Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions
EdJohnston (talk | contribs) →WP:Outing hypothetical question: Improved my suggestion |
|||
| Line 739: | Line 739: | ||
::Tothwolf: the COI issue has nothing to do with the sockpuppet issue or the activities of Theserialcomma. You clearly have a conflict of interest with the [[Eggdrop]] article, which you have failed to acknowledge, as strongly encouraged by the [[WP:COI]] guideline that you've said you're familiar with. Can you give a reason why you need to continue editing the article, despite being strongly discouraged by Wikipedia guideline? <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]] </b> 03:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC) |
::Tothwolf: the COI issue has nothing to do with the sockpuppet issue or the activities of Theserialcomma. You clearly have a conflict of interest with the [[Eggdrop]] article, which you have failed to acknowledge, as strongly encouraged by the [[WP:COI]] guideline that you've said you're familiar with. Can you give a reason why you need to continue editing the article, despite being strongly discouraged by Wikipedia guideline? <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]] </b> 03:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::Will, Actually it has everything to do with the SPI and Theserialcomma. I've contributed to 100s of open source software projects over the years, including a huge number related to IRC. As I've already mentioned, my edits when dealing with Wikipedia articles are always from [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] and I'm very much aware of how important [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] are. My intentions are to write accurate articles, I have no reason to write "junk" as it would serve no purpose. As I've also mentioned previously, Theserialcomma has been an instigator here as no one previously had any issues with edits I've made to any of these articles. You might want to check out [[WP:WPIRC]] as well. The "wiki" Theserialcomma took issue with is not even related to Eggdrop, although Theserialcomma certainly implied that it was. [[Talk:Eggdrop]] and the history link on the [[Eggdrop]] article are both quite telling. I certainly ''did not'' edit war with anyone as Theserialcomma also claimed. Check the history on the article for yourself. Also, Theserialcomma has been attempting to locate my personal info online and yesterday hit a number of webservers including my personal site and I have the apache webserver logs from those activities. In their first post to COI/N Theserialcomma made it quite clear they had been attempting to dig into my personal matters, including my name, which as far as I'm concerned was highly inappropriate. I don't think I've actually added too much text to the Eggdrop article either. The main thing I've done is add references and refactor much of the existing text. At some point it would be good to expand it, but as the article would easily survive AfD as it is, I'm more motivated to fix some of the more neglected articles right now. You can clearly see this from the edit history on the [[Eggdrop]] article itself as well since I've not done anything substantial to it in quite some time. All that said, again I'm well aware that I need to be cautious when editing articles and I ''always'' attempt to do so from a NPOV.<br />And Will, the way in which you approached me was not very welcoming and I can only assume you did not first check into my full contrib history and took what Theserialcomma was claiming at face value.<br />--[[User:Tothwolf|Tothwolf]] ([[User talk:Tothwolf|talk]]) 03:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Here's the article link to assist readers of this COI report: |
:Here's the article link to assist readers of this COI report: |
||
Revision as of 03:48, 28 May 2009
| Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
| ||||
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
| ||||
|
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
|
| ||||
| To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:
| ||||
| Search the COI noticeboard archives |
| Help answer requested edits |
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
|
Possible autobiographies found by bot
- User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.
Requested edits
- Category:Requested edits. Editors who believe they have a Conflict of Interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should undo the {{Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requestor to explain your decision.
Whitewashing on 42 Entertainment
Resolved- 42 Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 71.249.244.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Judefrancis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- ARGgirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
There seems to be an attempt by a user at IP 71.249.244.191 to whitewash the article for company 42 Entertainment. There have been two edits in the past five days in which historical information (sourced) about the company is being removed without explanation and without discussion on the article's talk page. Despite an undo of this person's revisions on the 6th, they were back at it again today. This follows a series of suspicious edits by user Judefrancis in April which prompted me to contact a Wikipedia editor through the #help chat channel. According to Domain Tools the IP 71.249.244.191 resolves to mail.digennarony.com, where digennarony.com is the web site for Digennaro Communications, who are listed as PR Representation at the 42 Entertainment web site. In my opinion, this constitutes a clear COI and I would appreciate any help you may offer in this regard. Argguy (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
|---|
A new user ARGgirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now appeared and reverted the article back to a version similar to Judefrancis's. They have accused Argguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of being a former employee and therefore having a COI - I see no evidence to suggest this, although Argguy does seem to be a single purpose account. I've reverted it back to the previous version to keep the historical details. Smartse (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
ARGgirl has again removed history citing that it is based on "an old webpage" and will not enter into dialogue. I've reverted it and again asked for them to engage in dialogue before removing content. Smartse (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
ARGgirl has removed the content yet again. It was reverted by someone else. Looking at the history of removal of the history section by different users does anyone think that a sockpuppet investigation may be required? It seems more than coincidental that the same content is being removed by three different editors in my opinion. Smartse (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
|
- ARGgirl and 42PR has been blocked indefinitely and the IP has been blocked for a week for meat/sock puppetry. Judefrancis hasn't been. As new references have been added to further clarify the historical information I think that this case is probably resolved for the moment. If further removal occurs the case should be reopened. Smartse (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The AfD discussion and contribution history kind of speak for themselves. The publicist article was created by this editor. Then we have the May 9 addition of wikilinks at other articles to the publicist by the same editor. Then we have the noting of "what links here" in the AfD discussion about the article. And the Sabrina article probably warrants some scrutiny too. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like to chime in with CoM's observation--to me, it's as clear as day that there's fishy things going on here. I've gone through earlier and removed a bunch of the wikilinks to Jonathan Hay, and I called it wikilink spamming in my edits--I hope that was OK. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I am re-posting this here, from the AFD page, so it does not get overlooked: Please do review my history. You will see my diligence and attention to detail. I will agree that I am relatively new to Wikipedia and have made several mistakes (as most do) learning along the way. But I do know that you are to assume good faith. And assuming I am the person in this article and am using it for my own purpose is not assuming good faith. I am NOT the person in this article, nor am I related to him in any way. I simply chose this article as a starting point before I ventured on to other articles, and I have gone to great lengths to improve, learn and research. It can be very confusing learning to navigate around Wikipedia at first, so please assume that any mistakes on my part are not intentional. I am still learning. You will see that I have ASKED for help many times. As far as the "what links here" links, I understood that I was to go to other articles that included his name and link them to his page.
And if you would kindly take a closer look, you will see that I was NOT the one to move Jonathan Hay (publicist) to Jonathan Hay (songwriter) and will note my reply to editor that did so, here. I do not know who this editor is and had to remove a lot of things he added to the article, such as changing his middle name and some random words at the end of the article. But since he did remove the AFD, I assumed it was okay to continue working on the article.
I assure you, my only intention is to better Wikipedia, not add useless or spam-filled articles. I still feel strongly that Jonathan Hay is a good article for Wikipedia. (By the way, if you do a regular Google search for him, you will see page after page of coverage. I hardly think he needs the publicity from a Wikipedia page.)--Jklein212 (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have already commented on Jklein212's talk page about how he is a single-purpose account who has done nothing but spam himself and his clients since he started here. Drawn Some (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, Sabrina (American singer) does not meet any of Wikipedia:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles so I've nominated it for speedy deletion. Smartse (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- I saw your speedy was declined so I did an AfD. I couldn't find any references. The whole Jonathan Hay article and moves and problems with all of that has been cleaned up. Drawn Some (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
COI/Spam/Self published ? Peter norton
ResolvedPeter norton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - These are old - but still there - he has created 39+ links to his own company website under the guise of being educational but his website also sells the projects pictured. Certainly feels like SPAM/COI. Tried to start cleaning them up but they are buried deep (and old) in many pages so hoping for an admin bulk revert. List of 39 links here: [[4]] 7 talk | Δ | 09:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have removed all remaining. 7 talk | Δ | 22:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I had removed some but forgot to finish or make a note here, that's why you didn't see 39. Drawn Some (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank for getting started on it, I removed the rest... was just being lazy hoping for an admin to come along and mop it up with a mass reversion of all the users edits. 7 talk | Δ | 02:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- I removed an extra 'User:' from the userlinks template above. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank for getting started on it, I removed the rest... was just being lazy hoping for an admin to come along and mop it up with a mass reversion of all the users edits. 7 talk | Δ | 02:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
More specific follow-up to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Lenora_Claire, but we seem to have some serious issues at Clint Catalyst. The entire history consists of everyone claiming User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (User:Bali ultimate too before, as this indicates) and now somewhat I have a COI, in part because we refuse to accept YouTube links and sites directly selling merchandise. The anthologies RFC isn't going so well either. So far, the WP:SPAs seem to be:
- User:Tjcrowley, who only seems to revert Hullaballoo because of the claimed COI
- User:Granny Bebeb, who at least discusses thing
- User:Thinkpiece admits a COI
- User:Tallulah13
We also have new user User:Jayson23 commenting very strangely, indicating he's at least a fan of some sort. I have been somewhat friendly and Hullaballo I admit needs to work on his civility, but there is seriously something going on here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
-- I do not necessarily believe that Ricky81682 has a COI - I've never accused him of that. He has been helpful and seems to know a lot about wiki guidelines {which I know practically nothing about} - But I do stick by my guns that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has a COI.
- user:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz not once has the user contributed anything useful to the Clint Catalyst article {that I have seen}, all he does is delete things. You can see a history of this behavior on his talk page {it is not limited to Clint Catalyst edits either}. I am not the only one who feels that he has an obvious COI.
As I said on my own talk page, I am taking yet another break from this. It is more drama than I care to deal with. I only logged in today to try and help by replacing 2 notations that I {and others} believe are very acceptable. Thanks for the help. Tallulah13 (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. I don't think Ricky has a COI and I appreciate his tactful efforts, but Hullaballoo Wolfowitz does seem to have a personal issue, not only with the Clint Catalyst article but also with pages related to various people within Catalyst's social circle, such as the band Scarling. The Clint Catalyst page needs cleanup, that's for sure, but I don't think deleting all of the informational content (as seems to be Hullaballoo's policy) and taunting other editors/content added by other editors is the answer. Additionally, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has added in derogatory accusations related to the subject of the article, such as claiming that he was "best known" for a brief cameo in a news story which was neither related to him nor any of his fields of work.
Also: the only Youtube link I posted was one that I had seen on Tallulah13's user page had been approved by Kubigula to be included due to the circumstances involved, so I assumed since it had been given approval, it should have been fine. The merchandise link I posted was to an item that was no longer for sale, so I figured it would be okay to show for factual purposes, but I suppose it was a primary source and therefore not the best thing to include after all (however, still not warranting the 'spammer' accusation which was subsequently thrown at me). Notice that I did not revert Ricky's edit. Granny Bebeb (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- I took a brief look, and the article needs a lot of ref cleanup. Too much original research and primary sources. But I fail to see the COI. Rees11 (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
There's no evidence of COI, of course; the article subject's friends simply throw accusations around whenever they don't get what they want. Here, for example, Tallulah13 calls Orangemike "hateful" because he (successfully) contested some images she'd uploaded over copyright problems [5]. It's basically a WP:OWN problem. The only COIs are with all those SPAs, who've blazed a conspicuous trail back to sites where it's easy to see they're associated with each other and with the article subject. For example, here's tallulah13's page in the buzznet Clint Catalyst Fans group [6] (note that the first friend, "alcy," posts here as "Granny Bebeb); here's a message she posted urging her friends to manipulate imdb counts to improve Catalyst's "star-meter" rating there [7]; here's a post alcy made urging friends to help Catalyst win that "BigShotLive" contest the article talks about [8]; and here's alcy's livejournal page, with more Catalyst promotion, and, confirming that she's "Granny Bebeb," both an otherise inexplicable reference to "Bebeb" in the page title and a reference to Lucifer Luscious Violenoue, whose page Granny/alcy also edits. [9]. I'm not interested in outing or embarassing these characters, so I'm not going to post links to anything further, but they aren't the only accounts that can be directly linked to the article's subject, and there's lots more stuff on several of them out there. (Once this all shakes out, it might also be a good idea for Tallulah13's user page history to be oversighted a bit, because she's left links revealing a great deal more than in is prudent. As she has elsewhere. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't having an interest in a subject and aiming to improve their page precisely the reason to make edits (as opposed to a negative obsession that has gone so far as to harass and track down editors of said subject's page)? Catalyst and I have never met. I am a fan of him, just as I am of LLV whom you have brought into this discussion - hence my research and posts you have discovered elsewhere. I've been trying to add constructive information to this article (among others) to keep it complete and relevant (not peacock, not a press release or advertisement), trying to learn the ropes and abide by policies to the best of my ability (though my questions generally go ignored), yet in return am greeted with condescending, bullying comments and have been stalked and outed by name (same with Tallulah13, who has left Wikipedia over this type of treatment - if it wasn't for Ricky's neutral presence during this debate, I'd probably be doing the same).
