→Capital punishment in Texas: resolved, user blocked |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:Wikipedia noticeboards|{{PAGENAME}}]] |
|||
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed|{{PAGENAME}}]] |
|||
[[Category:Wikipedia dispute resolution]] |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Header}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
|archiveheader = {{archivemainpage|Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard}} |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|||
|counter = 51 |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|||
|algo = old(7d) |
|||
|archive = Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__ |
|||
<!-- All reports should be made at the bottom of the page. Do not modify the above when reporting! --> |
|||
== Swarcliffe == |
|||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> |
|||
* {{la|Swarcliffe}} |
|||
* {{userlinks|Andreasegde}} |
|||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> |
|||
Follow-up from [[Talk:Swarcliffe]] and [[User talk:Harkey Lodger]]. <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">[[User:Waterfox|<span style="color: blue;">Waterfox</span>]] [[User talk:Waterfox|<sup><span style="color: blue;">~talk~</span></sup>]]</span> 14:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Can you please explain the COI? It's not very clear at the moment. All I see is that you're accusing a well established editor of a COI, produced no real evidence, and failed to notify them of this report (which I will now do). [[User:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Ol<font style="color:#FBB117;">Yeller</font></font>]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Talktome</font>]]</sup> 14:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Adapted from [[User talk:Harkey Lodger]]: [[User:Andreasegde]] has added a link on the [[Swarcliffe]] page to the page [[Andrew Edge]], an article to which he has made an inordinate number of contributions. When checking the refs by googling, Harkey found that the [http://www.youtube.com/user/andreasegde Utube account for "andreasegde"] is the realm of Andrew Edge. Some refs on the Andrew Edge article point to his own blog and homepage. Harkey has only checked a few of the other refs but none, so far, prove his connections with the people he mentions, just that these people exist: of which I had no doubt anyway. Putting "Andrew Edge" into Wikipedia the search box reveals an unusual number of links in other articles. Harkey thinks this may be a case of an editor being in breach of [[WP:COI]]. He has edited his own biography without declaring his interest. — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">[[User:Waterfox|<span style="color: blue;">Waterfox</span>]] [[User talk:Waterfox|<sup><span style="color: blue;">~talk~</span></sup>]]</span> 15:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::The same editor has also made a lot of contributions to [[Drumsing]], [[Savage Progress]] and [[Uropa Lula]] without declaring an interest.--[[User:Harkey Lodger|Harkey]] ([[User talk:Harkey Lodger|talk]]) 16:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::The important thing to remember about WP:COI is that not only is declaring a close link to the subject(s) whose article's you're editing not required, unless you show that your goals are directly conflicting with the goals of WP, there is no COI (only the possibility of a COI). You've certainly shown an apparent close relationship but I still don't see any breach of WP:COI but I don't have an intimate knowledge of the edits like I'd bet you do. Some diffs that show how the user is directly promoting their own goals over WP would certainly make things clearer. [[User:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Ol<font style="color:#FBB117;">Yeller</font></font>]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Talktome</font>]]</sup> 16:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I don't see a problem with the mention of Edge in the Swarcliffe article: if you search Wikipedia for "Swarcliffe", he is the only person whose article is included in the 25 hits, so if that article passes notability it is reasonable for any editor to add a mention of him as a notable resident. There may be a COI with other articles. [[User:PamD|PamD]] ([[User talk:PamD|talk]]) 17:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::The problem is not with the Swarcliffe article in particular. I took this " Adding material that appears to promote the interests or '''visibility''' of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest." to mean what it says. Creating articles about a group/band/artist promotes their visibility instantly because of the way Wikipedia is used across the internet as a free source of content. I do not have an intimate knowledge of the user's edits. I came across this by coincidence, when I was checking an article that he had linked to a page I was editing. I think it shows the subjects of the articles in a bad light if they are seen to be in need of free publicity. However, so be it. --[[User:Harkey Lodger|Harkey]] ([[User talk:Harkey Lodger|talk]]) 17:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I mentioned Swarcliffe because that's the title of this COIN section, possibly inappropriately! I agree there may well be a lot of COI in other articles - and Chzz's research below is certainly very interesting, in terms of articles created etc. I'm not familiar enough with [[WP:RS]] in music to know whether those articles are well sourced, or pass notability. [[User:PamD|PamD]] ([[User talk:PamD|talk]]) 13:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I have had a quick look, and I see a serious concern here. I checked ''just some'' of the links on Wikipedia to "Andrew Edge", and discovered that this user; |
|||
*Created [[Savage Progress]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Savage_Progress&oldid=74325722] {{xt|Andrew Edge (drums/background vocals)}} |
|||
*Added to [[Thompson Twins]], {{xt|[[Andrew Edge]] joined them on drums for about one year, but left because of the internal tension }} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thompson_Twins&diff=prev&oldid=53844327] |
|||
*Created [[Drumsing]], {{xt|a duo of musicians featuring Andrew Edge}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drumsing&oldid=374440558] |
|||
*Created [[Uropa Lula]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uropa_Lula&oldid=354557154], {{xt|a British pop group, consisting of David Lloyd (vocals and guitar), Allan Dias (bass guitar), Pete Fromm (keyboards), Andrew Edge (drums/percussion)}} |
|||
*Added to [[Tom Bailey (musician)]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Bailey_%28musician%29&diff=prev&oldid=319544230] {{xt|[[Andrew Edge]] played drums with them for one year before Chris Bell joined}} |
|||
*Added to [[Linz]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linz&diff=prev&oldid=203814199] {{xt|Living in Linz: [..] Andrew Edge (born in Leeds, England, 1956) musician.}} |
|||
:I'm sure there's lots more; I only checked a few. I don't know if I have the time to trawl through all of this. It's going to be a bit messy, I'm afraid. :-( <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 19:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::While editing under a conflict of interest certainly creates the ''appearance'' of impropriety, what is the substance of his additions to this articles? First of all, I don't think he's really hiding his real identity (Andreas Edge vs. Andrew Edge? Really? Does it take a rocket scientist to put THAT together?). Secondly, WP:COI doesn't outright ban editing articles, just that the additions need to be neutrally worded and otherwise obey Wikipedia policy. While I do note that the andreasedge account has hardly been a model citizen to this point, I think the [[WP:COI]] evidence provided above doesn't raise to the level of being damning in terms of an issue. I have minor concerns about a person who belonged to a band adding themselves to that article. It's a mild bit of vanity compared to the really eggregious [[WP:COI]] stuff we see all the time. Again, the COI is there, but I don't think this rises to the level of a bannable offense yet. Definately something to keep an eye on, but I'm not sure that (for this behavior) sanctions are in order. I would continue to encourage the Andreasedge account to be careful to avoid problems, but I still think we're in the "warn and watch" phase of this. I think we can go and clean up any unreliable sources, remove the worst of the fluff, and caution him to avoid edit warring over this. If edit warring ''over'' clean-up to these articles or [[WP:OWN]] becomes a major issue, sanctions can be considered. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 13:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::It would be nice if the editor could at least acknowledge the COI issues here, and agree to best-practice; ''creation'' of some articles, above, is certainly a concern. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 05:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::The editor in question has compiled a list of errors in the article on the talk page and asked me to help with the changes. Another editor has left Andreasedge a message that's something to the effect of "I have no intention of ever going through this list of errors". I'm busy today and probably won't be able to do any checking on the alleged issues until later tonight at the earliest. Is anyone else available to give this issue a look? '''[[User:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Ol<font style="color:#FBB117;">Yeller</font></font>]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Talktome</font>]]</sup> 11:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Equality Ride]] == |
