This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
This user is editing a lot on Sky Television related articles. I'm not sure if this is an employee but the username is definately inappropriate. See Contribs -- DFS454 ( talk) 11:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Article seems to have been created for purposes of promotion after a user claiming to be Sawyer ran into trouble inserting unnecessary info on himself into Christie Brinkley due to feeling slighted for not getting enough credit for discovering her. [1] The debate was subsequently taken over by Fischer, his wife/agent, who is now the main editor of Sawyer's article, and she doesn't seem interested in my repeated explanations of Wiki policy: the "Early Life" section is all OR, the career section is mostly quotes that push a positive POV (with citations that don't verify the text or link to self-published material from his website that's written by his agent), and the "Activism" section sounds like campaigning and is sourced using blogs and comments lists - reliable secondary sources on Sawyer are nearly non-existent; the only one there is doesn't do much more than verify that he discovered Brinkley, along with a few others things on Brinkley's discovery that are contradicted by other sources. Sawyer claims to know the author.
His agent/wife sidesteps COI claims by saying she didn't create the article (although it seems clear it was created on her behalf or Sawyer's), has repeatedly deleted maintenance tags for "destroying" the article, and justifies non-policy-supported content with allusions to her "academic qualifications" and edit summaries of "truth is truth." [2] After first I just thought this was a matter of an editor pushing a COI too far, but now I'm thinking the article could just be deleted as spam and for the subject's non-notability in the absence of reliable sourcing. (Sorry this is so long.) Mbinebri talk ← 21:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
TonyMcConkey ( talk · contribs) has been editing Tony McConkey, removing criticisms without explanation. I have issued them a uw-coi warning. AnyPerson ( talk) 06:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I am writing to report commercially motivated and unfounded editing of the medical article for Keratoconus.
To summarize: there is a treatment method (C3-R) being used in the US that is very expensive(~$2000/eye) and has been shown as ineffective especially when compared to alternatives. The problem is that the alternatives are not yet approved by FDA (they are in clinical trials).
Only a few clinics are administering the ineffective C3-R treatment at good profit and have strong reason to edit the article to hide or bury these studies.. Someone is continually removing edits and citing random websites as sources to support this procedure.
The user related to the commercially benefit of these edits, has been editing this article under different "sock-puppets" including User:Scubadiver99 and User:Corneadoc... among others. Arpowers ( talk) 07:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
This is intended more to keep tabs on this user, who is acting disruptively at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 25#Comsec Consulting Ltd. and has gone as far as to threatening deletion on many other articles (see WP:WAX). It is possible that WP:ANI might be necessary here. User has a direct conflict of interest with the article in question, which was speedy deleted for blatant advertising/spam. MuZemike 06:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to ask somebody who is more experienced of dealing with potential COI issues to assist handling the Massey Energy article. I'm not sure if this a right place to post it as there is no incident yet. Vice versa, the company has indicated beforehand at the talk page about their intention to improve the article and most of potential addition are justified and sourced with reliable sources. However, the proposed amendments concerning community service seems to be problematic. The company also indicates that they will use a PR firm for the editing. Beagel ( talk) 18:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the IP was either Echavarria or someone associated with him, and that Lilavalladares currently is. Lilavalladares has in any case been editing his page and created one for both his production company ( Destiny Entertainment Productions) and his new film Never Surrender (film). When I found the article it was more or less completely unreferenced and non-NPOV so I did a small copyedit (diff) removing the worst and put up a request for sources on the talk page but nothing's happened yet. Just now, Lilavalladares re-added/added (diff) some more unreferenced sections, one of which starts with:
Assistance greatly appreciated. -- aktsu ( t / c) 20:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that this user had made many edits regarding Fabrik Inc. and its brands such as SimpleTech and G-Technology. He would either write a substantial portion of such articles (which often did sound like somewhat of an advertisement but had many, many citations) or add mentions to the company and its brands to articles on related topics such as External hard disk drive, Toshiba, Samsung Group, etc.
I looked further into his contributions and saw that he made edits to a number of other articles as well...including quite a few edits The Hoffman Agency, a public relations firm. After looking at [3], it seems that the majority of the edits that he made were regarding clients of The Hoffman Agency...these include Fabrik, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, Friendster, SolarWinds, and possibly others.
As you can probably see I strongly suspect that this individual is making edits on behalf of a PR firm. I'd already warned him about a potential conflict of interest on the SimpleTech/Fabrik topics and he responded but seems to have made a few more edits. Scootey ( talk) 04:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Responding to Scootey's concerns from here and my talk page:
I think I have made substantial genuine contributions to Wikipedia content both on company Wikis and subject-matter Wikis. Each Wiki includes an immense amount of in-depth online research. Many of these Wikis were non-existent, in poor condition, sometimes full of broken links, etc.
Based on Scootey's observations above, I can see his reason for concern, but I think a close investigation of the new Wikis I've created, the research that goes into it, and the factual information I've consolidated onto Wikipedia articles would reveal a positive contribution to Wikipedia.com.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by David44357 ( talk • contribs) 00:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Quoting David44357 "...but the IP address and my username are indeed one in the same. I sometimes make revisions without logging in."
Interesting. Let's do a whois and nslookup on the IP, shall we?
Admit it. You're making edits for your clients that you've been paid to make, and you're editing the articles of their competitors to add them in for special "Competitor" sections and removing anything that looks like advertisement in them while at the same time filling your clients' articles chock full of advertising material. You're completely misrepresenting your motivations and your COI has affected more than just your clients' articles. Lahnfeear ( talk) 04:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm adding Saranixon ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to this report. The edits correspond exactly with David44357 and the ip 209.76.124.126. Obviously either a meatpuppet or sockpuppet of the same user. Lahnfeear ( talk) 02:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:SOCK request
Bill robb ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — is adding large amounts of material, and creating a number of new pages, cited to himself on his website www.valueseducation.co.uk (although his attempted contributions to Peace education also include a considerable amount of uncited material as well). Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 11:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
On closer examination of his edits, one of Bill robb's first edits on wikipedia, was to describe himself on Values education (the article with the same name as his website, which he has thereafter edited considerably, and cited himself profusely) as "a leading expert in the field - Dr Bill Robb". This seems to have set the pattern for his later edits. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Does anyone have spare time to take a look at this? Addressing copyright concerns, I noticed conflict issues, in that not only is the subject purportedly editing the article herself but the other primary editor is citing as sources personal correspondence from the subject to him. (He is involved with Peace Mala, an organization she founded.) I have provided each a COI advisory, but would appreciate it greatly if a contributor here could undertake to evaluate it for cleaning as necessary for neutrality and to remove OR. I try not to mix my copyright problems with other issues if it can be avoided. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmni ( talk · contribs) has been editing Hello My Name Is Records, which the article notes is referred to as HMNI. Rspeer ( talk · contribs) insists that we not block them for the username because that would be biting, so we are referring this here from UAA in order to take appropriate sanctions for violating COI. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Rthrash ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - MODx article was listed at AfD and then this user pops up being un WP:CIVIL because I listed his vanity page. Did a good search for his username and it seems he is a developer for MODx [11] 16x9 ( talk) 13:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that Warren Farrell had become very promotional. [12] I checked the editor and found that Rsskga ( talk · contribs · count · api · block log) had made a major re-write back in October 2008. The same user also wrote articles on one of Farrell's books, The Myth of Male Power, on an erotica site, Unseen (Unseen.tv), and on a limousine service, LS Worldwide Transportation. The latter article was quickly deleted as having no assertion of notability, but a version can be found here: user:Rsskga/LS WorldWide Transportation. At first I assumed that Rsskga was either Farrell or a close friend, because the article is illustrated with scans of his diplomas and some press clippings which only he would have. However on searching Google I found that Rsskga is actually the principal of a Media Marketing/SEO firm named All the Queen’s Men. [13] [14] [15] It would appear that Farrell, Unseen.tv, and LS Worldwide Transportation are her clients. [16] (On Wikicommons she claims the LS logo is her creation. [17]) The articles cite Rsskga's offsite postings and press releases as sources. [18] [19] So, unless someone has a better suggestion, I'm going to put a long comment on the user's talk page explaining NPOV and V, and strongly suggesting that she stop editing Wikipedia on behalf of her clients. Will Beback talk 23:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
[http://www.therebreathersite.nl/08_Website_Related_Information/speed_menu.htm Janwillem Bech's big rebreather information site] (warning: contains advertisements) |
I want to link to that site, because it contains much useful information about rebreather scuba diving. See discussion at Talk:Rebreather#External links again. Much of that discussion centers on including/deleting longer pieces of text which I have accepted the loss of; the current dispute is about the one link quoted above.
I am accused of conflict of interest, apparently because:
Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 12:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I feel this user might have a conflict of interest in this matter and should probably not be editing this article. His edit summaries are revealing of a passion for the situation in Gaza that is probably unhealthy for the article. He's been driving home a phrasing of the lead that I don't believe is neutral enough, and he's continually reverted me when I've tried to insert a version of the lead that was more neutral. Further to that, he continues to introduce degrading grammatical errors that I have repeatedly attempted to fix. His civility with me has been less than good; he even took to spamming my talk page with a censorship template. That brings me to the other point. He's been labelling my attempts to improve and neutralise the lead as "censorship", which I think only furthers my point about a conflict of interest. I'd appreciate an exterior opinion from someone. Here are some diffs to illustrate what I'm saying:
I should note that it could be said I'm in a dispute with this user; I've come here for some resolution. I say this because I don't want to paint the wrong picture. What's fair is fair. The problem isn't being sorted out between us, so I hope someone else here can provide insight. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 05:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
An outside opinion: this seems to me to be a misunderstanding of the WP:COI guideline. Wikifan12345 evidently has a strong POV on this conflict, but an interest doesn't automatically imply a conflict of interest. It might do if he was directly affiliated with the combatants - i.e. the Israeli military or Hamas - but I don't think you are claiming that. I can't see anything to action here, quite frankly. (Though Wikifan12345's conduct is concerning in other regards; I've raised an issue relating to him on Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement). -- ChrisO ( talk) 01:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foswiki. It seems that the developers of this TWiki derivative (all noted above) have rallied rained down on the AFD in the form of SPAs. MuZemike 04:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
A single purpose account, Vitasmortis, seems to have a COI with the Mystery Method page. According to a research, that can be found on the talk page of Mystery Method, it revealed that the user is very likely involved with a commercial company that has an interest in the article. The user also blanked his talk page before and did not disclose his COI. Coaster7 ( talk) 00:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I tried to do an AfD for Mystery method, but I'm having trouble (even after updating it to a second nom). Can someone help me set it up? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 03:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
This is not about other pages other than Mystery Method. There seems to be a discussion on whether what to include on that page. Before the edits of Vitasmortis, the page was fine and neutral. However, his edits made it look like a sales page and claims were made that had no source to verify. The Mystery Method is a well known and notable method of seduction in the media that has evolved in other methods of seduction. I'm not sure why you call me a SPA? I'm solely responsible for creating the Love Systems and Nick Savoy page. The first AfDs of those pages were of a year ago and I was not involved in those. That list of [21] was for the very first AfD and none of them were around for the recreation. I was solely responsible getting those pages back up with help of other notable Wikipedia users for getting authorization of recreation. Ever since these pages were up, I've branched to other articles. As my first post says, this is about the Mystery Method page and SPA Vitasmortis. Coaster7 ( talk) 05:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The article Masonic conspiracy theories purports to present conspiracy theories regarding Freemasonry. Instead, it seems to be a white-wash job created by Freemasons themselves, in order to provide a distorted view of conspiracy theories.
