BeloyiseBurron (talk | contribs) |
m Signing comment by BeloyiseBurron - "→Brand.com: " |
||
Line 244: | Line 244: | ||
: Update — I received [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GenuineDiva&diff=610992604&oldid=610992522 this message] accusing me that something happened off Wikipedia that cause me edits. Very weird, considering I have had no contact with Brand.com and the SPU appears to believe they know I could have been involved with them somehow? What is happening here; am I being threatened by Wikipedia to stop speaking? [[User:GenuineDiva|GenuineDiva]] ([[User talk:GenuineDiva|talk]]) 22:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC) |
: Update — I received [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GenuineDiva&diff=610992604&oldid=610992522 this message] accusing me that something happened off Wikipedia that cause me edits. Very weird, considering I have had no contact with Brand.com and the SPU appears to believe they know I could have been involved with them somehow? What is happening here; am I being threatened by Wikipedia to stop speaking? [[User:GenuineDiva|GenuineDiva]] ([[User talk:GenuineDiva|talk]]) 22:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC) |
||
ArbComm isn't a threat. No legal threat of any kind has been made. A report is going to ArbComm so they can understand how Diva is using off Wiki conduct to try to make a company look bad. It's a right, not a threat. Except you have no idea who I am, and it's not Wiki PR or Brand.com. edits are not suspicious, they are plain as day. Diva is using Wiki as a place to air his grievances about things that are taking place off Wiki. Check the edit history of Mr. Diva. I am sending additional info to ArbComm so we can end this silliness. |
ArbComm isn't a threat. No legal threat of any kind has been made. A report is going to ArbComm so they can understand how Diva is using off Wiki conduct to try to make a company look bad. It's a right, not a threat. Except you have no idea who I am, and it's not Wiki PR or Brand.com. edits are not suspicious, they are plain as day. Diva is using Wiki as a place to air his grievances about things that are taking place off Wiki. Check the edit history of Mr. Diva. I am sending additional info to ArbComm so we can end this silliness. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:BeloyiseBurron|BeloyiseBurron]] ([[User talk:BeloyiseBurron|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/BeloyiseBurron|contribs]]) 23:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
::I first entered this seeing that there was a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] involved, and at first I thought it was {{U|GenuineDiva}} with the COI. Having [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GenuineDiva looked at her edit history] I see the COI is in fact with {{U|BeloyiseBurron}} as you can see with his [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BeloyiseBurron edit history] he is clearly editing to [[WP:ADVERT|promote an entity]]. [[User:Solarra|<font color="#FC89AC" face="Comic Sans MS">'''♥ Solarra ♥'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Solarra|<font color="green">♪ 話 ♪</font>]]</sup> ߷ <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Solarra|<font color="darkgreen">♀ 投稿 ♀</font>]]</sub> 22:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC) |
::I first entered this seeing that there was a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] involved, and at first I thought it was {{U|GenuineDiva}} with the COI. Having [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GenuineDiva looked at her edit history] I see the COI is in fact with {{U|BeloyiseBurron}} as you can see with his [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BeloyiseBurron edit history] he is clearly editing to [[WP:ADVERT|promote an entity]]. [[User:Solarra|<font color="#FC89AC" face="Comic Sans MS">'''♥ Solarra ♥'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Solarra|<font color="green">♪ 話 ♪</font>]]</sup> ߷ <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Solarra|<font color="darkgreen">♀ 投稿 ♀</font>]]</sub> 22:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC) |
||
::: Holy wow! So many threats in so little time just because I start editing on paid-editing company pages. Cripes. No wonder they run roughshod over the whole thing. Well, if the arbitration committee is used solely for pushing new users out when they raise an issue, fine by me. By wow, I cannot even believe that any balanced information about a paid-editing company is just removed with the snap of the fingers. Shocking there is so much support here for commercializing the site. [[User:GenuineDiva|GenuineDiva]] ([[User talk:GenuineDiva|talk]]) 22:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC) |
::: Holy wow! So many threats in so little time just because I start editing on paid-editing company pages. Cripes. No wonder they run roughshod over the whole thing. Well, if the arbitration committee is used solely for pushing new users out when they raise an issue, fine by me. By wow, I cannot even believe that any balanced information about a paid-editing company is just removed with the snap of the fingers. Shocking there is so much support here for commercializing the site. [[User:GenuineDiva|GenuineDiva]] ([[User talk:GenuineDiva|talk]]) 22:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:03, 31 May 2014
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:
|
Banc De Binary
- Banc De Binary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- HistorianofRecenttimes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
First and foremost I would like to make it known that I am an employee of Banc De Binary and thus have my own COI. However I feel that user HistorianofRecenttimes also has some sort of personal attachment to the subject of the article Banc De Binary, and may actually be a shill for NADEX.
As evidence I would like to provide the following:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/HistorianofRecenttimes
- The contributions of this user show that it is a Single Purpose Account. All of the user's edits are related to Banc De Binary, even those which are not on the article Banc De Binary.
