This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
A user editing under name Otherbrothergideon ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims to be the father of the rapper Paul Wall and is changing the birth name and date of the biographical article contrary to what reliable sources have cited. I have tried finding whatever claims that "Otherbrothergideon" has put up, and so far no reliable source relays them. Thus, I have warned the editor about the "conflict of interest". Chances are that this user may be an impersonator. -- Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 07:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
National Taxpayers Union ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - NTUwikiproject ( talk · contribs) appears to be editing from the organization itself. See also 70.90.81.61 ( talk · contribs), which is almost undoubtedly NTUwikiproject given the timing of their edits. WHOIS confirms that 70.90.81.61 is used by the National Taxpayers Union. NTUwikiproject continues to edit the article without discussion despite two COI notices on his talk page. · jersyko talk 18:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Jmarinovic ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Linked-In says Jerome Marinovic is Carlson's Global e-Media Director. This user is reverting to a version of the Carlson Wagonlit Travel with lines like "CWT is dedicated to helping companies of all sizes, government institutions and non-government organizations, optimize their travel program and provide best-in-class service and assistance to travelers. By leveraging the talents and know-how of its people and providing leading-edge technology, CWT helps clients around the world drive savings while enhancing service and security." Warned for both WP:SPAM and WP:COI. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 12:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
ArborBooks ( talk · contribs) is a WP:SPA responsible for Oasis Entertainment (along with FeareygroupPR ( talk · contribs)) and Derrick Ashong. The latter has had speedy declined under db-bio, and there is a potential notability argument, but in present form the article is pretty much vanispamcruftisement, and the Oasis article isn't a lot better. -- Dhartung | Talk 00:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Julio Ducuron ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Julio Ducuron ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
A user named User:Julio Ducuron has redid some editing I did some time ago [ [1]]. I have reverted because if the user is in fact the artist in question, then it would be a rather blatant example of WP:Conflict of Interest. I have left a note on the user's talk page. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. :) Zidel333 ( talk) 01:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
→ See also: WP:ANI discussion Potential COI / sockpuppets / meatpuppets again at American Apparel
Executive employees of American Apparel repeatedly edit, and edit war, in articles for their own company and its founder to add PR-style marketing fluff and downplay sourced reports of sexual harassment lawsuits, sexual activity, and a unionization fight at their American factory, and criticism of sexuality in advertising, months after being caught doing this before and being sternly warned not to do it again. When caught, express contempt for Wikipedia, its policies and editors, and vow to continue. They seem to be operating sockpuppets and/or engaging meatpuppets as well. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/American Apparel and Talk:American Apparel for additional information and evidence. Wikidemo ( talk) 17:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Caymanarosa ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is replacing this brief article with an even briefer " the reduced definitive history without outdated incorrect info" and appears to be identifying himself in an edit summary as Rod Liessle, listed in the pre-existing article as a co-founder. John Tyrrell's role as co-founder gets written out although it seems to be widely documented [2] [3] [4]. -- Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
This looks like self-promotional editing. Nesodak ( talk) 23:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tegan Summer Productions. I'm not sure about the notability/verifiability of Tegan Summer or his TV show. MER-C 02:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to start an article on the Three Dimensional Black Board. I would like clarification first on policy to make sure that I won't be violating any Conflict of Interest Policy. Your comments on the matter are appreciated in advance. Phineas J. Whoopee ( talk) 02:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Three Rs (Website)
I recently posted the following to the related VfD: "Dee4leeds and Melaisis wrote the article. The article is about a blog where Dee4leeds and Melaisis are two of the main contributors. The article not only mentions Dee4leeds and Melaisis, but links to their Wikipedia user pages. Then, when the article is nominated for deletion, the only KEEP votes thus far come from--ta-da--Dee4leeds and Melaisis. This should be archived as a tutorial example of WP:COI. [5] Qworty ( talk) 21:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
A clear case of conflict-of-interest as Kfreeman13 is almost certainly Kevin Freeman, the creator of the webcomic in question. Complicating the matter, it seems, is the question of whether the webcomic even meets Wikipedia's standards for notability of such material. The conflict-of-interest and self-promotional nature of the article, however, are rather clear. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 02:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Ran across an odd edit war on a California TV station article that has apparently going for months under the radar. Kseegeoff ( talk · contribs) (possibly Geoff Roth, the news director who is mentioned in the article) and 67.114.12.30 ( talk · contribs) have been reverting each other since January on whether an anchor named Bud Elliott resigned or was "forced out". Possibly a candidate for WP:LAME. Nesodak ( talk) 05:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Update:
Mitch Gaylord (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) seems to be under the tight control of Gaylord himself and someone close to him. A recent edit was reverted with this explanation:
"Mitch & I keep having to update this information. Why does anyone change it?"
Also, the article reads like an ad for Gaylord's commercial website and his wife's as well. 63.202.124.213 ( talk) 16:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The user returned under a new IP. I warned them again on the new IP's talk page. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 00:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The sole employee of Sobelsoft wants to pay someone to get an article on Wikipedia about the company.
Spammer:
Most likely article title:
I'd expect to see this "article" some time in early April. See original RentACoder post. MER-C 09:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
In this edit on March 3, IP editor 66.208.15.194 ( talk · contribs) replaced the entirety of the article Harry and Louise with a rewritten version that replaced the lead paragraph with an unencyclopedic magazine-style lead which was laudatory/promotional to the creators of the commercial, removed both sources/citations and the reference section, and removed a sourced paragraph regarding re-use of the Harry and Louise characters in a subsequent commercial and resulting litigation in which Goddard Claussen was involved. The rewrite cites no sources, and has NPOV and verifiablity problems as well as the obvious COI.
The IP address 66.208.15.194 is registered to GC Strategic Advocacy, a part of ad agency Goddard Claussen, who created the commercial and own the Harry and Louise characters.
I reverted the edits several times, with a COI warning. Then the same word-for-word rewrite was made by Hilarykoehl ( talk · contribs) whom I assume to be either the same editor or someone else from Goddard Claussen. A discussion ensued on her user talk page, focusing on COI, removal of sources and sourced material, and article style and format.
Since I was involved in writing and sourcing the article, and reverted to my own language, I have refrained from any administrative action regarding this (blocking either user or protecting the article), however, I believe this needs some administrative attention. -- MCB ( talk) 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Update: Hilarykoehl responded on her user talk page with the following:
My response:
Update: Hilarykoehl changed her username to Hkr13 on March 24, possibly in an attempt to conceal her identity as a Goddard Claussen employee, or disassociate her COI edits from her name. -- MCB ( talk) 20:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I am a new user seeking help with a COI issue. I recently read the article on The Hunger Project, which is, in my opinion, poorly sourced and POV. For transparency, I established a username Thpcomm and described myself as an employee of The Hunger Project to make it clear that the COI guideline would apply to any edits I made. With an administrator’s help, I changed my username to Crystal08 to comply with the naming standards and announced on The Hunger Project talk page that I am the same user as Thpcomm.
I made edits to the introductory sections and infotable of the article that I believe are non-controversial and make those sections more accurate and well-sourced. Although another editor of the article and an administrator commented favorably on these changes, two users reverted the edits to the previous inaccurate and poorly sourced versions solely because of “COI.” This appears inconsistent with both the COI guidelines, which permit editing (especially of non-controversial material) and the arbitration decision ( Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hunger/Proposed_decision) covering the article.
I would appreciate if a neutral editor would assist in editing to help make this article accurate, well-sourced and NPOV and consistent with all WP standards. Crystal08 ( talk) 16:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Jeffer72 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - repeated addition of fan club links in various singer articles, such as Kenny Chesney, Los Lonely Boys, etc. These fan clubs all require registration to view their content, and thus seem to be in direct violation of WP:EL. Editor has made no other edits outside of link addition, and claims in edit summaries to be a representative of singers' fan clubs too -- clear indication of COI. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 21:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi all,
A while back, through a convoluted series of events, I somehow became the steward of Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi--an article concerning a fairly little-known religious figure that has a small band of devotees. The organization founded by Shahi, International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam (ASI, currently up for AfD), has been making concerted efforts to increase its profile and that of Shahi across Wikimedia projects.
Users Asikhi ( talk · contribs) (the "Press & Information Secretary" of Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam) & Iamsaa ( talk · contribs) ( "office bearer" of Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam) are clearly organization officials. Falconkhe ( talk · contribs) also appears to be a devotee. Between them, these editors have created a variety of articles that concern the religious following of Shahi, very transparently promoting their religious order. I am far too unfamiliar with the topics to confidently evaluate each, but they all likely suffer from WP:V, WP:NPOV & WP:N deficiencies--I've not yet been able to get these folks to fully grasp our policies and guidelines. I've tried to enlist help from the Islam wikiproject, but I think the subject may be too esoteric to gather much interest. Here's a list of articles that are worth checking out for these concerns:
The organization like to claim a large international presence, but given their meager presence in reliable sources, it's unlikely they number very greatly. They've certainly been busy creating articles everywhere they can (see Phaedriel's comment here and all the versions of Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi authored in other languages by the same accounts). Can I get a little help reigning this in? — Scien tizzle 22:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
This was only hurting the subject of the article, something we should avoid. Given the high-profile nature of this page (including its' archives) and its' search engine rank, we should give consideration to this fact and move any further discussion, if needed, to user talk pages. The previous contents of the thread, which could be considered "resolved", can be viewed here.
Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 21:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that Garsonofficial ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has added a number of articles related to musician Mike Garson (album articles, discography and the like). I tagged some of these with notability concerns, and posted a COI warning on the user's talk page. I'm not sure whether anything further is required, but I wanted to let you know. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 10:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
→ See also: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-20 Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America
Gni has been edit-warring on the CAMERA article quite heavily lately. Gni's reverts against consensus resulted in a 3RR block. Gni also edited under IP 67.158.119.138, which ARIN shows as belonging to Camera CTC-CAMERA. Gni acknowledged editing under that IP here. Gni has also edited the CAMERA article under the IP 24.91.135.162, a Boston IP (CAMERA HQ is in Boston). Upon returning from the 3RR block, Gni began a round of contentious edits on the Joseph Massad article, attempting to again insert the CAMERA position.
CAMERA/this editor seem to have a clear conflict of interest on on the CAMERA article. A review of other edits by Gni show an effort to often contentiously insert CAMERA reports into those articles and the CAMERA POV in general, e.g., here, here, here, here, here (a CAMERA associate), etc.
Beyond the apparent serious COI, this editor, working on behalf of CAMERA, has been fairly disruptive. Boodlesthecat ( talk) 20:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Boodlesthecat, I think this is starting to get a bit silly. I predominantly stand accused of adding material from CAMERA to an article about... CAMERA? It sounds like I'm being charged with trying to expand and improve the article. Guilty as charged. The remaining few examples you found here show that at various times in the past 2 years, I've added to articles commentary by CAMERA directly relevant to the topic of the article. As I've mentioned on various other COI forums here on which you've launched your crusade against me, I welcome all to study the entire history of my output. They will find a)it's hardly limited to using material from this (legitimate) source; and more importantly, b) it lies firmly within the policies, guidelines and spirit of Wikipedia.
Gni (
talk) 13:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
It's hard to know how to respond to Boodlesthecat, a relentless edit-warrior, accusing others of edit warring. It's truly Orwellian. As to Nagle's question, what I meant is exactly what I said. I suggest the two of you closely read WP:COI. Gni ( talk) 13:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
> Subject: CAMERA Seeks 10 Volunteers to Submit Info to Wikipedia > > Shalom CAMERA E-Mail Team: > > What if you could ensure accuracy and fairness directly in > one of the Internet's most visited Web sites, without relying > on reporters, editors or publishers? In fact, you can. > > < http://www.wikipedia.com/ < http://www.wikipedia.com/> > > Wikipedia, the hugely popular online encyclopedia site, can > be edited by anyone. The idea behind Wikipedia is that if > thousands of well-meaning and informed volunteers collaborate > on an online encyclopedia, the result would be more accurate, > up-to-date and inclusive than any print encyclopedia could > possibly be. > > The bad news is this allows anti-Israel "editors" to > introduce all kinds of bias and error into the many > Israel-related articles, even the entry on CAMERA. The good > news is, individual volunteers can work as "editors" to > ensure that these articles are free of bias and error, and > include necessary facts and context. Assuring accuracy and > impartiality in Wikipedia is extremely important. If someone > searches for "Israel" on the Google search engine, for > example, the top result returned by Google would be the > < http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=israel&btnG=Search > < http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=israel&btnG=Search> > > Wikipedia page on Israel. > > CAMERA seeks 10 volunteers to help us keep Israel-related > entries on Wikipedia from becoming tainted by anti-Israel > editors. All it takes to be an effective volunteer is a basic > comfort level with computers. Call or email me, and I will > train you on how to become a volunteer Wikipedia editor. > > < mailto:gilead@camera.org < mailto:gilead%40camera.org> > > gilead@camera.org < mailto:gilead%40camera.org> or call 617-789-3672
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.111.245 ( talk • contribs) 01:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I've reviewed the situation and have some general and specific comments.
1. Attempts at WP:MEATPUPPETING off-wiki to create consensus on-wiki are prohibited and may result remedies ranging from page protection to prevent edit warring to user blocks for disruptive editing.
2. While CAMERA is notable, I question the notability of its statements on other individuals. In particular I caution involved editors against adding section relating to CAMERA to other articles, especially biographies.
3. While I will abide by WP:OUT and thus not speculate on the identities of particular editors, I do believe editors (anon. or registered) have substantially contributed to the articles in question, creating non-Neutral Points of View, especially at the CAMERA article.
4. I therefore propose that Boodlesthecat and Gni avoid editing the CAMERA pages and other pages' content on CAMERA for a period of 30 days. Suspicious edits by IPs should be reported to the appropriate forum. Users should remember that WP:CHECKUSER can link a user to their IP and that if users attempt to edit disruptively via anon. IP accounts, it will not be viewed favorably.
