This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
This IP address (which maps directly to DREW TECHNOLOGIES INC according to http://ws.arin.net/whois/) has repeatedly vandalized the pages which list commercial OBD-II products (which is Drew Technologies core business). Please see the contributions list for this IP. The 8 most recent edits (at the time of this writing) by this IP (going back roughly two months time) appear to be DREW TECHNOLOGIES moving themselves to the top of the list (and moving people above them down the list) in order to self-promote. They also removed (without discussion) someone's concern about one of the articles being used purely for advertising. The article lists (containing DREW TECHNOLOGIES products and competitors' products) had recently been arranged alphabetically to discourage this kind of product "bumping", but they again put their products at the top of the list. Since the history of this practice goes back roughly two months' time, I propose a two-month IP ban for this address. As the edits in question were already listed in an alphabetically ordered list, the only reason for moving to the top would be self-promotion. Can someone else please review the edits by this IP and give a second opinion?
Rjm7730 recently edited Tucker Max to add original research (unsourced commentary about a lawsuit), Max's lawyers' names, and a link to Richard J Mockler's biography, one of the lawyers. Since the username in question is 'Rjm' and the lawyer is named Richard J Mockler, I assume there is a COI for him to add original research and his name to the article (contribs: [ [1]] Theserialcomma ( talk) 19:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Ericcraigis (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Inoneearandoutyourmother (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
67.155.98.242 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
76.90.121.177 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Editor Ericcraigis says he is Eric Craig ( see summary). This person was a guitar player for The Cunninghams and is Director of A&R for Lakeshore Records. He started articles on these three subjects and is the major contributor to all three. The account Ericcraigis appears to have stopped editing and Inoneearandoutyourmother started soon after, doing the same sort of edits as Ericcraigis. After Eric Craig was deleted it was twice recreated by Inoneearandoutyourmother. Editor repeatedly removes tags from these articles without giving any reasons [2] [3] [4] and was repeatedly readding incorect information about Queens of the Stone Age [5] [6] ( Talk:Lakeshore Records). Duffbeerforme ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC).
This article Douglas Romayne appears to be a COI under the Wikipedia standard, as it appears to be an autobiography that has been posted by user Bleu Jean Management and a user with the IP addrss 216.86.198.37. Bleu Jean Management is this persons management company, and writing an article about someone you are in bussiness with is a direct violation of the Wikipedia COI rules.
Also the section on "Albums" is a blatent attempt for self promotion, because it send people to iTunes, MovieScore Media and CD Baby where the CD can be purchased. The quotes provided are also the type of quotes that would be used in a promotional package, not a enyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pub14 ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Robert Wolf is a journalist and author of some (perhaps minor) note. Coincidentally Robert Wolf is also the name of the chairman of UBS AG, a large bank. A few months ago Pistoneme ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created the article Robert Wolf (UBS AG) about the banker (and similar articles with very similar names). That article has been deleted four times, at least twice because it appeared to be a copy of UBS' page on banker Wolf. Pistoneme has repeatedly attempted to move, blank, or have deleted the article on the journalist Wolf. Pistoneme identifies herself as an employee of UBS here. Following a fairly daft run of vandalism earlier today Pistoneme has been indefinitely blocked. Subsequent to that Pistoneme's talk page has been blanked by two IPs which WHOIS to UBS, one of which also repeated Pistoneme's request to zap journalist Wolf's article ( here). While there is no outstanding COI editing now, Pistoneme appears to be determined, and undeterred by blocks. Can I suggest a few uninterested parties add Robert Wolf and maybe (redlink) Robert Wolf (UBS AG) to their watchlists. And perhaps someone richer with the milk of human kindness than I might gently point out to Pistonme how unwise her recent behaviour has been. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The chairman of a large bank is almost certain to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. It would have been easy enough to rewrite the copyvio. And to find sources. DGG ( talk) 02:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Chris Heimerdinger ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) My interest in the page is just through responding to a message on the BLP noticeboard; I am in discussion on the talk page about edits that should not really be very controversial. Also on the talk page there are accusations that one editor is the article subject and another is someone involved in a lawsuit against him. Would appreciate a further external look. Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
It appears there are multiple people editing the article against a conflict of interest. Chris Heimerdinger is editing as 98.202.23.178, and there's speculation he's editing as Thumper10 as well. There is also speculation that 216.49.181.128 has a conflict of interest in the subject matter. -- Ronz ( talk) 23:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
FireandFlames17 is a new editor, whose edits border on sockpuppetry for other editors involved in the disputes. -- Ronz ( talk) 23:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
As someone who has been involved with the page in question for some time, I would like to offer moral support to itsmejudith and thank her for her help. It's quite clear that Heimerdinger has his paws on his page with some regularity and I find it easy to believe that the gentleman on the other side of the lawsuit does as well. It's pretty ugly. So continued stopbys from uninvolved editors are highly welcome. Thmazing ( talk) 04:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
One to watch. Related to New York Youth Symphony and being edited by User:Newyorkyouthsymphony. — Alan ✉ 22:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
User has created all three abovementioned articles. PENCAMP, according to the Academic Assistance article, was created by Victor Gursky, which is very similar to the username. User has also tried to shirk the deletion process of these articles by creating duplicate articles (diff) and removing AfD templates (diff). MuZemike ( talk) 16:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Only article created by user. Also, only edits beside AfD/other tagging made by user. User has removed a {{ coi}} tag ( diff) which raises suspicions of trying to hide a COI. Article up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All By Students (ABS) Notebooks, which faces a possibility of being kept. MuZemike ( talk) 23:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that the last edit on the article (as of October 1) was made by an anonymous user. The WHOIS data on the IP came back to WeatherBug. The edit deals with mobile versions of WeatherBug:
WeatherBug Direct is a line of free applications for mobile devices, including WeatherBug Direct for Blackberry and WeatherBug Direct for Windows Mobile.
Is this a major COI violation? Thanks, -- Willking1979 ( talk) 21:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a conflict of interest — see editing history. User:Forbetterlife has only edited this article and once the Philip Anschutz article. - BStarky ( talk) 17:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Sketch is a notable restaurant in London, and an edit war is starting [7] between myself and an anonymous editor [8]. The editor claims that they work for Sketch, and their edits make the article look like, for want of a better phrase, a press release [9] Gareth E Kegg ( talk) 18:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
On the talk page of an article currently proposed for deletion ( Occupational apartheid), the User:Occupational scientist writes that "There are going to be a large group of Occupational Therapists editing all things related to occupational therapy on wikipedia over the next few weeks...I am just one of those..." and states that this will be because of an event called OT wikiflash. The user points towards the website OTwikiflash.net. I feel that the community should be notified of these (seemingly good-faith) edits since they might unwittingly breach into COI range (as can be seen on the occupational apartheid page). Thank you. Themfromspace ( talk) 21:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
There appears to be conflict of interest editing on Jaclyn A. Smith by her management company / User:Noodleheadproductions. Article text comes straight from NoodleHead Productions which represents her. I periodically try to clean it up but they just come back and reset it to their text about once a quarter. Jjaazz ( talk) 11:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Shortly after a call for fans of The Syn to edit their Wikipedia article from the owner of their official e-mail list ( 14Hour) and subsequent complaints of anti-Syn bias on Wikipedia, a new Wikipedia editor appeared with the username Umbrello. Umbrello Records was founded and is run by Steve Nardelli, lead singer in The Syn. This editor has only edited articles on The Syn and on Nardelli. His user page is basically the same as the article page for Steve Nardelli. I suspect user Umbrello probably is Steve Nardelli; he has form for promoting himself on the Web (see this material since removed from The Syn article). Most of Umbrello's edits are reasonable and useful, but some are overly praiseworthy and ridiculous (e.g. this one). I have tagged both articles with coi notices and done npov tidy-up, although Umbrello and a seemingly associated IP editor (24.47.192.90) has removed the coi tags. I've some history, both good and bad, with Nardelli and have no particular desire to wade into this situation, so would some others be up for monitoring the situation? Bondegezou ( talk) 17:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Yesterday, Toyne's userpage was tagged {{ db-g11}} for speedy deletion as blatant advertising and subsequently appeared in the Category:Spam pages for speedy deletion.
I saw it there and, as no notice had been given on the user's talk page, posted information for Toyne about the speedy deletion criterion WP:CSD#G11, the COI guideline, and the " What may I not have on my user page?" portion of the Wikipedia userpage content guideline. I then deleted the userpage.
Today ( diff), Toyne posted the following on my talk page:
I am posting the issue here on Toyne's behalf for the attention of the wider audience of NPOV editors and admins who share my concerns about COI issues. Thanks. — Athaenara ✉ 20:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
( deletion log) — Athaenara ✉ 21:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Gravityforce ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), formerly User:Slipinski, is a single-purpose account which has been exclusively promoting a alleged new alternative theory of gravitation published by the editor himself, S. Lipinski, in an obscure physics journal. Furthermore, at Gravitation, this editor has persistently edit-warred against the consensus of at least three editors (myself included) to have a section on this new theory, in flagrant violation of numerous policies including WP:WEIGHT, WP:CON, and WP:OR to name a few. Entreaties to stop this behavior have been completely unsuccessful. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 11:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
New account Yndurain has:
However, according to the bio article, Francisco Jose Yndurain Muñoz died on June 6 this year, so it is not clear to me whether this is actually COI, or just an SPA with a poorly chosen name. Bio article seems to be too well written for a complete novice, so possibly this is an alternate account. Anyway, bringing it here hoping that someone may know how to handle this. I have notified Yndurain of this post on their talk page. Gandalf61 ( talk) 08:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
AndroidCat boasts on Alt.Religion.Scientology of his "work" here at Wikipedia. This is a clear Conflict of Interest, showing agenda based political intention for censorship! [1] AndroidCat also posts on the Dianetic Groups: [2] AndroidCat recently attacked over and over various Wiki pages called "obnosis" which included good references, until the page was deleted. He has also a history of attacking other Scientology pages and censorship agendas. -- lisakachold 24.251.216.251 ( talk) 00:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Links for well-defined misbehavior by AndroidCat on various Scientology Cites: The links are [13] and [14].
LisaKachold ( talk) 22:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
He is just as entitled to have an opinion and talk about it on the web as anyone else. Holding an opinion does not in and of itself constitute a COI, sorry. Jayen 466 00:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
FYI - see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/LisaKachold. Cirt ( talk) 11:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
This message approved by: VG ☎ 12:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
User Bert Convy keeps editing the Gary Trauner article with obvious bias. Especially, since it's the only article he's edited, I'm suspicious that he's working for the Lummis campaign. BeIsKr ( talk) 05:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
BluePulse is a web 2.0 start up. They sort of have a marketing campaign going but I don't know if it has users/notability except for coverage on a few startup blogs. I was first attracted into googling them after seeing that their iTunes ratings were being gamed. (If anyone has iTunes, they are in the app store). I was wondering if anyone could look through the history of edits, check notability, and see if they're complying with rules and such. Because I know not how to handle (There may indeed be no problem, I'm not very familiar). -- Drinkadrink ( talk) 17:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Phaedsys username blocked by another admin as promotional, IP editor warned. Doug Weller ( talk) 14:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Phaedsys ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - also apparently User:80.176.226.26, see contributions from each and spelling of vandalism - editing MISRA C++ on behalf of the Misra project, giving other editors orders. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
While working on a series of articles related to publishing, I ran across an article about book publisher Charlie Winton. I looked at the editing history and noticed that the creator and main editor of the page was a User talk:kwinton. Perhaps the name is just a coincidence. I am backing off of editing it for now. The article on its face seems sound, with not an excessive number of superlatives affecting its tone, but it currently does not reference problems in the publishing industry such as those in this article, which quotes Winton: http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/06/21/independent_press/print.html - Please advise on how best to handle this. -- Larrybob ( talk) 04:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Radionut ( talk · contribs) has declared himself as the subject of the article on William Eric Alexander. he has been today informed of wp:coi policy. his contributions have at times been disruptive and war-ish, and is suspected of using the ip puppets, 71.126.34.110 ( talk · contribs), 71.126.39.195 ( talk · contribs), and Netio99 ( talk · contribs). -- emerson7 17:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure if this is more a question about WP:COI or WP:RS; a little of each, perhaps. User:Daytonapost provided this diff, which cites--wait for it--the Daytona Post. As a subsequent editor pointed out, there are serious accusations here in need of citing, but apart from that, is it acceptable for this user to cite this source--and no others--in making accusations of this weight? Gladys J Cortez 22:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I have been trying to add information on this entry regarding a major case here in Montana where punitive damages were assessed against this law firm, but somebody with a Utah IP address keeps deleting it. I suspect he/she has a conflict of interest for the reason that he has removed this information three times now, stating that "this should belong in a criticisms section, if at all", and only edits this page and the BYU law school page. I am aware that GDC recruits heavily from that law school. I don't necessarily object to his contention that my entry might belong in a different section than I have placed it, but it peeves me that it just keeps getting deleted, instead of moved. There is no talk page for this entry, so I have been unable to initiate discussion with this user. 69.144.136.45 ( talk) 14:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
User is directly involved in the article above, as shown by viewing the corresponding images on the page in which s/he is admittingly the copyright holder, hence using the article as self-promotion of the game. User does not seem to understand the basic Wikipedia guidelines as shown in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISurv1vor. MuZemike ( talk) 06:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Azambataro is a marketing writer for
Tibco Software and a
coi
spa on Wikipedia.
(Just a basic post here on my way offline for the evening.) —
Athaenara
✉ 03:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
These accounts have been creating, editing, and re-creating articles which so far have been deleted at least five times. Is it perhaps time for blocks for advertising / sockpuppeting and page protection for the article titles which may be used? — Athaenara ✉ 21:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The below item was posted to the talk page here. Brought here to the project page for the appropriate desired comment. The issue, in my view, is that there are an number of analysis like this, published for law-firm clients, and occasionally visible to the larger world. The particular item in question actually is informative, and not available in the standard media yet--in any form; the source is reliable, but the item was apparently posted by a self-promotional effort, or an account name that pretends to make it a self promotional effort. See below.
--
Yellowdesk (
talk) 01:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Link tracking data follows. MER-C 13:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
A prod lasted over five days so the article should have been deleted, but User:Lilithastaroth went to the BLP noticeboard and said she objected to the deletion, so someone removed the prod saying it was because she did had objected there and because the prodder was a newish editor, [16] although the time limit had elapsed (?) Is that a new way in accordance with policy for people to avoid getting their articles deleted if no-one who happens to come across the article without being asked to do what she wants will remove the prod? Anyway it's up at AfD now, but she of course has a COI so I thought I'd let you know. Sticky Parkin 12:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The article has been hijacked by single purpose accounts clearly linked to the subject: [17]. Watch this case closely. Colchicum ( talk) 14:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
This article is repeatedly having edits reverted by an unregistered user of the name 'EvilAvatar'. Evil Avatar is a popular online gaming forum which recently had several administrators and a large segment of its user base depart for another site. Any edits mentioning this fact are being repeatedly reverted with the comment 'Please stop vandalizing this page!'