See the following links:
- * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snell_%26_Wilmer&diff=prev&oldid=605631425
- * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GeorgeBarnick&diff=prev&oldid=605323940
- * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GeorgeBarnick&diff=prev&oldid=605321950
- * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snell_%26_Wilmer&diff=prev&oldid=600167565
- * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snell_%26_Wilmer&diff=prev&oldid=600167495
- * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snell_%26_Wilmer&diff=prev&oldid=600167374
- * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pinkbeast&diff=prev&oldid=577697372
- * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rybec&diff=prev&oldid=577696564
- * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pinkbeast&diff=prev&oldid=577729842
- * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WikiDan61&diff=prev&oldid=577590635
- * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pinkbeast&diff=prev&oldid=577423888
- * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=577425019
- The user attemps to delete the AfD tag on the page stating in the talk page:
BTW, I checked the CYSEC list of regulated companies, why is it that Banc de Binary do not give a telephone number like all the others, surely this is pevidence that they're not really in Cyprus other than with a virtual office.
- Which is another example of "unsourced allegations and synthesis" (User:Pinkbeast - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HistorianofRecenttimes - 15:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC) )
- There are several warnings by various users about the user's editing habits.
(sic)Please take care with your editing on Banc De Binary. I have reverted your edits, which appeared to consist of a fair amount of original research with a decidedly non-neutral tone about the history and nature of the bank.
- WikiDan61 - 13:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
(sic)You're right back where you started, with unsourced allegations and synthesis. Please confine yourself to cited facts.
- Pinkbeast - 15:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
(sic)Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Banc De Binary.
- GorillaWarfare - 22:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- User has made several attempts to enter content about one of the subject's competators into the article
(correction of grammar errors and NADEX detail)
(added cited sourced to for indictment, nadex and origin of company clarified, removed unsourced section saying bdb were in talks with us regulators as that was incorrect and unsourced.)
- User is attempting to use unreliable sources ( in this case blacklisted sources ) to try to use the article to insinuate that the subject is hiding information.
- User is attempting to use an unreliable source to try to use the article to insinuate that the subject is "Blacklisted".
- Adds information relevant to a competator of the article's subject/
- Adds information relevant to a competator of the article's subject/
BDBJack (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I have watched the BDB page for some time - IIRC, since when the Morning277 socks were starting to be exposed.
I think the idea that HistorianofRecentTimes is a shill for NADEX does not stand up to any examination. Such a shill would have edits on multiple pages about how wonderful NADEX is, not a lot of edits on one page, one or two of which mention NADEX in passing without being particularly adulatory.
That they have some sort of gripe against BDB is indisputable. However, this causes them to dig up a lot of material, and other editors seem to do a reasonably good job of removing synthesis from it. Of course, one could argue that this gives undue weight to the regulatory difficulties - but given that the page was deleted by AFD before those difficulties, it seems to me that that is what makes the company notable.
Historian is not totally adept at editing and I can well believe the removal of the AFD notice was in good faith, believing it to be no more legitimate than the repeated attempts by socks to whitewash the page. (The AFD was made by and largely contributed to by a mass of SPA socks). Of course, that doesn't make it appropriate.
I would certainly appreciate it if Historian clarified the nature of their gripe, of course, but it seems to me they are probably, in the words of the header, "biased without additionally having a COI".
I have no affiliation whatsoever to any part of the financial services industry. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree completely with what Pinkbeast has said. Per the evidence above, it looks like HistorianofRecenttimes has something against Banc De Binary, but that only demonstrates a problem following WP:NPOV. It doesn't indicate a COI of any kind, and there is no evidence of a connection to NADEX. It's a logical fallacy to say that if BDB has a competitor, and someone seems biased against BDB, they must work for that competitor. Maybe HistorianofRecenttimes has a personal grudge, maybe they work for a different competitor, maybe they simply have some kind of focus on this particular article. (I know that there are some articles that I've spent more time on than others, and I have no COI with them, but then again I'm no SPA.)
- In any case, no, there seems to be no COI unless and until HistorianofRecenttimes alludes to or admits a connection to BDB or a competitor. But that doesn't mean there is no concern. An editor with a COI who follows all of our guidelines and policies at most warrants extra scrutiny. An editor without a COI who violates our NPOV policy, or other policies and guidelines, can be subject to sanctions including blocks and/or bans. Though that would be a discussion for another place (WP:POVN or WP:ANI perhaps). -- Atama頭 15:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- I realize that I am looking at this from a biased point of view, as I do have a COI, however there is a reason that I specifically mentioned the NADEX reference. While I have not found evidence online, and any source that I would publish on the matter would be considered original research, one of the key facts that is missing completely about the SEC / CFTC joint case is that one of the 3 witnesses called in the case is Yossi Beinart, the previous CEO of NADEX. (Just to be clear, Yossi was never a client of Banc De Binary's) While I would LOVE to bring the evidence to the table showing this, I realize that until the case is closed, there will not be any such revelation. However this fact, combined with the face that HistorianofRecentTimes has mentioned NADEX several times in the context of the article, make me think that HistorianofRecentTimes is possibly a shill FOR NADEX.
