→Bill robb: new section |
Gordonofcartoon (talk | contribs) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 286: | Line 286: | ||
::They won't go for it; IP checks are reserved for major abuse such as banned users evading blocks. What more do you want than what's been raised here quite sufficiently via edit patterns? BTW, even in these circumstances, focusing on edits rather than the editor is good etiquette, so could you tone down this third-degree "Admit it" kind of approach? [[User:Gordonofcartoon|Gordonofcartoon]] ([[User talk:Gordonofcartoon|talk]]) 03:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC) |
::They won't go for it; IP checks are reserved for major abuse such as banned users evading blocks. What more do you want than what's been raised here quite sufficiently via edit patterns? BTW, even in these circumstances, focusing on edits rather than the editor is good etiquette, so could you tone down this third-degree "Admit it" kind of approach? [[User:Gordonofcartoon|Gordonofcartoon]] ([[User talk:Gordonofcartoon|talk]]) 03:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::That's fine. Thanks for responding. It just seems wrong that a company paid to, and I quote from his site, "connect clients with...audiences through...Web 2.0 approaches. Whether it’s contacting a journalist via Facebook, harnessing client resources to comment on blogs, or building content for one-off stories," is getting away with this long and systematic series of advert edits, and continues to behave in the exact same way despite being notified multiple times about the problem. They're using WP as a brochure and it just pisses me off. Doesn't the pattern exhibited by these three accounts still show viable reason for a Meat/Sock concern? Anyway... Sorry if I made it too personal. [[User:Lahnfeear|Lahnfeear]] ([[User talk:Lahnfeear|talk]]) 03:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC) |
:::That's fine. Thanks for responding. It just seems wrong that a company paid to, and I quote from his site, "connect clients with...audiences through...Web 2.0 approaches. Whether it’s contacting a journalist via Facebook, harnessing client resources to comment on blogs, or building content for one-off stories," is getting away with this long and systematic series of advert edits, and continues to behave in the exact same way despite being notified multiple times about the problem. They're using WP as a brochure and it just pisses me off. Doesn't the pattern exhibited by these three accounts still show viable reason for a Meat/Sock concern? Anyway... Sorry if I made it too personal. [[User:Lahnfeear|Lahnfeear]] ([[User talk:Lahnfeear|talk]]) 03:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::Generally these things work on a initial wait-and-see basis. An entry at [[WP:COIN]] attracts a focus on the problem editor(s) and their topics, and very often they just stop once caught at it. Alternatively they may keep going, but there are far more editors on their case to catch promotional edits (again sometimes making the problem editor(s) eventually give up). Usually things are allowed to go through those options first. But ultimately, there is nothing directly sanctioning a COI as such: the guiding principle is [[WP:NPOV]], and we focus on the editing behaviour in breach of it. Who the subject of a [[WP:COIN]] alert might be is just the initial handle for understanding the territory. [[User:Gordonofcartoon|Gordonofcartoon]] ([[User talk:Gordonofcartoon|talk]]) 13:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User talk:Hmni|Hmni]] == |
== [[User talk:Hmni|Hmni]] == |
Revision as of 13:30, 30 January 2009
Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
| ||||
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
| ||||
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
| ||||
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Search the COI noticeboard archives |
Help answer requested edits |
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
|
Possible autobiographies found by bot
- User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.
Requested edits
- Category:Requested edits. Editors who believe they have a Conflict of Interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should undo the {{Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requestor to explain your decision.