- The repeated derogatory comments and personal attacks directed at myself, other constructive editors, and the subject of the article (as well as the subject's social circle), combined with your removal of information based on mere speculation/accusation (such as claiming that I'd "copied and pasted" book titles from a website in an effort to increase sales for a store I wasn't even aware existed) should speak for themselves, along with the inappropriate outing seen above. Granny Bebeb (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
ResolvedCharles.edmunds Created article FileQube, and seems to be affiliated with the company, as evidenced by his username and the blog post here. Brianga (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hatashe
- Hatashe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hatashe (talk · contribs) has recently created two articles American Chronicle[10] and Modern Ghana[11]. It seems he's an editor in both those electronic publications and he has put his own articles as references to those articles. After a quick look at his contributions, I saw he is adding his own articles as references to a lot other articles as well[12][13][14][15][16][17]. Does this constitute self-promotion under WP:COI? --Avg (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- I added spam and COI tags to his talk page. From his user page I would think that he is genuinely trying to contribute in a positive way and not just maliciously spamming. Regardless, there is a conflict in interest being indulged by linking to one's own work; it is plainly self-promotional. Drawn Some (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've PRODd American Chronicle but Modern Ghana may be more notable but I'm not too sure. Smartse (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- PROD removed by anonymous IP in Bangladesh (possibly Hatashe) - now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Chronicle Smartse (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The IP 123.49.40.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has removed the AfD notice on American Chronicle - their edit history shows that they have edited articles on subpages of Hatashe's userpage - I think Hatashe needs to be warned over this (I imagine that it is also very likely that he removed the PROD) but I'm unsure in what way to do so as there's no direct evidence. Any suggestions? Smartse (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Though this IP is also from Bangla Desh, my guess is that the editor is not Hatashe. I've semiprotected the article for one week to prevent any further removal of the AfD banner, in lieu of blocking the IP, who seems inexperienced with our policies and may be well-intentioned. We still need to decide on a good response to Hatashe's insertion of links. EdJohnston (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm inclined to disagree but lets give them the benefit of the doubt. As shown at the AfD the website is clearly not a WP:RS and any links should be removed. There are an awful lot of links (397) that need removing however: [18]. Just to clarify the American Chronicle can be edited by anyone as shown by the disclaimer on their website. Can they all be removed quickly or does it need to be done manually (I hope not!!). I've tried to encourage Hatashe to explain their POV on this but as yet they are silent - not sure what action to take considering this. Smartse (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- It looks to me that Modern Ghana should also be sent to AfD. Regarding the 397 spammy links to those two websites, I suggest leaving a report at WT:WPSPAM and ask for the best way to get the links removed. Somebody who runs AWB could probably do it in a jiffy if they were sure of consensus for the removal. The posting at WPSPAM would probably be enough to justify it. The excessive redirects to American Chronicle will qualify for speedy deletion if the main article is deleted at AfD. I've left a {{uw-spam3}} warning for Hatashe. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm inclined to disagree but lets give them the benefit of the doubt. As shown at the AfD the website is clearly not a WP:RS and any links should be removed. There are an awful lot of links (397) that need removing however: [18]. Just to clarify the American Chronicle can be edited by anyone as shown by the disclaimer on their website. Can they all be removed quickly or does it need to be done manually (I hope not!!). I've tried to encourage Hatashe to explain their POV on this but as yet they are silent - not sure what action to take considering this. Smartse (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's been done here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#americanchronicle.com I'll look take a deeper look at Modern Ghana later. Smartse (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Unresolved- Pattysuesmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- American Digger Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- American Digger (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- File:Premiercover.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Consistent spamming of this magazine, in which she is the website administrator of (see bottom of this page). MuZemike 02:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Article has been deleted and I added a warning template to her talk page. Drawn Some (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- She has had at least three COI warnings on her talk page. She has also now created American Digger (magazine) to shirk the deletion process. MuZemike 02:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've tagged American Digger (magazine) as spam.Smartse (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- That was declined (somehow) so I've prodded the article. Smartse (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- The prod was also removed so it is now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Digger_(magazine). Smartse (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- That was declined (somehow) so I've prodded the article. Smartse (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've tagged American Digger (magazine) as spam.Smartse (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- She has had at least three COI warnings on her talk page. She has also now created American Digger (magazine) to shirk the deletion process. MuZemike 02:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The AfD result was "no consensus". The article currently states it has a "current circulation of over 2000". Mccomas1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appeared and Pattysuesmith disappeared as soon as PROD was placed on the article. Their editing suggests that they may also have a COI. Smartse (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Resolved- Akwilks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Akwilks' only purpose for being on Wikipedia seems to be to provide links to and argue in favor of his own personal "solutions" to old events, such as who was responsible for the 1982 Chicago Tylenol murders and how to solve a code related to the Zodiac Killer -- and he blames both on Theodore Kaczynski (aka the Unabomber). That cluster of otherwise unrelated articles seems to be his sole focus of attention. Links are to a personal website with messageboard posts written by one "AK Wilks". Multiple editors have tried to explain policy to him. DreamGuy (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Resolved- Arimasa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User has been posting at Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre with denialist propaganda that breaks WP:FRINGE and WP:OR[19]. The material added by him comes from his own personal website! PCPP (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Resolved- Benny Brunner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
- Dovale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User:Dovale keeps adding/edit warring to include unsourced and unnotable material about a subject whose notability is questionable to begin with. (information stricken by Mishlai) I warned the editor about the COI, but he has returned immediately and continued the same behavior. i do not want to violate WP:OUTING so i am unsure how to proceed. Theserialcomma (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Not the most conclusive proof but I agree that it does seem fairly likely. I've found a few references for some of the films but I think that a simple list will suffice rather than a full breakdown of each film as was present before. I'll keep an eye on the article. Smartse (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm concerned that what is posted here may already constitute an outing. Perhaps the whole thing should be removed? It is best to address the matter from a standpoint of NPOV without raising COI concerns when someone is not out. From wp:coi - "COI situations are usually revealed when the editor themselves discloses a relationship to the subject that they are editing. In case the editor does not identify themselves or their affiliation, reference to the neutral point of view policy may help counteract biased editing." Mishlai (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- well, something should be done. (information stricken by Mishlai) and the editor so far refuses to communicate about anything. something needs to be done. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm concerned that what is posted here may already constitute an outing. Perhaps the whole thing should be removed? It is best to address the matter from a standpoint of NPOV without raising COI concerns when someone is not out. From wp:coi - "COI situations are usually revealed when the editor themselves discloses a relationship to the subject that they are editing. In case the editor does not identify themselves or their affiliation, reference to the neutral point of view policy may help counteract biased editing." Mishlai (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I've restored portions of the old conversation related to this specific COI, and moved the general questions to the talk page as suggested. I've self reverted at Dovale's talk page so the warnings are back in place.
It seems probable that there is a real COI concern here. Even absent a COI this editor is adding large swathes of information that are unsourced or very weakly sourced about a subject of questionable notability, and that needs to be discussed (elsewhere). Despite some back and forth in the article, there is no discussion on the article's talk page whatsoever, which is problematic in it's own right. Thanks to all involved for your patience concerning my disruption of this subsection. Mishlai (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- No worries. I think this issue is resolved for the moment - the information has been removed and replaced with cited information. Smartse (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
ResolvedAMX International (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Press-release type entry, sole contribution by user with the same name as the company. Hairhorn (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Definitely a COI but the page isn't that promotional in my opinion and the company is apparently notable. I've removed the "mission statement" and moved it to AMX International (software). Some more clean up may be necessary and it definitely needs citations. Smartse (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Kenneth Cobonpue
Copied from the WP:COIN Talk page. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Kenneth Cobonpue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Kenneth Cobonpue (talk · contribs)
i have seen that the page i have created has a conflict of interest tag on it. i would really like to have it removed as the page i have made regarding Kenneth Cobonpue is purely encyclopedic and for the use of the general public's knowledge. If there is anything i can do please do instruct me on how i can get this tag removed. Thank you and good day.
Kenneth Cobonpue (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- The macro is there because you a both a major contributor and the subject of the article. Also problematic is that all of the references are print and not easily checkable online publications. The the article has evolved and most of the work is not your own, the macro may get removed. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- As Stuart has pointed out the COI message is there because the page seems to be an autobiography. Autobiographies are inappropriate for wikipedia. See WP:AUTO. If you can provide inline citations for the claims made then the COI may be removed. At the moment the article reads far too much like a CV/resume and is like an advert. Please feel free to ask if you would like any help improving it. Smartse (talk) 10:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Further to to my comments above, if you're looking for a good example of how to avoid the COI, I recommend looking at Jimmy Wales. Just about every claim has a footnote citing a source and most sources are online source. I suggest that you lift formatting and macros for how to do this straight from that page. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the COI tag - the editor signed on the talk page as "Jose Paolo Konst" and some googling reveals far more spectacular claims could be made (that he designed something for [[oceans thirteen for example). I will advise the user to change their username - they are obviously new and don't know how things work. Smartse (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Juval Aviv
Resolved- Juval Aviv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Spbraswell (talk · contribs) has literally no other edits on Wikipedia, except to the article on Juval Aviv. Who is Juval Aviv? Well, he bills himself as a terrorism expert; whether his credentials are real or fictional is a subject of great debate, but you wouldn't know that if Spbraswell had his way, since he keeps removing anything that questions Aviv's credentials, calling it "factual errors" and "incorrect information" and claiming that he has the right to remove it when it "cite[s] articles that [are] also factually incorrect" (essentially claiming that his assessment of what is "correct" outweighs WP:RS.) Juval Aviv is also the head of the security firm Interfor, which just happens to employ Stephen Braswell as its public-relations director. I wonder if Stephen Braswell's middle initial is P. =P -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- The fact that http://www.villagevoice.com/2007-10-16/news/secret-agent-schmuck/full was removed seems particularly relevant to this. If Spbraswell (talk · contribs) has evidence that the claims made by the village Voice are wrong, let references to that evidence be produced. If not, let the referenced criticism stand. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've cleaned it up to remove all the blatant PR/advertising in the article. I don't think I removed anything that I shouldn't have. Smartse (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Balance of Power (forum game)
Resolved- Balance of Power (forum game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Mrdie (talk · contribs) is the administrator of a similar forum and does not wish to have "competition" from a "rival" forum so he has twice, using two IP addresses here and here, removed the link to another forum. This "rivalry" extends beyond the Wiki and is spitefully trying to get back at another forum by constantly removing it from Wikipedia. There is not a monopoly of the forum game and making it out to look that way is malicious, and thus vandalism. Thank you SonnyCorleone (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Neither forum should have a link per WP:EL rules, and the article in question is not encyclopedic as there are no reliable sources and the topic has no notability. Whole thing goes away now. Thanks for bringing it to our attention so it could be dealt with in the way most appropriate to our standards. DreamGuy (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. I think sending it to AfD might have been a better course since the redirect amounts to a de-facto Speedy Delete of the original. I think the outcome of the AfD would very likely have been the same, though. ArakunemTalk 17:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Neither forum should have a link per WP:EL rules, and the article in question is not encyclopedic as there are no reliable sources and the topic has no notability. Whole thing goes away now. Thanks for bringing it to our attention so it could be dealt with in the way most appropriate to our standards. DreamGuy (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The article was deleted (rightfully IMO, neither you or I created the article). To clear things up, Sonny's forum was created due to a split on Diplomacy (the forum linked). I included Diplomacy because it is a professional (paid-for) forum and is by far the most active BoP forum (and oldest) whereas Sonny's forum is a basic, free forum closed off to everyone except those who register. I also wanted to substantiate the claim that it was being played in both various topics online (which I did, like 8 citations) and on a forum-wide basis (which I did, by citing Diplomacy). As noted however, the article shouldn't have existed. --Mrdie (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for forum drama reaching the wiki. I saw a link to that forum and believed that people should see what other versions of the game are like. I totally respect this decisions. I came here to prevent an edit war. Looking over Mrdie's contributions he seems to be embroiled in several revert wars and did not want that to happen. Thank you for your decision. SonnyCorleone (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Radialpoint
- Radialpoint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Radialpointpr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Prrp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Radialpointfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Paigemce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The page Radialpoint was just greatly expanded by User:Radicalpointpr. The COI is clear but the information added appears more encyclopedic and in-line with our standards than with most COI cases. I tagged the page but didn't revert the edit. I'd like feedback to see if this was the proper move. ThemFromSpace 15:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've tried to save what was remaining. There might be some more stuff that should be removed or other info from previous edits that should be reincluded. It would be useful if someone else could take a look. Smartse (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like it wasn't just this editor - others have edited the page before who also seem to have a COI. I've added the usernames to this page and will warn them too.