- Given the history of a "personal grudge" against Banc De Binary. Regardless, if this is really a case of someone who has a "grudge" against Banc De Binary, and NOT one of our competitors trying a "dirty" marketing scam, i believe that warrants COI status, since the author obviously has some sort of relation with the subject of the article. The fact that the user seems to be singling out Banc De Binary as the focus of their research and authorship is something that I find to be suspicious at the very least. I realize that I am not a much better example, however I also do not pretend to be unbiased.
- Personal Interests aside, I really do not feel that user HistorianofRecentTimes is writing an article in the best interests of the Wikipedia community. While the information may be (loosely) correct (depending on the interpretation of the article, or the interpretation of the article of the author), the goal of the article authored by HistorianofRecentTimes is to harm Banc De Binary's public image.
Yandex
- Yandex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Vasiliy Faronov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I want to propose changes to the article on Yandex, which is my employer. I intend to use edit requests. The recommended procedure includes: “Propose a specific change on the talk page, and get consensus for it”. My experience with Wikipedia suggests that if I simply start a new section on the Talk:Yandex page, I’m unlikely to get any responses within a few months. Would this lack of responses indicate a consensus? Would it be appropriate to post edit requests without prior consensus? Should I seek consensus elsewhere? Vasiliy Faronov (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Vasiliy Faronov:, you're fine for coming here. You can use edit requests to request edits, and you're strongly discouraged from editing the article yourself. If you want something changed, you can use the talk page to request that the edit be made. If it's something about the history of the company, back it up with a reliable source. If you want to remove any controversies, you should get consensus for that. If it's something minor like fixing a typo (and not changing the meaning of a sentence), you can edit it to fix that. Tutelary (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Tutelary: Thank you for your reply, but I’m afraid it doesn’t answer my questions. I’ve been on Wikipedia for years and I’m comfortable with the main principles. I’m seeking guidance on a specific point: is it a good idea to post edit requests without establishing prior consensus, and if not, how to establish it. --Vasiliy Faronov (talk) 08:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, there is no need to have consensus to make edit requests. In fact, WP:CONSENSUS is supposed to be gained by persuasion on why your edit should go through, whether that's removing content or adding it, and if there's a conflict, you're supposed to explain why you think it should go through. So in short, no. You don't need consensus to make edit requests. Tutelary (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- To expand on what Tutelary said (which was all 100% correct), generally the process would be that you make an edit request, and if it is accepted them it would be implemented in the article. If it's rejected, then you can either accept the rejection if you agree with the reason for declining your request, or you can try to convince the person to accept the request with good, policy-based (and/or common sense-based) reasons. If you can't come to an agreement, there are dispute resolution options available. As long as you aren't overly disruptive with your requests (harassing people, filling up the talk page with endless arguments, discussing off-topic issues, and so on) then you shouldn't have any problem in making those requests. -- Atama頭 17:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think folks are missing what the editor is putting forth; it's not that his requested edits get accepted or rejected, it's that there are not enough eyes on the article, so the request simply gets ignored. He's not asking if it's okay to make edit requests, he is asking if, when they are ignored, it is okay for him to assume consensus due to lack of objection, and insert the edit himself. (If no, we should find someone willing to put eyes on the article, so that his requests are not just ignored.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- (Slap my forehead.) You're right. Well... Technically, WP:BOLD suggests it would be fine. Really, Vasiliy Faronov I don't see how anyone can fault you if you propose a change, nobody objects, and you implement it. Especially if you give it a month or more. If someone reverts you, you can ask them to go to the talk page and address your original proposal, and explain why you reject it. I do see that you've been using edit request templates and they've been getting answered, so maybe this is a bit moot, but in the future if you get ignored I think that you're safe in implementing them yourself if you establish on the talk page the reason for the edit you're making and as long as you respond constructively if you get reverted (don't get into an edit war for example). -- Atama頭 16:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- No, that’s not what I was asking. I was asking whether I needed consensus before posting an edit request. I’m not going to apply any edit requests myself. Thank you for your input anyway. ~ Vasiliy Faronov (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think folks are missing what the editor is putting forth; it's not that his requested edits get accepted or rejected, it's that there are not enough eyes on the article, so the request simply gets ignored. He's not asking if it's okay to make edit requests, he is asking if, when they are ignored, it is okay for him to assume consensus due to lack of objection, and insert the edit himself. (If no, we should find someone willing to put eyes on the article, so that his requests are not just ignored.