|||
I made several edits to the article to remove promotional material and improve neutrality. After I did so, {{user|Flowingfire}}, whose [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Flowingfire edits] are almost exclusively to the Equality Ride and consist of heavily promotional material, referred to the article as "our article" on the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Equality_Ride&diff=prev&oldid=444515939 here]: |
|||
{{quote|I approve of the revert that undid the damage done to this page by the user known as NYYankees. Over time, there has been a great deal of vandalism, and manufactured controversy that has caused people to attack the Equality Ride Wikipedia page. It has now been nominated for deletion twice, the page has been "blanked" several times over the years... And now, vandalism has been done by removing relevant content. |
|||
I expect this might be an ongoing problem for this page, but I just decided to fix it, replace some photos that were nominated for unjust deletion, and then comment here. |
|||
Quit vandalizing our page for political reasons. You may not like the gay rights movement or the young people showing up at your doorstep to call you out for your hateful practices, but leave the Wikipedia page alone.}} |
|||
Seems like a pretty clear conflict of interest - the user is an employee or otherwise affiliated with [[Soulforce]] or [[Equality Ride]]. [[User:NYyankees51|NYyankees51]] ([[User talk:NYyankees51|talk]]) 00:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Looks like you are right. I will put the article on my watchlist to ride herd on NPOV which is the crux of COI. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 00:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
------------------------------- |
|||
Response and Further Complaint: |
|||
I am filing an official Conflict of Interest report against NYYahkees51, who I believe to be politically motivated to minimize the Equality Ride's Wikipedia page however he can. From all appearances, this user is reducing the quality of the Equality Ride page by removing relevant content, and would like to see it gone for political reasons. |
|||
Because he's a self-proclaimed creationist, pro-life Christian on his profile, NYYankees51 may have political issues with a gay rights group that visits & confronts anti-gay Christian institutions. I think this motivation is exemplified by his attempt to get the Equality Ride page deleted for almost no reason-- right after removing content. |
|||
I am not interested in seeing edits that reduce the quality of content. I'm not interested when someone says a well-written article isn't "neutral," because it's not accounting for the point of view of an anti-gay born-again Christian. Guess what? If all material about minorities had to be "neutral" against the leanings of people who hate them, then the KKK would be able to edit the articles on Judaism and say the holocaust was "questionable," because some say it never happened. This is ridiculous, and the Equality Ride article was written in a VERY neutral voice, given a neutrally-accepting perspective on LGBT rights. It has also been edited by many, many people over time. |
|||
Who wouldn't see it as neutral? Somebody who despises the gay rights movement, and demands gay people be referred to in a certain minimized or pejorative light. Sometimes a little "conflict of interest" is necessary to keep minority turf from being invaded by barbarians. If people with vested interest in diminishing the gay rights movement can freely edit articles about gay people, then I might as well go to all the minority pages and change them to fit the white perspective. That would be neutral right? No. Actually, it wouldn't be. |
|||
This issue MUST be dealt with by gay, lesbian, bi, and transgender people alone. Nobody else. |
|||
I request review by a specifically gay, lesbian, bi, or trans moderator who can resolve this conflict. |
|||
[[User:Flowingfire|Flowingfire]] ([[User talk:Flowingfire|talk]]) 02:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:^I rest my case. [[User:NYyankees51|NYyankees51]] ([[User talk:NYyankees51|talk]]) 03:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Enforcing "neutrality" from a hateful majority perspective against a minority isn't neutrality; it's imperialism. Have you ever read 20th century writings (like Feminism) about objectivity simply being a codified majority opinion? This is a gay rights activism page. It's going to be coming from that perspective, just as all articles will generally come from a perspective. You HAVE to take that community's experiences into account, and not incorporate majority bias as part of a "neutrality" argument. No neutrality exists, ever, because the person writing something always brings their attitude to the table. That said, the article was in good "neutral-voice" for what it was. [[User:Flowingfire|Flowingfire]] ([[User talk:Flowingfire|talk]]) 03:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:An observation here. I see no reason to talk of "a hateful majority perspective". Being heterosexual doesn't equate with being homophobic. Regarding the article itself, I'll not comment, since I haven't read it as yet: maybe NYyankee51 is being 'imperialistic' (whatever that means in this context), or maybe not - that is no reason to assume that everyone who isn't LGBT is part of some oppressive regime. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 03:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Heterosexual people are not what I'm talking about. Truly, most are in fact good, and not homophobic. I'm saying this particular person is not neutral on this matter, likely due to religious and political affiliations. He will not understand the gay experience, or be able to accurately gauge neutrality. In the same way, I, being white, will never understand the "black" experience and would be a little silly to try to claim neutrality arguments against an Afro-centric page from a (potentially racist) white perspective. [[User:Flowingfire|Flowingfire]] ([[User talk:Flowingfire|talk]]) 03:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes, but sadly, one can apply the same logic to say that only [[Ku Klux Klan]] members understand the 'Klan' experience, so only Klan members should edit articles about the Klan (I believe that someone actually tried to argue this once on Wikipedia). If you have specific concerns about NYyankee, then fine, tell us what they are. You are right of course that true 'neutrality' is impossible to achieve, but that is no reason to abandon the principle that by discussion and debate, it is possible to move towards it - this is one of the principles that Wikipedia is founded on - the belief that we ''can'' agree with people who are different than ourselves. It may be hopelessly idealistic (indeed, it probably is), but our efforts seem to result in something passably useful while we fail to achieve this utopian ideal. I'd say, having looked at the article in question, that I've seen far worse, and that it doesn't look like a hatchet-job cooked up by Christian Fundamentalists to me. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 03:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
