CiphriusKane (talk | contribs) |
Echo1Charlie (talk | contribs) →2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff: new section |
||
Line 603: | Line 603: | ||
Editor has been COI editing and removing well-cited content. They have been receiving (and ignoring) COI and other warnings since July. A block seems inevitable. [[User:Edwardx|Edwardx]] ([[User talk:Edwardx|talk]]) 12:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC) |
Editor has been COI editing and removing well-cited content. They have been receiving (and ignoring) COI and other warnings since July. A block seems inevitable. [[User:Edwardx|Edwardx]] ([[User talk:Edwardx|talk]]) 12:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC) |
||
:: It is very quite promotional that wee article. Why is it even on here, what purpose does it serve, particularly when it states, ''Auriens is planning''. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">[[User:scope_creep|<span style="color:#3399ff">scope_creep</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]</sup></span>''' 12:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC) |
:: It is very quite promotional that wee article. Why is it even on here, what purpose does it serve, particularly when it states, ''Auriens is planning''. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">[[User:scope_creep|<span style="color:#3399ff">scope_creep</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]</sup></span>''' 12:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC) |
||
== 2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff == |
|||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> |
|||
* {{pagelinks|2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff}} |
|||
* {{userlinks|username}} |
|||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> |
|||
A discussion is going on here involving two Pakistani editors and an Indian editor [[Talk:2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff#Casualties]], requesting an impartial conflict resolution. [[User:Echo1Charlie|Echo1Charlie]] ([[User talk:Echo1Charlie|talk]]) 17:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:10, 18 November 2021
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:
|
WP:DUCK UPE
- Ben Kallos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Manhattan House (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- V. Raghavan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Annaspencer13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Editing pattern screams UPE. User did exactly ten edits, wikilinking a word or phrase on each article, and their next edit was a complete (and very non-NPOV) revamp of a biography article, followed by even more additions to that article. They then did a similar (massive, highly non-NPOV) edit to Manhattan House, and then to Ben Kallos, and have been working on a very promotionally-toned company article in their draftspace. Snooganssnoogans reverted their Ben Kallos edit and warned them about COI on their talk page, and I've reverted the other edits and added a UPE warning as well. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- A 2nd editor, Tomben2 has attempted to restore the same puffery to Manhattan House. Slywriter (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- The editor responded to the notice I placed on their talk page, denying that they're a paid advocate. I replied on their talk page. I'm trying really hard to AGF, but this contribution history definitely makes it difficult. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- These editors are blatant COI editors. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Just noting that Tomben2 has declared in an edit summary, Special:Diff/1051288331, that they are a paid editor. Slywriter (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- User_talk:Possibly#Paid_Edits_Concern, please review the statement by Tomben2 here that states they are "five friends learning wikipedia" and that only his latest draft is paid, which just doesn't sit right with me. Possibly may have the right idea that an SPI is needed or some other administrative action. Slywriter (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- Another attempt by Annaspencer13 to add a huge amount of non-NPOV content to V. Raghavan. I reverted. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- I've just G11'd The Gibbons Group - Real Estate Team as essentially an awards list, and I came here from a notice on their talk as I was about to template uw-paid... this is almost certainly UPE. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 21:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- And ANOTHER attempt to re-add the promo junk to V. Raghavan. Reverted again. Plus, created a highly promotional page for The Gibbons Group - Real Estate Team, which was CSD's by Giraffer. At this point, there's no way I can continue to AGF; the odds that this editing pattern are anything other than UPE are making Powerball look like a sure thing. The user has claimed that they aren't a paid editor, but the claim just isn't credible. An indef is in order. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Indeffed. Thanks GeneralNotability! BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Happy to be of service. FWIW, CU has them Confirmed to Tomben2 and Likely or better to Audreyhamilton36 and one or two other accounts associated with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fatima.Innovative. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Also likely to Fivesenses7879. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Great work!! scope_creepTalk 22:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- See further findings at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fatima.Innovative, I've upped my opinion to Confirmed to them and Drmies found a bunch too. G5 at will. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Great work!! scope_creepTalk 22:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Also likely to Fivesenses7879. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Sidney Thompson
- Sidney Thompson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Srthompson721 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Srthompson721 created Sidney Thompson which is likely an autobiography (the subject's birthday is July 21) and their only edits are to promote Thompson both in the subject article and by adding blatantly promotional material to other articles (examples [1] and [2]) I gave them a COI warning but they just continued editing Thompson. They have been self-promoting for four months and were even asked to clarify their relationship when the article was in draft status. I can find no evidence they ever did so. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- And he's doing it. That's just one. Bkatcher (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- I have reverted that. I think it needs an admin to have a chat with the editor. scope_creepTalk 21:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Although I think the books should be mentioned at Bass Reeves[3][4][5] and have added the mention to the article myself to take responsibility for that edit, Srthompson721 also appears to be adding them to articles that are not the primary subject of the books[6][7][8], which seems excessively promotional. Schazjmd (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Indeffed. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Leftover
All accounts have been blocked for paid votes to delete the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Maher (writer). All people disclosed that they made paid votes but User:Billyatthewheels haven't yet. [9] Other paid articles from them are: Sawandi Wilson, Suraj Beera, Cupid Chan. 76.167.87.53 (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- This complaint seems to make no sense. None of the delete arguments I can see have been redacted (we do not remove arguments wholesale unless they were advanced by an already blocked user) and the only thing here which implies any paid editing is the note from the volunteer responce team agent which explicitly names Simplewikipedian (talk · contribs) - who's since been blocked - as one. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I'm bit confused about this notification. I started editing Wikipedia articles a few months ago as fun but soon I started to feel that I'm contributing something significant to the whole Wikipedia project. Obviously I am not expert in Wikipedia matters and I only make edits or try to create new pages in my free time only but I will definitely disclose COI if there is one. Thanks. Billyatthewheels (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment, Some more spam I found which they moved to mainspace: Kate Hoang, MIFA Allstars Ontario. 2600:1700:9FE0:1BC0:3D46:838E:80D7:C862 (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Standard Life
- Standard Life (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Eugenia26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Eugenia26 seems to be an account set up purely for promotional purposes. Eugenia26 has ignored multiple talk page messages. Statements repeatedly added by Eugenia26, in bold, include The Standard Life brand has a history of helping people to plan for their future that dates back to 1825. (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- Has to be UPE, who writes edit summaries like "Standard Life current brand status"? --- Possibly ☎ 06:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
@Dormskirk, If i add in the COI {{connected contributor (paid)}}
to the Standard Life profile as well as sufficient references will i be able to update the profile accordingly?
- Thank you for adding the connected contributor tag. You should post any proposed changes (with citations) to the Standard Life article talk page so the changes can be considered by other editors. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Dormskirk, i have tried to updated the wikipedia page prior to seeing this message i apologise. I will update the talk page with citation just now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugenia26 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Just an update - again Eugenia26 has directly edited the Standard Life article with promotional text. They already received a reply on their talk page about their requested edit, so I'm not sure if they just don't like the reply they got and are ignoring it, or (assuming good faith) they are having a hard time understanding how to use the {{request edit}} feature and/or didn't see the reply. - Whisperjanes (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Dormskirk, i have tried to updated the wikipedia page prior to seeing this message i apologise. I will update the talk page with citation just now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugenia26 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for adding the connected contributor tag. You should post any proposed changes (with citations) to the Standard Life article talk page so the changes can be considered by other editors. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Johnathon Schaech
- Johnathon Schaech (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- John Schaech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User John Schaech has spent three days editing the wiki page for Johnathon Schaech to include various non-neutral phrases such as "one of Hollywood’s most handsome leading men" [10], and claiming to have "starred" in various movies that the actor in question could, at most, be considered a supporting cast member. [11] [12] Klohinxtalk 04:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Well for starters, this is a case of implied shared use and impersonation for WP:UAA to deal with. Then, in addition to conflict of interest and potentially undisclosed paid editing, there are some issues with ownership of content and assuming good faith if you see their post on Melcous's talk page.
- Their post also implied a years-long edit war exists on the article. I can see some single-purpose account activity in 2015 from the accounts BiancaPage, Wandaful, Ljulie.solomon and Petercardlinjr (the latter two are definite COI, as one can determine with a bit of searching), but the accounts are all stale. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- This editor User:Justinbrewer1 just newly arrived (been here since 2017 but never really edited until this huge drop) and reverted the minor copyedit I did, adding the Amazon shop reference back in. scope_creepTalk 16:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)`
User Scope Creep has violated Wikipedia guidelines by making personal attacks on me. He accused me of being a paid editor which I am not. He accused me of having a conflict of interest which I do not. The user appears to be obsessed with Mr. Schaech by trying to denigrate his resume by making editorial edits that -from what i see in the Wikipedia rules- violate the standards of being fair and accurate. He also seems to think that any correction of his edit is a direct assault on him rather than a correction of the record. NO attempt was made to reach out to me before these public and scurrilous allegations were made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinbrewer1 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Justinbrewer1: you say you know him. Are you part of his "team" as mentioned above? Are you just a friend? Doug Weller talk 14:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Just a friend Doug. I don't know of any team. Also I made the changes on my own and not at his direction. I explain a bit more down below in an answer to user Possibly. Thanks! Justinbrewer1 (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Johnathan Schaech (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- scope creep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Repeated edits appear to be vandalism by a user who seems to be obsessed with the subject. Edits that I made were based on fact. Justinbrewer1 (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Can you please, through direct quotation, provide evidence of edits made by scope creep that are in violation of Wikipedia standards, and explain exactly how such edits violate them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- actually I would ask the same of what was said about my edits. direct quotation would also be appreciated. Justinbrewer1 (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough. But since you have been asked to provide the evidence first, perhaps you could start the process off by doing so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- actually I would ask the same of what was said about my edits. direct quotation would also be appreciated. Justinbrewer1 (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
It's so typical of users with a conflict of interest to accuse experienced editors who push back against their promotional editing of being actually the ones with the COI,[13] being "obsessed" with "denigrating" the subject,[14] and editing out of "malice"[15] that I almost regard it as a "tell" or dead giveaway. As far as any relation between Justinbrewer1 and John Schaech, I have inquired of a CheckUser, who'll probably get to it tomorrow. Meanwhile, since the John Schaech account has acknowledged representing several people (it signs as "John Schaech's team" here), I have blocked it, as that is against Wikipedia's principles. An account may only represent one person. Bishonen | tålk 18:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC).