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- To expand on what Tutelary said (which was all 100% correct), generally the process would be that you make an edit request, and if it is accepted them it would be implemented in the article. If it's rejected, then you can either accept the rejection if you agree with the reason for declining your request, or you can try to convince the person to accept the request with good, policy-based (and/or common sense-based) reasons. If you can't come to an agreement, there are dispute resolution options available. As long as you aren't overly disruptive with your requests (harassing people, filling up the talk page with endless arguments, discussing off-topic issues, and so on) then you shouldn't have any problem in making those requests. -- Atama頭 17:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, there is no need to have consensus to make edit requests. In fact, WP:CONSENSUS is supposed to be gained by persuasion on why your edit should go through, whether that's removing content or adding it, and if there's a conflict, you're supposed to explain why you think it should go through. So in short, no. You don't need consensus to make edit requests. Tutelary (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Tutelary: Thank you for your reply, but I’m afraid it doesn’t answer my questions. I’ve been on Wikipedia for years and I’m comfortable with the main principles. I’m seeking guidance on a specific point: is it a good idea to post edit requests without establishing prior consensus, and if not, how to establish it. --Vasiliy Faronov (talk) 08:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Gaza Flotilla Raid and Greta Berlin
- Gaza_flotilla_raid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Greta Berlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Tecspk@aol.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User:Tecspk@aol.com has been heavily editing the Gaza Flotilla Raid article, as well as the Greta Berlin article. Since May 20, 2014 the Gaza Flotilla Raid article and Greta Berlin article have been dominated by User:Tecspk@aol.com who has a clear conflict of interest [[1]]Drsmoo (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
"When investigating possible cases of conflict of interest editing, editors must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline." Is this not exactly what User Drsmoo has just done? It's not who an editor is but the quality of the edits that should always be the focus. --Akayani (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- The "quality of the edits" has already resulted in the editor being criticized for blatantly POV editing. [[2]]
- By the standards you describe, no conflicts of interest would ever be namedDrsmoo (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have deleted the WP:OUTING per policy; however, the conflict is readily discernable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Nat Gertler I don't see how the WP:OUTING has been deleted, as nothing appears to have changed. It wasn't my intention to harass anyone or contradict policy. Please feel free to remove anything that's in violation or let me know if I should remove anything. Drsmoo (talk) 04:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Whoops, must've hit an extra undo when undoing something. Have now really deleted, I think. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Not only did Drsmoo 'break a Wikipedia rule, but he also stretched the truth about editing the page called Greta Berlin, suggesting that the article has been 'dominated by user, Tecspk since May 20, 2014." There is one posting, the death of Greta Berlin's second husband. I don't expect an apology, but I do expect Drsmoo to be more careful in his/her accusations. They do not bode well for any of us. Tecspk@aol.com (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- I should have been more clear. It is the Gaza Flotilla Raid article that has been dominated by User:Tecspk@aol.com since May 20,2014. The Greta Berlin article has been dominated by User:Tecspk@aol.com since January 23,2014. Since then, of the 33 edits to the article, 24 have been by User:Tecspk@aol.com.
- Nat Gertler I don't see how the WP:OUTING has been deleted, as nothing appears to have changed. It wasn't my intention to harass anyone or contradict policy. Please feel free to remove anything that's in violation or let me know if I should remove anything. Drsmoo (talk) 04:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have deleted the WP:OUTING per policy; however, the conflict is readily discernable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Some edits that reflect possible POV are:
Drsmoo (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Internet telephony service provider
- Internet telephony service provider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Call shop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ciptelecom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Single-purpose account repeatedly adding WP:COI links promoting one voice-over-IP company. K7L (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have blocked them indefinitely for a username policy violation. Daniel Case (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Serama
- Serama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- NCOCEO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Rsteagall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This article has improbably become the ridiculous target of at least two competing sock farms, in a dispute which has lasted years, with the two 'sides' fighting over content under various guises. Mostly it's been IPs, but a long time ago it became semi'd indefinitely due to this. I've no idea what exactly the sides are/represent and the precise affiliation of either editor listed above (although some deductions are obvious, see below), but they popped up after the last time article protection expired, and there's clearly far too much attachment to the subject. Rsteagall I think must have been a sleeper, so may not be a sock per se, but NCOCEO even did the whole 10 random edit thing to get past semi-protection.
- NCOCEO's edits are clearly observable in their short and focused contribution history, but the oddest edits are ones like this one where they claim two really really obviously photoshopped images are not photoshopped, and despite these having text as part of the images they've removed another image claiming that the name was promotional (presumably anti Jerry Schenxnayder. They also say that "We ARE the consensus" and "Consensus of editors was that these pictures WERE credible" when there hasn't been any editors other than those two and myself, suggesting to me that it's either a group of people on an account or an account representing a group of people.
