Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard
| 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:
|
Jonathan Cohler
- Jonathan Cohler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Cohler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Classmusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Yesterday I added {{Connected contributor}} to the talk page and tagged the article for lack of references for many of the assertions made, and the fact that it is written like a press release. This article needs more eyes. It is an autobiography created by User Cohler, declaration here. It was subsequently edited by his sock, Classmusic (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cohler/Archive). Both accounts were indef blocked in 2011. Cohler was unblocked yesterday after this discussion. However while he was still blocked, the article has been edited by several SPA IPs. Note especially this edit [1] on 28 December by 173.76.107.110 and this discussion on Commons two days later and a further continuation of the photo saga here. His first edit after unblocking was to archive the discussions on Talk:Jonathan Cohler [2] concerning the problems with the article before he was blocked in 2011. The subject has been complaining on the talk page today about the maintenance tags and proposing that they be notified of any changes to the article before they are made. I would appreciate if other editors could take a look and give an opinion. Voceditenore (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I would also appreciate if other editors would take a look at the discussion. This page is about me. And I believe that User:Voceditenore is once again biting the newcomer. For the record, I never proposed that I be "notified of any changes to the article before they are made". That is simply a false statement along with several other misleading and unsupported claims made by User:Voceditenore on the page to which I have responded. As you can see at Talk:Jonathan Cohler, my exact statement was "As this page is part of WP:BLP and I am the subject of the article, I would appreciate the courtesy of notification here on the Talk page, and an opportunity to respond, before wholesale changes are made to long standing information on a page that is supposed to be reflective of my biography" (emphasis added) in line with WP:BLP which states, "Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern". User:Voceditenore has continued to violate this policy in my opinion. I also believe that User:Voceditenore's continued behavior toward me, and failing to respond to any of my queries with specific instances just blanket negative statements is clear evidence that she has a WP:COI. Furthermore, WP:BLP notes that "Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual – whether on- or off-wiki – or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest" so I would request that given our documented dispute from six years ago, and given Voceditnore's immediate and sudden reappearance on the scene following my unblocking two days ago, it is clear that Voceditnore has a conflict of interest. I would request that Voceditenore be blocked from further editing of the page and that other editors come and take an objective look at the material to help improve it. --TheClarinetGuy talk 11:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Note User:Yamla unblocked me here on January 8. And immediately here on January 9 User:Voceditenore began to make edits, after a more than four-year hiatus from editing the page, including blanking of long standing, unchallenged, properly sourced information to which she had previously voiced no objection. Also, without contacting me, and without posting any discussion to the talk page in total disregard of WP:AGF, she started to make accusations, innuendo and false claims to Yamla for unblocking me here. Her last minor edit before the blanking was on December 13, 2012 here and she made a spate of substantive edits on October 5 and 6, 2011 here, here, and here in conjunction with User:Almost-instinct who, back on October 4, 2011, specifically edited all the references that Voceditenore now suddenly blanks. I had forewarned Yamla that I was concerned about being descended upon here where I stated " If you read my previous responses to the various administrators who descended upon me, for lack of a better term, you will see that I never put anything on the page that was untrue, malicious, or inaccurate, indeed, I supplied most of the information that is there" and I asked Yamla the best way to indicate my COI where I stated, "(btw what is the best way to make that indication? Or is it obvious if the user name is 'Cohler'?)" to which Yamla replied "I'd suggest (I'm subject of this article) " and that's exactly what I did. Despite that, and in clear retaliation for asking her some questions on the talk page, Voceditenore immediately descended, failed to give specific answers to my questions, listed me on the COI Noticeboard, added flags to the talk page etc... That's what I call biting the newcomer. Totally inappropriate, and totally a COI.
- I would like to state once more for the record that I have no interest in making this page anything other than the best possible, most Encylopedic, most accurate, and excellent Wikipedia page according to all the standards and policies of the organization, and I have never done anything to damage the page in any way. Indeed, essentially all of the content, as opposed to the form, that is there now comes from my effort. Several editors have contributed significantly to improving the form of the content, of course. Voceditenore did improve some formatting of the discography and a few other small things, but other than that her efforts have been almost exclusively focused on attacking me. Clearly, she has a conflict of interest and should be blocked from editing the page. --TheClarinetGuy talk 14:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Firstly, my appearance on the scene is not sudden, Cohler. I have had Jonathan Cohler on my watchlist since it was created by you in 2008. Recently an IP added your photograph (subsequently deleted as a copyright violation on Commons [3]) to the article. In the process, I went back to take a closer look and it still had a lot of problems. I worked on the article and added the maintenance tags on January 9, before you asked any questions on the talk page this morning [4]. I suggest you strike the "retaliation" accusation. Secondly, I carefully answered each of your questions on the talk page. You simply didn't like the answers. Thirdly, the fact that I have tagged the article for improvement because it needs much better referencing and reads like a résumé/press release hardly qualifies as "significant controversy", let alone does it make me an "avowed rival" of yours, although from your behaviour to another editor who also attempted to clean up the original, you seem to think that anyone who opposes your attempts to control the article's contents qualifies as such. Fourthly, you are not a newcomer. You created this autobiography in 2008 and since then have edited no other article apart from adding material about yourself to Longy School of Music and Boston Conservatory [5], [6] and two links to the record company which you own to Ilya Kaler [7]. You strongly opposed all attempts to clean up the article in 2011 here and here, created another account (User:Classmusic) to remove the maintenance tags from Jonathan Cohler [8], rejected my advice about editing with two accounts [9], and were indefinitely blocked along with User:Classmusic four days later after this sockpupuppet investigation. Since your unblocking two days ago, you have still edited nothing except the article about you, and I think you have a still have a serious misunderstanding of both Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:BLPSOURCES. I look forward to other editors taking a look at the article and dealing with the walls of text you continue to post on Talk:Jonathan Cohler. Voceditenore (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I am indeed not going into the walls of text dropped on the Cohler talk page, except to say that if independent reliable sources cannot be added pronto for all the unsourced statements in that article, then somebody should take a machete and cut all the unsourced cruft. Cohler, the fact that Voci is trying to correct edits you made in your autobiography does not mean that they have a conflict of interest, so please stop adding that to the template on the talk page. Voci will most certainly not be "blocked from editing the page", but you yourself should tread very carefully because I'm on the verge of blocking you from editing as somebody who clearly is not here to improve the encyclopedia. Thanks for listening. --Randykitty (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- User:Randykitty can you please give me an example of even one thing that is unsourced that requires sourcing according to Wikipedia's normal standards? i.e. has been challenged or seems like an extraordinary claim, or is not backed up by any evidence. I asked this question and have received no answer. So far neither from you, nor from User:Voceditenore. --TheClarinetGuy talk 15:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- "Even one thing"?? There are several references in the article tagged with "failed verification" templates. Most claims in the "career" section do not even have such deficient "references" and are completely unsourced. --Randykitty (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- All "failed verifications" have been addressed. The statement that most claims in the career section were unsourced is false, but in any case, I have added many more secondary source citations now. Certainly, if anything, the article is over-sourced at this point. As Voceditenore seemed to indicate, the issue at this point is not the sourcing but the writing style. Also, there is no puffery or advertising style claims. Just simple statements of fact about my career. I hope you will agree, and if not, I hope you will give me specific examples that I can address to your satisfaction. --TheClarinetGuy talk 22:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- "Even one thing"?? There are several references in the article tagged with "failed verification" templates. Most claims in the "career" section do not even have such deficient "references" and are completely unsourced. --Randykitty (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- User:Randykitty can you please give me an example of even one thing that is unsourced that requires sourcing according to Wikipedia's normal standards? i.e. has been challenged or seems like an extraordinary claim, or is not backed up by any evidence. I asked this question and have received no answer. So far neither from you, nor from User:Voceditenore. --TheClarinetGuy talk 15:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I am indeed not going into the walls of text dropped on the Cohler talk page, except to say that if independent reliable sources cannot be added pronto for all the unsourced statements in that article, then somebody should take a machete and cut all the unsourced cruft. Cohler, the fact that Voci is trying to correct edits you made in your autobiography does not mean that they have a conflict of interest, so please stop adding that to the template on the talk page. Voci will most certainly not be "blocked from editing the page", but you yourself should tread very carefully because I'm on the verge of blocking you from editing as somebody who clearly is not here to improve the encyclopedia. Thanks for listening. --Randykitty (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Firstly, my appearance on the scene is not sudden, Cohler. I have had Jonathan Cohler on my watchlist since it was created by you in 2008. Recently an IP added your photograph (subsequently deleted as a copyright violation on Commons [3]) to the article. In the process, I went back to take a closer look and it still had a lot of problems. I worked on the article and added the maintenance tags on January 9, before you asked any questions on the talk page this morning [4]. I suggest you strike the "retaliation" accusation. Secondly, I carefully answered each of your questions on the talk page. You simply didn't like the answers. Thirdly, the fact that I have tagged the article for improvement because it needs much better referencing and reads like a résumé/press release hardly qualifies as "significant controversy", let alone does it make me an "avowed rival" of yours, although from your behaviour to another editor who also attempted to clean up the original, you seem to think that anyone who opposes your attempts to control the article's contents qualifies as such. Fourthly, you are not a newcomer. You created this autobiography in 2008 and since then have edited no other article apart from adding material about yourself to Longy School of Music and Boston Conservatory [5], [6] and two links to the record company which you own to Ilya Kaler [7]. You strongly opposed all attempts to clean up the article in 2011 here and here, created another account (User:Classmusic) to remove the maintenance tags from Jonathan Cohler [8], rejected my advice about editing with two accounts [9], and were indefinitely blocked along with User:Classmusic four days later after this sockpupuppet investigation. Since your unblocking two days ago, you have still edited nothing except the article about you, and I think you have a still have a serious misunderstanding of both Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:BLPSOURCES. I look forward to other editors taking a look at the article and dealing with the walls of text you continue to post on Talk:Jonathan Cohler. Voceditenore (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- User:Voceditenore The retaliation accusation refers to the fact that you said here at 19:28, 9 January "I'll monitor it as well". Then when you responded to my talk page questions here at 06:53, 10 January, you wrote "I am now going to list this article at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard to get further feedback on this." So yes, it was explicitly in response to and therefore, in my view, retaliation for the questions I asked appropriately on the talk page. The retaliation was not in reference to the adding of the maintenance tags. I asked questions about the maintenance tags on the talk page and you responded by retaliating. Clearly. Further, none of your answers gave any specifics. You made blanket statements. You did not give specific examples. I have not been on Wikipedia for years. I was unblocked two days ago. So yes, I am a newcomer. And I was a newcomer the last time you attacked me. I haven't added anything to the page since being unblocked two days ago other than one or two references, and I noted my COI on both those references. --TheClarinetGuy talk 15:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Cohler, bringing your dispute here for a fresh set of eyes and opinions is hardly retaliation. I would have thought you'd welcome that since you seem quite convinced that I have the wrong end of the stick. And no, pointing out problems with your edits and the article itself, are not "attacking" you. In any case, the last go-around (albeit with your sockpuppet) was in 2011, three years after you created the article. So please quit with the "biting the newcomer" accusations. I'm not going to respond to this nonsense any further. Voceditenore (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I have no previous involvement with this case, but will comment that, in my opinion, if any editor claims that another editor is biting the newcomer, the allegation is almost always at best nonsense and may be malicious. If one has been editing Wikipedia long enough to be familiar with that far-too-often-quoted guideline, one is no longer a newcomer. In this case, the real question is whether to take this case to either WP:ANI or WP:ARC for the purpose of a Site Ban. I don't have an opinion on that, but I do have an opinion that user Voceditenore has acted reasonably in coming here. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Cohler, bringing your dispute here for a fresh set of eyes and opinions is hardly retaliation. I would have thought you'd welcome that since you seem quite convinced that I have the wrong end of the stick. And no, pointing out problems with your edits and the article itself, are not "attacking" you. In any case, the last go-around (albeit with your sockpuppet) was in 2011, three years after you created the article. So please quit with the "biting the newcomer" accusations. I'm not going to respond to this nonsense any further. Voceditenore (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- User:Voceditenore The retaliation accusation refers to the fact that you said here at 19:28, 9 January "I'll monitor it as well". Then when you responded to my talk page questions here at 06:53, 10 January, you wrote "I am now going to list this article at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard to get further feedback on this." So yes, it was explicitly in response to and therefore, in my view, retaliation for the questions I asked appropriately on the talk page. The retaliation was not in reference to the adding of the maintenance tags. I asked questions about the maintenance tags on the talk page and you responded by retaliating. Clearly. Further, none of your answers gave any specifics. You made blanket statements. You did not give specific examples. I have not been on Wikipedia for years. I was unblocked two days ago. So yes, I am a newcomer. And I was a newcomer the last time you attacked me. I haven't added anything to the page since being unblocked two days ago other than one or two references, and I noted my COI on both those references. --TheClarinetGuy talk 15:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I also have no previous involvement with this case. I am amused by the catch22 element in saying that if you know to invoke "biting the newcomer" you are demonstrating you are NOT a newcomer! But while amused I would support the point. While, in chronology I am NOT a newcomer, (while reckoning I still have LOTS to learn) I had not myself heard of " biting the newcomer ' until now, and so find it plausable that no true newcomer would know of it. Daithidebarra (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I have participated in the discussions on Talk:Jonathan Cohler, so I think that by now I am at least somewhat involved, so I won't act as an admin here. However, I think that by now it is clear that Cohler is not here to improve the encyclopedia. They continue to wikilawyer and drop huge walls of text on that talk page, wearing down the other editors there that try tpo make an encyclopedic article out of this resume. They only edit their autobio, Jonathan Cohler and its talk page (ignoring a few related edits to other pages and this noticeboard) and this since 2008. I think an indef block is in order here, or at the very least a topic ban (but given their limited editing interests, that basically boils down to an indef block, too). As for the biting accusation, I agree completely with Robert McClenon: somebody wikilawyering about whether some reference is primary or secondary is not a newby. --Randykitty (talk) 09:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- While I agree with User:Randykitty and User:Voceditenore, my argument is a little different than theirs. My argument is that the guideline do not bite the newcomers should never be made by the subject, but only by a third party. That is, I could ask Voceditnore or Randykitty not to bite a newbie, or they could ask me not to bite a newbie, knowing that all of us are experienced editors. However, any editor who cites that guideline in their own defense has enough knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines that it is disingenuous for them to claim to be a newbie or entitled to its benefit. Now, who, anyway, are the conflict of interest editors? I see multiple unfamiliar editors floating around in this thread. If the same editors are said to be using multiple user names, that should not be reported here, but at WP:SPI. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Robert, the two editors at the top of this listing, Cohler (talk · contribs) and Classmusic (talk · contribs) were already confirmed by a checkuser as the same person back in 2011 and were both indefinitely blocked. The User:Classmusic account remains blocked. The User:Cohler account was recently unblocked. I listed both here because they are the names I listed in the {{connected contributor}} notice on Talk:Jonathan Cohler. There had been significant editing of the article under both accounts up to 2011. "TheClarinetGuy" is simply the new signature of User:Cohler. It is not a different account. Right up to Cohler's unblock there was also significant editing of the article by SPA IPs, as I outlined above, but they seem to have stopped editing it now. There probably isn't anything useful to be gained by starting a new SPI for the IP at this point. Voceditenore (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- First, if I misinterpreted WP:BITE, I am sorry and apologize. I read it for the first time a few days ago when I was "descended upon" by multiple admins almost immediately after being unblocked by User:Yamla. I was new to Wikipedia after having been off of it for 5 years. And the amount of time I spent on it in 2011 and in 2006 or 2008 when I first created an account was minimal. I still consider myself a newbie, especially when compared with all of the individuals who descended upon me and cited various policies, which I dutifully went and read (and is where I came across the policy in question). I am learning rapidly. However, if you don't consider me a newbie for purposes of that policy, then fine, I withdraw the accusation. In any case, the argument that an individual who uses the policy must be doing so in bad faith simply because he knows or has read the policy, is an absurd Catch 22. Do you truly think it is reasonable to argue that anyone who mentions the policy about themselves is of necessity doing so in bad faith? And wikilawyering (a policy I just learned of from Randkitty's reference here) is most certainly not what I am doing or have done anywhere. All of my discussions on the talk page are professional, factual, and completely to the point. --TheClarinetGuy talk 16:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- While I agree with User:Randykitty and User:Voceditenore, my argument is a little different than theirs. My argument is that the guideline do not bite the newcomers should never be made by the subject, but only by a third party. That is, I could ask Voceditnore or Randykitty not to bite a newbie, or they could ask me not to bite a newbie, knowing that all of us are experienced editors. However, any editor who cites that guideline in their own defense has enough knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines that it is disingenuous for them to claim to be a newbie or entitled to its benefit. Now, who, anyway, are the conflict of interest editors? I see multiple unfamiliar editors floating around in this thread. If the same editors are said to be using multiple user names, that should not be reported here, but at WP:SPI. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Note, Cohler has taken it upon himself to archive large chunks of discussions on Talk:Jonathan Cohler today. I un-archived one of them concerning the primary sources issue because he did not archive the edit request to remove the tag which was declined by another editor as "A consensus could not be reached" and his subsequent dispute of that decision. He also archived the discussion concerning a record company which I had removed from the infobox and then today made a new edit request to re-add it. In my view, given his conflict of interest, he should not be archiving the page and leave that to other editors. The record company is a case in point. He didn't like the previous answer I gave, archived it, and then brought it up again devoid of the previous context. That is misleading to other editors participating on the talk page. Randykitty and Lemongirl942, perhaps you can weigh in there? Voceditenore (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- As before, I recommend that this editor be blocked or at least topic banned from this page. Meanwhile, I have requested that they restore the talk page (some discussion archived had been "dormant" since yesterday... I have set up automated archiving after 6 months by MiszaBot (and given the walls of text that Cohler keeps plastering on that talk page, that's not an unnecessary luxury... --Randykitty (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Randykitty, I'm beginning to think that something has to be done. I've been on Wikipedia for over ten years and have dealt with scores of COI editors, many of them in the classical music sector, and I have never come across anything like this. Every single edit which changes his preferred version is queried on the talk page. When given an explanation, he disputes the explanation at length. He makes lengthy edit requests and then disputes at length when they are rejected or only partially carried out. When given a further explanation, he disputes that at length. The archiving incident today takes the cake. If he weren't editing his own autobiography, he'd be in clear violation of PAYTALK. Since he was unblocked 10 days ago, 90,000 bytes have been added to the talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Voceditenore: This statement that "Every single edit which changes his preferred version is queried on the talk page" is patently false and unprofessional. I have not challenged every change. Indeed, I have thanked you and and other editors for several changes that have been made. I did question sudden blanking of long-standing material on the page by an editor that had to-date never been involved in the page. That is an absolutely appropriate use of the talk page.
- Randykitty, I'm beginning to think that something has to be done. I've been on Wikipedia for over ten years and have dealt with scores of COI editors, many of them in the classical music sector, and I have never come across anything like this. Every single edit which changes his preferred version is queried on the talk page. When given an explanation, he disputes the explanation at length. He makes lengthy edit requests and then disputes at length when they are rejected or only partially carried out. When given a further explanation, he disputes that at length. The archiving incident today takes the cake. If he weren't editing his own autobiography, he'd be in clear violation of PAYTALK. Since he was unblocked 10 days ago, 90,000 bytes have been added to the talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know why you continue to make these repeated false claims about me. Furthermore, my queries on the page are simply that, queries. That's what talk pages are for. I realize that you would prefer to dictate what goes or doesn't go on the page as you have done in your several insulting and degrading missives directed at me, which I have ignored, but the fact is that I have been cooperatively editing and using the talk page appropriately. The so-called "archiving incident" that you refer to derisively here was simply a matter of following Wikipedia policy. WP:TALKCOND states "As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions."