Blueboar has committed himself to "edit" articles regarding Freemasonry, and has admitted to being a practitioner of Freemasonry himself. The 2 other editors ( MSJapan and WegianWarrior) seem to be providing support rather than making any significant contributions. Ukufwakfgr ( talk) 21:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Per this WP:AN/I notification. CCFSDCA ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is creating pages about holidays around the world, using by the editor's own admission, his unpublished (and unsold) manuscript as the sole source, even adding a credit to himself in his initial drafts. The editor clearly has some fundamental misunderstandings of a host of policies (ranging from obvious conflicts of interest to the complete unreliability of sources), so perhaps someone who has the time should have a word in his ear. -- CalendarWatcher ( talk) 00:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Dann Glenn ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This seems like it meets notability criteria, but appears to be self-promotion with links to buy various CDs, etc. Nearly all editing was done by a single editor, which raised my suspicions. I only started editing this week, so I don't want to throw accusations around, but something just didn't seem right about this one. Thanks for looking this over. Jvr725 ( talk) 01:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Can someone have a look at this series of edits: [23]. Thanks. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 06:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Sole creator is user:NextGen911. I haven't read article thoroughly, it's also on the userpage I believe, but I think it needs work... ChildofMidnight ( talk) 08:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Per Jc3. Seems like the POV issues have been addressed. Mister Senseless™ ( Speak - Contributions) 21:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
James H. Fetzer ( talk · contribs) has been editing the article, adding a lot of material. It seems adequately sourced, but notability and lack of bias still needs to be determined. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
This user has been previously discussed Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_28#The_Pendulum_-_A_Tragedy_of_1900_Vienna_and_Alexander_Fiske-Harrison here and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_28#Fiskeharrison here and COI warned on a few occasions. After a short sojourn he's back editing Alexander Fiske-Harrison. It appears that the usual COI warnings simply don't suffice. -- Blowdart | talk 15:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Of course I have a COI, and I am aware "COI editing is strongly discouraged" (N.B. NOT forbidden) according to your COI guidelines, which is why I have left the long called for improvement of the article to other hands. However, since the demand to improve the article has been there some time, I eventualy thought to do something about it myself, while following the guideline that "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests" - hence my username IS my surname. Alexander Fiske-Harrison -- Fiskeharrison ( talk) 15:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, but this strikes me as deeply childish.
Obviously, I have a conception of how the information is best presented and I do not claim this is the the most objective - I am happy with how it now is. However, this article has been flagged, not only for improvement, but standardisation, for a while. The info is there, the references ready-made on my user-page, and no one does anything? Why not?
So, instead, they wait til I do and then cry wolf? Come on. Let's face facts, there's people who would rather the article didn't exist, despite the judgement of their peers, who sat and watched when they oould themselves have improved the piece, in the hope I would transgress...-- Fiskeharrison ( talk) 02:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
And there we have Blowdart's honest appraisal and his own COI revealed. -- Fiskeharrison ( talk) 14:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that conversation has reached an impasse. Since no one was willing to wikify the page as the editors watching it had stood against it in AfD, I did so. Blowdart has taken it back to a position he feels is correct and I happy to leave it at that. Please note before I did this, I did contact the administrator User:MBisanz, and I quote his response of January 24th: "You are free to edit it, or ask someone else to edit it, or place comments on the Talk: page where others would be free to add to the article. Our COI policy lets subject edit their articles so long as they do so in a neutral manner." However, I still thought it best to wait. Via con dios. -- Fiskeharrison ( talk) 16:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
My guess is that there's some serious autobiography going on here. I would think that the artist probably is notable, though I haven't looked closely; most of the sources seem to go back in one way or another to his website (which this article is rapidly becoming): according to OTRS, Lawless hired Amy Sparks, which is why he claims the ability to release her "review" of his material under GFDL and which is why her claims like "Lawless rips political statements out of their contexts and illuminates them with biting irony" would be unusable. I've been involved on the copyright end on this one, and I try not to mix my copyright work with other stuff (since it may feel like its personal), but I think this one would benefit from a few more eyes to help ensure WP:NPOV. Several of the SPA creator(s) have been given COI notice, but I suspect that any efforts to force this article to conform to policy may meet resistance. I bring it here in case anyone has time and energy to take it on. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Crisler works on two types of articles -- those relating to this lawsuit, and those relating to the death penalty. The article is awfully favorable to the respondents in Varian v. Delfino, and, coincidentally, the respondents in that case have since written annual guides to the death penalty. "Crisler" is the last name of the human resources officer at Varian whom Delfino and Day had their litigious dispute with.
User:Suebenjamin and User:Amberjacker also only write about this lawsuit, and use the same unusual edit-summary style as Crisler.
(Coincidentally, or not so coincidentally, the litigation involved a corporation overreacting to sockpuppet behavior by ex-employees on Internet message boards.)
The possible WP:COI and WP:SOCK problem bothers me less than the WP:NPOV issue; the article, about a minor California Supreme Court case of little precedential value that arguably flunks WP:NOTNEWS, needs a rewrite, as does the BLP article about Judges Whyte and Komar.
This is cross-posted at WP:NPOVN#Varian_v._Delfino; please respond there. THF ( talk) 12:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I propose that the user be confined to the talk page of tort reform topics, in keeping with a strict interpretation of
WP:COI. These edits wash with
WP:BRD.
Cool Hand
Luke 21:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
So I did, explicitly acknowledging that my edit needed other eyes to rewrite it. When other editors wanted to change it, I told them to go right ahead.
And now, without even approaching me on my talk page, he's complaining that I did exactly what he asked me to do? This is disruption of the worst order. I also want sanctions for the violation of WP:OUT. THF ( talk) 21:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure this out. I presume that the edit Wikidea is complaining about primarily is this: 12:21, January 13, 2009, made by THF with the edit summary: "per multiple invitations on talk page, first cut; still needs a lot of work". Just looking over that version, I that it had no citations and replaced a version that had 25. THF has been here long enough to know that articles require sources. I don't understand how he would have thought it was acceptable to replace a sourced article with one written without any sources. Will Beback talk 21:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Once again I'll restate the issue. THF has a clear conflict of interest as a staunch tort reform advocate. He is not a collaborative editor with anyone that does not conform to the views of the people who have employed him. The pattern of tags, demanding "complete rewrites" and throwing around accusations of temper tantrums will continue. He will probably continue to follow his lobbyist values elsewhere, as he has done before. Wik idea 23:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm puzzled why this is coming up now. THF hasn't edited Tort reform since January 25. I later made a bunch of edits to it, in which I was trying to balance the pro tort "reform" that I saw in the article. If you look at the article talk page, and at my talk page THF was not thrilled by my edits but he was civil and collaborative. I soon figured out his relationship to a conservative think tank, but I thought he was behaving well on the Tort reform article during the short period I edited it. I can't speak for his behavior in the distant and shadowed past, but I don't see anything in the past month that should earn him such an attack, including his tentative effort on January 13 to clean up the messy article as it stood then, and as (I learn from the diff posted at the head of this COI) it had stood unchanged since January 3. Questionic ( talk) 04:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
IANAL and I am also not an admin, but I would like to someone who is an admin to enforce Wikipedia policy by taking some action against Wikidea for his attacks on THF and his disruption of the editing process on Tort reform, now being actively edit-warred as this dispute here drags on unresolved, with accusations and angry responses flying back and forth.
I put in many hours of work gathering good references to clarify the arguments made pro and con various aspects of tort reform. Wikidea nuked the whole article back to its state on January 3, and wants everybody to re-start from there. I'm not about to waste my time on an article that is being nuked and re-nuked, now on almost an hourly basis. Please, somebody, block Wikidea until he cools down a bit. It is my opinion that THF, despite having a pro-insurance-company POV on tort reform, has behaved honorably in revealing his POV and civilly in collaborating with editors who don't attack him. There is a difference between having a POV and having a COI. Questionic ( talk) 16:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Patmcgreen (
talk ·
contribs ·
count ·
logs ·
email)
This user discloses their relation to
Cass Community Social Services on his user page. I have asked that he stop editing the article because he has violated
WP:NPOV each time.--
Ipatrol (
talk) 23:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
(unindent)I generally agree with THF's position on this. I think there are two issues where my experience with artistic contributions to Wikipedia is worth considering:
Obvious financial incentive is difficult to discern in most cases. It grew tiresome to continually read people accuse me of motives that I did not possess. I don't want to see that repeated with other artists, because it is discouraging and we need them (even if they are amateurs). I think THF is right, that it's a case-by-case basis. User:Raul654 eloquently stated the basic principles back during the Pubic Hair Wars:
It is not a conflict of interest for a photographer to want his pictures used in our articles. Unless someone can establish David has some motive in getting his photos used in our article that goes beyond simple pride in seeing his work used, there is no conflict of interest for David here.
With that said, I think the debate should be focused solely on the merits of David's photograph versus any other candidate photographs. On this point, I'm going to remain neutral, because I'm at work and I really shouldn't be looking at such things ;) Raul654 14:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I used to edit-war over my photography because, way back, it was something that made me feel good about myself that my work was used to the point I tried to force it. Pride--or "makes me feel good about myself"--in no way equals a COI. I can't stress this enough. I urge caution in forming policies and guidelines that treat photographic/illustrative/artistic contributions any differently than text contributions. Talk page, consensus, value added, etc. are all the same principles. COI tends to be another dagger people unsheathe in argument to frustrate a contribution. Without an obvious financial incentive behind the contribution, COI is an illegitimate argument that violates AGF and CIVIL. Last, I do not support captions with the names of the photographer or artist unless they are well-known for their work. At all. It's a distraction on the article, and there is plenty of room for attribution on the file page and in the file name. --David Shankbone 18:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Rodin777([User talk:Rodin777|talk]]) 11.45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
This article is being heavily edited by this user: Ihorp ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose name would appear to be identical with the subject. The article is essentially a long list of awards, projects, and press releases. Las Meninas (film), another of his favorite articles, is even more spammy. The artist himself would appear to meet notability requirements, but I thought posting here would be a good idea. Litho derm 00:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Fred Shapiro ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was edited by FredShapiro42754 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), first by blanking the page, then by removing content, and warning others not to put incorrect information in My article in the edit summary, assuming ownership of article by doing so. Wuhwuzdat ( talk) 00:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
IsraelXKV8R ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been editing this article, has a conflict of interest: he created a film shown in the Dead Sea Scroll exhibits that have become the subject of controversy; his film was criticized by historian Norman Golb who is also involved in the controversy. IsraelXKV8R, who is personally involved in this controversy, keeps deleting any discussion of the controversy from the Dead Sea Scrolls article.