- Pruning of the promo and peacocking looks good. There was a bit of press-releasey type stuff that was removed which might not have been too objectionable, but hopefully the user(s) will read up the COI links provided and edit accordingly if they think that info really serves the article by inclusion. ArakunemTalk 17:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
A new user User:Paigemce has appeared and added the same information back. There is strong evidence to be found through google that they too have a COI - the edits have been reverted but I was wondering whether this merits firmer action (i.e. checkuser)? Smartse (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Cytowic (talk · contribs), who self-identifies as Richard Cytowic, has been notified of the COI guideline but appears to be continuing to work on related articles in what appears (to me) to be a promotional effort. While they are clearly notable, there may be some issues with the content of their edits. They were previously indef blocked for some overt COI sockpuppetry, but the block was reduced since they may have not fully understood the rules around here. Can someone far more tactful than myself please take a look and/or keep an eye on this editor so they don't get themselves into more trouble? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've given Cytowic some advice on his talk page [20] and he is cooperative and willing to learn from his previous mistakes. I have a one thing were a second opinion would be useful though: Richard Cytowic is an expert in Synesthesia and has added a good image to the article from his new book, Wednesday is Indigo Blue here: Synesthesia#Personification. I'm not sure whether it is appropriate however for the caption to mention this book that only came out this year. What do others think? Smartse (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- The image is licensed under CC Attribution, so the copyright holder must be credited. Whether that means the book title must appear in the caption isn't clear. Rees11 (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- I would assume it doesn't need to in the caption - if the author is releasing it through CC then it doesn't matter where it came from really does it? It's probably appropriate to include it in the image's info page but the caption seems unnecessary. Smartse (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Despite his assertion that he is only leaving suggestions on talk pages, he is actively editing an article about hsi book at User:Scarpy/Wednesday Is Indigo Blue, which he clearly understands is intended to replace the current article. I'm all for assuming good faith, but not when it is contradicted by an editor's words and actions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm aware of that but it's only on Scarpy's user subpage at the moment, let's at least give Scarpy a chance to look at it. Cytowic also clearly wishes to learn how to edit articles properly it just may take some time. I've watchlisted Wednesday is Indigo Blue so will notice any additions of COI info. Smartse (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- I appreciate the assistance with this. I have been busy outside of Wikipedia and haven't been able to give this situation as much attention as I would like. I read the additions made to the article on my user page, and my impression was that, while the content was well-written, it was more about Synesthesia than it was about the book and could be moved to one of the Synesthesia articles.
- The way I envision the re-write is to have it based on the reviews of the book. This is my first time writing and article on a book, I feel like I should finish reading it first and I still need to review the book guidelines (e.g. just poking around now I found Wikipedia:WikiProject_Books, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Books/Non-fiction_article, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books) and I'm sure there's more). -- Scarpy (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Electronic voice phenomenon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Tom Butler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Could some uninvolved editors take a look at Electronic voice phenomenon? The article has been pretty stable for a while but has had POV and accuracy tags but little if any discussion on the talk page why those tags should be there. When I removed them, they have been repeatedly restored by an editor who is the head of an organization advocating the topic and who is referenced in the article. This editor has long insisted that the article should conform to his particular POV - his editing of the article itself is minimal at this point, but it's hard for me to take the tags seriously and not get the impression that they are merely being used as a big "DON'T BELIEVE WHAT YOU READ IN THIS ARTICLE" tag (since he can't get the article to his preferred state). Particularly when the editor states on his user page that his goal is to discredit Wikipedia. Input from fresh editors would be appreciated. --Minderbinder (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Coupled with the off-wiki statements [21][22], I think there's a clear COI in the aim to make the Wikipedia article reflect the views of the organisation. Looking at Talk page activity too - which includes repeated canvassing of this off-wiki agenda [23][24], it looks like a case of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to agree on the Civil POV. At least, unlike many fringe/pseudo science articles, there is the civil part. As far as the tags go, Mr Butler was correct in that the tags stated there was a dispute, with not much discussion on the talk page. This now appears to have been resolved on the talk page. I suspect this is now more appropriate for the Fringe Theories Noticeboard (where a 1-line comment has been filed today), as the COI piece really only enters into the picture if his edits serve to benefit his organization, and not just his/their views on EVP. ArakunemTalk 16:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Glensan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Editor has disclosed in the talk page of Polynesian Adventure Tours that he is an employee of the company, has removed the non-notable tag and is now arguing to include tour route information and other blatant advertising in the article. Could non-involved editor(s) take a look here? Brianhe (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Correction, I think I mis-read "tour" for "our" in the talk page; it's not clear what if any relationship Glensan has to the company. Still, his singular devotion to this article and advertising-like content in it is troubling. Brianhe (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Commented on the talk page of the article. Essentially, I'm of the opinion that a couple of example destination mentions in the opening paragraph are ok to flesh out the scope of the company, but the section dedicated to their destinations crossed the "Travel Brochure" line. ArakunemTalk 16:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for this ... I am new to Wiki and did not know all the rules. I do understand and respect the importance of keeping the integrity of Wikipedia articles. I am an employee of the company - and the only reason I decided to contribute is that I stumbled upon the page and saw that it was marked for deletion. I tried to keep my contribution as neutral as possible and simply state facts about the company. Glensan (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Jtvupdates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - New user Jtvupdates only seems to be adding in reports of lawsuits against Jewelry Television. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- The username certainly suggests a Single-Purpose account. As long as the lawsuit mentions are cited and are not given undue weight in the article (both of which are currently true), though, then it should be ok for them to remain. ArakunemTalk 16:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
67.137.28.206 and International Armoring Corporation and Armormax
67.137.28.206 (talk · contribs)'s edits seem to be all promoting this corporation and their product. The two articles have obviously been created/edited by editors with an interest in the company as they read like advertising copy. Dougweller (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- I started to cut out the ad copy but realised if I did there wouldn't be any article left, so I just added an advert template. Still, if there is COI, it's not evident. Suggest pursuing this as NPOV. Rees11 (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- On second thought, this is borderline db-spam. Rees11 (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Armormax has been speedy deleted as db-spam. Rees11 (talk) 11:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The edits by this particular IP user actually seem pretty innocuous to me. The user who seems to be responsible for most of the spam is Editme5 (talk · contribs), and it seems to be a single-purpose account, but I see no other evidence of COI. Should we mark this "resolved?" Rees11 (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
This user's edits have been solely towards the articles Devolution Novel and Devolution Franchise. A page the user made for Andrew Lisle, listed in these articles as the creator of the franchise/graphic novel was speedily deleted. In my opinion, there is a high chance that this user has serious COI issues towards advancing this franchise. TheLetterM (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Both articles have been PRODd and seconded. Smartse (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- KimNekroman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Nekromantix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KimNekroman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - is, or claims to be, Kim Nekroman of the band Nekromantix. He's been editing the band article heavily of late and I've had some semi-heated discussion with him. A similar thing happened 2 years ago. For the older discussions see here, and for the current one see here. It started out with him claiming that some of the article's information (which was referenced both to secondary sources & his own band's myspace) was incorrect. Now it's graduated into bigger problems, like when he replaced the entire lead with a cut-n-paste copyvio from Yahoo (which in turn is copying from Allmusic) which read like a complete puff piece. Anything he dislikes he claims is "inaccurate" or that the source is unreliable, and he constantly insists that the only truly reliable sources are the band's website & myspace. I've asked for help at the Music and Musicians projects but haven't gotten much, so I thought it worth reporting. He is also editing his own biography article and HorrorPops, another of his bands. IllaZilla (talk) 04:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
|---|
Comment by KimNekroman (& discussion)IllaZilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Has been using subjective wording that is not in the spirit and ethics of Wikipedia. I have only been insisting her to use wording that doesn't leave doubt about what is being meant. IllaZilla seems to be misunderstanding the sources she is refering to and have a problem with me making sure that the article remains in a trustworthy enclypedia state. As it appears from the edits and discussions I have been working with IllaZilla but made sure that untrue information has been edited. And yes Kim Nekroman and HorrorPops articles has been edited naturally because some of the same errors are in those articles also. --KimNekroman (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
←You are asking me to reveal personal information about third party if I should answer that fully. When a synonym is used by more than one person it needs to be explain in full and become none relevant for the article because as you say it becomes confusing. Some random person faulty wrote that Kim Nekroman's real name is "Dan Gaarde" which has resulted in official investigations by IRS and has become a nuisance. Interviewers retract their info from WP and sources that originally got info from WP. An evil circle that twist the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KimNekroman (talk • contribs) 00:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
←So by that I take it you won't be explaining to the editors at WP:RS why your idea for the definition of a reliable source is better than theirs? --WebHamster 11:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment by Smartse (& discussion)Kim, at the moment none of the three articles have any reliable sources for the information on them. IllaZilla is correct to challenge and change any information on the pages that is not cited from a reliable source. Obviously from your informed position (assuming you are indeed Kim Nekroman) you are privy to a lot of information on the articles that is not verifiable. With your conflicted position I would advise that if you find factual errors in the articles you comment on the talk page so that other editors can take action to correct them. You should refrain from adding any material to the pages too as there is an obvious conflict of interest. With regards to the current disagreement over how to use sources and wording etc. I think that you should let IllaZilla add what they see fit from reliable sources. Unfortunately the band's myspace page will not count under this. A quick google news search reveals many reliable sources that could be used on Nekromantix however so I would advise trying to create an article around these. Unless unsourced or libellous information is added then I'm afraid you can't remove it. I hope this helps. --Smartse (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment by WebHamster (& discussion)Firstly it's not "illegal" to publish incorrect information, if it was then most newspapers worldwide would have been closed down by the police and secondly you are getting close to a legal threat here. Wikipedia is not necessarily about what is true, it's about what can be verified. PS can you please start putting some indents here so this thread can be more legible than it is? --WebHamster 22:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
←Thank you for proving my point. --WebHamster 01:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC) I'm not here to make anyone happy. I'm here to help make the encyclopaedia factual and to make sure that articles stay within the rules, your happiness is totally irrelevant as to why this article is at the CoI noticeboard. It's up to you whether you follow the rules or not, whether it makes you happy is unimportant. --WebHamster 01:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
|
Take a step back