- Describing the Wikipedia article for Johnathon Schaech as the résumé for the subject sets off a few red flags. This edit while perhaps not inappropriate, seems to have been retaliatory. Let's take it a little bit slower. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- I would agree that taking things slower would be good on both ends of this. That however was not done every time other edits were made and then retaliatory revisions were made. I was publicly slammed with no attempt to discuss the edits with me. At least that is what it appeared to be. As for a use of a word like resume being a "red flag". These pages do reflect a person's life and career. That is what I meant. Nothing more. If that was offensive it was in no way my intention. Justinbrewer1 (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Straight out bullying and condescending . I DO know Schaech. the guidelines say that is allowed and not as you falsely claim at COI. Justinbrewer1 (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- No, it is not bullying. it is indeed a red flag, one which you just now confirmed. You knowing the subject is, on the other hand, a conflict of interest per policy. Allegations that your are a paid editor may be false but it does not preclude a conflict. If you are seeking to de-escalate this, I think you are going about it the wrong way. --SVTCobra 01:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Justinbrewer1: thanks for confirming that you know Schaech. We just need to know if you are coordinating with him to make edits, or how close that relationship is. In general we prefer that COI edits such as yourself (since you know him, you have a COI by our established standards) use the talk page for requested edits and refrain from editing the page directly. Thanks in advance for explaining your relationship to Schaech. --- Possibly ☎ 03:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. No, i am not editing at his direction. He had mentioned that factual information had been deleted. I had a similar problem on a page so I added back non-editorial information that was deleted yet factual. I did not undo what appeared to be deletions of things that were editorial in nature. And thank you for being so accommodating and understanding rather than going on the attack as others have. Much appreciated! Justinbrewer1 (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Justinbrewer1: thanks for confirming that you know Schaech. We just need to know if you are coordinating with him to make edits, or how close that relationship is. In general we prefer that COI edits such as yourself (since you know him, you have a COI by our established standards) use the talk page for requested edits and refrain from editing the page directly. Thanks in advance for explaining your relationship to Schaech. --- Possibly ☎ 03:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- No, it is not bullying. it is indeed a red flag, one which you just now confirmed. You knowing the subject is, on the other hand, a conflict of interest per policy. Allegations that your are a paid editor may be false but it does not preclude a conflict. If you are seeking to de-escalate this, I think you are going about it the wrong way. --SVTCobra 01:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Possibly, Drm310, scope_creep and others: Just noting here that the subject of the article has apparently started a campaign on twitter against me personally, calling me a bully, saying I have been getting "every editor" of the article blocked, and tagging the subject of another article I edited (whom I have no personal knowledge of whatsoever) calling me "their" editor and asking them to do something (I'm not clear what). From my point of view, they continue to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of what wikipedia is, as well as ownership of the article. I'm more than happy to step away and let others review my edits. If the sole issue was whether Tom Hanks' name should be included attached to one particular movie (as they have suggested) that would be one thing, but the subject of an article persistently editing (and enlisting multiple others) to include the names of multiple (more?) famous people on projects they have worked on are connected to seems to me to be another. Melcous (talk) 12:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- This is a mess. I see he's involved Amy Butcher who is now trying to involved Mark Pellegrino. I just restored a review to Butcher's article removed by an spa IP on the grounds it was too negative. And we have a new editor on his article whose first and only edit was to it. Doug Weller talk 13:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Doug Weller, yes he has now tweeted Meredith Lake asking her to "tell your editor Melcous to stop bullying me". Just to be clear, I do not know Meredith Lake. I did create the wikipedia article about her. Is he assuming that everyone who has a wikipedia page has a relationship with the person who has edited it? Does he think I work for her? Again, this perhaps says more about his own misunderstanding of how the whole project works than anything else. Melcous (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Melcous: probably. You're being called a paid editor. [16] Doug Weller talk 15:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: Well, just in case anyone is wondering, I've never been paid to edit here and have absolutely no COI with this article :) I'm not sure why he is so fixated on me specifically: yes, I have reverted the COI editing, but so have a number of other editors. By my count, I've edited the article 23 times ... which is less times than a number of the WP:SPAs/COI accounts! I'm not too bothered at the moment, but if he keeps up the twitter attacks on me, I'd be interested to know if there is anything I should do. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Melcous: probably. You're being called a paid editor. [16] Doug Weller talk 15:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Doug Weller, yes he has now tweeted Meredith Lake asking her to "tell your editor Melcous to stop bullying me". Just to be clear, I do not know Meredith Lake. I did create the wikipedia article about her. Is he assuming that everyone who has a wikipedia page has a relationship with the person who has edited it? Does he think I work for her? Again, this perhaps says more about his own misunderstanding of how the whole project works than anything else. Melcous (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- This is a mess. I see he's involved Amy Butcher who is now trying to involved Mark Pellegrino. I just restored a review to Butcher's article removed by an spa IP on the grounds it was too negative. And we have a new editor on his article whose first and only edit was to it. Doug Weller talk 13:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- @melcous I believe you're correct in your speculation about John's misunderstanding. I don't think anyone has emphasized to him that a primary pillar of wiki is neutrality. It's an encyclopedia, but's it's also immediate publicity at the top of every search result. For entertainers, that's an odd concept to have an online presence that can't be groomed.
It's a nice gesture to say you'll step away from the editing and I think that would be beneficial. The frequency, and the amount, of objective content that you've redacted from the article is significant. The intention behind that is suspect, considering how many other articles on this site include the entertainer's costars/writers/directors/producers. He also doesn't understand that edit summaries such as puffery and meatpuppets are normative here. To non-users, they appear as capricious insults. So that's also escalating tensions Matchbox23 (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Matchbox23, I appreciate your tone and what I think is your intention here, but I also note that yours is a brand new account created today, which makes me wonder what led you to this particular discussion. Please try to assume good faith rather than suggesting my intentions are "suspect". I also reject the characterisation that the subject has made on twitter and that you are now repeating here that I have "redacted" "significant" content. I have reverted conflict of interest and promotional editing - that is not the same thing. Melcous (talk) 09:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Melcous you have edited/removed/redacted a significant amount of content. And a lot of the content was objective data, not all promotional puffery. I do hope someone John knows will persuade him that your editing isn't an effort to undermine his work. But it comes across that way when so much was deleted from that page, by you, so vigilantly. While other entertainers' pages have lots of fluff. Matchbox23 (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Matchbox23, your assertion that "other entertainers' pages have lots of fluff" carries no merit. While it likely is true for some, that does not make it right. That fluff should also be removed and not be used as a reason for fluff on Mr. Schaech's article. So, please, if you notice fluff, remove it or notify somebody. --SVTCobra 00:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- SVTCobra Consider this wiki article created by Melcous [1]. There are an abundance of entities that Melcous includes in the article that published the author's work. Please explain how that is different than Schaech's page listing an abundance of entities that he's worked with? Working with a director or actor lends credibility just as published under a magazine lends credibility. But his credibility citations are edited out for "name dropping". The fact that other articles contain costars/directors/producers/writers, and phrases of "award-winning", creates a double-standard when those same elements are removed from his page. And the fact that Melcous has edited Schaech's page so many times, it comes across now as very targeted and fixated, so no wonder he feels bullied. Matchbox23 (talk) 05:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Matchbox23 to link to an article you do this: [[Amy Butcher]]. Melcous wrote 12.7% of the current version. An IP from near Butcher's employment wrote a large amount in 2018-2020.[17] Do you agree that seems odd? In 201y this IP, geolocating in the same city, wrote a large chunk.[18] My guess is that the IPs were either the subject of the article or someone she knows. This is a big problem for us. I'm thinking that the text you are talking about might not be hers - if you can quote some, I have a Chrome extension called "Who wrote that" that will tell me who wrote it. Doug Weller talk 11:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- SVTCobra Consider this wiki article created by Melcous [1]. There are an abundance of entities that Melcous includes in the article that published the author's work. Please explain how that is different than Schaech's page listing an abundance of entities that he's worked with? Working with a director or actor lends credibility just as published under a magazine lends credibility. But his credibility citations are edited out for "name dropping". The fact that other articles contain costars/directors/producers/writers, and phrases of "award-winning", creates a double-standard when those same elements are removed from his page. And the fact that Melcous has edited Schaech's page so many times, it comes across now as very targeted and fixated, so no wonder he feels bullied. Matchbox23 (talk) 05:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Matchbox23, your assertion that "other entertainers' pages have lots of fluff" carries no merit. While it likely is true for some, that does not make it right. That fluff should also be removed and not be used as a reason for fluff on Mr. Schaech's article. So, please, if you notice fluff, remove it or notify somebody. --SVTCobra 00:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Melcous you have edited/removed/redacted a significant amount of content. And a lot of the content was objective data, not all promotional puffery. I do hope someone John knows will persuade him that your editing isn't an effort to undermine his work. But it comes across that way when so much was deleted from that page, by you, so vigilantly. While other entertainers' pages have lots of fluff. Matchbox23 (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
References
Trying to find a way forward
In the interests of taking some of the heat out of this and trying to find a way forward, I'm not sure if Mr Schaech or his team are watching this discussion, or if editors like John Schaech or Matchbox23 are in touch with them. But from his comments on twitter, he may be under the impression that he/his publicist/people he knows etc are prevented from editing here. That is not quite the case. What they would need to do is:
- Properly disclose who they are
- Agree not to directly edit Johnathan Schaech or other related articles but use the talk pages
- Use the Template:Edit request to suggest changes that can then be reviewed by others who can decide to implement them if they are both verifiable and neutral.
Others who have followed this guidelines have actually found editors here quite willing to help them. Melcous (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Admission of paid editing
See [19] where he says "I’m learning challenged so I have tried to hire people. But it still gets taken down." Doug Weller talk 09:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- And there is something about attempts to remove Tom Hanks' That Thing You Do from the article which I don't see at all, but it seems to be infuriating people on Twitter. --SVTCobra 02:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- SVTCobra yes, the discussion on twitter has very much narrowed the issue to (a) my personal editing of the article; and (b) the removal of Tom Hanks' name from the mention of that particular movie. There is a failure to acknowledge that it is much wider than that: There has been a decade-long pattern of editing where WP:SPA and WP:COI accounts have repeatedly added details (including but not limited to "name dropping" famous co-stars) that read promotionally (e.g. Wandaful, BiancaPage, Petercardlinjr, CherShapiro, John Schaech, Justinbrewer1) and these have been reverted by a number of different editors over the years not just me (e.g. Zaokski,Pondrumm, Bbb23, Jmg38, Melcous). Thanks. Melcous (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- melcous This issue on Twitter has come down to John feeling bullied. You became the subject because of your persistence and a huge redaction that you did on Johnathon Schaech. And I agreed with him initially because of my limited understanding of wiki's very strong emphasis on Neutral Point of View (NPOV). So it appeared very targeted and malicious. Instead of talking about his tweeting in a forum that he doesn't know how to use, you might consider meeting him where he's at (go on Twitter) and explain it's mot malicious and the NPOV concept of Wiki. From what I've observed of his Twitter presence, he's incredibly good-hearted and is just feeling helpless about this and he doesn't understand. The terminology on wiki such as "puffery" and "meatpuppets" is so derogatory that - when someone isn't familiar with the editors vernacular - imagine how offensive it sounds. For a community that wants editors to approach interaction on "good faith" it's odd that such derogatory terms are widely utilized to summarize edits (I did like that little peacock illustration on the puffery wiki page though). You questioned by intentions yesterday. My intentions are to understand and perhaps broker some peace. Above all, it would be ideal for John to not feel like the target of harassment, which means understanding about NPOV. If he tweets about it again, I'll reply to him and try to explain. BTW DougWeller was on Twitter defending you. I suspect he was also trying to bridge the gap of misunderstanding. It's nice to have guys like that on your squad. Matchbox23 (talk) 05:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Matchbox23: I don't think I ever heard of Melcous until this. And Melcous isn't the only editor involved in this discussion. I understand what you are saying about terminology but there's no way around it. Meatpuppets are a real problem. take a look at WP:MEATPUPPET. They've been involved in editing the article in question here and, if it wasn't Butcher herself, Amy Butcher's article. That's not good for an encyclopedia, and the essential thing to grasp here is that this is an encyclopedia and at times better than paper ones. And as you may have noticed, most meatpuppets are anonymous. It's fine for friends and family to use talk pages to try to influence an article, but not to change it anonymously. As for "puffery", it's a real thing and a problem also.Doug Weller talk 12:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Matchbox23, it's great that you are seeking to understand how wikipedia works, and if you can explain it to him I'm sure that would be helpful. I also appreciate DougWeller's patience in attempting to do so as well. But I have no desire to interact with him on twitter, and I can only imagine the 'pile on' that could have occurred had his followers been able to find who I am on twitter. I get that he doesn't understand, but he also seems to have created a false and targeted narrative (that you are now repeating) that I personally am the problem. This tool here provides some pretty interesting *objective* information: I have edited the article about Schaech (note it is not "his" page, that distinction matters here) 23 times over 6 years (of 825 total edits total), hardly the "so many times" you have said above. The three most prolific editors on the article (and 5 of the top 6) are actually all accounts that have solely focused on this article, appear to have some conflict of interest and have added promotional content. And as the diffs I linked to above show, at least 5 separate editors have attempted to pare back that kind of content from the article at different times. So I'd really appreciate if you both you and he would stop making this personal about me. Finally, once again, I did not make a "huge redaction" - I assume you are referring to this edit - I reverted blatant COI and promotional editing, again a distinction which Mr Schaech might not understand, but one that matters here. Thank you, Melcous (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Melcous I'm not repeating a narrative, I'm describing how your actions appear and the affect those actions are having. I see that you would prefer to talk about him in a forum he doesn't understand (Wiki) than in a forum you apparently know how to use (Twitter). You had the opportunity to diffuse it yourself by providing essential insight into the NPOV. I am therefore done trying to build a bridge. Regarding the tools page you linked, I know how to read statistics. And your attempt to minimize your impacts to the edits on that page do not leave me convinced. You've removed thousands more characters from the page than anyone else in the last several years. Because this situation has become such a mess, and you feel this is personal about you, I would anticipate that any further editing of that page by you would be considered a COI. Matchbox23 (talk) 06:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Matchbox23: there's also User:Jmg38 who removed a big chunk with the edit summary "general cleanup; focus on Schaech rather than random film locations; no coat tails - article is about Schaech and his roles, not a list of more famous people he's been around"[20] And a lot of editors whose only edits or almost their only edits were to his article and who then vanished - they've probably added more characters than Melcous removed. I see no evidence that Melcous has a WP:COI by our definition. Doug Weller talk 12:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Matchbox23: ((edit conflict) with Doug Weller.) At this point I must protest. No, it would not be considered a "COI", don't be ridiculous. Take a look at WP:COI: "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest." What would be the external relationship on Melcous' part? Johnathan Schaech and his Twitter followers clearly have no problem with calling people "bullies" at the drop of a hat, but what you're doing right here is attempting to bully Melcous out of attempting to keep the article NPOV by throwing random Wikipedia guidelines at her. What is a COI, then? Does John Schaech have a COI? They edited the article (the lead of the article, no less) to describe Schaech as "one of Hollywood’s most handsome leading men" and having "shown incredible versatility as an actor", so I think they probably do, yes. Here's the link to that edit, which Melcous cruelly reverted. Are you going to put that link on Twitter? Bishonen | tålk 12:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC).