5. Any user who has an issue with edits made to the article, should discuss them on the talk page. I would also recommend User:IZAK, User:DGG, and User:Lobojo as editors with experience in Jewish issues who tend to be fair and even-handed who could be asked to review the issue to ensure it is NPOV. If one of them were to clear the article as not being biased, I would support removing the COI tag.
Hope that helps. MBisanz talk 05:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
MastCell's restriction of Gni:
* Gni ( talk · contribs) is restricted from editing the article Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America due to problematic editing behavior in the context of an apparent conflict of interest ( [7]). The restriction applies to the article only; he may post freely on the associated talk page. MastCell Talk 16:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The above text is copied from the Log of Blocks and Bans in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles (see the bottom of the page). See also User talk:Gni#Notice of editing restriction. Any violations of restrictions that are imposed under Arbcom cases can be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. EdJohnston ( talk) 05:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Articles:
This user edits pages about terrier breeds of dog using multiple user names. We have had a disagreement about his citation of the web site www.nationalterriersclub.com which I believe he owns as well as his non-neutral tone in changes he makes to articles. He appears to either be plagiarizing articles from the site www.nationalterriersclub.com or claiming that source material from the site is his own, such as photographs as can be seen here: Old_English_Terrier. His edits to the article on the Old English Terrier appear to have been copied word from word from this page: Old English Terrier along with the photographs. Other users have had disagreements with him about content on that article as you can see in the discussion page here: Talk:Old_English_Terrier. On that discussion page other users also complain about his edit warring and editing under multiple user names as you can see here: Talk:Old_English_Terrier#Sockpuppets. I think the tone and content of the edits made by the four users listed are similar enough that they could come from the same person.
In the discussion page on the article for the American Pit Bull Terrier he admitted having the ability to modify the content on www.nationalterriersclub.com as you can see here: Talk:American_Pit_Bull_Terrier. You will also see on that discussion page that another user has raised concerns about his being a COI and posted to the Reliable Sources Notice Board about the National Terrier Club here: Wikipedia:RS/N#National_Terriers_Club_LLC.3F. I suspect that he is actually the owner of National Terrier Club LLC to whom that domain is registered and that he is editing articles to promote his dog registry which he references as a source liberally in every article he touches. Dablyputs ( talk) 05:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Brian Camenker is being edited by both MassWatch ( talk · contribs) and Bcamenker ( talk · contribs), both of which seem to have conflicts of interest. Both users are also editing MassResistance. Corvus cornix talk 23:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Two single-purpose accounts (links above) began editing about ten days ago. Cautions about conflict of interest edits have been posted by four or more npov editors on Colonelz's talk page, but the user does not seem to have taken them seriously.
Several other COI SPAs (see Talk:American Biographical Institute) plagued this article last year. This seems to be a recurrence of the same problem. — Athaenara ✉ 14:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Does this have a conflict of interest? I started the article a few months back but I think the real person is clearly attempting to promote themselves in the most recent edits. Could this be a username block? Rudget . 14:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Bob Dettmer has created the Bob Dettmer. I must admit I don't know enough about COI to know how to correctly deal with the situation, hence this post. Thanks George The Dragon ( talk) 18:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Plenty of COI edits relating to an alleged Greek journalist named Christos Papachristopoulos, who was deleted as non-notable (and totally unverifiable) per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christos Papachristopoulos and has recently been recreated by DimisNasis before being speedied. There's edits like this inserting mentions of himself into the Camus article, supported by an unreferenced mirror version of the Papachristopoulos article. This was brought up previously at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 1#Christos Papachristopoulos in addition. Any suggestions on dealing with this other than reverting? One Night In Hackney 303 16:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up, guys. These look like socks of banned User:ChrysJazz [8] who spammed Albert Camus articles with his own theories about synaesthesia (among other things) and IIRC presented English Wikipedia with a 200k article made up of his own translation of a Camus work into Greek. Since he's an indefinitely banned user, his socks can be banned on sight and any information he's added should be removed. Cheers. -- Folantin ( talk) 18:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I've slapped a lengthy semi-protection on Albert Camus, which will hopefully have some effect. Moreschi ( talk) 19:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
In a message left on my talk page earlier this evening, the IP 77.49.91.133 refers to himself as "Christ" and "Christos," which, I would argue, answers any question as to whether this is really him. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 22:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
This article has seen the repeated insertion of large blocks of text which clearly violate WP:NPOV (the opening sentence is Cardinal Health is a premier, global healthcare company dedicated to making healthcare safer and more productive, and it continues in a similar vein). Much of the text is taken verbatim from the Cardinal Health website. The revisions were initially made by user Gdowdy, but latterly from the anonymous IP after a number of warnings about copyright and NPOV were posted on Gdowdy's talk page. Both contributors would appear to possess conflicts of interest: this Linkedin page states that a Gary Dowdy is Vice President, e-Business/New Media at Cardinal Health. IP address 199.230.203.254 is registered to Cardinal Health. Re-insertions of the text have become more frequent of late and the user(s) have made no attempt to respond to the messages left on talk. Gr1st ( talk) 21:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The IP resolves to Allegiance Healthcare, which is a subdivision of Cardinal Health. Corvus cornix talk 01:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Life Ministries (closed as keep)
This issue involving two edit warring users, both single-purpose accounts or nearly so and each with an apparent conflict of interest, showed up on Third opinion.
User Bg357 wrote the original article and claims (as here) that user 1TruthTracker represents users who are critical of the subject's pastor. — Athaenara ✉ 06:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: Also discussed here. — Athaenara ✉ 09:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It's also on:
The AfD was semi-protected due to nonsense and the article is currently full protected (see here because the rv wars were getting ridiculous. This article has also been speedied x 3 and I think once before under another name because Bg references there having been a long time lapse between his/her work: A cursory review of the history log will show that the tag to delete this article first appeared on March 5th, I had not edited this article for over 7 months, at that time. I first discovered that the article had been tagged for deletion on March 10th, (point 2 here). Just some more context for anyone trying to sort this out. I've been involved with the article in a) cleaning up citations b) taking it to AfD and c) requesting page protection, but I have no connection with the church and have stayed out of the edit war. TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 12:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
ETA: here since they've migrated TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 06:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
another agenda emerges. I worry that we're going to go right back to rv wars once the page is unprotected. TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 15:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I respectfully request that either Travellingcari or Athaenara review my responses to BG357 about my deletions of the continued growth on the article; and make a decision if possible from a neutral third party point of view. If my arguments are correct, please reflect that by reinstating my last corrections on the article. If not, please tell me where they are wrong. I have made several attempts to show BG357's errors in his citations and references; but with no valid response, except for accusations, and with his/her continued removal of my revisions. He/she hasn't proven that his/her citations are factual and non-biased to validate removing my corrections to the article. I, however, have proven that his/her citations are not factual and biased to validate removing his/hers. There would be no editing wars if BG357 would reasonably address the discussions and questions directly instead of throwing accusations and name-calling and avoiding the valid points of discussion. Thank you.--
1TruthTracker (
talk) 16:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I did show that the Spokesman Review isn't factual. Their population number that they used to show the population of Post Falls wasn't even acurate. They didn't verify factual information from a current census [1]. They used the numbers that RLM gave them. Just like they used only the information that RLM gave them about their attendance. They didn't verify the numbers. Same thing with the Outreach Magazine. They used unverifiable numbers that RLM gave them, as shown in their own article [2]. It's RLM posting their numbers by proxy, which is not to the standard of Wikipedia; and not from a factual, verifiable, unbiased source with a NPOV. BG357 cannot base his/her claim of CURRENT growth on 2 year old information given to the source by RLM themselves. I am not posting on the article that their growth diminished because, I have no current proof of an outside, unbiased source just like you can't post your assumuption that they have continued growth with outdated, biased information posted, by the company themselves, on another forum such as a newspaper. If that were the case, then I could take out an ad in the local newspaper stating diminished growth for the church and with your own reasoning state that as a reliable source to add to the article. BG357 removed a reference to a blog on the CDAPress newspaper stating that it wasn't a reliable source. I, however, did show, with the same "reputable source", that BG357 used, that it indicated that RLM's attendance was diminishing, currently, for the simple fact that the new building to be built on the new property, seated 100 LESS people than the current property's new building they wanted to build. Wikipedia's rules have to apply to everyone equally. BTW, I do not edit under any other name or IP address but "1TruthTracker", no matter what BG357's discriminiating, assumptions indicate. --
1TruthTracker (
talk) 21:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
You can't even rationally argue what you call a "silly argument". The relevant facts are the current auditorium size (1700 seats) vs. the proposed auditorium on their current site (3600 seats) vs. the proposed auditorium on the new site (3500 seats). They are more likely to build on their current site than their new site considering there are no water rights and no septic/sewer hookup on their new property. However, please check your user talk on a solution I suggested to travillingcari. --
1TruthTracker (
talk) 18:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, the relevant facts are the current auditorium size (1700 seats) vs. the proposed auditorium on their current site (3600 seats) vs. the proposed auditorium on the new site (3500 seats). RLM has also clearly stated, as verified in numerous reliable news sources, that they intended to build a 3600 seat auditorium at their current site. How can you say that the water & sewer issues will obviously be resolved as they move towards construction? Only someone on the inside, or someone involved with the church would know that.--
1TruthTracker (
talk) 03:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Break
Chenfeng.zhou ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Created Chenfeng Zhou ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), apparent autobiography. I left him a welcome message, however there seems to be little context or notability. MrPrada ( talk) 05:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I put a level 4 warning on this IP's talk page. He is going through and burying links to www.syndicateradio.tv, generally by inserting it as a pseudonym for another website or link. He also has vandalised the website information for Sirius TV, apparently a competitor. Kww ( talk) 02:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Tragedy Striker is Zachary Jaydon usuing either an alias or a stolen name (I am no longer sure). Looking at his edits all he does is edit pages about himself in a PR style with no citations claiming to not be himself. Why would someone be so obsessed with an unknown entertainer as to edit a bunch of pages about him? I left a detailed message about how and who he is here. In addition to that he has been slandering people he once worked with and spreading my personal info all over Wikipedia. In addition he has also edited and used the ip 74.215.40.191. Please do something thank you. -- Thegingerone ( talk) 02:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
TragedyStriker has contacted me by email and I have advised him to create a well sourced article in a personal sandbox. After a bit of to and fro about what makes a good source he has provided sources acceptable to me by email so I suspect that we will be keeping an article on Zachary Jaydon. My opinion is that if an article is well sourced is doesn't matter who writes it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Elcock007 ( talk · contribs), who may be Terry Elcock, is making massive changes to Demob (band), replacing a sourced, wikified article with an unsourced text dump that changes some of the history of Terry Elcock's association with the band. Corvus cornix talk 01:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
86.149.96.146 ( talk · contribs) seems to be the same person as Elcock007 ( talk · contribs), or else a meat puppet, reverting the article back to Elcock007's preferred version. I have issued the anon a level 4 vandalism warning. Corvus cornix talk 18:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I haven't gotten any responses on this and I need help. He's now using a different anon account to revert to his favored version. What is my option? Just keep playing whack-a-mole, ask for the article to be protected, or just have every account he uses blocked on sight? Corvus cornix talk 21:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This entry about a law firm has been modified such that it has the tone of an advertising/PR piece. I have tried to revert it, with no success. Frankg ( talk) 16:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Edits by S-MorrisVP and those made before a user account was created are clearly slanted towards the perspective of the organization the user stated she works for. Additionally, revisions by the user are consistently supported with citation's from the user's organizational website. I am concerned about the veracity of the user's claims made within their edits, as well as the validity of their contributions to multiple topics, including children's rights and Paternity fraud. • Freechild 'sup? 00:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
:::i dont recommend saying things like "* If you can relieve my concern through giving me a bj." to another user sinc e even though you wree only joking the other user might nto realize that and might think that you were not bieng serious about the issue that you raised regarding the username.
Smith Jones (
talk) 19:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC) [REDATED]]
The pattern of edits/commentary by 74.14.6.119 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) follows those of the previously associated IP and username as well. • Freechild 'sup? 21:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I gave notice that he is now limited to one account. If he continues to use varying IP addresses or accounts to edit the article, please inform me. seicer | talk | contribs 06:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion ongoing (started by me) at WP:AN on COI vs anonymity [10]. Some are arguing that the COI policy doesn't allow the outing of real names. But, looking at some of the threads above, I see some real names being thrown around, without, apparently, any recriminations for the editors doing so. So, even though WP:Harassment and WP:Block don't explicitly state that outing is ok if done for COI reasons, it's already strongly implied by word and deed? Cla68 ( talk) 02:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:COI is advice for editors on how they should edit, not advice for others on how to out people they suspect have a COI, and it certainly doesn't trump the WP:BLOCK and WP:OVERSIGHT policies. WP:BLOCK says "A user may be blocked when necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public. A block for protection may be necessary in response to... disclosing personal information (whether or not the information is accurate". That's policy. WP:OVERSIGHT says "This feature is approved for use in three cases: 1. Removal of nonpublic personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public." That's policy. Jayjg (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not really grasping your point Jay - sorry.... it does seem to me like the practice here is to mention 'real world' identities..... Privatemusings ( talk) 02:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
This particular chat may have died down a little - but I thought this recent post might be pertinent when considering what current practice actually is..... Privatemusings ( talk) 21:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It appears that edits are being to the TTTech article are being made by an IP address ( 195.230.58.11) that Whois shows is registered to TTTech. Information about the Joseph Mangan controversy keeps being removed. The changes are not cited and appear to be a corporate advertisement similar to db-spam. Since I've already reverted 195.230.58.11's and User:Gnalk's changes about the controversy a couple of times, I went to the Editor assistance page, where User:Pastordavid said "I would note that, based on the comment on the talk page, User:Gnalk and 195.230.58.11 appear to be one and the same person." and he suggested I follow up here. Suggestions are welcome. Cxbrx ( talk) 00:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I think at this point a lot of us are talking past each other.