I think we need to stop this rather pointless debate and concentrate on resolving the COI issues around these articles. KimNekroman, you definitely do have a conflict of interest with regard to these articles as evidenced by this discussion. The sources I provided above are the best available sources to base the article on. How can we tell if they are incorrect other than from your word? Some may not present you in a great light but wikipedia is about putting all available, reliable (from reliable sources - not actually the same as reliable - see Stuart Pearson (businessman) for an example) and verifiable information into an article, not what the subject would like to see in it. As has been explained someone with such a strong COI as yourself must take a step back from the editing of articles and only make minor changes for example of spelling and grammar. If a reliable source says it then for all intents and purposes on wikipedia it is true. We aren't going to change the article because people interviewing you take information from it that you don't like. WebHamster has contributed much factual information to WP, something I cannot see KimNekroman having done recently if at all. Thank you, WebHamster for your help in trying to resolve this, if you could perhaps be a little less agressive in your comments it would maybe help reach some form of conclusion (I do realise that you are not PC which is fine :). IllaZilla I suggest you start to edit the article using some reliable sources and I'll try and keep an eye on it to make sure editing by KimNekroman is within the COI guidelines. I would do some of it myself but I'm a bit busy at the moment. Smartse (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is of relevance here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_24#Myspace_Band_Pages Smartse (talk) 10:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
And this :Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_7#Warped_Tour_2008. These confirm that we can use very little information from myspace pages. Smartse (talk) 10:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have no problem with taking a step back at this point. I've proven that WP still has a long way to go when it comes to credibility and what is reliable or unreliable sources. Hopefully it will make people who reads this think twice and aware that the truth and facts needs to come from somewhere. And that several ref's that contains faulty information and doesn't make sense when compared should raise a red flag and be reconsidered as being used as ref. If I had more time I would gladly contribute more to WP but I am pretty busy with another agenda in my life. Yes I have a COI but have remained objective when it comes to facts. If you cant trust the actual source who can you trust? Like I said before Smartse and IllaZilla are the types of Wikipedian's that are able to work toward solutions. The WebHamster should take more cold showers and move away from his parents house. over and out KimNekroman (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
User:62.117.66.228
Resolved62.117.66.228 (talk · contribs) from Moscow is repeatedly promoting an otherwise non-notable museum from Moscow, and there are grounds to suppose that he does so on behalf of the museum itself. Check his edits and his IP's location, you will see for yourself. Thank you, --RCS (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've warned the user about adding spammy external links and informed them of this discussion. RCS had already removed the links. Smartse (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Lonnietmiller (talk · contribs) appears to have a COI with Janna Nickerson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Edits such as this one indicate that she is likely the subject of the article. I couldn't find any information verifying some of the information (the place of birth and the engagement) she added. Could someone experienced with autobiographical articles explain to Lonnietmiller (talk · contribs) that what she is adding is unacceptable? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Subjects of articles can provide information on place of birth and such. There may be an interest, but it's the same as Wikipedia's, i.e. there is no conflict of interests. Key is that the text should be neutral. Phrases like 'happily engaged' are of course not neutral and should be reworded. :) No need to list this as an incident though, simply edit the text. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 12:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Subjects can provide biographical information, but only if it can be verified by reliable sources. I removed the place of birth twice because I cannot verify where this individual was born. Cunard (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
121.220.36.117 continually deletes Yves Carbonne entries in favor of promoting Garry Goodman
- 121.220.36.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Extended-range bass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Bass guitar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Continues to vandalize any entries made about Yves Carbonne, in favor of Garry Goodman, both bassists. All Carbonne entries have valid supporting links, whereas the Goodman entries 121.220.36.117 continually reinstates (either while replacing Carbonne entries or while adding to Goodman entries AND replacing Carbonne entries) have excessive promotional value, no links or supporting references, etc. In addition, the information 121.220.36.117 continually reverts (wipes out Carbonne, replaced by Goodman) has very detailed information about Garry Goodman's strings (he is more of a string maker than a noted bassist), information possibly only Garry Goodman or a representative of his would know, and promote in an effort to sell strings. This person follows me around, makes very few edits to anything else, and is literally stalking any pages with information about Yves Carbonne, who is not receiving a "lack of consensus" as 121.220.36.117 alleges, but spreading bad information and making accusations he cannot support. There were Carbonne entries that did not receive a consensus a while back. Since then, the correct type of third party links were added, and there seems to have been a change in consensus, to Carbonne's favor. However, 121.220.36.117 continues to write the same derogatory comments over and over, although he has absolutely no proof of his allegations. He has now reverted information added by a second editor on the extended-range bass page, and reverted my last entry on the "bass guitar" page. It should be known, there were about 20 editors in the middle of my entry, and his revert, and at no time did anyone object to the Carbonne information being present. As soon as something goes up about Carbonne, he is there, usually immediately or by the next day, to remove it and add information about Garry Goodman. I have given him 2 warnings, and an admin gave him a third. Please see all the revisions he made to "Carbonne" here ----> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/121.220.36.117. It is abundantly evident that he has a definite conflict of interest, and is trying to prevent information from being shared on Wikipedia, which is very relevant to the history and future of the sub-extended-range bass guitar, because I suspect, absolutely, that he fancies himself as a competitor. Please block him from continuing his vandalism and stalking, and using Wikipedia as a promotional venue for Garry Goodman. Thank you.TruthBeTold (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- I modified the header of this report to follow the conventions normally used at WP:COIN. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. First timer over here. TruthBeTold (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see evidence of a COI, other than 2 camps very intent on their opinions. This looks to be a content dispute more than a COI. While the IP does remove your Carbonne paragraph often, I only see 2 edits by IP-121 that add info on Goodman (one of which was a couple of lines just mentioning the different number of strings in one of his basses). The recent edit to Bass Guitar did add a fair amount of Goodman related info. Reading through the talk pages on the 2 articles in question, it does seem like the general feeling is not to have Carbonne's info in there (I count 3 opposed, and only yourself in favor). As Ed Johnston mentioned on the locked page, you should work with the others on that page to arrive at an agreement as to whether Carbonne should be on there. Several claims are mentioned about Carbonne that may or may not support his inclusion; that is up to the discussion on the talk page though. (Unfortunately I am unable at the moment to view the cited articles on bass-musician-magazine.com to offer an opinion there... the site seems to be having problems pulling article text). ArakunemTalk 17:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Really? You don't see evidence of a COI, when ip 121..., as his first contribution on here (without being a registered user) deleted Carbonne? And then did it 10 more times, on 3 different pages, including the Michael Manring page, on which Carbonne played on a collaboration with Manring? You don't find it odd that another 20 or so editors on the bass page didn't object to Carbonne infomation, but lo and behond, 121 removed his information yesterday, put up the reason that Carbonne was not notable, and just HAPPENED to conveniently enter unsupported information about Goodman (no sources)? You don't find it odd that every time a change to Carbonne has been made, my me or someone else, that he goes in right after, and deletes it? That's really interesting. Looks like a big gaping COI to me. TruthBeTold (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have notified the IP editor of this discussion. For additional background, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yves Carbonne, which closed with Delete on 5 April. There have been other relevant discussions at User talk:TLCbass. It would be helpful if TLCbass would disclose how he happens to be concerned about this issue, since he used 'bass' in his user name. He is here at COIN suggesting that the IP editor has a conflict of interest, while he himself might have a business or professional connection to this topic. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
That is the most absurd thing I ever heard. Go on the bass dicussion: every other person on there has bass in their name. Boy, you are reeeealy reaching here. I use the name "bass", because I love bass. For people asking me why I have an interest this, there seems to be a lot of people on here who have a lot of opinions, and voice them unduly. My interest is as follows (you could have just asked, instead of beating around the bush): I do not accept the fact that an outstanding musician and pioneer is being dissed on here, and the information about how he has created an instrument and a concept which will further the expansion of the instrument - is being bullied off of here because of people with conflicting interests and suspect motives. Furthermore, I am the one who brought the complaint against 121... He is the one removing Carbonne entries (mine or other) to replace them with Goodman entries. The Carbonne entries are supported by Bass Musician Magazine. The Goodman entries contain enormous amounts of promotional and opinionated information, and in addition, is not sourced or supported. I already said - when I first put up information about Carbonne, I was new on here, and included inappropriate links according to your site. I have since corrected that, and another editor with whom I am not affiliated in any way, shape or form, took it on himself to write a very educated, factual blurb about Carbonne's bass, which he conceived. I am getting very very tired of being put on the defense, when I, as an editor, who has spent MANY MANY hours on here, continues to be questioned. This while you have someone with a blatant conflict of interest getting away with doing everything that is against your policies. I am not following 121 around and removing HIS entries... I am not stalking 121... I am not targeting anything that he holds an interest in. But, he is doing that to me and another editor. This is really to the point of being beyond ridiculous. TruthBeTold (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Not trying to put you on the defense, we're just trying to impartially gather the facts here. I'll respond to your previous couple of posts above in one spot here, as I'm sure you can see that breaking them up would start to get hard to follow.
- On the COI: In order for there to be a conflict of interest, IP121 would have to have a close connection to the topic (in this case, Goodman), and/or benefit in the real-world by the way the article is written on-wiki (such as a business promoting itself to drive up sales). I have not seen a COI demonstrated in this case using that definition. Thus far, I see IP121 as being a bass enthusiast who happens to not think Carbonne should be included. Just as you are a bass enthusiast who thinks he should. If either of you have a closer connection to Carbonne, Goodman, or indeed any of the manufacturers named in the article, or otherwise stand to benefit from the shape of the article, then you/he/they have a COI. Just being an editor who edits in one field, from one point-of-view does not automatically prove a COI.
- On the notability of Carbonne: Please see This Page for specifics on what constitutes notability on Wikipedia. Again, we are just using the criteria as defined here. The notability policy even states "topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic". The criteria that determines notability is Verifiability. If a topic has been covered significantly (not just passing references) in multiple independent sources, then it is likely notable as Wikipedia defines it. I still can't bring up the bass-musician-magazine.com articles so can't comment on the sourcing aspect, but if Carbonne is covered in other independent sources, then notability should not be a problem. I do note that the article on him was deleted precisely because nobody could or would add such sources.
- On IP121's deletions: I am not sure why he is so intent on deleting the Carbonne paragraphs, but this topic is not my forte. If the paragraph claims are supported by the cite (dang bass-musician-magazine.com again) then the question becomes: Does including the paragraph improve the article? That determination is made by consensus on the article's talk page. My advice would be to enter into a more detailed dialog about just why that information seems to be inappropriate in the IP's eyes. The only explanation I've seen for that was "We said we weren't going to list everybody" which may be fine if Carbonne is grouped in with "everybody", in which case I might want to know why if I was the one who wanted that information in. A more friendly discourse, rather than accusatory, might end up with you convincing the others that he should be in there.