For the film, see this wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Qumran. IsraelXKV8R is Robert Cargill, the film's author (see his user page). Note that a paragraph mentioning Golb's review of the film appears to have been removed from this article advertising Cargill's film, as documented in the discussion area. Now, paragraphs describing the controversy involving the museum exhibits (and mentioning Golb) have been deleted by IsraelXKV8R from the Dead Sea Scrolls article.
Golb critiques Cargill's film, Cargill removes paragraphs mentioning Golb from wikipedia article = conflict of interest.
P.s. Note that the pretext used to eliminate mention of Golb's review of Cargill's film (that the review is "self-published") is false. The review was published on the Oriental Institute website of the University of Chicago after review by Institute authorities. The Oriental Institute does not belong to Golb and, like any university, has strict requirements as to what can or cannot appear on its site.
Rachel.Greenberg ( talk) 02:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Stevie Vallance ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), is being heavily edited (almost completely rewritten) by OscarPeterson ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (20 edits so far), all edit summaries start with "I am Stevie Vallance....". Wuhwuzdat ( talk) 02:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
This person is a member of University at Albany's Media and Marketing, Office of Outreach senior writer. His only contribution is to the University at Albany, SUNY page. This is the URL which stated that he was hired by the University for such position. http://www.albany.edu/pr/updates/apr11/tablecampus.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baboo ( talk • contribs) 13:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Maryang ( talk · contribs) has repeatedly blanked much content and the image from Mary Yang ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Someone may want to take a closer look. Doulos Christos ♥ talk 14:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
81.157.164.52 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding links to documents that are just advertising links to a motivational speakers site. I assume this is their own business site. Suggest block. -- KingStrato ( talk) 17:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Gentle guidance on CoI and/or NPOV would be helpful, as well as a cleanup of the article. -- Jonel ( Speak to me) 19:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
---
Following the notice at AN, I have to agree with Ed. It's not ripe for protection as the other editors seem to have stopped. I would not be surprised if it continues though. I'm watching the page now so feel free to message me if it does start up again, as I will then be happy to protect it. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Attention is required. Uncle G ( talk) 13:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Apollo Medical Solutions is mentioned under the heading "Best Practice Management Software In Market" -- which seems a little biased. If someone could look into this, I'd appreciate it. I hope this is the right place to flag this. Thank you. (unregistered, 2009.02.17)
User:66.162.130.202 and User_talk:D2F appear to be the same person ( the latter created after I warned them ). The IP is in a netblock used by network:Org-Name:Ambassador Programs Inc. Also several other editors that dispute the content have recent accounts that have either only edited that article or have a few minor edits outside of that article (gmail, hotmail). In addition the other party to the lawsuit has also made edits to the page and been warned but seems to have gone away. Reboot ( talk) 22:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
in Re: Homosexual transsexual ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jokestress is in real life as she says on her user page Andrea James. Andrea James maintains a website where she expresses her dislike for the term "homosexual transsexual" and anyone who either identifies with it, or simply does not find it 100% objectionable (" Internet fakes: "transkids.us""). She has been part of what can and has been described as a campaign against this term, and those who promote it in any way. Which is made clear by wathching this video of her talking at a womens conference about the term. She has made a small part of her career on the bashing of this term. Lately her contributions to the article in question have consisted soley of adding an NPOV tag [28], then not explaining what further objections she has. [29] Her COI is getting the the way of her editing on this topic her emotions on it are just too strong. Please help. (we have tried all forms of dispute resolution. It's kind of hard to mediate when as one mediator put it one's position is based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT.)-- Hfarmer ( talk) 16:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
In this diff [ [30]] Amparais ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) admits being the webmaster for hanco.com. She has been creating spammish articles promoting companies related to this website, including The Hannon Company ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Screen Heating ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (copyvio from hanco.com), and Frank R. Hannon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (thinly veiled spammy corporate history of Hanco, disguised as a bio of their founder) Wuhwuzdat ( talk) 21:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I want to self-disclose a conflict of interest - I have just created the S-550 Space capsule article. I am the owner of the (tiny) aerospace company which designed the S-550, Venturer Aerospace, and I was the lead engineer on the design.
I created the article as the capsule design had long been a redlink on Commercial Orbital Transportation Services and List of private spaceflight companies. Both those articles reached the point that most of the other listed vehicles were covered with Wikipedia articles. I believe that at this point, the coverage of the rest of the industry and COTS competitors justifies having filled information on mine in, which I had held off on doing for the last three years to avoid placing my design in a more prominent position than its then-competitors who were equally competent but don't have an active Wikipedian on staff.
I tried to write descriptively and neutrally and all that - I've been around Wikipedia for a long time and do not want to use it to toot my own horn. However, I know that I'm not a perfect judge of my own bias, so I'm posting here and posted a disclosure along these lines on the article talk page.
I have referenced a MSNBC media article which covered the vehicle and its competitors, two blog postings by prominent new space industry bloggers, the NASA proposal respondents list, two PR notes on my organizations' website related to that vehicle and a conference presentation on earlier work on the same website, and the still-somewhat-proprietary design proposal document.
Review and input welcome, and I intend to avoid WP:OWN as hard as possible, so if it's really borken somehow feel free to just fix it, though as always discussion on the article talk page is great. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 05:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Dear Sir/Madam
I should be grateful if you would kindly assist with a potential Conflict of Interest issue on the article Scriptural Reasoning.
Scriptural Reasoning ("SR") is the practice of Jews, Christians and Muslims meeting to read their sacred texts together in order to promote better understanding. There are TWO traditions in SR - the first "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" is founded by David Ford at Cambridge and consists of a "Scriptural Reasoning in the University Group" of I believe around 35 people as referenced on the SSR's own website, plus one or two other linked groups in the UK and United States. The other "The Scriptural Reasoning Society" ("Oxford School") split from the first due to major academic disagreements over issues about protecting equality between the faiths, and democracy in organising, and has a UK and German membership of around 200.
Scriptural Reasoning is not a very large activity of thousands, but worldwide probably numbers a couple of hundred to a few hundred at the very most.
Between July 2006 and November 2008 - for a period of over 20 months - the article was one of low level editing activity. On 27 November 2008 and within a matter of a few days all of a sudden a number of new editors arrived, all connected in real life with David Ford's "Society for Scriptural Reasoning". I know and have identified a couple of them in real life.
These include:
The primary activity of these three users has been:
Wikipedia regulations on Conflict of Interest and Defending Interests state:
An important guideline here is our guideline on conflict of interest. You are strongly discouraged from writing articles about yourself or organisations in which you hold a vested interest. However, if you feel that there is material within the article which is incorrect, or not neutral in its tone, please point this out on the article's talk page.
Editing articles that you are affiliated with is not completely prohibited; you may do so as specified within the COI guideline, but you must be extremely careful to follow our policies.
and furthermore:
On the other hand, the removal of reliably sourced critical material is not permitted. Accounts of public controversies, if backed by reliable sources, form an integral part of Wikipedia's coverage. Slanting the balance of articles as a form of defence of some figure, group, institution, or product is bad for the encyclopedia. This is also the case if you find an article overwhelmed with correctly referenced, but exclusively negative information. This may present a case of undue weight, for example, when 90% of an article about a particular company discusses a lawsuit one client once brought against it. In such a case, such material should be condensed by a neutral editor, and the other sections expanded. One of the best ways to go about this is to request this on the talk page.
Since his arrival on 27 November 2008, Thelongview has swamped the article with repeated references to the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" and its projects with only a single passing reference to the (larger in membership) "Scriptural Reasoning Society" (Oxford School). This includes removal of the whole section relating to the latter while maintaining the section relating to the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning".
He has added duplicate links to what are essentially duplicate names of the same organisation (his edit):
SR began as an academic practice. Notable academic forms of SR include SRU, the 'Scriptural Reasoning in the University' group (which evolved from SRT, the Scriptural Reasoning Theory group), and the Scriptural Reasoning Group of the American Academy of Religion. The international Journal of Scriptural Reasoning publishes articles on scriptural reasoning. It has an international body of editors and contributors, and is non-refereed. It is part of the international Society for Scriptural Reasoning. There is also an associated Student Journal of Scriptural Reasoning.
SR has also become a civic practice...There are several developments of SR as a civic practice in the UK - sometimes using the SR name, such as SR at the St Ethelburga's Centre for Reconciliation and Peace; the Scriptural Reasoning Education project,
Every single one of the above are simply other names for the same outfit the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" and "Cambridge Interfaith Programme:
The Scriptural Reasoning Society ("Oxford School") also has an annual conference presence at the JCM Conference in Germany and the Limmud Conference, it has projects of academic research called "Scriptures in Dialogue" and online Scriptural Reasoning "Scripturalreasoning.net" and partner groups. All of these have been deleted by user Thelongview
User Thelongview has made claims about "notability" and "minority opinion" to support his promotion of his own group and deletion of material concerning another group. He has not however responded to the query as to how large his constituency actually is -- as far as I can see, it consists of around 35 people, while the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" has a membership of 200. There should therefore be at least equal coverage given to both groups, if not slightly more favouring the latter body over the former. The assertions of "minority" opinion are either spurious entirely, or entirely abused in this case.
He made statements of opinion that Scriptural Reasoning "was invented" by David Ford and colleagues, and "notable forms of academic SR" which is a matter for debate, as being a paid employee of the these organisations has promoted them competitively. Clear COI.
The three users above have systematically removed all critique of their organisation and of David Ford to which they are linked either as paid employee, collegially or personally.
These critiques about academic differences of Scriptural Reasoning methodology and critiques of the Cambridge Interfaith Programme's commodification of interfaith activity, are referenced to documents such as The Guardian Newspaper and to "Oxford Ethic" and other statements published on the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" website, and to the Fatwa on Scriptural Reasoning issued independently by the Shari'a Court of the Islamic Cultural Centre and London Central Mosque.
As before, the three users who are either in every single case either employed by or connected to the organisations or persons who are being critiqued have removed such critical materials claiming that these matters are "not notable" or that the references are not suitable for inclusion according to Wikipedia guidelines. These assertions appear arbitary and motivated clearly by Conflict of Interest.
Due to the suspicious arrival of these and other users, including completely newly registered users to Wikipedia such as Laysha101 all on or immediately after 27 November 2008, all connected in real life to a single group of 35 people, the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning", I had originally filed a meatpuppetry investigation, but after personal notes made by them on my talk pages, purely as a gesture of goodwill on a human level since I know the identity of some of them in real life I dropped this -- purely for the sake of harmony and in the hope that they might behave thereafter. But I seem to have been naive to have trusted in the good faith of the other side.
I should appreciate your advice and assistance on these matters. With many thanks for your kind help.