University of Otago
- Otago NORML (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- University of Otago (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Abe gray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Otepoti history (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 139.80.33.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
IRL Abe Gray is/was spokesperson for Otago NORML.[1] There's been repeated attempts (diff, diff, diff) to put a promotional plug for Norml in the University of Otago article, the user contribs tie together very well, and show WP:SPA. XLerate (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
A quick look at the talk pages will show that XLerate has a strong aversion to unbiased, factual, referenced sentences about cannabis law reform at Otago University being included in a synopsis of the tradition of student protest at the University. Using claims of COI to influence the outcome of a content dispute is discouraged.139.80.33.95 (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at what Kerrydouglas (talk · contribs) has been up to? This editor has been inserting a book into the further reading sections of a wide range of articles, perhaps inappropriately. Skomorokh 06:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know it's COI or not, but it's inappropriate to make an article on a book and then spam it across many articles. I reverted all those, and proposed the book article for deletion, as it has no evidence of notability. Dicklyon (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
This user is editing a lot on Sky Television related articles. I'm not sure if this is an employee but the username is definately inappropriate. See Contribs --DFS454 (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- This username is not necessarily a problem ... otherwise we'd block any username (and we have many) that sounded fannish: things like PhilliesFan or such. Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Can editors more experienced than I make sure that this article is maintained in an appropriate way? Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Specifically, the issue is that Rerter 2 (talk · contribs) has self-identified [2] as the author of the English bio [3] on the official Nicolai Shmatko website, and is showing signs of WP:OWN. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well put. I've been trying to help a bit and the editor in question has been reponsive on the article's talk page and has been cooperative, so I'm inclined to call this resolved and keep an eye out. In fact the editor has requested input on improvements. I asked for sources and a load were provided (Is there a Ukranian translator in the house?). So I'm okay generally with the article. I do wonder about the photo size and the way it's captioned in the photo itself? It seems promotional. Other than that I can live with the article as I'm a softee when editors are responsive, helpful and cooperative. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Sensory Sweep Studios
- Sensory Sweep Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- TheOneTrueSweeper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Thecitizen22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Both of these users appear to work for Sensory Sweep and are scrubbing all mention of the company's current lawsuit from the Sensory Sweep Studios wiki entry on a minute by minute basis. While an original post wasn't very objective, many of the follow ups have been inline with the wiki standards, and properly cited. This should be a pretty obvious COI.76.216.203.127 (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- There's an obvious edit war going on here, and I've warned a couple of participants. However: the lawsuit which has been linked to in the past mentions the firm's founder but (at least in the title) not Sensory Sweep; so I think there may be BLP-type issues involved. (That doesn't justify NPOV violations and vandalism by blanking.)--Orange Mike | Talk 19:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I've just had to block another of these meatpuppets or sockpuppets, User:Poopski1998, who said, There are several of us that will keep deleting anything that goes up about the fooptube lawsuit on the Sensory Sweep page. Sensory Sweep is currently working with their attorneys to get this page taken down to once and for all get rid of this childish immaturity. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Good block for NLT. I've commented over on the talk page regarding the section that's generating the blankings. ArakunemTalk 16:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Sensory Sweep Studios
- Sensory Sweep Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 68.178.10.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
More blanking of articles by employees of Sensory Sweep. There are currently editors that have the required citations raised by the last legit edit, but we're holding off until we can make changes without being immediately blanked.76.216.203.127 (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Ian Gomm
- Ian Gomm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Timgomm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User keeps adding word-for-word biography from Ian Gomm's website. Responded to its removal by replacing the biography, stating "I own the rights to iangomm.com so dont remove it again!!" I think that this is either a copyright violation, or a conflict of interest, or both, but I am unsure as to how to proceed. pablo :: ... hablo ... 15:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Advertising?