- The items I archived were all resolved issues. Indeed, every one of them was a discussion that I started, it was answered by multiple editors. All the issues raised at the time were addressed. No further discussion was occurring by you or anyone else. My understanding is that all of those discussions were closed. Indeed, despite your protestations here, you apparently agree as you only unarchived one of the several discussions, and while I disagree with your decision, I let it stand and indicated so on the talk page. What you fail to mention in your clearly unbalanced and biased representation here is that virtually all of those 90,000 bytes added by me have been in the form of secondary source citations to support factual statements on the page. These have greatly enhanced the quality of the page. You fail to mention that. Facts matter. Please be fair and honest. Please spend less time on procedural intrigue and more on substance. --TheClarinetGuy talk 20:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Voceditenore: as you know and fail to report here User:MrOllie proposed automatic archiving and both you and I agreed to that. The last I looked you proposed every 31 days, and I proposed every 15. I find it disheartening that you continue to fail to assume good faith on my part and publish these untrue missives about me. I would also hope that User:Yamla comes and takes a dispassionate and factual look into this. --TheClarinetGuy talk 20:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Randykitty: you misrepresent the facts here through omission of the true nature of the archived conversations. The conversations that you represent as being "dormant" since "yesterday" were here and here, for example. One was a question that I specifically asked of Voceditenore, she answered and I agreed, so it was a closed issue. The second was a requested edit that she implemented and I agreed with her change, so that was a closed issue as well. I would appreciate it if you would stop making blanket, unsupported, and fundamentally untrue claims using such derogatory and non-specific accusations as "walls of text that Cohler keeps plastering on that talk page". If you read my posts on the talk page, you will find that they are all relevant, factual, professional, courteous, and totally to the point. I hope to receive the same courteous treatment from you. --TheClarinetGuy talk 23:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry for my late reply Voceditenore. I had to step away from that article because it was literally a timesink. I added a primary sources tag to the article which led to this huge wall of text. What I personally did not like was the combative attitude along with the long walls of text and a refusal to listen to community consensus. This is one of the reasons why COI is discouraged - sometime an editor with a COI may not be able to recognise the bias and keep insisting that they are right. I am also not satisfied with the recent edits such as this, which are essentially promoting a record company. I initially did not want to support the ban as I feel people should be given chances. But looking at Cohler's responses below, I am not encouraged and might end up supporting the ban. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Proposal to topic ban Cohler from editing Jonathan Cohler
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Given the above discussion and the behavior on Talk:Jonathan Cohler, I think that a ban from editing his autobiography is in order. Support, as proposer. --Randykitty (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose as the subject. Anyone, who dispassionately reads the talk page and views the edits I have made can clearly see that this is totally unwarranted and based on nothing but exaggerations, falsehoods, and summary judgement without consideration of the facts. As mentioned above, virtually all of my edits to the page have been to add secondary sources as requested. Furthermore, my queries were all legitimate queries that were for the most part resolved in short order. I have only been editing on WP for the last week or two since I was reinstated after all. And there have been very few edits (and for the most part small ones) by other editors. I did raise questions when a new editor to the page blanked some long standing information. But those questions were resolved as well. Furthermore, I have requested and received several edits made by other editors on the page. --TheClarinetGuy talk 20:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Contrary to the unsubstantiated blanket derogatory comments made by several editors here, I have in fact been editing other pages on Wikipedia and intend to do so further if I am not chased away by these types of totally false and unsubstantiated attacks by editors here who have contributed essentially nothing to the article in question. --TheClarinetGuy talk 18:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- That is absolutely correct! Within a few hours of this proposal being posted, you started contributing to other articles! (And get me right, those contributions are welcome, but it would have been nice if you'd started with that, instead of with your own bio). As for all your comments here, they save other editors time, because instead of wading through Talk:Jonathan Cohler, you are demonstrating the problems with your editing quite aptly here... --Randykitty (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- More generic derogatory statements. So by your logic, responding to false, unsubstantiated blanket statements about me proves that the false, unsubstantiated statements are true? Not logical at all. And so what if I started editing other pages in the last day or two? I have only been on WP since being reinstated for less than two weeks. During which time I have added dozens and dozens of secondary sources to the article as was requested by other editors, and at the same time I have been inundated by unsubstantiated attacks initiated by you and others here and elsewhere. To use your words, you are the sole cause of these "walls" of copy. I am a full time musician and have little time to spend here, but I won't sit by idly while you promulgate falsehoods about me. Despite that, there is no policy against editing your own bio. I did so with the full knowledge and consent of User:Yamla who reinstated me, and I have indicated that I am the subject on each and every one of those edits. None of my page edits have been reverted. I have requested edits from other editors that they have implemented. I have asked some questions on the talk page. That's what talk pages are for. All you do here is make unsubstantiated, false, and derogatory accusations about my intent, about me not being here to improve WP, etc... Simply a smear campaign without a shred of specific evidence or support. Please stop your attacks and allow those of us who are actually dedicated to improving the page continue our work on the page. I might add some of the changes I have made to other pages have already received thanks. The only reason you are complaining here is because you would like WP:COI to be different from what it is. The fact is that it allows disclosed COI editing that is neither meant to damage nor actually damages (but in fact improves) the page. The undisputed and indisputable fact is that the page has improved immensely from my editing of it over the past 10 days or so. --TheClarinetGuy talk 18:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Just for the fun of it, I have made a count of your edits. There's a total of 264. 13 were made in the last 24 hours to other articles. There are 9 older edits (2006-2011) to other articles (4 of which to add links to your bio or your label). There are 4 edits related to your bio to WikiProjects, 2 related edits to somebody else's talk page, and 7 edits to your own talk and user pages (all related to your autobio). That's about 18 edits out of 264 (less than 7%) that are not related to your autobio. Perhaps I missed something, but even if I were of by a factor 2, you'd still have over 87% of all your edits related to your autobio. --Randykitty (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes and again, so what? That proves absolutely nothing other than corroborating what I stated above and you must not have read. --TheClarinetGuy talk 18:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Just for the fun of it, I have made a count of your edits. There's a total of 264. 13 were made in the last 24 hours to other articles. There are 9 older edits (2006-2011) to other articles (4 of which to add links to your bio or your label). There are 4 edits related to your bio to WikiProjects, 2 related edits to somebody else's talk page, and 7 edits to your own talk and user pages (all related to your autobio). That's about 18 edits out of 264 (less than 7%) that are not related to your autobio. Perhaps I missed something, but even if I were of by a factor 2, you'd still have over 87% of all your edits related to your autobio. --Randykitty (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- More generic derogatory statements. So by your logic, responding to false, unsubstantiated blanket statements about me proves that the false, unsubstantiated statements are true? Not logical at all. And so what if I started editing other pages in the last day or two? I have only been on WP since being reinstated for less than two weeks. During which time I have added dozens and dozens of secondary sources to the article as was requested by other editors, and at the same time I have been inundated by unsubstantiated attacks initiated by you and others here and elsewhere. To use your words, you are the sole cause of these "walls" of copy. I am a full time musician and have little time to spend here, but I won't sit by idly while you promulgate falsehoods about me. Despite that, there is no policy against editing your own bio. I did so with the full knowledge and consent of User:Yamla who reinstated me, and I have indicated that I am the subject on each and every one of those edits. None of my page edits have been reverted. I have requested edits from other editors that they have implemented. I have asked some questions on the talk page. That's what talk pages are for. All you do here is make unsubstantiated, false, and derogatory accusations about my intent, about me not being here to improve WP, etc... Simply a smear campaign without a shred of specific evidence or support. Please stop your attacks and allow those of us who are actually dedicated to improving the page continue our work on the page. I might add some of the changes I have made to other pages have already received thanks. The only reason you are complaining here is because you would like WP:COI to be different from what it is. The fact is that it allows disclosed COI editing that is neither meant to damage nor actually damages (but in fact improves) the page. The undisputed and indisputable fact is that the page has improved immensely from my editing of it over the past 10 days or so. --TheClarinetGuy talk 18:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- I have already received public thanks from other editors for my edits and I have only been reinstated for less than two weeks. --TheClarinetGuy talk 18:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- That is absolutely correct! Within a few hours of this proposal being posted, you started contributing to other articles! (And get me right, those contributions are welcome, but it would have been nice if you'd started with that, instead of with your own bio). As for all your comments here, they save other editors time, because instead of wading through Talk:Jonathan Cohler, you are demonstrating the problems with your editing quite aptly here... --Randykitty (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Randykitty: and all the other editors here jumping on the bandwagon here should read WP:COI#Making uncontroversial edits which states, "Editors who have a general conflict of interest may make unambiguously uncontroversial edits". That's all I have done. --TheClarinetGuy talk 19:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support. It's perfectly clear that this editor is not here to improve the encyclopaedia, but for one purpose only – to promote the incredible achievements and limitless talent of one Jonathan Cohler. Wikipedia doesn't allow promotion of any kind. Self-promotion at this sort of level is profoundly disruptive and a total waste of the time of genuine editors who might otherwise be doing something that actually benefits the project. Yamla, I think you unblocked this person; may I ask if you set any conditions of behaviour etc within the project when you did so? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Justlettersandnumbers: Could you give me even one specific example of a change I have made on the page since being unblocked that you consider "profoundly disruptive" and simply "promotion"? If you actually taken the time to look, you would see that the work I have done since being reinstated has been in adding secondary sources, fixing formatting according to standards that User:Voceditenore has been using, implementing some changes suggested by other editors, and making requests for other edits that have been implemented by other editors. Nothing I have done on the content of the page has been reverted to date. I think you have hastily jumped to a conclusion here. Perhaps you will reconsider after actually looking at the history. I do hope that User:Yamla will come take a look as well, as he will find that I have completely adhered to our agreement of his unblock and I have made no controversial edits to the page, and I have listed myself as the subject on every edit I have done. I most certainly am not here to disrupt anything, and the simple incontrovertible fact is that the page has vastly improved significantly due to my contributions, as any objective viewer can see by viewing the diffs. And I might add none has complained about a single "destructive" edit. All the complaints are simply that I have asked some questions on the talk page, which is precisely what the talk page is for. --TheClarinetGuy talk 02:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support User:Cohler's tendentious editing is exemplified on the current version of the Jonathan Cohler talk page beginning at the top with the first interaction, all the way to the bottom of the page. Also, on this talk page it can be seen that this is a clear case of WP:DE and WP:OWN where this editor is in constant conflict with several other editors in turn, section by section, with Voceditenore, User:Randykitty, MrOllie, Lemongirl942. It can be seen that he is also nicely combative.
- His editing behavior can be summed up in all the sections of WP:DE and much of WP:TE (which is a correlate to WP:DE). It can be seen in the middle sections of the talk page that he justifies his actions through wikilawyering. This adds up to a very focused attempt to use Wikipedia as a platform for self promotion and commercial promotion in his autobiographical article Jonathan Cohler.