-- Scripturalreasoning ( talk) 06:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Scripturalreasoning just posted the following to Talk:Scriptural reasoning [31]:
... which is clear enough, though it omits the possibility of a close personal/professional affiliation as a non-employee (in what capacity was "my having contributed a lot of work to it"?). It also doesn't alter the COI potential of being in direct consultation, apparently in some influential role, with the Trustees of the society concerned [32] Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 13:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
PS Following from that, this statement has just appeared on the Scriptural Reasoning Society website: [33], which makes claims about the identities and motives of some editors here. The whole thing has an attack-by-proxy flavour. Communicating with an organisation to solicit external pressure on Wikipedia editors about article content can hardly be viewed as a suitably neutral relationship to the topic, or an example of collegiate editing. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 16:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I need a few people to come over and try to hack out the mess at this site. There seems to be several COI editors battling it out since December each accusing the other of wrongdoing. In the midst of the battle, verifiability and NPOV have taken hits. Themfromspace ( talk) 03:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
This topic has for some time displayed the sole point of view of a medically-biased contributor 'Eubulides', and is incomplete, inaccurate and unreliable for that realon. Recent attempts to add more correct and balanced NPOV entries have been quickly reversed by that editor. Repeated attempts by me to have hime acknowlege that AIT is a non-medical issue, and therefore the medical sources are not the sole reliable resources on this topic are ignored and overrun, in order to maintain a medical bias in this article. I have now begun to receive cautions about 3RR from medical editors while Eubulides who performed the reversals has received none! ... I would welcome assistance to clarify this matter, from a non-medically interested editor Jvanr ( talk) 08:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Last year ChildofMidnight raised COI issues - Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 28#Egyptian Yoga - about the now-deleted Egyptian Yoga article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egyptian Yoga). A then editor User:HID-IIY took their ball home on January 1st, but I hadn't noticed the article had been recreated and is being edited by a new SPA with the same style, as well as IP edits that track to Switzerland, where the associated Institut International de Yoga is based. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 03:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ClintonCimring .
I am concerned about this sequence of apparently promotional edits. The two accounts links about appear to be intertwined in their editing interests. Perhaps they are close friends or even sock puppets. Jehochman Talk 01:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Canuckdj ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Repeatedly stated that he is Marc Mysterio, most if not all edits have been centered on Marc Mysterio, including creation of the Marc Mysterio article. He apparently also made numerous attempts as various unsigned IPs to give undue weight to his cover version of a Daft Punk song at the Daft Punk article, but this activity seems to have cooled down. just64helpin ( talk) 22:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I guess administrator intervention is needed, because Canuckdj ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his IP address, 74.57.187.80 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are now edit-warring on Marc Mysterio and the WP:MOS-mistitled "Let Loose" (Marc Mysterio song), and who knows where-else. Beyond my ability to deal with as an editor without admin tools. THF ( talk) 20:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Now editing from 209.222.224.161 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). -- THF ( talk) 18:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Edits made are proporely cited and noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.222.224.161 ( talk) 18:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
According to this section Talk:Electro_Interstitial_Scanner#Designer of the EIS system, the owner has appeared and he has also been attempting to edit the article. I left a welcome message and advice about his COI on his user talk page. I hope he will read and heed it. -- Fyslee ( talk) 01:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Dear Volunteers,
It felt as if I had my wrists slapped when User:Cameron Scott slammed the notice "run of the mill pressure group" and the threat of deletion down, and like a wounded animal, I accepted the proposed deletion. But out of the blue of Wikipedia's cyber space came help. Now User:Moonriddengirl has userfied and repaired the article such that I'd welcome your critique.
Is this now "fit for publishing"?
Yes, my Conflict of Interest is pure passion, combined with commitment, perseverance and persistence. But I am perfectly neutral, information and informational as well. And I do appreciate communication of the kinder kind.
Looking very much forward to your comments,
Sabine McNeill ( talk) 22:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Sabine McNeill ( talk) 10:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Sabine McNeill ( talk) 10:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
They tried to smear me as a "vandal", then they tried to literally evangelize to me on my TalkPage about their blood sacrifice cult despite my objections to such activity, then they went to several administrators and tried to portray me as lacking civility or somehow disrupting the editorial process, when all along they were only gaming the system. I'm not expecting anything like an apology because they've already proven their determination to treat me with the most egregious contempt, but i do think i deserve to have the unfair tarnish expunged from my reputation! Thank you for your consideration, Teledildonix314 ~ Talk ~ 4-1-1 19:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
If you wanted a topic ban, you could have asked for that instead of complaining about innocuous talk-page edits. I would oppose a topic ban unless I saw a pattern of POV-pushing edits, and what I see from a spot-check is wikignoming by adding correct citation formats and discussion on the talk page, neither of which violates Wikipedia policy. That doesn't mean that POV-pushing edits haven't been happening, but they aren't immediately obvious to non-involved editors, but you need to make a better case than "A conflict of interest exists," since that by itself isn't a violation. An intelligent Bayesian assumes that you come to the table with your best case, and when your proposed diffs are entirely innocuous, it's hard to see where the real problem is because one assumes that the diffs you aren't showing are even more innocuous. THF ( talk) 20:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
For one thing, it's extremely poor taste and bad faith to ask for a topic ban without even notifying the user on his talk page that this thread exists. THF ( talk) 20:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
further discussion of CIVIL at
User_talk:VirtualSteve#WP:CIVIL; per
WP:MULTI, please take CIVIL discussion there and use this page for COI discussion
THF (
talk) 23:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
|
---|
|
Just a general question here. There is a particular User here who is employed by a particular research organisation , and who has been editing a series of articles about a topic which this organisation sees as its core area of interest. This user in real life is also an activist advocating the subject matter, which has apparently become politicised. Therefore it appears there could be a serious case of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Campaigning.
I discussed the COI issue and the need for NPOV with the user on an article talk page and he appeared to acknowledge this. He is now editing these articles to his (or his organisation's) particular POV again, using sources (some written by himself in real life) published by the organisation he belongs to. The problem is he discounts the other viewpoint published by another rival organisation.
I could identify the articles and user (it's not related to Global Warming), but am concerned about the issue of outing, since Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline. However this User does identify himself and his Wikipedia username in his signature in messages on the public Wikipedia-l mail list, so I guess those Wikipedians who subscribe to this list may know who this user is, but the wider Wikipedia community may not.
Any advice on the best approach here would be welcomed. If the above is too general then I can provide specific details. Martintg ( talk) 23:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof!) 10:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)ISO does not "recognise" languages by handing them codes. Instead, the ISO 639 registry -- the Library of Congress -- maintains the language coding system, paying most careful attention to printed books. Since in recent years, a number of people have been printing books in Võro, the intent to precisely codify the linguistic standard now merits a separate language code -- but this does not mean any sort of royal assent over the linguistic entity's status as a language or dialect.
If starting tomorrow, a hundred people would take it unto themselves to write and print new books based on the writing system found in the Voynich Manuscript, pretty soon it would have its own ISO code. Nobody will care if it's a language -- if the books are there, they need to be coded. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 22:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
A provocative deletion of Võro again by User:Miacek: Why Voru and not...-- Võrok ( talk) 14:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Themfromspace recently tagged the John Stuart Yeates article, written by User:Stuartyeates about his late grandfather. The article appears to be of a high standard and lacking of any other violations (e.g. WP:NPOV) that this conflict may have given rise to. In the absence of any other problems the {{ COI}} cleanup template should be removed. It's somehwhat ironic to see Friendly being used in this fashion to WP:BITE the newbies. From feedback given in the case of Daily Record (Maryland) (another seemingly inappropriately tagged article) this editor "strongly believe[s] that any users of this article should be aware that the article was typed by a person very likely to be personally related to the company". Again, if the conflict has not given rise to other issues the tag should be removed. To their credit, articles like Mian Muhammad Aslam Advocate by User:Mianhammad59 stating that subject "successfully emerged as one of the best lawyers of Punjab province" are appropriately tagged. -- samj in out 04:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the problem here is in the wording of the template. I have no problem with the use of the COI tag being used (in this case anyway, I don't have the depth of experience to speak in generalities), but it would be great if it would be changed slightly to more of an encouragement for third party readers to contribute. Stuartyeates ( talk) 00:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC) (hope I got the formatting right)
Self evident case of COI. Intervention in the name of Neutrality is desperately needed. Thanks-- Hu12 ( talk) 05:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
All the articles above are clearly A7s, they have absolutely no sources, and there is no indication the subject is notable. There is nothing indicating why these subjects deserve their own article, there is no indication they are notable outside the tv series. The admin noted above has a clear COI, as he is in a project which deals with this exact series of articles, and he has reverted all my changes, along with threatening me with a block, even though the articles are clear A7s. Since he has an obvious COI with regards to the subject, he should not be making such changes.
Further, Geddon was previously deleted under an AfD, and I tagged it with a g4, which he reverted despite the fact the article was not changed to meet the problems addressed in the AfD.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 00:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I found this through a reference on an ecoregion article that this was a name for the area n question, which is the author of this book's term. I added WP:Notability and made some comments on Talk:Klamath Knot, and added the books category, and just now took out "Regions of California" and put in Geography of California/Oregon, and also removed a "forests" (ecoregion) category; one of the cites was clearly misrepresentative in being used to seemingly cite that this term was in common usage (the ref made no mention of it) and the other two cites are references to the book's publisher. I'm "giving it a chance" but maybe should just have made a speedy delete on grounds of non-notability and "reflexive reference"....someone trying to use Wikipedia to establish a term of their invention, in order to advance book sales, seems clearly suspect. Skookum1 ( talk) 12:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The article I created, AMAX Information Technologies ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), was deleted due to an administrator noting that it contains blatant advertising. I am still new at creating articles and trying to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines. Please see Amaxhelen/AMAX Information Technologies where it contains the newer revision stored in my subpage. I really need any help making this appropriate to have it live in the database. Would also appreciate if someone can look over and point out any suggestions as well. Amaxhelen ( talk) 23:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Kappa96 ( talk · contribs) got dinged with a couple warnings recently for repeatedly blanking Talk:LaShawn Pettus Brown. Then he left me a message requesting help with "our clients page". I re-evaluated the talk page and found it did indeed need to be trimmed to just project tags, and pointed the user to WP:EDITSUM. Still, the user has edited nothing but his client's page, LaShawn Pettus Brown, so I figured I'd drop a note here for further precautionary examination. Thank you! :) Doulos Christos ♥ talk 11:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Save the Netbooks ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created and is being maintained by User:Samj, who freely admits (on the talk page, but not in the article itself) to being the founder of Save the Netbooks, a campaign to have the "Netbook" trademark cancelled. [47] Letdorf ( talk) 15:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC).
I've started a discussion at Template talk:COI about how we can best modify the templates (and create a new one) to avoid the problem we see here where one template is used to do two different things. THF ( talk) 18:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
A whole batch of SPAs, some recently created, two with names of Institute employees, started editing this article, really WP:LARDing it up. THF ( talk) 19:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
These users have to date only editted Thomas Hoeren [48] [49]. I am fairly confident one is the sock of the other (reported here and thus they are both the subject of the article. Babakathy ( talk) 21:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
was primarily written by User:jonwiener and I was concerned lest this rather under-referenced article was a COI. Can someone look into this? Thanks! Collect ( talk) 17:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Someone want to have a look at this Aniand (book). Editor appears to have a COI. I didn't revert as vandal, but don't think what's being edited is proper either. I suspect, just a COI. Thanks — Ched ~ (yes?) 00:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Gavin Lurssen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been completely rewritten over the last few hours by Jeanlurssen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User has removed COI templates, and ignored COI warnings. Wuhwuzdat ( talk) 23:23, 26 February 2009 (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 user is editing a lot on Sky Television related articles. I'm not sure if this is an employee but the username is definately inappropriate. See Contribs -- DFS454 ( talk) 11:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Article seems to have been created for purposes of promotion after a user claiming to be Sawyer ran into trouble inserting unnecessary info on himself into Christie Brinkley due to feeling slighted for not getting enough credit for discovering her. [1] The debate was subsequently taken over by Fischer, his wife/agent, who is now the main editor of Sawyer's article, and she doesn't seem interested in my repeated explanations of Wiki policy: the "Early Life" section is all OR, the career section is mostly quotes that push a positive POV (with citations that don't verify the text or link to self-published material from his website that's written by his agent), and the "Activism" section sounds like campaigning and is sourced using blogs and comments lists - reliable secondary sources on Sawyer are nearly non-existent; the only one there is doesn't do much more than verify that he discovered Brinkley, along with a few others things on Brinkley's discovery that are contradicted by other sources. Sawyer claims to know the author.