I agree that moving toward agreement through dialogue is a good goal, and I hope we can do that overall. It's hard when the people presenting the most challenges to a minority group's page are very much invested in minimizing us. Remember: minimization is a form of oppression. You're right-- it's not a hatchet job as is... But, half the content has just been flagged for removal, and it would be a hatchet-job without tireless effort to keep it afloat. Yes, I agree that dialogue and discussion can always move toward a greater ideal of some form of neutrality, even if true philosophical neutrality is not possible.[[User:Flowingfire|Flowingfire]] ([[User talk:Flowingfire|talk]]) 03:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Ok, we seem to be getting somewhere here. Regarding the content 'flagged for removal' this seems (at least on the face of it) to be because there are no citations provided, indicating where the content is derived from: Wikipedia isn't a provider of free space for pressure groups, regardless of the justness of their cause - instead it is an online encyclopaedia, with a commitment to writing articles based on externally-verifiable third-party [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. I am quite sure that your particular cause has attracted enough attention for it to be possible to find this - and if it isn't, then sadly, the problem is with the world at large, and not with Wikipedia, and you are unlikely to change much by arguing here. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 03:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Most of the potential sources are on copyrighted documentaries or were on television or print media. (Like The Advocate, Washington Post, ABC News, etc, etc, etc.) "History" is rarely written about current-events. Over time, "current" news sources from print media become archived for pay or unavailable. That said, removing 3/4 of the page will do no good. Also... please respect the role of a civil rights organization instead of calling it a "pressure group?" That's pejorative. I suppose you could call King's march a "pressure group" too though... [[User:Flowingfire|Flowingfire]] ([[User talk:Flowingfire|talk]]) 04:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
I emphasize, and also re-iterate my very, very serious request for '''specific review by LGBT moderators'''. I might not be neutral, but neither is the primary bringer of this COI notice. Somebody neutral should just go around and look for relevant sources rather than letting the whole page be deleted. Most of them are pretty well archived in pay webs, if you know where you're looking. [[User:Flowingfire|Flowingfire]] ([[User talk:Flowingfire|talk]]) 04:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:A reply to your first comment: If the potential sources are on print media, then they are exactly what we need - and being difficult to access is no reason to prevent them being cited. If they exist, and can be verified, they can be cited. As for the difference between a 'pressure group' and a 'civil rights organization', I personally believe that 'civil rights' only come about through 'group pressure' and changing economic circumstances, though I may be in a minority on this. And can you drop the endless martyrdom references please. I've heard them all before, and they do little to convince anyone of anything. If you believe in a cause, you should be able to argue it on its own merits, not by riding on the coattails of others. I've explained how Wikipedia works, I've explained what you need to do - so get searching for sources, rather than wasting time here. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 04:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:And a reply to your second comment: We do not have 'moderators' on Wikipedia - this isn't an internet forum. It is an online encyclopaedia. Some contributors are ''administrators'' - and they have (at least in theory) no more right to determine article ''content'' than anyone else - they have additional powers to enforce policies arrived at by general consensus (again, hopeless utopianism, that doesn't actually work in practice, but on the way - probably by accident - helps make Wikipedia produce something vaguely useful). And we certainly don't have 'LGBT moderators' - I'm sure we have LGBT administators, but we don't hand out special powers to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation. You'll have to convince us all, gay and straight, black and white, pro-chopping-the-blunt-end-of-a-boiled-egg-off or pro-chopping-the-pointy-end-of-a-boiled-egg-off of the merits of your arguments. That is how it works here. It is a pain, but it seems to work. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 04:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Thank you for your time. If references are at issue, I hope somebody with a lot of time is as passionate about this article as I've been. Maybe NYYankees51 will decide to provide some references or content. In fact, that would show a great deal of commitment to the article's success on his part! I hope he's not just out to make it disappear! [[User:Flowingfire|Flowingfire]] ([[User talk:Flowingfire|talk]]) 06:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Note: "Flowingfire" appears to be an "Equality Rider" for the organization. I suggest that a COI is present (full cite might "out" the person, but is at soulforce.org and uses the name "flowingfire"). Cheers. The COI is found. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 15:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:FlowingFire is a single purpose account which primarily edits Equality Ride (ER) and Soulforce. Their edits are promotional in nature. They exhibit ownersip of ER. NYY presented FlowingFire's tacit admission of affiliaion with E.R. Collect has verified the affiliation. FlowingFire has presented nothing to dispute these findings. The COI is established.– [[user:Lionelt|Lionel]] <sup>([[user talk:Lionelt|talk]])</sup> 07:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::There's a lot to take in here, so I'll try to address matters one thing at a time. |
|||
::First of all, [[WP:VAND|vandalism]] is one of those terms like [[WP:HOUNDING|hounding]] or even COI itself that are far too often misused and overused on Wikipedia. Vandalism does not mean that someone changes an article in a way you don't like, or even in a way that you think is harmful or disruptive. Vandalism only occurs when the editor is ''intentionally'' trying to damage Wikipedia. It's one of the dirtiest words on this site, and false accusations are poorly received. |
|||
::That is only the first of the claims made by FlowingFire that I find deeply disturbing. There are many statements that bother me. The allegation that NYyankees51 has a COI because of professed personal beliefs. The allegation that anyone who objects to the neutrality of the article must despise the gay rights movement. A statement like, ''"Sometimes a little "conflict of interest" is necessary to keep minority turf from being invaded by barbarians."'' Or, ''"This issue MUST be dealt with by gay, lesbian, bi, and transgender people alone. Nobody else."'' A request for resolution by ''"a specifically gay, lesbian, bi, or trans moderator"''. A demand that the article has to come from a gay rights activist perspective only, followed by a general rejection of [[WP:NPOV]]. |
|||
::In the face of all of that, the COI itself is almost irrelevant. I'll agree that the COI is fairly obvious, that the editor is affiliated with the organization. But more disturbing by far is the complete rejection of the core tenets of neutrality that Wikipedia is based upon. It's clear to me that FlowingFire is not here to improve Wikipedia, but to promote an activist agenda, this motivation is not only obvious but is practically being trumpeted. We call this [[WP:SOAP|soapboxing]], and we quite regularly ban or block editors who engage in it. -- '''[[User:Atama|<span style="color:#06F">At</span><span style="color:#03B">am</span><span style="color:#006">a</span>]]'''[[User talk:Atama|<span style="color:#000">頭</span>]] 00:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Craig Mitnick == |
|||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> |
|||
* {{la|Craig Mitnick}} |
|||
* {{userlinks|71.188.67.25}} |
|||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> |
|||
