocrat ( talk) 10:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I cannot find the point Jytdog cancelled my edition of the YT Movement mission, since he/she found any promotional interest there. The version of YT's mission he/she prosed sounds promotional too, but its not YT mission. This editor had not provided any prooflinks for that. Any mission sounds promotional, its quite normal. This is sad to observe such a case on the Wikipedia. Jytdog is making efforts to downgrade Wiki's public image. Hope the community can do something with this user because I don't see any purpose to continue fixing this page. Looks like any attempts to make the information more objective there will be worthless if Jytdog continue this process without explaining the reasons of his/her actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaceludens ( talk • contribs) 11:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog Love his/her comments)))) Not much sense in them, nor truth.
"replacing our content about their mission with content from their website, with the edit note: "Replaced fake misson definition with the real one"" - well, undoubtedly, Jytdog, who is failry familiar with YT movement, knows their missions better))) rofl))) and someone dares replacing his composition with the accurate information from official web-site, what a disgrace for such a respectable wiki-editor!
"That content is sourced OK some, but also brings sources like their Facebook page". - hey, Jytdog , stop lying! You either didn't look through carefully or, rather, you didn't want to look carefully. The only Facebook link goes to... Polaris station page! ( https://www.facebook.com/notes/polaris-station/enganging-young-people-worldwide-through-an-impactful-forum-youth-time-global-fo/778774128917211 ) Which is not a page belonging to YouthTime! It appears as if you're strongly willing to mislead people. Seems that the real idea behind Jytdog's words is "That content is sourced OK some, but I still don't want it to be included on WP".
"You should know that if you go into any article in Wikipedia and completely rewrite it as you did, you will be reverted". Oh, dear, Jytdog , you'd have been satisfied if I had added a sentence per edit?))) rather than adding the whole information altogether? Your argument is nearly ridiculous))) And, yeah, I've been on Wiki for a couple of time, and luckily I haven't encountered such... folks as you in the Russian version.
Brianhe "Your situation is more tenuous and you really should listen to the community rather than telling us about what we or you should or should not edit". - and surely this community is you) and the community's opinion is limited to yours))) in fact, if editing YT article is not for the first time, it means there are people who disagree with your opinion. And there are quite a lot of them, I'm afraid) This makes you the person who dictates us what "we or you should or should not edit".
All in all, I have one unpleasant impression about English Wiki. Some users including Jytdog and Brianhe force others to keep false and inaccurate information on pages for some unclear reasons. What is more, for some reason they prefer keeping ill-sourced negative information rather than approving very well-sourced information which does not contain much negative reception. So is this the true policy of Wikipedia? All negative information no matter how false it is is a priori true for the editors of Wiki, whereas the information which is true and positive is regarded false compared to the above mentioned. I really hope this has no political context here and no intention of discrediting the YT movement.
Spaceludens, totally agree with you. F aristocrat ( talk) 19:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Guy wonderful pseudo-free WP democracy))) or rather lack of her))) I'm afraid YT will have to submit this topic to public discussion and will make an announcement on Facebook and other social networks about bias and distribution of false information on Wikipedia considering a reputable international organisation. Sorry, guys, it was your choice) F aristocrat ( talk) 08:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
<REDACT>
Guy You don't really understand the essence of promotion. Having a page on Wiki with minor content is ALREADY promotion. Than you should delete all organisation articles. Believe it or not, no matter what you do, WIkipedia has been, remains and will be a tool of promotion. Unless you remove it from search engines results of course. Even having a link to any organisation's official web-site on Wiki increases this web-site's TIC which in its turn puts the web-site closer to the beginning in search results. Hope you knew that) Than do what? Delete all links from wikipedia? I also see that you choose a different way: contrary to promoting you undermine this organisation and do not allow anyone making information on them more objective, right? And once again I remind you that conscious distribution of false and dishonouring information is against law. You may block me as you wish and refuse to deal with it, but keep in mind that outside Wikipedia there are different laws in authority. It's kind of strange that my comments are being deleted whereas I'm being threatened with block for raising to the bait and speaking out loud about this outrages situation. You may rely on your rules when you speak about inner Wiki subjects, but when your public activity involves other events, personalities, organisation, forcing people to disapprove silently and bear with false information on them is illegal and is prosecuted by law. This MUST be made public. F aristocrat ( talk) 07:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Guy , rofl))) If you haven't spotted, my account is not recently registered, well, of course, not 10 years ago, and Youth Time was not my first contribution))) you shouldn't claim facts that you haven't checked, it turns against you) It's strange that you being an admin did not examine my other contributions))) Brianhe you're welcome to report me as much as you want :) outside Wiki your reports are of no practical use) actually even here the only thing you can is block and collectively hate me :D such a loss for me, I'm gonna weep and sob for days and nights :D F aristocrat ( talk) 08:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Guy , the fact that you are not familiar with Lamanova's creations, doesn't make her obscure, so once again, please, check information before making any claims. I came her in the first place to contribute to article on Lamanova, initially on Russian Wiki, eventually - on English and French. And not to trick you and wiki restrictions. F aristocrat ( talk) 11:04, 14 April 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.
Kenosplit ( talk · contribs), a new WP:SPA editor, works at Machine Zone (MZ). See my talk page for the editor's disclosure, and see Talk:Machine Zone for recent discussion with Kenosplit about promotional edits to the article. Kenosplit has been pleasant and civil in all discussions, and has expressed a willingness to work collaboratively on improvements to the article. Kenosplit has also continued to edit the article, disregarding notices placed on Talk:Machine Zone and the links to guidelines (e.g., WP:PUBLICITY) linked there and also on the COI editor's talk page.
Kenosplit began editing on the same day that Machine Zone rebranded itself as "MZ" and launched a new service. Consistent with the company's new emphasis, Kenosplit appears to be working to shift the article's current NPOV away from MZ's mobile games to its real-time computing software, and specifically to the newly announced platform as a service called RTplatform. The product launch obtained some industry press coverage, but it has not achieved anything like the notability of MZ's games – for example, the RTplatform service is presently "available by invitation only", and has not been advertised to the public. There are no independent third-party reviews of the RTplatform product. There is no evidence that MZ obtains any significant share of its revenue from licensing RTplatform. So far, all third-party sources have based their stories on MZ's publicity: a press release, and interviews with MZ's CEO.