His agent/wife sidesteps COI claims by saying she didn't create the article (although it seems clear it was created on her behalf or Sawyer's), has repeatedly deleted maintenance tags for "destroying" the article, and justifies non-policy-supported content with allusions to her "academic qualifications" and edit summaries of "truth is truth." [2] After first I just thought this was a matter of an editor pushing a COI too far, but now I'm thinking the article could just be deleted as spam and for the subject's non-notability in the absence of reliable sourcing. (Sorry this is so long.) Mbinebri talk ← 21:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
TonyMcConkey ( talk · contribs) has been editing Tony McConkey, removing criticisms without explanation. I have issued them a uw-coi warning. AnyPerson ( talk) 06:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I am writing to report commercially motivated and unfounded editing of the medical article for Keratoconus.
To summarize: there is a treatment method (C3-R) being used in the US that is very expensive(~$2000/eye) and has been shown as ineffective especially when compared to alternatives. The problem is that the alternatives are not yet approved by FDA (they are in clinical trials).
Only a few clinics are administering the ineffective C3-R treatment at good profit and have strong reason to edit the article to hide or bury these studies.. Someone is continually removing edits and citing random websites as sources to support this procedure.
The user related to the commercially benefit of these edits, has been editing this article under different "sock-puppets" including User:Scubadiver99 and User:Corneadoc... among others. Arpowers ( talk) 07:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
This is intended more to keep tabs on this user, who is acting disruptively at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 25#Comsec Consulting Ltd. and has gone as far as to threatening deletion on many other articles (see WP:WAX). It is possible that WP:ANI might be necessary here. User has a direct conflict of interest with the article in question, which was speedy deleted for blatant advertising/spam. MuZemike 06:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to ask somebody who is more experienced of dealing with potential COI issues to assist handling the Massey Energy article. I'm not sure if this a right place to post it as there is no incident yet. Vice versa, the company has indicated beforehand at the talk page about their intention to improve the article and most of potential addition are justified and sourced with reliable sources. However, the proposed amendments concerning community service seems to be problematic. The company also indicates that they will use a PR firm for the editing. Beagel ( talk) 18:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the IP was either Echavarria or someone associated with him, and that Lilavalladares currently is. Lilavalladares has in any case been editing his page and created one for both his production company ( Destiny Entertainment Productions) and his new film Never Surrender (film). When I found the article it was more or less completely unreferenced and non-NPOV so I did a small copyedit (diff) removing the worst and put up a request for sources on the talk page but nothing's happened yet. Just now, Lilavalladares re-added/added (diff) some more unreferenced sections, one of which starts with:
Assistance greatly appreciated. -- aktsu ( t / c) 20:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that this user had made many edits regarding Fabrik Inc. and its brands such as SimpleTech and G-Technology. He would either write a substantial portion of such articles (which often did sound like somewhat of an advertisement but had many, many citations) or add mentions to the company and its brands to articles on related topics such as External hard disk drive, Toshiba, Samsung Group, etc.
I looked further into his contributions and saw that he made edits to a number of other articles as well...including quite a few edits The Hoffman Agency, a public relations firm. After looking at [3], it seems that the majority of the edits that he made were regarding clients of The Hoffman Agency...these include Fabrik, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, Friendster, SolarWinds, and possibly others.
As you can probably see I strongly suspect that this individual is making edits on behalf of a PR firm. I'd already warned him about a potential conflict of interest on the SimpleTech/Fabrik topics and he responded but seems to have made a few more edits. Scootey ( talk) 04:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Responding to Scootey's concerns from here and my talk page:
I think I have made substantial genuine contributions to Wikipedia content both on company Wikis and subject-matter Wikis. Each Wiki includes an immense amount of in-depth online research. Many of these Wikis were non-existent, in poor condition, sometimes full of broken links, etc.
Based on Scootey's observations above, I can see his reason for concern, but I think a close investigation of the new Wikis I've created, the research that goes into it, and the factual information I've consolidated onto Wikipedia articles would reveal a positive contribution to Wikipedia.com.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by David44357 ( talk • contribs) 00:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Quoting David44357 "...but the IP address and my username are indeed one in the same. I sometimes make revisions without logging in."
Interesting. Let's do a whois and nslookup on the IP, shall we?
Admit it. You're making edits for your clients that you've been paid to make, and you're editing the articles of their competitors to add them in for special "Competitor" sections and removing anything that looks like advertisement in them while at the same time filling your clients' articles chock full of advertising material. You're completely misrepresenting your motivations and your COI has affected more than just your clients' articles. Lahnfeear ( talk) 04:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm adding Saranixon ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to this report. The edits correspond exactly with David44357 and the ip 209.76.124.126. Obviously either a meatpuppet or sockpuppet of the same user. Lahnfeear ( talk) 02:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:SOCK request
Bill robb ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — is adding large amounts of material, and creating a number of new pages, cited to himself on his website www.valueseducation.co.uk (although his attempted contributions to Peace education also include a considerable amount of uncited material as well). Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 11:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
On closer examination of his edits, one of Bill robb's first edits on wikipedia, was to describe himself on Values education (the article with the same name as his website, which he has thereafter edited considerably, and cited himself profusely) as "a leading expert in the field - Dr Bill Robb". This seems to have set the pattern for his later edits. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Does anyone have spare time to take a look at this? Addressing copyright concerns, I noticed conflict issues, in that not only is the subject purportedly editing the article herself but the other primary editor is citing as sources personal correspondence from the subject to him. (He is involved with Peace Mala, an organization she founded.) I have provided each a COI advisory, but would appreciate it greatly if a contributor here could undertake to evaluate it for cleaning as necessary for neutrality and to remove OR. I try not to mix my copyright problems with other issues if it can be avoided. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmni ( talk · contribs) has been editing Hello My Name Is Records, which the article notes is referred to as HMNI. Rspeer ( talk · contribs) insists that we not block them for the username because that would be biting, so we are referring this here from UAA in order to take appropriate sanctions for violating COI. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Rthrash ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - MODx article was listed at AfD and then this user pops up being un WP:CIVIL because I listed his vanity page. Did a good search for his username and it seems he is a developer for MODx [11] 16x9 ( talk) 13:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that Warren Farrell had become very promotional. [12] I checked the editor and found that Rsskga ( talk · contribs · count · api · block log) had made a major re-write back in October 2008. The same user also wrote articles on one of Farrell's books, The Myth of Male Power, on an erotica site, Unseen (Unseen.tv), and on a limousine service, LS Worldwide Transportation. The latter article was quickly deleted as having no assertion of notability, but a version can be found here: user:Rsskga/LS WorldWide Transportation. At first I assumed that Rsskga was either Farrell or a close friend, because the article is illustrated with scans of his diplomas and some press clippings which only he would have. However on searching Google I found that Rsskga is actually the principal of a Media Marketing/SEO firm named All the Queen’s Men. [13] [14] [15] It would appear that Farrell, Unseen.tv, and LS Worldwide Transportation are her clients. [16] (On Wikicommons she claims the LS logo is her creation. [17]) The articles cite Rsskga's offsite postings and press releases as sources. [18] [19] So, unless someone has a better suggestion, I'm going to put a long comment on the user's talk page explaining NPOV and V, and strongly suggesting that she stop editing Wikipedia on behalf of her clients. Will Beback talk 23:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
[http://www.therebreathersite.nl/08_Website_Related_Information/speed_menu.htm Janwillem Bech's big rebreather information site] (warning: contains advertisements) |
I want to link to that site, because it contains much useful information about rebreather scuba diving. See discussion at Talk:Rebreather#External links again. Much of that discussion centers on including/deleting longer pieces of text which I have accepted the loss of; the current dispute is about the one link quoted above.
I am accused of conflict of interest, apparently because:
Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 12:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I feel this user might have a conflict of interest in this matter and should probably not be editing this article. His edit summaries are revealing of a passion for the situation in Gaza that is probably unhealthy for the article. He's been driving home a phrasing of the lead that I don't believe is neutral enough, and he's continually reverted me when I've tried to insert a version of the lead that was more neutral. Further to that, he continues to introduce degrading grammatical errors that I have repeatedly attempted to fix. His civility with me has been less than good; he even took to spamming my talk page with a censorship template. That brings me to the other point. He's been labelling my attempts to improve and neutralise the lead as "censorship", which I think only furthers my point about a conflict of interest. I'd appreciate an exterior opinion from someone. Here are some diffs to illustrate what I'm saying:
I should note that it could be said I'm in a dispute with this user; I've come here for some resolution. I say this because I don't want to paint the wrong picture. What's fair is fair. The problem isn't being sorted out between us, so I hope someone else here can provide insight. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 05:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
An outside opinion: this seems to me to be a misunderstanding of the WP:COI guideline. Wikifan12345 evidently has a strong POV on this conflict, but an interest doesn't automatically imply a conflict of interest. It might do if he was directly affiliated with the combatants - i.e. the Israeli military or Hamas - but I don't think you are claiming that. I can't see anything to action here, quite frankly. (Though Wikifan12345's conduct is concerning in other regards; I've raised an issue relating to him on Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement). -- ChrisO ( talk) 01:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foswiki. It seems that the developers of this TWiki derivative (all noted above) have rallied rained down on the AFD in the form of SPAs. MuZemike 04:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
A single purpose account, Vitasmortis, seems to have a COI with the Mystery Method page. According to a research, that can be found on the talk page of Mystery Method, it revealed that the user is very likely involved with a commercial company that has an interest in the article. The user also blanked his talk page before and did not disclose his COI. Coaster7 ( talk) 00:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I tried to do an AfD for Mystery method, but I'm having trouble (even after updating it to a second nom). Can someone help me set it up? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 03:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
This is not about other pages other than Mystery Method. There seems to be a discussion on whether what to include on that page. Before the edits of Vitasmortis, the page was fine and neutral. However, his edits made it look like a sales page and claims were made that had no source to verify. The Mystery Method is a well known and notable method of seduction in the media that has evolved in other methods of seduction. I'm not sure why you call me a SPA? I'm solely responsible for creating the Love Systems and Nick Savoy page. The first AfDs of those pages were of a year ago and I was not involved in those. That list of [21] was for the very first AfD and none of them were around for the recreation. I was solely responsible getting those pages back up with help of other notable Wikipedia users for getting authorization of recreation. Ever since these pages were up, I've branched to other articles. As my first post says, this is about the Mystery Method page and SPA Vitasmortis. Coaster7 ( talk) 05:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The article Masonic conspiracy theories purports to present conspiracy theories regarding Freemasonry. Instead, it seems to be a white-wash job created by Freemasons themselves, in order to provide a distorted view of conspiracy theories.