It is highly likely that this user is Philip Hansen, the owner of the Evil Avatar website, given that the user is both using Mr. Hansen's online moniker and that this behavior is in-line with the way all mention of this split have been systematically expunged from his own site.
Wikipedia, however, is not Mr. Hansen's personal webpage, and the repeated removal of relevant, verifiable information from a Wikipedia entry because he does not want it proliferated is not acceptable behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Commandar ( talk • contribs) 20:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Overview: History of promotional, possibly self-serving edits and article creations, with apparent use of multiple user IDs (sockpuppets). Possible candidate for Checkuser, although from the evidence (unbroken strings of edits, some under IP, some under user names) it seems fairly clear that we are dealing only with one person.
According to geobytes, all the IPs involved hail from Casablanca, Morocco, the place of residence of the article subject of Tahir Shah.
Previous talk page requests to comply with COI and core content policies: [18], [19].
Examples of problematic edits:
To be clear, Tahir Shah is a notable and talented author, with congratulatory coverage in top-class newspapers, as well as a filmmaker, a book reviewer for the Washington Post, a writer of screenplays and much besides.
It is all the more puzzling that these accounts, rather than capitalising on the good press coverage there is on the man, seek to inflate his achievements with unsourced claims and fawning descriptions. Here is an example of the state the article was in after one of the user's recent editing sessions: [35]
To be fair, I will grant that some of the contributions made by the above IDs have been pertinent, if invariably flattering to the subject.
The problem is long-standing; here, in 2006, yet another Casablancan IP deletes "copyedit" and "verify" tags, they are restored by the other user, and then the same Casablancan IP deletes them again the next day.
None of the user IDs concerned has so far responded to talk page messages. Over to you guys. Jayen 466 19:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
User(s) concerned has been notified of this thread: [36], [37], [38]. Jayen 466 20:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
More of the same: [39], misspelt title, POV and unsourced. Jayen 466 11:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Title spelling now fixed, page moved. Jayen 466 21:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I note at least we now have references, some of them from bona fide sources. There appear to be copyright problems with the book covers (see the talk page of Coldwinterday ( talk · contribs)), but the sourcing appears to be a step in the right direction. Would appreciate an uninvolved editor looking the articles over:
Cheers, Jayen 466 17:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Has added links to his personal blog as references to material he has added to articles:
He was given a coi warning 09:58, 14 June 2008 by Herbythyme after restoring the link [41] in E-mail address.
Since then he restored the link in MagicISO on 12:22, 30 July 2008 after it was removed and was aware that his link in E-mail address remained when he edited the sentence containing the link on 11:09, 21 September 2008.
After participating in the discussion above with EdJohnston, Hm2k has decided to restore his personal website as a source to E-mail address [42]. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
The discussion from Ed's Page |
---|
The following content has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability. |
I prepared this for WP:COIN, but thought it would be better to find a less threatening approach given the other dispute he's in with me. Herbythyme doesn't have time to address it, but thinks someone should:
Has added links to a website that is identical to his username: He was given a coi warning 09:58, 14 June 2008 by Herbythyme after restoring the link [43] in E-mail address. Since then he restored the link in MagicISO on 12:22, 30 July 2008 after it was removed and was aware that his link in E-mail address remained when he edited the sentence containing the link on 11:09, 21 September 2008. I couldn't find any new additions of the link, so I think it got through that he shouldn't be adding them. Maybe all he needs is a friendly reminder by someone other than myself? -- Ronz ( talk) 15:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm taking this to COIN given Hm2k's reintroduction of the link. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
|
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability. |
My read is that Hm2k is adding the link in because there is no better one to use as a source that he can find. This is based on his last comment in the discussion above. Clearly, "It's better than nothing" is rarely a good guideline on Wikipedia. Arakunem Talk 15:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd be willing to retain that sentence even without a cite, maybe replacing an extremely difficult and complex task with a complex task. If you still object to that sentence unless it has a citation, let's get rid of the sentence. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Trying to match these restrictions is an extremely difficult and complex task, often resulting in long regular expressions that are too hard to actually be practical.
User:Pcarbonn is an investor in cold fusion pseudoscience that has been promoting the ideas here on-wiki. He has crowed about his successful POV-pushing here in item 18. Since this user has a business that has the potential to receive income from a cold fusion enterprise based on thin films, I ask that he be banned from editing cold fusion related pages.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 17:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
This was brought to my attention.. ScienceApologist, why are you revealing the real world name of a user? Are you certain that this user has consented to be identified? A quick check of his current userpage does not show a disclosure, although I may have missed it. I would think that you would be particularly sensitive to the need not to out people. Please either demonstrate where this connection was made, or redact your connecting the users. Thanks. ++ Lar: t/ c 22:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Re. opening statement to this thread, "He has crowed about his successful POV-pushing here in item 18". I find that misrepresentative of the statement linked to, which is not extreme and whose main thrust is that both sides of the debate should be represented in the article (an accordance with WP:NPOV). The statement does say, "One editor, who calls himself ScienceApologist, fiercely defended the view that cold fusion is 'contrary to current theory, so it's impossible.' " If that is true, one has to question who is POV-pushing. Ty 03:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Editors don't generally (ever?) have a COI with a field of study. They may have a COI with respect to an organization or biography. It seems that if there is no violation of WP:NPOV there is no problem. If NPOV is the issue, then it should be addressed elsewhere, and without reference to the real life identity of the editor. Jehochman Talk 13:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
NOTE: I have redacted all mention (that I could find) of the name of the investor, since ScienceApologist has not done so after several days. This included editing his remarks, as well as the heading of this section, as a diff will show, but I felt I had no choice. If I missed some please do them for me, thanks. ++ Lar: t/ c 15:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, this is not the first time SA has inappropriately sought someone's off-wiki identity to use as a bludgeon. See my complaint here about the time SA went after me and the subsequent oversighting of said material. Ronnotel ( talk) 14:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The IP above is the manager of the subject of the above article, as admitted in the AfD here. MuZemike ( talk) 23:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
On the freelance job board getafreelancer.com, I stumbled upon yet another commercial request for doing PR work on WP. Interestingly, one of the bidders showcased his previous work naming the two articles above. _R_ ( talk) 03:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Bkonop ( talk · contribs) is removing sourced controversy material from Ben Konop. I've issued him a COI warning. Little Red Riding Hood talk 04:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
An anonymous editor (the IP Editor is using different IPs) who claims to be a lawyer, and has spoken to one of the lawyers tangentially related to the case, is editing the article based on several different court documents and newspaper editorials. The IP Editor is trying to add the vacated portions of the trial into the article by using court documents and newspaper editorials.
I and other editors (including Third Opinion) have told the IP Editor they need to supply secondary reliable sources, but they are insistent on editing the article by using primary sources and newspaper editorials. Some of the newspaper editorials used are human-interest pieces that just have a mention of the original trial and include misinformation about pertinent data that involves the Roxas v Marcos trial.
Finding secondary reliable sources pertaining to the Roxas v Marcos trial are almost nonexistent. The IP Editor’s involvement with the case is in direct conflict of interest, and the edits are not neutral. Jim ( talk) 13:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
____________________________
There is no absolutely conflict of interest in the IP version. Merely being a lawyer does not create a conflict. Talking to a tangentially involved lawyer does not create a conflict. No material provided came from the tangentially involved lawyer, so it does not represent original research. See the talk page for the article for the IP's suggested version. All material proposed is based upon a neutral description of what transpired in the legal proceeding as reported in the actual court records as well as numerous contemporary news reports from mainstream newspapers. JimBob takes the position that appellate court decisions can never be used as a source on Wikipedia and the news reports are all editorial opinion pieces. That is a preposterous position. The appellate court decisions (as opposed to pleadings filed by one party in the trial court, or one-sided trial testimony) will summarize the pleadings and proceedings of the trial court, and thus the appellate court decisions become the most reliable secondary source as to what transpired in a given legal proceeding. Furthermore, since the decision is the measured work of judges in an adversarial system subject to review by the opposing attorneys and often other judges in other courts, the decisions should be considered hyper-peer reviewed secondary sources. That being said, even if the court decisions are considered primary sources, they can still be used according to Wikipedia’s guidelines. As stated in WP:PSTS, “Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia…” Use of primary sources can be used to “make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.” The use of the court records in the IP version is consistent with these guidelines. Finally, the IP version does not rely solely on court decisions. The fact that Roxas and his successors were successful in establishing in a court of law that Roxas found the treasure and that it was stolen by Marcos has been established in the IP version through the use of the following reliable secondary sources -- New York Daily News, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Metropolitan News-Enterprise, Manila Standard Today, and even a press release from the Office of Solicitor General, Republic of the Philippines. These secondary sources are reliable and verifiable, and to dismiss these news reports as well as a press release from the Office of Solicitor General, Republic of the Philippines as mere opinion editorials is nonsense. Look at the sources!
Finally, JimBob distorts the nature of the only other third opinion provided on this dispute. The only third opinion in this matter was provided by Fr33kman. It was his opinion that the court decision could be used so long as party allegations were identified as such -- as mere allegations. The IP version complies with this recommendation in that it described Roxas' allegation as just that, allegations. The IP version prefaces the alleged material from the court case with “The evidence and testimony submitted by Roxas alleged…” and “Roxas went on to allege….” So, the IP version complies with Fr33kman's suggestions. Fr33kamn did not address the reliability and verifiability of the news reports or the other sources.
It is my position that JimBob's fanatical behavior in distorting the truth about Yamashita's treasure could only be the result of an undisclosed conflict of interest of his own. I am not the first editor to be bullied by JimBob concerning thoughtful edits to this article. See the Archived disputes with other members including member Grant.
67.120.59.46 ( talk) 00:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
This article was tagged for COI soon after creation as probable autobiographical, given the identity between the creating user name and the subject name. Since then it has had a very large number edits by IP users (predominantly in the Colorado area, and often with little interest in editing articles other than this one). The COI notice (and other notices were deleted). I restored the COI notice last week, it was deleted; restored again, etc. It is currently restored, but I anticipate its re-removal. None of the IP editors appear interested in "taking it to Talk". AllyD ( talk) 16:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Journeyist ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User is a confirmed member of the religious group led by the subject and armed with a blog that does nothing but defend the subject even if newspaper and other reliable, third-party, published sources' reports abound regarding his (the subject's) unlawful activities (currently wanted by the Philippine government). Actually the said editor only edits this page. Another member Darbook has just recently been banned for using a sockpuppet to make POV edits to this and related articles. Shannon Rose ( talk) 19:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. Jwri7474 ( talk) 04:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm seeking an opinion here on a potential COI issue. User:William M. Connolley is a member of the RealClimate blog, which, while being a respected blog, is still unpublished and unreviewed. Two years ago, WMC and his colleagues wrote an extended criticism of Gray on the RC blog. Most of it was scientific, but it also questioned his scientific practices and criticised Gray for his "seat of the pants" approach.
Recently, WMC edit-warred to keep an external link to that criticism (which he himself wrote with the rest of the RC team).
Now, regardless of what anyone feels about the RC criticism (and I happen to agree with it, BTW), do we really want to allow any editor to write something critical on a blog, then edit-war to link it from the BLP of a political opponent? There is already well-sourced criticism of Gray's views in the article itself, so there's really no need to include the RC link, especially when it's the author of the RC piece that is warring to keep it.
Is this not a textbook example of why the COI guideline was created in the first place?
Maybe I'm overreacting, but that's why I came here to seek input. ATren ( talk) 13:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Obviously its of no interest :-( but the article in question is here. Note that calling Gray seat-of-the-pants is not criticism [46] and Atren is well aware of this William M. Connolley ( talk) 15:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
user:83.254.214.192 was editing the article 'Pichat' but since 83.254.214.192 was the IP address of the Web Server for a company called Pichat, the article Pichat was speedily deleted for non-notability and blatant advertising. However, this user was not only involved in promoting his own company, his edit record also shows that he has been actively engaged in targeting rival software products and deleting information about them from articles whilst at the same time adding "Pichat", as can be seen by examining this article before and after his involvement in it. When confronted with the COI both on his talk page, and here
So much for his claim that he had no involvement with the company. It seems that removing the Pichat article from English Wikipedia won't stop him from self-promotion, but of more concern is the possibility that he will continue editing articles where there is an obvious conflict of interest, and where he tries to alter or remove information about his company's competitors. I guess there is a strong likelihood that he will simply move to another IP address so I don't know if there is any effective way to deal with this person. 90.59.248.88 ( talk) 20:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
We have a Landmark affiliated editor who appears to be whitewashing the article, [48] which has now been protected. What shall we do about this? Problem, or not a problem? Jehochman Talk 07:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Rick A. Ross ( talk · contribs) appears to be deleting sourced criticism, including jury's finding and judge's comments in the Jason Scott case: [50]. Before: [51] After: [52]
Subject previously asked for our article on him to be deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rick_Ross_(consultant)
BLP/N thread: [53] RS/N thread: [54]
Rick A. Ross ( talk · contribs) has been warned for potential COI violation on his talk page by Blowdart ( talk · contribs).
I have reverted the edits; the facts deleted were relevant, cited to scholarly sources, and backed up by court documents hosted online.
Comments? Jayen 466 15:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
User:Mrtphotography is an SPA account that created the article Kay O'Hara in January 2007. It was deleted on October 1 2008 with the comment "non notable individual, article is a link farm to commercial sites". It was restored on 19 October 2008 at the request of Mrtphotography. Although the article has subsequently been revised, it still has issues such as links to Ms O'Hara's "sponsors". I applied a COI tag to the article when I noticed that several photos for Ms O'Hara are credited to one Mr T Photography. User:Mrtphotography has today added a disclaimer that they are not the same person. I find my AGF a bit strained at the moment due to unrelated issues and would appreciate some input on this. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 14:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Cirt ( talk) 20:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
User Jtsports92, a coi spa, is upset that the article he has persisted in adding to promote his sports blog has been deleted (four times, as per {{ db-web}} and {{ db-g11}} speedy deletion criteria).
A google search for either "joeyssportsblog" or "joey's sports blog" does not support notability (fewer than ten hits).
The last time an indignant author complained to me about a similar deletion, I opened an AfD which resulted in a consensus to delete. I've no doubt an AfD for this one would have the same result, so I'm handing off the ball to this noticeboard. — Athaenara ✉ 01:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
There has long been a slow-burning edit war over various parts of this article: two main sections have been whether or not the subject of the article may be referred to as a "historian", and whether or not the subject contributed to a book called "Weird England". Both of these pieces of information have been repeatedly reinserted, despite protests of unverifiability on the talk page.
The current IP address of the user reinserting all this information is User:83.67.217.135. Looking at that user's edit history (99% edits of the article in question, 1% other articles that mention him) and short-temperedness, it becomes obvious that the user is Stuart Campbell himself. The Weird England issue has now been resolved: he finally named the pages of the book that credit him, and we have taken his word for it and cited them.
He has now allowed this to die down, and quietly reinserted the "historian" information in the first paragraph. He has provided a "source" - which, incredibly, is a link to the Wikipedia article for Retro Gamer, a magazine which apparently called him a historian in July 2007. This is of course unverifiable in practice, and goes against other editors' insistence that such a hotly-debated piece of text will require a strong source.