- Jurgenz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Astral projection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Lucid dream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Here [4]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, unquestionably. User listing his own book, which itself is comprised of his own personal experiences (by admission). In the absence of any substantive peer-review of the book, it is just self-promotional at this point. Edits have been reverted out by several others, with explanations given in edit summaries and on his talk page. Watching to see if he persists, but he's not re-added them in 2 days. ArakunemTalk 17:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Added user and article links to the header (above) and notified Jurgenz of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
User:His1ojd and "Polite architecture" and a particular author's book
Here is the contribution history [5]. Basically, in looking into the Polite architecture article (which I've put to an AfD) I found the terminology and the same book inserted in the Vernacular architecture article and the Polite redirect that is now a disambig. I guess if the terminology is well established an argument could be made for some of the additions... ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Others have suggested this term has some kind of significance in British architecture. So maybe I'm way off base. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Off-base, I'd say. As I and others have said at the AFD, it's a real term in architecture, and the Brunskill book is a significant source (i.e. Brunskill coined the distinction, and is much-quoted in the context). Apart from the article needing expansion using more than a single source, I think nothing to see here. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- International Sport Combat Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- International Kickboxing Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 75.32.76.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The IP is/was the president of ISCF/IKF, Steve Fossum (diff). --aktsu (t / c) 00:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- The IP was blocked for disruptive editing (continuously inserting copyrighted material). Time will show if he'll be back. Didn't look like he grasped what he was doing wrong. --aktsu (t / c) 00:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Looking over his edits, it seems he didn't understand the COI and Copyright issues, and may have taken the impersonal tone of the template warnings the wrong way. I've left a rather detailed (but more personal) note on the IP's talk page explaining where he ran into problems and why, and how to edit so as to stay within policy and guidelines. ArakunemTalk 17:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Aaaaand, he's back. I reverted his insertion of the text and pointed him to his talk page in case he missed Arakunem's very helpful explanation. --aktsu (t / c) 00:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked 75.32.76.181 again, since he re-inserted the same copyvio text on 26 January, ignoring the helpful warnings left on his Talk by Arakunem. Somehow the comments that the IP left at User talk:Aktsu got deleted, and somebody might have considered responding to him there. Maybe IPs don't read their own Talk pages? EdJohnston (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Errol Sawyer
- Errol Sawyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Mathilde Fischer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Article seems to have been created for purposes of promotion after a user claiming to be Sawyer ran into trouble inserting unnecessary info on himself into Christie Brinkley due to feeling slighted for not getting enough credit for discovering her.[6] The debate was subsequently taken over by Fischer, his wife/agent, who is now the main editor of Sawyer's article, and she doesn't seem interested in my repeated explanations of Wiki policy: the "Early Life" section is all OR, the career section is mostly quotes that push a positive POV (with citations that don't verify the text or link to self-published material from his website that's written by his agent), and the "Activism" section sounds like campaigning and is sourced using blogs and comments lists - reliable secondary sources on Sawyer are nearly non-existent; the only one there is doesn't do much more than verify that he discovered Brinkley, along with a few others things on Brinkley's discovery that are contradicted by other sources. Sawyer claims to know the author.
His agent/wife sidesteps COI claims by saying she didn't create the article (although it seems clear it was created on her behalf or Sawyer's), has repeatedly deleted maintenance tags for "destroying" the article, and justifies non-policy-supported content with allusions to her "academic qualifications" and edit summaries of "truth is truth."[7] After first I just thought this was a matter of an editor pushing a COI too far, but now I'm thinking the article could just be deleted as spam and for the subject's non-notability in the absence of reliable sourcing. (Sorry this is so long.) Mbinebri talk ← 21:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Editors may add their comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Errol Sawyer. EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
User:GothicChessInventor at the Ed Trice article
Over the last couple of weeks, GothicChessInventor (talk · contribs) (who is Ed Trice, by his own admission) has been making several non-trivial edits to the Ed Trice article (e.g. [8],[9],[10]), as well as constant badgering for what should and shouldn't be included in the article (see recent sections of Talk:Ed Trice). This has culminated in the latest set of wholesale reversions ([11],[12],[13]) under the guise of "correcting errors".
He has been warned about the COI policy countless times before (e.g. [14], [15], [16]) and has been reported at the COI noticeboard before. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 16:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- If Oli_Filth was correct, I would agree with him. The items he is removing are relevant, and have been a part of the article for years. In fact, I reverted the article to a prior version OF HIS OWN, yet he objects to this. He has yet to explain why
- 1. My Gothic Chess rating, with hundreds of games (more than 300) is not relevant, yet my "chess rating" with hardly 100 games played over a 20 year spread, is relevant.