Anonymous user changed the wording of the article to laud the subject. They claim that they were a broadcaster with CBS, hinting personal involvement. They now refuse to have these edits reversed. <span style="font-family:ariel, serif;background:white;color:black;border-style:sing;letter-spacing:1px"><b><font color="#003300">[[User:KJS77|KJS]]</font><font color ="#6996AD">[[User_talk:KJS77|77]]</font ></b> </span> 03:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:The IP has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Craig_Mitnick&diff=prev&oldid=444885198 identified themselves] as the subject of the article (see the edit summary). I've left a single issue notice template on their talk page about conflicts of interest. They have also violated 3RR. I expect a block to be coming soon. '''[[User:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Ol<font style="color:#FBB117;">Yeller</font></font>]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Talktome</font>]]</sup> 20:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::I've left an additional message to attempt to explain the situation and how to move forward. I'll keep an eye on the situation and report back if there's an issue I can't take care of. '''[[User:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Ol<font style="color:#FBB117;">Yeller</font></font>]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Talktome</font>]]</sup> 20:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Thanks for your help. <span style="font-family:ariel, serif;background:white;color:black;border-style:sing;letter-spacing:1px"><b><font color="#003300">[[User:KJS77|KJS]]</font><font color ="#6996AD">[[User_talk:KJS77|77]]</font ></b> </span> 17:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Harold Baim == |
|||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> |
|||
* {{la|Harold Baim}} |
|||
* {{userlinks|Richard Jeffs}} |
|||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> |
|||
'Richard Jeffs' is the contact name on the Baim Films website. The user of that name has just responded to my tagging the article as needing cleanup and references by removing what seems to be reasonable and uncontroversial content, links and the tags themselves. I've rolled back, but a second opinion would be useful. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 20:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:On reflection, I should have manually reverted with an edit summary; my bad; but the issue remains. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 20:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I've been reverted again, with an edit summary describing my edits as a "malicious attack on text". <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 22:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::I've restored the tags. I have no opinion thus far on the content so didn't fully revert Richard, but the issues being referenced in the tags are still problems. The COI is plausible here, and should be taken into consideration along with the [[WP:OWN|ownership]] behavior; however since the article is almost completely unreferenced I don't think either of you can completely take the high road. [[WP:V|Verifiability]] is the biggest problem that I can see, and if you are in a dispute between the two of you, it should be settled based on what can be backed up with reliable sources. If neither of you can provide them, then the article should probably be deleted. I'll let Richard know that this report has been filed, if he is interested in participating in this discussion constructively then perhaps we can at least begin to find a resolution. -- '''[[User:Atama|<span style="color:#06F">At</span><span style="color:#03B">am</span><span style="color:#006">a</span>]]'''[[User talk:Atama|<span style="color:#000">頭</span>]] 23:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::[[User:Richard Jeffs|Richard Jeffs]] just {{Diff|Harold Baim|445279647|445233486|replaced the article}} with a short statement, "'' The collection is owned by Richard Jeffs who is not allowed to say what he wants to say here. Instead, please see www.baimfilms.com for information.''". I've restored the last version I edited, with wikilinks and other standard improvements. I'm not sure why you're criticising me here; I tagged the article as needing references and further work. Also, "deletion is not cleanup" - we don't delete articles on cleary notable subjects just because they don't (yet) have references. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 09:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::I'm not criticizing you. I'm just pointing out that in a content dispute, it generally falls to whoever has the best claim of verifiability as to what should go in the article, and since there are no references then it's hard for either of you to make a strong claim. However, blanking out the article is a huge no-no, and I'm giving the editor a ''final'' warning for that stunt. -- '''[[User:Atama|<span style="color:#06F">At</span><span style="color:#03B">am</span><span style="color:#006">a</span>]]'''[[User talk:Atama|<span style="color:#000">頭</span>]] 16:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Richard replied on his user page to my messages (I moved it to his user talk page). He clearly needs some guidance in how Wikipedia works. I left him a rather long message, basically trying as best I can to explain everything a person needs to know to edit an article without stepping on the toes of other editors. I'm not sure if he'll be accepting of it, for now he seems to be treating the article as "his" page and resents other people making changes to it, and I believe it's because he owns the rights to Haim's films, and has been restoring them, and considers himself the authority on them (and he very well may be). I don't think it's due to any ill intent on his part, he just doesn't get what Wikipedia is about; ''"as the owner of the films I am probably the only person who can write such an article"''. But we'll see, I haven't given up on him yet. -- '''[[User:Atama|<span style="color:#06F">At</span><span style="color:#03B">am</span><span style="color:#006">a</span>]]'''[[User talk:Atama|<span style="color:#000">頭</span>]] 23:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== OUTeverywhere == |
|||
{{archivetop}} |
|||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> |
|||
* {{la|OUTeverywhere}} |
|||
* {{userlinks|Fæ}} |
|||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> |
|||
Following a good faith AfD nomination, the only objector has made lots of edits that all appear one sided. This includes information that cannot be verified on the internet (thus already known, and at hand), and removal of critical text only. Additionally, when raising the AfD, the template was almost instantly removed, before I had a chance to save the discussion page, suggesting a close interest in this site. All of these things may indicate a very close association with the site, and a conflict of interest in the AfD. [[User:Teppic74|Teppic74]] ([[User talk:Teppic74|talk]]) 12:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:This appears to be a content dispute, not a CoI issue. No evidence of CoI is provided. As explained in edit summaries the AfD template was removed, correctly, as bogus, and advice given as to how to list correctly. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 12:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm not certain where the lack of evidence is? Lots of edits all in favour of the website in question, and some containing very specific information that cannot be obtained or verified on the Internet. If this doesn't show evidence of a close relationship with the site, why not? As for the AfD, it was deleted 3 minutes after I saved the page. [[User:Teppic74|Teppic74]] ([[User talk:Teppic74|talk]]) 13:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Favoring a viewpoint doesn't constitute a conflict of interest. I haven't viewed the edits but unless you can show that Fae has a close connection to the subject, this is a content dispute and/or POV pushing at worst. Do you have any evidence that shows that Fae has a close connection to the subject of the article? Fae is an administrator and an OTRS team member and I don't think that accusing such a person of a conflict of interest with no actual evidence and without notifying them is out of line. '''[[User:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Ol<font style="color:#FBB117;">Yeller</font></font>]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Talktome</font>]]</sup> 14:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::The claim that I have access to specific information is an interesting one, Teppic74 could you point out a diff where you think this is the case. I do have access to LexisNexis, this may be the source of your suspicion, but the newspapers are public records and I need no affiliation with the organization to look at them or any particular special knowledge to search out articles using keyword matches. [[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 14:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I mentioned this in the discussion and was asked to bring it here instead. I am stating a concern based on behaviour with regard to this article. An administrator can still have a conflict of interest; I am just presenting a suspicion with the reasons for that. [[User:Teppic74|Teppic74]] ([[User talk:Teppic74|talk]]) 15:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I never said that an admin can't have a COI but you have presented zero evidence, not even a diff, of even POV pushing or any sort of activity that is against WP's goals. For there to be a COI, there must be evidence that Fae is showing that advancing outside interests is more important to him/her than advancing the aims of Wikipedia '''and''' that they have a close relationship with the subject (otherwise it's just POV pushing). You haven't provided any actual evidence of either so to me, it's like if I go to a cop and say, "Teppic is selling drugs out of his basement! Go search his house!" with providing zero evidence of that claim or telling you that I made such a claim. |