In general there is also a long history of minor self-aggrandising edits to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.5.130 ( talk) 10:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Excuse my placing my comments on the main article, but I think it need to be put there.
Aedwardmoch ( talk) 23:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Aedwardmoch Aedwardmoch ( talk) 23:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Combine EdgeCast Networks, edited almost entirely by User:Bmatschke ( contribs), with this person's profile, and you get a very strong suspicion of a CoI conflict. -- Bachrach44 ( talk) 17:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Articles
Accounts
I have been currently involved with five edit wars with user Mr T. (Based) over the plot summaries of the five Syphon Filter rticles. I have restored the in-depth plot summaries and have attempted to trim down said summaries to the best of my ability, only to find said attempted edits reverted by Mr.T (Based) under the summary "It is too long." I have seen at least three games having similarly long summaries, and felt that Mr T. (Based)'s intentions was to assume bad faith, regardless of me asking to help out in slowly trimming out said summaries instead of hitting the "undo" button.
64.85.234.166 (
talk) 21:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
User:220.145.106.186 User:220.145.241.102 User:Bluesan
All have only edited the article Dan Goodwin. Adding tons of unsourced info, not really adhering to a NPOV, plus User:Bluesan has uploaded several images that are copyvio's and keeps reuploading them after they are deleted. - - The Spooky One ( talk to me) 20:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I came across this user whilst reading about aircraft overruns. It appears he is the chairman of a Thai airline which has been the subject of numerous complaints and investigations over the past few years. A number of the user’s edits indicate that he is here solely to falsify information within articles relating to his business in clear violation of WP:COI. The two major types of action are:
While some of the user’s edits may have been justified and in fact even helpful, these are relatively few and have been minor at best. He has acted in defiance of at least two warnings issued by User:The Rambling Man.
I have attempted to clean up what inappropriate edits weren’t reverted, and have issued a more comprehensive warning on the user’s talk page (based on my knowledge from when I was editing WP on a regular basis). However, given this appears to be a SPA with a clear COI and willingness to knowingly insert false information, I feel that an indefinite block may be more appropriate. I will leave it to the broader community to decide, if anything this user must be closely monitored and taught about WP policy. 121.216.77.134 ( talk) 09:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Username ( already warned about) is a real music manager in the UK. Edit to Joe Brown (singer), while not egregiously promotional, does raise the possibility of whether Mr. Brown is a client of JTM or not, which I have so far not been able to determine. Any further investigation would be welcome.
This originated at WP:UAA, and I have already warned the user about our policy on role accounts, as I said. Daniel Case ( talk) 19:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Articles
Accounts
Coach3177, a single-purpose account with an apparent conflict of interest, seems to be engaging in sock puppetry with the Wikadm account, the name of which implies that it is an administrator account. The page history for Arbroath indicates that both accounts are being used for edit warring. — Athaenara ✉ 23:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
I have no idea what wikadm is my concern is that you are deleting honest information regarding the Arbroath Lifeboat in an article relating to Arbroath. The Lifeboat is an integral part of Arbroath and its history. TBH I have n o interest in the angling issue but was asked to insert a piece while I was adding the Lifeboat info
Actually I take issue with your reference to single purpose account so I have removed the reference and conections which could possibly insult the rnli Coach3177 —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:17-23:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC).
A couple of points are confusing to me here,
1. you took the time to edit the post and yet did not reply.
2. by adding a date and comment to my post you broke your own rule of editing others post!
BTW: I removed the comment re RNLI for your benefit as well, you are connecting a reknowned organisation with a libeleous accusation.
Now back to the original question... what problems do you have with the addition of information about a voluntary rescure organisation, which is a registered charity based in Arbroath and part of the culture and infrastructure of that town as well as the community. The link to the stations non commercial website is their as an information reference to give people more information and sea safety guides for the local area. It is unpractical to include all the Arbroath community information from that site to wikipedia. I cannot see where there is a COI with this lifeboat information. I also think that someone not based in Arbroath with no idea of how integral the lifeboat is within the Arbroath community should not be changing or deleting its information.
Coach3177 (
talk) 00:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
--
Coach3177 (
talk) 01:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC) says...
I keep answering and looking for confirmation that my entries in the Arbroath page are now acceptable, the fact that you have a COI with my Angling input is not in dispute, as stated above, although not involved with them I once took a fishing trip with them before I had my stroke and decided to inform other anglers of their
website and the good service I got, when I was editing the lifeboat info I was told I should add a bit about the angling.
My concerns are that you have linked me with some other user and your references to the lifeboat.
I would therefore ask you to edit your original post to remove those references.
The fact you admit to not knowing what the
RNLI or Lifeboat is and yet you saw fit to remove its entry is insulting to the purpose of wikipedia and seems to be an abuse of administrative rights.
With reference to this being an open discussion forum; it seems to me like I'm the only one discussing. And after reading through this area it seems not to be a disussion area but more of a dumping ground for Admins.
I am open to talk about this subject but you seem unable to string together a decent reply to my points.
Coach3177 (
talk) 01:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Derek, Thank you for an informed response, that's exactly what I was looking for!
Its a pity it wasn't dealt like that hours ago, as you made it perfectly clear, thank you.
Coach3177 (
talk) 10:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Please read the discussion. Uncle G ( talk) 12:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
School of Law, Christ University ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There seems to be a conflict of interest issue with this article, with edit wars having occurred over a proposed "controversies" section that seems to be unsourced. The talk page reflects this, and an anonymous user has even posted the phone numbers of people involved with the university, which clearly violates WP:OUTING. Help with this would be greatly appreciated. lone_twin ( talk) 14:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Lyalya Bezhetskaya ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to violate COI as the major contributor, Burlesqueen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), seems to be a single-purpose account for the subject of the article to promote herself via this article and Burlesque. Zalktis ( talk) 16:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Bkado has just removed the prod I put on the article he wrote, Brent Kado, without explanation. (He's been warned by other editors about removed "speedy" notices.) I feel the article is clearly a vanity autobiography. -- Orange Mike | Talk 20:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Statedcnr2 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Appears to be creating articles on behalf of the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. On the user's talk page, states "the director of the program approved the language on the website and article". On Talk:Office of Conservation Science the user states "Some in the office are concerned about the page being edited by other users since we are a state agency and the information we are presenting represents the state. There have been some other PA state agency pages that were changed and incorrect information was provided. Can we have this page protected so only we can make edits (once the page has been established)?" McWomble ( talk) 13:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The edit history of Stephen Payne (lobbyist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) looks like that of an autobiography. The activity of Polticaltexan ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to point to the fact that s/he is someone closely linked to Stephen Payne, the subject of the article. For example, s/he adds information and images that third parties may not have access to. Note that Polticaltexan appears to be a single-purpose account created exclusviely for promoting the presence of Stephen Payne on Wikipedia. — Zalktis ( talk) 07:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Zalktis, I understand your point about Stephen Payne and that my edits reflect a possible WP:SPA, I'm new to Wikipedia and am fascinated by the implications of this story but I've been pretty clear that I think that this isn't just some bumbling "caught on tape" mtg. -- that this is a fairly big issue of our nation's foreign policy being conducted by hired guns -- so I don't see how you could see my edits as a possible WP:AUTO as I have tried to push this "underground foreign policy" with all of my edits -- I think that the edits that I have made (and properly sourced) reflect a drift toward that (still neutral) pov (and yes, I added that Think progress collage of photos because it clearly shows that Payne isn't just some powerless fly by night) -- I am interested in this article because of the vast implications that it could lead to, but I welcome anyone else to work with me to add to it as well -- this article shouldn't focus on an edited videotape asking for a library contribution -- it should focus on US foreign policy being conducted by "hired guns" with no or at least unknown authorization... which is a fascinating concept -- I'm sorry that some feel that I have an WP:SPA, but I'm just interested in the concept. -- In my opinion, the article, as it stands right now, reflects both the viewpoint that Payne was caught on tape asking for library contributions AND that he has been doing alot of back room diplomacy as well (see the "see also" link on the Payne article to the Logan Act) -- there are alot of unanswered questions here that an autobiographer wouldn't be asking -- like what ever happened to the promised congressional investigations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polticaltexan ( talk • contribs) 20:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
User, with an obvious COI as noted here, engaging in disruptive editing on the article pages and on the AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real vmx. MuZemike ( talk) 23:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
This user seems to be a sock puppet set up to derail a new article that has been agreed that it has proper refrences but does still need some work. The article currently has been marked for deletion and when that happened this user popped up to contest my standings on wiki. I am a wiki contributor and have made some good adjustments to articles and have had 1 deleted (I was too new).-- JMST ( talk) 23:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Please see the article's history. Someone claiming to represent the subject continually objects to the article on undisclosed "privacy grounds" and substitutes his amended version (using various disposable accounts). The amended version has improved, as the user is working out how to use wikimarkup and sources, but information is still be removed for reasons I can fathom. I'm exchanged e-mails with the user, but I'm still none the wiser. He seems to think we should publish his "official version". I'm normally very sensitive to respecting privacy, but.....? And is he even notable - an underwatched afd got no-consensus. He refuses to post to the talk page, but managed to find mine [62]. Anyway, help requested.-- Scott MacDonald ( talk) 03:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Spinoff from current Wikiquette alert Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User Miranda is randomly removing legitimate references by Editor Jake Sturm concerning alleged spamming of Kira Salak citations. The Google cache here finds that the official Kira Salak website had a recently-removed credit that the site was "created by Kira Salak and Jake Sturm". Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 19:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I am a professional website designer and it is true that I did contribute to the construction of the Salak website. I found Salak's articles to be well researched, well written and informative but unfortunately, on the National Geographic webiste, only the first few paragraphs of most of her articles are available to readers. There was no place on or off the Internet to find the entire articles. As I believed that the articles should be available to the general public, as they are good references, I suggested that they be put on her website and I would assist her with this. The only question here that I am asking in this forum is the following: Are the articles appropriate reference materials and are the articles where I inserted them appropriate?
Thank you very much for taking your time to contribute to this forum.
JakeSturm (
talk) 20:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Guujaaw is the reigning President of the Haida Nation and seems to be the same person as User:Guujaaw who lately has been extensively reivising this article without citations. Article issues template placed, including COI. Contributor has been deleting material, and substituting resume-type content; this was reversed by User:Dekisugi but User:Guujaaw has since reverted all that and fuerther expanded on the COI and "peacock content". See Talk:Guujaaw for advice/warnings given, which have not been heeded. Guujaaw is a potentially valuable contributor, and highly influential over other potential Haida contributors, so I've tried to be dipomatic; but until he learns to play by the rules/guidelines his edits "tend" to be contrary to wikipedia policy/guidelines.... Skookum1 ( talk) 17:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
This is Guujaaw, the same person as that mentioned in your page, and of corse I would be concerned to se that I am described in this site at all, it wasn't me who entered the description in the first place, but it is I who would know the content without any need for citations.....and indeed, you are right, I didn't read the rules of the game. There was deletions because, they were not right, I am not Gary Edenshaw, have not been for 25 years, formally at a potlatch and 'legally' on my drivers license and passport. I chose to set the Edenshaw name aside because it is a very important name that I do not need to use, it came to me through my father who was adopted by the Edenshaw family, and I remain very close to that family especially the current Chief Edenshaw. My father was the son of the Chief of Massett Chief Seegay, my uncle is the Chief of Skedans, Edenshaw is their name, Gary is from the baby book or somewhere unimportant and as I said has been discarded, the other names Giindajing, is my kid name meaning arguementative questening the answers etc. Haawisdi is the name I use at Skedans Potlatches, they are not first and second names and listed in that way, ...Guujaaw, is the subject, and I tried to straighten that out, I stuck mainly with the format and info therein, Any "peacock" stuff was to say that My skills are in strategic negotiating, which is important, please be assured, I don't need to sell myself, I simply tried to fix a half cocked description which didn't understand these complexities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guujaaw ( talk • contribs) 09:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Fru23 began a series of wholesale deletions of several sections of this page, w/o any discussion on talk and little or no edit summary. In a chat discussion this user claimed to be affialted with the O'Reilly Factor. He has since "sort of" retracted that admission. Jimintheatl ( talk) 14:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Here's a positive one, for a change of pace. Cwhit3134 ( talk · contribs) has just asked for review, by an editor without a conflict of interest, of this request. Uncle G ( talk) 19:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
This comment by admin VirtualSteve ( talk · contribs) explains the issue pretty well. Would appreciate others looking into this, thanks. Cirt ( talk) 06:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
this is absolutely not true. my page did not promote a product or service. it did not mention the product or service. it mentioned the company, and spoke about the company, and who the company is affiliated with. I advertise on national tv and have millions of viewers and don't need the 1 click a day from wikipedia to "advertise" my company. you have not responded to my multiple requests to defend your statements because you have no defense. this is admin abuse.
it is very clear that the page is not "blatant advertising". just because you have not heard about my nationally recognized company does not mean that I am "advertising" it via wikipedia. in fact, if you search the web, you will not find cheapbooks on many blogs, links to book price comparison sites, etc, because it is NOT part of my marketing strategy to use "free advertising" resources when I have access to national TV and radio, as well as print magazines such as Bookmarks or Romantic Times or ALA, or newspapers such as the LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, Fort Worth Star, etc.