- 2. I have cited many references, including hardback textbooks my artificial intelligence research appears in, yet he tries to say it is not "notable". I helped solve the game of checkers, and the man who is given full credit for this even said so in a paper he published AND his website, yet HE feels that he can revise history and claim I was not involved in the project
- 3. He has repeatedly cited "Wikipedia Bylaws" at the end of a clause that he typed, and the two are not related. He acts like an attorney with no real knowledge of the law. In short, he is playing the "Oli said so" game, and more than one person has reverted some of his edits. You are a biased editor spending way too much time on an article that needs little to no revision.
- 4. I have only edited a few small words here and there that are TECHNICAL in nature, have a specific meaning in the domain of artificial intelligence. Otherwise, I merely reverted to a prior version that was correct in all manners of speaking. GothicChessInventor (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Both users should avoid going over 3RR. COI-affected editors should try to find consensus to support their edits. A large change like this one does not sound like "a few small words here and there that are TECHNICAL in nature." If Gothic believes his edits are 'correcting errors' please give an example of an error. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- If Oli_Filth was correct, I would agree with him. The items he is removing are relevant, and have been a part of the article for years. In fact, I reverted the article to a prior version OF HIS OWN, yet he objects to this. He has yet to explain why
- EdJohnston Oli's been widdling at that article like it's cheese, mostly taking away stuff that belongs. In my opinion Oli acts like it's only his article. He's undone stuff I've added and still ain't given a reason why. I agree that it was fine before all of Oli's redoing and it looks better, reads better, and is better the way it was.
- Octogenarian 1928 (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Let me second Oli Filth's concerns. Ed Trice has no business editing his own biography except for WP:BLP related issues. Also, it is very suspicious that an editor with all of 30 edits is the only person supporting Trice here. Just to clarify (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I've blocked User:ChessHistorian for 3RR on he article. It seems entirely likely that CH is a sock (or a real-world friend?); probably O as well William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- TonyMcConkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Tony McConkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
TonyMcConkey (talk · contribs) has been editing Tony McConkey, removing criticisms without explanation. I have issued them a uw-coi warning. AnyPerson (talk) 06:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- It does appear that the subject has been editing his article. But there was a paragraph in there which claimed he had been disbarred due to a bad real estate transaction. I removed that paragraph under WP:BLP since no source was provided. It can be restored if sources are found. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- He just blanked the section on election results. AnyPerson (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've left a final warning for Tony M. He has not acknowledged any of the comments left for him. He has never left a Talk comment or an edit summary. If he reverts again, in my opinion he can be blocked for disruptive editing. Meanwhile, anyone who'd like to search for sources is welcome to add them to the article. (They probably exist). EdJohnston (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- He just blanked the section on election results. AnyPerson (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Reporting: Keratoconus Commercially Motivated Edits
I am writing to report commercially motivated and unfounded editing of the medical article for Keratoconus.
To summarize: there is a treatment method (C3-R) being used in the US that is very expensive(~$2000/eye) and has been shown as ineffective especially when compared to alternatives. The problem is that the alternatives are not yet approved by FDA (they are in clinical trials).
Only a few clinics are administering the ineffective C3-R treatment at good profit and have strong reason to edit the article to hide or bury these studies.. Someone is continually removing edits and citing random websites as sources to support this procedure.