- Sorry for the length of this post. Please do reply below if I can be of additional service. ArakunemTalk 21:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Just using the search function at http://bass-musician-magazine.com brings up 38 hits for 'Carbonne' and 4 hits for 'Goodman.' This suggests that the magazine found Carbonne more noteworthy. Someone would still have to read the actual articles to see how they rate the importance of these guys. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Response: If you read the exact text IP121 put in under his changes when adding info about Goodman, it is clear he is connected with the subject. I have not been able to find any of the info about Goodman he added on the web. In addition, his deletions of Carbonne are always directly after someone adds him, and always make reference to the fact that he isn't notable. That was never really established. His article was deleted because I finally demanded that it was deleted, because I am the one who made the mistake of adding information other wikipedians found to be containing praise. That was MY mistake, not Carbonne's. He had nothing to do with it, and had been on here for approx. 2 years - with his own page - before I added information about him, that sadly, ended up in a long, drawn out argument. After editors continually reverted the information back to outdated and incorrect information, instead of making positive suggestions as to how I could change it so it would be "Wiki-appropriate", it turned into a battle I no longer had the time or inclination to continue fighting. If you look at the "battle", you will see that it was suggested that someone else pick up the reigns to add info about Carbonne. Now, someone has, because is a HUGE force in bass development, and is an outstanding musician. That is not my opinion by the way, that is a fact. I added numerous links to independent sources, but it was too late. To have this perverse interest in now eliminating a one sentence addition by an editor unknown to me is just persecution. I am truly firm in my belief, based on ip121's pattern, he definitely has ulterior motives to do what he is doing. Carbonne does meet notability. I am not retying all of that here. You are free to look at my talk page or the article's talk page for support of that statement. TruthBeTold (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
In addition, I have no problem whatsoever getting into the Bass Musician Magazine Articles. Not sure why you do? He has also received positive reviews in Bass Player Magazine (Hard copy, not on line), The International Institute of Bassists, and ALL of the Bass Forums online. If you look at his myspace page (which has become the new standard for reviewing a musicians notability, at least in the music industry it is: record companies go there to see how an artist is doing), you will see, of ALL the bassists on the site, he is second (in both song plays, page views, and fans) only to Marcus Miller. Every other bassist on the site (which actually has a page for ANY bassist you have ever heard of) has less song plays, fans, and pageviews than Carbonne. Feel free to verify that information. http://www.myspace.com/yvescarbonne
TruthBeTold (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ed, thanks for notifying me of this discussion. I have been wanting to start a COI discussion regarding Carbonne but just haven't had the time and so I am very grateful a discussion has been opened here and I welcome an examination of this issue. Arakunem: Just to clear things up, I'm not a "bass enthusiast who happens to not think Carbonne should be included". I'm not even a bass enthusiast. I'm simply a Wikipedia enthusiast and I've been trying to protect Wikipedia from a SPA who is on a promotional mission with 100% of her edits directed to trying force Wikipedia to include information about Yves Carbonne.
- As way of background, I became aware of this issue when the Yves Carbonne article was nominated for deletion. I did some research, checked the links TLCBass had provided and then came back to comment on the AFD only to find it had already been closed. Before the article was deleted, though, I noticed that TLCBass claimed repeatedly in edit summaries that she was here as Carbonnes "authorized" representative. The article has been deleted now so unfortunately I can't check the exact wording, but administrators can look at the deleted edits of that article and see that she repeatedly claimed she was authorized to make edits regarding Carbonne. Also, when I followed some of the links she added to the article and the talk page, I very quickly realised who she was, what her username means and she has a very significant conflict of interest and I believe she should not be the one to decide what, if any, information Wikipedia has about this man. Now, I personally don't care if we have information about him or not. An editor at Talk:Extended-range bass said he feels that a brief mention of Carbonne may be appropriate in the extended range bass article. If he, or another experienced user, were to make such an edit, I would accept whatever they considered appropriate. My objection here is that we have a SPA with a very significant COI and that person should not be the one to decide and then enforce what Wikipedia says about Carbonne, especially when the Carbonne subject has been rather contentious (I am not the only one who has reverted TLCBass's edits about Carbonne).
- TLCBass accuses me of "using Wikipedia as a promotional venue for Garry Goodman" and of adding information that only Goodman or his representatives would know. To be clear: I have absolutely no connections to Goodman or any other musician in any genre of music (if only TLCBass could say the same thing). The truth is, I have never made any content edits regarding Goodman and the information about Goodman which TLCBass blames me for adding to the article was not written or contributed by me! It just happens that TLCBass replaces the Goodman content with her information about Carbonne and when I reverted her Carbonne edits, the Goodman material is restored as an effect of the reversion. I don't even know anything about Goodman beyond the information I have read in the article and I don't care if we have information about him or not. Her accusations are ridiculous and not grounded in fact.
- TLCBass refers to "(my) first contribution on here (without being a registered user)". Being a registered user or not is beside the point. Editing as an anon is a right protected by the foundation principles and should have nothing to do with content disputes or how a user is treated. I do have an account and I've contributed thousands of edits to Wikipedia over around five years. I've been on an extended Wikibreak since last year and over the last few months I have gradually begun editing again as an anon. I am not editing simultaneously with my account and I'm not avoiding a block, ban or other sanctions (and would be willing to prove this privately to an administrator if necessary) so I'm entitled to edit anonymously if I wish. My IP is dynamic and it changes on a regular basis, varying from every few days to every couple of months, so all my anonymous edits are not under this IP as TLCBass seems to suggest. Anons have been welcome on this project since its inception and they aren't supposed to be treated as second class citizens and I really object to the snark and abuse that TLCBass has hurled my way.
- TLCBass claims I am stalking her edits, following her around, reverting all her edits. I have not been following her, but I have been watching the articles involved. It's unfortunate that 100% of her edits to Wikipedia are about Carbonne because if she edited on other subjects instead of just trying to force information about Carbonne into the encyclopedia, she would quickly see that I'm not following her and that I'm not interested in her beyond trying to protect the integrity of the project. Had I been stalking her, I would have found her complaints about me to AN3, Sockpuppet investigations, and here and commented on all of them already, but I didn't even know about this until Ed notified me and I only found out about AN3 and SI a few minutes ago (TLCBass, it's considered good manners on this project to notify users when you make complaints about them). TLCBass is a SPA with a significant COI and I ask the administrators on this page to take a close look at what is going on here. She is also highly incivil and takes an attitude that anyone who is not on her side is against her and she uses bullying tactics, false accusations, threats to have the other party blocked if they don't yield to her and general aggression as a means to try to intimidate other users and get her own way in regards to content. Also, I see that she's still bothering the user who nominated her Carbonne article for AFD by following him to an unrelated AFD to pester him about the Carbonne AFD. [31]
- Finally, TLCBass's accusations of vandalism are untrue and offensive. By definition, good faith edits are not vandalism. All my edits to Wikipedia are made in good faith and with the best of intentions for Wikipedia and therefore under the policy cannot be classed as vandalism - "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism." Also, under the same policy, a content dispute is not vandalism - "edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism". So I ask TLCBass to stop making false accusations, accusing me of vandalism, COI etc and instead be honest about her own Conflict of Interest and then follow the recommendations laid out in the COI guideline and leave the content decisions up to other users who are not invested in Yves Carbonne and his inclusion/exclusion in this encyclopedia. 121.220.36.117 (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Also, TLCBass is trying to mislead above when she states that the Yves Carbonne article was deleted because she requested it. It was deleted as a result of the AFD as anyone who reads the AFD can see and the AFD is cited as the reason in the deletion log - [32]. 121.220.36.117 (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- I must admit that after looking at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yves_Carbonne it does seem as though TLCBass may have a COI with regard to Yves Carbonne. 121.220 whilst it is your right to remain anonymous it is also worth pointing out that having an account actually increases you anonymity and tends to garner respect (rightly or wrongly) from other editors. Can an admin confirm the claims 121.220 has made about TLCBass having a COI with Carbonne? Also a quick request to please keep comments short and to the point if possible please. :) Smartse (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- My apologies for the long reply but TLCBass has made so many accusations about me on multiple noticeboards that I did not know about until after they were archived because no one ever bothered to notify me and thus I've never had an opportunity to respond. Anyway, I've tried to cut my post down a little to respond to the key accusations on this page. Also, I do realise a user has more anonymity with an account and as I stated above I do have an established account. I am not editing anonymously because I am seeking anonymity but for personal reasons that I won't elaborate on here but would be happy to discuss this (and to identify my account and my real world identity) with an administrator privately if there are genuine concerns that I have a conflict of interest regarding this subject area. Thanks Smartse for looking into this. I appreciate it. 58.168.215.13 (talk) 03:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC) (121.220.36.117, sorry my IP has rotated again 58.168.215.13 (talk) 03:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)).
- Hmm, a quick look at User talk:TLCbass would seem to back this up. The first sentence in the deleted Yves Carbonne (presumably written by TLCbass, as they've kept it on their talk page) article read "Yves Carbonne is the most listened to French instrumentalist on the internet to date" and was unsourced. There is also a note from user:chzz with regards to a COI. Smartse (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- I must admit that after looking at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yves_Carbonne it does seem as though TLCBass may have a COI with regard to Yves Carbonne. 121.220 whilst it is your right to remain anonymous it is also worth pointing out that having an account actually increases you anonymity and tends to garner respect (rightly or wrongly) from other editors. Can an admin confirm the claims 121.220 has made about TLCBass having a COI with Carbonne? Also a quick request to please keep comments short and to the point if possible please. :) Smartse (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Ganging up me again? GOOD! Except I have better things to do with my day than argue on here. Yes, I deleted that because it was sourced back to myspace, which is the considered the record industry standard for determining an artist's popularity. But, of course, Wikipedia did not approve that, so I removed it. And 121... perhaps if you didn't act like a stalker, you wouldn't be accused of being one...TruthBeTold (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've looked at lots of pages involved with this and I'm starting to think that maybe neither of you have a COI and that this is just an edit war. TLCbass definitely appears to be a fan of Yves Carbonne (at least judging by Yves Carbonne's myspace page) but this doesn't constitute a COI. 121, you accuse TLCbass of being Carbonne's partner here do you have any evidence? (be careful not to out her though if you do-a diff would be the best way to do this). It would also help if you knew what your IP was before 121 so we can all look at your previous edits. From your history at 121 you haven't added the info on Garry but I can't tell whether you did before. Let's please try and resolve this. Thanks Smartse (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, look, I'm not going to write anymore here. I have said enough about this and provided enough clues (starting with the deleted revs to Yves Carbonne where she admitted it in edit summaries) and this section is long enough as it is. In my experience on Wikipedia the longer threads become, the less and less likely it is that the right people will actually read them. I could provide every IP I've ever used and it still wouldn't prove that I didn't add that information about Garry Goodman so it's really pointless. I mean, I could have used an account to do it, open proxies, public IPs etc, right, so it's pointless expecting me to prove that I wasn't the one who added it. Really what it boils down to is that as an anon I have no credibility unless I sign into my account and prove that I'm an established and trusted user on this project, which is something I am unprepared to do at this point. So instead I will contact an administrator privately, identify my account and my real world identity and address this with them. Thanks, 58.168.215.13 (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- As an admin viewing the deleted revisions, I can confirm that there are several deleted revisions on the "Yves Carbonne" article where TLCbass specifically, unambiguously refers to themselves as an "authorized party". Edit summaries include "I am absolutely authorized to put ALL information on this page. Whoever keeps changing it - STOP RIGHT NOW!" (used twice in an edit war on, get this, 1 April 2009), and on the same day, "Correcting and updating information. I am an authorized editor.". This was the same day they first started editing the page, adding almost 80% of it. Some of the contents included unencyclopaedic passages such as: "One might infer from the sounds heard on Seven Waves, the instrument when in played in France, sounds as if it has the potential to register on Richter scales in the Americas." and "What Carbonne captures in this recording is the powerful rock solid, bass register underpinning of a brew of all these elements, with musical intuition that renews familiar conventions with a freshness and emotional intensity that at once seems as genuinely felt as it is intelligently composed." The user created their account 4 minutes before their first edit to the Yves Carbonne article which added 5k to its length, with the edit summary "Added accurate, up to date information 3-30-2009". Their AfD comments on their third day of editing showed a disgraceful lack of regard for Wikipedia policy and for fellow editors and users. Orderinchaos 04:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, look, I'm not going to write anymore here. I have said enough about this and provided enough clues (starting with the deleted revs to Yves Carbonne where she admitted it in edit summaries) and this section is long enough as it is. In my experience on Wikipedia the longer threads become, the less and less likely it is that the right people will actually read them. I could provide every IP I've ever used and it still wouldn't prove that I didn't add that information about Garry Goodman so it's really pointless. I mean, I could have used an account to do it, open proxies, public IPs etc, right, so it's pointless expecting me to prove that I wasn't the one who added it. Really what it boils down to is that as an anon I have no credibility unless I sign into my account and prove that I'm an established and trusted user on this project, which is something I am unprepared to do at this point. So instead I will contact an administrator privately, identify my account and my real world identity and address this with them. Thanks, 58.168.215.13 (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Myspace is considered a record industry source? Somebody should have a read of WP:V and WP:RS, methinks... Orderinchaos 03:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- (moved from above for visibility) I can vouch for the identity of the IP address as being a long-serving user and administrator in good standing, who has not significantly edited from their main account for some time - in fact they've resolved some contentious issues at BLPs between warring parties in the past 12-18 months on a number of occasions. I also agree that it's insane that someone should have to sign into their account to have any credibility - that isn't the principles on which this project was based, and I myself edited as an anon for nearly a year before registering and, back then, was never challenged once or treated any differently for it. The behaviour of User:TLCbass should be separately investigated in my view. Orderinchaos 03:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok that settles it then in my opinion, thanks for revealing that Orderinchaos. There is absolutely no evidence of the IP having a COI and yet there is strong evidence for TLCbass having one. I think this is now resolved although the Extended-range bass article needs to be changed accordingly. Smartse (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Who are you?? Nothing is settled and no one has heard anything from the contributor (not me) who's info was removed again. You people really do conduct yourselves like a lynch mob...