- Matchbox23 it's a bit rich to imply that I am at fault for being unwilling to go on Twitter and engage with him there. It has been unpleasant enough to have him and his followers writing about me there these last few days without knowing who I am - I can only imagine how bad it would have been if I had made myself personally known to them. More to the point, this whole thing started because Mr Schaech, people he knows, and people he has paid have been editing the article about him here for over ten years without taking time to understand what is wrong with that, despite multiple editors leaving talk page messages and notes in edit summaries. I'm sorry it has taken all this for him to get it, I really am, but I also think you need to stop presenting him as some kind of "innocent victim" in all this. Melcous (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Personal attacks of this nature, constitute harrassement under the Wikipedia:Harassment policy. It makes it difficult for Wikipedia editors, particularly women editors to operate on Wikipedia in safety and to enjoy the benefits of supposed collegiate atmosphere. It just dulls the whole experience of editing for everybody and puts the fear into editors who are not directly involved, the idea it can be taken off Wikipedia into social media and swollen up be something really nasty, that can itself have unintended consequences. Every editor who is involved on this article, who has edited this article, should be indefinitely blocked. This guy doesn't have Wikipedia as a core interest. scope_creepTalk 16:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Matchbox's allegations are frankly laughable and absurd, and the total opposite of what is actually true. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Matchbox23 it's a bit rich to imply that I am at fault for being unwilling to go on Twitter and engage with him there. It has been unpleasant enough to have him and his followers writing about me there these last few days without knowing who I am - I can only imagine how bad it would have been if I had made myself personally known to them. More to the point, this whole thing started because Mr Schaech, people he knows, and people he has paid have been editing the article about him here for over ten years without taking time to understand what is wrong with that, despite multiple editors leaving talk page messages and notes in edit summaries. I'm sorry it has taken all this for him to get it, I really am, but I also think you need to stop presenting him as some kind of "innocent victim" in all this. Melcous (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Melcous I'm not repeating a narrative, I'm describing how your actions appear and the affect those actions are having. I see that you would prefer to talk about him in a forum he doesn't understand (Wiki) than in a forum you apparently know how to use (Twitter). You had the opportunity to diffuse it yourself by providing essential insight into the NPOV. I am therefore done trying to build a bridge. Regarding the tools page you linked, I know how to read statistics. And your attempt to minimize your impacts to the edits on that page do not leave me convinced. You've removed thousands more characters from the page than anyone else in the last several years. Because this situation has become such a mess, and you feel this is personal about you, I would anticipate that any further editing of that page by you would be considered a COI. Matchbox23 (talk) 06:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- melcous This issue on Twitter has come down to John feeling bullied. You became the subject because of your persistence and a huge redaction that you did on Johnathon Schaech. And I agreed with him initially because of my limited understanding of wiki's very strong emphasis on Neutral Point of View (NPOV). So it appeared very targeted and malicious. Instead of talking about his tweeting in a forum that he doesn't know how to use, you might consider meeting him where he's at (go on Twitter) and explain it's mot malicious and the NPOV concept of Wiki. From what I've observed of his Twitter presence, he's incredibly good-hearted and is just feeling helpless about this and he doesn't understand. The terminology on wiki such as "puffery" and "meatpuppets" is so derogatory that - when someone isn't familiar with the editors vernacular - imagine how offensive it sounds. For a community that wants editors to approach interaction on "good faith" it's odd that such derogatory terms are widely utilized to summarize edits (I did like that little peacock illustration on the puffery wiki page though). You questioned by intentions yesterday. My intentions are to understand and perhaps broker some peace. Above all, it would be ideal for John to not feel like the target of harassment, which means understanding about NPOV. If he tweets about it again, I'll reply to him and try to explain. BTW DougWeller was on Twitter defending you. I suspect he was also trying to bridge the gap of misunderstanding. It's nice to have guys like that on your squad. Matchbox23 (talk) 05:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- SVTCobra yes, the discussion on twitter has very much narrowed the issue to (a) my personal editing of the article; and (b) the removal of Tom Hanks' name from the mention of that particular movie. There is a failure to acknowledge that it is much wider than that: There has been a decade-long pattern of editing where WP:SPA and WP:COI accounts have repeatedly added details (including but not limited to "name dropping" famous co-stars) that read promotionally (e.g. Wandaful, BiancaPage, Petercardlinjr, CherShapiro, John Schaech, Justinbrewer1) and these have been reverted by a number of different editors over the years not just me (e.g. Zaokski,Pondrumm, Bbb23, Jmg38, Melcous). Thanks. Melcous (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Draft:Ben Brown (lawyer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Griegtupi404 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 91.232.198.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 91.232.235.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 91.232.208.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 91.232.235.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 91.232.208.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- St Helena Magistrates' Court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Bbrown91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Both Griegtupi404 and Bbrown91 are/were 2021 SPAs to establish new articles within a remakably-narrow topic area (no edits outside of St Helena). IP is IPs are likewise single-topic.
Draft:Ben Brown (lawyer) appears to be heavily supported by new media based on recent press releases, using images submitted by the subject of the article. The author appears to be conversant with formatting and moreover knows the exact birth details of 15 October 1991 which does not appear publicly (example: deleted from prose in this change, but was left in infobox).
Griegtupi404 was left a standard CoI templated message on 25 October, has edited since but no response at Talk. Bbrown91 has only just been messaged, as just now been found.----Rocknrollmancer (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Aside from the exclusive use of PRIMARY SOURCES for St Helena Magistrates' Court I see very little issue with how this is written, and it was accepted into mainspace by an established editor. Even Draft:Ben Brown (lawyer) seems rather neutral, non-promotional and not spammy. It is encouraging to see that they're going through the proper procedures to having it moved to mainspace. The article COI tag should be sufficient for the reviewer.
- Of course these articles and editors do warrant being watched should their intentions change. The COI notice on their respective talk pages seem like all that is needed unless they begin controversial edits. TiggerJay (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Two new IPs have been used to delete the CoI top-flag (91.232.235.203, 91.232.208.209 - I can't find a way to include a clear linespace), so three times now. I have no doubt what is going on here. I do not generally use coin, but it was a toss-up with cu formal/informal and spi. I didn't want to, but the recent deletions have forced me to establish a bio Draft Talk. Pinging Tiggerjay, scope_creep.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Vandalism IP added attacking my recent worklist, 91.232.235.4.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Another IP range vandal destroying the Draft Talk page, 91.232.208.118.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Vandalism IP added attacking my recent worklist, 91.232.235.4.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Two new IPs have been used to delete the CoI top-flag (91.232.235.203, 91.232.208.209 - I can't find a way to include a clear linespace), so three times now. I have no doubt what is going on here. I do not generally use coin, but it was a toss-up with cu formal/informal and spi. I didn't want to, but the recent deletions have forced me to establish a bio Draft Talk. Pinging Tiggerjay, scope_creep.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Klaus Schwab
- Klaus Schwab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Petervanham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Mikeh101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Kai_at_BSt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I noticed a heavy marketing and framing drift in the article on Klaus Schwab as Founder of the World Economic Forum. Critical points have been removed, honours have been highlighted excessively and Schwab's former secretary Hilde, which he married, has been re-labelled "first collaborator" (which has a strong taste of linguistic framing).
There have been overall 37 of such edits by User Petervanham, who happens to be the Head of International Media Council and Chairman’s Communications at World Economic Forum. Petervanham highlights the conflict of interest on his user page but the heavy sugartalking on the Klaus Schwab article through his account especially over the last few weeks is beyond measure.
This would almost be a case for the media (better not the one the WEF "works with throughout the year" but the independent one), as this is depicting a heavy impact on Wikipedia as neutral and independent source of knowledge. Polynesia2024 (talk) 07:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Polynesia2024: Dude you need to inform the editor that you have posted this here. It is deeply uncool to post an entry here with informing the editor(s) in question. It is against policy as well. We are not the secret police here. scope_creepTalk 14:50, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Done Vexations (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- I forgot to do it:( scope_creepTalk 17:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Done Vexations (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Polynesia2024: Dude you need to inform the editor that you have posted this here. It is deeply uncool to post an entry here with informing the editor(s) in question. It is against policy as well. We are not the secret police here. scope_creepTalk 14:50, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for flagging this case. As I’ve clearly indicated in my profile, I have a conflict of interest regarding Klaus Schwab, and therefore limit myself to making factual submissions to his page. So, taking these allegations one by one:
Did I remove critical points? No. I flagged fake news and misinformation regarding “The Great Reset” conspiracy theory that is making the rounds on the internet, and linked to articles from sources such as Reuters and AFP which clearly state the nature of this fake news.
Did I excessively highlight awards received by Klaus Schwab? No. When users only mentioned the awards received by Klaus Schwab from China and Israel, selectively deleting those from other countries, I added the awards he received elsewhere, such as the UK, France and Germany. Having given only the info on the awards from China and Israel could have given the impression that Mr. Schwab has a special relationship to these countries and their interests.
Third, was Hilde Schwab his “secretary”, and not his assistant and first collaborator? What is the allegation here? Hilde Schwab as first employee of the World Economic Forum in fact acted more like what a COO today does, taking charge of a wide variety of tasks related to the organization.
In sum, I find the allegations presented here very colored and uncalled for, but mostly I wonder what the reason of Polynesia2024 is to open a case on this page. If anyone has factual corrections regarding edits I have made and that were incorrect regarding Klaus Schwab, they can bring them forward on Klaus Schwab’s page Wikipedia directly and change the edits or flag specific issues, right?