Kenosplit's most recent edits to the lead paragraph appear to be intended to minimize the importance of the company's gaming products, which are heavily advertised (e.g., during Super Bowl 50) and which are the entire reason for Machine Zone's notability, in favor of emphasizing the company's most recent product announced one week ago, and in favor of MZ's desire to market or promote itself as a real-time computing platform company rather than as a mobile gaming company. I believe the edit by a declared COI editor does not meet the requirements of the Conflict of Interest guideline. Lwarrenwiki ( talk) 22:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC), rev. 22:07, 12 April 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.
I am posting this since it could possibly be an attempt to promote a certain managed DNS provided named "NS1". NS1 is a startup which managed to get funding in 2015. I was twice reverted [14], [15] when I attempted to remove it from the List of managed DNS providers. It seems the IP 68.132.230.51 was also attempting to place information about NS1 at the same article. Could someone else have a look and determine if there is a COI issue? Lemongirl942 ( talk) 15:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I did some cleanup on this article created by a sometimes-declared paid editor, now blocked. It was probably undisclosed paid editing in this case (see COIN archive). More cu is probably needed. The sourcing to trade magazines is especially qestionable, in some cases verbatim or very lightly edited corp press releases. In at least one case I removed stuff that was credited to publisher Wireless Daily News but linked to corp press room. The article still has very promo "awards" and "services" sections. – Brianhe ( talk) 08:16, 5 April 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.
First off: I myself have a conflict of interest with topics regarding CAcert.org, as declared on my userpage.
I believe that Neoeinstein ( talk · contribs) is a member of the CAcert community (though, naturally, I shall not disclose their name without permission). They have also edited the CAcert.org article without disclosing this. I asked for the edit to be improved or reverted a few weeks ago, and after Neoeinstein didn’t respond, I asked COIN for guidance, where Roxy the dog very kindly helped me out and reverted the edit – see the section #CAcert.org above (not yet archived as of this writing). Back then, I had no information on Neoeinstein’s identity, so I did not know that a conflict of interest existed.
How should I proceed now? Should I send an email to the CAcert community member and ask whether they control the Wikipedia account Neoeinstein? Lucas Werkmeister ( talk) 16:29, 10 April 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.
Hi, I work for a communications firm that represents NetApp, and I've proposed some updates to the article on its Talk page, here. This includes major revamping of two sections (including the lead, which is currently flagged as inadequate) and some other minor factual updates—all itemized and formatted for review and straightforward implementation. Due to my COI, I won't be editing the article directly, and I would greatly appreciate any help or feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke ( talk) 03:18, 13 April 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.
Hello,
Any help would be appreciated in helping to edit this page, which is currently an orphaned, stub article with low quality citations. The information on low-iron glass is incomplete and the name “Starfire” glass is a trademark violation of Starphire low-iron glass from PPG. Should it be considered for deletion for any of those reasons?
If the editing community feels that the topic does meet a Notability Requirement, reorganization may help improve the quality of article—perhaps it could merge into a new page titled Low-iron glass or a section on the Glass page to provide more complete information to the general public. Low-iron Starphire glass (or, Starfire, as it is inaccurately labeled on this page), has numerous applications aside from aquariums. In fact, the world’s first low-iron formulation of glass was used by Frank Lloyd Wright at his famous masterpiece, Fallingwater.
As a PR representative of PPG, I am declaring COI and will remain transparent and forthcoming while providing objective, verifiable, and reliable content throughout this process. For more information on my COI, please visit my user page and feel free to post to my Talk page.
Some detail on this COI: In 1991, PPG trademarked Starphire glass, an ultra-clear low-iron glass formulation that was based on the aforementioned formulation of glass used by Wright. Since then, numerous manufacturers and distributors of low-iron/high clarity glasses have co-opted the trademark by changing the spelling of Starphire to “Starfire.” I have hyperlinked to some third-party news sources above. Bkorman PG ( talk) 18:15, 13 April 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.
It seems like an attempt by a certain "LYYF Visual Art Center" to promote an artist. They had earlier created the article Huawei Tang which was speedy deleted twice. Later they created Tang Huawei. I tried to ask Lyyf2015 about a COI but got no response. I have sent Tang Huawei to AfD since I am not convinced about the notability. No action is required at the moment, but I am posting this just so that we have a record in case of any subsequent attempts. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 05:18, 14 April 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.
Andrew H. Zureick is one of the authors of the book What Every Science Student Should Know and User:Azureick5 was the creator and editor on the article. I took the article to AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/What_Every_Science_Student_Should_Know and notified Azureick5 of COI on 14 April after they commented on the AfD: User_talk:Science1guy1#Conflict_of_Interest. I pinged user again on the 16th. User changed their name to User:Science1guy1 (without a redirect) on April 16. User Science1guy1 then removed their own comment and my reply giving their username from the AfD discussion: diff. Warning was given on April 17: User_talk:Science1guy1#April_2016. The name change is listed as: (Céréales Killer moved page User talk:Azureick5 to User talk:Science1guy1 without leaving a redirect: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Azureick5" to "[[Special:CentralAuth/Science1guy1|Science...). Also note that Azureick5 was the creator of the Dartmouth_Undergraduate_Journal_of_Science article while an [added for clarification/correctness "while Andrew H. Zureick was an" ] editor there. Science1guy1 has removed the AfC discussion of that from their user talk page. It looks to me like this person is trying to hide COI evidence that it exists. LaMona ( talk) 15:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@ LaMona: I cleaned up my talk page because they are old notifications that I've read. I changed my username because it was too similar to the author's name for the book page and do not want to be associated. Please discontinue referring to my old username. Too many notifications. I'll discontinue editing on Wikipedia as you are very fixed on my account recently. -Science1guy1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science1guy1 ( talk • contribs) 16:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@ LaMona: Thank you for this explanation. I have declared my conflict of interest with the article on both the AfD talk page and the article's talk page, and will continue to work within the policies of Wikipedia, but will refrain from editing that page specifically going forward. -Science1guy1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science1guy1 ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Since this is resolved and I have declared the COI on the book's Wiki page, can we delete this thread from here? -
Science1guy1 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Science1guy1 (
talk •
contribs) 21:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
~~~~
. Cheers -
Brianhe.public (
talk) 23:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I notified this user of COI (and autobiography) on March 3. The person has not replied but has resubmitted the article at AfC another 4 times. Two of those times I denied the draft solely with comments that the user has not replied to COI. Nada. Could someone else try to get this person's attention? Often this type of thing is a case of a new user not understanding the difference between a username and an article name, but it also is a near certainty that there is COI involved. Thanks. LaMona ( talk) 19:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Tabish q ( talk · contribs) is edit-warring on Afshar experiment to include a source that (COINcidentally) was written by Tabish Qureshi. I had earlier removed this source as unreliable as it was published by predatory publisher SCIRP, but I think the COI may be a higher priority than the RS issue. I'm going offline and anyway need to stop dealing with this or else I'd be edit-warring myself, but it might be worth the attention of someone here. And, since Qureshi appears to be a legitimate academic, please go gently — it would be much preferable to get him contributing constructively rather than driven away. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if this is exactly the right place. But I have some concerns about Ssa1990. Two edits prior to today, one of which was on Psychology of Women Quarterly (PWQ). Then user blows up today with ~20 edits. This begins with adding social media contact completely inappropriately to the PWQ article (e.g., "Find us on twitter"), and continues to do nothing but insert links to PWQ articles on more or less random pages.