Even though Yves Carbonne has an astronomically larger fan base, substantially more references, is praised all over every bass forum online, has been recognized by the International Institute of Bassists, has been reviewed and interviewed several times in Bass Musician Magazine, has been reviewed in Bass Player Magazine, etc. And Gary Goodman has not. Interesting.
Furthermore, to go into Michael Manring's page, and actually remove part of HIS discography because you all apparently have a vendetta in play here, is reprehensible. Perhaps I will write to Michael Manring and let him know that you have defaced HIS page, IP121. There is something VERY underhanded going on here, about the viciousness involved of people ganging up to remove Carbonne. It is actually sick. I am not ruining my holiday arguing with you people who are evidently clueless re: the bass world. I will wait until the luthier whose entries you removed, 121, has a say in this. He's probably just disgusted at what he sees, and doesn't want to bother arguing with you people. And if Carbonne's fans get wind of what is going on here, you can be sure you will be hearing from them as well. Really, at this point, what you are all doing is just plain twisted. I have better things to do with my time than getting aggravated arguing with people who are obviously involved personally in making sure that Carbonne is not on here, i.e. persecuted (because of clear conflict of interest... I suppose that is why you are all turning everything around, and accusing me of a COI) and promoting Gary Goodman, who has apparently taken over the page as his personal promo page, although he has few if any fans out there. But it's apparently OK that his name is mentioned a whopping 6 times on there - without ONE source. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, smartse... It's clear: wiki rules apply selectively, not impartially. At this point, I am all out of tact. I suspect there are several sock/meat puppets involved, several people with a COI, and I think there is something VERY wrong going on relative to the blatant persecution and favoritism going on here. And if the shoe fits, wear it. In fact, what you all are doing by outing a notable, widely respected artist, and preventing interested parties from accessing information about him on this particular site, is just out and out perverse. So keep promoting metalheads and Garry Goodman and out widely respected artists with huge fan bases, and see how quickly your credibility as a site goes down the tubes. Perhaps you should have read the articles I wasted my time putting on here for your review, instead of finding excuses as to why you couldn't because your internet connections didn't work. If this wasn't so pathetic, it would be laughable. TLCbass (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Please note my use of in my opinion others are welcome to say whether they agree or disagree. Please do disagree anybody, if you think that my last post is incorrect. Are you accusing me of being a sock/meatpuppet and adding info RE Garry Goodman?! Who am I? I'm a student who first and foremost respects wikipedia for the fact that information on it is not added by people with a COI. That's why I look over the cases posted here. Your COI is singing out to me loudly, as illustrated by the above discussion. Smartse (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't even *play* bass so I don't see how I could have a vendetta (I'm a six stringer myself). About all I know about bass is that the guys from Red Hot Chilli Peppers and Faith No More are pretty good and that I can sort of do an acceptable effort trialling them in a music store. As for 121, who is from the other side of the world from Carbonne and had never heard of him until the AfD last month, I'm pretty sure they don't play any instrument, and neither 121 nor myself had ever dealt with Smartse or any other person here prior to this incident. Orderinchaos 14:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have confirmed my Wikipedia username and my real world identity to the administrator Orderinchaos and I'm sure that he can confirm that he is more than satisfied that I do not work in the music industry or any remotely related field. I do not have a conflict of interest but you do. I think the fact this upsets you so much and makes you so angry and abusive highlights why you should step back and leave this up to other people who are not invested in Carbonne. Also, have you ever heard the saying that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar? It goes double on Wikipedia. You will find that people here are far more amenable if you are polite and treat them with respect rather than abusing anyone who doesn't instantly agrees with your opinion of Carbonne and launching into false and laughable accusations of every wiki-crime you can think of without a shred of evidence in an apparent hope that if you sling enough mud eventually some of it will stick. To now accuse uninvolved people like Smartse and Orderinchaos of having a COI or being socks is just ridiculous. 121.219.164.214 (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was taking the long weekend off. A couple of points now that I'm caught up on the above. I am able to view the bass-musician-magazine.com articles now. The "About Yves Carbonne" article seems a bit promotional, but the section on tuning the sub-bass frequencies, which is what was cited from that article, strikes me as ok. Combined with the Jerzy Drozd link, the inclusion of that info in the article does not seem problematic to me, as it contained the cited fact on that tuning, and left out the promotional tone ("a pioneer in electric bass development") that the articles contain. The "Why Fretless" article was written BY Carbonne, so may not appropriate as it is a primary source.
- Secondly, TLCBass, please stop accusing everyone of a COI, Sockpuppetry, etc. Wikipedia has a very specific definition of COI, and repeatedly accusing people in the absence of any solid evidence can be considered a personal attack. "Why else would they be doing this" is not considered solid evidence. So far, the closest thing to COI proof was yourself stating you were authorized to make edits, which suggests a close relation to the topic, which IS the Wikipedia definition of a COI.
- Lastly, IP121, you stated that the Carbonne info may be ok in the article, as long as TLC is not the one adding it due to a perceived COI. According to the COI guidelines here, a COI-affected editor may still edit the article they may be in conflict with, as long as they maintain a neutral tone. Regardless of TLC's COI or lack-of-one, the Carbonne edits don't seem promotional or biased to me (admittedly not anything close to an expert in this area).
- I AGAIN encourage the parties to discuss constructively on the talk pages of the articles, rather than slinging COI accusations, posting vandalism reports, and so on. If TLC wants X in the article, discuss why. If IP121 does not want X there, discuss why. Discuss how this roadblock can be worked around. Build a consensus. ArakunemTalk 15:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, what I'm saying is that I personally don't care if Carbonne is mentioned in an appropriate article or not (but I don't think he should be discussed in all the articles TLCBass wants him in) but because this topic has been so contentious - the material has been removed by several people, not just by me, the concerns about his notability raised at and around the AFD and in other discussions, and the discussion on various talk pages like Talk:Bass_guitar#Addition_of_Bassists_and_Bands_2 and Talk:Extended-range_bass where no one but TLCBass has supported inclusion of Carbonne, any content decisions regarding this should not be made by someone who is so patently and clearly partial, invested and compromised as TLCBass. I'm personally not at all convinced of this fellow's notability under the guideline, but as I've said on the talk page of Talk:Extended-range bass, I would accept an uninvested, established editor making a content decision, but I do not accept a self-admitted representative of the artist making such a decision in the face of an active lack of consensus amongst other editors and then returning regularly to enforce the content. TLCBass has no edits outside Yves Carbonne and really appears to come here just to police Carbonne content in those articles and I absolutely do not accept her editorial judgment in this matter. Also, I find that a rather superficial description of the Conflict of Interest guideline. While the guideline states that COI isn't reason enough on it's own to reject edits, it also states that general policies must be adhered to and clearly there are a variety of policies and guidelines that TLCBass is violating (WP:CON, especially, plus WP:EW, WP:OWN, WP:CIV, are just a few policies that come to mind). As a conflict of interest editor, it was fine for her to add the material but once it was clear that Carbonne's inclusion was contentious and that there was no consensus, under both the COI guideline and general Wikipedia policies, she should have stopped, discussed it, and reached a compromise with others on those articles. And she was asked to do this many times by different editors and administrators. Instead, she edit warred and tried to police and enforce the content against an active lack of support and without a consensus. (Not saying that I'm faultless as I recognise that I should have pursued WP:DR and I regret not filing a ANI/AN3 report because although she didn't violate 3RR in a 24 hour period she has violated other aspects of the policy as well as CIV and NPA and reporting it may have helped resolve this earlier). 121.219.164.214 (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Resolved- Canadian Children's Rights Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Parental alienation syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Parental alienation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- S-MorrisVP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Smith research (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked until 25.05)
- JaniceMT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
In addition to egregious POV pushing and a whole lot of other nonsense, I believe I've just recieved a notice that there is a conflict of interest problem [33]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, a blatant COI issue here. S-MorrisVP has also complained here that other users have "taken control" of the article on her organisation - in clear contradiction of WP:OWN. All their edits so far have been adding links to the Canadian Children's Rights Council's website and the user has been blocked twice before and been warned about the COI before yet continues to edit as before. The article listed here seems to be taken care of but I think some other articles may need a look over. I gather from the WP:ANI that this is not an isolated user. I've added some other users and articles to the top of this. Smartse (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've blocked the editors involved and indefinitely protected CCRC; see this AN/I thread. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 05:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
ResolvedCould someone at this noticeboard take a look at CV Travel and see if this article still has an advertising tone? The article initially had some advertising elements but I think I've cleaned it up. Quartermaster (talk · contribs) has added an {{advert}} tag to the article because they believe that this article is still promotional. I disagree, and we are discussing this at Talk:CV Travel. Please comment there as to whether or not the article is promotional. Thanks for taking a look at this, Cunard (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- The tone is ok, but the article strikes me as overly detailed. It reads like a brochure, not an advertisement. So while I've seen worse, I think you're not quite there yet. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 13:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
QuotationMan is a Single Purpose Account
- Libertas.eu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Declan Ganley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 86.45.196.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- QuotationMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - appears to be a Single Purpose Account, editing on Declan Ganley and Libertas.eu Ledenierhomme (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest a checkuser Catalpa (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- He had been removing well-sourced critical material from the two articles, suggesting he was editing in support of his personal POV. QuotationMan was blocked 24 hours on 21 May and has not resumed since the block. An IP editor, 86.45.196.61, started removing text and references from Declan Ganley on 23 May with no edit summaries, so I've semiprotected that article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Wise to semi protect I should have asked earlier. 91.189.71.198
- He had been removing well-sourced critical material from the two articles, suggesting he was editing in support of his personal POV. QuotationMan was blocked 24 hours on 21 May and has not resumed since the block. An IP editor, 86.45.196.61, started removing text and references from Declan Ganley on 23 May with no edit summaries, so I've semiprotected that article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
started that pattern of editing out of references and I assume that they are related IPs. The latter is most likely Rivada Networks/Libertas based at Mr. Ganley's house in Tuam, Co Galway. That presents another WP:COI issue. 91.189.71.198 - Geo Information, IP Address 91.189.71.198 Host ptr-71-198.knr.ip.airwire.ie, Location IE, Ireland City Tuam, 10 Organization Airwire.
The latter Ip removed most of quite a good page that had begun to get hit with weasel words and silly edits but was more or less stable. Footnotes had been at 58 well sourced references. The issue would be to rebuild without violations of WP:BLP esp. as the subject is running for election. Catapla (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Not a single purpose account
This is not a single purpose account. Aside from writing about Libertas, Ganley and on related pages, I also write about the Democratic Deficit and Judicial Activism.
Like everyone else editing Libertas, Declan Ganley my point of view is not neutral. However, it is allowed for people without a neutral point of view to make certain edits on Wikipedia, in order to defend the privacy / reputation of a private person or organisation. I am with my non-neutral point of view allowed to defend Declan Ganley's and Libertas' privacy and reputation on Wikipedia.