At this point, the following questions need to be answered:
-- Random832 ( contribs) 18:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Richard Tylman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This biographical article on a Vancouver illustrator is almost exclusively the product of Poeticbent ( talk · contribs) and a number of IP addresses tracing back to the Vancouver Public Library. In the course of an ongoing exchange with Poeticbent concerning copyright and verifiability issues, I came across a “Selection of articles written for Wikipedia” on Richard Tylman’s website. This list matches those originating with Poeticbent. My queries to the user as to whether he and Tylman might be one and the same [11] [12] have gone unanswered. To be fair, Poeticbent has asked that I email him concerning this issue. I prefer discussing Wikipedia matters within the pages of the encyclopedia itself and have written as much. Thus far, no email exchange has taken place. I am concerned by the presence of references which either fail to support associated statements or – supported only by Tylman’s writing on his website – do not meet the verifiability policy. Poeticbent has removed my citation requests without explanation. I am particularly troubled by a new source which was added to Tylman's site, then linked to the article shortly after I questioned the lack of sources for the associated claim. Victoriagirl ( talk) 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Poeticbent asked me for my opinion. First, Wikipedia allows users to be anonymous and takes their privacy seriously. See Wikimedia:Privacy policy. Wikipedia also takes conflicts of interest seriously. So how many of us, if any, does Poeticbent need to tell his real-life identity? Fortunately, I don't need a Wikilawyer because you've already agreed, almost. Poeticbent agrees to reveal his identity, if Victoriagirl emails him. Victoriagirl says "I prefer to discuss Wikipedia articles, policies and other matters on the relevant talk pages. However, if you would like to send me an email, you are more than welcome." This debate presents several complicated arguments, but the email sounds like an easy one to start with. Am I missing something, or is this really an argument over who should send the first email? Isn't that a shape of the table argument? Could it be solved by something as simple as emailing each other at the same time, or emailing thru me—or printing emails, rolling them up into balls, and juggling them between each other until somebody drops one? Of course Poeticbent's identity should be revealed only to Victoriagirl, or perhaps to others with a demonstrated interest in the conflict of interest issue. It shouldn't be openly displayed on a talk page without Poeticbent's consent. Does Victoriagirl promise not to tell just anybody? Art LaPella ( talk) 05:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right, I missed that implied admission. I'll study it again. Art LaPella ( talk) 20:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'm trying again. I am a "seasoned editor" and "administrator", but unfortunately I was made administrator for my patience with Main Page typos and such, not to settle debates like this one. That said, this still sounds like an easy issue - if I'm not missing something again. Poeticbent said, "I decided to always ask other editors to edit the article on my behalf in the future as suggested by policy guidelines." [28] He then avoided editing for several days, but the Conflict of Interest tag remained anyway. There can be no conflict of interest without editing. This partially excuses the unpleasantness that came later. Victoriagirl wants answers to her 5 questions, but if Poeticbent doesn't edit, then Victoriagirl is free to answer her own questions as she likes without being reverted by Poeticbent. Piotrus might intervene, but we don't know that yet. So I propose: Poeticbent agrees to stop editing the article except on the talk page, and Victoriagirl resumes editing but removes her tag. Is that agreeable to both? Art LaPella ( talk) 22:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, the tag might be accurate, but how is it helpful? Everyone here remembers we had a conflict of interest problem, so why do we need a tag to remind us, when the tag is the main remaining source of conflict? Poeticbent has already agreed not to interfere with the cleanup you want, so why can't you just clean it up as you and Victoriagirl see fit, rather than prolong the issue? Art LaPella ( talk) 00:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please look into this matter and bring it to an end? Acknowledging conflict of interest I have not edited this article since nine days ago and intend to leave to the discretion of other editors. The article went through a failed AfD and is being kept in a state of limbo in spite of subsequent edits made by Gordonofcartoon (-2,812 bytes). The editor who made this report refrains from editing it and insists of keeping a COI tag instead. I appeal to administrators familiar with this case including Art LaPella and Piotrus, to please decide what is appropriate for the benefit of Wikipedia and help close this discussion dragging since 11 March 2008. How about a helping hand from EdJohnston so that consensus may be reached? Please read the article, look at supporting information and remove the punitive flag. -- Poeticbent talk 15:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
68.189.203.46 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 24.182.146.232 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keep reverting all edits to Rent to own ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) negative of the industry. According to MaxMind, they’re both from Cape Girardeau, Missouri. I suspect they’re IP socks of Griffaw, since it is his edits that they are maintaining. It looks like he has a conflict of interest (see User_talk:Griffaw and Talk:Rent to own), and his edits significantly biased the article. It looks like the article will have to be semi-protected to stop them. I’m requesting a checkuser at the same time as post this – most of the relevant diffs are over there. — Wulf ( talk) 07:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I was unaware of this dispute when I added some material yesterday that sought to add much-needed balance the article. Perhaps I'll go look at the earlier edits out of curiosity.
Calamitybrook (
talk) 16:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
this seems to be the best previous version - it looks like they want to remove any (sourced) negative comment about the schemes from the article. -- Fredrick day 19:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Simply reverting to that version cleans up the problems beautifully. Calamitybrook ( talk) 20:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
24.182.146.232 has been at it again, despite that town getting over 12" of rain. I’ve requested semi-protection for 1 week. — Wulf ( talk) 20:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
[The following comment was copied from my talk page — Wulf ( talk) 05:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)]
I hope this is the right place for discussion. I'm going to violate my own rule about engaging bloggers and ask a few questions and making some comments.
Why is it a conflict of interest to bring some balance to the RTO page? Why is the opinion of consumer advocates any more noteworthy than trade publications? As it exists today, this page could have been written as a press release from Ralph Nader. Is that "balanced?"
An example is the reference to the DODs stance on RTO. You fail to mention that RTO was added to the DOD list only at the request of outside interest groups. The article also fails to mention that DOD revised their view of the industry after doing research. The information can be found on RTOonline, but apparently pro-industry (any industry) material is off-limits in the Wiki universe.
PS: I haven't place a link on the page since I was advised not to do so by you many months ago. The link that is there now is being added by someone else.
Thanks and I look forward to your reply. Griffaw (sorry, not sure how to insert my user info) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griffaw ( talk • contribs) 23:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
“COI affected editors may use this board to get help with proposed article changes. Propose changes at the article talk page, and then leave a message here if more neutral editors are needed to establish consensus.
The COI guideline does not require editors with conflicts of interest to avoid editing altogether. An editor who has disclosed a conflict is complying with the guideline when they discuss proposed changes on a talk page, or make non-controversial edits in mainspace consistent with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines.”
OK...so what's the answer? Griffaw ( talk) 17:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Aaaaand… They’ve been at it again. This time from Syracuse, NY – not that that means much with all the proxies running on residential connections these days… —Wulf
Avirab is adding text with a source of Avi Rabinowitz (get it?) to multiple pages. I put a note on his Talk page when I noticed it in one article I was editing. Then I checked his User Contributions, and noticed that all the recent pages that Avirab has edited have a link to the homepage of Avi Rabinowitz. User talk:avirab Life.temp ( talk) 10:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
NatHandal ( talk · contribs) has repeatedly done complete rewrites of Nathalie Handal, including blanking all the templates. She has been told numerous times to explain her actions, yet every day (or few days) she does the rewrite without explaining herself. She's received a 24 hour block for it yet she continues. She's brought up the issue (briefly) at [29] but has made no reply or any indication that she has read it. If she has, she has shown no signs of following through, as today she tried the rewrite again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WarthogDemon ( talk • contribs) 00:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I am fairly new to Wikipedia and have encountered what seems to be an ongoing violation of the COI/ Neutral POV policies. An editor who posts anonymously from IP 97.100.230.5, IP 97.100.224.7 and IP 97.100.235.115 has self-published three amateur translations of Viktor Rydberg’s 19th-century Romantic Nationalist variations of Norse mythology. He promotes these vanity works in the Viktor Rydberg article, which he also distorts by deleting all references to modern scholarship critical of Rydberg’s work. He has repeatedly deleted critical comments published by H.R. Ellis Davidson and Anatoly Lieberman, calling references to their scholarly works “vandalism.” He has posted a favorable comment by Judith Moffett, but deletes critical evaluations by the same author. I have tried to reason with him and proposed mediation on the Talk page, but he always responds with personal attacks, including a sexual taunt in the comment accompanying one of his deletions. Is some kind of intervention appropriate at this point? Rsradford ( talk) 12:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Update: User may have returned as another account: User:Lpressler Spiesr ( talk) 20:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enzo Fardone. MER-C 08:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
This issue was originally reported on the talk page for Wikiproject Spam.
Looking at edits by Cryellow, nearly all contributions by this user have been for the purpose of adding links to multiple articles for members.cox.net/recallcalendar/ (a recall election calendar - dif), mothaway.com (an insect repellant - dif), or dianaring.com (Princess Diana memorabilia - dif). While the user claims to not be associated with these sites, it's interesting to note that " name redacted" (a name provided by the user within the Diana, Princess of Wales article) shows on Google searches as associated with both the ring and the calendar; also, all three websites above contain the same contact phone number. Additional information on the user and the link is included within the Wikiproject spam talk page (linked above).
Also, the SPA Abedigot appears to have now joined, whose only contribution to date has been to re-add the link for the Diana ring after Cryellow was warned of a 3RR issue. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 17:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The article was created (in 2006) by user Sdod2 ( talk · contribs) which appears to a contraction of the same name, and recently edited by 12.193.27.158 ( talk · contribs), which a notice on that talk page indicates is a proxy for Philips Medical Systems, which the article identifies as the subject's employer. I realize it's a very old article, but no significant subsequent contributors other than maintenance edits. The project tags were added to the article by a bot, so I'm not sure how closely those projects have looked at this article.
Aside from the WP:COI issue, I would also question the notability of the subject. But, I'm not sure the best way to proceed. Does each wikiproject need to be notified or asked about it first? Or could an AfD be tagged on it for WP:COI and WP:N issues, then just notify the involved projects and the primary contributor? --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 21:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Motorists ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user is an admitted employee of the National Motorists Association and is whitewashing efforts to clarify that the NMA is a closely-held for-profit and is not an association in any sense of the word. Nova SS ( talk) 19:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Totally unreferenced other than to primary sources, either created or majorly updated by User:Mnastos, including Mat Nastos, The Cadre, Bite Me, Fanboy and Nifty Comics. At a minimum, reliable sources for all of the subjects' notability need to be included. Corvus cornix talk 02:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
User had edited the article back in 2007 but was not the creator. Over time it had been left semi-sourced and in half state. I cleaned it up, removed the promotional tone and added 2ndary sources. Today the user returns and removes sourced material that s/he doesn't appear to like and re-added the promotional material. It's not a BLP issue as the museum founder has passed, but it's a clear COI with intent to spam. The museum *is* notable, but the promo content is not. The user needs to go to UAA anyway, which I will do in a moment since it's a role account but it's worth keeping an eye on. TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 15:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit: User blocked TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 15:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: User has just [posted to me on my talk page via IP. It's a good faith comment, but I'm going to dig for sources to back up the claims, not museum published curator programs. TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 16:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
If anyone has an account there and wants to respond, please politely point to Wikipedia:Requested articles and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-10-09/MyWikiBiz. -- Jeandré, 2008-04-10 t11:41z, -- Jeandré, 2008-04-11 t10:57z
Editor appears to have a connection to the gallery, insistent on pasting in promotional material that appears to be a copyvio. Article is a stub and fine for the moment, does not need a brochure dump. User warned by multiple eds TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 15:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination The article has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H. Paul Shuch Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The bulk of the page seems to originate with WSEAS employees, and is completely uncritical of the subject matter, an organization of dubious quality and ethics. Not only is the original article smacking of corporate vanity, it is actually conveying thanks from the WSEAS management "The WSEAS Administration would like to extend a special thanks to its Reviewers..." to the largely non-existent reviewers. Those heavily involved in editing the page (including the talk section!) should disclose their relationship to WSEAS.
StaySeven ( talk) 14:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Prof. Bose appears to be the same Prof. Bose whose lecture slides are hosted on the WSEAS server, [33], see also [34], a primary organizer of these meetings. Prof Kaczorek also seems to have many ties to WSEAS as invited speaker, editor of WSEAS journals, organizer of WSEAS conferences etc, see [35]. Prof Juri is tentatively identified as Prof. Juri Jatskevich, see [36]. To the extent that these editors are indeed the people benefitting from presenting WSEAS as a legitimate venue the COI is clear.
StaySeven ( talk) 18:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The original was blatant spam to be sure. But nuking (I think) is not the answer: this is an organization that deserves an NPOV page showing them for what they are, an organization bordering on the criminal. Many high quality pages like Ku Klux Klan are targets of highly politicized edits, yet WP would be poorer for not having them.
StaySeven ( talk) 02:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
IP user persistently adds copy and pasted biography to this article. [37] [38] [39]
and appears to be affiliated with the band [40]
Attempts to explain and discuss these changes have been ignored. I have also reported this here here, though it seems the responder was suggesting that I take it here instead? Cheers Nouse4aname ( talk) 09:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Da Costa's syndrome is a historical ME-type disorder. Posturewriter has self-identified as Max Banfield, a lay author who promotes a particular " Posture Theory" on the syndrome and its descendants, involving chest compression, breathing disorder, breathlessness and the diaphragm.
In December/January he was warned about the COI of having inserted a self-reference into the article - see Talk:Da Costa's syndrome#Banfield - and it was removed by consensus. However, his subsequent edits invariably add material relating to breathing-related studies, which comes across as WP:SYNTH supporting his own theory (even though it's no longer explictly mentioned).