Seems a lot like this is an employee or a paid editor for PWQ, using the PWQ article specifically and further reading sections on gender articles generally as a marketing platform. I suppose they may just be a huge fan, but even if that were the case, they are clearly editing with an agenda, and are likely WP:NOTHERE. Timothyjosephwood ( talk) 17:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Serious question: If I wanted to do search engine optimization for a site, and I sprinkled links to it all over WP. Even if all those edits were reverted, they still exist on the internet, on WP, even if it's not the live version. Would this still affect SEO in the sense that engines would see WP linking to my site over and over? Would the engine be "smart" enough to discount them because they weren't on the live version?
This is almost certainly not the place to ask this question, but it has interesting implications. If someone could point me to the appropriate forum, I would be very grateful. Timothyjosephwood ( talk) 23:48, 7 April 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.
Small stuff for this noticeboard. Usernames and edits made clearly show SPA for pointyism related to the username. Optakeover (U) (T) (C) 09:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi – I posted a while back on the talk page of Charles Saatchi with an edit request (see here) and linked through to my sandbox ( here) where I've marked up a version with some additions (including some more sources where those are lacking) as well as a couple of things I'm proposing to remove. I've summarised and explained those changes here on the sandbox talk page. If someone wouldn't mind taking a look that'd be very much appreciated. My COI is that I work at Bell Pottinger and Charles Saatchi is my client – see my user page for more info. Many thanks. HOgilvy ( talk) 10:04, 11 April 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.
Meisam tab edits in a very limited area. He has created the following articles:
I have tried to tag Meisam Tabatabaei with an autobio tag, but the editor fights this stating that it is not an autobio. The editor has a few other edits, mostly trying to recruit other editors to support his articles, or adding Meisam Tabatabaei to some lists. A look at the editor's contributions at the Farsi WP shows the same pattern there. I would appreciate some extra eyes here, as I am currently pretty busy in RL and cannot devote too much time to this. -- Randykitty ( talk) 16:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
But all advocates, working under a COI or not, tend to write poor content. They tend to put UNDUE weight on great things and say nothing about bad things or spin them away, they tend to use colorful language to really try to express how great X is; they tend to use no sources (just writing from what they know) or they use bad sources, like press releases. The writing of advocates and people with a COI is often indistinguishable. Bad, but indistinguishable. They also tend to resist feedback from other editors.
So here is what I see, and what the community generally asks in these situations:
I'll have one more thing to ask, but those are the most important ones. I look forward to hearing back from you. Jytdog ( talk) 18:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog, I would like to first thank you for taking the time to share your knowledge with me and for offering constructive instructions. Very encouraging indeed!
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.
Reluctantly reporting this here as it is already being discussed at ANI. It involves claims of autobiography by Wikipedia's most active editor. Brianhe ( talk) 10:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
By the standards of AfC I think DGG was correct to promote it. By the standards of AfD it very well may pass, but it also may not. While I don't think you should have been the one to write it I don't think there is a problem with a lack of neutral eyes on the article. Perhaps others may feel different but I don't think this needs attention from this noticeboard. I would say that any COI issue that existed is now in the past and the future concerns could be handled at the article talk page or if someone prefers AfD. HighInBC 14:31, 21 April 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's page clearly states that they are founder and CEO of Tranquility49 (a PR firm). Tranquility49's site lists Danielle Sheypuk as a client ( [19]). User created article on said client. I have questioned user's relationship with subjects user has contributed to in the past ( [20] [21]) but received no response whatsoever. User's edits often tend to read more like PR than encyclopedia article. User has been notified of this discussion (rather clumsily, I'm afraid - [22]). Just looking to clear this up. Fru1tbat ( talk) 02:13, 22 April 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.
There is no attempt at deception here: Hygge Media is the publisher of Rory O'Keeffe's new book. I have blocked the account and explained the username and COI rules. Two of the references supplied seem to me good enough to remove the BLP-prod, and the article is not grossly promotional; I invite eyes on it with a view to clean-up, and opinions on whether the subject meets WP:AUTHOR or whether the article should be sent to AfD. JohnCD ( talk) 20:09, 22 April 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:David Gerard appears to have a conflict of interest relating to crytpocurrency articles and is bullying other editors despite repeated warnings. User wrote this article http://newstechnica.com/2011/06/18/bitcoin-to-revolutionise-the-economy/ about Bitcoin and has shown up at ethereum edit warring, section blanking, and generally harassing editors (eg tagged a source from the New York Times, saying it was a bad source).
He has been the subject of the following issues over at the talk page
2. /info/en/?search=Talk:Ethereum#Many_bad_sources_being_added
3. /info/en/?search=Talk:Ethereum#BRD_on_recent_section_removal_by_D._Gerard
4. /info/en/?search=Talk:Ethereum#Request_for_administrator_review_Re:_editor_David_Gerard
As I was the editor who started some of the above discussions, I think it best I take a step back and see if this can be resolved through the COI process. I am a little confused as well, am I Bludgeoning the processing by bringing up these questions relating to another editor on the COI page? Thank you!
Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 09:59, 23 April 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.