What I’m disheartened by, professional and as a person, is the constant steam of fake news and misinformation that is spread on Klaus Schwab, on a variety of channels. My contribution in keeping Wikipedia and his page here a reliable source, is to flag fake news, and add sources on factual information provided about this person.
It is tiring and discouraging to see how often those with an undisclosed agenda try and manipulate Wikipedia pages, and that goes for the page of Klaus Schwab as well. What is encouraging to see is that many other wiki editors correct such efforts at manipulation.
Note also that my last edit was months ago. I thus do not understand the comment on edits made that would be “beyond measure”, “especially in the last few weeks”.
Do please let me know if I need to take any other steps to address this case. I’m happy to provide any sources for the information I provided here. Thank you. Petervanham — Preceding undated comment added 20:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Petervanham: What is the nature of your coi? Do you know the person directly or for example, telling you what to write or possibly providing information for the article? scope_creepTalk 20:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Scope creep: In short they both work for the WEF, but you should read his user page and COI declaration. --SVTCobra 22:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- @SVTCobra: Yip I saw that. scope_creepTalk 23:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Scope creep: In short they both work for the WEF, but you should read his user page and COI declaration. --SVTCobra 22:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Petervanham: What is the nature of your coi? Do you know the person directly or for example, telling you what to write or possibly providing information for the article? scope_creepTalk 20:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
First of all my apologies for not having posted the information on the page of Petervanham. There was no intention in bad faith here but I assume the tagging of the user on this page would automatically notify him. In terms of disclosure, he indeed added a conflict of interest badge on your page, as I had indicated in my original text.
But this happened only on 21 June 2021, after having made more than 30 edits to the page since 2020. Notable edits - prior to any disclosure - include:
- +2,942 Klaus Schwab Other activities and awards: Included a full list of honorary doctorates and sourced them with official university and media reports, to avoid disputes
- +1,779 m Klaus Schwab Added some 6 sources on various honorary doctorates, as well as a full overview of all honorary doctorates received.
- +1,180 Klaus Schwab Added citations for Doctorate and Master degrees. Removed summa cum laude, as I couldn't find this honor on university websites (will continue looking). Expanded national distinctions to all P5 and G7 member countries, as well as UN distinction.
- Text sample: WEF and other foundations “Schwab has had a life-long gift for building successful nonprofit foundations.” “Under Schwab's management, the WEF has been keen to promote its image as a driver for reconciliation efforts in different parts of the world, acting as a catalyst of numerous collaborations and international initiatives.”
The bloated honours section led, among others, to a neutrality dispute on the page. Only at that point, the conflict of interest badge had been added. Please do not present yourself as a victim of a misinformation campaign when there is evidence for having written an uncritical marketing text on Klaus Schwab over the last months. --Polynesia2024 (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for continuing the discussion here, and for including me in it. I would like to address one more time the accusations levelled against me here. And I would raise the question: what is the allegation, really? That I have made misleading or false edits? Or that I did not disclose my conflict of interest early enough?
If it is about my conflict of interest, I agree I should have done it earlier. I am not an expert contributor, and so it may take me a while to gather experience about best practices. But when I found out it was possible to self-disclose conflicts of interest, I immediately did so. If this means that my prior edits should be revised, I welcome that. My edits have always followed the same principle: they are limited to factual elements and the adding of reliable sources, such as official university pages, or trusted media sources such as Reuters, AFP, etc.
But what I cannot accept, is false accusations. I have not been involved, now or ever, in writing "uncritical marketing" about Klaus Schwab, or to make any non-factual contributions. And the alleged proof that I would have, is simply false. Notably, the text sample Polynesia2024 has included here as "evidence", is one I have nothing to do with:
- Text sample: WEF and other foundations “Schwab has had a life-long gift for building successful nonprofit foundations.” “Under Schwab's management, the WEF has been keen to promote its image as a driver for reconciliation efforts in different parts of the world, acting as a catalyst of numerous collaborations and international initiatives.”
I deeply resent that these kinds of falsehoods are presented on this page. Any Wiki editor can go back in the edit history of Klaus Schwab or any other page, and verify that truthfulness of my claims, and the falseness of the ones Polynesia2024 levels here against me. I do not accept that someone propagates lies about me.
The same goes for the "bloated honours section" leading to a "neutrality dispute" and my subsequent self-declaration of a conflict of interest. This is a fabricated allegation. My self-declaration of a conflict of interest came when I did additional research on the kind of edits an editor could make, after I spotted the umpteenth attempt to add fake news to Klaus Schwab's page, which led me to want to correct these edits. When it comes to the suggestion that Klaus Schwab's page has a "bloated honours section", what exactly does that even mean? It is a verifiable fact that Klaus Schwab received 17 honorary doctorates from universities around the world, and several national distinctions from P5 and G7 countries. Does mentioning those make his honours section "bloated"?
I would argue there is a danger of misinformation in inconsistency. One Wiki editor deleted many of the verifiable honours uploaded on Klaus Schwab's page, only to leave those from China and Israel. What exactly would be the justifiable basis for that? And why would someone like Polynesia2024 support this action? From a quick search on Klaus Schwab, one would be able to find that one reason for making these one-sided edits, is that it fits in conspiracy theories on Klaus Schwab being a friend of (communist) China, or that he would be involved in a Jewish conspiracy for world domination. It would be deeply regrettable if such misleading edits would be left standing in a neutral platform.
Here is a quote from one article regarding Klaus Schwab, and the way groups like QAnon tie him to perceived communist and Jewish interests: "The Great Reset is a concept floated by Prince Charles and World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab, which urges a post-pandemic transformation of the world economy to rebalance inequality and climate progress. It was the headline topic at this January’s WEF, held online rather than in its usual Swiss home of Davos. Believers in the Illuminati, New World Order and, of course, QAnon have subsumed the Great Reset into their own conspiracy theories. It appeals to the anti-globalist right and anti-capital left – and often leads adherents down anti-Semitic rabbit holes." <ref>https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/politics/article/qanon-conspiracy-theory-germany</ref>
Neutrality rules would instead favor consistency: either all academic titles and national distinctions are mentioned, or none. I opted to add all distinctions, provided evidence and sourcing could be added. Subsequent revisions by other users verified this choice as being in line with Wiki policies. If the community of Wiki editors would instead find it better to instead delete all such honours, in all such Person pages, that too could be a defensible choice. But I would be surprised if any seasons Wiki editor would suggest that leaving only the Chinese and Israeli honours would be appropriate.
You see, I do not believe Polynesia2024 is an unbiased or seasoned contributor, and that he created this page in good faith. I suspect that he has an agenda, and that he does not disclose it. I regret the one-sidedness of this discussion, and the false accusations made. So, may I in turn question the reason of Polynesia2024 for levelling allegations against me here? For example, he alleges in his edit of Klaus Schwab's page, without evidence or sourcing, that Hilde Schwab was Klaus Schwab's "secretary" - and not his "assistant" and first collaborator as written there before. What exactly is the point of that change, which again, is not sourced? To me it suggests an undertone of misogeny. And again, what is his reason for preferring a highly selective list of honours with only titles from China and Israel, rather than a full one?
In closing, I have indicated my conflict of interest, and welcome any and all scrutiny of edits I make, and whether they are suitable. If I should take any other approach in my editing, I also welcome suggestions on that. I believe that together, Wiki editors create a "wisdom of the crowd", and that in most cases they are able to crowd out of lies and falsehoods. That is my experience. But I would hope that we do not allow this page, or any other Wiki page, to become a place for one-sided and false allegations, aimed at destroying a contributor's reputation without cause, and let by a "prosecutor" who does not have a credible track record.
Please let me know what the rest of this "proceeding" will look like. Thank you.
- @Petervanham: Firstly you have been here since 2013 and your still not signing your comments. Please use the four tildes ~~~~ to sign your posts. These will be converted into a full signature. Thanks for responding. You didn't quite answer my question. You have declared your coi, however but I think you're too close to the subject to provide a valid platform for WP:NPOV, a core Wikipedia policy. Posting up endless honourary degrees indicates poses a certain level of vanity by the subject or yourself that is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Honourary degrees unless given out by a really prestigious university, or been given by a university that has been thinking about it for 20 years, are generally useless, so I have removed them. They're is no information for the reader, there. I think in future you should use the Wikipedia:Edit requests mechanism. Your too close the subject to write a neutral article. scope_creepTalk 12:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
@Scope creep:: Thank you for that judgment call. It seems fair to me. As for your question, my COI is what is disclosed: I work as Head of Communications in the Chairman’s Office of the World Economic Forum. In that role, I consult with Klaus Schwab on matters of public engagement. I did inform him that I have made factual corrections to his page. If you think this is too close of a connection to provide a neutral point of view, I will take that into consideration and request an edit rather than make edits for any material edits that are not strictly about adding sources. Let me know if that sounds like the right course of actio to you, or what would be Peter Vanham 12:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Petervanham
- Also I am kindly asking for a respectful language without personal attacks. Mentioning that I am "non-credible" and "unseasoned" while I have brought forward a valid concern - supported by references - does not seem like a good style. --Polynesia2024 (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yip, I suspected you were very close to the subject. Thanks for explaining that. In the future, please use the edit request mechanism for all edits. It is a collegiate atmosphere were trying to attain here. Personally I really don't mind what people say, but other folk are hurt by it, so leave out the personal attacks, please. Again, sign your comment with four tildes, at the end of your comments. scope_creepTalk 00:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Also I am kindly asking for a respectful language without personal attacks. Mentioning that I am "non-credible" and "unseasoned" while I have brought forward a valid concern - supported by references - does not seem like a good style. --Polynesia2024 (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree with the notion of factual submissions. I think the editor should edit only on the talk page and stay off the mainspace, just as any other COI editor does. This editor's interpretation of 'factual' is by very definition going to be framed by the COI. This is a controversial article subject and we dont need COI editors to edit it. If the editor cannot agree to stay off the main page I suggest a T-Ban. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Would it make sense to request a general disclosure by WEF staff on possible further Wikipedia COI cases, if applicable? The fact that we had an undisclosed 30+ paid edits for Klaus Schwab alone is concerning. --Polynesia2024 (talk) 11:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: extending discussion to User:Mikeh101 & User:Kai_at_BSt, who have also edited the article on a major scale and likewise appears to be from/paid by the WEF. --Polynesia2024 (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Frederick D. Sulcer
- Frederick D. Sulcer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Ginna Marston (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Quinn Marston (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Elizabeth Sulcer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wardrobe stylist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Capitola Dickerson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Bill Robinson (jazz singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Homelessness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Charlie van Over (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Priscilla Martel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Tomwsulcer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tomwsulcer created Frederick D. Sulcer. On the talk page, Tomwsulcer wrote "This is an article about my late father". According to the infobox in that article, Ginna Sulcer Marston is Frederick Sulcer's child. Tomwsulcer created Ginna Marston. Quinn Marston is Frederick Sulcer's grandchild. Tomwsulcer created Quinn Marston. Another article created by Tomwsulcer is Elizabeth Sulcer a fashion stylist who shares the Sulcer name. For some reason, Tomwsulcer chose to give her undue prominence in the article on wardrobe stylists.
In the biography about New Jersey piano teacher Capitola Dickerson, Tomwsulcer has included 18 images, which is clearly excessive. One of the images is captioned "Dickerson with one of her pupils, Samuel Sulcer". One of the sources used by Tomwsulcer is an article in a community newspaper which starts "Community members -- including Thomas Sulcer, Kathy Lucas, Penny and Frank Bolden, and Pamela Paskowitz, Ph.D. -- gathered for a reception...". Tomwsulcer wrote that Dickerson "he was friends with renowned jazz singer Bill Robinson". Tomwsulcer created the article Bill Robinson (jazz singer). All sources appear to be either passing mentions or coverage in local papers, which is not what one would expect for a renowned jazz singer.