Is this sufficiently close a COI to expect that he shouldn't edit the article directly? Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 12:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Gordonofcartoon; regarding you referring to me as “self-identified”; there is no reference to my name in wikipedia anymore except for where you used it here, and where WhatamIdoing placed it in the opening section of the discussion page on 21-12-07 Talk:Da Costa's syndrome ( | [[Talk:Talk:Da Costa's syndrome|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) My User page is blank. Regarding the other issue, the breathlessness affects 93% of patients which is why I often refer to “breathing-related studies", as well as other relevant aspects. Posturewriter ( talk)posturewriter 23:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Edjohnston; Thank you for your comment; Regarding your reference to the 'Article’s for deletion' page; It was a page for contributors and editors to discuss policy issues, not a public article page; and was dated 30-11-07; I saw the same page when it was dated 28-11-07 [ [41]] and noticed that editors were going to delete another persons account of my theory due to breach of copyright, unless permission to use had been granted - re;. “Speedy delete . . . as a copyright violation . . . Hoekstra”. I couldn’t confirm that I had given permission confidentially by phone, so I registered with wiki and confirmed it with my wiki ID, but had to mention my real name and answer editors requests for proof of identity etc. It was “policy required identification”, not “self-identification by choice”. Does wiki policy allow for that distinction, and if not, why not? My name etc has not been mentioned by me anywhere else unless I have made a reasonable attempt to satisfy the appropriate policies, but it has been deleted again anyway, and there has been no reference to my theory since 14th January, except by editors. Please check your own reference for the date of 28-11-07, [ [42]] rather than 30-11-07, and then use the publicly available search box to confirm that my theory isn’t listed anywhere on current wikipedia article pages Posturewriter ( talk)posturewriter
If you desire an exemption from this clause it would be to your advantage to be frank with us about your situation. There is also the small matter of the user name that you have voluntarily chosen. For practical purposes, it may be too late to unring that bell. EdJohnston ( talk) 02:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked.
Edjonston, I was not a member of wiki when I saw the words “speedy delete” so I naturally responded promptly, and I wanted to use the telephone to privately confirm that I had given permission to use the material. I couldn’t find a phone number or email address so I just registered, and chose a code ID which seemed like a good idea at the time. A phone number is not provided on-line for copyright confirmation. is that true? Also a lot of new information has been added to my site because the editors require me to prove everything about myself or my contributions on-line and there is no other way of doing that either. Regarding the structure of contributions, other editors gave the Da Costa page its title, a section on history, and some references, which I reviewed, and also added to them from other sources to present a chronological order of the research and controversies of this condition which still exists, but usually under different labels, and I am presenting it in plain English for the general reader. I will give the other matters of your enquiry some more thought before responding soon, but in the meantime can you please check the discussion page and look at the edit history and see that each time I comply with one wiki policy, two editors produce another policy, or varying interpretations of them to delete my contributions Posturewriter ( talk)posturewriter. —Preceding comment was added at 10:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Edjonston; regarding your COI question, I am writing the history of Da Costa’s syndrome in plain English for the benefit of the general reader and to save space here i have posted more information in response to SuperTycoon on the discussion page on 9-4-08. In the meantime can you contact the editors dealing with the naming issue and let me know which is your main concern and give me a time frame so that I can deal with one group of editors, and one policy at a time. Posturewriter ( talk) 09:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)posturewriter
Edjonston; You will be making your decision soon. Please consider that on 14-1-08 WhatamIdoing deleted one of my contributions on the grounds of COI, and wrote “I do appreciate your other efforts, but you need to quit adding your own research theories to this article” etc. I have since been adding reviews of Harvard quality papers to the history section. I have also amended and added to my website to provide material for wiki, selected and now being abbreviated, otherwise it would still be much the same as before. It was not necessary for me, but was a response to editors requests, and not for the “sole” or “primary” purpose of promoting my website, or anything “close” to COI. I would also like you to consider the COI question in relation to the other editors preference for psychological explanations for symptoms as typified by twice attempting to delete my review of S.Wolf’s 1947 research which proved a physical cause of breathlessness, and is an important milestone in the research history. here (including Cohen and White) and here, in my comments on Rosen's 1990 study. The other contributors are replacing my edits with descriptions that include codes, acronyms, and jargon, etc., and unspecified references to “imprecisely characterized” ailments. I have been providing wiki with contributions which are consistent with the fundamental plain English policy so that the general reader can understand the subject Posturewriter ( talk)posturewriter —Preceding comment was added at 09:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The article under question is largely being written by an account with the same name. In fact, much of the article is written with pronouns in the first person. The individual under question has a website should anyone wish to contact him in order to determine if the above account is in fact him. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 05:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: I have moved this discussion from WP:AIN to here, as this now seems to be the most appropriate place for the discussion. Chicken Wing ( talk) 22:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm consolidating several related requests here. First, I request that the semi-protection status of the Clayton Bennett article be resinstated. The protection ended today and the article's history reveals numerous vandal edits already today.
Secondly, I've asked Coz 11 to recuse himself from editing the article and all articles related to the Seattle Supersonics because he has a conflict of interest. I've also asked the same user in the past to avoid using inflammatory edit summaries regarding Mr. Bennett. Coz 11 has removed these warnings from his talk page, failed to discuss the issue, and continues to edit the articles. I think an administrator should require this user to explain his actions or should ask him to discontinue editing articles for which he has a conflict of interest.
I would also ask that this situation not be treated lightly. You can see for yourself the level of personal attacks that have been thrown at me regarding this issue. [43] Chicken Wing ( talk) 14:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Coz 11 has continued his streak of biased editing on the Clayton Bennett article today. This time he added, "Recent developments have shown that the agreement was violated." [49] Given that this is a biography of a living person and nothing has been determined in court, the user should have said the agreement was "allegedly" violated. A small example, yes, but I shouldn't have to check an article day-after-day to see if Coz 11 has slipped another comment in to slant the article against Bennett, especially since Coz 11 is at the top of an organization that opposes him. Chicken Wing ( talk) 20:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It appears that the National Women's Health Network has a project setup for editing Wikipedia. Apparently called the "Base Camp project". See Nwhnintern ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (softblocked as a role account/COI problems) and Healthywomendc ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (hardblocked as a repeat role account/COI problems). They have a stated goal of editing the following:
And I would assume any other article related to this area, see their article. For the moment they are hardblocked. I have left a note on the latest account's talk page trying to open a dialogue and get them to understand/abide by the role account and COI policies. If they respond there and agree to abide by the policies I will change the block. Just an FYI. KnightLago ( talk) 19:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
user lightdefender is busy adding material about the Take that musical (which starts a run in May) to multiple pages. Only problem is, he doesn't want any of the articles to acknowledge the tricky problem that take that have nothing to do with the musical and have made statements to that effect. Examples of his attempts to whitewash articles can be seen here, here, here, various more in history. I can only conclude he has a conflict of interest. -- 87.113.116.129 ( talk) 09:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
87.113.116.129 Is trying to sabotage an article I created about the musical with irrelevant detail. The musical is relevant to both the Take That and Gary Barlow articles. Light Defender ( talk) 09:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Bpayne4001 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This is the username of Mr. Brendan Payne, who is a staff member at the Marketing/External Affairs department of Western New England College and Western New England College School of Law. Mr Payne has a clear history of removing cited information about his employer that could be potentially negative. These include removing newspaper accounts of on-campus crime, alumni who have been convicted of misusing their law degrees, and publicly-available information. Mr. Payne has also created most of the "significant alumni" Wikipedia articles. Thus he has created his own roster of individuals who would not otherwise have articles. The sole purpose has been to link from his employer's article. He has been warned via {{ COI}} but the whitewash behavior continues. He has been told of this again and again on his talk page but still refuses to defer to consensus. 99luftbaloons! ( talk) 16:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Bpayne4001 ( talk) 23:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)BPayne4001
Amagon rosh ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has historically made and edited many Cuba-related articles, not without controversy (See talk). He has historically copyvio'd Havana Club's website contents to make articles (speedied twice) and today he posted on Talk:Havana Club and my own talk the following:
Although his edits on the article up to now [54] is hardly COI, some watchout is warranted.-- Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 01:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
These users appear to be adding links and content relating to Anvil Media's (a search engine marketing (SEM) services company), client list: www.anvilmediainc.com/full-client-list.htm, including Tumbleweed Communications, Genco Supply Chain Solutions, Auctionpay, reliableremodeler.com and Planar Systems. Last year similar editing was reported at WP:WPSPAM: here. Anvilmedia had managed to make some fairly neutral contributions, at least on the article ColumbiaSoft, most of his/her other contributions, including Retrevo, GolfNow.com, and Portland Oregon Visitors Association were deleted for being adverts/non-notable. However today content was added ( diff diff) to Springfield, Oregon and Coburg, Oregon that clearly shows the Convention & Visitors Association of Lane County Oregon connection. I'm all for boosting Lane County's economy, but not on Wikipedia. I've reverted the changes and warned KimKnees about NPOV and COI. How do I proceed? Katr67 ( talk) 20:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
There is some discussion happening on the article's talk page. Katr67 ( talk) 20:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
A user, A Sniper, that has identified himself [55] [56] [57] [58] as a former manager and producer for the bands Death (band), Morbid Saint, Mötley Crüe is continually editing the related articles. I have left a {{ uw-coi}} tag on the users talk page, but would appreciate other editors following up on this. dissolve talk 21:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
It is a bit coincidental Dissolve that just after your COI notice, Single-purpose account Jackmantas was created and started slashing the Eric Greif article to bits. Is that operating under good faith? A Sniper ( talk) 10:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Response by Jackmantas: Thank you Ed, for inviting me to this discussion. Dissolve, you are precisely correct in your statements. I am editing the article because it appears to be an autobiography. I see very little verifiable information on the page and I also see very little neutrality. Most, if not all of the links that the creator has provided as supposed references are interviews where the subject of the article is simply making claims about himself. In my mind this does not meet the minimum criteria of Wikipedia's core policies.
On top of this, he is a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit. So it would appear that in his accusations of vandalism and sock puppetry toward me he was abusing his trusted position as a member of Wikipedia volunteer staff to further his own agenda.
I feel like I am doing the best job I can to do my part as a newcomer that wants to help out and is feeling good about doing just that. Might I add that I have always admired and marveled at Wikipedia. The amount of nformation contained is absolutely staggering. I had always heard that anyone could contribute to Wikipedia and while that is totally cool and innovative, at the same time it creates an environment in which widespread abuse could potentially run rampant if left unchecked. It feels good to be able to help out, and I look forward to learning all I can about how I can be of service to the Wikipedia community in the future.