- This why COI editing is strongly discouraged, which by the way, Cohler has noted, but he also noted that it is not prohibited. I think an idef ban on editing this article is appropriate because this is draining experienced editors valuable time. All the editors mentioned in my commentary are highly experienced and productive editors with numbers of years and thousands of edits behind them. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- You don't cite a single specific example of anything. Just blanket accusations with no support of any kind. Very unprofessional. I encourage you to read the policies that you cite and provide specific examples of anything you claim to be talking about. --TheClarinetGuy talk 17:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- As expected you do not provide even a single example of WP:Tendentious editing or any other of your baseless claims. By the way, the talk page is for talk. The editing happens on the page. Please refrain from these blanket condemnations made without even a single piece of specific evidence. It is very unprofessional and not conducive to the community environment that Wikipedia espouses. --TheClarinetGuy talk 18:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- I cited the entire talk page [10] which has many, many examples of tendentious editing and disruptive behavior which drains experienced and productive editors' time and energy. Experienced editors and Admins will easily recognize it. There is also the page Cohler archived as soon as Cohler was unblocked for more examples [11].
- Then there was the unhelpful and argumentative back and forth with Elcobbola on Commons, which started with this [12], and a continued here [13] just prior to being unblocked [14]. In the second Commmons discussion endless wikilawyering can be seen trying to get around Elcobbola's suggestions for fulfilling OTRS requirements. Finally, after intense rounds of argumentation, Cohler (not yet unblocked) acquiesces and fulfills the OTRS requirements (see bottom of page).
- Yet, here the image is downloaded on the Jonathan Cohler article page, before discussion for unblocking takes place. In other words, 10 or 11 days prior to the unblock request (due to sockpupettry in 2011 [15]) it appears an IP added the image that was finally authorized by the Commons OTRS discussion. This is a single purpose IP account, as can be seen here [16], with several other edits to the Johnathan Cohler article page. The aggregate of these editing behaviors more than aptly demonstrates WP:NOTHERE ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Steve Quinn: As is so often the case with individuals caught in indefensible positions and blatant misrepresentation, you have chosen to change the subject here and introduce new and irrelevant misrepresentations. This was a discussion about an editing ban on Jonathan Cohler due to alleged violations of WP:COI fyi. You have continued your generic smear campaign here without presentation of a single specific fact indicating a violation of any policy. You start here by claiming you "cited the entire talk page". Precisely, so you admit you have not cited a single fact. You have just created yet another general smear here aimed at swaying editors here who are unwilling to get "into the weeds". This entire discussion here is a misuse of the noticeboard according to WP:Dispute resolution requests/Noticeboards#Conflict of interest which notes "Editors who have a connection to the subject fully comply with the conflicts of interest guideline when they discuss proposed changes on a talk page or make non-controversial edits in mainspace consistent with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines." I note there have been no significant or extended disputes on the page, no edit warring, no triple reverts (indeed no reverts), and quite the contrary, editors on the page have implemented more than one of my proposed edits here, here, and here and none of my edits have been controversial. This entire episode seems to have been generated when I archived part of the talk page, active editor Voceditenore unarchived one of the many discussions archived, and then User:Randykitty, who is not an active editor on the page, demanded that the entire archive be reverted which I did immediately. None of this had anything to do with actual edits to page but rather the talk page. Indeed, all of the discussions I archived were and are dormant, were started by me, and I had already agreed either tacitly or explicitly with the expressed consensus. My understanding of WP policy on archiving may or may not have been mistaken, but in any case, I immediately complied with the wishes of both Voceditenore and Randykitty.
- While the following is completely off topic, since you raised it, I must correct your multiple mischaracterizations here. You claim that on Wikimedia Commons, I "can be seen trying to get around Elcobbola's suggestions for fulfilling OTRS requirements." This is plainly false. The fact and the truth for anyone who actually reads the exchange is that Elcobbola's deletion nomination was based on his adamant lack of understanding of US copyright law, was opposed by three other admins who opposed and admonished Elcobbola on the page for his improper tone and his misunderstanding of the law here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, and my position was finally upheld and the image in question was not deleted. Indeed, there was only one post by Jameslwoodward supporting Elcobbola's position, and he never later responded to the many refutations of his arguments. Despite the clear consensus, and the fact that Elcobbola was incorrect in is statements about copyright law, he insisted that I produce a written contract with the photographer. I did not do so. In an attempt to bring Elcobbola's misguided actions to a conclusion, I provided an email from the photographer at OTRS ticket #2017010410014391 that simply agrees with the fact that the photo was work for hire. Elcobbola then proceeded to act as judge and jury on the nomination page in which he was clearly in the minority, and closed the page indicating Kept, but at the same time including the lie "Permission received from Mr. Chomitz" here. As had been repeatedly explained to Elcobbola on the page by both me and others, no "permission" could possibly come from the photographer, because as work for hire, I was the owner and author of the work from the moment of its creation and I had already granted permission for its use through the license uploaded to OTRS at ticket #2016123110001487. As admin Pajz notes correctly here "if Cohler's claim is correct that the work is a made for hire with him as the author/copyright owner, we cannot "obtain" a license from Mr. Chomitz because (absent additional agreements) he would not have the necessary rights to grant such license. I'm not sure what the point of the legal discussion is anyway; the requirements of a work for hire are not in dispute, as far as I can see." --TheClarinetGuy talk 13:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Cohler, you might like to read WP:TLDR (although I'm sure you'll find fault with that essay or with my mentioning it or both). I also wonder: don't you realize that your behavior here just makes things worse for you? Steve Quinn just mentioned the Commons thing in passing and then you come with a huge defense on why you were right all the time there and have been vindicated (which is incorrect, it took editors there an inordinate effort to make you comply with copyright issues, which in the end you did and that's the only reason that the file is still there). Your incessant appeal to all kinds of essays, guidelines, and policies are exactly what is meant here when people talk about "WP:Wikilawyering". Note that up till now not a single editor has opposed this ban, doesn't that make you reflect on your position in this whole thing? --Randykitty (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support. Cohler consistently misunderstands and/or misapplies how we do things here, even after things are explained (at some length) on the talk page. To cite one of several examples, in this edit he claims to add a secondary source for his participation in a music festival - and earlier in this discussion he claims that all his edits are to add secondary sources. However, the journal that he cites is a publication of the same organization that sponsors the festival - clearly a primary source. His whole editing history is full of this kind of misrepresentation. As a subject matter expert I think he could be quite helpful to Wikipedia - on pages where he can act objectively. His autobiography is not one of those pages. - MrOllie (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Again this is incorrect and a totally false misrepresentation of what I said and did. First, the source you cite here is a secondary source. It involves "generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information" in a review article by an independent third party. That is the WP definition. Furthermore, I said that the vast majority of my work has been to add secondary sources, and that is absolutely and totally true. Citing one example where I added a primary source (perfectly allowable by WP policies and indeed helpful in the context where it is used next to a secondary source) does not contradict the fact that the vast majority of what I have added in the past couple of weeks has been secondary sources. Please stop these false generalizations, half-truths and misrepresentations of statements I have made. --TheClarinetGuy talk 17:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support. WP:OWN, WP:COI, WP:NOTHERE. Cabayi (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Might I ask for specific examples to support your conclusion? I do not believe I have violated any of the policies you cite, but if you have specific examples I would appreciate it. --TheClarinetGuy talk 18:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support. Per OWN, COI, et al. Cohler is the textbook definition of a tendentious editor whose inability to approach issues with objectivity and intellectual honesty is demonstrated perfectly well by conduct both here above and the examples referenced by others, including, especially, historical edits and behaviour related to the Cohler article. No demonstrated or reasonable expectation that the Cohler article would be approached with the necessary, or any, impartiality. Эlcobbola talk 14:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Cohler, perhaps you'd like to comment on the issue signaled above of IP editing before you were unblocked. I think your answer (or lack thereof) can make the difference for the closing admin on whether to apply a topic ban or an outright indef block. (I am not filing an SPI, because per WP:DUCK the evidence is quite clear). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support. I was waiting to see if there would be some sign of self-awareness here or a better understanding of the COI guidelines, and more importantly, if Cohler would comment on the issue of IP editing while he was blocked which was raised by Randykitty immediately above. Instead, a deafening silence, but not a cessation of activity. Since Randykitty's comment, he has turned his attention to Sergey Schepkin to which he has added nine internal links to the record company he owns (currently a section in Jonathan Cohler) [17], [18]; Claremont Trio to which he has added two internal links to his record company [19], [20], and Domaine Forget to which he added his linked name twice (as a "Notable performer" and as "Notable academy faculty") [21]. And this despite the concerns expressed here by Lemongirl942 four days ago concerning the promotion of his record company in Ilya Kaler [22]. Voceditenore (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- As I have now come to expect from you User:Voceditenore, all you continue to do is promote intrigue and nonsense without pointing out the pertinent facts that (1) none of the edits you point here have been challenged by anyone including you, (2) and all of them contain secondary sources. In any case, it is abundantly clear that you have dedicated yourself to attacking me whereever possible and not improving the content of pages I have been active on. Indeed, I think your last comment on the NRO page was that you "could not care less" about the page. Great attitude. --TheClarinetGuy talk 23:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Context for why "I could not care less" any more about National Repertory Orchestra:. Talk:National Repertory Orchestra#Adding notable alumni without WP articles and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Lists of people. This is an article that I transformed from this to this. And then Cohler arrived there... Voceditenore (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- As I have now come to expect from you User:Voceditenore, all you continue to do is promote intrigue and nonsense without pointing out the pertinent facts that (1) none of the edits you point here have been challenged by anyone including you, (2) and all of them contain secondary sources. In any case, it is abundantly clear that you have dedicated yourself to attacking me whereever possible and not improving the content of pages I have been active on. Indeed, I think your last comment on the NRO page was that you "could not care less" about the page. Great attitude. --TheClarinetGuy talk 23:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- comment Given the above-mentioned socking and the promotional editing in other articles than his autobio, the closing admin may want to consider imposing an outright block, not just a ban from editing the autobio. --Randykitty (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Randykitty: You have amply demonstrated your complete failure to present even one fact supporting a policy violation, and given your repeated mischaracterizations and false accusations there is no point in me further engaging with your nonsense and the "walls" of text you seem to love to promote as you have done here. Should you continue to harass me in this fashion, I will be forced to report you to other administrators. --TheClarinetGuy talk 23:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Cohler, Voci has posted sufficient examples, I don't think I need to add to that. As for why you should be blocked, you are very ably arguing for that yourself here. As for reporting me, you're more than welcome to do so. The proper place for that is WP:ANI. I look forward to your post there. Perhaps it will finally get me the block from WP that I so richly deserve so that I can spend my time on harassing other innocent people more closely around me here. --Randykitty (talk) 09:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Randykitty: You have amply demonstrated your complete failure to present even one fact supporting a policy violation, and given your repeated mischaracterizations and false accusations there is no point in me further engaging with your nonsense and the "walls" of text you seem to love to promote as you have done here. Should you continue to harass me in this fashion, I will be forced to report you to other administrators. --TheClarinetGuy talk 23:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Dinanath Bhaskar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Adbhaskar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Vidhansabhaaurai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Vidhansabhaaurai claims to be representing the Indian government and Bhaskar in editing this page, per his edit summaries. User also made a legal threat in one edit summary. Then arrives Adbhaskar, the creator of the article, to make the same edits. This clearly looks like manipulation of the article by related parties. —C.Fred (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Mobile phone models / XTRDC again?