see my print ads here from well-known newspapers: < http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=15912&id=521247625 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtiberio ( talk • contribs) 18:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Obvious COI here between username and article. Article is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shocker Toys (2nd nomination), which was nominated by ShockerHelp. User has engaged in very problematic and borderline uncivil and tendentious behavior at the AFD. sock puppetry also seems to be present. MuZemike ( talk) 00:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Note — AFD has been closed as a keep. MuZemike ( talk) 21:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Peterrobertcasey, which seems to also be User:Prcasey03, is apparently Peter Robert Casey, part-owner and manager of a basketball tournament held at Rucker Park. He seems determined to make the park's article as ad-like as possible. He's also included links to his own blog in the article. I've warned him about COI, spam, and autobiography; but I'm mentioning this here as well. (Not sure what, if anything, to do about the sockpuppetry, since neither account is blocked.) -- Orange Mike | Talk 21:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
User:ClarkLewis blocked indefinitely as sock of Gnetwerker, confirmed by checkuser |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Resolved –
User:ClarkLewis blocked indefinitely as sock of Gnetwerker, confirmed by checkuserDennis King is an advocacy journalist who has an account here at Wikipedia. His principal interest is Lyndon LaRouche, on whom he is the author of a book. His Special:Contributions/Dking indicates that he is a SPA. Yesterday he made 14 edits at the LaRouche article which involved deletions of sourced material [64] [65] [66], and adding of Original Research [67] [68] [69]. When I asked him on the talk page to familiarize himself with Wikipedia:SCOIC, he responded by reverting to his version with an uncivil edit summary [70]. -- ClarkLewis ( talk) 22:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Response to Will Beback: if you will examine my initial post, I reported that I had asked Dking to follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:SCOIC, which request that COI editors post their proposed changes and/or links to their websites on article talk pages so that they may be discussed before being added to articles. I was unaware of the previous entries about Dking on this page, but I have read them now. It appears that there was never any resolution. In particular, in the entry at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 9, King was specifically asked to propose changes on talk pages rather than adding them himself (the same procedure as at Wikipedia:SCOIC,) and he has clearly disregarded that request. -- ClarkLewis ( talk) 20:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Here's my take on Dking's COI. He violates these sections of the policy: Self-promotion "Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates." "1. Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages." (Dennis King is an obscure individual who uses Wikipedia for self-promotion. Dking's editing generally revolves around adding links to his personal self-published websites, http://www.larouchewatch.com, http://lyndonlarouche.org/, and http://dennisking.org/ (the last one is defunct.) Diffs: [71], [72], [73] , [74] , [75] , [76] , [77] , [78]) Close relationships "Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias." (Dennis King is the most extreme of LaRouche's critics. He sees LaRouche as evil incarnate, and his edits at Wikipedia are relentlessly biased.) -- Leatherstocking ( talk) 18:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Dennis King is an expert on LaRouche, and the policies are clear on the issue of self-published material by experts. (1) Self-published material from experts in the field whose work has previously been published by a reliable source is allowed; (2) It is not allowed in relation to biographical material on a living person; (3) Courtesy links to self-published websites are allowed if the material being linked to has been published by a reliable source i.e. if the website is simply displaying the material and is not itself the source of it. Therefore, Dennis King's books may be used as a source on LaRouche and the movement in general. His websites may be used as a source on the LaRouche movement or LaRouche politics in general, but not on LaRouche himself or any other living person. And his website may be used as a courtesy link to his book (to the version of the book that was published), so long as the webpage he links to does not contain material about a living person that isn't in the book. SlimVirgin talk| edits 07:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
What Dking writes about LaRouche off-Wiki, i.e., in his personal website, is relevant because Dking's activity at Wikipedia is all about promoting his personal website, which is a violation of the COI guidelines. For examples of Dking's editing which fail NPOV, here are two recent ones:
The number or percentages of Dking's edits is irrelevant. What matters is whether his edits are biased and self-promotional. Please make an effort to stay on-topic. -- Leatherstocking ( talk) 16:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
|
I recently reverted an edit that this user made to the Gerald Ford article since it was promoting a musical work by the Grand Rapids Symphony, an article that this user claims to have created. Obviously self-promotion right there, so I need some help of how to deal with this user.-- Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 01:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Fram needs help in a dispute at Talk:Wolfberry#Self-published book, which looks a COI issue. Paul144 is reverting the removal of a self-published book - Wolfberry: Natures Bounty of Nutrition and Health - and pushing for its inclusion as a reference.
A look at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-28 Antioxidant shows Paul144 to have self-identified [85] as "a contributor to a few of these {online publications), e.g., http://www.npicenter.com/news/DrPaulGross_articles.aspx". The link goes to a bio of a Dr Paul Gross, aka The Berry Doctor, "senior author of a 2006 book on the goji berry entitled Wolfberry: Natures Bounty of Nutrition and Health" ... Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 09:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: I just noticed that Paul144 outed himself a second time here previously in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Gross where, on being asked specifically about his connection to the subject, said he was the son of Frank Gross. [87]. That article cites a CKTimes reference - Frank Gross Memorial Banquet honours memory - with pictures of Paul144 / Paul Gross that are recognisably our Berry Doctor. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 03:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Addendum 2: borderline legal threat by e-mail reported to WP:ANI. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 17:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Addendum 3: Google site:berrydoctor.com Wikipedia. A number of pages use as external validation articles majorly edited by Paul144, like this one on goji berries ("See the Wikipedia articles on wolfberry (goji) and superfruits -- check out the References in each article!"). That looks a very misusable relationship with Wikipedia.
I'm also concerned about Paul144's expunging evidence that explains the potential COI. [88]. WP:OUTING hardly applies when someone has already disclosed their identity, and information about a book and company background splashed on their respective websites is not private information. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 16:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
So, we have an editor who creates an article on superfruit with 24 references (not used inline), including four to articles by Gross. [89]. A few days later, Gross creates on another website a different article on superfruit, without footnotes, but with at the end a list of the same 24 references (including even the numbering). [90] Our article has sentences like "more than a dozen industry publications of functional foods and beverages have referred to various exotic or antioxidant species as superfruits (4-24), yet this category presently does not have a working definition." The Gross article has "More than a dozen industry publications for functional foods and beverages have referred to various exotic or antioxidant species as “superfruits” (4-24), yet this category presently does not have a working definition."
If this is not the same or a closely affiliated editor, then Gross is a shameless copyist, writing an article where he copies the refs and whole sentences from Wikipedia. But whatever the case, this external article is itself used as a reference on Wikipedia by the same editor in at least 6 articles [91] (or rather 7 [92]), including the one it was originally taken from. The ref is added the same day it is published on NPIcenter [93].
Basically, this user has been spamming Wikipedia with references to a self-published book and a number of articles in industry journals. No matter if he is the same person or someone else (the editor does not want to be associated with Gross in Wikipedia discussions...), I don't believe this is acceptable behaviour, or that these are acceptable sources. There is enough information over these berries available that we don't have to rely on unreliable information. If that means that the articles will have less information on all "superfruit" aspects of these plants, so be it. We will catch up once science has done so. Fram ( talk) 13:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I think, perhaps, Paul144 is most likely Paul Gross, as noted at the duck test. In any case, I feel a lot could be fixed here if the account in question - whoever it belongs to - stops linking to anything linked with Paul Gross. Linking to anything that you're involved in - even as a reference - is a very dangerous path to walk down, and will get picked up on quite easily. However, it also appears that Paul144 is a good editor, and to lose him would be a loss to the project overall. Paul444, in light of the above conversations, I'm going to ask that you edit topics that aren't related to Paul Gross, his companies, or his works. Let someone else insert the references, once they have consensus. At the moment, the material doesn't have consensus, and as such, it shouldn't be included, reliable source or not. If you think I've completely misread this talk - it's quite hard to follow - please let me know! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 22:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll now remove all links to works by Gross, as they are clearly intended as spam. Fram ( talk) 11:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
This user has been adding a large amount of peacock/pov information and plagiarized text on artists that are represented by a company known as Frank Lloyd Gallery. ( Peter Shire (artist) and Craig Kauffman (artist) are the ones where he's active at the moment.) Furthermore, he has been unilaterally removing cleanup templates without addressing concerns and, more seriously, removing ifd templates from fair use images he has uploaded, without giving a FUR or engaging in a discussion about the image. The two articles I linked to above both originally had large amounts of text cut and pasted from websites (either Frank Lloyd Gallery's own website, or another website in the case of Craig Kauffman (artist)) and this user has repeatedly reinstated that text in the articles after I commented it out or deleted it. I have warned the user about his edits and about COI, and another editor has also asked the user do disclose any possible COI, but the user has ignored all requests for discussion. Can anyone suggest a next step? — Politizer talk/ contribs 20:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Update -- This user has been unblocked and changed his user name; he has read the policies on COI and NPOV and has agreed to keep his edits neutral. The user requested that this report now be archived; I don't know what the rules are on archiving these so I'm just leaving you regulars a message here. Thanks, — Politizer talk/ contribs 01:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Jamesbgolden ( talk · contribs) - conflict of interest with this article: James B. Golden. User has been notified of COI and his Bio is up for deletion over here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James B. Golden -- Flewis (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Veecort is an editor with an established vendetta against the school ITT Tech. His opinion on it is clearly stated on his userpage. He also runs appears to be affiliated with the anti-ITT tech message board "ItTakesTime.com" and has repeatedly linked it on the article's talk page. Editors disagreeing with him are accused of being "company shills" and "pitcher plants". See also
this edit, which contains all the above described behaviors, and
this edit demonstrates his attitude/behavior about the school.
McJeff (
talk) 07:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Neotu is a SPA who created the article on the Neotu art gallery. He has admitted that he was had a major role in the creation of the gallery, but he keeps removing the COI tag placed on the article. On User_talk:Fabrictramp#NEOTU he has defended his moves, saying that the term "conflict of interest" is very offensive where he is from. He seems pretty adamant on keeping the article tag-free as evidenced on my talk page, and Fabrictramp's. I thought further discussion was due in order to establish a wider consensus. Themfromspace ( talk) 23:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Note I notified Neotu that his username was against guidelines and he's currently seeking to have it changed. He put in a request for "Neogejo" (another company he's affiliated with) and that request hasn't been acted upon yet. Just a heads-up that his username will soon be changing. Themfromspace ( talk) 00:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Neogejo is not the name of a company. It is my AVATAR as a writer in e-writing, poet in e-poetry and as a designer in Graphic and Website design you can check/search on Google: Neogejo and/or Gerard Dalmon. I do not agree when it is said that the Neotu article is an "art gallery catalog". So far the article gives a list of Designers who had worked for the Gallery. A chronology of the exhibitions, and a bibliography which could be very useful for people for want to make research on the avant-garde furniture design in the 80's and 90's . I am welcoming any contributors to bring critics regarding the past activity of Neotu. To make comparison with other art gallery please could you check the article Gagosian Gallery. Is this article also an "art gallery catalog"? This gallery is still "alive" and running business in London, New York, Los Angeles and Rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neotu ( talk • contribs) 02:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Please find below a list of external links refering to Neotu. This could be an excellent material for future contributors who would like to bring more content in the introduction of the article
etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neotu ( talk • contribs) 02:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I have been working on this article since beginning of November. It is not finish. Also I am a beginner in Wikipedia, these are my first steps. I agree pictures of furniture are missing. But I do not how to add them. Anyway you can see a selection of furniture which are a part of the French Museums collections. This is a tiny selection of what Neotu Gallery has shown and also MANUFACTURED. Because before being a gallery Neotu was first an avant-garde furniture manufacturer.
My user name is no longer Neotu. It is now Neoge. I will delete the neotu.com link in the external links section since you think that this might be a problem. neotu.com site is in progress. When completed this site will provide a list by designers of photographs of the pieces that Neotu has shown and/or manufactured. That will be more than 1000 photographs organized as a data base. The site will provide also as PDF all the catalogues of Neotu from 1984 to 2001.-- Neoge ( talk) 17:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The list of the exhibits is short and was not finished... Between 1984 to 2001 Neotu uses to have at least 6 shows a year only for the Gallery in Paris. Just make the math. I though that was a interesting information to bring to the public in this Encyclopedia. But if "everyone" there thinks that this list of exhibits has no interest, is too long or whatever, I am ready to delete it. I am giving up. I do not know who I am talking to. Everyday there is a interlocutor who has a new point of view, a new suggestion... So I am really lost. I invite you, if you have not read already this novel by Franz Kafka The Castle (novel) to read it. I have this feeling of being "K." the protagonist of the novel who "struggles to gain access to the mysterious authorities of a castle who govern the village where he wants to work"... Please try to read this book. The reading might reveal you how sounds the "Wikipedia bureaucracy" for a novice arriving in your "Castle". Yours -- Neoge ( talk) 23:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
To EdJohnson I did not make any comparison between Wikipedia and Franz Kafka. The only comparison was between K. (the protagonist of the novel "The Castle" by F. Kafka) and myself who feels as K. struggling with Mysterious Authorities. Regarding the bibliography that I provide: I give 90% of the ISBN. If you have time please check them. The books are real and not from a library found on Second Life. If you are curious about the books you can order them from Amazon or Alibris etc.. you can also consult Google Books just put Neotu in the search, you can also go the Library of the University of Michigan which has a lot of books and publications regarding Neotu. This link Pompidou Center la galerie Neotu" is it real? Or is it something born in my imagination? I am afraid that "Wikipedia bureaucracy" is very suspicious when something new (artistic topics for ex) is brought to it and believe me I feel very comfortable with the Internet. Yes I will put some pictures of the furniture online when I know how to do. But do you really think that pictures are more real than writings, references or books? I am also surprise that you write and doubt that "our readers should care" about Neotu. Do you know so precisely "your readers" to know so exactly what they are looking for? If think that the interest of Wikipedia is to bring a lot of information regarding different fields which are not common or trivial subjects. This is the real WEALTH of this Encyclopedia. -- Neoge ( talk) 15:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
To Jehochman: there is some one who is an expert of Neotu. Her name is Ms Constance Rubini. She works at the Decorative Art Museum in Paris. She just wrote an long article in AZIMUTS#29 - ISBN:9782912808073 regarding Neotu. But I am not sure that this person is familiar with Wikipedia and can add something in the article. Nevertheless her book is for me an excellent source of information. -- Neoge ( talk) 15:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Yggdra Union: We'll Never Fight Alone ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This section is sourced entirely by forum posts on a fansite by DrSturm ( talk · contribs) who is also a poster on those forums. Mr T (Based) ( talk) 17:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Obviously COIage going on here, as admitted in the article's AFD, along with perceived sockpuppetry and persistent editwarring. There has also been a benign legal threat made on the article's page, which was reported to ANI (however, may have been in error). MuZemike ( talk) 01:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Princess Royal Barracks, Deepcut ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The parents of two of the suicides at Deepcut have for some time been making POV insertions in this article using either IP contributions or single purpose accounts. One of these Des James ( talk · contribs) has now created an explicit account with the declared intention to reflect accurately the facts as they stand.
I have previously sought to identify the risks here and have this morning been more explicit.
I would be grateful for some other eyes on the article.
ALR ( talk) 09:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
A second new account is now inserting significant POV material in the section about another of the suicides. Vonny2005 ( talk · contribs)
ALR ( talk) 10:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
This was bought to my attention while reviewing the article's AFD. This article has been extensively edited by the subject. I pointed this out in the AFD discussion, tagged the article with {{autobiography}}, and posted my concerns on the talk page. After this, editing switched to another account with no other edits besides this article.
Since the AFD was closed "keep" (it really couldn't have been closed otherwise) what it needs at this point is more eyes on it and the attention of a few more uninvolved editors. Besides the taggers, the article is only being edited by SPAs. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 14:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
The following users: 71.190.203.37, Kansas7474, and Simpsonj3, against whom a sockpuppet report has additionally been filed, appear, based upon their postings, to be affilated with at least some of the companies: Vector, New Valley; and also Mr. Bennett Lebow, whom they have directed their remarks toward. It is my BELIEF, based upon the following evidence, that the above user(s) are, as mentioned before, affiliated with this person and these companies, and are merely using Wikipedia as the equivalent of a "public relations brochure" and means to bolster the image of at least Mr. Lebow, as is evidenced by the other investigations that have been requested.
Please note that nearly all of the remarks made by 71.190.203.37, Kansas7474, and Simpsonj3 as noted in their contributions are directed to the above executive and the affiliated companies: Mr. Lebow, New Valley, Vector, and Liggett. Given that these are not "popular" subjects, it is extremely unlikely that an editor without a conflict of interest as noted above would make these remarks.