That is all I have to say for now. Thank you again Ed, for the opportunity to join this discussion. Jackmantas ( talk) 17:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem Ed. Jackmantas ( talk) 18:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This whole case is ridiculous. I have known A Sniper since October of last year and over those months he has shown himsefl to be a fine and non-biased editor, no matter who he is. I believe Dissolve is abusing his right to take up anyone on a COI. It specifically says in WP:COI that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising or self-promotion, or a vanity press. As such, it should contain only material that complies with its content policies, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest." However, A Sniper has never displayed anything but neutrality on his edits and has never (as far as I know, and I do watch) made an edit that contributed to a lie. If he really was Eric Greif, he has only used his close knowledge of the above-mentioned articles to help those articles. It seems the only real article that is being greatly complained about is the Eric Greif article (where jackmantas has been heavily editing), but I must ask something. Just because A Sniper may be Eric Greif, and created the article (and heavily contributed to it) does that suddenly mean it's all wrong or biased? I think not. A Sniper has not displayed any amount of "vanity" edits on the article and it appears to be all factual. If you really think A Sniper is Eric Greif and that he has been messing up the neutrality of his own article then I pledge to personally see to it to watch over the page closely and maintain its neutrality and to find the sources needed for the things said. I mean, after all, if A Sniper really is Eric Greif, couldn't he just go to some site or something and post a whole story about himself which could then be cited for the Eric Greif article? I see no problems with this. As it is, I still think this accusation is frivolous and that A Sniper has displayed nothing but excellent (and more importantly, unbiased) editing on the small number of pages that he regularly edits. Thank you. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 20:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Response by Jackmantas: Hello Blizzard Beast. In response to your post, I will say this: The Eric Grief article is clearly an autobiography and as such I can do no better than to point out Wikipedia's policy concerning such articles: "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community. Editing a biography about yourself should only be done in clear-cut cases." "Wikipedia has gone through many prolonged disputes about the significance, factual accuracy, and neutrality of such articles.[1] Avoiding such editing keeps Wikipedia neutral and helps avoid pushing a particular point-of-view." "Writing autobiographies is discouraged because it is difficult to write a neutral, verifiable autobiography and there are many pitfalls. If you have published elsewhere on a topic, we strongly welcome your expertise on the subject for Wikipedia articles. However, every Wikipedia article must cover its subject in a neutral, fair, and comprehensive way in order to advance knowledge of the subject as a whole. Please forget your biases while enriching the Wiki users knowledge. Articles that exist primarily to advance the interests of the contributor will likely be deleted." "They (autobiographies) are often biased, usually positively. People will write overly positively about themselves, and often present opinions as facts. Wikipedia aims to avoid presenting opinions as facts. (Neutral point of view does not mean simply writing in the third person)." "They can be unverifiable. If the only source for a particular fact about you is you yourself, then readers cannot verify it. (One common area where this is the case is with hopes, dreams, thoughts, and aspirations. There is no way for readers to verify what you think.) Everything in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable." "They can contain original research. People often include in autobiographies information that has never been published before, or which is the result of firsthand knowledge. This type of information would require readers to perform primary research in order to verify it. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance; original research is not permitted in Wikipedia." Why these problems exist "Just because you believe honestly you are being neutral doesn't mean you are. Unconscious biases can and do exist, and are a very common cause of the problems with autobiographies—which is why we discourage autobiographies themselves and not just self-promotion. Not only does this affect neutrality but it also affects the verifiability and unoriginal research of the autobiography. One may inadvertently slip things in that one may not think need to be attributable even though they do, due to those very same biases. Even if you can synthesize an autobiography based on only verifiable material that is not original research you may still not be able to synthesize it in a neutral manner." I believe the developers of this Wikipedia policy have stated very eloquently the dangers of users creating autobiography articles and I need say no more on this topic at this time.Thank you,-- Jackmantas ( talk) 04:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
A user editing under name Otherbrothergideon ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims to be the father of the rapper Paul Wall and is changing the birth name and date of the biographical article contrary to what reliable sources have cited. I have tried finding whatever claims that "Otherbrothergideon" has put up, and so far no reliable source relays them. Thus, I have warned the editor about the "conflict of interest". Chances are that this user may be an impersonator. -- Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 07:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
National Taxpayers Union ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - NTUwikiproject ( talk · contribs) appears to be editing from the organization itself. See also 70.90.81.61 ( talk · contribs), which is almost undoubtedly NTUwikiproject given the timing of their edits. WHOIS confirms that 70.90.81.61 is used by the National Taxpayers Union. NTUwikiproject continues to edit the article without discussion despite two COI notices on his talk page. · jersyko talk 18:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Jmarinovic ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Linked-In says Jerome Marinovic is Carlson's Global e-Media Director. This user is reverting to a version of the Carlson Wagonlit Travel with lines like "CWT is dedicated to helping companies of all sizes, government institutions and non-government organizations, optimize their travel program and provide best-in-class service and assistance to travelers. By leveraging the talents and know-how of its people and providing leading-edge technology, CWT helps clients around the world drive savings while enhancing service and security." Warned for both WP:SPAM and WP:COI. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 12:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
ArborBooks ( talk · contribs) is a WP:SPA responsible for Oasis Entertainment (along with FeareygroupPR ( talk · contribs)) and Derrick Ashong. The latter has had speedy declined under db-bio, and there is a potential notability argument, but in present form the article is pretty much vanispamcruftisement, and the Oasis article isn't a lot better. -- Dhartung | Talk 00:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Julio Ducuron ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Julio Ducuron ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
A user named User:Julio Ducuron has redid some editing I did some time ago [ [1]]. I have reverted because if the user is in fact the artist in question, then it would be a rather blatant example of WP:Conflict of Interest. I have left a note on the user's talk page. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. :) Zidel333 ( talk) 01:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
→ See also: WP:ANI discussion Potential COI / sockpuppets / meatpuppets again at American Apparel
Executive employees of American Apparel repeatedly edit, and edit war, in articles for their own company and its founder to add PR-style marketing fluff and downplay sourced reports of sexual harassment lawsuits, sexual activity, and a unionization fight at their American factory, and criticism of sexuality in advertising, months after being caught doing this before and being sternly warned not to do it again. When caught, express contempt for Wikipedia, its policies and editors, and vow to continue. They seem to be operating sockpuppets and/or engaging meatpuppets as well. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/American Apparel and Talk:American Apparel for additional information and evidence. Wikidemo ( talk) 17:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Caymanarosa ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is replacing this brief article with an even briefer " the reduced definitive history without outdated incorrect info" and appears to be identifying himself in an edit summary as Rod Liessle, listed in the pre-existing article as a co-founder. John Tyrrell's role as co-founder gets written out although it seems to be widely documented [2] [3] [4]. -- Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
This looks like self-promotional editing. Nesodak ( talk) 23:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tegan Summer Productions. I'm not sure about the notability/verifiability of Tegan Summer or his TV show. MER-C 02:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to start an article on the Three Dimensional Black Board. I would like clarification first on policy to make sure that I won't be violating any Conflict of Interest Policy. Your comments on the matter are appreciated in advance. Phineas J. Whoopee ( talk) 02:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Three Rs (Website)
I recently posted the following to the related VfD: "Dee4leeds and Melaisis wrote the article. The article is about a blog where Dee4leeds and Melaisis are two of the main contributors. The article not only mentions Dee4leeds and Melaisis, but links to their Wikipedia user pages. Then, when the article is nominated for deletion, the only KEEP votes thus far come from--ta-da--Dee4leeds and Melaisis. This should be archived as a tutorial example of WP:COI. [5] Qworty ( talk) 21:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
A clear case of conflict-of-interest as Kfreeman13 is almost certainly Kevin Freeman, the creator of the webcomic in question. Complicating the matter, it seems, is the question of whether the webcomic even meets Wikipedia's standards for notability of such material. The conflict-of-interest and self-promotional nature of the article, however, are rather clear. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 02:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Ran across an odd edit war on a California TV station article that has apparently going for months under the radar. Kseegeoff ( talk · contribs) (possibly Geoff Roth, the news director who is mentioned in the article) and 67.114.12.30 ( talk · contribs) have been reverting each other since January on whether an anchor named Bud Elliott resigned or was "forced out". Possibly a candidate for WP:LAME. Nesodak ( talk) 05:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Update:
Mitch Gaylord (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) seems to be under the tight control of Gaylord himself and someone close to him. A recent edit was reverted with this explanation:
"Mitch & I keep having to update this information. Why does anyone change it?"
Also, the article reads like an ad for Gaylord's commercial website and his wife's as well. 63.202.124.213 ( talk) 16:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The user returned under a new IP. I warned them again on the new IP's talk page. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 00:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The sole employee of Sobelsoft wants to pay someone to get an article on Wikipedia about the company.
Spammer:
Most likely article title:
I'd expect to see this "article" some time in early April. See original RentACoder post. MER-C 09:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
In this edit on March 3, IP editor 66.208.15.194 ( talk · contribs) replaced the entirety of the article Harry and Louise with a rewritten version that replaced the lead paragraph with an unencyclopedic magazine-style lead which was laudatory/promotional to the creators of the commercial, removed both sources/citations and the reference section, and removed a sourced paragraph regarding re-use of the Harry and Louise characters in a subsequent commercial and resulting litigation in which Goddard Claussen was involved. The rewrite cites no sources, and has NPOV and verifiablity problems as well as the obvious COI.
The IP address 66.208.15.194 is registered to GC Strategic Advocacy, a part of ad agency Goddard Claussen, who created the commercial and own the Harry and Louise characters.
I reverted the edits several times, with a COI warning. Then the same word-for-word rewrite was made by Hilarykoehl ( talk · contribs) whom I assume to be either the same editor or someone else from Goddard Claussen. A discussion ensued on her user talk page, focusing on COI, removal of sources and sourced material, and article style and format.
Since I was involved in writing and sourcing the article, and reverted to my own language, I have refrained from any administrative action regarding this (blocking either user or protecting the article), however, I believe this needs some administrative attention. -- MCB ( talk) 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Update: Hilarykoehl responded on her user talk page with the following:
My response:
Update: Hilarykoehl changed her username to Hkr13 on March 24, possibly in an attempt to conceal her identity as a Goddard Claussen employee, or disassociate her COI edits from her name. -- MCB ( talk) 20:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I am a new user seeking help with a COI issue. I recently read the article on The Hunger Project, which is, in my opinion, poorly sourced and POV. For transparency, I established a username Thpcomm and described myself as an employee of The Hunger Project to make it clear that the COI guideline would apply to any edits I made. With an administrator’s help, I changed my username to Crystal08 to comply with the naming standards and announced on The Hunger Project talk page that I am the same user as Thpcomm.
I made edits to the introductory sections and infotable of the article that I believe are non-controversial and make those sections more accurate and well-sourced. Although another editor of the article and an administrator commented favorably on these changes, two users reverted the edits to the previous inaccurate and poorly sourced versions solely because of “COI.” This appears inconsistent with both the COI guidelines, which permit editing (especially of non-controversial material) and the arbitration decision ( Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hunger/Proposed_decision) covering the article.
I would appreciate if a neutral editor would assist in editing to help make this article accurate, well-sourced and NPOV and consistent with all WP standards. Crystal08 ( talk) 16:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Jeffer72 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - repeated addition of fan club links in various singer articles, such as Kenny Chesney, Los Lonely Boys, etc. These fan clubs all require registration to view their content, and thus seem to be in direct violation of WP:EL. Editor has made no other edits outside of link addition, and claims in edit summaries to be a representative of singers' fan clubs too -- clear indication of COI. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 21:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi all,
A while back, through a convoluted series of events, I somehow became the steward of Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi--an article concerning a fairly little-known religious figure that has a small band of devotees. The organization founded by Shahi, International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam (ASI, currently up for AfD), has been making concerted efforts to increase its profile and that of Shahi across Wikimedia projects.
Users Asikhi ( talk · contribs) (the "Press & Information Secretary" of Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam) & Iamsaa ( talk · contribs) ( "office bearer" of Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam) are clearly organization officials. Falconkhe ( talk · contribs) also appears to be a devotee. Between them, these editors have created a variety of articles that concern the religious following of Shahi, very transparently promoting their religious order. I am far too unfamiliar with the topics to confidently evaluate each, but they all likely suffer from WP:V, WP:NPOV & WP:N deficiencies--I've not yet been able to get these folks to fully grasp our policies and guidelines. I've tried to enlist help from the Islam wikiproject, but I think the subject may be too esoteric to gather much interest. Here's a list of articles that are worth checking out for these concerns:
The organization like to claim a large international presence, but given their meager presence in reliable sources, it's unlikely they number very greatly. They've certainly been busy creating articles everywhere they can (see Phaedriel's comment here and all the versions of Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi authored in other languages by the same accounts). Can I get a little help reigning this in? — Scien tizzle 22:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
This was only hurting the subject of the article, something we should avoid. Given the high-profile nature of this page (including its' archives) and its' search engine rank, we should give consideration to this fact and move any further discussion, if needed, to user talk pages. The previous contents of the thread, which could be considered "resolved", can be viewed here.
Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 21:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that Garsonofficial ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has added a number of articles related to musician Mike Garson (album articles, discography and the like). I tagged some of these with notability concerns, and posted a COI warning on the user's talk page. I'm not sure whether anything further is required, but I wanted to let you know. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 10:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
→ See also: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-20 Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America
Gni has been edit-warring on the CAMERA article quite heavily lately. Gni's reverts against consensus resulted in a 3RR block. Gni also edited under IP 67.158.119.138, which ARIN shows as belonging to Camera CTC-CAMERA. Gni acknowledged editing under that IP here. Gni has also edited the CAMERA article under the IP 24.91.135.162, a Boston IP (CAMERA HQ is in Boston). Upon returning from the 3RR block, Gni began a round of contentious edits on the Joseph Massad article, attempting to again insert the CAMERA position.
CAMERA/this editor seem to have a clear conflict of interest on on the CAMERA article. A review of other edits by Gni show an effort to often contentiously insert CAMERA reports into those articles and the CAMERA POV in general, e.g., here, here, here, here, here (a CAMERA associate), etc.
Beyond the apparent serious COI, this editor, working on behalf of CAMERA, has been fairly disruptive. Boodlesthecat ( talk) 20:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Boodlesthecat, I think this is starting to get a bit silly. I predominantly stand accused of adding material from CAMERA to an article about... CAMERA? It sounds like I'm being charged with trying to expand and improve the article. Guilty as charged. The remaining few examples you found here show that at various times in the past 2 years, I've added to articles commentary by CAMERA directly relevant to the topic of the article. As I've mentioned on various other COI forums here on which you've launched your crusade against me, I welcome all to study the entire history of my output. They will find a)it's hardly limited to using material from this (legitimate) source; and more importantly, b) it lies firmly within the policies, guidelines and spirit of Wikipedia.
Gni (
talk) 13:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
It's hard to know how to respond to Boodlesthecat, a relentless edit-warrior, accusing others of edit warring. It's truly Orwellian. As to Nagle's question, what I meant is exactly what I said. I suggest the two of you closely read WP:COI. Gni ( talk) 13:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
> Subject: CAMERA Seeks 10 Volunteers to Submit Info to Wikipedia > > Shalom CAMERA E-Mail Team: > > What if you could ensure accuracy and fairness directly in > one of the Internet's most visited Web sites, without relying > on reporters, editors or publishers? In fact, you can. > > < http://www.wikipedia.com/ < http://www.wikipedia.com/> > > Wikipedia, the hugely popular online encyclopedia site, can > be edited by anyone. The idea behind Wikipedia is that if > thousands of well-meaning and informed volunteers collaborate > on an online encyclopedia, the result would be more accurate, > up-to-date and inclusive than any print encyclopedia could > possibly be. > > The bad news is this allows anti-Israel "editors" to > introduce all kinds of bias and error into the many > Israel-related articles, even the entry on CAMERA. The good > news is, individual volunteers can work as "editors" to > ensure that these articles are free of bias and error, and > include necessary facts and context. Assuring accuracy and > impartiality in Wikipedia is extremely important. If someone > searches for "Israel" on the Google search engine, for > example, the top result returned by Google would be the > < http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=israel&btnG=Search > < http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=israel&btnG=Search> > > Wikipedia page on Israel. > > CAMERA seeks 10 volunteers to help us keep Israel-related > entries on Wikipedia from becoming tainted by anti-Israel > editors. All it takes to be an effective volunteer is a basic > comfort level with computers. Call or email me, and I will > train you on how to become a volunteer Wikipedia editor. > > < mailto:gilead@camera.org < mailto:gilead%40camera.org> > > gilead@camera.org < mailto:gilead%40camera.org> or call 617-789-3672
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.111.245 ( talk • contribs) 01:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I've reviewed the situation and have some general and specific comments.
1. Attempts at WP:MEATPUPPETING off-wiki to create consensus on-wiki are prohibited and may result remedies ranging from page protection to prevent edit warring to user blocks for disruptive editing.
2. While CAMERA is notable, I question the notability of its statements on other individuals. In particular I caution involved editors against adding section relating to CAMERA to other articles, especially biographies.
3. While I will abide by WP:OUT and thus not speculate on the identities of particular editors, I do believe editors (anon. or registered) have substantially contributed to the articles in question, creating non-Neutral Points of View, especially at the CAMERA article.
4. I therefore propose that Boodlesthecat and Gni avoid editing the CAMERA pages and other pages' content on CAMERA for a period of 30 days. Suspicious edits by IPs should be reported to the appropriate forum. Users should remember that WP:CHECKUSER can link a user to their IP and that if users attempt to edit disruptively via anon. IP accounts, it will not be viewed favorably.