- 92.6.188.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 79.67.84.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- XTRDC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sony Xperia C5 Ultra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Previously, at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_109#User:XTRDC_and_Mobile_Phone_Models, there was an editor who was creating articles for every variant of some mobile phones. (The Sony Xperia has over 60 variants, and the main article has a table.) This continues, but now it's by an anon: 92.6.188.186 (talk · contribs). Possible sock? John Nagle (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- There are a huge number of Sony Xperia articles. There's the main Sony Xperia article. Then, below that, Sony Xperia Z series. Then below that, Sony Xperia Z1, Sony Xperia Z2, ... Sony Xperia C5 Ultra. Should some of these be redirected or merged out? If so, how far? Is this promotional, or are there just editors really into phone model variants? John Nagle (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- 92.6.188.186 (talk · contribs) is now edit warring at Sony Xperia C5 Ultra . They're at 4RR now. Neither the IP nor user XTRDC has ever written anything on talk, despite many warnings and notices. I wrote the IP user a personal note on their talk page, asking them to please reply. Nothing yet. John Nagle (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Added another IP address involved. John Nagle (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- 92.6.188.186 (talk · contribs) is now edit warring at Sony Xperia C5 Ultra . They're at 4RR now. Neither the IP nor user XTRDC has ever written anything on talk, despite many warnings and notices. I wrote the IP user a personal note on their talk page, asking them to please reply. Nothing yet. John Nagle (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Clarification of Legals positions regarding undisclosed paid editing
Here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's very clear and very important. Thanks, Doc James. The mention of cease-and-desist notices is particularly welcome to me – I asked vaguely about this a couple of years ago in relation to persistent copyright violations, but didn't really get anywhere. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
List of socks of undisclosed paid WP editing companies
I have started such a list here to help us with follow up and future cases.
Have started discussion here regarding policy implications. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- I see you are already getting pushback. We (I mean the COIN regulars) still have a long row to hoe before the rest of the Wikipedia community sees things the way we do. Brianhe (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Arbcom reply
From arbcom noticeboard, summarized from a multipage reply in my words : "thanks but no thanks". In their own words, "we feel a more discussion-based format such as an RfC would be a better way to provide input on local policies". - Brianhe (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Antonis372
- Antonis372 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This editor has acknowledged on their user talk that Mark Florman, about whom they have been editing, is a client. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- They have no disclosed. User talk:Dweller any specific concerns? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Joe Lhota
- Joe Lhota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- JoeLhota (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Lindyharmony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
(Please feel free to move this to any other more appropriate Noticeboard, but nothing happened when I posted it on BLP) I have tried to work along with the user (both at User talk:JoeLhota and User talk:Lindyharmony) to help him understand the conflict of interest in editing his own biography. At first I thought it was a fan for the use of phrases such as "Use Mr. Lhota's proper name, not his nickname." as an act of deference, when WP:COMMONNAME suggests the article say "Joe" everywhere except for the beginning of a BLP when we always give full names. I've incorporated quite a few of their requested changes, but have tried to draw the line a few times. E.g. the individual does not want to be called a politician, but that is unfair to the encyclopedia that someone who was a major candidate for one of the most high-profile positions in the US, Mayor of New York, not be listed as a politician, or as a compromise "former politician". The user also has been removing well-sourced data, quotes from interviews, and references left-and-right and adding things like LinkedIn profiles. I don't want to keep fighting this user and a few times let it sit for a day (the 17th and the 19th) in the hopes that another disinterested party would come along and take up the mantle. It seems for the most part the user is, perhaps in good faith, seeing this as "his page" which is why he is focused on refactoring it as more of a prose resume and less of a biography, so it will fit his image of how he wants to be presented rather than a neutral encyclopedia article. They are continuing to remove information from a mistaken belief that they are protecting themselves from identity theft when the subject is a public figure and the links are from very prominent websites and the articles are not behind paywalls. JesseRafe (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- User:JesseRafe which diffs do you find particularly concerning? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- I finally got others' attention last week, but the troubling portions were treating his page like "his page" and inputting a recency bias by scrubbing past jobs and removing that he was a politician, and changing the wording to what is more commonly found on a resume like "experience" replacing "career" and using overly precise job titles, etc. He also was removing sourced information under the mistaken idea he was protecting his identity from theft when the sources are still up and on well-known websites such as NYMag's. Not to mention the extra dubiousness of publishing his phone number and using his dogs' names as an alt account name which is reminiscent of how hackers got into Paris Hilton's account. It just seemed that the aggregate of his edits was to make it appear more "professional" in his current role with far fewer references to previous work (removed just because) and far fewer personal life details (removed under a faulty premise). JesseRafe (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- User:JesseRafe which diffs do you find particularly concerning? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Promotional startup articles and their SPA creators
- Startups
- Axilor Ventures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Sachinrdy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SPA
- BigDecisions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- FlarepathDigi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SPA
- ClearTax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (2011)
- Trustandhonesty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SPA
- CollaborateCloud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Sagarbabber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SPA
- DateIITians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Kinshuk1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SPA
- DocEngage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Dr.Rahul kapoor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SPA
- Explara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Iashuhere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SPA
- Flock (messaging service) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- DevikaB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SPA
- FreeCharge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Vishal14k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Grabhouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) at AfD
- Ganeshperumalm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- HealthcareMagic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) at AfD
- Unifiedhealthsolutions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) username block
- Krishnan.ramaswami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) returned next day, SPA
- Housing.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Paviliolive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Idein ventures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) at AfD
- Ashok.Mehta.31122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SPA
- Jade Magnet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Shrav81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Jeevansathi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Amitverma984 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SPA w/ 99acres.com
- July Systems Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Shahzadkhundmeri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SPA
- Just Eat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Irfan yasmin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- KineticGlue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Shankarnb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Knowlarity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Knowourba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SPA / Knowlarity Communications
- LogiNext (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Porwal Manish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SPA
- MakeMyTrip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Blietzkrieg21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SPA
- MobiKwik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Editor0071 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indeffed/advertising
- Nivio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) defunct
- Abatra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SPA
- PricePanda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- VanessaCSpencer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- SavvyMob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Abhinav1239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SPA
- Square Yards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nidasqy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SPA
- Surgerica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Oodsphere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SPA
- The Review Monk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nairspecht (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indeffed/sock/promo/copyvio
- UrbanPro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Soniathappa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SPA
- Veooz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Audiodevelop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SPA for this and Vishnu Institute of Technology
- Vserv Digital Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Satish979 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SPA
- People
- Atul Chitnis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) technologist
- B. G. Mahesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) enterpreneur
- Bhavesh Bhatia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) enterpreneur
- Bhupendra Khanal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) CEO
- Faisal Farooqui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) enterpreneur/CEO
- Rehan Yar Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) VC
Articles listed above with their creator, if appropriate.
These articles all have several things in common: use of NextBigWhat as a source; relatively obscure startups; articles mostly covering funding and nn product lines. NextBigWhat is an Indian online advertorial platform that specifically solicits startups to push their PR through it, see my note at RSN (permlink). It turns out that this source is a pretty good indication of a terrible article overall considering WP:PROMO and WP:NOT. Every one of the articles has serious sourcing issues to the point of considering WP:TNT. Opening thread here for discussion of of next steps. Brianhe (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- User:Brianhe you though of a SPI? Do you think their is enough evidence there? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Doc James: Honestly I think the evidence I laid out above is enough to clean up articles, but not enough to tie the editors via WP:DUCK. It would have to be the duck test because these are too non-recent for a CU. Besides which they might have unrelated authors anyway, who just happened to use NextBigWhat to push out PR. - Brianhe (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- User:Brianhe you though of a SPI? Do you think their is enough evidence there? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Kali Uchis
- Kali Uchis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Kelalwlji (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
During page patrol, I saw | this edit being made on Kali_Uchis where Kelalwlji attmpted to add an image into the article. The image wasn't added in correctly (they attempted to pull the image directly from their computer - leaving their directory path in the [[FILE:// brackcets. I removed the image and placed a polite note on their talk page advising them that they'd adding the image incorrectly, and also that they may need to read up on COI, based on the directory path shown in the attempted image upload. It appears this individual is either the subject of the article or closely connected to them. Extra eyes on this article wouldn't hurt. KoshVorlon 21:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Betsyuniversal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another unusual account. The image they uploaded has copyright issues it appears. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Arya aiet jaipur
- Arya Group of College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Arya aiet jaipur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user has been warned repeatedly since March 2015 about Conflict of Interest ([24], [25],[26]) but persists in (a) not complying with WP:DISCLOSE and (b) repeatedly seeking to place non-encyclopaedic promotional content (particularly a panel of advertisements). AllyD (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Looks like User:Randykitty has indef'd them as a WP:ORGNAME. --Drm310 (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Opang Jamir
- Opang Jamir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Opangjamirmetsubo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The username suggests it is used by two people (Opang and Metsubo Jamir), that created 10 of the 36 sources of the article. The remaining sources appear like they are not independent. The article is about one of the two people operating the account, that allegedly won a contest, whose article was deleted for lack of notability. I've started an AfD to delete the article and I've got already 1 vote for delete, that stated the account was a "WP:SPA", i.e. a single purpose account. The "single purpose" of the account is creating an autobiography, and this is a conflict of interest. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 15:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- This seems like a pretty clear COI. The user continues to edit the article, and has not engaged either here, at his talk page, or on the article talk page. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Kendall-K1:: Thanks for voting delete. The deletion was unopposed, the article got deleted and the user got indeffed with the block summary
{{uw-spamublock}} <!-- Promotional username, promotional edits -->. The account's single purpose is creating an autobiography.[1] Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 13:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Kendall-K1:: Thanks for voting delete. The deletion was unopposed, the article got deleted and the user got indeffed with the block summary
References
- ^ "Editing statistics for Opangjamirmetsubo". tools.wmflabs.org. Retrieved 1 February 2017.