- Resteagall is I assume a representative of or member of the Serama Council of North America, an article they created. They were the ones who added the picture that NCOCEO removes claiming it's promotional, with the edit summary "This picture represents current progress in America of the type serama we have". Their edits are more spread out over a few years, but 2014 ones include reverting NCOCEO, so I assume they're from the opposing group to NCOCEO, whatever they are. Resteagall also posted on my talk saying "I don't know who you are, but I'm most certain you know who I am. Would you like to meet on a forum other than here to discuss and iron out differences? possibly on the SCNA forum or elsewhere? I am close friends with Jerry Schexnayder whom is the largest importer of Serama to the United States. I have access directly to him as well ask Kimberly Theodore. I also have access to other top breeders knowledge such as Dianne Brewer."
Being the only other editor on this page at the moment, I've been constantly accused by both sides on being whatever the other side is at some point or another, and it's quite tiring. Sadly the semi-protection expires later this year, so it'll be back to IPs again. CMD (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Chipmunkdavis keeps removing pictures that I see no evidence of what is "photoshopped" as he puts it. Chipmunkdavis obviously has some kind of agenda of his own that I'm not certain of yet. I do not know who this person is in real life. The only inaccuracies I'm seeing posted and reverted consistently are from Chipmunkdavis. I'm not seeing much problem in other edits. Only by Chipmunkdavis are the problems arising from.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsteagall (talk • contribs)
- Chipmunkdavis that image is definitely NOT photoshopped. That image was taken by John Benoot as you can see. This image was taken while he was in Malaysia visiting. I have first hand knowledge of this. I have also seen many other pictures from breeders in Malaysia displaying these extremities. There are many videos also showing these extremities. You really need to join a couple facebook groups and witness these videos and pictures. You will come to realize that these are not photoshopped and they are indeed real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsteagall (talk • contribs) 14:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- here is a video example of an extreme bird. It is also not "photoshopped" or "videoshopped" if that is even possible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kEYUc4t6xc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsteagall (talk • contribs) 14:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's not the bird which has a tree for a head. I've never mentioned problems with the birds and yet this keeps getting thrown up as some sort of defence. I've explained this on the talkpage, so it's somewhat disconcerting to see the same irrelevant point being brought back up. It's further evidence of far too close a connection. Somewhat tangentially, videoshopping is indeed entirely possible. CMD (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Chipmunkdavis I see you say you are an editor. I'm obviously no expert and barely a novice at wikipedia. I'm curious what your connection is with the Serama and where does your knowledge base derive? I feel that if you had access to pictures and documentation that I do that we could come to a consensus (at least in America) of the status of the Serama and a proper depiction of the history how it got here. Seeing my username, I'd bet you know exactly who I am behind the keyboard. However, I do not know who you are exactly or if we have talked outside wikipedia. Will you share your identity?
- Hello?
Memoria Pichilemina
- Memoria Pichilemina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Küñall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Küñall (formerly known as User:MisterWiki and some other usernames) requested the creation of the article about the website Memoria Pichilemina, providing in the way some sources. Küñall did so most likely because he is the creator, owner and admistrator of Memoria Pichilemina. He has admitted that identity and formerly used his real name as username. Until then everything ok.
Then it became evient to me that Kuñall appears to work in the tiny local newspaper El Expreso de la Costa, which he suggested as source. When I raised a AfD disucssion about Memoria Pichilemina Kunall went on to defend the notability of his website citing that "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". What should we do? (It is my belief this is only to top of an iceberg of Kuñall-created articles relating to his tiny hometown Pichilemu, where he has probably created articles about people he has personal connections to citing newspapers he actually have some connection to. Not to speak of the (to me dubious) notability of many of these articles.) Sietecolores (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- It should also be noted that Küñall/Diego Alberto Grez Cañete has an extensive record of self-promotion on Wikipedia - see for example his repeated self-promotion in relation to the Colegio de la Preciosa Sangre de Pichilemu article (on a school he attended), his creation of an article about the entirely non-notable Colegio de la Preciosa Sangre de Pichilemu Students' Center (see AfD [7]) His creation of Category:Presidents of the Colegio de la Preciosa Sangre de Pichilemu Students' Center(now deleted) so he could include himself and blue-link his entirely non-notable name, and and more recently, his creation of an article on a non-notable fellow school attendee "local surfer" Jacob Soto Araya. That he now resorts to using other contributors to further his endless campaign of self-promotion doesn't particularly surprise me, though it clearly indicates that he isn't going to stop this gross abuse of Wikipedia facilities for the purpose of personal gratification until forced to - by topic-ban and/or block, as necessary. I fully expect Küñall to respond to this with his usual denials, facile self-justification and intimations of hurt pride and persecution: such denials should of course be treated with the contempt they deserve, given their repeated nature, and self-evident insincerity. Since this issue goes beyond mere COI, and constitutes a fundamental abuse of Wikipedia, I shall be collecting the evidence (which may take some time, given its extensiveness) and raising the matter at ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: Having looked at the Memoria Pichilemina article, I have removed the biographical details concerning the founder as off-topic and entirely undue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Incidentally, it would be interesting to know who created the article on Memoria Pichilemina on the Russian-language Wikipedia that Küñall referred to. [8] The article cites several sources regarding the founder, but nothing at all regarding the website itself. One might well assume that the person who wrote the article thus had personal knowledge of the topic... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- And of course, it might be interesting to find out who created the (deleted) article on 'Грез Каниете, Диего' (Yup - Grez Cañete, Diego) on the Russian Wikipedia... [9] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't know what personal problem has Sietecolores with Pichilemu-related content on Wikipedia; if they comply with the guidelines, no matter how "tiny" for him is Pichilemu (NOTE: IT IS A PROVINCIAL CAPITAL), they should all stay. I do write for some newspapers, but I have no decision on what content they post. If they decided to publish an article on my website, it is their decision, not mine. I have not paid for it and never will. As a student I have other priorities for the use of my money. I have not edited the article in question, Memoria Pichilemina, and never will given my relationship with it. I commented on the AFD pointing out that it complies with the notability guidelines for web content, and it does. On the Russian Wikipedia content, I have no idea who could have written it, I don't speak Russian and don't know anyone personally who does, either. And it seems someone reviewed the article before going live, User:Voyagerim, so it has surely complied with the rules of that wiki too. If the community decides to delete the article on Memoria Pichilemina, it will be okay, as everything has always been. I urge Sietecolores to assume good faith on me; I did not create the article in the first place, and would have never done given the tracking some users do on me, which is perfectly fine. Küñall (talk) 01:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- You don't speak Russian - but you discovered that there was an article about your website on the Russian-language Wikipedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- It appeared from one day to another in the first places when I searched Memoria Pichilemina on Google. Google wasn't indexing the articles of the website and so I was testing something with metatags when I took knowledge of its existence. Küñall (talk) 04:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- That's curious - because the 'Memoria Pichilemina' logo shown in the Russian Wikipedia article (started at 20:16, April 28, 2014) was apparently uploaded by a User:Küñall
on April 23, 2014! [10] Are we to suppose that you uploaded the logo for no particular reason, and a random Russian-speaker geolocating to Santiago, Chile saw it, and decided to write an article just to find a home for this stray logo, wandering far from sunny Pichilemu? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC) - Correction - the logo originally used in the Russian-Language article seems to have been uploaded to Commons by Küñall in April 2013. The logo the article currently uses was uploaded by him on 30 April 2014 - and added to the article on 8 May 2014 by this mysterious Santiago-based Russian-speaker that Küñall knows nothing about... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- I uploaded the logo because I decided to share on Commons some free, public domain images I had found and originally posted on my website. There is a template there named after the website which tags these files as taken from Memoria (files like this, for example. -see Licensing section-). Back to the stuff on here, even an admin pointed out on the deletion nomination that, because I had not put my hands on the article I had no CoI (simply requesting an article for the website, does not mean anything, I did not want to do it myself for obvious reason. i.e. a discussion like this. Don't you think I've forgotten about our discussions, Andy.). I will never get my hands on the article, it is at the editorial discretion of the editors if it remains on the encyclopedia, and what content of it should stay and what content should not. I don't think I have done anything improper here. If you do think I'm doing wrong, I will make the proper apologies in that case.Küñall (talk) 06:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- As Sietecolores has already pointed out, you cited El Expreso de la Costa as an independent source establishing notability for the website - without declaring that you had a personal connection with the newspaper. If this were an isolated incident, it would be reasonable to treat this as a misjudgement, or a simple misunderstanding. It isn't an isolated incident though - as I have demonstrated, you have repeatedly created content for no other purpose than self-promotion. Their is a clear pattern here, for all to see - and your co-opting of another contributor to produce content promoting your website fits the pattern all too well. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- I uploaded the logo because I decided to share on Commons some free, public domain images I had found and originally posted on my website. There is a template there named after the website which tags these files as taken from Memoria (files like this, for example. -see Licensing section-). Back to the stuff on here, even an admin pointed out on the deletion nomination that, because I had not put my hands on the article I had no CoI (simply requesting an article for the website, does not mean anything, I did not want to do it myself for obvious reason. i.e. a discussion like this. Don't you think I've forgotten about our discussions, Andy.). I will never get my hands on the article, it is at the editorial discretion of the editors if it remains on the encyclopedia, and what content of it should stay and what content should not. I don't think I have done anything improper here. If you do think I'm doing wrong, I will make the proper apologies in that case.Küñall (talk) 06:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- That's curious - because the 'Memoria Pichilemina' logo shown in the Russian Wikipedia article (started at 20:16, April 28, 2014) was apparently uploaded by a User:Küñall