The two users mentioned above seem to be in charge of maintiaining and reverting changes to the nauseating "ego-torial" article on Ramy El-Batrawi. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 21:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Last month I attempted mediation on this article where the editor has insisted on reverting it to a version he has deemed acceptable. Previous version were removed for copyright infringement. From a struck-out edit on 16 December 2010 by a possible sock User:Eldoradoclinton the content was referred to as 'this is the approved bio from j. Ralph'. Since then the editor has engaged in WP:OWN behaviour, as exemplified by this edit. Karst ( talk) 13:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Just putting this here so we have a record. Pretty obvious socking and paid editing - all stale now with the exception of one editor I am not going to list at this time. Neither listed editor shows up in a search at SPI Jytdog ( talk) 01:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The User:Loubna berrada has been trying to edit the article Loubna Berrada and claiming that it contains false information. Some sample edits [23] and [24]. Given the username, it could well be the subject of the article herself. However, there could also be small possibility that it is someone else impersonating her. It would be good if the article is put on a watchlist. I am currently looking for sources to verify the information. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 17:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Mboland.phideltatheta is an SPA that has been inserting unsourced edits in numerous biographical articles, all promoting Phi Delta Theta Fraternity. Mboland.phideltatheta has been warned both about adding unsourced promotional material and about conflicts of interest, to no avail. 32.218.34.78 ( talk) 01:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
"silly" comment
|
---|
|
The user who created this article stated that he works for them, how can this be handled? Laber□ T 16:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Every edit this user has made has added content about a website called myfundnow.com. They were warned about spamming by another user here on March 28. I asked them to disclose their COI and work with us here the same day and gave them a spam warning here the same day. They kept on and were given another spam warning by the 1st user later that day, and i followed up on the COI disclosure request yet later that day, as they were continuing; I warned them they were likely to be indefinitely blocked there for using WP for promotion.
They were warned again today by the first user for spamming again. Nonresponsive to COI management, and WP:NOTHERE. Please indef block this person. Jytdog ( talk) 17:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Here we have a bevy of SPA's devoted to adding and reverting long long long lists of commercial tenants, replete with a spam-farm of inline links, to this possible notable, possible not notable shopping mall/tourist area. Maybe Socks? Not sure. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 21:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Need help from the community in deciding whether to list the SPA author of this article. The article itself had many indicators of promotionalism (see this revision before I started cleanup), including a 2014 fake award from the so-called WorldRenownedExperts.com organization, which now has a dead website. Brianhe ( talk) 01:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Editor says here that he is placing content on behalf of a celebrity. He never responded to Joseph2302's January 2016 COI warning here. - Brianhe ( talk) 01:57, 17 April 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. |
Two articles created by User:Infoiarm reference books by Alan Moran, who has a company called "Institute for Agile Risk Management (IARM)" . User denies a conflict of interest here User_talk:LaMona#10:21:34.2C_21_March_2016_review_of_submission_by_Infoiarm, (notified on their talk page on March 20) but does not explain the username. The articles are relatively NPOV, although both make mention of Alan Moran (and no other individual) in the opening text. LaMona ( talk) 18:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Infoiarm claims no COI as the articles do not refer to IARM or promote Moran (though authorship is cited). On point of fact other persons are also mentioned and cited in the articles and effort has been taken to create balanced and neutral content in spite of IARM own involvement in these fields. Some additional edits have been applied in light of recent discussions and a review of the articles to help improve them (e.g., recommend other changes or measures) would be very much appreciated.
Infoiarm ( talk) 09:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
The user is clearly affiliated with the publisher, and systematically drops book references into articles. The attempt to discuss this in WikiProject Spam was removed [5] instead of discussing with the commit message
This is nonsense: the additions contain no "important knowledge" but even are copied from the book (Edit by OnceAlpha: [7], book matches via Google and thus could violate the copyright). By any means, they also just reiterate what the article already says (and thus do not improve the article), but with a reference to a new book by this publisher (and thus are spam). We have at least 4 editors considering these additions to be worth reverting...
Given above commit message ("from some of our technical titles") this user and company appears to violate the Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and, of course, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. HelpUsStopSpam ( talk) 19:57, 30 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.
This article has been updated by only one unique content contributor umpteen times in over 3-4 months. Recent edits by MageLam over nearly 3-4 months are one-sided individual edits without any intermediate review by a qualified Wikipedia editor or administrator. Cuss words uttered by user include cow manure when her competence is questioned. Manner in which the article is being unilaterally edited by the user appears as intentional spamming over months. Linrx ( talk) 11:16, 5 April 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.
Per their contribs, this editor is 100% WP:SPA with regard to Alacris Theranostics. When I noticed that I reached out to them on March 30 to open a dialogue. They ignored that and kept editing the next day, so I followed up asking for a reply. They went away and came back today with more of the same, so I followed up with a last warning, sharper, and they have continued to refuse to respond but kept on adding content about Alacris.
Please indefinitely block this editor as being WP:NOTHERE, but rather here only to promote Alacris. They are ~probably~ a paid editor as well, and therefore are probably in violation of the ToU. Jytdog ( talk) 11:38, 4 April 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:Nthep's post at Signpost newsroom copied here verbatim.
See this thread at the Teahouse - Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#User:Uchu_RRFisher_and_an_apparent_requirement_for_applicants_to_be_in_Wikipedia - is the position being approached where being the subject of a WP article is necessary to be considered for an appointment? In this case the AIAA (presumably the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) commented on the fact that the applicant for a place on an advisory committee does not have a WP page about him whereas the other applicants do. Brianhe ( talk) 15:46, 3 April 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.
Unremarkable subject, seems to violate WP:NPOV. Username also indicates attempt to self promote . Music1201 ( talk) 17:47, 27 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.
FSillT seems like a decent enough person but they persist in editing the above page, of which they admit to being the organizer of. Is this kind of thing OK to let slide? User warned already but persists. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 04:43, 24 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 has been creating an autobiography since at least December 2012. His most recent edit was Feb. 15, 2016. He was warned about writing about himself in January, 2009 and about COI at that same time. I see no evidence of a reply. The article on himself is quite promotional (IMO). The article has been tagged for deletion but he has inserted his own works in other articles. LaMona ( talk) 01:58, 17 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.