ArchitectureNerd
ArchitectureNerd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), based on the articles created, seems to be a paid editor. What's baffling is the edit histories, which seem to a show a chain of moves from sandbox to a series of new and unrelated titles. Can anyone tell me what's going on there?
In any case, the articles in question are:
--Calton | Talk 12:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks like they just recycled their sandbox, a common practice. FYI I fixed your link to the user to show userlinks instead of article links. --Krelnik (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Krelnik: was I not suppose to use my sandbox for starting articles? I figured writing a decent amount before moving it to a live article made more sense. ArchitectureNerd (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- @ArchitectureNerd: - as far as I can tell your sandbox use is just fine, I was explaining it to @Calton: above. They seem to think you may be a paid editor, are you? If so there are some disclosure things you need to do, see WP:PAID for detials. If not, please excuse the intrusion! --Krelnik (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Krelnik: was I not suppose to use my sandbox for starting articles? I figured writing a decent amount before moving it to a live article made more sense. ArchitectureNerd (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Krelnik: Okay, cool - thanks! I'm most definitely not a paid editor. From the sounds of it these accusations seem fairly routine, so I don't mind the intrusion at all. Is there anything I can do to help prove I'm not, or do I just wait until Wiki admins hand down a decision? Thanks btw. ArchitectureNerd (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Nope, not buying it. It's an assembly-line process that also serves to obscure the creation of new articles. For a new editor, you've gotten pretty good at cranking out a series of low-notability, thinly sourced, puffed-up, and promotional articles on an odd assortment of topics: a marijuana activist and her organization, two blogs, an interior decorator, and a California property-sales website specializing in Chinese properties. --Calton | Talk 03:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Nathan Sykes
- Nathan Sykes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- JMGE01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I observed an edit by a user named JMGlobal to Nathan Sykes which seemed promotional in nature to me, and the username suggested it could be that of a PR firm or other business. I posted a coi-username notice to their user talk page; at about the same time the user Theroadislong reverted the edit as promotional. The user restored it and I reverted that. Eventually they contacted me on my user talk page where I was finally able to communicate the issue with their username and they then put in a change request to JMGE01 which was granted. By not disagreeing with my username warning I take that to mean that the username was that of a business. I have asked repeatedly if they indeed have a COI and/or a paid association, but they have not answered the question so far, focusing on changes they want to see to the article. 331dot (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Paid editor Barbequeue has been indeffed for socking
- Barbequeue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Karmaclub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) CU confirmed sock
- Dave Gray (Author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Forrest Breyfogle, III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) "management consultant process improvement expert", requested speedy
See archive 91 for background. This was a paid editor who needed some help getting his declarations right. Now he flunked the checkuser test. His contribs might need to be re-reviewed accordingly. - Brianhe (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Pertains to everything that is done here
Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Investigating_COI_policy Further opinions from those here appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Stephen J. Blackwood
A single editor has tended this article for some time now, and appears to heavily cite the subject of the article. More eyes on this would be appreciated. - Brianhe (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Cage Fighter
- Cage Fighter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Tm853511 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tm853511 created this article, and said at the Help Desk, "I recently created a new page for my company Cage Fighter." (they wanted to know why the new article wasn't showing up in search engine results). They have made no disclosure of COI, instead opting to come to my talk page and complain about how we're mean, because lots of big-name MMA guys wear their clothes, so that makes them notable. Orange Mike | Talk 00:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Aly & Fila
- Aly & Fila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Tolya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The editor explains his own background on their user page. A Google search established a close connection with the artist. I did a large WP:NPOV copyedit on the article to remov unreferenced and promotional material. That was reverted with this and this edit summaries. Karst (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Mahamadou wague
- Mahamadou wague (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- File:Mahamadou Wague.jpeg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Hamewague07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Only edits are to the unsourced article with a similar name to the user, possibly self-promotion or WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK, also vandalized the Wikipedia article. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 02:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
EximusDental, a new account, has two contributions, both related to the promotional article they have created, Dr. Erlinda M. Dyson AusLondonder (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Regina Russell & Quiet Riot
- Regina Russell Banali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Quiet Riot - Well Now You're Here (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – produced by Regina Russell Banali
- Pinkmermaid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – claims to be Regina Russell
Pinkmermaid seems to only edit things related to Regina Russell and/or Quiet Riot. Pinkmermaid has been editing Regina Russell's article since 2006 and created the film article this month. If the claim to be Regina Russell is false, social media pages for Regina Russell show a clear connection to 'pinkmermaid'/'pinkmermaidprod'/'pinkmermaidproductions'.
You deleted content from a page I added. You sited that it was copied from another website. When in fact the writing is originally from MY website for the film and the website you listed copied it from ME. Please don't delete things from this page. This material is 100% owned by me and my company.
This film has been OUT for two years. We will not financially benefit from a wiki page. Just providing an public service of information.
- Past COI warning from C.Fred re Quiet Riot and follow up pt.1, pt. 2
- June 2011/COI
The articles need to be cleaned up and accessed for notability, and the editor needs to be restricted to talk pages for these topics. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Jason Pontin
- Jason Pontin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Jpontin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Wroush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 71.126.237.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
My previous investigation into the years of COI editing led to the page being significantly scaled back by editors. I since noticed the editing allegations have since been disputed, however this seems unlikely to me when they are reviewed both individually and contextually. Since then, significant edits have restored the content without COI being disclosed. Deku-shrub (talk) 12:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- New editor, Wroush seems to have really, really similar editing habits and interests & is expanding this article, maybe what you meant by "restored content". - Brianhe (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- I am not Wroush. I have never edited a Wiki page from Washington DC or Virginia. My disagreements with Aubrey de Grey are irrelevant to the notability of my page - and it's odd that Deku-shrub (talk) should bring them up. In terms of COI, I did not "restore" anything deleted by editors, but provided the citations that Deku-shrub (talk) demanded. I clearly meet the standards of notability as the editor in chief and publisher of the world's oldest technology publication MIT Technology Review, a veteran writer and editor, the Chairman of the MIT Enterprise Forum, and the founder of Solve. Many less famous writers and editors, leading much smaller publications have pages. Jpontin (talk)
- It is never a good idea to edit the article on oneself--as this demonstrates. The way to improve one's article is to make suggestions on the article talk page. Anything else inevitably raises the suspicion of improper editing. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Rcriteshchoubey
Rcriteshchoubey (talk · contribs) has a clear conflict of interest at Bindeshwari Dubey and has admitted it. Nonetheless, they keep on carrying on and do not respond to messages on their talk page. Worse, they're clueless when it comes to WP:V, WP:RS etc. What to do? - Sitush (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
I notice that their edits are mostly tagged as "mobile edit". Could that be affecting their receipt of notifications? - Sitush (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes mobile editing is more difficult for sure. Appears they are working to create a number of articles about family members. Have warned. If they continue will need to remove their ability to edit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- I had warned earlier and also tried to explain. If it is the mobile element that might be causing the problem, is there some other way to notify them. Perhaps this is daft but maybe a temporary edit notice for the article? I realise that might seem like singling someone out, which is not A Good Thing, but if it draws their attention to their talk page ... - Sitush (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Doc James: they're continuing. Perhaps a short block would catch their attention and prevent further disruption? - Sitush (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes mobile editing is more difficult for sure. Appears they are working to create a number of articles about family members. Have warned. If they continue will need to remove their ability to edit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Harold E. Puthoff
- Harold E. Puthoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 97.79.128.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This is a single use IP address, removing apparently negative material from the above article. I note that in the diff of the latest such edit, there is an apparent indication that the IP address belongs to the subject of the article, which, given the nature of recent edits, and the number of warnings that have had to be issued in the past, may be a cause for concern. Anaxial (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Note, the comment above describes an edit summary stating "my research..." and therefore is self-outing. It is a static IP that has been editing this article since 2011. - Brianhe (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Denis Piel
- Denis Piel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 93.14.18.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This article's history will demonstrate the long-standing COI, neutrality, tone, content, sourcing, personal resume abuse and contraventions that have existed in the 8+ years of this article's existence. Most prolific is a defunct user who has added much to this article single-handedly but not exactly demonstrated much commitment to the rest of the project. Also complicit in this exercise are two others who've demonstrated similar behaviour (much enthusiasm for this article, zero for any others), namely the creator and one other contributor (whose name matches the business partner of the subject as per their own edits on another article) - whose username tallies with that of subject's wife as per article. Bearing in mind I already removed ~10,000 bytes of rambling, incomprehensible data, the article is still a mess in so many ways. The latest editor is an unregistered IP, whereas previous contributors were all registered.
I personally am of the belief that this actually fails notability, because other than this brief profile in the Guardian, there are mere splatterings of coverage on the net (e.g. here and here), nothing anywhere near significant in my interpretation of the term. I'm not convinced everyone will agree with this because of the subjective nature of 'significant' and me not being fully versed with which sources in this field are considered important, however I would like to this article will be looked at through the lens of notability and considered for AfD if appropriate. Whilst preparing this report, I did also stumble upon this connected article about the subject's chateau which similarly seems to lack notability too and was created/majorly contributed to one of the COI editors listed above (the creator of the Piel article in question). Rayman60 (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Trimmed a bunch more unreffed stuff. Agree we are not their CV.