|||
::::::All I can tell you is that it's doubtful that someone will help you if you provide no actual evidence (diffs) to support your claim. '''[[User:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Ol<font style="color:#FBB117;">Yeller</font></font>]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Talktome</font>]]</sup> 15:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Ok. I don't think I am conducting this properly, so please withdraw the claim and apologies to Fae. [[User:Teppic74|Teppic74]] ([[User talk:Teppic74|talk]]) 15:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I'll archive this discussion, if you were directed here then opening this report should not reflect poorly on you. Thank you. -- '''[[User:Atama|<span style="color:#06F">At</span><span style="color:#03B">am</span><span style="color:#006">a</span>]]'''[[User talk:Atama|<span style="color:#000">頭</span>]] 16:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
{{archivebottom}} |
|||
== Ian Cooper (Violinist) == |
|||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> |
|||
* {{la|Ian Cooper (Violinist)}} |
|||
* {{userlinks|Ianjazz}} |
|||
* {{userlinks|115.30.45.93}} |
|||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> |
|||
User creating and editing their own autobiography after they have declaired ownership and have been warned regarding COI. They appear to be editing both as an IP and an account (IP declares ownership on article discussion page, account userpage forwards to the article). For both accounts, all edits have been promoting Ian Cooper. Notability is borderline (lots of namedropping). [[User:Clovis Sangrail|Clovis Sangrail]] ([[User talk:Clovis Sangrail|talk]]) 06:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I found the link where the IP claims to be the subject of the article ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ian_Cooper_(Violinist)&oldid=445289302]). Do we have any concrete information (diffs) that the account belongs to the IP? The userpage redirect is due to the user creating the article in their userspace then moving it to mainspace. Also, the account and IP never claim ownership in edits or edit summaries. I've gone through every single edit by the account and IP. I personally feel that the subject at least fulfills [[WP:BAND]] point 12 by being featured by a nationally syndicated program and probably [[WP:GNG]]. The article isn't overly advertorial but there is a good amount of fluff that probably doesn't need to be there. '''[[User:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Ol<font style="color:#FBB117;">Yeller</font></font>]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Talktome</font>]]</sup> 12:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Just through a cursory look at the contributions of the IP and the account, I find it very implausible that they are the same person. From around 12:00 (UTC) on August 18 to just after 13:30, both the account and IP were continuously active, with a half dozen edits from the IP and over a dozen from the account within minutes of each other in that timeframe. If the IP was just the account logged out, then Ianjazz would have had to somehow log out, make an edit, then log in right away, over and over again. It's possible that Ianjazz was on two computers simultaneously, or two browsers on the same computer, and switching back and forth, but that's a lot of effort to maintain such duplicity and I don't see the purpose of it. It's certainly not a simple case of a person with an account being logged out temporarily and making edits. |
|||
::I think the most plausible explanation is that these are two different people. They also don't have any overlap in the topics they edit, aside from the Ian Cooper article itself. They ''could'' be coordinating off-wiki in some way, maybe, it seems a bit coincidental that they both stopped editing at almost the same exact time (around 13:30 (UTC) on August 18). That would then mean that the IP is Cooper, and the account is someone that Cooper knows that created the article for him. But again, this is just speculation on my part. -- '''[[User:Atama|<span style="color:#06F">At</span><span style="color:#03B">am</span><span style="color:#006">a</span>]]'''[[User talk:Atama|<span style="color:#000">頭</span>]] 16:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::: The ip is Ian Cooper, as he stated this in the article discussion page (which has now been removed). If Ian Jazz is not him, then its likely that it is a PR firm or the like (since its has linked to images which were uploaded to commons 5 minutes earlier by Ian Cooper (19 Aug). -- Regardless, how should these edits be treated? There are clear whitewash / Autobiog issues, and both accounts ignore engagement and edit articles only related to Ian Cooper. [[User:Clovis Sangrail|Clovis Sangrail]] ([[User talk:Clovis Sangrail|talk]]) 02:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::The IP claims to be Ian. I'll take his word for it, I don't see why not at this point. I'm just wondering, are there any edits that are particularly problematic? I've done a random sample from both editors and haven't seen anything particularly alarming. Not that the COI should be ignored (and if there is no COI then I'm a ham sandwich) but if the end result is that the encyclopedia gets fleshed out with some extra information on a potentially notable subject that might need some cleanup afterward, should we try to hinder that? -- '''[[User:Atama|<span style="color:#06F">At</span><span style="color:#03B">am</span><span style="color:#006">a</span>]]'''[[User talk:Atama|<span style="color:#000">頭</span>]] 02:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::: It depends on whether we want wikipedia to be objective and unbiased I suppose. [[User:Clovis Sangrail|Clovis Sangrail]] ([[User talk:Clovis Sangrail|talk]]) 03:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Wikipedia will never be completely objective and unbiased, see [[WP:BIAS]] for numerous examples. Nor can any editor be 100% unbiased, I sure am not. On the other hand, we ''can'' judge the neutrality of a person's content contributions, which is one thing we usually do where a COI exists. That's why I'm trying to find specific examples here. -- '''[[User:Atama|<span style="color:#06F">At</span><span style="color:#03B">am</span><span style="color:#006">a</span>]]'''[[User talk:Atama|<span style="color:#000">頭</span>]] 16:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Ir Ovot == |
|||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> |
|||
* {{la|Ir Ovot}} |
|||
* {{userlinks|Ir Ovot}} |
|||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> |
|||
This is a single-issue user whose user name is the same as the article he is editing. I think it's worth keeping a watch on this user. - [[User:Lisa|Lisa]] ([[User talk:Lisa|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Lisa|contribs]]) 16:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:It's good to know. I'll note that the article subject is a kibbutz that was dissolved almost 20 years ago, so the username couldn't really be considered promotional or representative of an organization (similar to someone named Troy editing [[Troy]]). There might not actually be a COI at all, they may have been motivated to edit Wikipedia simply to edit a single article, and so picked the article's name as a username. On the other hand, regardless of the COI, their edits removed a lot of information without explanation. Their sole contribution is a single burst of edits, and we'll have to see if they repeat the behavior. If not, no worries. -- '''[[User:Atama|<span style="color:#06F">At</span><span style="color:#03B">am</span><span style="color:#006">a</span>]]'''[[User talk:Atama|<span style="color:#000">頭</span>]] 23:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks. FWIW, even though the kibbutz was dissolved, Ir Ovot as a messianic community in Israel is a current phenomenon, which is why I think the user name is promotional. - [[User:Lisa|Lisa]] ([[User talk:Lisa|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Lisa|contribs]]) 03:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Images in multiple articles == |