Two news reports state that David Jolly's PR firm has been editing the article on him. He is a candidate for the US Senate in Florida. See Buzzfeed and The Hill. A staffer with a similar name has said s/he made edits to Jolly's page. They have only 2 edits, which look quite POV. They have disclosed in the Buzzfeed story.
I suppose there won't be further edits of this type from the staffer and suggest that if they make the required disclosure per WP:PAID that no further action be taken. But if there is no on-Wiki disclosure, then they should be formally banned. I've informed them on their talk page. Smallbones( smalltalk) 16:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into this matter,
— Cirt ( talk) 18:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The subject of the article is an MD, so the username Henryimillermd clearly seems to be the subject. The named account is a WP:SPA who has been active on this article since July 2014. No response to attempts to contact him on his talk page or to postings on the article's talk page. Continues to make contentious edits to the article, claiming in edit summaries that material is "inaccurate, defamatory and libelous". Note that in this edit summary [10] the user states "I made the statement" when referring to a quote made by Miller. Meters ( talk) 00:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
User דוקטורגלי promotes her book on these articles and others. Since she is an expert on these subjects, her contribution can be extremely valuable, but without referencing her own research. BrightRoundCircle ( talk) 20:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
The above comments ("barbaric", "blacklist", "vanity press" etc) are an insult to scholarship and to a scholar and scholar's books and papers. Please avoid insulting scholars and their papers and books. In light of the above comments I no longer wish to be an editor on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.8.204.55 ( talk • contribs)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a return of issues we had addressed previously, here at COIN that also involved a bunch of socks, dealt with in this SPI case, which resulted in all the Youth Time representatives being indeffed. (some of the socks had names like "Ytprograms" indicating they were part of the organization).
The group Youth Time has again turned their attention to Wikipedia. First Spaceludens made one edit, replacing our content about their mission with content from their website, with the edit note: "Replaced fake misson definition with the real one" which is all they have done so far. Getting their mission statement into WP was a point of concern for the sockfarm.
Then F aristocrat showed up with a re-write of the article, overwriting it here and then edit-warring that version in here and here. That content is sourced OK some, but also brings sources like their Facebook page and press releases. It also removed negative content and added specific positive content - same edits that the prior sock farm had made.
They stopped when I gave them notice of edit warring. They left this note on my Talk page saying: "yesterday one of their representatives asked me to edit this article for them and provided information to add."
I did the obvious thing to see if issues similar to last time are happening. I also opened a COI discussion with them at their talk page, here. They are replying, but are being combative and will not deal with the basic issues here, which is clear COI and perhaps more importantly, WP:PROXYING for the indefinitely blocked users. They have filed an ANI against me here, simultaneously with me filing this. (NB - now closed)
So I am bringing this to the community for discussion and action. Jytdog ( talk) 09:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC) (updated with ANI close Jytdog ( talk) 13:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC))
Brianhe ( talk I see no way of engaging Jytdog constructively as he/she simply undoes all of my edits without even indicating which information is incorrect or inappropriate. What is more Jytdog addressed my edits from the very start with comment "oh gosh they are back again". This is actually impolite of an editor. It's a pity you support such behaviour. Why should I try to engage with Jytdog after that? No, you are mistaken. I am not misleading you. My friend who is ambassador if YouthTime asked me for help as she is not acquainted with editing Wikipedia articles. I agreed to help her because I think this is a great movement for young people and more of them should know of such an organisation. So I am not acting on behalf of YouthTime, it just my social position! Hope you feel the difference. And also please keep in mind that you don't have a right to accuse me of working for YouthTime without providing any evidence. In fact, every person who writes an article on some topic has some interest towards the subject. For instance, if a person writes about United Nations, it clearly means this person has some particular interest towards this organisation. However, he is not necessary a part of this organisation. So please do not mislead the readers, making them think I am part of YouthTime. F aristocrat ( talk) 10:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I cannot find the point Jytdog cancelled my edition of the YT Movement mission, since he/she found any promotional interest there. The version of YT's mission he/she prosed sounds promotional too, but its not YT mission. This editor had not provided any prooflinks for that. Any mission sounds promotional, its quite normal. This is sad to observe such a case on the Wikipedia. Jytdog is making efforts to downgrade Wiki's public image. Hope the community can do something with this user because I don't see any purpose to continue fixing this page. Looks like any attempts to make the information more objective there will be worthless if Jytdog continue this process without explaining the reasons of his/her actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaceludens ( talk • contribs) 11:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog Love his/her comments)))) Not much sense in them, nor truth.
"replacing our content about their mission with content from their website, with the edit note: "Replaced fake misson definition with the real one"" - well, undoubtedly, Jytdog, who is failry familiar with YT movement, knows their missions better))) rofl))) and someone dares replacing his composition with the accurate information from official web-site, what a disgrace for such a respectable wiki-editor!
"That content is sourced OK some, but also brings sources like their Facebook page". - hey, Jytdog , stop lying! You either didn't look through carefully or, rather, you didn't want to look carefully. The only Facebook link goes to... Polaris station page! ( https://www.facebook.com/notes/polaris-station/enganging-young-people-worldwide-through-an-impactful-forum-youth-time-global-fo/778774128917211 ) Which is not a page belonging to YouthTime! It appears as if you're strongly willing to mislead people. Seems that the real idea behind Jytdog's words is "That content is sourced OK some, but I still don't want it to be included on WP".
"You should know that if you go into any article in Wikipedia and completely rewrite it as you did, you will be reverted". Oh, dear, Jytdog , you'd have been satisfied if I had added a sentence per edit?))) rather than adding the whole information altogether? Your argument is nearly ridiculous))) And, yeah, I've been on Wiki for a couple of time, and luckily I haven't encountered such... folks as you in the Russian version.
Brianhe "Your situation is more tenuous and you really should listen to the community rather than telling us about what we or you should or should not edit". - and surely this community is you) and the community's opinion is limited to yours))) in fact, if editing YT article is not for the first time, it means there are people who disagree with your opinion. And there are quite a lot of them, I'm afraid) This makes you the person who dictates us what "we or you should or should not edit".
All in all, I have one unpleasant impression about English Wiki. Some users including Jytdog and Brianhe force others to keep false and inaccurate information on pages for some unclear reasons. What is more, for some reason they prefer keeping ill-sourced negative information rather than approving very well-sourced information which does not contain much negative reception. So is this the true policy of Wikipedia? All negative information no matter how false it is is a priori true for the editors of Wiki, whereas the information which is true and positive is regarded false compared to the above mentioned. I really hope this has no political context here and no intention of discrediting the YT movement.