Blueboar has committed himself to "edit" articles regarding Freemasonry, and has admitted to being a practitioner of Freemasonry himself. The 2 other editors ( MSJapan and WegianWarrior) seem to be providing support rather than making any significant contributions. Ukufwakfgr ( talk) 21:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Per this WP:AN/I notification. CCFSDCA ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is creating pages about holidays around the world, using by the editor's own admission, his unpublished (and unsold) manuscript as the sole source, even adding a credit to himself in his initial drafts. The editor clearly has some fundamental misunderstandings of a host of policies (ranging from obvious conflicts of interest to the complete unreliability of sources), so perhaps someone who has the time should have a word in his ear. -- CalendarWatcher ( talk) 00:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Dann Glenn ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This seems like it meets notability criteria, but appears to be self-promotion with links to buy various CDs, etc. Nearly all editing was done by a single editor, which raised my suspicions. I only started editing this week, so I don't want to throw accusations around, but something just didn't seem right about this one. Thanks for looking this over. Jvr725 ( talk) 01:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Can someone have a look at this series of edits: [23]. Thanks. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 06:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Sole creator is user:NextGen911. I haven't read article thoroughly, it's also on the userpage I believe, but I think it needs work... ChildofMidnight ( talk) 08:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Per Jc3. Seems like the POV issues have been addressed. Mister Senseless™ ( Speak - Contributions) 21:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
James H. Fetzer ( talk · contribs) has been editing the article, adding a lot of material. It seems adequately sourced, but notability and lack of bias still needs to be determined. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
This user has been previously discussed Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_28#The_Pendulum_-_A_Tragedy_of_1900_Vienna_and_Alexander_Fiske-Harrison here and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_28#Fiskeharrison here and COI warned on a few occasions. After a short sojourn he's back editing Alexander Fiske-Harrison. It appears that the usual COI warnings simply don't suffice. -- Blowdart | talk 15:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Of course I have a COI, and I am aware "COI editing is strongly discouraged" (N.B. NOT forbidden) according to your COI guidelines, which is why I have left the long called for improvement of the article to other hands. However, since the demand to improve the article has been there some time, I eventualy thought to do something about it myself, while following the guideline that "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests" - hence my username IS my surname. Alexander Fiske-Harrison -- Fiskeharrison ( talk) 15:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, but this strikes me as deeply childish.
Obviously, I have a conception of how the information is best presented and I do not claim this is the the most objective - I am happy with how it now is. However, this article has been flagged, not only for improvement, but standardisation, for a while. The info is there, the references ready-made on my user-page, and no one does anything? Why not?
So, instead, they wait til I do and then cry wolf? Come on. Let's face facts, there's people who would rather the article didn't exist, despite the judgement of their peers, who sat and watched when they oould themselves have improved the piece, in the hope I would transgress...-- Fiskeharrison ( talk) 02:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
And there we have Blowdart's honest appraisal and his own COI revealed. -- Fiskeharrison ( talk) 14:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that conversation has reached an impasse. Since no one was willing to wikify the page as the editors watching it had stood against it in AfD, I did so. Blowdart has taken it back to a position he feels is correct and I happy to leave it at that. Please note before I did this, I did contact the administrator User:MBisanz, and I quote his response of January 24th: "You are free to edit it, or ask someone else to edit it, or place comments on the Talk: page where others would be free to add to the article. Our COI policy lets subject edit their articles so long as they do so in a neutral manner." However, I still thought it best to wait. Via con dios. -- Fiskeharrison ( talk) 16:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
My guess is that there's some serious autobiography going on here. I would think that the artist probably is notable, though I haven't looked closely; most of the sources seem to go back in one way or another to his website (which this article is rapidly becoming): according to OTRS, Lawless hired Amy Sparks, which is why he claims the ability to release her "review" of his material under GFDL and which is why her claims like "Lawless rips political statements out of their contexts and illuminates them with biting irony" would be unusable. I've been involved on the copyright end on this one, and I try not to mix my copyright work with other stuff (since it may feel like its personal), but I think this one would benefit from a few more eyes to help ensure WP:NPOV. Several of the SPA creator(s) have been given COI notice, but I suspect that any efforts to force this article to conform to policy may meet resistance. I bring it here in case anyone has time and energy to take it on. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Crisler works on two types of articles -- those relating to this lawsuit, and those relating to the death penalty. The article is awfully favorable to the respondents in Varian v. Delfino, and, coincidentally, the respondents in that case have since written annual guides to the death penalty. "Crisler" is the last name of the human resources officer at Varian whom Delfino and Day had their litigious dispute with.
User:Suebenjamin and User:Amberjacker also only write about this lawsuit, and use the same unusual edit-summary style as Crisler.
(Coincidentally, or not so coincidentally, the litigation involved a corporation overreacting to sockpuppet behavior by ex-employees on Internet message boards.)
The possible WP:COI and WP:SOCK problem bothers me less than the WP:NPOV issue; the article, about a minor California Supreme Court case of little precedential value that arguably flunks WP:NOTNEWS, needs a rewrite, as does the BLP article about Judges Whyte and Komar.
This is cross-posted at WP:NPOVN#Varian_v._Delfino; please respond there. THF ( talk) 12:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I propose that the user be confined to the talk page of tort reform topics, in keeping with a strict interpretation of
WP:COI. These edits wash with
WP:BRD.
Cool Hand
Luke 21:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
So I did, explicitly acknowledging that my edit needed other eyes to rewrite it. When other editors wanted to change it, I told them to go right ahead.
And now, without even approaching me on my talk page, he's complaining that I did exactly what he asked me to do? This is disruption of the worst order. I also want sanctions for the violation of WP:OUT. THF ( talk) 21:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure this out. I presume that the edit Wikidea is complaining about primarily is this: 12:21, January 13, 2009, made by THF with the edit summary: "per multiple invitations on talk page, first cut; still needs a lot of work". Just looking over that version, I that it had no citations and replaced a version that had 25. THF has been here long enough to know that articles require sources. I don't understand how he would have thought it was acceptable to replace a sourced article with one written without any sources. Will Beback talk 21:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Once again I'll restate the issue. THF has a clear conflict of interest as a staunch tort reform advocate. He is not a collaborative editor with anyone that does not conform to the views of the people who have employed him. The pattern of tags, demanding "complete rewrites" and throwing around accusations of temper tantrums will continue. He will probably continue to follow his lobbyist values elsewhere, as he has done before. Wik idea 23:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm puzzled why this is coming up now. THF hasn't edited Tort reform since January 25. I later made a bunch of edits to it, in which I was trying to balance the pro tort "reform" that I saw in the article. If you look at the article talk page, and at my talk page THF was not thrilled by my edits but he was civil and collaborative. I soon figured out his relationship to a conservative think tank, but I thought he was behaving well on the Tort reform article during the short period I edited it. I can't speak for his behavior in the distant and shadowed past, but I don't see anything in the past month that should earn him such an attack, including his tentative effort on January 13 to clean up the messy article as it stood then, and as (I learn from the diff posted at the head of this COI) it had stood unchanged since January 3. Questionic ( talk) 04:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
IANAL and I am also not an admin, but I would like to someone who is an admin to enforce Wikipedia policy by taking some action against Wikidea for his attacks on THF and his disruption of the editing process on Tort reform, now being actively edit-warred as this dispute here drags on unresolved, with accusations and angry responses flying back and forth.
I put in many hours of work gathering good references to clarify the arguments made pro and con various aspects of tort reform. Wikidea nuked the whole article back to its state on January 3, and wants everybody to re-start from there. I'm not about to waste my time on an article that is being nuked and re-nuked, now on almost an hourly basis. Please, somebody, block Wikidea until he cools down a bit. It is my opinion that THF, despite having a pro-insurance-company POV on tort reform, has behaved honorably in revealing his POV and civilly in collaborating with editors who don't attack him. There is a difference between having a POV and having a COI. Questionic ( talk) 16:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Patmcgreen (
talk ·
contribs ·
count ·
logs ·
email)
This user discloses their relation to
Cass Community Social Services on his user page. I have asked that he stop editing the article because he has violated
WP:NPOV each time.--
Ipatrol (
talk) 23:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
(unindent)I generally agree with THF's position on this. I think there are two issues where my experience with artistic contributions to Wikipedia is worth considering:
Obvious financial incentive is difficult to discern in most cases. It grew tiresome to continually read people accuse me of motives that I did not possess. I don't want to see that repeated with other artists, because it is discouraging and we need them (even if they are amateurs). I think THF is right, that it's a case-by-case basis. User:Raul654 eloquently stated the basic principles back during the Pubic Hair Wars:
It is not a conflict of interest for a photographer to want his pictures used in our articles. Unless someone can establish David has some motive in getting his photos used in our article that goes beyond simple pride in seeing his work used, there is no conflict of interest for David here.
With that said, I think the debate should be focused solely on the merits of David's photograph versus any other candidate photographs. On this point, I'm going to remain neutral, because I'm at work and I really shouldn't be looking at such things ;) Raul654 14:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I used to edit-war over my photography because, way back, it was something that made me feel good about myself that my work was used to the point I tried to force it. Pride--or "makes me feel good about myself"--in no way equals a COI. I can't stress this enough. I urge caution in forming policies and guidelines that treat photographic/illustrative/artistic contributions any differently than text contributions. Talk page, consensus, value added, etc. are all the same principles. COI tends to be another dagger people unsheathe in argument to frustrate a contribution. Without an obvious financial incentive behind the contribution, COI is an illegitimate argument that violates AGF and CIVIL. Last, I do not support captions with the names of the photographer or artist unless they are well-known for their work. At all. It's a distraction on the article, and there is plenty of room for attribution on the file page and in the file name. --David Shankbone 18:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Rodin777([User talk:Rodin777|talk]]) 11.45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
This article is being heavily edited by this user: Ihorp ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose name would appear to be identical with the subject. The article is essentially a long list of awards, projects, and press releases. Las Meninas (film), another of his favorite articles, is even more spammy. The artist himself would appear to meet notability requirements, but I thought posting here would be a good idea. Litho derm 00:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Fred Shapiro ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was edited by FredShapiro42754 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), first by blanking the page, then by removing content, and warning others not to put incorrect information in My article in the edit summary, assuming ownership of article by doing so. Wuhwuzdat ( talk) 00:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
IsraelXKV8R ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been editing this article, has a conflict of interest: he created a film shown in the Dead Sea Scroll exhibits that have become the subject of controversy; his film was criticized by historian Norman Golb who is also involved in the controversy. IsraelXKV8R, who is personally involved in this controversy, keeps deleting any discussion of the controversy from the Dead Sea Scrolls article.