Tomwsulcer appears to have used a piece that he wrote for a local paper as a source in Homelessness. I suspect that despite his many years here, Tomwsulcer may not be familiar with policies on conflict of interest. Please sign my guestbook (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Tomwsulcer has been editing here for a long time and made significant contributions. However, this kind of editing about family members is problematic (and without proper disclosure) - as is the large number of quotes and photos that make these articles look more like obits or personal websites than encyclopaedia articles. However, from a quick look through the archives of the editor's talk page, I can't see any discussion of COI (other than Tomwsulcer telling other people not to edit articles about themselves), so I have left the guidelines and a comment on his talk page now. I have also edited and tagged a couple of the articles that I think have issues. Probably up to Tom to reply here next. Thanks Melcous (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes I've been open about my connection to my father. I write about a huge slew of subjects, on politics, biographies, planets, fashion trends, history, philosophy, and I always try to be fair. Almost every sentence I add is referenced, and it's all good stuff, it's all real, not made up. So if other contributors go about removing my good content, in essence, they will be committing a sort of vandalism by removing referenced content. Surely Melcous doesn't think of himself/herself as a vandal when removing referenced content. Sure, it's easy to slap tags on articles, easy to click on revert, but it's hard to do what I do, which is contribute good content to this good encyclopedia, and I've contributed substantially to this project, all volunteering, never getting paid.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Tomwsulcer, you have noted your connection on the talk page of the article about your father, but the issue is that you have not abided by the WP:COI policy on a a number of other articles, where you have not properly disclosed your connection. You have also added content to these articles that is not neutral including numerous images, excessive quotes, and links to your family members in articles where they are at best only tangentially related. What is being asked of you now is whether you will refrain from directly editing articles about your family members, instead using the talk pages to request edits? Melcous (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Melcous I'm tangentially related to everybody and everything, family, friends, acquaintances, people I meet on the street, every subject, every idea, my town and state and country (Summit, NJ, USA), my hemisphere (North America), my world, my planet Earth, subjects I've studied or come across or want to learn more about such as History of citizenship (hey I'm a citizen -- a conflict of interest?). And I want to write about everything. If we met at a coffee shop, and I begin to talk to you, Melcous, like I like to talk to pretty much everybody, within a few sentences of our conversation, I'd be wondering, hmmm, how can I get Melcous into Wikipedia? An article? A photo? As a reference? See, would that be a conflict of interest? It's just how I am with what my friends often say is an out-of-control hobby of Wikipedia! It's not about money -- I never take money for any of my 14+ years of contributions, although I sometimes have gotten a 'thank you'. But my contributions, over the years, if I had been, say, a writer for the Encyclopedia Britannica, would have garnered hundreds of thousands of dollars, and Wikipedia gets it for free.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- And what often happens with me is that I'm so busy writing about something else that I forget to disclose every connection, but what I'm saying is, I'd have to do this for practically every subject, since, like I said, I'm connected to everybody and everything and every idea. Like, right now, me writing this, I'm thinking what else I could be writing about...--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Tomwsulcer: your relationship with family members listed here is not tangential. Adding an article you have written as a reference is not tangential. WP:COIADVICE is relevant, particularly the sentence "If another editor objects for any reason, it is not an uncontroversial edit." Perhaps it is time to back away and use the talk page on articles or situations where you have a close connection? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Russ Woodroofe: Pretty much everything is tangential, family members, extended family members, people I know, places I go, things I think -- and pretty much everything in my world is a "close connection" as is the case with all Wikipedia contributors. So if we'd really like to be true to the ideas of conflict-of-interest, maybe I shouldn't write about anything? Maybe nobody should write about anything? Like, I ate once at Fuddruckers; forget what, maybe a hamburger, so if I do a substantial revamp of the article, am I supposed to write on the talk page, hey, I might be biased because I once ate there? The key tests of whether something should stay in Wikipedia revolve around whether something is good information, verifiable, useful, factual, referenced? None of us are truly 'neutral' about anything -- we're all biased, all connected to things. If you examine my contributions, you'll see that it's all real, all good, all referenced, all factual. About my particular family members, those things are written and I don't intend to keep writing about them, and yes I'll try to write on the talk pages first if I do, requesting a comment, although in my experience I doubt much will happen.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Do you *truly* not know the difference between a relationship someone has with a place they ate a burger at and a relationship someone has with one of their relatives or are you simply being playful in conversation? Because if you truly don't, then the community can't simply rely on your goodwill in the future and will need to consider something more formal to slow down your excessive documentation of the Sulcerverse. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Russ Woodroofe: Pretty much everything is tangential, family members, extended family members, people I know, places I go, things I think -- and pretty much everything in my world is a "close connection" as is the case with all Wikipedia contributors. So if we'd really like to be true to the ideas of conflict-of-interest, maybe I shouldn't write about anything? Maybe nobody should write about anything? Like, I ate once at Fuddruckers; forget what, maybe a hamburger, so if I do a substantial revamp of the article, am I supposed to write on the talk page, hey, I might be biased because I once ate there? The key tests of whether something should stay in Wikipedia revolve around whether something is good information, verifiable, useful, factual, referenced? None of us are truly 'neutral' about anything -- we're all biased, all connected to things. If you examine my contributions, you'll see that it's all real, all good, all referenced, all factual. About my particular family members, those things are written and I don't intend to keep writing about them, and yes I'll try to write on the talk pages first if I do, requesting a comment, although in my experience I doubt much will happen.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Tomwsulcer: your relationship with family members listed here is not tangential. Adding an article you have written as a reference is not tangential. WP:COIADVICE is relevant, particularly the sentence "If another editor objects for any reason, it is not an uncontroversial edit." Perhaps it is time to back away and use the talk page on articles or situations where you have a close connection? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Tomwsulcer, you have noted your connection on the talk page of the article about your father, but the issue is that you have not abided by the WP:COI policy on a a number of other articles, where you have not properly disclosed your connection. You have also added content to these articles that is not neutral including numerous images, excessive quotes, and links to your family members in articles where they are at best only tangentially related. What is being asked of you now is whether you will refrain from directly editing articles about your family members, instead using the talk pages to request edits? Melcous (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes I've been open about my connection to my father. I write about a huge slew of subjects, on politics, biographies, planets, fashion trends, history, philosophy, and I always try to be fair. Almost every sentence I add is referenced, and it's all good stuff, it's all real, not made up. So if other contributors go about removing my good content, in essence, they will be committing a sort of vandalism by removing referenced content. Surely Melcous doesn't think of himself/herself as a vandal when removing referenced content. Sure, it's easy to slap tags on articles, easy to click on revert, but it's hard to do what I do, which is contribute good content to this good encyclopedia, and I've contributed substantially to this project, all volunteering, never getting paid.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Every references has a quote, which also seems a bit excessive. They are linked as a group of articles, with a particular style. Is it MOS compliant to have 33 quotes in an article, for example at so small, which is quite a small article? scope_creepTalk 12:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment There are reasons why there are quotes within references. First, if the url link becomes unworkable over time, subject to link rot, then the quote within the reference will still be there for other users to see. Second, for readers wanting to check a source, the quote helps them find it within the source. It's all about verifiability, and you, Melcous, removing quotes is a kind of borderline vandalism, thwarting the ability of others to verify the content.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I've sent Capitola Dickerson to Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capitola Dickerson. There is only one obit and two incidental sources with no secondaries visible. scope_creepTalk 12:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Our culture is highly biased against African-Americans and against women, and here is one who, despite all of these biases, shines; it would be a shame to have her removed, although none of us will even begin to think that there was any racism or sexism involved, since we all assume that you, scope creep are acting in good faith to improve the encyclopedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I've sent Capitola Dickerson to Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capitola Dickerson. There is only one obit and two incidental sources with no secondaries visible. scope_creepTalk 12:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@Tomwsulcer: On Commons, you wrote "I wrote the article about Charlie van Over. He's a notable chef. He's the husband of a friend of mine". Indeed, you created both Charlie van Over and Priscilla Martel. Do you understand why you should not be creating articles about your family, your friends, or your business associates? Do you understand our principles on neutrality and why writing about people you know may lead to articles that are neither neutral nor encyclopedic? What do you think Wikipedia would look like if everyone did what you are doing? Please sign my guestbook (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Given that Tomwsulcer has skipped town and clearly has no real concept of our COI guidelines, nor good sourcing, I recommend that COI tags get applied to all the articles he's a significant contributor to and then evaluated for notability (the above have been tagged, but a more thorough check is probably warranted), before bothering with cleanup efforts that the vast majority at first checking seem to desperately need (and that if Tomwsulcer returns without any effort to address these concerns, he should probably be blocked.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Tom hasn't edited since the 2nd (according to his attempt to speedy delete his talk page, he might be gone for good).
I actually doubt the notability of these pages he's created, a block and/or a cleanup of his edits and at least a few AfDs are needed here. wizzito | say hello! 00:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
WTTCO
- WTTCO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- MajdDaaboul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The creator of the article appears to be run be involved in a WTTCO account for an advertising agency. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- This looks to be true and the article seems to be of borderline relevance anyway. What else should be done about this article, if anything? Go4thProsper (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Ulrich Kutschera
- Ulrich Kutschera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Rajnish Khanna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Winslow Briggs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Diwata2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (main account)
- Diwata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (suggestively-named account blocked on dewiki, with little activity on enwiki)
Diwata~commonswiki (old account on commons that at some point proved they have the rights to upload works credited to Ulrich Kutschera)(edit: struck here because the account only exists on commons)- U.Kutschera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (account that proved their identity to upload a photo)
Diwata2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The account User talk:Diwata2 is clearly connected to the subject of Ulrich Kutschera. They attempted five times to create the article, before finally succeeding (unsuccessful attempts 1 2 3 4). On six different occasions, they removed information about controversial statements Kutschera made to the press (1 23456). These had been added by five different editors. They also created the article Rajnish Khanna (twice, after seeing their first try speedily deleted as "unambiguous advertising" log). Khanna is a collaborator of Kutschera, as we know from the introduction of the article as it was created and reverse references to both Khan and his company, i-cultiver, which Diwana2 added here. Once the Khanna article existed, they also changed the latter reference to link the article. That reference mentions both as working with Winslow Briggs and, lo and behold, they added mentions and links to Kutschera in 2018 and to Khanna in 2021. The only other change on Briggs was the addition of a photo which they Winslow Briggs claim to hold copyright in], as they do for the photos of Rajnish Khanna. Staying on commons, they also once uploaded a photo of Alfred Kutschera. In that case, they claimed to have] "permission from the son, Ulrich Kutschera".
Diwata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The father's article on dewiki was created by User:Diwata. That user, who is now blocked indefinitely on dewiki for POV edits on that language version of Ulrich Kutschera's article, has only made one edit here, adding a photo of Kutschera. When that photo was deleted, it was uploaded again by U.Kutschera proving their rights in a VTR ticket. There is also a user Diwata~commonswiki, i. e. a user named Diwata until it had to be renamed when accounts were merged. That user also proved their identity in VTR ticket #2013070910004415 and uploaded a series of images credited to "Prof. Dr. Ulrich Kutschera".