The user related to the commercially benefit of these edits, has been editing this article under different "sock-puppets" including User:Scubadiver99 and User:Corneadoc... among others. Arpowers (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comsec Consulting Ltd. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Shar1R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This is intended more to keep tabs on this user, who is acting disruptively at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 25#Comsec Consulting Ltd. and has gone as far as to threatening deletion on many other articles (see WP:WAX). It is possible that WP:ANI might be necessary here. User has a direct conflict of interest with the article in question, which was speedy deleted for blatant advertising/spam. MuZemike 06:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think what we have is a new user suffering from righteous indignation. S/he has asked for my help (mainly, I think, because I suggested gently that they step back from the issue) to resolve the situation. I have made some suggestions for them on my and their talk pages which I think will be well received since they asked for help. I think pretty much everyone here has made a mess of things at some point. I know I have. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nicely done with the userified version, and my complements for rescuing a new editor who may have been overwhelmed and put off by all the templates and policy-speak. ArakunemTalk 16:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- At User talk:Shar1R#Userfied article the user seems to have got the message. Per Arakunem, thanks to all who flagged the problem and who were patient with this editor. I suggest closing this report in a couple of days unless something else happens. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nicely done with the userified version, and my complements for rescuing a new editor who may have been overwhelmed and put off by all the templates and policy-speak. ArakunemTalk 16:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Rebreather
- Rebreather (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Themfromspace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- The dispute is currently about whether to include this external link at the end:
- Janwillem Bech's big rebreather information site (warning: contains advertisements)
I want to link to that site, because it contains much useful information about rebreather scuba diving. See discussion at Talk:Rebreather#External links again. Much of that discussion centers on including/deleting longer pieces of text which I have accepted the loss of; the current dispute is about the one link quoted above.
I am accused of conflict of interest, apparently because:
- Many years ago before I heard of Wikipedia I submitted a short text article (about the Siebe Gorman Salvus) and a few images to that site.
- As a result, the long list of thanks on http://www.therebreathersite.nl/Zuurstofrebreathers/General/thanks_to.htm (one of that site's many pages) includes a link to my website. (I do not stand to gain financially if more people access my website.)
- That site contains advertisements as well as useful information. (I have no financial connection with any of the firms with adverts there.)
Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- To be honest I'm not sure if this is the best place to report this, but I just want to mention that anyone who sees this here should look over the talk page of the article and see that Anthony has been defending what is in essence a link farm for years. At one time an RfC was called for the links and most everyone who commented said they should be removed, but nothing ever came of it. About a dozen different people in all have brought the linkfarm up for question over a long period of time and they were all single-handedly refuted by Anthony. There is a strong consensus that the link doesn't belong on the article and this consensus has been taken from the past two years. As for the Conflict of Interest, I have no doubt that Anthony has one with the site. He has fought its removal tooth and nail over the past few years by editing it back in without discussion, taking it to the talk page and then editing it back in without consensus to do so, editing it in with a warning that it contains objectionable advertising (which is in itself a violation of WP:ELNO), and even pleading on the talk page for its inclusion "it's just one link". The site he wants so passionatly to be included personally thanks him on its page, which is what tipped me off for the conflict of interest. He has also inserted the link in other articles dating back to 2004 (!), sometimes referring to the owner by his name, as if the two know each other. This type of behavior is most unbecoming for an established editor, and especially an administrator and it must stop. Although he has a vested interest in the subject, he does not own the page. Anything that is on that site that can help the article should be implemented into the article and properly cited. An external link is not needed here. Themfromspace (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I let the "link farm" be deleted on 8 June 2008: it can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rebreather&oldid=82888098#External_links ; I put it in a long time ago because such a list is difficult to find and people may want the information; OK, OK, I accept that "Wikipedia is not a directory".
- The other affected big text section is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rebreather&oldid=262473007#Some_makes_of_rebreather , which I also have now let be deleted.
- This now seems to go back to the old dispute: "What if a site contains advertizing, but also good information and/or images which cannot be found elsewhere?".