- It appeared from one day to another in the first places when I searched Memoria Pichilemina on Google. Google wasn't indexing the articles of the website and so I was testing something with metatags when I took knowledge of its existence. Küñall (talk) 04:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- You don't speak Russian - but you discovered that there was an article about your website on the Russian-language Wikipedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't know what personal problem has Sietecolores with Pichilemu-related content on Wikipedia; if they comply with the guidelines, no matter how "tiny" for him is Pichilemu (NOTE: IT IS A PROVINCIAL CAPITAL), they should all stay. I do write for some newspapers, but I have no decision on what content they post. If they decided to publish an article on my website, it is their decision, not mine. I have not paid for it and never will. As a student I have other priorities for the use of my money. I have not edited the article in question, Memoria Pichilemina, and never will given my relationship with it. I commented on the AFD pointing out that it complies with the notability guidelines for web content, and it does. On the Russian Wikipedia content, I have no idea who could have written it, I don't speak Russian and don't know anyone personally who does, either. And it seems someone reviewed the article before going live, User:Voyagerim, so it has surely complied with the rules of that wiki too. If the community decides to delete the article on Memoria Pichilemina, it will be okay, as everything has always been. I urge Sietecolores to assume good faith on me; I did not create the article in the first place, and would have never done given the tracking some users do on me, which is perfectly fine. Küñall (talk) 01:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Besides that it is important to nota that Kuñall writes besides his work for El Expreso de la Costa for El Dínamo [11], and Pichilemu News too [12]. Kuñall currently studies in Santiago [13] which is one of the few places in Chile where one can take courses in Russian. To me that is almost proof that Kuñall is the IP writing from Santiago about Memoria Pichilemina. As AndyTheGrump have stated this case goes far beyond the specific case of Memoria Pichilemina. There is a reason on why most of Kuñalls Pichilemu-articles are not allowed in the Spanish Wikipedia (where he is currently blocked). Please note that that user:Küñall/user:Diego Grez/user:MisterWiki has been editing in Wikipedia since about 2009 and has (as I understand) an extensive block and restriction history. Since 2009 a lot of people have spent time in Wikipedia trying to help him in good faith to improve his biased editing or providing evidence for Kuñalls biased editing. Something has to change. Sietecolores (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Come on Sietecolores... you are talking about a possible conflict of interest and then you speak about stuff that happened five years ago. I'm not even blocked on the Spanish Wikipedia now (I was for less than two days, because of a -stupid- content dispute). Secondly, let's take it as if I spoke Russian (I don't, but let's suppose I do), and let's take it as if I didn't know a single thing about Wikipedia policies (I do): don't you think I would have -in the first place- written a longer article and even more narcissistic?. But no, at most I know how to pronounce some Russian letters. What is the reason on "why most of Kuñall[']s Pichilemu-articles are not allowed in the Spanish Wikipedia"? So far one of the articles I've created on Pichilemu over there was deleted, I haven't written more because I don't have the time I used to back in 2009-2010. And even if I had it, I would not do it. Please show me, where in hell was I helped for "biased editing"? Or when did I ever make biased edits back in those years? I was blocked several times for sockpuppeeting years ago and I have not done anything like that ever since, why? I do like to write for Wikipedia some times, why could I screw that? Yes, I have commited errors here at times and things don't work like one could like to, but these are the rules of the game. To finish, I believe Sietecolores is acting in bad faith here, as I said before, even an admin told him that (had I not edited the article and only suggested it) I had not done anything wrong. You too have to stop this paranoia. Küñall (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Kuñall, just two questions. Will you stop using and providing other users of "sources" you have strong links to? Will you stop creating articles or editing on people from your hometown you know personally? Sietecolores (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Come on Sietecolores... you are talking about a possible conflict of interest and then you speak about stuff that happened five years ago. I'm not even blocked on the Spanish Wikipedia now (I was for less than two days, because of a -stupid- content dispute). Secondly, let's take it as if I spoke Russian (I don't, but let's suppose I do), and let's take it as if I didn't know a single thing about Wikipedia policies (I do): don't you think I would have -in the first place- written a longer article and even more narcissistic?. But no, at most I know how to pronounce some Russian letters. What is the reason on "why most of Kuñall[']s Pichilemu-articles are not allowed in the Spanish Wikipedia"? So far one of the articles I've created on Pichilemu over there was deleted, I haven't written more because I don't have the time I used to back in 2009-2010. And even if I had it, I would not do it. Please show me, where in hell was I helped for "biased editing"? Or when did I ever make biased edits back in those years? I was blocked several times for sockpuppeeting years ago and I have not done anything like that ever since, why? I do like to write for Wikipedia some times, why could I screw that? Yes, I have commited errors here at times and things don't work like one could like to, but these are the rules of the game. To finish, I believe Sietecolores is acting in bad faith here, as I said before, even an admin told him that (had I not edited the article and only suggested it) I had not done anything wrong. You too have to stop this paranoia. Küñall (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Besides that it is important to nota that Kuñall writes besides his work for El Expreso de la Costa for El Dínamo [11], and Pichilemu News too [12]. Kuñall currently studies in Santiago [13] which is one of the few places in Chile where one can take courses in Russian. To me that is almost proof that Kuñall is the IP writing from Santiago about Memoria Pichilemina. As AndyTheGrump have stated this case goes far beyond the specific case of Memoria Pichilemina. There is a reason on why most of Kuñalls Pichilemu-articles are not allowed in the Spanish Wikipedia (where he is currently blocked). Please note that that user:Küñall/user:Diego Grez/user:MisterWiki has been editing in Wikipedia since about 2009 and has (as I understand) an extensive block and restriction history. Since 2009 a lot of people have spent time in Wikipedia trying to help him in good faith to improve his biased editing or providing evidence for Kuñalls biased editing. Something has to change. Sietecolores (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Panzerfaust Records