For the film, see this wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Qumran. IsraelXKV8R is Robert Cargill, the film's author (see his user page). Note that a paragraph mentioning Golb's review of the film appears to have been removed from this article advertising Cargill's film, as documented in the discussion area. Now, paragraphs describing the controversy involving the museum exhibits (and mentioning Golb) have been deleted by IsraelXKV8R from the Dead Sea Scrolls article.
Golb critiques Cargill's film, Cargill removes paragraphs mentioning Golb from wikipedia article = conflict of interest.
P.s. Note that the pretext used to eliminate mention of Golb's review of Cargill's film (that the review is "self-published") is false. The review was published on the Oriental Institute website of the University of Chicago after review by Institute authorities. The Oriental Institute does not belong to Golb and, like any university, has strict requirements as to what can or cannot appear on its site.
Rachel.Greenberg ( talk) 02:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Stevie Vallance ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), is being heavily edited (almost completely rewritten) by OscarPeterson ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (20 edits so far), all edit summaries start with "I am Stevie Vallance....". Wuhwuzdat ( talk) 02:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
This person is a member of University at Albany's Media and Marketing, Office of Outreach senior writer. His only contribution is to the University at Albany, SUNY page. This is the URL which stated that he was hired by the University for such position. http://www.albany.edu/pr/updates/apr11/tablecampus.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baboo ( talk • contribs) 13:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Maryang ( talk · contribs) has repeatedly blanked much content and the image from Mary Yang ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Someone may want to take a closer look. Doulos Christos ♥ talk 14:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
81.157.164.52 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding links to documents that are just advertising links to a motivational speakers site. I assume this is their own business site. Suggest block. -- KingStrato ( talk) 17:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Gentle guidance on CoI and/or NPOV would be helpful, as well as a cleanup of the article. -- Jonel ( Speak to me) 19:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
---
Following the notice at AN, I have to agree with Ed. It's not ripe for protection as the other editors seem to have stopped. I would not be surprised if it continues though. I'm watching the page now so feel free to message me if it does start up again, as I will then be happy to protect it. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Attention is required. Uncle G ( talk) 13:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Apollo Medical Solutions is mentioned under the heading "Best Practice Management Software In Market" -- which seems a little biased. If someone could look into this, I'd appreciate it. I hope this is the right place to flag this. Thank you. (unregistered, 2009.02.17)
User:66.162.130.202 and User_talk:D2F appear to be the same person ( the latter created after I warned them ). The IP is in a netblock used by network:Org-Name:Ambassador Programs Inc. Also several other editors that dispute the content have recent accounts that have either only edited that article or have a few minor edits outside of that article (gmail, hotmail). In addition the other party to the lawsuit has also made edits to the page and been warned but seems to have gone away. Reboot ( talk) 22:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
in Re: Homosexual transsexual ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jokestress is in real life as she says on her user page Andrea James. Andrea James maintains a website where she expresses her dislike for the term "homosexual transsexual" and anyone who either identifies with it, or simply does not find it 100% objectionable (" Internet fakes: "transkids.us""). She has been part of what can and has been described as a campaign against this term, and those who promote it in any way. Which is made clear by wathching this video of her talking at a womens conference about the term. She has made a small part of her career on the bashing of this term. Lately her contributions to the article in question have consisted soley of adding an NPOV tag [28], then not explaining what further objections she has. [29] Her COI is getting the the way of her editing on this topic her emotions on it are just too strong. Please help. (we have tried all forms of dispute resolution. It's kind of hard to mediate when as one mediator put it one's position is based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT.)-- Hfarmer ( talk) 16:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
In this diff [ [30]] Amparais ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) admits being the webmaster for hanco.com. She has been creating spammish articles promoting companies related to this website, including The Hannon Company ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Screen Heating ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (copyvio from hanco.com), and Frank R. Hannon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (thinly veiled spammy corporate history of Hanco, disguised as a bio of their founder) Wuhwuzdat ( talk) 21:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I want to self-disclose a conflict of interest - I have just created the S-550 Space capsule article. I am the owner of the (tiny) aerospace company which designed the S-550, Venturer Aerospace, and I was the lead engineer on the design.
I created the article as the capsule design had long been a redlink on Commercial Orbital Transportation Services and List of private spaceflight companies. Both those articles reached the point that most of the other listed vehicles were covered with Wikipedia articles. I believe that at this point, the coverage of the rest of the industry and COTS competitors justifies having filled information on mine in, which I had held off on doing for the last three years to avoid placing my design in a more prominent position than its then-competitors who were equally competent but don't have an active Wikipedian on staff.
I tried to write descriptively and neutrally and all that - I've been around Wikipedia for a long time and do not want to use it to toot my own horn. However, I know that I'm not a perfect judge of my own bias, so I'm posting here and posted a disclosure along these lines on the article talk page.
I have referenced a MSNBC media article which covered the vehicle and its competitors, two blog postings by prominent new space industry bloggers, the NASA proposal respondents list, two PR notes on my organizations' website related to that vehicle and a conference presentation on earlier work on the same website, and the still-somewhat-proprietary design proposal document.
Review and input welcome, and I intend to avoid WP:OWN as hard as possible, so if it's really borken somehow feel free to just fix it, though as always discussion on the article talk page is great. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 05:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Dear Sir/Madam
I should be grateful if you would kindly assist with a potential Conflict of Interest issue on the article Scriptural Reasoning.
Scriptural Reasoning ("SR") is the practice of Jews, Christians and Muslims meeting to read their sacred texts together in order to promote better understanding. There are TWO traditions in SR - the first "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" is founded by David Ford at Cambridge and consists of a "Scriptural Reasoning in the University Group" of I believe around 35 people as referenced on the SSR's own website, plus one or two other linked groups in the UK and United States. The other "The Scriptural Reasoning Society" ("Oxford School") split from the first due to major academic disagreements over issues about protecting equality between the faiths, and democracy in organising, and has a UK and German membership of around 200.
Scriptural Reasoning is not a very large activity of thousands, but worldwide probably numbers a couple of hundred to a few hundred at the very most.
Between July 2006 and November 2008 - for a period of over 20 months - the article was one of low level editing activity. On 27 November 2008 and within a matter of a few days all of a sudden a number of new editors arrived, all connected in real life with David Ford's "Society for Scriptural Reasoning". I know and have identified a couple of them in real life.
These include:
The primary activity of these three users has been:
Wikipedia regulations on Conflict of Interest and Defending Interests state:
An important guideline here is our guideline on conflict of interest. You are strongly discouraged from writing articles about yourself or organisations in which you hold a vested interest. However, if you feel that there is material within the article which is incorrect, or not neutral in its tone, please point this out on the article's talk page.
Editing articles that you are affiliated with is not completely prohibited; you may do so as specified within the COI guideline, but you must be extremely careful to follow our policies.
and furthermore:
On the other hand, the removal of reliably sourced critical material is not permitted. Accounts of public controversies, if backed by reliable sources, form an integral part of Wikipedia's coverage. Slanting the balance of articles as a form of defence of some figure, group, institution, or product is bad for the encyclopedia. This is also the case if you find an article overwhelmed with correctly referenced, but exclusively negative information. This may present a case of undue weight, for example, when 90% of an article about a particular company discusses a lawsuit one client once brought against it. In such a case, such material should be condensed by a neutral editor, and the other sections expanded. One of the best ways to go about this is to request this on the talk page.
Since his arrival on 27 November 2008, Thelongview has swamped the article with repeated references to the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" and its projects with only a single passing reference to the (larger in membership) "Scriptural Reasoning Society" (Oxford School). This includes removal of the whole section relating to the latter while maintaining the section relating to the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning".
He has added duplicate links to what are essentially duplicate names of the same organisation (his edit):
SR began as an academic practice. Notable academic forms of SR include SRU, the 'Scriptural Reasoning in the University' group (which evolved from SRT, the Scriptural Reasoning Theory group), and the Scriptural Reasoning Group of the American Academy of Religion. The international Journal of Scriptural Reasoning publishes articles on scriptural reasoning. It has an international body of editors and contributors, and is non-refereed. It is part of the international Society for Scriptural Reasoning. There is also an associated Student Journal of Scriptural Reasoning.
SR has also become a civic practice...There are several developments of SR as a civic practice in the UK - sometimes using the SR name, such as SR at the St Ethelburga's Centre for Reconciliation and Peace; the Scriptural Reasoning Education project,
Every single one of the above are simply other names for the same outfit the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" and "Cambridge Interfaith Programme:
The Scriptural Reasoning Society ("Oxford School") also has an annual conference presence at the JCM Conference in Germany and the Limmud Conference, it has projects of academic research called "Scriptures in Dialogue" and online Scriptural Reasoning "Scripturalreasoning.net" and partner groups. All of these have been deleted by user Thelongview
User Thelongview has made claims about "notability" and "minority opinion" to support his promotion of his own group and deletion of material concerning another group. He has not however responded to the query as to how large his constituency actually is -- as far as I can see, it consists of around 35 people, while the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" has a membership of 200. There should therefore be at least equal coverage given to both groups, if not slightly more favouring the latter body over the former. The assertions of "minority" opinion are either spurious entirely, or entirely abused in this case.
He made statements of opinion that Scriptural Reasoning "was invented" by David Ford and colleagues, and "notable forms of academic SR" which is a matter for debate, as being a paid employee of the these organisations has promoted them competitively. Clear COI.
The three users above have systematically removed all critique of their organisation and of David Ford to which they are linked either as paid employee, collegially or personally.
These critiques about academic differences of Scriptural Reasoning methodology and critiques of the Cambridge Interfaith Programme's commodification of interfaith activity, are referenced to documents such as The Guardian Newspaper and to "Oxford Ethic" and other statements published on the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" website, and to the Fatwa on Scriptural Reasoning issued independently by the Shari'a Court of the Islamic Cultural Centre and London Central Mosque.
As before, the three users who are either in every single case either employed by or connected to the organisations or persons who are being critiqued have removed such critical materials claiming that these matters are "not notable" or that the references are not suitable for inclusion according to Wikipedia guidelines. These assertions appear arbitary and motivated clearly by Conflict of Interest.
Due to the suspicious arrival of these and other users, including completely newly registered users to Wikipedia such as Laysha101 all on or immediately after 27 November 2008, all connected in real life to a single group of 35 people, the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning", I had originally filed a meatpuppetry investigation, but after personal notes made by them on my talk pages, purely as a gesture of goodwill on a human level since I know the identity of some of them in real life I dropped this -- purely for the sake of harmony and in the hope that they might behave thereafter. But I seem to have been naive to have trusted in the good faith of the other side.
I should appreciate your advice and assistance on these matters. With many thanks for your kind help.