|||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> |
|||
* Multiple articles |
|||
I wasn't sure where to bring this issue - conflict of interest seems to be the closest. It appears that some narcissist has given his personal collection of ephemera/kitsch the pretentious name of "The Cooper Collections," adding images of pieces of the collection to dozens of articles (examples below). The problem is threefold: (1.) There is a legitimate [http://www.thecoopercollection.co.uk/ Cooper Collection], so the name of this pseudocollection confuses the matter; (2.) The owner of the "Cooper Collections" has added a note to each of the many images in the articles that the image is courtesy of the "Cooper Collections." This doesn't pass [[WP:MOS]] muster, does it? and (3.) In many (most?) instances, the images add nothing to the article, serving as little more than litter. [[User:Mass Construction|Mass Construction]] ([[User talk:Mass Construction|talk]]) 22:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*[[20th Century Limited]] |
|||
*[[Alan Cobham]] |
|||
*[[Albert Sammt]] |
|||
*[[Boeing 314]] |
|||
*[[Cachet]] |
|||
*[[China Clipper]] |
|||
*[[Dick Merrill]] |
|||
*[[Duralumin]] |
|||
*[[Ed Musick]] |
|||
*[[Empire State Express]] |
|||
*[[Fairchild FC-2]] |
|||
*[[Grand Central Airport (United States)]] |
|||
*[[Hindenburg disaster]] |
|||
*[[Imperial Airways]] |
|||
*[[Lignum vitae]] |
|||
*[[Maddux Air Lines]] |
|||
*[[Maritime history of California]] |
|||
*[[Martin M-130]] |
|||
*[[Panama Canal Railway]] |
|||
*[[Sesquicentennial Exposition]] |
|||
*[[Ted Scott Flying Stories]] |
|||
*[[Varney Air Lines]] |
|||
*[[Wiley Post]] |
|||
== Yele_Haiti == |
|||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> |
|||
* {{la|Y%C3%A9le_Haiti}} |
|||
* {{la|Wyclef Jean}} |
|||
* {{userlinks|CindyTanenbaum}} |
|||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> |
|||
CindyTanenbaum has created and been editing the article [[Y%C3%A9le_Haiti]]. This article was forked out from the [[Wyclef Jean]] article. There were a lot of questions about this organization's finances in the past, and this information was included in the Wyclef Jean article. This information was correctly removed when the [[Y%C3%A9le_Haiti]] article was created, but didn't end up in the new article. After restoring it to the new article, and being reverted without explanation by CindyTanenbaum, I was curious and searched for her and [[Y%C3%A9le_Haiti]] in google. I quickly found a press release from [[Y%C3%A9le_Haiti]] that listed a Cindy Tanenbaum as the Point of Contact. I am unsure how to proceed from this point. [[User:Sperril|Sperril]] ([[User talk:Sperril|talk]]) 22:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Between your notice that you brought the situation here and the warning I just placed, I think the best plan now would be to wait and see how she reacts. I've put the page on my watch list and can help you restore the sourced text if she or someone else attempts to whitewash again. We should report back here if we see anything else suspicious. |
|||
:For the record, I've confirmed what you've found. While it could ''possibly'' be another Cindy Tanenbaum that's not related to the subject, I think the [[WP:duck|duck test]] applies here. '''[[User:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Ol<font style="color:#FBB117;">Yeller</font></font>]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Talktome</font>]]</sup> 23:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks for your help! I just noticed that OTRS has confirmed that her previously copyvio tagged edits were properly released to the wiki. I think that establishes who she is at this point. Sorry I couldn't find the right template. I'm still learning when it comes to project tasks. [[User:Sperril|Sperril]] ([[User talk:Sperril|talk]]) 23:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Flemish Giant rabbits == |
|||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> |
|||
* {{Flemish Giant rabbit}} |
|||
* {{userlinks|username}} |
|||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> |
|||
The article was tagged as having weasel words.Not only that, but much of the info is painfully incorrect. When I tried to fix it, Red Rover an Admin banned me from changing the text, I assume they may have written the article? The info needs to be changed as someone may read this and think you can feed a rabbit leafy greens, you can't it will kill them, or that a rabbits pelvic bone fuses, it does not.These are but a few examples of the misinformation on that page. My email is mzbunny@frontier.com, my website to show Im knowledgeable on this subject is www.pet-rabbit.netfirms.com [[User:IaJewel|IaJewel]] ([[User talk:IaJewel|talk]]) 09:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Firstly I fail to see how this is a conflict of interest so question why it is listed here and not on the article's talk page. Secondly your edits to [[Flemish Giant]] have been reverted by five different editors including myself and one bot. Despite repeated warnings you neither responded on the article's talk page, nor your own talk page. Subsequent to your edit warring you have now been blocked for 24 hours. I suggest you take this time out to read about the Wikipedia policies posted on your talk page, or engage there in a constructive discussion to understand why you have been blocked and what you can do to make positive, well sourced, changes to the article in question. --[[User:Simple Bob|Simple Bob<sup> a.k.a. The Spaminator</sup>]] ([[User talk:Simple Bob|Talk]]) 09:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Gompertz–Makeham law of mortality == |
|||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> |
|||
* {{la|Gompertz–Makeham law of mortality}} |
|||
* {{userlinks|Gavrilov}} |
|||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> |
|||
Since April 2007, adding mentions of/Amazon links to medical books authored by Leonid A. Gavrilov & Natalia S. Gavrilova. User page is a lengthy CV of Dr. Leonid A. Gavrilov. --[[User:CliffC|CliffC]] ([[User talk:CliffC|talk]]) 23:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Also,<br> |
|||
* {{userlinks|128.135.241.163}} |
|||
Note also article {{la|Leonid Gavrilov}}, created 14 August. I'm not questioning Dr. Gavrilov's notability, I'm just pointing out the promotional aspects of all this. --[[User:CliffC|CliffC]] ([[User talk:CliffC|talk]]) 03:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:The user page at [[User:Gavrilov]] is clearly in breach of the [[WP:UP]] guidelines (it's basically a CV and therefore promotional) and I have tagged it for speedy deletion accordingly. – [[User:Ukexpat|ukexpat]] ([[User talk:Ukexpat|talk]]) 19:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::I deleted the userpage. I'd like to ask, though, that we handle Dr. Gavrilov with a bit of tact, unless and until he (or she, if this is Natalia) becomes willfully disruptive (ignoring requests to discuss things, attacking other editors, etc.). I do have concerns about the relentless spam, the editor's contributions are questionable at best, but I also hate chasing away subject matter experts for COI reasons. -- '''[[User:Atama|<span style="color:#06F">At</span><span style="color:#03B">am</span><span style="color:#006">a</span>]]'''[[User talk:Atama|<span style="color:#000">頭</span>]] 19:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Hundredth (band) == |
|||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> |
|||
* {{la|Hundredth (band)}} |
|||
* {{userlinks|CharlesManies }} |
|||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> |
|||