Returning to Diwata2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), they have not responded to requests to disclose CoIs on their talk page nor on the article's talk page, but instead reverted additions to the article after those requests were made. Karl Oblique (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Karl, you *must* notify all parties of this discussion. You can use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- My apologies! I have adde notices on the respective talk pages, User talk:Diwata2, User talk:Diwata, and User talk:U.Kutschera. I have struck one user account from the list above, because it does not exist here. --Karl Oblique (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Karl here that Diwata appears to be a SPA that is only here to promote Kutschera and co. That said, WP:BLP does apply, and your current sourcing for a lot of these claims are lacking, and you need to find proper sources that cover these claims. Have these controversies been mentioned in German newspapers? Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- If you check the last version I edited, October 31, 2021, there are ample sources for these claims. Just to check: you should see 35 references in total. Of those, seven are concerning various allegations. These are references 7-11, 26, and 27. Each one includes a link to a Google-translate-version under the slightly misappropriated lay summary. The publications in question are beyond reproach: Der Spiegel (article, reference #8) , Süddeutsche Zeitung (article, reference #11), Die Zeit (article, reference #9), etc. Karl Oblique (talk) 08:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Vitamin A5
- Vitamin A5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wham2019 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User Wham2019 appears to be closely associated with the research group proposing a hypothetical concept of vitamin A subtypes, a controversial topic not adopted in the vitamin A literature, not mentioned in the Wikipedia vitamin A article, and not supported by WP:SCIRS reviews. The only edits this user has made in their editing history since beginning in 2019 have been to support the concept of vitamin A subtypes. COI disclosure has been requested on the user's talk page and vitamin A5 talk page, but this produced no response. Wham2019 has not participated in specific discussion on criticisms by sections used in the article. I suspect the user is a paid member of the research group whose publications are the only sources used in the vitamin A5 stub, and that these two concept articles - vitamin A2 and vitamin A5 - are placeholders to give credibility and visibility via Wikipedia for ideas not widely adopted in vitamin A science. Zefr (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
-> Wham2019 answered all questions by Zefr, who is the ONLY one pushing for deletion. Zefr is NOT responding and considering answers from additional people in the talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wham2019 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Institute for Adult Learning
- Institute for Adult Learning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Hillarytwt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hillarytwt is a SPA editor who only edits Institute for Adult Learning, updating corporate information about the institute. I had placed 2 COI notices which the editor had not replied.Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 07:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Fairly confident that this is a case of undisclosed paid editing, based on a bit of searching (not including details per WP:OUTING). --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Drm310: Hilarytwt stated that they own the copyright for commons:File:IAL Centre for Innovation & Development Logo.png. I've blocked them. Doug Weller talk 12:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Ironic that the logo should probably have been marked {{PD-textlogo}} after all. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Drm310: Hilarytwt stated that they own the copyright for commons:File:IAL Centre for Innovation & Development Logo.png. I've blocked them. Doug Weller talk 12:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
International Institute for Conservation
- International Institute for Conservation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Conservation and restoration of cultural property (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Ana Tourais (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The International Institute for Conservation has had some COI problems already - their article currently has an undisclosed paid editing template. Today a section was posted to Talk:Conservation and restoration of cultural property asking for feedback about adding mention of the IIC and some affiliated sites to the article. The new editor stated this will be part of an edit-a-thon the IIC will be holding on November 10 and 11, details of which can be found here. Given that there's already been a bit of questionable editing going on around the IIC I thought it would be prudent to raise the issue here so more editors will be aware of this. MrOllie (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for raising the issue, MrOllie. I'm helping the IIC run the editathon by providing some training for participants. It will involve people from around the world based at several universities. I understand that the undisclosed editing on the IIC article set off some alarm bells, and so there is caution around other related edits. I think the missteps on the IIC article were due to inexperience with Wikipedia and not being aware of policies around COI. Where things may be controversial or run into issues around COI I will advise people to use talk pages to propose changes so that the editing community has a chance to give input, and to avoid editing the article on the IIC itself. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Jazmin Bean and Riki Lindhome
This might be unorthodox, but I am actually bringing a dispute here based on COI accusations made against myself. I recently created an article for the English musician Jazmin Bean, to which a COI tag was swiftly added by Daily Spider Glee. They later added a POV tag, stating that Example text
. They went on to add another COI tag to the article for Riki Lindhome, a page which I have been frequently editing for the past week, writing, Example text
. They then left a COI notice on my talk page with the header "COI with Jazmin Bean/Universal Records/Interscope", which I assume was implying that I have a relationship with Bean's record company.
I responded to this, writing that I was confused as to how this user gathered that I had any connection with Bean or Lindhome, as the edits I made to both articles were all properly sourced and they never explained how they came to their conclusion. Their first response did little in the way of actually justifying their claims, stating that they got [me] banged to rights
, but that they were not going to land [themselves] in the proverbial doggie doo
by saying "what they have on me" or "how they did it". They stated that I needed to come clean
in order for the situation to work out in my favor so that I would only get a slap on the wrist
. They went on to write that they can't be bothered with COIN or ANI
without explaining why. Their follow-up messages stated that the COI is very clear
to them due to similarities between the article I created, which they called a hagiography
, and a draft for an article about Bean that was declined, which they deemed promotional, but failed to identify what these similarities were or how they confirmed their suspicions that I was connected to Bean.
Like I stated in my talk page response to Daily Spider Glee, this is a complete non-sequitur. The idea that the article I created being similar to a declined draft means that I must be connected to Bean makes no logical sense. Just from looking at the draft, any similarities most likely stem from the fact that published articles about Bean are limited in number, so the information is naturally going to be the same. Worse yet, the accusation that I must have connections to all of the articles I have recently contributed to on Wikipedia is simply an assumption of bad faith and is also entirely baseless. I don't know how to make it any clearer that I do not have a conflict of interest. I would rather not disclose my personal information but, if necessary, I can. benǝʇᴉɯ 19:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Benmite. check your first paragraph, it says "example text" twice. I don't think that's what you wanted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: It seems the user has backed off of the claims of COI. --SVTCobra 01:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
2021 Nicaraguan general election
I am attempting to make good faith edits to improve this article. The article is about the 2021 general election that took place in Nicaragua. There is currently an attempt by the US State Department to push propaganda painting the elections as a "sham." There is currently no verifiable evidence for these accusations. The single source that is relied upon by every media outlet is "Urnas Abiertas," a European Twitter account and website that didn't exist prior to May 2021. Their sole source of legitimacy is a DC Thinktank called Wilson Center, which has staffers who also worke(d) at IDEA (https://idea.int). Mentioning the accusations of "sham election" is totally fine, but acting as if they have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt when there is verifiable evidence to the contrary is an act of applying one point of view and violates the NPOV rule. We cannot cherry pick information that pushes one narrative. Additionally, the article itself consists mostly of speculation and misinformation. For example, prior to the election, many individuals were barred from ever registering as candidates (referred to in media as "pre candidates"). All of them were either formally charged with crimes and investigated and placed under arrest by authorities, or fled the country fearing arrest (according to articles added by other users, not me). To mention that these individuals were arrested but imply that the charges were bogus again violates the NPOV rule. Removing edits by me and others which mention the alleged crimes is vandalism. Users who continue to make false accusations of vandalism and bad-faith edits are themselves admitting that they have a bias. For example, in the talk page on the article, multiple users have admitted that they find "communist points of view" to be un-factual when the government of Nicaragua (and the majority of people there) are communist/socialist. Users making these criticisms seem to have a personal disagreement with communist ideology and seem to think that it isn't a "side" that can be as factual as "their" side (whatever that may be). Ironically, I have actually been using their own citations for the information I've added to the article. As I said above, to make a citation but refuse to mention half of the story is to cherry pick information and violates NPOV. In summary, this article is becoming a tabloid / propaganda piece, and is in need of a major overhaul by a senior editor and/or supervision or lock by an admin. I am growing tired of spending hours trying to add useful information and having discussions with other good-faith editors to come to a consensus... just to have one or two individuals come in and blank out the useful good-faith additions and leave comments that the evil communist government of Nicaragua is locking people up for no reason. If they were willing to add ALL OF THE INFORMATION from their own citations, they would see there were credible accusations and credible criminal charges filed against every single one of the "pre-candidates." It isn't our job to decide which charges are or aren't "legitimate!" It isn't our job to decide which countries get self-determination and which ones don't! This is an educational resource, not an opinion column! Asaturn (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Do I need to call out the specific editors by name on here? I am new to editing wikipedia and do not understand this process. I simply need help from someone who is more neutral in their understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia. Thanks. Asaturn (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Update: the most problematic user, Bill_Williams, is actually banned from editing political pages, but is somehow editing the page in question and reverting the good faith edits of myself and other users. This user has continuously made false accusations against me of being a "far left" / "communist" agent adding "propaganda" to the article. I have done none of these things. I'm not sure how this user is editing this page - is it miscategorized, or does their ban need to be expanded to events as well? Asaturn (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- You should read the boilerplate at the top of this noticeboard. Links to the article and any facts you assert are immensely helpful (like Diffs). Notification of the users you mention here is required. --SVTCobra 03:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- I opened a WP:AN so anyone reading this should also check that out. Just for clarification, my topic ban on American politics was lifted eight months ago, and I was never banned from editing Nicaraguan politics, while Asaturn clearly should be considering his edits have been reverted by myself and multiple other editors (as you can see in my comment on WP:AN). Bill Williams 03:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Asaturn: Please provide a link to this ban Nil Einne (talk) 08:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- I can provide you with that[21] and Asaturn has already admitted[22] that he realizes I am not topic banned and haven't been for over eight months, and that the topic ban was irrelevant to this topic. Bill Williams 08:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- You should read the boilerplate at the top of this noticeboard. Links to the article and any facts you assert are immensely helpful (like Diffs). Notification of the users you mention here is required. --SVTCobra 03:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- As this is the noticeboard related to conflicts of interests, it does not appear to be the adquate venue for the issue. Link to the related ANI discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Repeated Vandalism on 2021 Nicaraguan General Election Page --NoonIcarus (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- I see zero evidence that anyone involved has a conflict of interest so whatever problems may or may not exist with the page, this seems completely the wrong place to try and resolve them. As an aside, there has been widespread criticism of the arrests. Given the arrests, there has also been widespread criticism of the election, since you cannot have a free and fair election when opponents are subject to arbitrary arrest. So to suggest it comes from a single think thank is spurious. Nil Einne (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Tariq Nasheed
- Tariq Nasheed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wennradio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Long-term COI problems, being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Wennradio --Hipal (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
The admin that warned Wennradio of the coi problems suggests the discussion should be here. [23] --Hipal (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Here they say they are the representative of Tariq Nasheed. Doug Weller talk 17:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- So there's no need to read what's at ANI:
- Wennradio has a declared coi[24][25], is a spammer ([26] [27][28][29][30][31]...), and a SPA with less than 150 edits over 13 years. --Hipal (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Given these facts, what further action can or should be taken regarding this article? Go4thProsper (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Find better refs that can give a broader perspective on Tariq Nasheed, and expand the article based upon them. --Hipal (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- I have tried in the past, when the article came to AfD, there's generally not a lot out there, many passing mentions but little substantial. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Find better refs that can give a broader perspective on Tariq Nasheed, and expand the article based upon them. --Hipal (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Given these facts, what further action can or should be taken regarding this article? Go4thProsper (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Wennradio is now blocked for undisclosed paid editing. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- And claiming they aren't paid. Dubious. Doug Weller talk 16:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Building Technology & Ideas Ltd.