5. Any user who has an issue with edits made to the article, should discuss them on the talk page. I would also recommend User:IZAK, User:DGG, and User:Lobojo as editors with experience in Jewish issues who tend to be fair and even-handed who could be asked to review the issue to ensure it is NPOV. If one of them were to clear the article as not being biased, I would support removing the COI tag.
Hope that helps. MBisanz talk 05:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
MastCell's restriction of Gni:
* Gni ( talk · contribs) is restricted from editing the article Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America due to problematic editing behavior in the context of an apparent conflict of interest ( [7]). The restriction applies to the article only; he may post freely on the associated talk page. MastCell Talk 16:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The above text is copied from the Log of Blocks and Bans in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles (see the bottom of the page). See also User talk:Gni#Notice of editing restriction. Any violations of restrictions that are imposed under Arbcom cases can be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. EdJohnston ( talk) 05:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Articles:
This user edits pages about terrier breeds of dog using multiple user names. We have had a disagreement about his citation of the web site www.nationalterriersclub.com which I believe he owns as well as his non-neutral tone in changes he makes to articles. He appears to either be plagiarizing articles from the site www.nationalterriersclub.com or claiming that source material from the site is his own, such as photographs as can be seen here: Old_English_Terrier. His edits to the article on the Old English Terrier appear to have been copied word from word from this page: Old English Terrier along with the photographs. Other users have had disagreements with him about content on that article as you can see in the discussion page here: Talk:Old_English_Terrier. On that discussion page other users also complain about his edit warring and editing under multiple user names as you can see here: Talk:Old_English_Terrier#Sockpuppets. I think the tone and content of the edits made by the four users listed are similar enough that they could come from the same person.
In the discussion page on the article for the American Pit Bull Terrier he admitted having the ability to modify the content on www.nationalterriersclub.com as you can see here: Talk:American_Pit_Bull_Terrier. You will also see on that discussion page that another user has raised concerns about his being a COI and posted to the Reliable Sources Notice Board about the National Terrier Club here: Wikipedia:RS/N#National_Terriers_Club_LLC.3F. I suspect that he is actually the owner of National Terrier Club LLC to whom that domain is registered and that he is editing articles to promote his dog registry which he references as a source liberally in every article he touches. Dablyputs ( talk) 05:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Brian Camenker is being edited by both MassWatch ( talk · contribs) and Bcamenker ( talk · contribs), both of which seem to have conflicts of interest. Both users are also editing MassResistance. Corvus cornix talk 23:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Two single-purpose accounts (links above) began editing about ten days ago. Cautions about conflict of interest edits have been posted by four or more npov editors on Colonelz's talk page, but the user does not seem to have taken them seriously.
Several other COI SPAs (see Talk:American Biographical Institute) plagued this article last year. This seems to be a recurrence of the same problem. — Athaenara ✉ 14:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Does this have a conflict of interest? I started the article a few months back but I think the real person is clearly attempting to promote themselves in the most recent edits. Could this be a username block? Rudget . 14:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Bob Dettmer has created the Bob Dettmer. I must admit I don't know enough about COI to know how to correctly deal with the situation, hence this post. Thanks George The Dragon ( talk) 18:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Plenty of COI edits relating to an alleged Greek journalist named Christos Papachristopoulos, who was deleted as non-notable (and totally unverifiable) per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christos Papachristopoulos and has recently been recreated by DimisNasis before being speedied. There's edits like this inserting mentions of himself into the Camus article, supported by an unreferenced mirror version of the Papachristopoulos article. This was brought up previously at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 1#Christos Papachristopoulos in addition. Any suggestions on dealing with this other than reverting? One Night In Hackney 303 16:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up, guys. These look like socks of banned User:ChrysJazz [8] who spammed Albert Camus articles with his own theories about synaesthesia (among other things) and IIRC presented English Wikipedia with a 200k article made up of his own translation of a Camus work into Greek. Since he's an indefinitely banned user, his socks can be banned on sight and any information he's added should be removed. Cheers. -- Folantin ( talk) 18:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I've slapped a lengthy semi-protection on Albert Camus, which will hopefully have some effect. Moreschi ( talk) 19:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
In a message left on my talk page earlier this evening, the IP 77.49.91.133 refers to himself as "Christ" and "Christos," which, I would argue, answers any question as to whether this is really him. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 22:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
This article has seen the repeated insertion of large blocks of text which clearly violate WP:NPOV (the opening sentence is Cardinal Health is a premier, global healthcare company dedicated to making healthcare safer and more productive, and it continues in a similar vein). Much of the text is taken verbatim from the Cardinal Health website. The revisions were initially made by user Gdowdy, but latterly from the anonymous IP after a number of warnings about copyright and NPOV were posted on Gdowdy's talk page. Both contributors would appear to possess conflicts of interest: this Linkedin page states that a Gary Dowdy is Vice President, e-Business/New Media at Cardinal Health. IP address 199.230.203.254 is registered to Cardinal Health. Re-insertions of the text have become more frequent of late and the user(s) have made no attempt to respond to the messages left on talk. Gr1st ( talk) 21:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The IP resolves to Allegiance Healthcare, which is a subdivision of Cardinal Health. Corvus cornix talk 01:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Life Ministries (closed as keep)
This issue involving two edit warring users, both single-purpose accounts or nearly so and each with an apparent conflict of interest, showed up on Third opinion.
User Bg357 wrote the original article and claims (as here) that user 1TruthTracker represents users who are critical of the subject's pastor. — Athaenara ✉ 06:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: Also discussed here. — Athaenara ✉ 09:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It's also on:
The AfD was semi-protected due to nonsense and the article is currently full protected (see here because the rv wars were getting ridiculous. This article has also been speedied x 3 and I think once before under another name because Bg references there having been a long time lapse between his/her work: A cursory review of the history log will show that the tag to delete this article first appeared on March 5th, I had not edited this article for over 7 months, at that time. I first discovered that the article had been tagged for deletion on March 10th, (point 2 here). Just some more context for anyone trying to sort this out. I've been involved with the article in a) cleaning up citations b) taking it to AfD and c) requesting page protection, but I have no connection with the church and have stayed out of the edit war. TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 12:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
ETA: here since they've migrated TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 06:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
another agenda emerges. I worry that we're going to go right back to rv wars once the page is unprotected. TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 15:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I respectfully request that either Travellingcari or Athaenara review my responses to BG357 about my deletions of the continued growth on the article; and make a decision if possible from a neutral third party point of view. If my arguments are correct, please reflect that by reinstating my last corrections on the article. If not, please tell me where they are wrong. I have made several attempts to show BG357's errors in his citations and references; but with no valid response, except for accusations, and with his/her continued removal of my revisions. He/she hasn't proven that his/her citations are factual and non-biased to validate removing my corrections to the article. I, however, have proven that his/her citations are not factual and biased to validate removing his/hers. There would be no editing wars if BG357 would reasonably address the discussions and questions directly instead of throwing accusations and name-calling and avoiding the valid points of discussion. Thank you.--
1TruthTracker (
talk) 16:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I did show that the Spokesman Review isn't factual. Their population number that they used to show the population of Post Falls wasn't even acurate. They didn't verify factual information from a current census [1]. They used the numbers that RLM gave them. Just like they used only the information that RLM gave them about their attendance. They didn't verify the numbers. Same thing with the Outreach Magazine. They used unverifiable numbers that RLM gave them, as shown in their own article [2]. It's RLM posting their numbers by proxy, which is not to the standard of Wikipedia; and not from a factual, verifiable, unbiased source with a NPOV. BG357 cannot base his/her claim of CURRENT growth on 2 year old information given to the source by RLM themselves. I am not posting on the article that their growth diminished because, I have no current proof of an outside, unbiased source just like you can't post your assumuption that they have continued growth with outdated, biased information posted, by the company themselves, on another forum such as a newspaper. If that were the case, then I could take out an ad in the local newspaper stating diminished growth for the church and with your own reasoning state that as a reliable source to add to the article. BG357 removed a reference to a blog on the CDAPress newspaper stating that it wasn't a reliable source. I, however, did show, with the same "reputable source", that BG357 used, that it indicated that RLM's attendance was diminishing, currently, for the simple fact that the new building to be built on the new property, seated 100 LESS people than the current property's new building they wanted to build. Wikipedia's rules have to apply to everyone equally. BTW, I do not edit under any other name or IP address but "1TruthTracker", no matter what BG357's discriminiating, assumptions indicate. --
1TruthTracker (
talk) 21:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
You can't even rationally argue what you call a "silly argument". The relevant facts are the current auditorium size (1700 seats) vs. the proposed auditorium on their current site (3600 seats) vs. the proposed auditorium on the new site (3500 seats). They are more likely to build on their current site than their new site considering there are no water rights and no septic/sewer hookup on their new property. However, please check your user talk on a solution I suggested to travillingcari. --
1TruthTracker (
talk) 18:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, the relevant facts are the current auditorium size (1700 seats) vs. the proposed auditorium on their current site (3600 seats) vs. the proposed auditorium on the new site (3500 seats). RLM has also clearly stated, as verified in numerous reliable news sources, that they intended to build a 3600 seat auditorium at their current site. How can you say that the water & sewer issues will obviously be resolved as they move towards construction? Only someone on the inside, or someone involved with the church would know that.--
1TruthTracker (
talk) 03:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Break
Chenfeng.zhou ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Created Chenfeng Zhou ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), apparent autobiography. I left him a welcome message, however there seems to be little context or notability. MrPrada ( talk) 05:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I put a level 4 warning on this IP's talk page. He is going through and burying links to www.syndicateradio.tv, generally by inserting it as a pseudonym for another website or link. He also has vandalised the website information for Sirius TV, apparently a competitor. Kww ( talk) 02:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Tragedy Striker is Zachary Jaydon usuing either an alias or a stolen name (I am no longer sure). Looking at his edits all he does is edit pages about himself in a PR style with no citations claiming to not be himself. Why would someone be so obsessed with an unknown entertainer as to edit a bunch of pages about him? I left a detailed message about how and who he is here. In addition to that he has been slandering people he once worked with and spreading my personal info all over Wikipedia. In addition he has also edited and used the ip 74.215.40.191. Please do something thank you. -- Thegingerone ( talk) 02:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
TragedyStriker has contacted me by email and I have advised him to create a well sourced article in a personal sandbox. After a bit of to and fro about what makes a good source he has provided sources acceptable to me by email so I suspect that we will be keeping an article on Zachary Jaydon. My opinion is that if an article is well sourced is doesn't matter who writes it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Elcock007 ( talk · contribs), who may be Terry Elcock, is making massive changes to Demob (band), replacing a sourced, wikified article with an unsourced text dump that changes some of the history of Terry Elcock's association with the band. Corvus cornix talk 01:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
86.149.96.146 ( talk · contribs) seems to be the same person as Elcock007 ( talk · contribs), or else a meat puppet, reverting the article back to Elcock007's preferred version. I have issued the anon a level 4 vandalism warning. Corvus cornix talk 18:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I haven't gotten any responses on this and I need help. He's now using a different anon account to revert to his favored version. What is my option? Just keep playing whack-a-mole, ask for the article to be protected, or just have every account he uses blocked on sight? Corvus cornix talk 21:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This entry about a law firm has been modified such that it has the tone of an advertising/PR piece. I have tried to revert it, with no success. Frankg ( talk) 16:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Edits by S-MorrisVP and those made before a user account was created are clearly slanted towards the perspective of the organization the user stated she works for. Additionally, revisions by the user are consistently supported with citation's from the user's organizational website. I am concerned about the veracity of the user's claims made within their edits, as well as the validity of their contributions to multiple topics, including children's rights and Paternity fraud. • Freechild 'sup? 00:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
:::i dont recommend saying things like "* If you can relieve my concern through giving me a bj." to another user sinc e even though you wree only joking the other user might nto realize that and might think that you were not bieng serious about the issue that you raised regarding the username.
Smith Jones (
talk) 19:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC) [REDATED]]
The pattern of edits/commentary by 74.14.6.119 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) follows those of the previously associated IP and username as well. • Freechild 'sup? 21:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I gave notice that he is now limited to one account. If he continues to use varying IP addresses or accounts to edit the article, please inform me. seicer | talk | contribs 06:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion ongoing (started by me) at WP:AN on COI vs anonymity [10]. Some are arguing that the COI policy doesn't allow the outing of real names. But, looking at some of the threads above, I see some real names being thrown around, without, apparently, any recriminations for the editors doing so. So, even though WP:Harassment and WP:Block don't explicitly state that outing is ok if done for COI reasons, it's already strongly implied by word and deed? Cla68 ( talk) 02:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:COI is advice for editors on how they should edit, not advice for others on how to out people they suspect have a COI, and it certainly doesn't trump the WP:BLOCK and WP:OVERSIGHT policies. WP:BLOCK says "A user may be blocked when necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public. A block for protection may be necessary in response to... disclosing personal information (whether or not the information is accurate". That's policy. WP:OVERSIGHT says "This feature is approved for use in three cases: 1. Removal of nonpublic personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public." That's policy. Jayjg (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not really grasping your point Jay - sorry.... it does seem to me like the practice here is to mention 'real world' identities..... Privatemusings ( talk) 02:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
This particular chat may have died down a little - but I thought this recent post might be pertinent when considering what current practice actually is..... Privatemusings ( talk) 21:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It appears that edits are being to the TTTech article are being made by an IP address ( 195.230.58.11) that Whois shows is registered to TTTech. Information about the Joseph Mangan controversy keeps being removed. The changes are not cited and appear to be a corporate advertisement similar to db-spam. Since I've already reverted 195.230.58.11's and User:Gnalk's changes about the controversy a couple of times, I went to the Editor assistance page, where User:Pastordavid said "I would note that, based on the comment on the talk page, User:Gnalk and 195.230.58.11 appear to be one and the same person." and he suggested I follow up here. Suggestions are welcome. Cxbrx ( talk) 00:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I think at this point a lot of us are talking past each other.