- Political parties and movements have no right of privacy to protect; don't be absurd. Your obviously non-neutral POV is showing. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- indent
- Libertas.eu is a pan-European political party with aspirations to become a political party at European level that has attracted the support of the President of the Czech Republic, the former Prime Minister of Latvia, elements of the far-right, has at least seven member parties, approximately twenty-six affiliate parties, (there's a question mark over Lithuania) and is running at least 500 member/affiliate candidates in sixteen countries for the European Parliament election, 2009. Whatever it may be, a "private organization" it is not. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- indent ends
Catalpa, Truthinirishpolitics and Gerfinch do NOT have neutral points of view and must not be allowed to add controversies, change nationality to English, label Rivada a military contractor etc. When your point of view is NOT neutral you are allowed to defend reputation, privacy - NOT attack it.
--QuotationMan (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Mr Ganley's nationality has been the subject of a lot of press coverage it is clear he was born in the UK and claims Irish citizenship. can you point to the diffs that assert I have said anything else?
Rivada is a military contractor as its contracts are with the military see Irish Times 29 10 2009 or 46 military contracts awarded to Rivada
It is also clear that you are only editing on the Ganley Libertas pages Catapla (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Since User:QuotationMan has returned to the article and continued to delete well-sourced criticism, without waiting to get support for his changes on the talk page, I have blocked him for a week for disruptive editing. A note has been left that his block can be lifted early if he will agree to stay off the Declan Ganley article and limit himself to the Talk page. I welcome review of this block by other editors. EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- QuotationMan is now unblocked, subject to a promise to stay off the Libertas and Ganley-related articles and to limit himself to the talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- On my talk, QuotationMan has claimed that three editors here are all related to a blog called PeopleKorps... which is a semi-professional campaign against Libertas. I have not seen any evidence of fishy editing by people who oppose Libertas, but there is actual evidence that PeopleKorps wants to affect the Wikipedia article on Declan Ganley. Here on the PeopleKorps site you see this comment: If you edit on Wikipedia you might like to add some of the sources and info back in. If you don't edit do sign up and help stop Libertas employees destroying an open source resource. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- I need to point out that the PeopleKorps blog is unusable as a wikiresource: it's a blog and a somewhat erratically phrased one at that. I've certainly never used it as a source (please, please feel free to go thru my edits), and I suspect (given the timings) that it uses us as a source. To preempt accusations, I now need to point out that I am not related to that blog and I have never edited it. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- On my talk, QuotationMan has claimed that three editors here are all related to a blog called PeopleKorps... which is a semi-professional campaign against Libertas. I have not seen any evidence of fishy editing by people who oppose Libertas, but there is actual evidence that PeopleKorps wants to affect the Wikipedia article on Declan Ganley. Here on the PeopleKorps site you see this comment: If you edit on Wikipedia you might like to add some of the sources and info back in. If you don't edit do sign up and help stop Libertas employees destroying an open source resource. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- QuotationMan is now unblocked, subject to a promise to stay off the Libertas and Ganley-related articles and to limit himself to the talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I have to concur, it would appear that PeopleKorps blog uses this site as a source. It has not been used as a source on main page edits as a reference/source. I believe I have once used a link on a talk page as a ref to some WP:RS sources that were posted there with links. The issue that I was disturbed about recently was several IPs and then newly registered users removing the substance and sources from pages. Those sources being all complying with [[WP:RS]. I have maintained a scrupulous NPOV policy in my edits Catapla (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
That is true, there are no links in any article to PeopleKorps blog. The accusation made by QuotationMan doesn't really add up. Anameofmyveryown and Catapla are both experienced editors and the articles they've been involved with about Libertas look fine to me. I also found this which certainly raises the possibility that somebody with a COI may have been editing Declan Ganley to give it a favourable spin. Smartse (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think that this is resolved for the moment - QuotationMan has agreed not to edit articles related to Libertas.eu and at least for the moment they are keeping to their word. Judging from the press coverage the articles need watching however to make sure no new editors appear removing well sourced but controversial information. If any suspicious editing occurs I suggest that it be reported immediately. Smartse (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Flowerman11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bloomex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Adding three other pro-Bloomex SPAs: Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Floralexpert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Alexflorist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 64.230.12.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Flowerman11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s edits on Bloomex suggest he is in some way related to the company. He continually reverts cited criticism and has just added "Some consumers and business rivals are trying to use this fact to discredit Bloomex business." to the article. [34] (ignore part of my edit summary, I was getting confused about who did what, Bloomex does in fact ignore BBB complaints, but that is not the only reason for its unsatisfactory rating). Dougweller (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Watch out for WP:SYNTH too. It's definitely original research to try to spin criticism by juxtaposing unconnected citations dissing the critic. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Flowerman11 was blocked 24h, and has not continued since. The IP listed above hasn't edited in 2009. The other two are new accounts and can't edit due to semiprotection. The currently running AfD on Bloomex seems likely to end in Keep, since there are press mentions of this company. Anyone who has some spare time could look at the article and see if the criticism that is still included there comes from reliable sources. The BBB reference looks legit but the others may need examination. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Flowerman11 is back, has removed most of the disputed material again, and appears to have admitted to a COI ("i did some contract job for them"). Rees11 (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- The criticism section includes some two valid items but two others that seem inappropriate. The BBB rating is OK. Ellen Roseman's blog comment should also make the grade, since she is a Star columnist. The two others are not reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. The comments at redflagdeals.com and ripoffreports.com are *forum posts* from individual Bloomex customers. EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, that's what I've been arguing on the article talk page. Rees11 (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Flowerman11 was indef blocked by Blueboy96, but Floralexpert continues to edit. He had previously changed the Bloomex article to remove reference to the company's low BBB rating. His most recent change is at Florists' Transworld Delivery. I will notify him that he has been mentioned here. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, that's what I've been arguing on the article talk page. Rees11 (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
We might add 5alextheflorist, who just blanked much of Talk:Bloomex. --CliffC (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- 5alextheflorist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User:Levanteditor, User:Nora abazed, et al.
- Levanteditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Nora abazed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Quinn56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Abdulsalam Haykal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Transtek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article was speedily deleted and has since been restored
- Forward Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Compass ERP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) speedy delete requested and declined
User:Levanteditor appears to be a single purpose account that has solely contributed material related to Abdulsalam Haykal since its creation in 2008. Such articles include Haykal's, which was created by this account, along with Transtek (a Haykal company), Compass ERP (a Haykal product) and Forward Magazine (a Haykal Media publication). This user edits in close harmony with User:Nora abazed, an account that was created within a day or so of User:Levanteditor and occasionally with User:Quinn56, an account created on the same day. I've tagged Transtek and Abdulsalam Haykal articles with {{COI}} a total of 6 times, but one or another of these accounts has eventually reverted 5 of them. I've posted on article and user talk pages and tried to establish a dialog (here and here, for example), but without ever receiving an answer as to why the accounts revert the {{COI}} tags. This could use some community attention. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 02:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- N.B. Transtek was nominated for speedy deletion on 2009-05-24 by User:Smartse under A7, was subsequently deleted and has since been restored. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 16:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Since my original post above, User:Nora abazed has twice vandalized Talk:Abdulsalam Haykal by blanking most of the page. I've reverted each change and coincidentally posted {{uw-delete}} warnings on the user's talk page, much to the dismay of the user. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 15:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Once the Transtek article was restored, two of the accounts cited above added bogus citations supporting the claim that "Transtek is the largest business software firm in Syria." The first was a video-blog interview with Transtek's president, the second was a reference to Transtek's own web site. The restored article also contains a citation to an article about Transtek's anti-money laundering software, but the article appears in a magazine published by Transtek's president.
- This case could become a poster child for prohibiting COI-editing on Wikipedia. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 16:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
User:AskMissA
- AskMissA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -
- Andrea Rodgers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Courage Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Late Night Shots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Gregory R. Ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User created autobiographical page Andrea Rodgers and also created The Courage Cup with links to her; subsequently has modified existing references within Late Night Shots and Gregory R. Ball to include positive/peacock words linking to her. Notability may not be an issue, but the conflict of interest is very visible and is degrading the quality of the other articles. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with the above. User is obviously the subject of the Andrea Rodgers article, from which I removed multiple words to avoid from, as well as hiding a potentially defamatory statement about another living person that had no source. User was
warnednotified about COItwice, and does not respond to any attempts to discuss issues on their talk pages, but continues to edit the article(s). User also removes COI tags and CSD tags (placed by someone else) on the articles they have created. (This is not a judgment of whether the deletions should occur, but simply that one should not remove CSD tags from articles one created themselves.) User's history shows they are also inserting themselves into a multitude of other articles, back-linking to the new autobiographical article, and giving themselves undue weight in those other articles. It would be much more helpful if the person were open to dialog, rather than continuing to edit articles about themselves. It also appears there may be another editor with COI involved, or more likely, the same person with another name, judging from the edit that was made. Ariel♥Gold 11:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with the above. User is obviously the subject of the Andrea Rodgers article, from which I removed multiple words to avoid from, as well as hiding a potentially defamatory statement about another living person that had no source. User was
AskMissA has continued to edit articles despite requests to discuss the COI here. Andrea Rodgers is now at AfD here. Smartse (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- AskMissA has been blocked for having a promotional username by Orange Mike. Smartse (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- The Courage Cup is now also at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Courage_Cup Smartse (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Dispute in Yeng Constantino
- Yeng Constantino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Iloveyengconstantino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Had to report this one, as there is an incident of COI in that article, with at least one user, User:Iloveyengconstantino, along with several IPs, adding point-of-view content on the page. He/she was warned recently but he/she seems to have ignored it. Username suggests a possible COI/single-purpose fan account. Blake Gripling (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Stop Climate Chaos
- Stopclimatechaos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Timystic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
A few weeks ago User:Stopclimatechaos started spamming links to www.stopclimatechaos.org into the articles of numerous organizations said to be members of the campaiging group Stop Climate Chaos Coalition (over 100 members). The user was blocked as a role account and spammer, and an unblock declined here. They seem to be back with a rather more subtle approach: new user User:Timystic has created Category:Stop climate chaos and is busy adding that to dozens of articles. I'm in two minds whether this is spamming in contravention of WP:COI and WP:NOTSOAP or just about acceptable - what do others think? JohnCD (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- I would just like to explain my actions. I am not trying to spam at all, just trying to create a category (similar to that of Greenpeace) to show the members of the Stop Climate Chaos coalition. I will halt if you prefer. Timystic (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Well the real issue is whether you have a COI with regard to Stop Climate Chaos. I can see that creating this category is perhaps sensible but the organisations are already listed on Stop Climate Chaos so having a separate category does seem a little unnecessary. Links between Stop Climate Chaos and other organisations should probably only be added to the organisations' articles if there is a notable reason to do so (i.e. more than just being a member). It would help if Timysticcould reveal whether they have a COI. Smartse (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- I am a member of one its many subsidary organisations, People and Planet. I was researching campaigning organisations, and found that the Stop Climate Chaos page little reflected what I have understood of it. I created a category because I was looking at Greenpeace earlier this morning. If this counts as COI, which I am uncertain it is, then by all means, my edits are removable. I was using the www.stopclimatechaos.org.uk as my source of information on editing and creating a category. Timystic (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Dana smk
Dana smk (talk · contribs) - see above: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:62.117.66.228. This is the same person, and admits to be. --RCS (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
STATISTICA / StatSoft