- If their is not enough sources to support notability should be deleted.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, I note your edits to trim it down to something more appropriate. I was hesitant to do so myself as felt my axe would land close to the WP:TNT end of the spectrum. Rayman60 (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any doubt about his notability – numerous Gbooks results, even if many of them are mentions rather than in-depth coverage. Gbooks doesn't throw up the Rizzoli monograph on him, though. The problem with this kind of COI editing is that it stifles any chance of a proper article developing by normal Wikipedia evolution. Anyway, thanks to both Rayman60 and Doc James for clean-up there; I've done a little more, and I think the page is now ready for expansion by non-conflicted Wikipedia editors. I'll keep it on my watchlist, and suggest some others do the same. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, I note your edits to trim it down to something more appropriate. I was hesitant to do so myself as felt my axe would land close to the WP:TNT end of the spectrum. Rayman60 (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Oliver Cookson
- Oliver Cookson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 82.70.41.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
IP is SPA and suspected COI. They have dipped into this article 4 times over 2.5 years (100% SPA, 15 edits). I wanted to get advice regarding one specific edit before I acted - this one. It details a crime the subject committed in his youth and was caught/punished (non-custodial sentence). Clearly someone seeking to move from NPOV to PROMO would not like this fact (backed up by BBC article) mixed in with their achievements. The rationale for removing it is (as per edit summary of edit in question) Removed due to legal reasons under the ROA 1974 (UK). Now it's my understanding this conviction would not need to be declared say in a job application, however the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 does not, to my knowledge, limit inclusion of crimes in biographies. Because of the L word and me not categorically knowing the intricacies of this law and its application to wikipedia, I thought I'd pass it up here for consideration. My gut feeling would be to re-add the content.
Also please advise on the photo. It's been lifted from subject's commercial website and inserted by another SPA, User:RobertNikelson. I believe this creates copyright issues, however I'm not entirely sure how to deal with this other than removing the pic from the article (which would still leave it on wikimedia and therefore seems like insufficient action). Rayman60 (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Brian Skerry
- Brian Skerry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Margor.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 71.10.250.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Editor appears to admit to COI here [28] (although not logged in at the time). The article isn't too bad, and the subject may be notable, but many of the sources are not independent (subject's employer Nat Geo) and parts are unsourced or overly promotional. I already removed an "Awards" section. This article could use a good neutrality check, which I don't have the time for right now. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- I guess I should add that the article has been around for several years, but was recently almost entirely replaced by new content written by this editor, who is apparently an employee of the article's subject. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Block request
I'd like to request a block. Can I do that here or should I go to ANI?
- Margor replaces old article content with a new article including poorly sourced Awards section: [29]
- I remove the awards section: [30]
- I ask Margor if he has a COI, and he appears to reply that he is a paid editor: [31]
- I put a COI notice on Margor's talk page: [32]
- In response to questions, I leave a welcome template and try to point Margor to appplicable policies: [33] [34]
- Margor continues to edit directly, restoring the Awards section and removing the COI template: [35] [36]
- Margor has yet to fully disclose his COI.
@Margor.88: Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Kendall-K1 I never replied that to you! (and he appears to reply that he is a paid editor): Brian Skerry was interviewed (no paid) in order to have sufficient content for this entry.
And again, who else would be able to provide relevant details? Someone completely unfamiliar with Brian Skerry? Correct?
From you: That means we need to be able to point to some published source where we got the material.
Please, look at references! Every sentence in Awards has published source! Margor.88 (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy article
Hey there! user:ch2017 posted about this a few weeks ago, but it looks like it's already been archived. I'm one of her colleagues, and I'm helping her out because I've used Wikipedia in the past.
Basically, both of us have a COI. (I explained mine on my talk page, but I'm basically part of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's communications team and I was asked to help update the EERE article.) The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy article hasn't really been updated in 9 years, when I last updated this page under user:elispen. At the time, I did what I'm doing now: I posted on the COI/N board, where someone offered to review my draft. When it was good to go, they posted it to EERE for me.
user:ch2017's original draft was deleted for copyright issues, so I heavily edited it, checked all the sources, and made sure everything was cited. I also removed a lot of non-neutral language.
So here's my question: could you point me in the right path? The EERE talk page is pretty dead, so posting there hasn't gotten the drafts any attention. Where can I find someone to review my draft? My colleague tried sending it to AFC (through the submission button in the sandbox), but I'm not quite sure if that's the right way to go to update an existing article.
Thanks for your help! Es2017 (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Es2017, there's a specific {{Request edit}} template you can use to call attention to your draft on the article's talk page. The instructions are here. Once you've done that, it will show up on the requested edits list. Unfortunately, there's a bit of a backlog, but this gets the attention of editors who might not have visited the article's talk page. Thanks for asking! BlackcurrantTea (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Idein Ventures and its execs
- Idein ventures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) at AfD
- Ashok.Mehta.31122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- MShindey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I don't want to say too much here at the risk of a claim of canvassing. Could another regular take a look at the editors above, and the articles they are active at, and the AfD? We might have a UPE situation here but since I opened the AfD it's probably not right for me to lead this side of it. - Brianhe (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I have put this on my Talk as well. Yes I have a conflict of interest with Idein ventures now. I should have declared it but I am not a direct beneficiary or employee. I am not getting any commercial benefit from the company either. I work for an organisation invested by them. You may take relevant action but when I created the page the investment was not done. You can check from social media news and so on. Ashok.Mehta.31122 (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
AnEditorNameA
- John G. Edelman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- John McPhee (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Design Within Reach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- AnEditorNameA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User has been referred to WP:COI by User:Meters and I multiple times but has not disclosed or responded at all. User makes promotional articles about heads of the design company Design Within Reach, and in several cases has made disruptive edits to already existing pages, or has hijacked a page such as John Edelman, in order to subvert New Page review. On both pages about people when looking at the pictures provided, they claim that they are the owner of the images(here and here); it is their "own work", which provides more evidence. User:GabetheEditor (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- I was thinking of opening this myself.
I believe "reverted" in the first sentence should read "referred".[fixed, no longer needed] The user in question has recently stated that he is not being paid for the edits, but has not addressed COI fully.. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John G. Edelman. More comments later. Meters (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)- Likewise - I also placed a Conflict of Interest template on the talk page of this editor. A new editor creating articles about one specific company and their senior staff - definitely not typical of a new editor and a sure sign of a conflict of interest. Assuming Good Faith is a noble thing, but common sense overrides all. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Corrected the linked article from John McPhee to John McPhee (entrepreneur) Meters (talk) 08:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yup. my AGF is done. This appears to be a COI editor, and despite his denial, quite possibly a paid one. There is also an attempt to move an existing article out of the way so that a new article could take its title, an attempt to highjack an article, and a very strong possibility of socking in an attempt to derail an AFD,
- A new editor, AnEditorNameA, changed a redirect into a promotional company article complete with copyvio material from a PR source. The editor restored copyvio material and promotional material after it was removed. Linked to the article from existing articles Rob Forbes and Herman Miller (manufacturer). Created promo articles on senior staff John G. Edelman and John McPhee (entrepreneur) and linked the various articles. (Note that he first tried to cut and paste John Edelman out of the way to John Edelman (Baseball) and when that was undone simply tried to highjack the article [37]). When John McPhee (entrepreneur) was put up for a promo speedy within minutes an IP (User:50.74.232.106 ) with zero previous edits (and no subsequent edits) quickly showed up to contest the speedy. Fair enough, the speedy was quickly declined, and it could have been an unintentional edit while logged out, but when the article was taken to AFD, a new account User:Designtime1225 was created and made exactly two edits: adding an "OLD AFD" template to the talk page falsely claiming that the AFD had closed as KEEP [38], and then removing the AFD template from the article [39]. This aggressive defense smacks of paid editing. Meters (talk) 08:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- SPI WP:Sockpuppet investigations/AnEditorNameA initiated. More comments there are welcome. - Brianhe (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Likewise - I also placed a Conflict of Interest template on the talk page of this editor. A new editor creating articles about one specific company and their senior staff - definitely not typical of a new editor and a sure sign of a conflict of interest. Assuming Good Faith is a noble thing, but common sense overrides all. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Question It appears that the people here are waiting for action at SPI, instead of taking action themselves. Is that accurate? If so, it's silly. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- I think it's just a matter of COIN being backed up. We've only got a couple of admins who are active now. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Big new sockfarm
- Brilbluterin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - currently named master
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brilbluterin is a possible WP:Orangemoody related case. There are dozens of accounts. Article creations and edits still need cleanup, Smartse has scanned about half of them and I've done a handful; help is appreciated. - Brianhe (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Daniele Trevisani
- Culturalresearch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Daniele Trevisani is an independent researcher, consultant and 'freelance coach'. I happened to notice that he was referred to by name in a dozen or so Wikipedia articles, often (but not always) referencing ebooks published by 'Medialab Research', which a few minutes of googling shows is a self publishing company set up by Trevisani. A couple of examples: one and two.
Every one of these references was inserted by User:Culturalresearch. The majority of that users edits are about Trevisani. Culturalresearch also started a Wikibook at Book:Basic_Concepts_for_Human_Factor_and_Team_Training_in_Extreme_Environments which says the article selection is by Dr. Daniele Trevisani. I have removed all these references, save the Wikibook.
I've just been notified that Culturalresearch has been writing to third parties (here and here) that by doing so I have been destroying the mission of Wikipedia. I'm bringing this here to see if I was indeed off-base on this one. - MrOllie (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing out this issue. I am a Fulbright Scholar Award receiver (back in 1989) for Intercultural Communication Research, an now an independent researcher and a writer. My books are publicly visible here https://www.amazon.com/Daniele-Trevisani/e/B00J78K9H0 - I have a 30+ years backgrond of research, and I thought good to contribute, so I made hundreds of contributions in Wikipedia, in fields such as semiotics, communication, management, human potential, strategic sciences, and others, sometimes a single character, correcting a misspelled world, and sometimes completely rewriting and adding sections to voices such as "Human Potential" that did not take into account any European perspective. I contributed about it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Potential_Movement#Human_Potential_in_Europe. I always thought that openness to a diversity of sources was in the interes of wikipedia readers and future generations. The right to know is the main right for future generations. If out of hundreds of contributions I happened to quote (repeat, quote, nothing else, following any wikipedia rule on quoting) some brief extracts from books published by Franco Angeli (main Italian publisher in social science and management in Italy), and Medialab Research (small independent publisher active only in social science) or other research where my work is cited, I wish to know what is the main guiding principle: try to contribute or not to contribute? Where is the threshold bewtweeen not writing an article since you are a researcher that contributed to that article, such as here https://books.google.it/books?id=5OmVDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA897&lpg=PA897&dq=trevisani,+stene,+conference&source=bl&ots=LiJpjrFXK_&sig=Ey46OLDQZ15BzV9q0_UEmWencYM&hl=it&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJ08a3tfTRAhWhIMAKHabZAFkQ6AEINzAG#v=onepage&q=trevisani%2C%20stene%2C%20conference&f=false?