- Building Technology & Ideas Ltd. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Aradna007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Aradna007, an SPA, refuses to refrain from transparent, egregious, and persistent undisclosed paid editing on Building Technology & Ideas Ltd. They have not answered to me or Dl2000 regarding their obvious affiliation with BTI, and they continue to redo their reverted edits and and even add more paid material. I'm so directly accusatory because they can't even maintain a facade of not being an undisclosed paid editor. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
NB: I added the pagelinks and userlinks above. --SVTCobra 00:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Axe Brand and Sunshine Bakeries
- Axe Brand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Sunshine Bakeries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- JohnShakur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Noor Tan Zak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Aong Leran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This is more of a potential crosswiki abuse. Axe Brand article was created on 11 Nov by Johnshakur, and images (logo and other copyrighted images) were uploaded by Aong Leran on the same day in commons. Images added on the article by Johnshakur on the same day. For Sunshine Bakeries, the article was created on 24 Oct by Johnshakur, and images (logo and product images) were uploaded by Noor Tan Zak on the same day in commons. Images added on the article by Johnshakur on the same day. Language and content on both articles seems to be promotional, and indicative of that Johnshakur account may be a UPE. Noor Tan Zak and Aong Leran aren't registered on this wiki, however notification will be sent to the users on their Talk pages here on enwiki, and crossposted in commons. – robertsky (talk) 05:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Actually that user left this message on my talk page. Maybe he chose randomly someone amongst the administrators' list. -- Blackcat 14:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- On Commons, it was determined that Noor Tan Zak is a sock of Ineedtostopforgetting--Ymblanter (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Which means Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ineedtostopforgetting is a better place for this request.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Ymblanter, noted. I actually have requested to check on JohnShakur at SPI casepage. Will add the above to there. – robertsky (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Which means Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ineedtostopforgetting is a better place for this request.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- On Commons, it was determined that Noor Tan Zak is a sock of Ineedtostopforgetting--Ymblanter (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Børge Brende
- Børge Brende (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Mikeh101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- WhatsUpWorld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
There have been several extensive edits for Børge Brende, who serves as President of the World Economic Forum, by Mikeh101. This user, according to his own Wikipedia wall, was Editorial Director at the World Economic Forum since October 2010, and Senior Director, Communications, from July 2013 to October 2018. He was hence a paid marketing & communications employee of Brende and his team.
While probably unrelated, there seem to have further sock puppet accounts such as WhatsUpWorld that had an additional material impact on the article. It would make sense to take a look at this as we just had a severe case of unhighlighted paid editing for the article of Klaus Schwab as CEO of the World Economic Forum by another member of their Communications team. Polynesia2024 (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
World Economic Forum
- World Economic Forum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Mikeh101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The article on the World Economic Forum includes more than 50 edits by User:Mikeh101, who served as Editorial Director at the World Economic Forum since October 2010, and Senior Director, Communications, from July 2013 to October 2018. It is hence a case of paid editing and should be highlighted as such.
This has the touch that the team could see Wikipedia as an extension of their marketing channels, without ever labelling or highlighting the edits made as COI. I am highly concerned.
Is there any way to validate how many further edits have been made by members of the team, given that the team head has made 50+ edits himself alone?
Polynesia2024 (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Polynesia2024: You must notify users when you open a discussion here. I have done so for you this time. --SVTCobra 02:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- I had notified the user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mikeh101#Notice_of_Conflict_of_interest_noticeboard_discussion, apologies in case it got lost. --Polynesia2024 (talk) 07:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Supermann
- Supermann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 November 6 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Hogan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Stephen Hogan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Supermann is a editor who from my reading of his history has enthusiasm?/focus? for military film, perhaps sometime to a over-zealous extent that has got him into trouble in the past. Stephen Hogan is a marginal actor with a long career who I think some would argue are borderline for a WikiPedia Article, and Supermann has been zealous in developing Home since this edit Old revision of Stephen Hogan on 18 April 2021. Supermann has doggedly developed the Hogan Article since, Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith. TheBirdsShedTears has been on Supermann/Hogan's case since before the DRV, but at the DRV has been what I might describe as bordering on Wikipedia:Casting aspersions at UPE/COI editing by Supermann but not bringing the case here, even beyond Supermann denying the association. However following Herostratus contributions BusterD gave an explanation here of Supermann needed scrutiny [32] One key COI/UPE point is the article by Dublin!Live on the notable film Sardar Udham featuring Hogan as an interview ... as brought particularly up at [33]. I am somewhat opined Sardar Udham's distributors or Hogan's agent probably set this up (and a similar interview on the Daily Express) without assistance from Supermann; but I am not prepared to bet my last euro that Supermann was not involved. The question is I guess was simply Supermann zealous, was Supermann an out and out COI/UPE editor on Hogan; or has an some point Supermann transitioned from a zealous editor on a subject to having a COI/UPE? (eg Myself and RPSI). Thankyou, and apologies if I've mis-interpreted anything of the drama; the DRV's just gone too far without coming here. 15:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 07:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. I like military films. I am a veteran, though never touched a weapon or been to a shooting range here in the United States. Grateful for the U.S. stopping World War II. Guilty as charged on that point. Went to see American Sniper yesterday at AMC Theatres, but didn't think I need to make further edits on that page. Never killed a chicken in life. So I apologize if I want to raise awareness on military films, be them good or bad, incl. Hogan's Starship Troopers 3: Marauder. Grateful for Bliss Media having brought Hacksaw Ridge to the Chinese market, making it the highest grossing foreign war movie. Obviously, Hacksaw can't beat The Battle at Lake Changjin which is now the second highest grossing film in China. My 2,333 edits speak of my passions in a lot of other areas as well, because ultimately, I am a pacifist. Hopefully, no World War III on Taiwan. Please let me know how else I can cooperate. I know TheBirdsShedTears has launched his own investigation to reach out to Dublin Live and Brian Dillon. Good luck on that. Truth will come out. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermann (talk • contribs) 08:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Well hmmm. It is true that Supermann has an unusual editing history. He started editing 15 years ago, but averaged 13 edits a year his first eight years, so he really only started in 2014. Anyway in all that time he has only 2,391 edts. The pattern is high activity in June and July 2017 and in July-thru-November 2021 and pretty desultory activity in other years. So some thoughts on a pattern like that:
- It would be consistent with a deep troll account being kicked over just enough to appear legit while waiting for the next commission (there's no proof of this of course).
- On the other hand, if Supermann is taking commissions, he's apparently had two in 15 years, and the first was eleven years after he registered... that does show quite a lot of dedication and patience for two small commissions. But certainly possible. The Russians etc do stuff like that all the time on other websites I am told.
- Well hmmm. It is true that Supermann has an unusual editing history. He started editing 15 years ago, but averaged 13 edits a year his first eight years, so he really only started in 2014. Anyway in all that time he has only 2,391 edts. The pattern is high activity in June and July 2017 and in July-thru-November 2021 and pretty desultory activity in other years. So some thoughts on a pattern like that:
- And anyway, we do know that Supermann, in his one other burst of activity in 2017, engaged in seriously bad actions. He was blocked twice for seriously bad behavior including sockpuppeting, apparently in the interest of promoting Thomas Price (actor) and Bliss Media, probably for financial considerations (altho those articles both still exist, FWIW). So I mean coming back four years later suddenly all excited about Stephan Hogan does look kind of suspicious.
- On the other hand, Supermann's #1 most active article by a good margin is Film censorship in China (208 edits, and 104 on the talk page). A quick look there indicates to me that he's just interested in the subject, not working for the Chinese government or forces opposed to the Chinese government or anything. Willing to be corrected. Of course this could be cover for other, nefarious, activity, but anything could be anything. Or it could be that Supermann has complex motives -- maybe he likes to occasionally edit here for fun but is also available for a commission if one comes up. There have certainly been many editors like that.
- Supermann was extensively yelled at recently at ANI, but for unrelated things: having some kind of political agenda (left wing I guess?) and (allegedly) acting badly. On the other hand, haven't we all been dragged to ANI to be yelled at. Somebody is doing it to me right now in fact. And if you're here to make money but you're also showing a high profile and pissing people off with political battlegrounding rather than being low-key and blandly polite, you're not a very good PR flack I'd say. Which, I suppose some people aren't.
- All in all, yeah it could be sketchy. I'm not familiar with COI investigations so I don't know what the standards of proof are. But then on the other hand, Stephan Hogan is probably notable enough for an article (fairly easily in my view, but not a slam dunk and others may disagree), and at least the article is not a hagiography, it's just basic facts. So, could be worse?
- So what are the next steps here? Not familiar with this page. I see that Supermann was determined to have corruptly created two other articles, yet those articles still exist, so is deleting the article on Stephan Hogan in the cards? And/or is Supermann to be sanctioned? Or what? Herostratus (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- COI/UPE allegations of Supermann at the AfD, DRV and talk pages seemed to be getting out of hand and disruptive but there emerged historic reasons why people might be concerned about Supermann's current articles; and appeared to be disrupting source/notability based discussions. If there are hard evidence of issue set someone bring them here for scrutiny, if nothing appears here then this can be closed in due course without issue. In the end, roughly speaking, the XfD should close independently of whether Supermann had a COI or not based on sources and based on the fact the article is fairly well, if not perfectly, WP:V. Those are my thoughts anyway. And I'm not too familiar with COIN myself. Djm-leighpark 15:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- To answer, "(left wing I guess?", my limited understanding is military agenda is usually right wing, conservative, Republican stuff. But Desmond Doss proves one could perform military service admirably without killing anyone. No Military–industrial complex on me. Supermann (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Supermann: If I have misrepresented the or meant anything inappropriate about the "zealousness"/"enthusiam" I apologise. It was more meant to try to give one possible explanation for your editing pattern. At the moment I have just taken a hit from @Bbb23's slapdown at ANI so perhaps he'd better consider closing this one as well. Thankyou, Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- To answer, "(left wing I guess?", my limited understanding is military agenda is usually right wing, conservative, Republican stuff. But Desmond Doss proves one could perform military service admirably without killing anyone. No Military–industrial complex on me. Supermann (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- COI/UPE allegations of Supermann at the AfD, DRV and talk pages seemed to be getting out of hand and disruptive but there emerged historic reasons why people might be concerned about Supermann's current articles; and appeared to be disrupting source/notability based discussions. If there are hard evidence of issue set someone bring them here for scrutiny, if nothing appears here then this can be closed in due course without issue. In the end, roughly speaking, the XfD should close independently of whether Supermann had a COI or not based on sources and based on the fact the article is fairly well, if not perfectly, WP:V. Those are my thoughts anyway. And I'm not too familiar with COIN myself. Djm-leighpark 15:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- So what are the next steps here? Not familiar with this page. I see that Supermann was determined to have corruptly created two other articles, yet those articles still exist, so is deleting the article on Stephan Hogan in the cards? And/or is Supermann to be sanctioned? Or what? Herostratus (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't want to send this back to ANI, in relation to the "extensively yelled at" thread linked earlier, but the behavioral aspect is, to me, more disturbing than the less tangible accusations of COI editing. In particular, the DRV that Sandstein closed recently contains a whole lot of the kind of dramatics that NinjaRobotPirate and HighinBC found so troubling in the ANI thread--and most troubling, to me, is this edit--BusterD is of course the admin who closed that Hogan AfD. If one is looking for "how to deflect and be as uncollaborative as one can be", that DRV has plenty of it, and I am wondering how the editor hasn't been blocked indefinitely already. And Yamla, when you last unblocked them, you said "agreement to stay away from Bliss Media"--they didn't keep to that agreement. Maybe 2020 is water under the bridge, but in my opinion the user has been disruptive for long enough that it's worth looking at the larger picture, which now includes socking, COI editing (Bliss Media), harassment, and putting up yuge smokescreens. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- One of the alternate accounts, Shxiyi (which was renamed from BlissMedia) declared themselves the agent of Thomas Price. See here. I believe there's no doubt that Shxiyi and Supermann are run by the same person, but this edit admits it. I can't say for sure the editor was telling the truth about being an agent for Price. I think there's enough there that I felt it appropriate to unblock only with their agreement to stay away from Bliss Media, broadly construed. I received that agreement, hence the unblock in 2017. --Yamla (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yamla, [34], [35]. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure what point you are trying to make. No edits to Bliss Media for 17 months now. The 2018 and 2020 edits are well beyond the block. There is no puffery. Only adding filmography. Right now there is simply none. The length that some people is willing to go is astounding. Luckily, no truth to me ever being paid by Bliss Media to edit on Wikipedia. They simply don't care. That's why NO MORE EDITS!!! And Stephen Hogan has nothing to do with Bliss Media. Please. No more Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. There is no way I am this Thomas Price's agent. I am just a nobody here in NYC. Happy to meet anyone face to face tomorrow in Central Park and do jogging together! Supermann (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Well, Supermann, I'd hoped you'd be out walking the dogs with me, but you were nowhere to be found. Not Ponce De Leon, not on Mastin Lane...are you going to miss dessert and Wonder Years too? Also, you were unblocked in what, June 2017? on the condition that you stay away from Bliss Media, and there you were, three edits. What, you forgot? And after all the hullabaloo, and the notes on the previous AfD and the comments by Sandstein, you still can't stay away from the AfD so it can be judged on its merits? You sure don't act like someone who had a close call at ANI. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- I am not sure I followed those geographical names you were saying. But as demonstrated in your [34], [35]. The topic ban on them have been removed by the time I made new edits which are minimal. Please stop gross misrepresentation of what happened. It's unbecoming of an admin. Supermann (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- "The topic ban on them have been removed by the time I made new edits", this is at least possible and will be easy for you to demonstrate. Can you please show where that happened? It's directly relevant to this discussion. I want to be clear, it's quite possible that you did indeed have your topic ban lifted, I just can't immediately determine that. --Yamla (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- I am not sure I followed those geographical names you were saying. But as demonstrated in your [34], [35]. The topic ban on them have been removed by the time I made new edits which are minimal. Please stop gross misrepresentation of what happened. It's unbecoming of an admin. Supermann (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Well, Supermann, I'd hoped you'd be out walking the dogs with me, but you were nowhere to be found. Not Ponce De Leon, not on Mastin Lane...are you going to miss dessert and Wonder Years too? Also, you were unblocked in what, June 2017? on the condition that you stay away from Bliss Media, and there you were, three edits. What, you forgot? And after all the hullabaloo, and the notes on the previous AfD and the comments by Sandstein, you still can't stay away from the AfD so it can be judged on its merits? You sure don't act like someone who had a close call at ANI. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure what point you are trying to make. No edits to Bliss Media for 17 months now. The 2018 and 2020 edits are well beyond the block. There is no puffery. Only adding filmography. Right now there is simply none. The length that some people is willing to go is astounding. Luckily, no truth to me ever being paid by Bliss Media to edit on Wikipedia. They simply don't care. That's why NO MORE EDITS!!! And Stephen Hogan has nothing to do with Bliss Media. Please. No more Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. There is no way I am this Thomas Price's agent. I am just a nobody here in NYC. Happy to meet anyone face to face tomorrow in Central Park and do jogging together! Supermann (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yamla, [34], [35]. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- One of the alternate accounts, Shxiyi (which was renamed from BlissMedia) declared themselves the agent of Thomas Price. See here. I believe there's no doubt that Shxiyi and Supermann are run by the same person, but this edit admits it. I can't say for sure the editor was telling the truth about being an agent for Price. I think there's enough there that I felt it appropriate to unblock only with their agreement to stay away from Bliss Media, broadly construed. I received that agreement, hence the unblock in 2017. --Yamla (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yamla: Not sure how much it matters now, since he's currently indeffed, but there was a topic ban on all film articles that ran from August 2017 to August 2018, which would've run course by the time the 2018 edit to Bliss Media was made. The two overlapped, and I suspect he confused lifting the ban from all film articles as also lifting the ban from Bliss Media specifically. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Supermann was indefinitely blocked 2 minutes before this question was asked CiphriusKane (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Drmies It's already back at ANI CiphriusKane (talk) 08:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Emunah La-Paz
- Emunah La-Paz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Vhubbard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I'd be grateful for more eyes on Emunah La-Paz. I have substantially shortened the article in the last few days, removing first a paid-editor screed, and then a good deal of unsourced or ill-sourced content. It was then nominated for deletion by Timtrent, whose opinion on notability I had sought (my talk, diff on request). It appears that Vhubbard (a) has a very close connection to the subject of the article and (b) is fairly thoroughly incensed at the idea that the page might be deleted. Would some kind person like to try to pour a little oil on the waters? – I don't that would come well from me at this point. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- I concur with @Justlettersandnumbers. I nominated the article for deletion in good faith in order to give the community the opportunity to decide its fate FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 19:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
(talk
- This article is not in need of shortening please replace what was deleted. If someone deleted an article you worked on would it be a conflict of interest? Wikipedia has added more rules, so not just anyone can edit articles or destroy them. This is clearly a form of harassment. This article for the last 5 years was expanded and approved by verified members of Wikipedia. To have someone shorten this down to two lines, and then a deletion notice, is unacceptable. I am expecting this article to be restored to it's previous form that was not corrupted whatsoever at the time.
- Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhubbard (talk • contribs) 20:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- The biography begins "Emunah La-Paz is the nom de plume of Vicki L. Hubbard, an American author". The editor who created the article has the username 'Vhubbard' and has contributed to no other articles. It would seem that this is an autobiography, a form of conflict of interest editing, in which case the author should limit themselves to making edit requests on the article's talk page and not edit the article directly other than as allowed at Wikipedia:Autobiography. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Curb Safe Charmer Deep in the article edit history you will see contributions from declared paid editor Wiki Page Polisher. That edit was neither helpful nor unhelpful, but a paid editor was engaged by someone to work on the article. I can make no assumptions about who that was.
- You will also see on the creating editor's talk page that they are failing to understand the difference between having an interest in one's editing in Wilkipedia and a real world conflict of interest. It may be indignation that is fuelling this lack of understanding
- It would potentially be helpful if they received a kind explanation. They are making various unfounded accusations of racially inspired motives for deletion, accusations they must feel are genuine, but they are in an aggrieved state.
- While I accept this this noticeboard is the wrong forum to deal with the accusations, the correct forum is one of the drama boards, and that would be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Kindness is more likely to bear fruit. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Timtrent: There's no mystery about who the paid editor was working for, they disclose on their user page that they were paid by "Little Ant Productions on behalf of Emunah La-Paz". A google search will show that Emunah La-Paz is the Production Manager at Little Ant Productions. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. It follows that the entire thing is a pure advert FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- The account Vhubbard has been renamed. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 10:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. It follows that the entire thing is a pure advert FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Timtrent: There's no mystery about who the paid editor was working for, they disclose on their user page that they were paid by "Little Ant Productions on behalf of Emunah La-Paz". A google search will show that Emunah La-Paz is the Production Manager at Little Ant Productions. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Koch Marshall Trio & Guy King
- Lightburst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Greg Koch (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Koch Marshall Trio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Toby Lee Marshall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Guy King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have very good reason to believe that Lightburst has a personal relationship with these musicians he has created articles for. I have no desire to reveal Lightbursts real name here, but he has outed himself on other Wikimedia sites, which makes clear that he has a personal relationship with these musicians. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- In case anyone is wondering, Lightburst has been notified of this post. Lightburst blanks their talk page frequently. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 17:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- It's true that I've met them before. I don't keep in touch or know them on a personal level. I certainly have no close connection to any of them. I don't think it's a COI to write about someone because you've talked with them or admire them - I also wrote Eric Tessmer after meeting him. I'll leave this to the community to make a decision, but I believe that a COI involves some strong personal relationship, which definitely isn't the case here. Lightburst (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Earlier this year Greg Koch tweeted about using one your guitars, calling you "buddy", which was several years after you initially created the article. Can you further elaborate on your relationship with Greg Koch? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- You have also described Koch as a "friend" on your personal website. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Several of these articles have the date of birth but they are tagged for work. Where did the date of birth's come from exactly? scope_creepTalk 12:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- I sent Toby Lee Marshall to Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toby Lee Marshall. scope_creepTalk 16:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Several of these articles have the date of birth but they are tagged for work. Where did the date of birth's come from exactly? scope_creepTalk 12:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- You have also described Koch as a "friend" on your personal website. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
India-based IP-hopper + registered account mass-adding clearly paid "Controversies" to small articles
- Brightstar Corporation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Marcelo Claure (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Ottobock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:Hans Georg Näder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- 2402:3a80:10c2:8a92:9191:150f:1021:1a29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 2405:205:1289:cb6c:f08c:6c4f:b183:796e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Centrereded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
An India-based IP-hopper has, in less than two hours, added 14,000 bytes of poorly and suspiciously sourced "Controversies" to an 8,000-byte article about an American company, BrightStar [36]. The same 14,000-byte mass content was also added to a BLP, Marcelo Claure, by a registered account [37]. The BLP edits were reverted by someone based on WP:ATP, WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:NPOV, and WP:CSECTION, but the editor added it back.
Looking at the history of the person that added the BLP content, Centrereded, they have in the past tried to create a BLP with highly biased content at Draft:Hans Georg Näder. They then added identical poorly and suspiciously sourced 14,000-byte attack content as a "Controversies" section to Ottobock, another previously small article about a company [38].
I suspect the IPs adding to BrightStar and the registered account adding to Marcelo Claure are the same person. If anyone feels this warrants a Sockpuppet Investigation, please feel free to move forward with that. Adam.Sudo (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- As someone who is new too, you know a lot about Wikipedia. Don't revert my edits just like that. My content is well-referenced and states the facts. What do you mean by in less than two hours? Anyone can work on a preview without saving and publish when required. All of my edits are referenced. As for the IP, I can use whatever IP address I want. I am not shackled to one IP address. Using multiple IP address is not allowed only when against the policies.
- Also, the noticeboard says to first resolve the issue directly with the editor. I don't have a COI involved. I have tried my best to provide references in support to my edits. Now, if the facts are negative, then I don't know what to do. If there is a reference proving my point, then there shouldn't be any problem.
- Those IP addresses are not mine either. I think @Adam.Sudo: is being paid by one of the subjects to defend the negative publicity and the IP addresses could be connected to Adam.Sudo. The account also recently became live as someone activated a sleepingcell. Please look into this. Thanks! Centrereded (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- I can't help but notice that the content Centrereded has been adding uses “ and ” rather than Wikipedia's native quotation marks ("). This suggests to me that they are copying and pasting the content from somewhere else rather than typing it. Mlb96 (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Eh, you should help yourself about that. I am not saying you are wrong, but keyboards vary around the world. --SVTCobra 06:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Seems like a lot of WP:Primary sources including court papers being used to cite the material being questioned. Slywriter (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Daniel Hondor
- Daniel Hondor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Significant edits are made by a user whose handle closely resembles the name of an employee. I don't know if it's appropriate to link the username since this could dox the user in question.
- Article is littered with poor grammar and punctuation. I recognize these particular writing patterns as characteristic of the writing of another close Hondor affiliate.
- "The 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games brought him to America" is misleading and suggests that he competed in the 96 Olympics, which he did not.
- Article puffs up achievements, like mentioning that Emily Vermeule won a national championship at 14 without specifying that it was for the Y14 age group. Likewise "Only club on the North American Continent" to send a girl's epeeist to the YOG is not true because Ariane Léonard represented Canada in that event.
- Overall this serves the purpose of making this whole article into an advertisement for his business.
- I have subject matter knowledge to edit the page but I'm not sure if I should go ahead and do so unilaterally because I know and personally dislike Hondor. I can recognize that I am biased, but I do think that these edits need review and at least partial reversion. While I do not see a notability standard for fencers, by analogy with other sports I think it's arguable that Hondor does not meet the notability standard to have a page at all. (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- The creator is now blocked for UPE--but they haven't been here in years so that won't really matter. The rest is just editing--or AfD. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Auriens
- Auriens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- BDCP2021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Editor has been COI editing and removing well-cited content. They have been receiving (and ignoring) COI and other warnings since July. A block seems inevitable. Edwardx (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- It is very quite promotional that wee article. Why is it even on here, what purpose does it serve, particularly when it states, Auriens is planning. scope_creepTalk 12:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff
- 2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
A discussion is going on here involving two Pakistani editors and an Indian editor Talk:2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff#Casualties, requesting an impartial conflict resolution. Echo1Charlie (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)