- Some people supported my side in those old discussions, which are in Talk:Rebreather. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- "sometimes referring to the owner by his name, as if the two know each other": Many web sites are commonly known of as "<someone>'s site" without readers having personal or financial contacts with him. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- As you can see from the Rebreather talk page, I've been involved in the most recent debate about external links in the article. I don't believe Anthony has a conflict of interest, certainly not of the form described in WP:CON. However, he has allowed himself to be put in the position where a perception of a conflict of interest could be reasonably made. Anthony is a long-term contributor to wikipedia, particularly to WikiProject Scuba, and has contributed a lot to scuba-related articles. The problem in the Rebreather article arises because there are many external sites with a lot of information, and others which would be clearly of interest to readers (particularly those who are divers). Anthony really wants the article to provide as much information and interest as possible - I have no doubt of his sincerity. Unfortunately, the result of trying to provide that information and interest by providing links to those sites leads him to fall afoul of our WP:EL guidelines. In the case of Janwillem Bech's rebreather site, it is an excellent reference site for divers interested in rebreathers, but Anthony's appreciation of that site has allowed him to appear to have a conflict of interest. I don't think this is the place for the debate. I do think that what wikipedia requires of us is to try to incorporate as much information into the article itself, and leave the external links for specific items that can't be incorporated, like copyrighted images. Working on the article itself to arrive at a goal we all want will be more productive. --RexxS (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- "to try to incorporate as much information into the article itself": If e.g. I use http://www.therebreathersite.nl as a source of information to write Wikipedia matter, then I would have to refer to http://www.therebreathersite.nl as a <ref>---</ref> reference of the ordinary sort to prove the information, and as a result I would still be referring to http://www.therebreathersite.nl . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Implementing it as a reference is perfectly acceptable and that is a way you could link to the site from wikipedia. Requirements for citing reliable sources are much different than what goes in the "external links" section of an article. Themfromspace (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Copying that much matter in, including rewording it to avoid copyvio, would take "a month of Sundays" (as people say here in England). That is why it was easier to link to it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Pam Evans
- Pam Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Does anyone have spare time to take a look at this? Addressing copyright concerns, I noticed conflict issues, in that not only is the subject purportedly editing the article herself but the other primary editor is citing as sources personal correspondence from the subject to him. (He is involved with Peace Mala, an organization she founded.) I have provided each a COI advisory, but would appreciate it greatly if a contributor here could undertake to evaluate it for cleaning as necessary for neutrality and to remove OR. I try not to mix my copyright problems with other issues if it can be avoided. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Massey Energy
I would like to ask somebody who is more experienced of dealing with potential COI issues to assist handling the Massey Energy article. I'm not sure if this a right place to post it as there is no incident yet. Vice versa, the company has indicated beforehand at the talk page about their intention to improve the article and most of potential addition are justified and sourced with reliable sources. However, the proposed amendments concerning community service seems to be problematic. The company also indicates that they will use a PR firm for the editing. Beagel (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- David44357 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 209.76.124.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Saranixon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I noticed that this user had made many edits regarding Fabrik Inc. and its brands such as SimpleTech and G-Technology. He would either write a substantial portion of such articles (which often did sound like somewhat of an advertisement but had many, many citations) or add mentions to the company and its brands to articles on related topics such as External hard disk drive, Toshiba, Samsung Group, etc.
I looked further into his contributions and saw that he made edits to a number of other articles as well...including quite a few edits The Hoffman Agency, a public relations firm. After looking at [18], it seems that the majority of the edits that he made were regarding clients of The Hoffman Agency...these include Fabrik, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, Friendster, SolarWinds, and possibly others.
As you can probably see I strongly suspect that this individual is making edits on behalf of a PR firm. I'd already warned him about a potential conflict of interest on the SimpleTech/Fabrik topics and he responded but seems to have made a few more edits. Scootey (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Responding to Scootey's concerns from here and my talk page:
- I'm not sure what sockpuppet refers to, but the IP address and my username are indeed one in the same. I sometimes make revisions without logging in.
- I made the initial new Wikis for most of the Wikis mentioned including The Hoffman Agency, Fabrik, SimpleTech, G-Tech, SolarWinds, and others - the Gerson Lehrman Group, Sarantel, etc.. My name does occur frequently in the history section as I complete the work, but I generally am not reversing the work of others. I also wrote approximately half of the current Wiki on Public Relations, a whole new section in external hard drive, etc..