Spaceludens, totally agree with you. F aristocrat ( talk) 19:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Guy wonderful pseudo-free WP democracy))) or rather lack of her))) I'm afraid YT will have to submit this topic to public discussion and will make an announcement on Facebook and other social networks about bias and distribution of false information on Wikipedia considering a reputable international organisation. Sorry, guys, it was your choice) F aristocrat ( talk) 08:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
<REDACT>
Guy You don't really understand the essence of promotion. Having a page on Wiki with minor content is ALREADY promotion. Than you should delete all organisation articles. Believe it or not, no matter what you do, WIkipedia has been, remains and will be a tool of promotion. Unless you remove it from search engines results of course. Even having a link to any organisation's official web-site on Wiki increases this web-site's TIC which in its turn puts the web-site closer to the beginning in search results. Hope you knew that) Than do what? Delete all links from wikipedia? I also see that you choose a different way: contrary to promoting you undermine this organisation and do not allow anyone making information on them more objective, right? And once again I remind you that conscious distribution of false and dishonouring information is against law. You may block me as you wish and refuse to deal with it, but keep in mind that outside Wikipedia there are different laws in authority. It's kind of strange that my comments are being deleted whereas I'm being threatened with block for raising to the bait and speaking out loud about this outrages situation. You may rely on your rules when you speak about inner Wiki subjects, but when your public activity involves other events, personalities, organisation, forcing people to disapprove silently and bear with false information on them is illegal and is prosecuted by law. This MUST be made public. F aristocrat ( talk) 07:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Guy , rofl))) If you haven't spotted, my account is not recently registered, well, of course, not 10 years ago, and Youth Time was not my first contribution))) you shouldn't claim facts that you haven't checked, it turns against you) It's strange that you being an admin did not examine my other contributions))) Brianhe you're welcome to report me as much as you want :) outside Wiki your reports are of no practical use) actually even here the only thing you can is block and collectively hate me :D such a loss for me, I'm gonna weep and sob for days and nights :D F aristocrat ( talk) 08:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Guy , the fact that you are not familiar with Lamanova's creations, doesn't make her obscure, so once again, please, check information before making any claims. I came her in the first place to contribute to article on Lamanova, initially on Russian Wiki, eventually - on English and French. And not to trick you and wiki restrictions. F aristocrat ( talk) 11:04, 14 April 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.
Kenosplit ( talk · contribs), a new WP:SPA editor, works at Machine Zone (MZ). See my talk page for the editor's disclosure, and see Talk:Machine Zone for recent discussion with Kenosplit about promotional edits to the article. Kenosplit has been pleasant and civil in all discussions, and has expressed a willingness to work collaboratively on improvements to the article. Kenosplit has also continued to edit the article, disregarding notices placed on Talk:Machine Zone and the links to guidelines (e.g., WP:PUBLICITY) linked there and also on the COI editor's talk page.
Kenosplit began editing on the same day that Machine Zone rebranded itself as "MZ" and launched a new service. Consistent with the company's new emphasis, Kenosplit appears to be working to shift the article's current NPOV away from MZ's mobile games to its real-time computing software, and specifically to the newly announced platform as a service called RTplatform. The product launch obtained some industry press coverage, but it has not achieved anything like the notability of MZ's games – for example, the RTplatform service is presently "available by invitation only", and has not been advertised to the public. There are no independent third-party reviews of the RTplatform product. There is no evidence that MZ obtains any significant share of its revenue from licensing RTplatform. So far, all third-party sources have based their stories on MZ's publicity: a press release, and interviews with MZ's CEO.
Kenosplit's most recent edits to the lead paragraph appear to be intended to minimize the importance of the company's gaming products, which are heavily advertised (e.g., during Super Bowl 50) and which are the entire reason for Machine Zone's notability, in favor of emphasizing the company's most recent product announced one week ago, and in favor of MZ's desire to market or promote itself as a real-time computing platform company rather than as a mobile gaming company. I believe the edit by a declared COI editor does not meet the requirements of the Conflict of Interest guideline. Lwarrenwiki ( talk) 22:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC), rev. 22:07, 12 April 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.
I am posting this since it could possibly be an attempt to promote a certain managed DNS provided named "NS1". NS1 is a startup which managed to get funding in 2015. I was twice reverted [14], [15] when I attempted to remove it from the List of managed DNS providers. It seems the IP 68.132.230.51 was also attempting to place information about NS1 at the same article. Could someone else have a look and determine if there is a COI issue? Lemongirl942 ( talk) 15:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I did some cleanup on this article created by a sometimes-declared paid editor, now blocked. It was probably undisclosed paid editing in this case (see COIN archive). More cu is probably needed. The sourcing to trade magazines is especially qestionable, in some cases verbatim or very lightly edited corp press releases. In at least one case I removed stuff that was credited to publisher Wireless Daily News but linked to corp press room. The article still has very promo "awards" and "services" sections. – Brianhe ( talk) 08:16, 5 April 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.
First off: I myself have a conflict of interest with topics regarding CAcert.org, as declared on my userpage.
I believe that Neoeinstein ( talk · contribs) is a member of the CAcert community (though, naturally, I shall not disclose their name without permission). They have also edited the CAcert.org article without disclosing this. I asked for the edit to be improved or reverted a few weeks ago, and after Neoeinstein didn’t respond, I asked COIN for guidance, where Roxy the dog very kindly helped me out and reverted the edit – see the section #CAcert.org above (not yet archived as of this writing). Back then, I had no information on Neoeinstein’s identity, so I did not know that a conflict of interest existed.
How should I proceed now? Should I send an email to the CAcert community member and ask whether they control the Wikipedia account Neoeinstein? Lucas Werkmeister ( talk) 16:29, 10 April 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.
Hi, I work for a communications firm that represents NetApp, and I've proposed some updates to the article on its Talk page, here. This includes major revamping of two sections (including the lead, which is currently flagged as inadequate) and some other minor factual updates—all itemized and formatted for review and straightforward implementation. Due to my COI, I won't be editing the article directly, and I would greatly appreciate any help or feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke ( talk) 03:18, 13 April 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.