I believe that the remarks that I have made, that have continually been deleted by all three of the above users, should be locked and made permanent, especially in view of the fact that other Wikipedians are essentially attempting to form a consensus by reverting to my edits; and also the fact that even Kansas7474 has admitted they are accurately sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alygx026 ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 25 November 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. |
This IP address (which maps directly to DREW TECHNOLOGIES INC according to http://ws.arin.net/whois/) has repeatedly vandalized the pages which list commercial OBD-II products (which is Drew Technologies core business). Please see the contributions list for this IP. The 8 most recent edits (at the time of this writing) by this IP (going back roughly two months time) appear to be DREW TECHNOLOGIES moving themselves to the top of the list (and moving people above them down the list) in order to self-promote. They also removed (without discussion) someone's concern about one of the articles being used purely for advertising. The article lists (containing DREW TECHNOLOGIES products and competitors' products) had recently been arranged alphabetically to discourage this kind of product "bumping", but they again put their products at the top of the list. Since the history of this practice goes back roughly two months' time, I propose a two-month IP ban for this address. As the edits in question were already listed in an alphabetically ordered list, the only reason for moving to the top would be self-promotion. Can someone else please review the edits by this IP and give a second opinion?
Rjm7730 recently edited Tucker Max to add original research (unsourced commentary about a lawsuit), Max's lawyers' names, and a link to Richard J Mockler's biography, one of the lawyers. Since the username in question is 'Rjm' and the lawyer is named Richard J Mockler, I assume there is a COI for him to add original research and his name to the article (contribs: [ [1]] Theserialcomma ( talk) 19:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Ericcraigis (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Inoneearandoutyourmother (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
67.155.98.242 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
76.90.121.177 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Editor Ericcraigis says he is Eric Craig ( see summary). This person was a guitar player for The Cunninghams and is Director of A&R for Lakeshore Records. He started articles on these three subjects and is the major contributor to all three. The account Ericcraigis appears to have stopped editing and Inoneearandoutyourmother started soon after, doing the same sort of edits as Ericcraigis. After Eric Craig was deleted it was twice recreated by Inoneearandoutyourmother. Editor repeatedly removes tags from these articles without giving any reasons [2] [3] [4] and was repeatedly readding incorect information about Queens of the Stone Age [5] [6] ( Talk:Lakeshore Records). Duffbeerforme ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC).
This article Douglas Romayne appears to be a COI under the Wikipedia standard, as it appears to be an autobiography that has been posted by user Bleu Jean Management and a user with the IP addrss 216.86.198.37. Bleu Jean Management is this persons management company, and writing an article about someone you are in bussiness with is a direct violation of the Wikipedia COI rules.
Also the section on "Albums" is a blatent attempt for self promotion, because it send people to iTunes, MovieScore Media and CD Baby where the CD can be purchased. The quotes provided are also the type of quotes that would be used in a promotional package, not a enyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pub14 ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Robert Wolf is a journalist and author of some (perhaps minor) note. Coincidentally Robert Wolf is also the name of the chairman of UBS AG, a large bank. A few months ago Pistoneme ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created the article Robert Wolf (UBS AG) about the banker (and similar articles with very similar names). That article has been deleted four times, at least twice because it appeared to be a copy of UBS' page on banker Wolf. Pistoneme has repeatedly attempted to move, blank, or have deleted the article on the journalist Wolf. Pistoneme identifies herself as an employee of UBS here. Following a fairly daft run of vandalism earlier today Pistoneme has been indefinitely blocked. Subsequent to that Pistoneme's talk page has been blanked by two IPs which WHOIS to UBS, one of which also repeated Pistoneme's request to zap journalist Wolf's article ( here). While there is no outstanding COI editing now, Pistoneme appears to be determined, and undeterred by blocks. Can I suggest a few uninterested parties add Robert Wolf and maybe (redlink) Robert Wolf (UBS AG) to their watchlists. And perhaps someone richer with the milk of human kindness than I might gently point out to Pistonme how unwise her recent behaviour has been. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The chairman of a large bank is almost certain to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. It would have been easy enough to rewrite the copyvio. And to find sources. DGG ( talk) 02:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Chris Heimerdinger ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) My interest in the page is just through responding to a message on the BLP noticeboard; I am in discussion on the talk page about edits that should not really be very controversial. Also on the talk page there are accusations that one editor is the article subject and another is someone involved in a lawsuit against him. Would appreciate a further external look. Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
It appears there are multiple people editing the article against a conflict of interest. Chris Heimerdinger is editing as 98.202.23.178, and there's speculation he's editing as Thumper10 as well. There is also speculation that 216.49.181.128 has a conflict of interest in the subject matter. -- Ronz ( talk) 23:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
FireandFlames17 is a new editor, whose edits border on sockpuppetry for other editors involved in the disputes. -- Ronz ( talk) 23:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
As someone who has been involved with the page in question for some time, I would like to offer moral support to itsmejudith and thank her for her help. It's quite clear that Heimerdinger has his paws on his page with some regularity and I find it easy to believe that the gentleman on the other side of the lawsuit does as well. It's pretty ugly. So continued stopbys from uninvolved editors are highly welcome. Thmazing ( talk) 04:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
One to watch. Related to New York Youth Symphony and being edited by User:Newyorkyouthsymphony. — Alan ✉ 22:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
User has created all three abovementioned articles. PENCAMP, according to the Academic Assistance article, was created by Victor Gursky, which is very similar to the username. User has also tried to shirk the deletion process of these articles by creating duplicate articles (diff) and removing AfD templates (diff). MuZemike ( talk) 16:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Only article created by user. Also, only edits beside AfD/other tagging made by user. User has removed a {{ coi}} tag ( diff) which raises suspicions of trying to hide a COI. Article up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All By Students (ABS) Notebooks, which faces a possibility of being kept. MuZemike ( talk) 23:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that the last edit on the article (as of October 1) was made by an anonymous user. The WHOIS data on the IP came back to WeatherBug. The edit deals with mobile versions of WeatherBug:
WeatherBug Direct is a line of free applications for mobile devices, including WeatherBug Direct for Blackberry and WeatherBug Direct for Windows Mobile.
Is this a major COI violation? Thanks, -- Willking1979 ( talk) 21:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a conflict of interest — see editing history. User:Forbetterlife has only edited this article and once the Philip Anschutz article. - BStarky ( talk) 17:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Sketch is a notable restaurant in London, and an edit war is starting [7] between myself and an anonymous editor [8]. The editor claims that they work for Sketch, and their edits make the article look like, for want of a better phrase, a press release [9] Gareth E Kegg ( talk) 18:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
On the talk page of an article currently proposed for deletion ( Occupational apartheid), the User:Occupational scientist writes that "There are going to be a large group of Occupational Therapists editing all things related to occupational therapy on wikipedia over the next few weeks...I am just one of those..." and states that this will be because of an event called OT wikiflash. The user points towards the website OTwikiflash.net. I feel that the community should be notified of these (seemingly good-faith) edits since they might unwittingly breach into COI range (as can be seen on the occupational apartheid page). Thank you. Themfromspace ( talk) 21:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
There appears to be conflict of interest editing on Jaclyn A. Smith by her management company / User:Noodleheadproductions. Article text comes straight from NoodleHead Productions which represents her. I periodically try to clean it up but they just come back and reset it to their text about once a quarter. Jjaazz ( talk) 11:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Shortly after a call for fans of The Syn to edit their Wikipedia article from the owner of their official e-mail list ( 14Hour) and subsequent complaints of anti-Syn bias on Wikipedia, a new Wikipedia editor appeared with the username Umbrello. Umbrello Records was founded and is run by Steve Nardelli, lead singer in The Syn. This editor has only edited articles on The Syn and on Nardelli. His user page is basically the same as the article page for Steve Nardelli. I suspect user Umbrello probably is Steve Nardelli; he has form for promoting himself on the Web (see this material since removed from The Syn article). Most of Umbrello's edits are reasonable and useful, but some are overly praiseworthy and ridiculous (e.g. this one). I have tagged both articles with coi notices and done npov tidy-up, although Umbrello and a seemingly associated IP editor (24.47.192.90) has removed the coi tags. I've some history, both good and bad, with Nardelli and have no particular desire to wade into this situation, so would some others be up for monitoring the situation? Bondegezou ( talk) 17:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Yesterday, Toyne's userpage was tagged {{ db-g11}} for speedy deletion as blatant advertising and subsequently appeared in the Category:Spam pages for speedy deletion.
I saw it there and, as no notice had been given on the user's talk page, posted information for Toyne about the speedy deletion criterion WP:CSD#G11, the COI guideline, and the " What may I not have on my user page?" portion of the Wikipedia userpage content guideline. I then deleted the userpage.
Today ( diff), Toyne posted the following on my talk page:
I am posting the issue here on Toyne's behalf for the attention of the wider audience of NPOV editors and admins who share my concerns about COI issues. Thanks. — Athaenara ✉ 20:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
( deletion log) — Athaenara ✉ 21:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Gravityforce ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), formerly User:Slipinski, is a single-purpose account which has been exclusively promoting a alleged new alternative theory of gravitation published by the editor himself, S. Lipinski, in an obscure physics journal. Furthermore, at Gravitation, this editor has persistently edit-warred against the consensus of at least three editors (myself included) to have a section on this new theory, in flagrant violation of numerous policies including WP:WEIGHT, WP:CON, and WP:OR to name a few. Entreaties to stop this behavior have been completely unsuccessful. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 11:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
New account Yndurain has:
However, according to the bio article, Francisco Jose Yndurain Muñoz died on June 6 this year, so it is not clear to me whether this is actually COI, or just an SPA with a poorly chosen name. Bio article seems to be too well written for a complete novice, so possibly this is an alternate account. Anyway, bringing it here hoping that someone may know how to handle this. I have notified Yndurain of this post on their talk page. Gandalf61 ( talk) 08:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
AndroidCat boasts on Alt.Religion.Scientology of his "work" here at Wikipedia. This is a clear Conflict of Interest, showing agenda based political intention for censorship! [1] AndroidCat also posts on the Dianetic Groups: [2] AndroidCat recently attacked over and over various Wiki pages called "obnosis" which included good references, until the page was deleted. He has also a history of attacking other Scientology pages and censorship agendas. -- lisakachold 24.251.216.251 ( talk) 00:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Links for well-defined misbehavior by AndroidCat on various Scientology Cites: The links are [13] and [14].
LisaKachold ( talk) 22:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
He is just as entitled to have an opinion and talk about it on the web as anyone else. Holding an opinion does not in and of itself constitute a COI, sorry. Jayen 466 00:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
FYI - see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/LisaKachold. Cirt ( talk) 11:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
This message approved by: VG ☎ 12:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
User Bert Convy keeps editing the Gary Trauner article with obvious bias. Especially, since it's the only article he's edited, I'm suspicious that he's working for the Lummis campaign. BeIsKr ( talk) 05:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
BluePulse is a web 2.0 start up. They sort of have a marketing campaign going but I don't know if it has users/notability except for coverage on a few startup blogs. I was first attracted into googling them after seeing that their iTunes ratings were being gamed. (If anyone has iTunes, they are in the app store). I was wondering if anyone could look through the history of edits, check notability, and see if they're complying with rules and such. Because I know not how to handle (There may indeed be no problem, I'm not very familiar). -- Drinkadrink ( talk) 17:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Phaedsys username blocked by another admin as promotional, IP editor warned. Doug Weller ( talk) 14:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Phaedsys ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - also apparently User:80.176.226.26, see contributions from each and spelling of vandalism - editing MISRA C++ on behalf of the Misra project, giving other editors orders. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
While working on a series of articles related to publishing, I ran across an article about book publisher Charlie Winton. I looked at the editing history and noticed that the creator and main editor of the page was a User talk:kwinton. Perhaps the name is just a coincidence. I am backing off of editing it for now. The article on its face seems sound, with not an excessive number of superlatives affecting its tone, but it currently does not reference problems in the publishing industry such as those in this article, which quotes Winton: http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/06/21/independent_press/print.html - Please advise on how best to handle this. -- Larrybob ( talk) 04:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Radionut ( talk · contribs) has declared himself as the subject of the article on William Eric Alexander. he has been today informed of wp:coi policy. his contributions have at times been disruptive and war-ish, and is suspected of using the ip puppets, 71.126.34.110 ( talk · contribs), 71.126.39.195 ( talk · contribs), and Netio99 ( talk · contribs). -- emerson7 17:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure if this is more a question about WP:COI or WP:RS; a little of each, perhaps. User:Daytonapost provided this diff, which cites--wait for it--the Daytona Post. As a subsequent editor pointed out, there are serious accusations here in need of citing, but apart from that, is it acceptable for this user to cite this source--and no others--in making accusations of this weight? Gladys J Cortez 22:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I have been trying to add information on this entry regarding a major case here in Montana where punitive damages were assessed against this law firm, but somebody with a Utah IP address keeps deleting it. I suspect he/she has a conflict of interest for the reason that he has removed this information three times now, stating that "this should belong in a criticisms section, if at all", and only edits this page and the BYU law school page. I am aware that GDC recruits heavily from that law school. I don't necessarily object to his contention that my entry might belong in a different section than I have placed it, but it peeves me that it just keeps getting deleted, instead of moved. There is no talk page for this entry, so I have been unable to initiate discussion with this user. 69.144.136.45 ( talk) 14:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
User is directly involved in the article above, as shown by viewing the corresponding images on the page in which s/he is admittingly the copyright holder, hence using the article as self-promotion of the game. User does not seem to understand the basic Wikipedia guidelines as shown in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISurv1vor. MuZemike ( talk) 06:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Azambataro is a marketing writer for
Tibco Software and a
coi
spa on Wikipedia.
(Just a basic post here on my way offline for the evening.) —
Athaenara
✉ 03:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
These accounts have been creating, editing, and re-creating articles which so far have been deleted at least five times. Is it perhaps time for blocks for advertising / sockpuppeting and page protection for the article titles which may be used? — Athaenara ✉ 21:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The below item was posted to the talk page here. Brought here to the project page for the appropriate desired comment. The issue, in my view, is that there are an number of analysis like this, published for law-firm clients, and occasionally visible to the larger world. The particular item in question actually is informative, and not available in the standard media yet--in any form; the source is reliable, but the item was apparently posted by a self-promotional effort, or an account name that pretends to make it a self promotional effort. See below.
--
Yellowdesk (
talk) 01:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Link tracking data follows. MER-C 13:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
A prod lasted over five days so the article should have been deleted, but User:Lilithastaroth went to the BLP noticeboard and said she objected to the deletion, so someone removed the prod saying it was because she did had objected there and because the prodder was a newish editor, [16] although the time limit had elapsed (?) Is that a new way in accordance with policy for people to avoid getting their articles deleted if no-one who happens to come across the article without being asked to do what she wants will remove the prod? Anyway it's up at AfD now, but she of course has a COI so I thought I'd let you know. Sticky Parkin 12:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The article has been hijacked by single purpose accounts clearly linked to the subject: [17]. Watch this case closely. Colchicum ( talk) 14:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
This article is repeatedly having edits reverted by an unregistered user of the name 'EvilAvatar'. Evil Avatar is a popular online gaming forum which recently had several administrators and a large segment of its user base depart for another site. Any edits mentioning this fact are being repeatedly reverted with the comment 'Please stop vandalizing this page!'