At this point, the following questions need to be answered:
-- Random832 ( contribs) 18:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Richard Tylman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This biographical article on a Vancouver illustrator is almost exclusively the product of Poeticbent ( talk · contribs) and a number of IP addresses tracing back to the Vancouver Public Library. In the course of an ongoing exchange with Poeticbent concerning copyright and verifiability issues, I came across a “Selection of articles written for Wikipedia” on Richard Tylman’s website. This list matches those originating with Poeticbent. My queries to the user as to whether he and Tylman might be one and the same [11] [12] have gone unanswered. To be fair, Poeticbent has asked that I email him concerning this issue. I prefer discussing Wikipedia matters within the pages of the encyclopedia itself and have written as much. Thus far, no email exchange has taken place. I am concerned by the presence of references which either fail to support associated statements or – supported only by Tylman’s writing on his website – do not meet the verifiability policy. Poeticbent has removed my citation requests without explanation. I am particularly troubled by a new source which was added to Tylman's site, then linked to the article shortly after I questioned the lack of sources for the associated claim. Victoriagirl ( talk) 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Poeticbent asked me for my opinion. First, Wikipedia allows users to be anonymous and takes their privacy seriously. See Wikimedia:Privacy policy. Wikipedia also takes conflicts of interest seriously. So how many of us, if any, does Poeticbent need to tell his real-life identity? Fortunately, I don't need a Wikilawyer because you've already agreed, almost. Poeticbent agrees to reveal his identity, if Victoriagirl emails him. Victoriagirl says "I prefer to discuss Wikipedia articles, policies and other matters on the relevant talk pages. However, if you would like to send me an email, you are more than welcome." This debate presents several complicated arguments, but the email sounds like an easy one to start with. Am I missing something, or is this really an argument over who should send the first email? Isn't that a shape of the table argument? Could it be solved by something as simple as emailing each other at the same time, or emailing thru me—or printing emails, rolling them up into balls, and juggling them between each other until somebody drops one? Of course Poeticbent's identity should be revealed only to Victoriagirl, or perhaps to others with a demonstrated interest in the conflict of interest issue. It shouldn't be openly displayed on a talk page without Poeticbent's consent. Does Victoriagirl promise not to tell just anybody? Art LaPella ( talk) 05:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right, I missed that implied admission. I'll study it again. Art LaPella ( talk) 20:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'm trying again. I am a "seasoned editor" and "administrator", but unfortunately I was made administrator for my patience with Main Page typos and such, not to settle debates like this one. That said, this still sounds like an easy issue - if I'm not missing something again. Poeticbent said, "I decided to always ask other editors to edit the article on my behalf in the future as suggested by policy guidelines." [28] He then avoided editing for several days, but the Conflict of Interest tag remained anyway. There can be no conflict of interest without editing. This partially excuses the unpleasantness that came later. Victoriagirl wants answers to her 5 questions, but if Poeticbent doesn't edit, then Victoriagirl is free to answer her own questions as she likes without being reverted by Poeticbent. Piotrus might intervene, but we don't know that yet. So I propose: Poeticbent agrees to stop editing the article except on the talk page, and Victoriagirl resumes editing but removes her tag. Is that agreeable to both? Art LaPella ( talk) 22:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, the tag might be accurate, but how is it helpful? Everyone here remembers we had a conflict of interest problem, so why do we need a tag to remind us, when the tag is the main remaining source of conflict? Poeticbent has already agreed not to interfere with the cleanup you want, so why can't you just clean it up as you and Victoriagirl see fit, rather than prolong the issue? Art LaPella ( talk) 00:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please look into this matter and bring it to an end? Acknowledging conflict of interest I have not edited this article since nine days ago and intend to leave to the discretion of other editors. The article went through a failed AfD and is being kept in a state of limbo in spite of subsequent edits made by Gordonofcartoon (-2,812 bytes). The editor who made this report refrains from editing it and insists of keeping a COI tag instead. I appeal to administrators familiar with this case including Art LaPella and Piotrus, to please decide what is appropriate for the benefit of Wikipedia and help close this discussion dragging since 11 March 2008. How about a helping hand from EdJohnston so that consensus may be reached? Please read the article, look at supporting information and remove the punitive flag. -- Poeticbent talk 15:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
68.189.203.46 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 24.182.146.232 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keep reverting all edits to Rent to own ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) negative of the industry. According to MaxMind, they’re both from Cape Girardeau, Missouri. I suspect they’re IP socks of Griffaw, since it is his edits that they are maintaining. It looks like he has a conflict of interest (see User_talk:Griffaw and Talk:Rent to own), and his edits significantly biased the article. It looks like the article will have to be semi-protected to stop them. I’m requesting a checkuser at the same time as post this – most of the relevant diffs are over there. — Wulf ( talk) 07:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I was unaware of this dispute when I added some material yesterday that sought to add much-needed balance the article. Perhaps I'll go look at the earlier edits out of curiosity.
Calamitybrook (
talk) 16:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
this seems to be the best previous version - it looks like they want to remove any (sourced) negative comment about the schemes from the article. -- Fredrick day 19:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Simply reverting to that version cleans up the problems beautifully. Calamitybrook ( talk) 20:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
24.182.146.232 has been at it again, despite that town getting over 12" of rain. I’ve requested semi-protection for 1 week. — Wulf ( talk) 20:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
[The following comment was copied from my talk page — Wulf ( talk) 05:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)]
I hope this is the right place for discussion. I'm going to violate my own rule about engaging bloggers and ask a few questions and making some comments.
Why is it a conflict of interest to bring some balance to the RTO page? Why is the opinion of consumer advocates any more noteworthy than trade publications? As it exists today, this page could have been written as a press release from Ralph Nader. Is that "balanced?"
An example is the reference to the DODs stance on RTO. You fail to mention that RTO was added to the DOD list only at the request of outside interest groups. The article also fails to mention that DOD revised their view of the industry after doing research. The information can be found on RTOonline, but apparently pro-industry (any industry) material is off-limits in the Wiki universe.
PS: I haven't place a link on the page since I was advised not to do so by you many months ago. The link that is there now is being added by someone else.
Thanks and I look forward to your reply. Griffaw (sorry, not sure how to insert my user info) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griffaw ( talk • contribs) 23:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
“COI affected editors may use this board to get help with proposed article changes. Propose changes at the article talk page, and then leave a message here if more neutral editors are needed to establish consensus.
The COI guideline does not require editors with conflicts of interest to avoid editing altogether. An editor who has disclosed a conflict is complying with the guideline when they discuss proposed changes on a talk page, or make non-controversial edits in mainspace consistent with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines.”
OK...so what's the answer? Griffaw ( talk) 17:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Aaaaand… They’ve been at it again. This time from Syracuse, NY – not that that means much with all the proxies running on residential connections these days… —Wulf
Avirab is adding text with a source of Avi Rabinowitz (get it?) to multiple pages. I put a note on his Talk page when I noticed it in one article I was editing. Then I checked his User Contributions, and noticed that all the recent pages that Avirab has edited have a link to the homepage of Avi Rabinowitz. User talk:avirab Life.temp ( talk) 10:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
NatHandal ( talk · contribs) has repeatedly done complete rewrites of Nathalie Handal, including blanking all the templates. She has been told numerous times to explain her actions, yet every day (or few days) she does the rewrite without explaining herself. She's received a 24 hour block for it yet she continues. She's brought up the issue (briefly) at [29] but has made no reply or any indication that she has read it. If she has, she has shown no signs of following through, as today she tried the rewrite again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WarthogDemon ( talk • contribs) 00:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I am fairly new to Wikipedia and have encountered what seems to be an ongoing violation of the COI/ Neutral POV policies. An editor who posts anonymously from IP 97.100.230.5, IP 97.100.224.7 and IP 97.100.235.115 has self-published three amateur translations of Viktor Rydberg’s 19th-century Romantic Nationalist variations of Norse mythology. He promotes these vanity works in the Viktor Rydberg article, which he also distorts by deleting all references to modern scholarship critical of Rydberg’s work. He has repeatedly deleted critical comments published by H.R. Ellis Davidson and Anatoly Lieberman, calling references to their scholarly works “vandalism.” He has posted a favorable comment by Judith Moffett, but deletes critical evaluations by the same author. I have tried to reason with him and proposed mediation on the Talk page, but he always responds with personal attacks, including a sexual taunt in the comment accompanying one of his deletions. Is some kind of intervention appropriate at this point? Rsradford ( talk) 12:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Update: User may have returned as another account: User:Lpressler Spiesr ( talk) 20:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enzo Fardone. MER-C 08:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
This issue was originally reported on the talk page for Wikiproject Spam.
Looking at edits by Cryellow, nearly all contributions by this user have been for the purpose of adding links to multiple articles for members.cox.net/recallcalendar/ (a recall election calendar - dif), mothaway.com (an insect repellant - dif), or dianaring.com (Princess Diana memorabilia - dif). While the user claims to not be associated with these sites, it's interesting to note that " name redacted" (a name provided by the user within the Diana, Princess of Wales article) shows on Google searches as associated with both the ring and the calendar; also, all three websites above contain the same contact phone number. Additional information on the user and the link is included within the Wikiproject spam talk page (linked above).
Also, the SPA Abedigot appears to have now joined, whose only contribution to date has been to re-add the link for the Diana ring after Cryellow was warned of a 3RR issue. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 17:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The article was created (in 2006) by user Sdod2 ( talk · contribs) which appears to a contraction of the same name, and recently edited by 12.193.27.158 ( talk · contribs), which a notice on that talk page indicates is a proxy for Philips Medical Systems, which the article identifies as the subject's employer. I realize it's a very old article, but no significant subsequent contributors other than maintenance edits. The project tags were added to the article by a bot, so I'm not sure how closely those projects have looked at this article.
Aside from the WP:COI issue, I would also question the notability of the subject. But, I'm not sure the best way to proceed. Does each wikiproject need to be notified or asked about it first? Or could an AfD be tagged on it for WP:COI and WP:N issues, then just notify the involved projects and the primary contributor? --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 21:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Motorists ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user is an admitted employee of the National Motorists Association and is whitewashing efforts to clarify that the NMA is a closely-held for-profit and is not an association in any sense of the word. Nova SS ( talk) 19:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Totally unreferenced other than to primary sources, either created or majorly updated by User:Mnastos, including Mat Nastos, The Cadre, Bite Me, Fanboy and Nifty Comics. At a minimum, reliable sources for all of the subjects' notability need to be included. Corvus cornix talk 02:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
User had edited the article back in 2007 but was not the creator. Over time it had been left semi-sourced and in half state. I cleaned it up, removed the promotional tone and added 2ndary sources. Today the user returns and removes sourced material that s/he doesn't appear to like and re-added the promotional material. It's not a BLP issue as the museum founder has passed, but it's a clear COI with intent to spam. The museum *is* notable, but the promo content is not. The user needs to go to UAA anyway, which I will do in a moment since it's a role account but it's worth keeping an eye on. TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 15:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit: User blocked TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 15:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: User has just [posted to me on my talk page via IP. It's a good faith comment, but I'm going to dig for sources to back up the claims, not museum published curator programs. TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 16:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
If anyone has an account there and wants to respond, please politely point to Wikipedia:Requested articles and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-10-09/MyWikiBiz. -- Jeandré, 2008-04-10 t11:41z, -- Jeandré, 2008-04-11 t10:57z
Editor appears to have a connection to the gallery, insistent on pasting in promotional material that appears to be a copyvio. Article is a stub and fine for the moment, does not need a brochure dump. User warned by multiple eds TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 15:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination The article has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H. Paul Shuch Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The bulk of the page seems to originate with WSEAS employees, and is completely uncritical of the subject matter, an organization of dubious quality and ethics. Not only is the original article smacking of corporate vanity, it is actually conveying thanks from the WSEAS management "The WSEAS Administration would like to extend a special thanks to its Reviewers..." to the largely non-existent reviewers. Those heavily involved in editing the page (including the talk section!) should disclose their relationship to WSEAS.
StaySeven ( talk) 14:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Prof. Bose appears to be the same Prof. Bose whose lecture slides are hosted on the WSEAS server, [33], see also [34], a primary organizer of these meetings. Prof Kaczorek also seems to have many ties to WSEAS as invited speaker, editor of WSEAS journals, organizer of WSEAS conferences etc, see [35]. Prof Juri is tentatively identified as Prof. Juri Jatskevich, see [36]. To the extent that these editors are indeed the people benefitting from presenting WSEAS as a legitimate venue the COI is clear.
StaySeven ( talk) 18:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The original was blatant spam to be sure. But nuking (I think) is not the answer: this is an organization that deserves an NPOV page showing them for what they are, an organization bordering on the criminal. Many high quality pages like Ku Klux Klan are targets of highly politicized edits, yet WP would be poorer for not having them.
StaySeven ( talk) 02:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
IP user persistently adds copy and pasted biography to this article. [37] [38] [39]
and appears to be affiliated with the band [40]
Attempts to explain and discuss these changes have been ignored. I have also reported this here here, though it seems the responder was suggesting that I take it here instead? Cheers Nouse4aname ( talk) 09:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Da Costa's syndrome is a historical ME-type disorder. Posturewriter has self-identified as Max Banfield, a lay author who promotes a particular " Posture Theory" on the syndrome and its descendants, involving chest compression, breathing disorder, breathlessness and the diaphragm.
In December/January he was warned about the COI of having inserted a self-reference into the article - see Talk:Da Costa's syndrome#Banfield - and it was removed by consensus. However, his subsequent edits invariably add material relating to breathing-related studies, which comes across as WP:SYNTH supporting his own theory (even though it's no longer explictly mentioned).