- STATISTICA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Employee(s) of StatSoft have been contributing to their products and companies page. Several efforts have been made to help correct the NPOV nature of the articles. The user REDACTED is open to some discourse. However, after two years of being informed of the article's contradictions to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines sufficient changes still have not been made. For a clear example of the NPOV nature see Importing data with Statistica. R.Vinson (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'd also like to note: I do not have experience in dealing with WP:COI or WP:NPOV issues. So, I did not want to take any actions with COI/NPOV tags. R.Vinson (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I've added a db-spam template to the page. While it's possible this software package really is notable, I see no assertion of notability, no references, and no doubt that it "would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic." I did not look at the COI issue, which is a separate problem. Rees11 (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- The speedy was declined - I agree a google news search doesn't exactly reveal notability but a scholar search of StatSoft STATISTICA does at least show that scientists use it - I guess newspapers aren't too interested in stats! R.Vinson, what evidence do you have that these editors are employees? Please provide any WP:diffs that show that they have admitted being employees. Please be aware of WP:OUTING if they have not said so directly. Alternatively provide diffs of blatant edits that could only be known by employees. Cheers Smartse (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Smartse, after re-reading the outing policy the editor in question did not specifically state their employment with Statsoft. I'm not sure I can provide diff's... this would lead to the implication the person is question is an employee of the company. I'm kind of at a blank here and not sure how to proceed. I redacted the editor's Name in the original comment.R.Vinson (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I do think it would be more effective to pursue this as POV, advert, and maybe even AfD than as COI. Also check for copyright violations, as much of the text looks like it might have been copied from a sales brochure. I would certainly start with an advert tag. Rees11 (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
WP:Outing hypothetical question
there is a user who apparently is the lead developer of a certain type of software, but develops under an obvious pseudonym, and not a real name. this user also edits the wikipedia article about the software under the same pseudonym. would it be outing the user to point out this direct COI? As far as I can tell, no real names or real identification is being being revealed, just a link between the same distinct pseudonyms. this user is also using sockpuppetry, which I'm going to file a SPI report about, but i am not sure if the details of the COI should be mentioned. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's possible to argue that there's a COI without having to name names. If the editor disputes that he is involved then it gets harder. I suggest discussing the COI guidelines on his talk page as a first step. Will Beback talk 20:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- i sent a COI notice to his talk page, and he reverted it as vandalism, then reverse warned me for false warnings... he really shouldn't be edit warring and making personal attacks on an article about a product that he's the lead developer, but i have no idea how to approach this further. Theserialcomma (talk)
- I agree with Will, you can probably show it without using this evidence. That being said, often here, people may point out that googling the username and article may provide some interesting information. I can't see what is wrong with this. Why not tell us what the article is so that more people can take a look? Smartse (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- i sent a COI notice to his talk page, and he reverted it as vandalism, then reverse warned me for false warnings... he really shouldn't be edit warring and making personal attacks on an article about a product that he's the lead developer, but i have no idea how to approach this further. Theserialcomma (talk)
- I checked your contributions list and I only see a sock puppet notice. Regardless, the reason we have a COI policy is that COI editors tend to have problems following core WP policies, like NPOV and V. If an editor has been briefed on the COI guidelines and then edits in an exemplary manner then there's little reason to pursue it further. However if they use improper sources, engage in original research, or fail to present information in a neutral manner then those problems can be dealt with in the usual ways. [PS: I've left a notice on his talk page about COI.] Will Beback talk 21:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- the article is Eggdrop and the user is User:Tothwolf. I believe that he is using improper sources, and edit warring to include a wiki as a source. after i attempted to remove the wiki as a source, he called me vandal. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- A wiki might be used as a convenience link. It could be tolerated as a source for 'what they say they do', but not for controversial assertions. Was someone trying to use the wiki for more than that? EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- the article is Eggdrop and the user is User:Tothwolf. I believe that he is using improper sources, and edit warring to include a wiki as a source. after i attempted to remove the wiki as a source, he called me vandal. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I checked your contributions list and I only see a sock puppet notice. Regardless, the reason we have a COI policy is that COI editors tend to have problems following core WP policies, like NPOV and V. If an editor has been briefed on the COI guidelines and then edits in an exemplary manner then there's little reason to pursue it further. However if they use improper sources, engage in original research, or fail to present information in a neutral manner then those problems can be dealt with in the usual ways. [PS: I've left a notice on his talk page about COI.] Will Beback talk 21:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
WP:V says:
- Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.[nb 4]
I checked the wiki in question and it appears to be open. There is no apparent restriction on creating an account or editing. Depedning on the type of information being sourced, it's conceivable that it could be usable, such as the circumstance that EdJohnston mentions. Separately, the user in question is making a cross complaint that Theserialcomma is harassing him, so I suggest that for the time being Theserialcomma refrain from dealing with the COI issue directly. Will Beback talk 22:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I asked the editor directly if he had a conflict of interest but he dodged the question, which I take to be an implicit acknowledgement. I've asked him to stop editing the article directly, per WP:COI, and to use the talk page to propose changes instead. The edit warring over a dubious source is of particular concern. Will Beback talk 22:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Looking at the article Eggdrop, I have to admit - looking from a real-world, Planet Earth, point of view - I can't imagine why this thing is viewed as worthy of an article. Looks like a product of systemic bias: over-representation on Wikipedia of people who think internetwank is notable. Worth an AFD?Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Google Scholar finds 55 references so a AFD would likely fail.[35] More reliance on scholarly sources may resolve the editorial dispute. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)
I would ask that the people who have been commenting here check the now closed SPI that User:Theserialcomma opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tothwolf shortly before posting on COI/N. Specifically see the links I provided. User:Theserialcomma opened a false SPI and posted here after the discussion on Talk:Eggdrop did not go in their favor. User:Theserialcomma has been targeting articles I've worked on and this one just happened to be at the top of User:X!'s edit counter on toolserver [36]. Multiple admins are aware of the disruption User:Theserialcomma has been causing after I called them out on their pointy nominations at AfD. See the links I provided on the SPI page, User:Theserialcomma's contrib history and my contrib history. No edit warring took place on Eggdrop, the history link will clear that right up. I made one revert and also added references for the section of text User:Theserialcomma had removed in an attempt to be disruptive that User:MuZemike had restored.
--Tothwolf (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Tothwolf: the COI issue has nothing to do with the sockpuppet issue or the activities of Theserialcomma. You clearly have a conflict of interest with the Eggdrop article, which you have failed to acknowledge, as strongly encouraged by the WP:COI guideline that you've said you're familiar with. Can you give a reason why you need to continue editing the article, despite being strongly discouraged by Wikipedia guideline? Will Beback talk 03:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Will, Actually it has everything to do with the SPI and Theserialcomma. I've contributed to 100s of open source software projects over the years, including a huge number related to IRC. As I've already mentioned, my edits when dealing with Wikipedia articles are always from neutral point of view and I'm very much aware of how important reliable sources are. My intentions are to write accurate articles, I have no reason to write "junk" as it would serve no purpose. As I've also mentioned previously, Theserialcomma has been an instigator here as no one previously had any issues with edits I've made to any of these articles. You might want to check out WP:WPIRC as well. The "wiki" Theserialcomma took issue with is not even related to Eggdrop, although Theserialcomma certainly implied that it was. Talk:Eggdrop and the history link on the Eggdrop article are both quite telling. I certainly did not edit war with anyone as Theserialcomma also claimed. Check the history on the article for yourself. Also, Theserialcomma has been attempting to locate my personal info online and yesterday hit a number of webservers including my personal site and I have the apache webserver logs from those activities. In their first post to COI/N Theserialcomma made it quite clear they had been attempting to dig into my personal matters, including my name, which as far as I'm concerned was highly inappropriate. I don't think I've actually added too much text to the Eggdrop article either. The main thing I've done is add references and refactor much of the existing text. At some point it would be good to expand it, but as the article would easily survive AfD as it is, I'm more motivated to fix some of the more neglected articles right now. You can clearly see this from the edit history on the Eggdrop article itself as well since I've not done anything substantial to it in quite some time. All that said, again I'm well aware that I need to be cautious when editing articles and I always attempt to do so from a NPOV.
And Will, the way in which you approached me was not very welcoming and I can only assume you did not first check into my full contrib history and took what Theserialcomma was claiming at face value.
--Tothwolf (talk) 03:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Will, Actually it has everything to do with the SPI and Theserialcomma. I've contributed to 100s of open source software projects over the years, including a huge number related to IRC. As I've already mentioned, my edits when dealing with Wikipedia articles are always from neutral point of view and I'm very much aware of how important reliable sources are. My intentions are to write accurate articles, I have no reason to write "junk" as it would serve no purpose. As I've also mentioned previously, Theserialcomma has been an instigator here as no one previously had any issues with edits I've made to any of these articles. You might want to check out WP:WPIRC as well. The "wiki" Theserialcomma took issue with is not even related to Eggdrop, although Theserialcomma certainly implied that it was. Talk:Eggdrop and the history link on the Eggdrop article are both quite telling. I certainly did not edit war with anyone as Theserialcomma also claimed. Check the history on the article for yourself. Also, Theserialcomma has been attempting to locate my personal info online and yesterday hit a number of webservers including my personal site and I have the apache webserver logs from those activities. In their first post to COI/N Theserialcomma made it quite clear they had been attempting to dig into my personal matters, including my name, which as far as I'm concerned was highly inappropriate. I don't think I've actually added too much text to the Eggdrop article either. The main thing I've done is add references and refactor much of the existing text. At some point it would be good to expand it, but as the article would easily survive AfD as it is, I'm more motivated to fix some of the more neglected articles right now. You can clearly see this from the edit history on the Eggdrop article itself as well since I've not done anything substantial to it in quite some time. All that said, again I'm well aware that I need to be cautious when editing articles and I always attempt to do so from a NPOV.
- Tothwolf: the COI issue has nothing to do with the sockpuppet issue or the activities of Theserialcomma. You clearly have a conflict of interest with the Eggdrop article, which you have failed to acknowledge, as strongly encouraged by the WP:COI guideline that you've said you're familiar with. Can you give a reason why you need to continue editing the article, despite being strongly discouraged by Wikipedia guideline? Will Beback talk 03:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Here's the article link to assist readers of this COI report:
- Theserialcomma seems to be a relative newcomer to the Eggdrop article (first edit 26 May) but that shouldn't prevent him from pointing out problems with an article and getting them discussed in a calm manner. The situation seems to have gone into red alert very quickly, and one suspects that these editors didn't like each other even before they interacted on the Eggdrop article. The eggdrop.org wiki seems to fulfill the role that a company website might occupy for commercial software products. Generally we allow just one link to a company website in the article about the company, unless there is something of great interest that needs to be called out specifically. I'd suggest that Eggdrop would be a better article if all the links into eggdrop.org were reduced to one. The items that are 'referenced' to eggdrop.org probably are of minor importance to an encyclopedia article, and they are so detailed they would be better placed on a website dedicated to the product. There is a section of regular third-party references in the article that is useful and should be kept and expanded. I agree with Walter Siegmund that additional references should be sought using Google Scholar. EdJohnston (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ed, there is no eggdrop.org wiki or "Eggdrop company". Eggdrop is an open source software program supported by community members who volunteer their time to write code, bugfixes, and documentation using an open model not too unlike a Wiki (the main difference being patches and changes do get peer reviewed). There is no commercial activity by this project whatsoever. Also, the ref that Theserialcomma complained about is to the Tcl wiki, which is an officlal wiki for the Tcl developers. It is unrelated to Eggdrop. See the discussion on Talk:Eggdrop for the details. Theserialcomma popped up in that article simply to be disruptive after checking my contribution history. I hadn't actually done any substantial editing on it in quite some time. The last thing I did looking at the history was fix something minor in the infobox. Tothwolf (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oops, my mistake. I modify my suggestion: eliminate all the items in the current 'Reference' section, since there are no reliable sources there. Then, take what's currently in the 'Books and publications' section and make those be the references. Provide convenience links (under External Links) to one or two well-known forums or places where Eggdrop help or information is often provided. Regarding what you say is your limited current role in the Eggdrop article, if you are willing to take a holiday from editing the article, this COI complaint can be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ed, there is no eggdrop.org wiki or "Eggdrop company". Eggdrop is an open source software program supported by community members who volunteer their time to write code, bugfixes, and documentation using an open model not too unlike a Wiki (the main difference being patches and changes do get peer reviewed). There is no commercial activity by this project whatsoever. Also, the ref that Theserialcomma complained about is to the Tcl wiki, which is an officlal wiki for the Tcl developers. It is unrelated to Eggdrop. See the discussion on Talk:Eggdrop for the details. Theserialcomma popped up in that article simply to be disruptive after checking my contribution history. I hadn't actually done any substantial editing on it in quite some time. The last thing I did looking at the history was fix something minor in the infobox. Tothwolf (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)