See post on the talk page of the article. In addition, the article was apparently mentioned by the band on their Facebook page while it was tagged for speedy deletion. I'm requesting at least a few extra eyes on the article. '''[[User:Elektrik Shoos|<font color="#FFCC66">elektrik</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Elektrik Shoos|<font color="#666666">SHOOS</font>]]''' ([[User talk:Elektrik Shoos|talk]]) 18:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I commented on the article's talk page about the band's notability; essentially the claim that it met [[WP:BAND]] criterion number 5. (The band has only released one album, and I'm not convinced that the label is a notable one.) -- '''[[User:Atama|<span style="color:#06F">At</span><span style="color:#03B">am</span><span style="color:#006">a</span>]]'''[[User talk:Atama|<span style="color:#000">頭</span>]] 19:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Would listing it at AfD be appropriate? After putting it on my watchlist via NPP, I've noticed the only substantial edits were by apparent SPAs and IPs. It also appears that the subject fails [[WP:BAND]], though admittedly I haven't done a proper [[WP:BEFORE]] check yet. '''[[User:Elektrik Shoos|<font color="#FFCC66">elektrik</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Elektrik Shoos|<font color="#666666">SHOOS</font>]]''' ([[User talk:Elektrik Shoos|talk]]) 19:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::There's nothing that would make the AfD inappropriate, but I do strongly encourage you to check for sources just in case. I highly doubt you'll find anything but you never know, I've been surprised myself more than once by finding good references for a subject that I wouldn't expect to have any. -- '''[[User:Atama|<span style="color:#06F">At</span><span style="color:#03B">am</span><span style="color:#006">a</span>]]'''[[User talk:Atama|<span style="color:#000">頭</span>]] 19:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== [[I Am Equal (photo documentary)]] spamming == |
|||
*[[User:Steinway1701]] is doing nothing but advertising this project all over Wikipedia. Since one of their goals is to get tens of thousands of participants, and he/she wants to add non-free pictures from the project (which advertise the project as well as the subject) to the articles on every notable participant, the clutter factor is getting pretty appalling. I've given him/her templated anti-spam and COI warnings, and added a link to [[:WP:NOBLECAUSE]]. --[[User:Orangemike|<font color="darkorange">Orange Mike</font>]] | [[User talk:Orangemike|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] 15:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Looks like a G11 to me. It appears to be notable but at this point, it could only be more spammy if there was a link towards the top of the page pointing to a donation website. '''[[User:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Ol<font style="color:#FBB117;">Yeller</font></font>]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Talktome</font>]]</sup> 16:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree, and have tagged it as such. – [[User:Ukexpat|ukexpat]] ([[User talk:Ukexpat|talk]]) 16:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Although, I guess G11 won't solve the presented issue. The editor has been painting the same information all over WP. I've been going through their contributions but it looks like it's all been cleaned up so far (they added the info to very high traffic articles that are highly monitored by other editors). Eventually, the files they have uploaded won't be linked to anything and deleted unless someone wants to take the initiative for copyvio checking/tagging/deleting. I'll keep looking through their contribs for missed spamming but an admin can watch their future contributions and take whatever action they see fit for the spammery. I'll make sure all the past spamming is dealt with. '''[[User:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Ol<font style="color:#FBB117;">Yeller</font></font>]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Talktome</font>]]</sup> 16:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::Finished checking past contribs. Looks like {{user|Future Perfect at Sunrise}} took care of almost all of their article contribs (I didn't check files/photos). High five him if you get a chance. '''[[User:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Ol<font style="color:#FBB117;">Yeller</font></font>]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Talktome</font>]]</sup> 17:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:It is not my intention to be SPAMING Wikipedia or to be "cluttering" the site. My only reason for joining this community in the first place was because I was introduced to the I Am Equal photo documentary recently on Facebook, saw that Chelsea Handler had participated, posted on her Facebook, and her website about the campaign, and was surprised to see that it had not yet been added Wikipedia. Understanding the importance of citations, I researched the project, and gathered over 50 news articles and reports before beginning to build the article and then went through a rather clumsy learning curve to get the information into Wikipedia. Editing, citations, and formatting in wiki is all new to me and I'll admit, I have had to make many (minor and otherwise) changes to the article to get it where I thought it was matching other materials on the site. I have done my best to be thorough in my citations. I acknowledge that I may have done too many since after adding traditional news citations, I also searched the web for more details to verify references to events or individuals mentioned in the article, and added more citation references to galleries, and press releases. I thought they were relevant and supportive to the details being shared. There also seems to be some concern about my trying to add reference to the photo documentary on other wikipedia articles. I'll admit, if this is a problem then it's a result of my ignorance to the terminology of the site. While I was building the initial article, an administrator added the ORPHAN template to the top of the page indicating that there were no other articles linking to the page. I took that to mean I needed to go and create those connections (because they don't just make themselves). So naturally, I proceeded to the articles of the individuals, groups, and corporations mentioned in the main article and added a brief paragraph and link to the documentary page. It seemed to be exactly what the Orphan template had told me to do. Unfortunately, another administrator followed me around the site and systematically removed the references without explaining to me the problem or how to resolve the Orphan issue without adding references to other articles. Regarding the use of non-Free images, I must claim ignorance again. I thought that it made sense to supply the image of the individual, celebrity, or group referenced in the article as additional support for the fact that they had participated in the campaign. It's clearly my novice mistake to assume that an article should have as much support material as possible. As such, I attempted to upload the appropriate images that I found in the project gallery and include them in the article or associated article references. Of course, another admin was quick to remove the images and tried to explain the licensing issues associated with it. I attempted to navigate my way through the licensing and non-Free use materials to better understand the issue, but I'll admit, I'm still not totally clear on the procedures (though I think I understand the Fair Use Rational process for non-Free images). Needless to say, I am new to wikipedia and not completely versed in the process of adding, editing, and referencing articles in the system. Although I am new (and this article process was less then elegant), I still hold that the I Am Equal (photo documentary) is a noteworthy project that belongs in wikipedia. I'm happy to leave it to the admins to create the associated links to other articles as they see fit and add related images when appropriate, because I just don't get the rules of that process. As a wikipedia user, I feel the article is relevant based solely on how I heard about it. It took very little research for me to find out that this campaign is much bigger than I thought and something these individual participants are proud to be part of. My research lead me to websites, news articles, and phone calls to documentary office so I was absolutely clear on what the campaign is, how it works, what the intention is, and how long it will be going on. I included all my research notes in the article and built as complete an entry as I possibly could. I feel invested in the article simply because of the time, effort, research, and verification I put in knowing this is my first article on wikipedia and wanting it to be complete. In my naivete, I though that the research would be the hard part and adding the article to wikipedia would be easy, but I was wrong. Getting this article into the site, dealing with the admins, automatic template messages, talk pages, moving conversations, conflicting instructions, and threats of deletion have been more than I was expecting. I'd like to see the best article possible about the I Am Equal photo documentary on the site as possible so when other users come here to research (as I did initially after seeing the information on Chelsea Handler's facebook page) can