- Admittedly, the Fabrik Wiki content had some copy/paste marketing goop that should not have been included and has since then been corrected. This is probably what raised a flag for Scootey.
- I have followed the guidelines set by the Wikipedia FAQ for organizations of verifiability (references as mentioned by Scootey) and neutral point of view. I've also frequently discussed changes on discussion and talk pages and have not deleted the works of others.
I think I have made substantial genuine contributions to Wikipedia content both on company Wikis and subject-matter Wikis. Each Wiki includes an immense amount of in-depth online research. Many of these Wikis were non-existent, in poor condition, sometimes full of broken links, etc.
Based on Scootey's observations above, I can see his reason for concern, but I think a close investigation of the new Wikis I've created, the research that goes into it, and the factual information I've consolidated onto Wikipedia articles would reveal a positive contribution to Wikipedia.com.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by David44357 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think Scootey is right that there's a problem. There's a deal of correlation between the contributions of David44357 (talk · contribs) and clients of the Hoffman Agency (compare the list [19]). Plus ... we're not allowed to explicitly "out" editors any more ... but if you digg a little you find a very short trail to the Hoffman Agency.
- As examples, the edits that introduce Fabrik into articles look considerably promotional -
- Article creation [20] ("Fabrik is the third largest external hard drive provider in the world. Now there will finally be a centralized hub of information on them on the web")
- Product placement in External hard disk drive, replacing a Seagate drive with a Fabrik one as example image - [21] {"Not to show any bias for brands, but an eco-friendly drive is just way more interesting and modern...")
- Product placement in Computer data storage [22] ("Adding image of eco-friendly hard disk to show some modern trends...")
- and there looks to be some fairly transparent canvassing like this one to get the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (another Hoffman client) mentioned in the Nanotechnology article, or this one to keep The Hoffman Agency on Wikipedia. If there's a COI, it's a little disingenuous to come on like all these topic ideas are just altruistic enthusiasm. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Quoting David44357 "...but the IP address and my username are indeed one in the same. I sometimes make revisions without logging in."
Interesting. Let's do a whois and nslookup on the IP, shall we?
- The Hoffman Agency PBI-CUSTNET-1562 (NET-209-76-124-64-1)
- 209.76.124.64 - 209.76.124.127
- ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2009-01-28 19:10
- Non-authoritative answer:
- 126.64/26.124.76.209.in-addr.arpa
- name = ws-209-76-124-126.hoffman.com.
Admit it. You're making edits for your clients that you've been paid to make, and you're editing the articles of their competitors to add them in for special "Competitor" sections and removing anything that looks like advertisement in them while at the same time filling your clients' articles chock full of advertising material. You're completely misrepresenting your motivations and your COI has affected more than just your clients' articles. Lahnfeear (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- The clients probably weren't stupid enough to ask him to do this, but it's clearly inappropriate and needs to be stopped immediately. Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- And there's more from the IP 209.76.124.126 (talk · contribs): product placement via "Competitor" sections; trying to get speedy deletion of PacketTrap [23] (a competitor of PacketMotion); canvassing for the inclusion of guess-who's bamboo hard drive in Green computing [24]; adding a Hoffman client to Agentless data collection [25]; and so on. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- He just blanked his talk page of all the comments about his COI. Just more of the same pattern... Lahnfeear (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm adding Saranixon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to this report. The edits correspond exactly with David44357 and the ip 209.76.124.126. Obviously either a meatpuppet or sockpuppet of the same user. Lahnfeear (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:SOCK request