It is highly likely that this user is Philip Hansen, the owner of the Evil Avatar website, given that the user is both using Mr. Hansen's online moniker and that this behavior is in-line with the way all mention of this split have been systematically expunged from his own site.
Wikipedia, however, is not Mr. Hansen's personal webpage, and the repeated removal of relevant, verifiable information from a Wikipedia entry because he does not want it proliferated is not acceptable behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Commandar ( talk • contribs) 20:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Overview: History of promotional, possibly self-serving edits and article creations, with apparent use of multiple user IDs (sockpuppets). Possible candidate for Checkuser, although from the evidence (unbroken strings of edits, some under IP, some under user names) it seems fairly clear that we are dealing only with one person.
According to geobytes, all the IPs involved hail from Casablanca, Morocco, the place of residence of the article subject of Tahir Shah.
Previous talk page requests to comply with COI and core content policies: [18], [19].
Examples of problematic edits:
To be clear, Tahir Shah is a notable and talented author, with congratulatory coverage in top-class newspapers, as well as a filmmaker, a book reviewer for the Washington Post, a writer of screenplays and much besides.
It is all the more puzzling that these accounts, rather than capitalising on the good press coverage there is on the man, seek to inflate his achievements with unsourced claims and fawning descriptions. Here is an example of the state the article was in after one of the user's recent editing sessions: [35]
To be fair, I will grant that some of the contributions made by the above IDs have been pertinent, if invariably flattering to the subject.
The problem is long-standing; here, in 2006, yet another Casablancan IP deletes "copyedit" and "verify" tags, they are restored by the other user, and then the same Casablancan IP deletes them again the next day.
None of the user IDs concerned has so far responded to talk page messages. Over to you guys. Jayen 466 19:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
User(s) concerned has been notified of this thread: [36], [37], [38]. Jayen 466 20:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
More of the same: [39], misspelt title, POV and unsourced. Jayen 466 11:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Title spelling now fixed, page moved. Jayen 466 21:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I note at least we now have references, some of them from bona fide sources. There appear to be copyright problems with the book covers (see the talk page of Coldwinterday ( talk · contribs)), but the sourcing appears to be a step in the right direction. Would appreciate an uninvolved editor looking the articles over:
Cheers, Jayen 466 17:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Has added links to his personal blog as references to material he has added to articles:
He was given a coi warning 09:58, 14 June 2008 by Herbythyme after restoring the link [41] in E-mail address.
Since then he restored the link in MagicISO on 12:22, 30 July 2008 after it was removed and was aware that his link in E-mail address remained when he edited the sentence containing the link on 11:09, 21 September 2008.
After participating in the discussion above with EdJohnston, Hm2k has decided to restore his personal website as a source to E-mail address [42]. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
The discussion from Ed's Page |
---|
The following content has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability. |
I prepared this for WP:COIN, but thought it would be better to find a less threatening approach given the other dispute he's in with me. Herbythyme doesn't have time to address it, but thinks someone should:
Has added links to a website that is identical to his username: He was given a coi warning 09:58, 14 June 2008 by Herbythyme after restoring the link [43] in E-mail address. Since then he restored the link in MagicISO on 12:22, 30 July 2008 after it was removed and was aware that his link in E-mail address remained when he edited the sentence containing the link on 11:09, 21 September 2008. I couldn't find any new additions of the link, so I think it got through that he shouldn't be adding them. Maybe all he needs is a friendly reminder by someone other than myself? -- Ronz ( talk) 15:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm taking this to COIN given Hm2k's reintroduction of the link. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
|
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability. |
My read is that Hm2k is adding the link in because there is no better one to use as a source that he can find. This is based on his last comment in the discussion above. Clearly, "It's better than nothing" is rarely a good guideline on Wikipedia. Arakunem Talk 15:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd be willing to retain that sentence even without a cite, maybe replacing an extremely difficult and complex task with a complex task. If you still object to that sentence unless it has a citation, let's get rid of the sentence. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Trying to match these restrictions is an extremely difficult and complex task, often resulting in long regular expressions that are too hard to actually be practical.
User:Pcarbonn is an investor in cold fusion pseudoscience that has been promoting the ideas here on-wiki. He has crowed about his successful POV-pushing here in item 18. Since this user has a business that has the potential to receive income from a cold fusion enterprise based on thin films, I ask that he be banned from editing cold fusion related pages.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 17:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
This was brought to my attention.. ScienceApologist, why are you revealing the real world name of a user? Are you certain that this user has consented to be identified? A quick check of his current userpage does not show a disclosure, although I may have missed it. I would think that you would be particularly sensitive to the need not to out people. Please either demonstrate where this connection was made, or redact your connecting the users. Thanks. ++ Lar: t/ c 22:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Re. opening statement to this thread, "He has crowed about his successful POV-pushing here in item 18". I find that misrepresentative of the statement linked to, which is not extreme and whose main thrust is that both sides of the debate should be represented in the article (an accordance with WP:NPOV). The statement does say, "One editor, who calls himself ScienceApologist, fiercely defended the view that cold fusion is 'contrary to current theory, so it's impossible.' " If that is true, one has to question who is POV-pushing. Ty 03:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Editors don't generally (ever?) have a COI with a field of study. They may have a COI with respect to an organization or biography. It seems that if there is no violation of WP:NPOV there is no problem. If NPOV is the issue, then it should be addressed elsewhere, and without reference to the real life identity of the editor. Jehochman Talk 13:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
NOTE: I have redacted all mention (that I could find) of the name of the investor, since ScienceApologist has not done so after several days. This included editing his remarks, as well as the heading of this section, as a diff will show, but I felt I had no choice. If I missed some please do them for me, thanks. ++ Lar: t/ c 15:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, this is not the first time SA has inappropriately sought someone's off-wiki identity to use as a bludgeon. See my complaint here about the time SA went after me and the subsequent oversighting of said material. Ronnotel ( talk) 14:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The IP above is the manager of the subject of the above article, as admitted in the AfD here. MuZemike ( talk) 23:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
On the freelance job board getafreelancer.com, I stumbled upon yet another commercial request for doing PR work on WP. Interestingly, one of the bidders showcased his previous work naming the two articles above. _R_ ( talk) 03:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Bkonop ( talk · contribs) is removing sourced controversy material from Ben Konop. I've issued him a COI warning. Little Red Riding Hood talk 04:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
An anonymous editor (the IP Editor is using different IPs) who claims to be a lawyer, and has spoken to one of the lawyers tangentially related to the case, is editing the article based on several different court documents and newspaper editorials. The IP Editor is trying to add the vacated portions of the trial into the article by using court documents and newspaper editorials.
I and other editors (including Third Opinion) have told the IP Editor they need to supply secondary reliable sources, but they are insistent on editing the article by using primary sources and newspaper editorials. Some of the newspaper editorials used are human-interest pieces that just have a mention of the original trial and include misinformation about pertinent data that involves the Roxas v Marcos trial.
Finding secondary reliable sources pertaining to the Roxas v Marcos trial are almost nonexistent. The IP Editor’s involvement with the case is in direct conflict of interest, and the edits are not neutral. Jim ( talk) 13:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
____________________________
There is no absolutely conflict of interest in the IP version. Merely being a lawyer does not create a conflict. Talking to a tangentially involved lawyer does not create a conflict. No material provided came from the tangentially involved lawyer, so it does not represent original research. See the talk page for the article for the IP's suggested version. All material proposed is based upon a neutral description of what transpired in the legal proceeding as reported in the actual court records as well as numerous contemporary news reports from mainstream newspapers. JimBob takes the position that appellate court decisions can never be used as a source on Wikipedia and the news reports are all editorial opinion pieces. That is a preposterous position. The appellate court decisions (as opposed to pleadings filed by one party in the trial court, or one-sided trial testimony) will summarize the pleadings and proceedings of the trial court, and thus the appellate court decisions become the most reliable secondary source as to what transpired in a given legal proceeding. Furthermore, since the decision is the measured work of judges in an adversarial system subject to review by the opposing attorneys and often other judges in other courts, the decisions should be considered hyper-peer reviewed secondary sources. That being said, even if the court decisions are considered primary sources, they can still be used according to Wikipedia’s guidelines. As stated in WP:PSTS, “Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia…” Use of primary sources can be used to “make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.” The use of the court records in the IP version is consistent with these guidelines. Finally, the IP version does not rely solely on court decisions. The fact that Roxas and his successors were successful in establishing in a court of law that Roxas found the treasure and that it was stolen by Marcos has been established in the IP version through the use of the following reliable secondary sources -- New York Daily News, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Metropolitan News-Enterprise, Manila Standard Today, and even a press release from the Office of Solicitor General, Republic of the Philippines. These secondary sources are reliable and verifiable, and to dismiss these news reports as well as a press release from the Office of Solicitor General, Republic of the Philippines as mere opinion editorials is nonsense. Look at the sources!
Finally, JimBob distorts the nature of the only other third opinion provided on this dispute. The only third opinion in this matter was provided by Fr33kman. It was his opinion that the court decision could be used so long as party allegations were identified as such -- as mere allegations. The IP version complies with this recommendation in that it described Roxas' allegation as just that, allegations. The IP version prefaces the alleged material from the court case with “The evidence and testimony submitted by Roxas alleged…” and “Roxas went on to allege….” So, the IP version complies with Fr33kman's suggestions. Fr33kamn did not address the reliability and verifiability of the news reports or the other sources.
It is my position that JimBob's fanatical behavior in distorting the truth about Yamashita's treasure could only be the result of an undisclosed conflict of interest of his own. I am not the first editor to be bullied by JimBob concerning thoughtful edits to this article. See the Archived disputes with other members including member Grant.
67.120.59.46 ( talk) 00:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
This article was tagged for COI soon after creation as probable autobiographical, given the identity between the creating user name and the subject name. Since then it has had a very large number edits by IP users (predominantly in the Colorado area, and often with little interest in editing articles other than this one). The COI notice (and other notices were deleted). I restored the COI notice last week, it was deleted; restored again, etc. It is currently restored, but I anticipate its re-removal. None of the IP editors appear interested in "taking it to Talk". AllyD ( talk) 16:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Journeyist ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User is a confirmed member of the religious group led by the subject and armed with a blog that does nothing but defend the subject even if newspaper and other reliable, third-party, published sources' reports abound regarding his (the subject's) unlawful activities (currently wanted by the Philippine government). Actually the said editor only edits this page. Another member Darbook has just recently been banned for using a sockpuppet to make POV edits to this and related articles. Shannon Rose ( talk) 19:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. Jwri7474 ( talk) 04:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm seeking an opinion here on a potential COI issue. User:William M. Connolley is a member of the RealClimate blog, which, while being a respected blog, is still unpublished and unreviewed. Two years ago, WMC and his colleagues wrote an extended criticism of Gray on the RC blog. Most of it was scientific, but it also questioned his scientific practices and criticised Gray for his "seat of the pants" approach.
Recently, WMC edit-warred to keep an external link to that criticism (which he himself wrote with the rest of the RC team).
Now, regardless of what anyone feels about the RC criticism (and I happen to agree with it, BTW), do we really want to allow any editor to write something critical on a blog, then edit-war to link it from the BLP of a political opponent? There is already well-sourced criticism of Gray's views in the article itself, so there's really no need to include the RC link, especially when it's the author of the RC piece that is warring to keep it.
Is this not a textbook example of why the COI guideline was created in the first place?
Maybe I'm overreacting, but that's why I came here to seek input. ATren ( talk) 13:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Obviously its of no interest :-( but the article in question is here. Note that calling Gray seat-of-the-pants is not criticism [46] and Atren is well aware of this William M. Connolley ( talk) 15:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
user:83.254.214.192 was editing the article 'Pichat' but since 83.254.214.192 was the IP address of the Web Server for a company called Pichat, the article Pichat was speedily deleted for non-notability and blatant advertising. However, this user was not only involved in promoting his own company, his edit record also shows that he has been actively engaged in targeting rival software products and deleting information about them from articles whilst at the same time adding "Pichat", as can be seen by examining this article before and after his involvement in it. When confronted with the COI both on his talk page, and here
So much for his claim that he had no involvement with the company. It seems that removing the Pichat article from English Wikipedia won't stop him from self-promotion, but of more concern is the possibility that he will continue editing articles where there is an obvious conflict of interest, and where he tries to alter or remove information about his company's competitors. I guess there is a strong likelihood that he will simply move to another IP address so I don't know if there is any effective way to deal with this person. 90.59.248.88 ( talk) 20:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
We have a Landmark affiliated editor who appears to be whitewashing the article, [48] which has now been protected. What shall we do about this? Problem, or not a problem? Jehochman Talk 07:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Rick A. Ross ( talk · contribs) appears to be deleting sourced criticism, including jury's finding and judge's comments in the Jason Scott case: [50]. Before: [51] After: [52]
Subject previously asked for our article on him to be deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rick_Ross_(consultant)
BLP/N thread: [53] RS/N thread: [54]
Rick A. Ross ( talk · contribs) has been warned for potential COI violation on his talk page by Blowdart ( talk · contribs).
I have reverted the edits; the facts deleted were relevant, cited to scholarly sources, and backed up by court documents hosted online.
Comments? Jayen 466 15:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
User:Mrtphotography is an SPA account that created the article Kay O'Hara in January 2007. It was deleted on October 1 2008 with the comment "non notable individual, article is a link farm to commercial sites". It was restored on 19 October 2008 at the request of Mrtphotography. Although the article has subsequently been revised, it still has issues such as links to Ms O'Hara's "sponsors". I applied a COI tag to the article when I noticed that several photos for Ms O'Hara are credited to one Mr T Photography. User:Mrtphotography has today added a disclaimer that they are not the same person. I find my AGF a bit strained at the moment due to unrelated issues and would appreciate some input on this. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 14:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Cirt ( talk) 20:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
User Jtsports92, a coi spa, is upset that the article he has persisted in adding to promote his sports blog has been deleted (four times, as per {{ db-web}} and {{ db-g11}} speedy deletion criteria).
A google search for either "joeyssportsblog" or "joey's sports blog" does not support notability (fewer than ten hits).
The last time an indignant author complained to me about a similar deletion, I opened an AfD which resulted in a consensus to delete. I've no doubt an AfD for this one would have the same result, so I'm handing off the ball to this noticeboard. — Athaenara ✉ 01:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
There has long been a slow-burning edit war over various parts of this article: two main sections have been whether or not the subject of the article may be referred to as a "historian", and whether or not the subject contributed to a book called "Weird England". Both of these pieces of information have been repeatedly reinserted, despite protests of unverifiability on the talk page.
The current IP address of the user reinserting all this information is User:83.67.217.135. Looking at that user's edit history (99% edits of the article in question, 1% other articles that mention him) and short-temperedness, it becomes obvious that the user is Stuart Campbell himself. The Weird England issue has now been resolved: he finally named the pages of the book that credit him, and we have taken his word for it and cited them.
He has now allowed this to die down, and quietly reinserted the "historian" information in the first paragraph. He has provided a "source" - which, incredibly, is a link to the Wikipedia article for Retro Gamer, a magazine which apparently called him a historian in July 2007. This is of course unverifiable in practice, and goes against other editors' insistence that such a hotly-debated piece of text will require a strong source.