-- Scripturalreasoning ( talk) 06:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Scripturalreasoning just posted the following to Talk:Scriptural reasoning [31]:
... which is clear enough, though it omits the possibility of a close personal/professional affiliation as a non-employee (in what capacity was "my having contributed a lot of work to it"?). It also doesn't alter the COI potential of being in direct consultation, apparently in some influential role, with the Trustees of the society concerned [32] Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 13:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
PS Following from that, this statement has just appeared on the Scriptural Reasoning Society website: [33], which makes claims about the identities and motives of some editors here. The whole thing has an attack-by-proxy flavour. Communicating with an organisation to solicit external pressure on Wikipedia editors about article content can hardly be viewed as a suitably neutral relationship to the topic, or an example of collegiate editing. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 16:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I need a few people to come over and try to hack out the mess at this site. There seems to be several COI editors battling it out since December each accusing the other of wrongdoing. In the midst of the battle, verifiability and NPOV have taken hits. Themfromspace ( talk) 03:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
This topic has for some time displayed the sole point of view of a medically-biased contributor 'Eubulides', and is incomplete, inaccurate and unreliable for that realon. Recent attempts to add more correct and balanced NPOV entries have been quickly reversed by that editor. Repeated attempts by me to have hime acknowlege that AIT is a non-medical issue, and therefore the medical sources are not the sole reliable resources on this topic are ignored and overrun, in order to maintain a medical bias in this article. I have now begun to receive cautions about 3RR from medical editors while Eubulides who performed the reversals has received none! ... I would welcome assistance to clarify this matter, from a non-medically interested editor Jvanr ( talk) 08:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Last year ChildofMidnight raised COI issues - Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 28#Egyptian Yoga - about the now-deleted Egyptian Yoga article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egyptian Yoga). A then editor User:HID-IIY took their ball home on January 1st, but I hadn't noticed the article had been recreated and is being edited by a new SPA with the same style, as well as IP edits that track to Switzerland, where the associated Institut International de Yoga is based. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 03:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ClintonCimring .
I am concerned about this sequence of apparently promotional edits. The two accounts links about appear to be intertwined in their editing interests. Perhaps they are close friends or even sock puppets. Jehochman Talk 01:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Canuckdj ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Repeatedly stated that he is Marc Mysterio, most if not all edits have been centered on Marc Mysterio, including creation of the Marc Mysterio article. He apparently also made numerous attempts as various unsigned IPs to give undue weight to his cover version of a Daft Punk song at the Daft Punk article, but this activity seems to have cooled down. just64helpin ( talk) 22:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I guess administrator intervention is needed, because Canuckdj ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his IP address, 74.57.187.80 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are now edit-warring on Marc Mysterio and the WP:MOS-mistitled "Let Loose" (Marc Mysterio song), and who knows where-else. Beyond my ability to deal with as an editor without admin tools. THF ( talk) 20:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Now editing from 209.222.224.161 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). -- THF ( talk) 18:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Edits made are proporely cited and noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.222.224.161 ( talk) 18:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
According to this section Talk:Electro_Interstitial_Scanner#Designer of the EIS system, the owner has appeared and he has also been attempting to edit the article. I left a welcome message and advice about his COI on his user talk page. I hope he will read and heed it. -- Fyslee ( talk) 01:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Dear Volunteers,
It felt as if I had my wrists slapped when User:Cameron Scott slammed the notice "run of the mill pressure group" and the threat of deletion down, and like a wounded animal, I accepted the proposed deletion. But out of the blue of Wikipedia's cyber space came help. Now User:Moonriddengirl has userfied and repaired the article such that I'd welcome your critique.
Is this now "fit for publishing"?
Yes, my Conflict of Interest is pure passion, combined with commitment, perseverance and persistence. But I am perfectly neutral, information and informational as well. And I do appreciate communication of the kinder kind.
Looking very much forward to your comments,
Sabine McNeill ( talk) 22:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Sabine McNeill ( talk) 10:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Sabine McNeill ( talk) 10:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
They tried to smear me as a "vandal", then they tried to literally evangelize to me on my TalkPage about their blood sacrifice cult despite my objections to such activity, then they went to several administrators and tried to portray me as lacking civility or somehow disrupting the editorial process, when all along they were only gaming the system. I'm not expecting anything like an apology because they've already proven their determination to treat me with the most egregious contempt, but i do think i deserve to have the unfair tarnish expunged from my reputation! Thank you for your consideration, Teledildonix314 ~ Talk ~ 4-1-1 19:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
If you wanted a topic ban, you could have asked for that instead of complaining about innocuous talk-page edits. I would oppose a topic ban unless I saw a pattern of POV-pushing edits, and what I see from a spot-check is wikignoming by adding correct citation formats and discussion on the talk page, neither of which violates Wikipedia policy. That doesn't mean that POV-pushing edits haven't been happening, but they aren't immediately obvious to non-involved editors, but you need to make a better case than "A conflict of interest exists," since that by itself isn't a violation. An intelligent Bayesian assumes that you come to the table with your best case, and when your proposed diffs are entirely innocuous, it's hard to see where the real problem is because one assumes that the diffs you aren't showing are even more innocuous. THF ( talk) 20:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
For one thing, it's extremely poor taste and bad faith to ask for a topic ban without even notifying the user on his talk page that this thread exists. THF ( talk) 20:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
further discussion of CIVIL at
User_talk:VirtualSteve#WP:CIVIL; per
WP:MULTI, please take CIVIL discussion there and use this page for COI discussion
THF (
talk) 23:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
|
---|
|
Just a general question here. There is a particular User here who is employed by a particular research organisation , and who has been editing a series of articles about a topic which this organisation sees as its core area of interest. This user in real life is also an activist advocating the subject matter, which has apparently become politicised. Therefore it appears there could be a serious case of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Campaigning.
I discussed the COI issue and the need for NPOV with the user on an article talk page and he appeared to acknowledge this. He is now editing these articles to his (or his organisation's) particular POV again, using sources (some written by himself in real life) published by the organisation he belongs to. The problem is he discounts the other viewpoint published by another rival organisation.
I could identify the articles and user (it's not related to Global Warming), but am concerned about the issue of outing, since Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline. However this User does identify himself and his Wikipedia username in his signature in messages on the public Wikipedia-l mail list, so I guess those Wikipedians who subscribe to this list may know who this user is, but the wider Wikipedia community may not.
Any advice on the best approach here would be welcomed. If the above is too general then I can provide specific details. Martintg ( talk) 23:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof!) 10:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)ISO does not "recognise" languages by handing them codes. Instead, the ISO 639 registry -- the Library of Congress -- maintains the language coding system, paying most careful attention to printed books. Since in recent years, a number of people have been printing books in Võro, the intent to precisely codify the linguistic standard now merits a separate language code -- but this does not mean any sort of royal assent over the linguistic entity's status as a language or dialect.
If starting tomorrow, a hundred people would take it unto themselves to write and print new books based on the writing system found in the Voynich Manuscript, pretty soon it would have its own ISO code. Nobody will care if it's a language -- if the books are there, they need to be coded. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 22:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
A provocative deletion of Võro again by User:Miacek: Why Voru and not...-- Võrok ( talk) 14:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Themfromspace recently tagged the John Stuart Yeates article, written by User:Stuartyeates about his late grandfather. The article appears to be of a high standard and lacking of any other violations (e.g. WP:NPOV) that this conflict may have given rise to. In the absence of any other problems the {{ COI}} cleanup template should be removed. It's somehwhat ironic to see Friendly being used in this fashion to WP:BITE the newbies. From feedback given in the case of Daily Record (Maryland) (another seemingly inappropriately tagged article) this editor "strongly believe[s] that any users of this article should be aware that the article was typed by a person very likely to be personally related to the company". Again, if the conflict has not given rise to other issues the tag should be removed. To their credit, articles like Mian Muhammad Aslam Advocate by User:Mianhammad59 stating that subject "successfully emerged as one of the best lawyers of Punjab province" are appropriately tagged. -- samj in out 04:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the problem here is in the wording of the template. I have no problem with the use of the COI tag being used (in this case anyway, I don't have the depth of experience to speak in generalities), but it would be great if it would be changed slightly to more of an encouragement for third party readers to contribute. Stuartyeates ( talk) 00:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC) (hope I got the formatting right)
Self evident case of COI. Intervention in the name of Neutrality is desperately needed. Thanks-- Hu12 ( talk) 05:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
All the articles above are clearly A7s, they have absolutely no sources, and there is no indication the subject is notable. There is nothing indicating why these subjects deserve their own article, there is no indication they are notable outside the tv series. The admin noted above has a clear COI, as he is in a project which deals with this exact series of articles, and he has reverted all my changes, along with threatening me with a block, even though the articles are clear A7s. Since he has an obvious COI with regards to the subject, he should not be making such changes.
Further, Geddon was previously deleted under an AfD, and I tagged it with a g4, which he reverted despite the fact the article was not changed to meet the problems addressed in the AfD.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 00:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I found this through a reference on an ecoregion article that this was a name for the area n question, which is the author of this book's term. I added WP:Notability and made some comments on Talk:Klamath Knot, and added the books category, and just now took out "Regions of California" and put in Geography of California/Oregon, and also removed a "forests" (ecoregion) category; one of the cites was clearly misrepresentative in being used to seemingly cite that this term was in common usage (the ref made no mention of it) and the other two cites are references to the book's publisher. I'm "giving it a chance" but maybe should just have made a speedy delete on grounds of non-notability and "reflexive reference"....someone trying to use Wikipedia to establish a term of their invention, in order to advance book sales, seems clearly suspect. Skookum1 ( talk) 12:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The article I created, AMAX Information Technologies ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), was deleted due to an administrator noting that it contains blatant advertising. I am still new at creating articles and trying to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines. Please see Amaxhelen/AMAX Information Technologies where it contains the newer revision stored in my subpage. I really need any help making this appropriate to have it live in the database. Would also appreciate if someone can look over and point out any suggestions as well. Amaxhelen ( talk) 23:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Kappa96 ( talk · contribs) got dinged with a couple warnings recently for repeatedly blanking Talk:LaShawn Pettus Brown. Then he left me a message requesting help with "our clients page". I re-evaluated the talk page and found it did indeed need to be trimmed to just project tags, and pointed the user to WP:EDITSUM. Still, the user has edited nothing but his client's page, LaShawn Pettus Brown, so I figured I'd drop a note here for further precautionary examination. Thank you! :) Doulos Christos ♥ talk 11:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Save the Netbooks ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created and is being maintained by User:Samj, who freely admits (on the talk page, but not in the article itself) to being the founder of Save the Netbooks, a campaign to have the "Netbook" trademark cancelled. [47] Letdorf ( talk) 15:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC).
I've started a discussion at Template talk:COI about how we can best modify the templates (and create a new one) to avoid the problem we see here where one template is used to do two different things. THF ( talk) 18:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
A whole batch of SPAs, some recently created, two with names of Institute employees, started editing this article, really WP:LARDing it up. THF ( talk) 19:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
These users have to date only editted Thomas Hoeren [48] [49]. I am fairly confident one is the sock of the other (reported here and thus they are both the subject of the article. Babakathy ( talk) 21:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
was primarily written by User:jonwiener and I was concerned lest this rather under-referenced article was a COI. Can someone look into this? Thanks! Collect ( talk) 17:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Someone want to have a look at this Aniand (book). Editor appears to have a COI. I didn't revert as vandal, but don't think what's being edited is proper either. I suspect, just a COI. Thanks — Ched ~ (yes?) 00:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Gavin Lurssen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been completely rewritten over the last few hours by Jeanlurssen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User has removed COI templates, and ignored COI warnings. Wuhwuzdat ( talk) 23:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)