- My research on intercultural communication started in 1988 and since then, it is quoted in hundreds of thesis, books, research articles, mainly in latin america and spanish speaking countries, such as here https://books.google.it/books?hl=it&lr=&id=IuMZkzL3uL8C&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&ots=DAog2vZzcR&sig=vrSSG-Spf4XY5_b9j0ox9kfxDKU#v=onepage&q&f=false. But not only, my works have been cited 281 times in research and books according to Google Scholar, is it forbidden for me to share that research at any level? Shall I feel guilty for having done research?
- Is wikipedia better off now that MrOllie deleted my contributions and my possibility to contribute on topics where I have knowledge that can be useful to wikipedia users first of all? Please check with your own eyes, really carefully, if they were contributions or not. Thanks for your attention --Culturalresearch (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
No, you were right on the money, Ollie. I'll leave it to more qualified people to decide what to do with Mr. Promo here. 2600:1017:B021:C0D4:AAD0:D736:8B47:9A7E (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
@MrOllie: I saw this case based on Culturalresearch's post at the Teahouse. I don't have experience at WP:COI, but I remember a case at Galileo affair where an Italian professor requested that we add two of his articles to a bibliography. After some comment by DVdm and David J Wilson we added the articles to the bibliography, and 1-2 sentences of relevant text to the article. I liked that approach because the professor's work was relevant and they weren't pushy about it.
In this case I'm afraid the additions look more like promotion. I think Culturalresearch should agree to stop editing on any topic related to themselves, stop citing themselves in any way, or should not edit Wikipedia at all. -Darouet (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- In general the acceptable way to add references to one's own published work is to suggest it on the talk page of an article, are similarly. It's very difficult to be objective over whether one's own work is sufficiently important to be added. This would be especially true if it is self-published! DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
It's probably also worth mentioning that User:Explorerplainstone seems to have a similar editing pattern with regard to this subject (and their user page addition is very similar to that of Culturalresearch. I was about to file an SPI but figured mentioning it here first was better. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Gary Brewer and the Kentucky Ramblers
- Gary Brewer and the Kentucky Ramblers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- AlyssaBrewer103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
New article created by a user with similar username hinting at COI. User has not responded to COI messages on talkpage. At the least, this article needs scrutiny of the total of six sources used, three of which include the group's Facebook page, website, and press kit. Brianhe (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- I removed one particularly inappropriate section. I think there is some genuine notability for some of the people, but the bio sections on the others should be removed also. I leave it to those who know more about the genre. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- I removed the marketing links to Amazon. The rest will be difficult because it relies on primary sources and has no inline citations. Almost requires a complete re-write. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- I am new to Wikipedia, and need more info on this COI issue. I would like to make the improvements with any of your help. Before it is deleted, I would be happy to make any changes to help it be in line with the rules of the site. I am Alyssa Brewer, Gary Brewer and the Kentucky Ramblers' publicist. I feel that I should have the biggest right to compose their Wikipedia page. Please advise me on how to do so correctly, and we will have no more problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlyssaBrewer103 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- An identical version of this article was deleted last week as spam and for copyright violations. I've nominated it again. The above claim, I am Alyssa Brewer, Gary Brewer and the Kentucky Ramblers' publicist. I feel that I should have the biggest right to compose their Wikipedia page. well summarizes the problems here. 2601:188:1:AEA0:9C72:D001:B02E:25B8 (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- To whom it may concern, since everyone is completely overly critiquing the Gary Brewer and the Kentucky Ramblers page and you have nothing but time..I challenge you to check my facts on the page and see if you can write a better article. Do your research and verify all my info. As I can assure you it is all genuine and verifiable. The page is not finished. All that is currently listed does not even tip the iceberg on what they have done on their 37 active years in the music business. Why would anyone waste the time to publish false information. Please understand a lot of time and effort went into this article, and it is specifically done for the band's fans to be able to read about their favorite Bluegrass band. I have added certain things that were asked for. Thank you, and I hope we can work this out without having to delete it. AlyssaBrewer103 (talk)
- An identical version of this article was deleted last week as spam and for copyright violations. I've nominated it again. The above claim, I am Alyssa Brewer, Gary Brewer and the Kentucky Ramblers' publicist. I feel that I should have the biggest right to compose their Wikipedia page. well summarizes the problems here. 2601:188:1:AEA0:9C72:D001:B02E:25B8 (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- I am new to Wikipedia, and need more info on this COI issue. I would like to make the improvements with any of your help. Before it is deleted, I would be happy to make any changes to help it be in line with the rules of the site. I am Alyssa Brewer, Gary Brewer and the Kentucky Ramblers' publicist. I feel that I should have the biggest right to compose their Wikipedia page. Please advise me on how to do so correctly, and we will have no more problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlyssaBrewer103 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- I removed the marketing links to Amazon. The rest will be difficult because it relies on primary sources and has no inline citations. Almost requires a complete re-write. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- I removed one particularly inappropriate section. I think there is some genuine notability for some of the people, but the bio sections on the others should be removed also. I leave it to those who know more about the genre. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
This one seems straightforward: Only 20 edits, yet
- producing two fully-formed articles in their sandbox in one edit then moving them into mainspace.
- creating a redundant article Athletic conditioning as a shell for an obvious advert (see if you can spot it)
- pumping up a few other low-notability articles created by other editors
- Playspace - concept promoted by Pamela Meyer Ph.D, above
- Created by Timfrick (talk · contribs): 32 edits, last on 2011-09-09, all on this article
- Also, contributions by RovingScholar (talk · contribs) (22 edits) and BrandyAgerbeck (talk · contribs) (9 edits). The latter contributed a graphic; a quick Google search shows that "Brandy Agerback" is an associate of Pamela Meyer, and does graphic work for her. [40]
- Created by Malistomailie (talk · contribs) 49 edits, but still active, but that's a different rabbit hole.
--Calton | Talk 03:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Anybody else find it suspicious that a new account produces this article with basically one single edit? I don't know much about sports, so staying away from it, just thought I'd mention it here. --Randykitty (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Normally, I would, but there has been an article on him at the Persian Wikipedia since 2014 [41]. It may have been just a translation of that. Note also that the English is rather poor in places, e.g. He with national team winner two gold medal and in 2012 was captain of the herd and its luster with the Kalleh.... Normally, paid-for articles are a bit better in that respect. Voceditenore (talk) 11:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Site soliciting clients
People per hour A site soliciting paid clients S Philbrick(Talk) 15:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for this. Looking at their portfolio, they claim to have written Taschen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Vanna Bonta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The Taschen claim is BS AFAICT, and Vanna Bonta was created by Worthywords (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who I blocked 18 months ago. User:Doc James has had some success in getting pages like this taken down before - seeming as they are either lying or blocked, maybe that might work? SmartSE (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- This job listing seems to have been carried out (very poorly!) by an OM sock: [42]. SmartSE (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- InfoQuest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - the company seeking promotion in that advert - was also created by an OM sock. SmartSE (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Richard Warshak
- Richard Warshak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Shaun234mh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Warshakn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Pasfighter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- warshak.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.warshak.com
Every contribution from these three users involves editing the article Richard Warshak, adding external links to warshak.com, or adding references to Richard Warshak to other articles. The article on Richard Warshak may be an autobiography (article creator is Warshakn who has an obvious name connection) and contains plenty of promotional text and peacock wording and the article contains 15 links to warshak.com. Deli nk (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
SonarQube
- SonarQube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ganncamp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I work for SonarSource SA, the company behind SonarQube.
Unaware of the COI policy, I edited the SonarQube page this morning to remove most of the egregiously outdated information.
Two outdated points remain: the "Live SonarQube instance" URL should be updated from http://nemo.sonarsource.org to https://sonarqube.com. The site has been renamed, although there is a redirect in place for now.
Also, the screenshot in the summary box is outdated. I've attached a more current one.
Ideally, someone would make these changes for me.
BTW, I've no idea whether this is the right place to post these additional requests (in addition to the initial request for forgiveness) but I can't quite make out from the instructional page what I'm supposed to post on the relevant Talk page. Ganncamp (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- You may find the plain and simple COI guide helpful. I left a note on your talk page and added a {{connected contributor}} template to the article's talk page. I'm having problems reaching http://sonarqube.com, so maybe someone else here can help with that change. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry BlackcurrantTea (talk), I got the protocol wrong. It should be httpS://sonarqube.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganncamp (talk • contribs) 14:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Phil Ligrani
- Phil Ligrani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ligrani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Academic autobiography, with WP:OWNERSHIP issues. Account has received COI warnings several times over the course of more than five years. The article needs attention from objective editors. 2601:188:1:AEA0:6D90:86ED:97C4:6554 (talk) 06:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- I've re-written this and will keep it on watch. See my comments at Talk:Phil Ligrani#Notability and other tags. Voceditenore (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. And yes, given the subject's involvement, this needs to be watched. 2601:188:1:AEA0:9C72:D001:B02E:25B8 (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Neiyay
- Neiyay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I blocked this user yesterday as an obvious undisclosed paid editor. Articles created / extensively edited:
- Brad Troemel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Stefan Szeider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Johnny Lin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Stanislav Shekshnia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Jon Kraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- WellAway Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Griselle Chernys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- PhpList (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Neenyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Fitria Yusuf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Sushma Shimkhada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Rome Business School, Italy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- PacMoore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Harvinder Sahota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Aaron Feldman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Dhanushka Jayakody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Beyond Security (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (in draft, previously deleted but accounts seemingly unrelated)
SmartSE (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Hearsay Social
Hi! I work for a communications firm that represents Hearsay, and I've proposed several specific updates to the article on its Talk page. These include updating the company name, adding a logo and some other info to the infobox, and clarifying and adding detail to the article. I won't be editing directly due to my COI, so I would really appreciate it if someone could take a look and implement my suggestions or offer feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Jon F. Vein
- Jon F. Vein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Jonfvein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 2606:6000:60C9:F200:7528:A7F8:D345:192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Biographer1203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Roroyourboat04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Article's subject has WP:OWNERSHIP issues, primarily with persistent addition of unsourced and/or promotional content. This may require article protection. 2601:188:1:AEA0:9C72:D001:B02E:25B8 (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
A recent edit to the above article jumped out at me from my watchlist, but I do not have any time to look into it. Could someone experienced with these things take a look? Thanks, Josh Milburn (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)