In general there is also a long history of minor self-aggrandising edits to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.5.130 ( talk) 10:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Excuse my placing my comments on the main article, but I think it need to be put there.
Aedwardmoch ( talk) 23:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Aedwardmoch Aedwardmoch ( talk) 23:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Combine EdgeCast Networks, edited almost entirely by User:Bmatschke ( contribs), with this person's profile, and you get a very strong suspicion of a CoI conflict. -- Bachrach44 ( talk) 17:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Articles
Accounts
I have been currently involved with five edit wars with user Mr T. (Based) over the plot summaries of the five Syphon Filter rticles. I have restored the in-depth plot summaries and have attempted to trim down said summaries to the best of my ability, only to find said attempted edits reverted by Mr.T (Based) under the summary "It is too long." I have seen at least three games having similarly long summaries, and felt that Mr T. (Based)'s intentions was to assume bad faith, regardless of me asking to help out in slowly trimming out said summaries instead of hitting the "undo" button.
64.85.234.166 (
talk) 21:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
User:220.145.106.186 User:220.145.241.102 User:Bluesan
All have only edited the article Dan Goodwin. Adding tons of unsourced info, not really adhering to a NPOV, plus User:Bluesan has uploaded several images that are copyvio's and keeps reuploading them after they are deleted. - - The Spooky One ( talk to me) 20:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I came across this user whilst reading about aircraft overruns. It appears he is the chairman of a Thai airline which has been the subject of numerous complaints and investigations over the past few years. A number of the user’s edits indicate that he is here solely to falsify information within articles relating to his business in clear violation of WP:COI. The two major types of action are:
While some of the user’s edits may have been justified and in fact even helpful, these are relatively few and have been minor at best. He has acted in defiance of at least two warnings issued by User:The Rambling Man.
I have attempted to clean up what inappropriate edits weren’t reverted, and have issued a more comprehensive warning on the user’s talk page (based on my knowledge from when I was editing WP on a regular basis). However, given this appears to be a SPA with a clear COI and willingness to knowingly insert false information, I feel that an indefinite block may be more appropriate. I will leave it to the broader community to decide, if anything this user must be closely monitored and taught about WP policy. 121.216.77.134 ( talk) 09:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Username ( already warned about) is a real music manager in the UK. Edit to Joe Brown (singer), while not egregiously promotional, does raise the possibility of whether Mr. Brown is a client of JTM or not, which I have so far not been able to determine. Any further investigation would be welcome.
This originated at WP:UAA, and I have already warned the user about our policy on role accounts, as I said. Daniel Case ( talk) 19:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Articles
Accounts
Coach3177, a single-purpose account with an apparent conflict of interest, seems to be engaging in sock puppetry with the Wikadm account, the name of which implies that it is an administrator account. The page history for Arbroath indicates that both accounts are being used for edit warring. — Athaenara ✉ 23:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
I have no idea what wikadm is my concern is that you are deleting honest information regarding the Arbroath Lifeboat in an article relating to Arbroath. The Lifeboat is an integral part of Arbroath and its history. TBH I have n o interest in the angling issue but was asked to insert a piece while I was adding the Lifeboat info
Actually I take issue with your reference to single purpose account so I have removed the reference and conections which could possibly insult the rnli Coach3177 —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:17-23:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC).
A couple of points are confusing to me here,
1. you took the time to edit the post and yet did not reply.
2. by adding a date and comment to my post you broke your own rule of editing others post!
BTW: I removed the comment re RNLI for your benefit as well, you are connecting a reknowned organisation with a libeleous accusation.
Now back to the original question... what problems do you have with the addition of information about a voluntary rescure organisation, which is a registered charity based in Arbroath and part of the culture and infrastructure of that town as well as the community. The link to the stations non commercial website is their as an information reference to give people more information and sea safety guides for the local area. It is unpractical to include all the Arbroath community information from that site to wikipedia. I cannot see where there is a COI with this lifeboat information. I also think that someone not based in Arbroath with no idea of how integral the lifeboat is within the Arbroath community should not be changing or deleting its information.
Coach3177 (
talk) 00:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
--
Coach3177 (
talk) 01:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC) says...
I keep answering and looking for confirmation that my entries in the Arbroath page are now acceptable, the fact that you have a COI with my Angling input is not in dispute, as stated above, although not involved with them I once took a fishing trip with them before I had my stroke and decided to inform other anglers of their
website and the good service I got, when I was editing the lifeboat info I was told I should add a bit about the angling.
My concerns are that you have linked me with some other user and your references to the lifeboat.
I would therefore ask you to edit your original post to remove those references.
The fact you admit to not knowing what the
RNLI or Lifeboat is and yet you saw fit to remove its entry is insulting to the purpose of wikipedia and seems to be an abuse of administrative rights.
With reference to this being an open discussion forum; it seems to me like I'm the only one discussing. And after reading through this area it seems not to be a disussion area but more of a dumping ground for Admins.
I am open to talk about this subject but you seem unable to string together a decent reply to my points.
Coach3177 (
talk) 01:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Derek, Thank you for an informed response, that's exactly what I was looking for!
Its a pity it wasn't dealt like that hours ago, as you made it perfectly clear, thank you.
Coach3177 (
talk) 10:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Please read the discussion. Uncle G ( talk) 12:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
School of Law, Christ University ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There seems to be a conflict of interest issue with this article, with edit wars having occurred over a proposed "controversies" section that seems to be unsourced. The talk page reflects this, and an anonymous user has even posted the phone numbers of people involved with the university, which clearly violates WP:OUTING. Help with this would be greatly appreciated. lone_twin ( talk) 14:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Lyalya Bezhetskaya ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to violate COI as the major contributor, Burlesqueen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), seems to be a single-purpose account for the subject of the article to promote herself via this article and Burlesque. Zalktis ( talk) 16:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Bkado has just removed the prod I put on the article he wrote, Brent Kado, without explanation. (He's been warned by other editors about removed "speedy" notices.) I feel the article is clearly a vanity autobiography. -- Orange Mike | Talk 20:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Statedcnr2 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Appears to be creating articles on behalf of the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. On the user's talk page, states "the director of the program approved the language on the website and article". On Talk:Office of Conservation Science the user states "Some in the office are concerned about the page being edited by other users since we are a state agency and the information we are presenting represents the state. There have been some other PA state agency pages that were changed and incorrect information was provided. Can we have this page protected so only we can make edits (once the page has been established)?" McWomble ( talk) 13:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The edit history of Stephen Payne (lobbyist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) looks like that of an autobiography. The activity of Polticaltexan ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to point to the fact that s/he is someone closely linked to Stephen Payne, the subject of the article. For example, s/he adds information and images that third parties may not have access to. Note that Polticaltexan appears to be a single-purpose account created exclusviely for promoting the presence of Stephen Payne on Wikipedia. — Zalktis ( talk) 07:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Zalktis, I understand your point about Stephen Payne and that my edits reflect a possible WP:SPA, I'm new to Wikipedia and am fascinated by the implications of this story but I've been pretty clear that I think that this isn't just some bumbling "caught on tape" mtg. -- that this is a fairly big issue of our nation's foreign policy being conducted by hired guns -- so I don't see how you could see my edits as a possible WP:AUTO as I have tried to push this "underground foreign policy" with all of my edits -- I think that the edits that I have made (and properly sourced) reflect a drift toward that (still neutral) pov (and yes, I added that Think progress collage of photos because it clearly shows that Payne isn't just some powerless fly by night) -- I am interested in this article because of the vast implications that it could lead to, but I welcome anyone else to work with me to add to it as well -- this article shouldn't focus on an edited videotape asking for a library contribution -- it should focus on US foreign policy being conducted by "hired guns" with no or at least unknown authorization... which is a fascinating concept -- I'm sorry that some feel that I have an WP:SPA, but I'm just interested in the concept. -- In my opinion, the article, as it stands right now, reflects both the viewpoint that Payne was caught on tape asking for library contributions AND that he has been doing alot of back room diplomacy as well (see the "see also" link on the Payne article to the Logan Act) -- there are alot of unanswered questions here that an autobiographer wouldn't be asking -- like what ever happened to the promised congressional investigations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polticaltexan ( talk • contribs) 20:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
User, with an obvious COI as noted here, engaging in disruptive editing on the article pages and on the AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real vmx. MuZemike ( talk) 23:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
This user seems to be a sock puppet set up to derail a new article that has been agreed that it has proper refrences but does still need some work. The article currently has been marked for deletion and when that happened this user popped up to contest my standings on wiki. I am a wiki contributor and have made some good adjustments to articles and have had 1 deleted (I was too new).-- JMST ( talk) 23:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Please see the article's history. Someone claiming to represent the subject continually objects to the article on undisclosed "privacy grounds" and substitutes his amended version (using various disposable accounts). The amended version has improved, as the user is working out how to use wikimarkup and sources, but information is still be removed for reasons I can fathom. I'm exchanged e-mails with the user, but I'm still none the wiser. He seems to think we should publish his "official version". I'm normally very sensitive to respecting privacy, but.....? And is he even notable - an underwatched afd got no-consensus. He refuses to post to the talk page, but managed to find mine [62]. Anyway, help requested.-- Scott MacDonald ( talk) 03:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Spinoff from current Wikiquette alert Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User Miranda is randomly removing legitimate references by Editor Jake Sturm concerning alleged spamming of Kira Salak citations. The Google cache here finds that the official Kira Salak website had a recently-removed credit that the site was "created by Kira Salak and Jake Sturm". Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 19:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I am a professional website designer and it is true that I did contribute to the construction of the Salak website. I found Salak's articles to be well researched, well written and informative but unfortunately, on the National Geographic webiste, only the first few paragraphs of most of her articles are available to readers. There was no place on or off the Internet to find the entire articles. As I believed that the articles should be available to the general public, as they are good references, I suggested that they be put on her website and I would assist her with this. The only question here that I am asking in this forum is the following: Are the articles appropriate reference materials and are the articles where I inserted them appropriate?
Thank you very much for taking your time to contribute to this forum.
JakeSturm (
talk) 20:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Guujaaw is the reigning President of the Haida Nation and seems to be the same person as User:Guujaaw who lately has been extensively reivising this article without citations. Article issues template placed, including COI. Contributor has been deleting material, and substituting resume-type content; this was reversed by User:Dekisugi but User:Guujaaw has since reverted all that and fuerther expanded on the COI and "peacock content". See Talk:Guujaaw for advice/warnings given, which have not been heeded. Guujaaw is a potentially valuable contributor, and highly influential over other potential Haida contributors, so I've tried to be dipomatic; but until he learns to play by the rules/guidelines his edits "tend" to be contrary to wikipedia policy/guidelines.... Skookum1 ( talk) 17:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
This is Guujaaw, the same person as that mentioned in your page, and of corse I would be concerned to se that I am described in this site at all, it wasn't me who entered the description in the first place, but it is I who would know the content without any need for citations.....and indeed, you are right, I didn't read the rules of the game. There was deletions because, they were not right, I am not Gary Edenshaw, have not been for 25 years, formally at a potlatch and 'legally' on my drivers license and passport. I chose to set the Edenshaw name aside because it is a very important name that I do not need to use, it came to me through my father who was adopted by the Edenshaw family, and I remain very close to that family especially the current Chief Edenshaw. My father was the son of the Chief of Massett Chief Seegay, my uncle is the Chief of Skedans, Edenshaw is their name, Gary is from the baby book or somewhere unimportant and as I said has been discarded, the other names Giindajing, is my kid name meaning arguementative questening the answers etc. Haawisdi is the name I use at Skedans Potlatches, they are not first and second names and listed in that way, ...Guujaaw, is the subject, and I tried to straighten that out, I stuck mainly with the format and info therein, Any "peacock" stuff was to say that My skills are in strategic negotiating, which is important, please be assured, I don't need to sell myself, I simply tried to fix a half cocked description which didn't understand these complexities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guujaaw ( talk • contribs) 09:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Fru23 began a series of wholesale deletions of several sections of this page, w/o any discussion on talk and little or no edit summary. In a chat discussion this user claimed to be affialted with the O'Reilly Factor. He has since "sort of" retracted that admission. Jimintheatl ( talk) 14:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Here's a positive one, for a change of pace. Cwhit3134 ( talk · contribs) has just asked for review, by an editor without a conflict of interest, of this request. Uncle G ( talk) 19:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
This comment by admin VirtualSteve ( talk · contribs) explains the issue pretty well. Would appreciate others looking into this, thanks. Cirt ( talk) 06:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
this is absolutely not true. my page did not promote a product or service. it did not mention the product or service. it mentioned the company, and spoke about the company, and who the company is affiliated with. I advertise on national tv and have millions of viewers and don't need the 1 click a day from wikipedia to "advertise" my company. you have not responded to my multiple requests to defend your statements because you have no defense. this is admin abuse.
it is very clear that the page is not "blatant advertising". just because you have not heard about my nationally recognized company does not mean that I am "advertising" it via wikipedia. in fact, if you search the web, you will not find cheapbooks on many blogs, links to book price comparison sites, etc, because it is NOT part of my marketing strategy to use "free advertising" resources when I have access to national TV and radio, as well as print magazines such as Bookmarks or Romantic Times or ALA, or newspapers such as the LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, Fort Worth Star, etc.