Hello,
Any help would be appreciated in helping to edit this page, which is currently an orphaned, stub article with low quality citations. The information on low-iron glass is incomplete and the name “Starfire” glass is a trademark violation of Starphire low-iron glass from PPG. Should it be considered for deletion for any of those reasons?
If the editing community feels that the topic does meet a Notability Requirement, reorganization may help improve the quality of article—perhaps it could merge into a new page titled Low-iron glass or a section on the Glass page to provide more complete information to the general public. Low-iron Starphire glass (or, Starfire, as it is inaccurately labeled on this page), has numerous applications aside from aquariums. In fact, the world’s first low-iron formulation of glass was used by Frank Lloyd Wright at his famous masterpiece, Fallingwater.
As a PR representative of PPG, I am declaring COI and will remain transparent and forthcoming while providing objective, verifiable, and reliable content throughout this process. For more information on my COI, please visit my user page and feel free to post to my Talk page.
Some detail on this COI: In 1991, PPG trademarked Starphire glass, an ultra-clear low-iron glass formulation that was based on the aforementioned formulation of glass used by Wright. Since then, numerous manufacturers and distributors of low-iron/high clarity glasses have co-opted the trademark by changing the spelling of Starphire to “Starfire.” I have hyperlinked to some third-party news sources above. Bkorman PG ( talk) 18:15, 13 April 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.
It seems like an attempt by a certain "LYYF Visual Art Center" to promote an artist. They had earlier created the article Huawei Tang which was speedy deleted twice. Later they created Tang Huawei. I tried to ask Lyyf2015 about a COI but got no response. I have sent Tang Huawei to AfD since I am not convinced about the notability. No action is required at the moment, but I am posting this just so that we have a record in case of any subsequent attempts. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 05:18, 14 April 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.
Andrew H. Zureick is one of the authors of the book What Every Science Student Should Know and User:Azureick5 was the creator and editor on the article. I took the article to AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/What_Every_Science_Student_Should_Know and notified Azureick5 of COI on 14 April after they commented on the AfD: User_talk:Science1guy1#Conflict_of_Interest. I pinged user again on the 16th. User changed their name to User:Science1guy1 (without a redirect) on April 16. User Science1guy1 then removed their own comment and my reply giving their username from the AfD discussion: diff. Warning was given on April 17: User_talk:Science1guy1#April_2016. The name change is listed as: (Céréales Killer moved page User talk:Azureick5 to User talk:Science1guy1 without leaving a redirect: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Azureick5" to "[[Special:CentralAuth/Science1guy1|Science...). Also note that Azureick5 was the creator of the Dartmouth_Undergraduate_Journal_of_Science article while an [added for clarification/correctness "while Andrew H. Zureick was an" ] editor there. Science1guy1 has removed the AfC discussion of that from their user talk page. It looks to me like this person is trying to hide COI evidence that it exists. LaMona ( talk) 15:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@ LaMona: I cleaned up my talk page because they are old notifications that I've read. I changed my username because it was too similar to the author's name for the book page and do not want to be associated. Please discontinue referring to my old username. Too many notifications. I'll discontinue editing on Wikipedia as you are very fixed on my account recently. -Science1guy1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science1guy1 ( talk • contribs) 16:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@ LaMona: Thank you for this explanation. I have declared my conflict of interest with the article on both the AfD talk page and the article's talk page, and will continue to work within the policies of Wikipedia, but will refrain from editing that page specifically going forward. -Science1guy1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science1guy1 ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Since this is resolved and I have declared the COI on the book's Wiki page, can we delete this thread from here? -
Science1guy1 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Science1guy1 (
talk •
contribs) 21:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
~~~~
. Cheers -
Brianhe.public (
talk) 23:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I notified this user of COI (and autobiography) on March 3. The person has not replied but has resubmitted the article at AfC another 4 times. Two of those times I denied the draft solely with comments that the user has not replied to COI. Nada. Could someone else try to get this person's attention? Often this type of thing is a case of a new user not understanding the difference between a username and an article name, but it also is a near certainty that there is COI involved. Thanks. LaMona ( talk) 19:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Tabish q ( talk · contribs) is edit-warring on Afshar experiment to include a source that (COINcidentally) was written by Tabish Qureshi. I had earlier removed this source as unreliable as it was published by predatory publisher SCIRP, but I think the COI may be a higher priority than the RS issue. I'm going offline and anyway need to stop dealing with this or else I'd be edit-warring myself, but it might be worth the attention of someone here. And, since Qureshi appears to be a legitimate academic, please go gently — it would be much preferable to get him contributing constructively rather than driven away. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if this is exactly the right place. But I have some concerns about Ssa1990. Two edits prior to today, one of which was on Psychology of Women Quarterly (PWQ). Then user blows up today with ~20 edits. This begins with adding social media contact completely inappropriately to the PWQ article (e.g., "Find us on twitter"), and continues to do nothing but insert links to PWQ articles on more or less random pages.
Seems a lot like this is an employee or a paid editor for PWQ, using the PWQ article specifically and further reading sections on gender articles generally as a marketing platform. I suppose they may just be a huge fan, but even if that were the case, they are clearly editing with an agenda, and are likely WP:NOTHERE. Timothyjosephwood ( talk) 17:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Serious question: If I wanted to do search engine optimization for a site, and I sprinkled links to it all over WP. Even if all those edits were reverted, they still exist on the internet, on WP, even if it's not the live version. Would this still affect SEO in the sense that engines would see WP linking to my site over and over? Would the engine be "smart" enough to discount them because they weren't on the live version?
This is almost certainly not the place to ask this question, but it has interesting implications. If someone could point me to the appropriate forum, I would be very grateful. Timothyjosephwood ( talk) 23:48, 7 April 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.
Small stuff for this noticeboard. Usernames and edits made clearly show SPA for pointyism related to the username. Optakeover (U) (T) (C) 09:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi – I posted a while back on the talk page of Charles Saatchi with an edit request (see here) and linked through to my sandbox ( here) where I've marked up a version with some additions (including some more sources where those are lacking) as well as a couple of things I'm proposing to remove. I've summarised and explained those changes here on the sandbox talk page. If someone wouldn't mind taking a look that'd be very much appreciated. My COI is that I work at Bell Pottinger and Charles Saatchi is my client – see my user page for more info. Many thanks. HOgilvy ( talk) 10:04, 11 April 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.