- Panzerfaust Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A freelancer job requests someone to remove Panzerfaust Records. This note is paraphrased from a comment left by 123.203.118.107 at WT:Talk page guidelines. Johnuniq (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
TV Tropes
- TV Tropes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Speededdie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Please see the previous discussion that occurred on this same noticeboard just ten days ago. User @Speededdie: is the cofounder of TV Tropes and continues to make inappropriate COI edits to the article, such as this one. This particular diff used an extremely misleading edit summary in order to remove maintenance tags; something user attempted several times before [14] [15] and which resulted in the original report. He obviously did not take the previous discussion seriously and seemed to simply think he could wait for a few days and make the offending edits again without notice. What should the course of action for this issue be now? Artichoker[talk] 03:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- Further note: Judging by his contributions, User:Speededdie appears to be a SPA, having for all intents and purposes only edited the TV Tropes article, an article he obviously has a vested and conflicted interested in. Artichoker[talk] 03:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Brand.com
- Brand.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- BeloyiseBurron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Solarra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
First time here, thought it would be good to bring my item to your attention though. I noticed that Brand.com has had a lot of suspicious editing, and really, an imbalanced article for a company that has a history of white-washing. So I tried to balance it, include information from the less flattering side, but also constructive information, including their logo. For some reason that whole contribution was removed, including the logo I added for the page. I tried to leave a COI warning on the page of the white-washer example. User:Smartse concurred with my initial addition of information, and I don't want anyone to get into trouble for edit-warring, so I thought I'd just raise it here to see if others agreed. Especially as I've been threatened with a) a COI charge in response to mine from an established editor without cause (User:Solarra being the individual) with absolutely no evidence as to why I would have a COI and b) was threatened by ArbCom almost immediately, which I have seen in the past is a tactic used by those trying to intimidate other editors off the page. I will admit to any COI proven against me, but I really have no idea what they are talking about. I'm just concerned that Wiki-PR has warnings against its ethical stance and that Brand.com did not. GenuineDiva (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- Update — I received this message accusing me that something happened off Wikipedia that cause me edits. Very weird, considering I have had no contact with Brand.com and the SPU appears to believe they know I could have been involved with them somehow? What is happening here; am I being threatened by Wikipedia to stop speaking? GenuineDiva (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
ArbComm isn't a threat. No legal threat of any kind has been made. A report is going to ArbComm so they can understand how Diva is using off Wiki conduct to try to make a company look bad. It's a right, not a threat. Except you have no idea who I am, and it's not Wiki PR or Brand.com. edits are not suspicious, they are plain as day. Diva is using Wiki as a place to air his grievances about things that are taking place off Wiki. Check the edit history of Mr. Diva. I am sending additional info to ArbComm so we can end this silliness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeloyiseBurron (talk • contribs) 23:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- I first entered this seeing that there was a conflict of interest involved, and at first I thought it was GenuineDiva with the COI. Having looked at her edit history I see the COI is in fact with BeloyiseBurron as you can see with his edit history he is clearly editing to promote an entity. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 22:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- Holy wow! So many threats in so little time just because I start editing on paid-editing company pages. Cripes. No wonder they run roughshod over the whole thing. Well, if the arbitration committee is used solely for pushing new users out when they raise an issue, fine by me. By wow, I cannot even believe that any balanced information about a paid-editing company is just removed with the snap of the fingers. Shocking there is so much support here for commercializing the site. GenuineDiva (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- BeloyiseBurron has been posting ArbCom threats, I have warned the user. @GenuineDiva: Don't let one errant user dissuade you from the community, you are most welcome here :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 22:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- Holy wow! So many threats in so little time just because I start editing on paid-editing company pages. Cripes. No wonder they run roughshod over the whole thing. Well, if the arbitration committee is used solely for pushing new users out when they raise an issue, fine by me. By wow, I cannot even believe that any balanced information about a paid-editing company is just removed with the snap of the fingers. Shocking there is so much support here for commercializing the site. GenuineDiva (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- I first entered this seeing that there was a conflict of interest involved, and at first I thought it was GenuineDiva with the COI. Having looked at her edit history I see the COI is in fact with BeloyiseBurron as you can see with his edit history he is clearly editing to promote an entity. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 22:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)