- Could someone with a little more experience submit a Sock report with a request for an IP check for these users? I think there's more than enough evidence at this point to investigate further. This is a case of systematic, subversive edits with an intent to hide intent (see Saranixon's recent, meaningless edits to Laundry to bury the obvious COI edits in prior articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lahnfeear (talk • contribs) 02:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- They won't go for it; IP checks are reserved for major abuse such as banned users evading blocks. What more do you want than what's been raised here quite sufficiently via edit patterns? BTW, even in these circumstances, focusing on edits rather than the editor is good etiquette, so could you tone down this third-degree "Admit it" kind of approach? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's fine. Thanks for responding. It just seems wrong that a company paid to, and I quote from his site, "connect clients with...audiences through...Web 2.0 approaches. Whether it’s contacting a journalist via Facebook, harnessing client resources to comment on blogs, or building content for one-off stories," is getting away with this long and systematic series of advert edits, and continues to behave in the exact same way despite being notified multiple times about the problem. They're using WP as a brochure and it just pisses me off. Doesn't the pattern exhibited by these three accounts still show viable reason for a Meat/Sock concern? Anyway... Sorry if I made it too personal. Lahnfeear (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Generally these things work on a initial wait-and-see basis. An entry at WP:COIN attracts a focus on the problem editor(s) and their topics, and very often they just stop once caught at it. Alternatively they may keep going, but there are far more editors on their case to catch promotional edits (again sometimes making the problem editor(s) eventually give up). Usually things are allowed to go through those options first. But ultimately, there is nothing directly sanctioning a COI as such: the guiding principle is WP:NPOV, and we focus on the editing behaviour in breach of it. Who the subject of a WP:COIN alert might be is just the initial handle for understanding the territory. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's fine. Thanks for responding. It just seems wrong that a company paid to, and I quote from his site, "connect clients with...audiences through...Web 2.0 approaches. Whether it’s contacting a journalist via Facebook, harnessing client resources to comment on blogs, or building content for one-off stories," is getting away with this long and systematic series of advert edits, and continues to behave in the exact same way despite being notified multiple times about the problem. They're using WP as a brochure and it just pisses me off. Doesn't the pattern exhibited by these three accounts still show viable reason for a Meat/Sock concern? Anyway... Sorry if I made it too personal. Lahnfeear (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- They won't go for it; IP checks are reserved for major abuse such as banned users evading blocks. What more do you want than what's been raised here quite sufficiently via edit patterns? BTW, even in these circumstances, focusing on edits rather than the editor is good etiquette, so could you tone down this third-degree "Admit it" kind of approach? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmni (talk · contribs) has been editing Hello My Name Is Records, which the article notes is referred to as HMNI. Rspeer (talk · contribs) insists that we not block them for the username because that would be biting, so we are referring this here from UAA in order to take appropriate sanctions for violating COI. Daniel Case (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hello My Name Is Records. Depending on the outcome of that discussion, we could decide how to approach Hmni regarding the issue of COI editing. He has already received the {{uw-coi}} warning. EdJohnston (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Hector Echavarria
- Hector Echavarria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Lilavalladares (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 71.108.120.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I think the IP was either Echavarria or someone associated with him, and that Lilavalladares currently is. Lilavalladares has in any case been editing his page and created one for both his production company (Destiny Entertainment Productions) and his new film Never Surrender (film). When I found the article it was more or less completely unreferenced and non-NPOV so I did a small copyedit (diff) removing the worst and put up a request for sources on the talk page but nothing's happened yet. Just now, Lilavalladares re-added/added (diff) some more unreferenced sections, one of which starts with:
- "Hector has always been a leader and an inovator in the world of martial arts, his incredible martial arts competitive carreer is just half of the story. Hector has helped other sport champions and martial arts stars achieve their full potential [...]"
Assistance greatly appreciated. --aktsu (t / c) 20:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Can someone have a look at this series of edits: [26]. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Bill robb
Bill robb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — is adding large amounts of material, and creating a number of new pages, cited to himself on his website www.valueseducation.co.uk (although his attempted contributions to Peace education also include a considerable amount of uncited material as well). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)