see my print ads here from well-known newspapers: < http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=15912&id=521247625 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtiberio ( talk • contribs) 18:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Obvious COI here between username and article. Article is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shocker Toys (2nd nomination), which was nominated by ShockerHelp. User has engaged in very problematic and borderline uncivil and tendentious behavior at the AFD. sock puppetry also seems to be present. MuZemike ( talk) 00:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Note — AFD has been closed as a keep. MuZemike ( talk) 21:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Peterrobertcasey, which seems to also be User:Prcasey03, is apparently Peter Robert Casey, part-owner and manager of a basketball tournament held at Rucker Park. He seems determined to make the park's article as ad-like as possible. He's also included links to his own blog in the article. I've warned him about COI, spam, and autobiography; but I'm mentioning this here as well. (Not sure what, if anything, to do about the sockpuppetry, since neither account is blocked.) -- Orange Mike | Talk 21:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
User:ClarkLewis blocked indefinitely as sock of Gnetwerker, confirmed by checkuser |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Resolved –
User:ClarkLewis blocked indefinitely as sock of Gnetwerker, confirmed by checkuserDennis King is an advocacy journalist who has an account here at Wikipedia. His principal interest is Lyndon LaRouche, on whom he is the author of a book. His Special:Contributions/Dking indicates that he is a SPA. Yesterday he made 14 edits at the LaRouche article which involved deletions of sourced material [64] [65] [66], and adding of Original Research [67] [68] [69]. When I asked him on the talk page to familiarize himself with Wikipedia:SCOIC, he responded by reverting to his version with an uncivil edit summary [70]. -- ClarkLewis ( talk) 22:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Response to Will Beback: if you will examine my initial post, I reported that I had asked Dking to follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:SCOIC, which request that COI editors post their proposed changes and/or links to their websites on article talk pages so that they may be discussed before being added to articles. I was unaware of the previous entries about Dking on this page, but I have read them now. It appears that there was never any resolution. In particular, in the entry at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 9, King was specifically asked to propose changes on talk pages rather than adding them himself (the same procedure as at Wikipedia:SCOIC,) and he has clearly disregarded that request. -- ClarkLewis ( talk) 20:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Here's my take on Dking's COI. He violates these sections of the policy: Self-promotion "Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates." "1. Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages." (Dennis King is an obscure individual who uses Wikipedia for self-promotion. Dking's editing generally revolves around adding links to his personal self-published websites, http://www.larouchewatch.com, http://lyndonlarouche.org/, and http://dennisking.org/ (the last one is defunct.) Diffs: [71], [72], [73] , [74] , [75] , [76] , [77] , [78]) Close relationships "Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias." (Dennis King is the most extreme of LaRouche's critics. He sees LaRouche as evil incarnate, and his edits at Wikipedia are relentlessly biased.) -- Leatherstocking ( talk) 18:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Dennis King is an expert on LaRouche, and the policies are clear on the issue of self-published material by experts. (1) Self-published material from experts in the field whose work has previously been published by a reliable source is allowed; (2) It is not allowed in relation to biographical material on a living person; (3) Courtesy links to self-published websites are allowed if the material being linked to has been published by a reliable source i.e. if the website is simply displaying the material and is not itself the source of it. Therefore, Dennis King's books may be used as a source on LaRouche and the movement in general. His websites may be used as a source on the LaRouche movement or LaRouche politics in general, but not on LaRouche himself or any other living person. And his website may be used as a courtesy link to his book (to the version of the book that was published), so long as the webpage he links to does not contain material about a living person that isn't in the book. SlimVirgin talk| edits 07:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
What Dking writes about LaRouche off-Wiki, i.e., in his personal website, is relevant because Dking's activity at Wikipedia is all about promoting his personal website, which is a violation of the COI guidelines. For examples of Dking's editing which fail NPOV, here are two recent ones:
The number or percentages of Dking's edits is irrelevant. What matters is whether his edits are biased and self-promotional. Please make an effort to stay on-topic. -- Leatherstocking ( talk) 16:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
|
I recently reverted an edit that this user made to the Gerald Ford article since it was promoting a musical work by the Grand Rapids Symphony, an article that this user claims to have created. Obviously self-promotion right there, so I need some help of how to deal with this user.-- Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 01:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Fram needs help in a dispute at Talk:Wolfberry#Self-published book, which looks a COI issue. Paul144 is reverting the removal of a self-published book - Wolfberry: Natures Bounty of Nutrition and Health - and pushing for its inclusion as a reference.
A look at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-28 Antioxidant shows Paul144 to have self-identified [85] as "a contributor to a few of these {online publications), e.g., http://www.npicenter.com/news/DrPaulGross_articles.aspx". The link goes to a bio of a Dr Paul Gross, aka The Berry Doctor, "senior author of a 2006 book on the goji berry entitled Wolfberry: Natures Bounty of Nutrition and Health" ... Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 09:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: I just noticed that Paul144 outed himself a second time here previously in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Gross where, on being asked specifically about his connection to the subject, said he was the son of Frank Gross. [87]. That article cites a CKTimes reference - Frank Gross Memorial Banquet honours memory - with pictures of Paul144 / Paul Gross that are recognisably our Berry Doctor. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 03:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Addendum 2: borderline legal threat by e-mail reported to WP:ANI. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 17:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Addendum 3: Google site:berrydoctor.com Wikipedia. A number of pages use as external validation articles majorly edited by Paul144, like this one on goji berries ("See the Wikipedia articles on wolfberry (goji) and superfruits -- check out the References in each article!"). That looks a very misusable relationship with Wikipedia.
I'm also concerned about Paul144's expunging evidence that explains the potential COI. [88]. WP:OUTING hardly applies when someone has already disclosed their identity, and information about a book and company background splashed on their respective websites is not private information. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 16:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
So, we have an editor who creates an article on superfruit with 24 references (not used inline), including four to articles by Gross. [89]. A few days later, Gross creates on another website a different article on superfruit, without footnotes, but with at the end a list of the same 24 references (including even the numbering). [90] Our article has sentences like "more than a dozen industry publications of functional foods and beverages have referred to various exotic or antioxidant species as superfruits (4-24), yet this category presently does not have a working definition." The Gross article has "More than a dozen industry publications for functional foods and beverages have referred to various exotic or antioxidant species as “superfruits” (4-24), yet this category presently does not have a working definition."
If this is not the same or a closely affiliated editor, then Gross is a shameless copyist, writing an article where he copies the refs and whole sentences from Wikipedia. But whatever the case, this external article is itself used as a reference on Wikipedia by the same editor in at least 6 articles [91] (or rather 7 [92]), including the one it was originally taken from. The ref is added the same day it is published on NPIcenter [93].
Basically, this user has been spamming Wikipedia with references to a self-published book and a number of articles in industry journals. No matter if he is the same person or someone else (the editor does not want to be associated with Gross in Wikipedia discussions...), I don't believe this is acceptable behaviour, or that these are acceptable sources. There is enough information over these berries available that we don't have to rely on unreliable information. If that means that the articles will have less information on all "superfruit" aspects of these plants, so be it. We will catch up once science has done so. Fram ( talk) 13:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I think, perhaps, Paul144 is most likely Paul Gross, as noted at the duck test. In any case, I feel a lot could be fixed here if the account in question - whoever it belongs to - stops linking to anything linked with Paul Gross. Linking to anything that you're involved in - even as a reference - is a very dangerous path to walk down, and will get picked up on quite easily. However, it also appears that Paul144 is a good editor, and to lose him would be a loss to the project overall. Paul444, in light of the above conversations, I'm going to ask that you edit topics that aren't related to Paul Gross, his companies, or his works. Let someone else insert the references, once they have consensus. At the moment, the material doesn't have consensus, and as such, it shouldn't be included, reliable source or not. If you think I've completely misread this talk - it's quite hard to follow - please let me know! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 22:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll now remove all links to works by Gross, as they are clearly intended as spam. Fram ( talk) 11:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
This user has been adding a large amount of peacock/pov information and plagiarized text on artists that are represented by a company known as Frank Lloyd Gallery. ( Peter Shire (artist) and Craig Kauffman (artist) are the ones where he's active at the moment.) Furthermore, he has been unilaterally removing cleanup templates without addressing concerns and, more seriously, removing ifd templates from fair use images he has uploaded, without giving a FUR or engaging in a discussion about the image. The two articles I linked to above both originally had large amounts of text cut and pasted from websites (either Frank Lloyd Gallery's own website, or another website in the case of Craig Kauffman (artist)) and this user has repeatedly reinstated that text in the articles after I commented it out or deleted it. I have warned the user about his edits and about COI, and another editor has also asked the user do disclose any possible COI, but the user has ignored all requests for discussion. Can anyone suggest a next step? — Politizer talk/ contribs 20:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Update -- This user has been unblocked and changed his user name; he has read the policies on COI and NPOV and has agreed to keep his edits neutral. The user requested that this report now be archived; I don't know what the rules are on archiving these so I'm just leaving you regulars a message here. Thanks, — Politizer talk/ contribs 01:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Jamesbgolden ( talk · contribs) - conflict of interest with this article: James B. Golden. User has been notified of COI and his Bio is up for deletion over here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James B. Golden -- Flewis (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Veecort is an editor with an established vendetta against the school ITT Tech. His opinion on it is clearly stated on his userpage. He also runs appears to be affiliated with the anti-ITT tech message board "ItTakesTime.com" and has repeatedly linked it on the article's talk page. Editors disagreeing with him are accused of being "company shills" and "pitcher plants". See also
this edit, which contains all the above described behaviors, and
this edit demonstrates his attitude/behavior about the school.
McJeff (
talk) 07:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Neotu is a SPA who created the article on the Neotu art gallery. He has admitted that he was had a major role in the creation of the gallery, but he keeps removing the COI tag placed on the article. On User_talk:Fabrictramp#NEOTU he has defended his moves, saying that the term "conflict of interest" is very offensive where he is from. He seems pretty adamant on keeping the article tag-free as evidenced on my talk page, and Fabrictramp's. I thought further discussion was due in order to establish a wider consensus. Themfromspace ( talk) 23:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Note I notified Neotu that his username was against guidelines and he's currently seeking to have it changed. He put in a request for "Neogejo" (another company he's affiliated with) and that request hasn't been acted upon yet. Just a heads-up that his username will soon be changing. Themfromspace ( talk) 00:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Neogejo is not the name of a company. It is my AVATAR as a writer in e-writing, poet in e-poetry and as a designer in Graphic and Website design you can check/search on Google: Neogejo and/or Gerard Dalmon. I do not agree when it is said that the Neotu article is an "art gallery catalog". So far the article gives a list of Designers who had worked for the Gallery. A chronology of the exhibitions, and a bibliography which could be very useful for people for want to make research on the avant-garde furniture design in the 80's and 90's . I am welcoming any contributors to bring critics regarding the past activity of Neotu. To make comparison with other art gallery please could you check the article Gagosian Gallery. Is this article also an "art gallery catalog"? This gallery is still "alive" and running business in London, New York, Los Angeles and Rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neotu ( talk • contribs) 02:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Please find below a list of external links refering to Neotu. This could be an excellent material for future contributors who would like to bring more content in the introduction of the article
etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neotu ( talk • contribs) 02:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I have been working on this article since beginning of November. It is not finish. Also I am a beginner in Wikipedia, these are my first steps. I agree pictures of furniture are missing. But I do not how to add them. Anyway you can see a selection of furniture which are a part of the French Museums collections. This is a tiny selection of what Neotu Gallery has shown and also MANUFACTURED. Because before being a gallery Neotu was first an avant-garde furniture manufacturer.
My user name is no longer Neotu. It is now Neoge. I will delete the neotu.com link in the external links section since you think that this might be a problem. neotu.com site is in progress. When completed this site will provide a list by designers of photographs of the pieces that Neotu has shown and/or manufactured. That will be more than 1000 photographs organized as a data base. The site will provide also as PDF all the catalogues of Neotu from 1984 to 2001.-- Neoge ( talk) 17:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The list of the exhibits is short and was not finished... Between 1984 to 2001 Neotu uses to have at least 6 shows a year only for the Gallery in Paris. Just make the math. I though that was a interesting information to bring to the public in this Encyclopedia. But if "everyone" there thinks that this list of exhibits has no interest, is too long or whatever, I am ready to delete it. I am giving up. I do not know who I am talking to. Everyday there is a interlocutor who has a new point of view, a new suggestion... So I am really lost. I invite you, if you have not read already this novel by Franz Kafka The Castle (novel) to read it. I have this feeling of being "K." the protagonist of the novel who "struggles to gain access to the mysterious authorities of a castle who govern the village where he wants to work"... Please try to read this book. The reading might reveal you how sounds the "Wikipedia bureaucracy" for a novice arriving in your "Castle". Yours -- Neoge ( talk) 23:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
To EdJohnson I did not make any comparison between Wikipedia and Franz Kafka. The only comparison was between K. (the protagonist of the novel "The Castle" by F. Kafka) and myself who feels as K. struggling with Mysterious Authorities. Regarding the bibliography that I provide: I give 90% of the ISBN. If you have time please check them. The books are real and not from a library found on Second Life. If you are curious about the books you can order them from Amazon or Alibris etc.. you can also consult Google Books just put Neotu in the search, you can also go the Library of the University of Michigan which has a lot of books and publications regarding Neotu. This link Pompidou Center la galerie Neotu" is it real? Or is it something born in my imagination? I am afraid that "Wikipedia bureaucracy" is very suspicious when something new (artistic topics for ex) is brought to it and believe me I feel very comfortable with the Internet. Yes I will put some pictures of the furniture online when I know how to do. But do you really think that pictures are more real than writings, references or books? I am also surprise that you write and doubt that "our readers should care" about Neotu. Do you know so precisely "your readers" to know so exactly what they are looking for? If think that the interest of Wikipedia is to bring a lot of information regarding different fields which are not common or trivial subjects. This is the real WEALTH of this Encyclopedia. -- Neoge ( talk) 15:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
To Jehochman: there is some one who is an expert of Neotu. Her name is Ms Constance Rubini. She works at the Decorative Art Museum in Paris. She just wrote an long article in AZIMUTS#29 - ISBN:9782912808073 regarding Neotu. But I am not sure that this person is familiar with Wikipedia and can add something in the article. Nevertheless her book is for me an excellent source of information. -- Neoge ( talk) 15:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Yggdra Union: We'll Never Fight Alone ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This section is sourced entirely by forum posts on a fansite by DrSturm ( talk · contribs) who is also a poster on those forums. Mr T (Based) ( talk) 17:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Obviously COIage going on here, as admitted in the article's AFD, along with perceived sockpuppetry and persistent editwarring. There has also been a benign legal threat made on the article's page, which was reported to ANI (however, may have been in error). MuZemike ( talk) 01:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Princess Royal Barracks, Deepcut ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The parents of two of the suicides at Deepcut have for some time been making POV insertions in this article using either IP contributions or single purpose accounts. One of these Des James ( talk · contribs) has now created an explicit account with the declared intention to reflect accurately the facts as they stand.
I have previously sought to identify the risks here and have this morning been more explicit.
I would be grateful for some other eyes on the article.
ALR ( talk) 09:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
A second new account is now inserting significant POV material in the section about another of the suicides. Vonny2005 ( talk · contribs)
ALR ( talk) 10:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
This was bought to my attention while reviewing the article's AFD. This article has been extensively edited by the subject. I pointed this out in the AFD discussion, tagged the article with {{autobiography}}, and posted my concerns on the talk page. After this, editing switched to another account with no other edits besides this article.
Since the AFD was closed "keep" (it really couldn't have been closed otherwise) what it needs at this point is more eyes on it and the attention of a few more uninvolved editors. Besides the taggers, the article is only being edited by SPAs. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 14:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
The following users: 71.190.203.37, Kansas7474, and Simpsonj3, against whom a sockpuppet report has additionally been filed, appear, based upon their postings, to be affilated with at least some of the companies: Vector, New Valley; and also Mr. Bennett Lebow, whom they have directed their remarks toward. It is my BELIEF, based upon the following evidence, that the above user(s) are, as mentioned before, affiliated with this person and these companies, and are merely using Wikipedia as the equivalent of a "public relations brochure" and means to bolster the image of at least Mr. Lebow, as is evidenced by the other investigations that have been requested.
Please note that nearly all of the remarks made by 71.190.203.37, Kansas7474, and Simpsonj3 as noted in their contributions are directed to the above executive and the affiliated companies: Mr. Lebow, New Valley, Vector, and Liggett. Given that these are not "popular" subjects, it is extremely unlikely that an editor without a conflict of interest as noted above would make these remarks.
I believe that the remarks that I have made, that have continually been deleted by all three of the above users, should be locked and made permanent, especially in view of the fact that other Wikipedians are essentially attempting to form a consensus by reverting to my edits; and also the fact that even Kansas7474 has admitted they are accurately sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alygx026 ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)