Is this sufficiently close a COI to expect that he shouldn't edit the article directly? Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 12:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Gordonofcartoon; regarding you referring to me as “self-identified”; there is no reference to my name in wikipedia anymore except for where you used it here, and where WhatamIdoing placed it in the opening section of the discussion page on 21-12-07 Talk:Da Costa's syndrome ( | [[Talk:Talk:Da Costa's syndrome|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) My User page is blank. Regarding the other issue, the breathlessness affects 93% of patients which is why I often refer to “breathing-related studies", as well as other relevant aspects. Posturewriter ( talk)posturewriter 23:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Edjohnston; Thank you for your comment; Regarding your reference to the 'Article’s for deletion' page; It was a page for contributors and editors to discuss policy issues, not a public article page; and was dated 30-11-07; I saw the same page when it was dated 28-11-07 [ [41]] and noticed that editors were going to delete another persons account of my theory due to breach of copyright, unless permission to use had been granted - re;. “Speedy delete . . . as a copyright violation . . . Hoekstra”. I couldn’t confirm that I had given permission confidentially by phone, so I registered with wiki and confirmed it with my wiki ID, but had to mention my real name and answer editors requests for proof of identity etc. It was “policy required identification”, not “self-identification by choice”. Does wiki policy allow for that distinction, and if not, why not? My name etc has not been mentioned by me anywhere else unless I have made a reasonable attempt to satisfy the appropriate policies, but it has been deleted again anyway, and there has been no reference to my theory since 14th January, except by editors. Please check your own reference for the date of 28-11-07, [ [42]] rather than 30-11-07, and then use the publicly available search box to confirm that my theory isn’t listed anywhere on current wikipedia article pages Posturewriter ( talk)posturewriter
If you desire an exemption from this clause it would be to your advantage to be frank with us about your situation. There is also the small matter of the user name that you have voluntarily chosen. For practical purposes, it may be too late to unring that bell. EdJohnston ( talk) 02:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked.
Edjonston, I was not a member of wiki when I saw the words “speedy delete” so I naturally responded promptly, and I wanted to use the telephone to privately confirm that I had given permission to use the material. I couldn’t find a phone number or email address so I just registered, and chose a code ID which seemed like a good idea at the time. A phone number is not provided on-line for copyright confirmation. is that true? Also a lot of new information has been added to my site because the editors require me to prove everything about myself or my contributions on-line and there is no other way of doing that either. Regarding the structure of contributions, other editors gave the Da Costa page its title, a section on history, and some references, which I reviewed, and also added to them from other sources to present a chronological order of the research and controversies of this condition which still exists, but usually under different labels, and I am presenting it in plain English for the general reader. I will give the other matters of your enquiry some more thought before responding soon, but in the meantime can you please check the discussion page and look at the edit history and see that each time I comply with one wiki policy, two editors produce another policy, or varying interpretations of them to delete my contributions Posturewriter ( talk)posturewriter. —Preceding comment was added at 10:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Edjonston; regarding your COI question, I am writing the history of Da Costa’s syndrome in plain English for the benefit of the general reader and to save space here i have posted more information in response to SuperTycoon on the discussion page on 9-4-08. In the meantime can you contact the editors dealing with the naming issue and let me know which is your main concern and give me a time frame so that I can deal with one group of editors, and one policy at a time. Posturewriter ( talk) 09:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)posturewriter
Edjonston; You will be making your decision soon. Please consider that on 14-1-08 WhatamIdoing deleted one of my contributions on the grounds of COI, and wrote “I do appreciate your other efforts, but you need to quit adding your own research theories to this article” etc. I have since been adding reviews of Harvard quality papers to the history section. I have also amended and added to my website to provide material for wiki, selected and now being abbreviated, otherwise it would still be much the same as before. It was not necessary for me, but was a response to editors requests, and not for the “sole” or “primary” purpose of promoting my website, or anything “close” to COI. I would also like you to consider the COI question in relation to the other editors preference for psychological explanations for symptoms as typified by twice attempting to delete my review of S.Wolf’s 1947 research which proved a physical cause of breathlessness, and is an important milestone in the research history. here (including Cohen and White) and here, in my comments on Rosen's 1990 study. The other contributors are replacing my edits with descriptions that include codes, acronyms, and jargon, etc., and unspecified references to “imprecisely characterized” ailments. I have been providing wiki with contributions which are consistent with the fundamental plain English policy so that the general reader can understand the subject Posturewriter ( talk)posturewriter —Preceding comment was added at 09:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The article under question is largely being written by an account with the same name. In fact, much of the article is written with pronouns in the first person. The individual under question has a website should anyone wish to contact him in order to determine if the above account is in fact him. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 05:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: I have moved this discussion from WP:AIN to here, as this now seems to be the most appropriate place for the discussion. Chicken Wing ( talk) 22:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm consolidating several related requests here. First, I request that the semi-protection status of the Clayton Bennett article be resinstated. The protection ended today and the article's history reveals numerous vandal edits already today.
Secondly, I've asked Coz 11 to recuse himself from editing the article and all articles related to the Seattle Supersonics because he has a conflict of interest. I've also asked the same user in the past to avoid using inflammatory edit summaries regarding Mr. Bennett. Coz 11 has removed these warnings from his talk page, failed to discuss the issue, and continues to edit the articles. I think an administrator should require this user to explain his actions or should ask him to discontinue editing articles for which he has a conflict of interest.
I would also ask that this situation not be treated lightly. You can see for yourself the level of personal attacks that have been thrown at me regarding this issue. [43] Chicken Wing ( talk) 14:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Coz 11 has continued his streak of biased editing on the Clayton Bennett article today. This time he added, "Recent developments have shown that the agreement was violated." [49] Given that this is a biography of a living person and nothing has been determined in court, the user should have said the agreement was "allegedly" violated. A small example, yes, but I shouldn't have to check an article day-after-day to see if Coz 11 has slipped another comment in to slant the article against Bennett, especially since Coz 11 is at the top of an organization that opposes him. Chicken Wing ( talk) 20:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It appears that the National Women's Health Network has a project setup for editing Wikipedia. Apparently called the "Base Camp project". See Nwhnintern ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (softblocked as a role account/COI problems) and Healthywomendc ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (hardblocked as a repeat role account/COI problems). They have a stated goal of editing the following:
And I would assume any other article related to this area, see their article. For the moment they are hardblocked. I have left a note on the latest account's talk page trying to open a dialogue and get them to understand/abide by the role account and COI policies. If they respond there and agree to abide by the policies I will change the block. Just an FYI. KnightLago ( talk) 19:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
user lightdefender is busy adding material about the Take that musical (which starts a run in May) to multiple pages. Only problem is, he doesn't want any of the articles to acknowledge the tricky problem that take that have nothing to do with the musical and have made statements to that effect. Examples of his attempts to whitewash articles can be seen here, here, here, various more in history. I can only conclude he has a conflict of interest. -- 87.113.116.129 ( talk) 09:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
87.113.116.129 Is trying to sabotage an article I created about the musical with irrelevant detail. The musical is relevant to both the Take That and Gary Barlow articles. Light Defender ( talk) 09:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Bpayne4001 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This is the username of Mr. Brendan Payne, who is a staff member at the Marketing/External Affairs department of Western New England College and Western New England College School of Law. Mr Payne has a clear history of removing cited information about his employer that could be potentially negative. These include removing newspaper accounts of on-campus crime, alumni who have been convicted of misusing their law degrees, and publicly-available information. Mr. Payne has also created most of the "significant alumni" Wikipedia articles. Thus he has created his own roster of individuals who would not otherwise have articles. The sole purpose has been to link from his employer's article. He has been warned via {{ COI}} but the whitewash behavior continues. He has been told of this again and again on his talk page but still refuses to defer to consensus. 99luftbaloons! ( talk) 16:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Bpayne4001 ( talk) 23:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)BPayne4001
Amagon rosh ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has historically made and edited many Cuba-related articles, not without controversy (See talk). He has historically copyvio'd Havana Club's website contents to make articles (speedied twice) and today he posted on Talk:Havana Club and my own talk the following:
Although his edits on the article up to now [54] is hardly COI, some watchout is warranted.-- Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 01:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
These users appear to be adding links and content relating to Anvil Media's (a search engine marketing (SEM) services company), client list: www.anvilmediainc.com/full-client-list.htm, including Tumbleweed Communications, Genco Supply Chain Solutions, Auctionpay, reliableremodeler.com and Planar Systems. Last year similar editing was reported at WP:WPSPAM: here. Anvilmedia had managed to make some fairly neutral contributions, at least on the article ColumbiaSoft, most of his/her other contributions, including Retrevo, GolfNow.com, and Portland Oregon Visitors Association were deleted for being adverts/non-notable. However today content was added ( diff diff) to Springfield, Oregon and Coburg, Oregon that clearly shows the Convention & Visitors Association of Lane County Oregon connection. I'm all for boosting Lane County's economy, but not on Wikipedia. I've reverted the changes and warned KimKnees about NPOV and COI. How do I proceed? Katr67 ( talk) 20:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
There is some discussion happening on the article's talk page. Katr67 ( talk) 20:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
A user, A Sniper, that has identified himself [55] [56] [57] [58] as a former manager and producer for the bands Death (band), Morbid Saint, Mötley Crüe is continually editing the related articles. I have left a {{ uw-coi}} tag on the users talk page, but would appreciate other editors following up on this. dissolve talk 21:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
It is a bit coincidental Dissolve that just after your COI notice, Single-purpose account Jackmantas was created and started slashing the Eric Greif article to bits. Is that operating under good faith? A Sniper ( talk) 10:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Response by Jackmantas: Thank you Ed, for inviting me to this discussion. Dissolve, you are precisely correct in your statements. I am editing the article because it appears to be an autobiography. I see very little verifiable information on the page and I also see very little neutrality. Most, if not all of the links that the creator has provided as supposed references are interviews where the subject of the article is simply making claims about himself. In my mind this does not meet the minimum criteria of Wikipedia's core policies.
On top of this, he is a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit. So it would appear that in his accusations of vandalism and sock puppetry toward me he was abusing his trusted position as a member of Wikipedia volunteer staff to further his own agenda.
I feel like I am doing the best job I can to do my part as a newcomer that wants to help out and is feeling good about doing just that. Might I add that I have always admired and marveled at Wikipedia. The amount of nformation contained is absolutely staggering. I had always heard that anyone could contribute to Wikipedia and while that is totally cool and innovative, at the same time it creates an environment in which widespread abuse could potentially run rampant if left unchecked. It feels good to be able to help out, and I look forward to learning all I can about how I can be of service to the Wikipedia community in the future.
That is all I have to say for now. Thank you again Ed, for the opportunity to join this discussion. Jackmantas ( talk) 17:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem Ed. Jackmantas ( talk) 18:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This whole case is ridiculous. I have known A Sniper since October of last year and over those months he has shown himsefl to be a fine and non-biased editor, no matter who he is. I believe Dissolve is abusing his right to take up anyone on a COI. It specifically says in WP:COI that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising or self-promotion, or a vanity press. As such, it should contain only material that complies with its content policies, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest." However, A Sniper has never displayed anything but neutrality on his edits and has never (as far as I know, and I do watch) made an edit that contributed to a lie. If he really was Eric Greif, he has only used his close knowledge of the above-mentioned articles to help those articles. It seems the only real article that is being greatly complained about is the Eric Greif article (where jackmantas has been heavily editing), but I must ask something. Just because A Sniper may be Eric Greif, and created the article (and heavily contributed to it) does that suddenly mean it's all wrong or biased? I think not. A Sniper has not displayed any amount of "vanity" edits on the article and it appears to be all factual. If you really think A Sniper is Eric Greif and that he has been messing up the neutrality of his own article then I pledge to personally see to it to watch over the page closely and maintain its neutrality and to find the sources needed for the things said. I mean, after all, if A Sniper really is Eric Greif, couldn't he just go to some site or something and post a whole story about himself which could then be cited for the Eric Greif article? I see no problems with this. As it is, I still think this accusation is frivolous and that A Sniper has displayed nothing but excellent (and more importantly, unbiased) editing on the small number of pages that he regularly edits. Thank you. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 20:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Response by Jackmantas: Hello Blizzard Beast. In response to your post, I will say this: The Eric Grief article is clearly an autobiography and as such I can do no better than to point out Wikipedia's policy concerning such articles: "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community. Editing a biography about yourself should only be done in clear-cut cases." "Wikipedia has gone through many prolonged disputes about the significance, factual accuracy, and neutrality of such articles.[1] Avoiding such editing keeps Wikipedia neutral and helps avoid pushing a particular point-of-view." "Writing autobiographies is discouraged because it is difficult to write a neutral, verifiable autobiography and there are many pitfalls. If you have published elsewhere on a topic, we strongly welcome your expertise on the subject for Wikipedia articles. However, every Wikipedia article must cover its subject in a neutral, fair, and comprehensive way in order to advance knowledge of the subject as a whole. Please forget your biases while enriching the Wiki users knowledge. Articles that exist primarily to advance the interests of the contributor will likely be deleted." "They (autobiographies) are often biased, usually positively. People will write overly positively about themselves, and often present opinions as facts. Wikipedia aims to avoid presenting opinions as facts. (Neutral point of view does not mean simply writing in the third person)." "They can be unverifiable. If the only source for a particular fact about you is you yourself, then readers cannot verify it. (One common area where this is the case is with hopes, dreams, thoughts, and aspirations. There is no way for readers to verify what you think.) Everything in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable." "They can contain original research. People often include in autobiographies information that has never been published before, or which is the result of firsthand knowledge. This type of information would require readers to perform primary research in order to verify it. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance; original research is not permitted in Wikipedia." Why these problems exist "Just because you believe honestly you are being neutral doesn't mean you are. Unconscious biases can and do exist, and are a very common cause of the problems with autobiographies—which is why we discourage autobiographies themselves and not just self-promotion. Not only does this affect neutrality but it also affects the verifiability and unoriginal research of the autobiography. One may inadvertently slip things in that one may not think need to be attributable even though they do, due to those very same biases. Even if you can synthesize an autobiography based on only verifiable material that is not original research you may still not be able to synthesize it in a neutral manner." I believe the developers of this Wikipedia policy have stated very eloquently the dangers of users creating autobiography articles and I need say no more on this topic at this time.Thank you,-- Jackmantas ( talk) 04:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)