Meisam tab edits in a very limited area. He has created the following articles:
I have tried to tag Meisam Tabatabaei with an autobio tag, but the editor fights this stating that it is not an autobio. The editor has a few other edits, mostly trying to recruit other editors to support his articles, or adding Meisam Tabatabaei to some lists. A look at the editor's contributions at the Farsi WP shows the same pattern there. I would appreciate some extra eyes here, as I am currently pretty busy in RL and cannot devote too much time to this. -- Randykitty ( talk) 16:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
But all advocates, working under a COI or not, tend to write poor content. They tend to put UNDUE weight on great things and say nothing about bad things or spin them away, they tend to use colorful language to really try to express how great X is; they tend to use no sources (just writing from what they know) or they use bad sources, like press releases. The writing of advocates and people with a COI is often indistinguishable. Bad, but indistinguishable. They also tend to resist feedback from other editors.
So here is what I see, and what the community generally asks in these situations:
I'll have one more thing to ask, but those are the most important ones. I look forward to hearing back from you. Jytdog ( talk) 18:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog, I would like to first thank you for taking the time to share your knowledge with me and for offering constructive instructions. Very encouraging indeed!
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.
Reluctantly reporting this here as it is already being discussed at ANI. It involves claims of autobiography by Wikipedia's most active editor. Brianhe ( talk) 10:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
By the standards of AfC I think DGG was correct to promote it. By the standards of AfD it very well may pass, but it also may not. While I don't think you should have been the one to write it I don't think there is a problem with a lack of neutral eyes on the article. Perhaps others may feel different but I don't think this needs attention from this noticeboard. I would say that any COI issue that existed is now in the past and the future concerns could be handled at the article talk page or if someone prefers AfD. HighInBC 14:31, 21 April 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's page clearly states that they are founder and CEO of Tranquility49 (a PR firm). Tranquility49's site lists Danielle Sheypuk as a client ( [19]). User created article on said client. I have questioned user's relationship with subjects user has contributed to in the past ( [20] [21]) but received no response whatsoever. User's edits often tend to read more like PR than encyclopedia article. User has been notified of this discussion (rather clumsily, I'm afraid - [22]). Just looking to clear this up. Fru1tbat ( talk) 02:13, 22 April 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.
There is no attempt at deception here: Hygge Media is the publisher of Rory O'Keeffe's new book. I have blocked the account and explained the username and COI rules. Two of the references supplied seem to me good enough to remove the BLP-prod, and the article is not grossly promotional; I invite eyes on it with a view to clean-up, and opinions on whether the subject meets WP:AUTHOR or whether the article should be sent to AfD. JohnCD ( talk) 20:09, 22 April 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:David Gerard appears to have a conflict of interest relating to crytpocurrency articles and is bullying other editors despite repeated warnings. User wrote this article http://newstechnica.com/2011/06/18/bitcoin-to-revolutionise-the-economy/ about Bitcoin and has shown up at ethereum edit warring, section blanking, and generally harassing editors (eg tagged a source from the New York Times, saying it was a bad source).
He has been the subject of the following issues over at the talk page
2. /info/en/?search=Talk:Ethereum#Many_bad_sources_being_added
3. /info/en/?search=Talk:Ethereum#BRD_on_recent_section_removal_by_D._Gerard
4. /info/en/?search=Talk:Ethereum#Request_for_administrator_review_Re:_editor_David_Gerard
As I was the editor who started some of the above discussions, I think it best I take a step back and see if this can be resolved through the COI process. I am a little confused as well, am I Bludgeoning the processing by bringing up these questions relating to another editor on the COI page? Thank you!
Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 09:59, 23 April 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.
The two users mentioned above seem to be in charge of maintiaining and reverting changes to the nauseating "ego-torial" article on Ramy El-Batrawi. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 21:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Last month I attempted mediation on this article where the editor has insisted on reverting it to a version he has deemed acceptable. Previous version were removed for copyright infringement. From a struck-out edit on 16 December 2010 by a possible sock User:Eldoradoclinton the content was referred to as 'this is the approved bio from j. Ralph'. Since then the editor has engaged in WP:OWN behaviour, as exemplified by this edit. Karst ( talk) 13:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Just putting this here so we have a record. Pretty obvious socking and paid editing - all stale now with the exception of one editor I am not going to list at this time. Neither listed editor shows up in a search at SPI Jytdog ( talk) 01:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The User:Loubna berrada has been trying to edit the article Loubna Berrada and claiming that it contains false information. Some sample edits [23] and [24]. Given the username, it could well be the subject of the article herself. However, there could also be small possibility that it is someone else impersonating her. It would be good if the article is put on a watchlist. I am currently looking for sources to verify the information. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 17:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Mboland.phideltatheta is an SPA that has been inserting unsourced edits in numerous biographical articles, all promoting Phi Delta Theta Fraternity. Mboland.phideltatheta has been warned both about adding unsourced promotional material and about conflicts of interest, to no avail. 32.218.34.78 ( talk) 01:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
"silly" comment
|
---|
|
The user who created this article stated that he works for them, how can this be handled? Laber□ T 16:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Every edit this user has made has added content about a website called myfundnow.com. They were warned about spamming by another user here on March 28. I asked them to disclose their COI and work with us here the same day and gave them a spam warning here the same day. They kept on and were given another spam warning by the 1st user later that day, and i followed up on the COI disclosure request yet later that day, as they were continuing; I warned them they were likely to be indefinitely blocked there for using WP for promotion.
They were warned again today by the first user for spamming again. Nonresponsive to COI management, and WP:NOTHERE. Please indef block this person. Jytdog ( talk) 17:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Here we have a bevy of SPA's devoted to adding and reverting long long long lists of commercial tenants, replete with a spam-farm of inline links, to this possible notable, possible not notable shopping mall/tourist area. Maybe Socks? Not sure. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 21:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Need help from the community in deciding whether to list the SPA author of this article. The article itself had many indicators of promotionalism (see this revision before I started cleanup), including a 2014 fake award from the so-called WorldRenownedExperts.com organization, which now has a dead website. Brianhe ( talk) 01:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Editor says here that he is placing content on behalf of a celebrity. He never responded to Joseph2302's January 2016 COI warning here. - Brianhe ( talk) 01:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)