get a complete understanding of the campaign. I'd also like to think that as the campaign grows over the years and new celebrities, groups, and corporations participate in the project, that information can be added to the article. Perhaps I am not the best person to do that because of my ignorance to the process, but perhaps someone else (an admin, maybe) will take up the responsibilty of keeping this article current and accurate for future readers. [[User:Steinway1701|Steinway1701]] ([[User talk:Steinway1701|talk]]) 17:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Hey Steinway. There are several problems with the article as it stands. As a new editor, no one really expects you to know all of the policies and guidelines that rule WP so don't feel like you've done something that can't be fixed. First off, for the subject to be included, it must satisfy an inclusion guideline found at [[WP:Notability]] which I'm almost certain that it does. Secondly, the article's information must be [[WP:Verifiable]] and non-bias (which is where the advertising-ish content is a problem). As of right now, the article reads like an advertisement and not so much like part of an encyclopedia (the links and prose of the text contribute the most to that in my opinion). Most importantly, even if the article is deleted, that doesn't mean that content is gone. We can [[WP:userfy]] it for you and put it in your userspace to work on until it's ready for mainspace. I certainly appreciate that you want to make the best article possible from I Am Equal. WP's goal is to have the best encyclopedic article for notable subjects as well. We just need to make sure that your goals and WP's goals line up. I highly doubt you want anything other than that so I'm sure we'll be able to get this worked out. Does that make sense so far? '''[[User:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Ol<font style="color:#FBB117;">Yeller</font></font>]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Talktome</font>]]</sup> 17:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I understand that everyone is committed to maintaining Wikipedia as a credible resource for information and a neutral space for all users. I know that there is a learning curve for entering the world of wiki and I have done my best to get through that as best I can. There are so many admins now focusing on what I have done (and what I was doing) that I am surprised none of them actually contacted me to explain the errors I was making BEFORE suggesting the article be deleted. They were quick to delete my work, suggest deletions, and remove links...but never actually work with me to resolve the issues. As a result, I feel like I am now chasing around this site, answering allegations of SPAM and promotion, fighting deletion, etc when much of this could have been mitigated with conversation and explanation. I'll be honest, I'm quite disillusioned by this whole process. At this point, it's getting so that I feel that the process is stacked against me at this time and there is nothing I can do to make this right. The fact is, the article is noteworthy. It's written from resources and news I found about the project. I probably included too much detail (because of the exhaustive research I did before starting this process) and thus called down the ire of the admins who now seem hell-bent on deleting the article completely rather than using their expertise to resolve the issues (or at the very least converse with me about the problems). I have initiated Talk conversations on a few of these admins walls and they are left unanswered. Instead, I find a new action has been taken against my work. It's frustrating. I'm doing my best to remember that everyone just wants to keep wikipedia clean and free of promotional spam...but the whole process seems more vindictive, exclusionary, and passive aggressive than I would have expected from a community-driven initiative. At this point, I don't know what I want to do. [[User:Steinway1701|Steinway1701]] ([[User talk:Steinway1701|talk]]) 18:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::While I can't pretend to know how you feel right now, when I made my first article, it was quickly deleted and I felt helpless and prosecuted. I really don't want you to feel like that. Deletion doesn't mean anyone is blowing things away with a bazooka. No one is mad at you or what you've done. It's incredibly common for new users and I would be that 80% of users who start out here, have mad the same mistakes. Deleting the article for now is more like making it not visible to regular users until we can address a few issues. The subject does appear notable ([WP's "[[WP:N|notable]]" is well defined and may be different than you think). No one is hell-bent on deletion; quite the contrary. I (not an admin) am doing my best to help you and WP by taking the steps necessary to make sure that the article complies with WP's policies and guidelines. The harsh nature probably comes from people doing lots of things at one time. The lag in communication is very common on WP but it's important to remember that nothing is permanent. Articles deleted 5 years ago can be brought back to mainspace with a few clicks of a mouse. |
|||
::I suggest taking a break for a few hours or a day. From my experience, people aren't being quite as aggressive as you are perceiving. There are plenty of people here that want to help you create an article; we're all here to improve WP. I'll gladly lend my WP experience to you to help you with the article. Would you like me to help? Again, I'd be more than happy to help. I can userfy the article for you so that we can work on it together. '''[[User:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Ol<font style="color:#FBB117;">Yeller</font></font>]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Talktome</font>]]</sup> 18:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::It seems best that one of the more capable admins can write this article better than me. I'll make it easy and supply links to all the news articles I found about the project that started me down this path to begin with. I'd rather it get entered into the site in the correct way than continue to blindly stumble through the process and be slapped down as a new contributor at every turn. [[User:Steinway1701|Steinway1701]] ([[User talk:Steinway1701|talk]]) 18:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::What makes you think that an admin needs to even be involved in this process? It's very unlikely that anyone will write this article for you. I've been jumping through hoops to explain things to you, extend an olive branch, and help you create a good article. To keep saying that you're being "slapped down" or suggesting that I'm not able to help you is quite frankly offensive. Feel free to ask around for help and I hope you find someone. If you want my help, I'm here for the asking. '''[[User:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Ol<font style="color:#FBB117;">Yeller</font></font>]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Talktome</font>]]</sup> 18:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::*[[User:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Ol<font style="color:#FBB117;">Yeller</font></font>]] you have been awesome, and I have learned more from you and the time you have taken to explain this process than anyone else, and I truly appreciate everything you have said. It's that kind of attention and guidance I could have used 3 days ago when all this madness started. I guess I imagined Wikipedia was populated by [[User:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Ol<font style="color:#FBB117;">Yeller</font></font>]]-type people who want to make sure it's a collaborative environment that is welcoming to new contributors...but that hasn't been my experience until now. I'm happy to take a stab at getting the article up to snuff in an area of the site that is not publicly accessible (since many admins seem to agree that my article is a gross misuse of the wikipedia site). I honestly have no idea what is involved in that, nor how to move it from that testing area back into the main site when I'm done. Whatever you think is best is what I'll do. [[User:Steinway1701|Steinway1701]] ([[User talk:Steinway1701|talk]]) 19:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::*So, now some other admin has deleted the page. I've actually lost track of all the different admins who have jumped in on this article with different instructions, actions, and motives. I'd like to work on the page and get it up to snuff with wikipedia, but the whole process is seeming convoluted and inconsistent. So many admins with broad discretionary powers to move, change, and adjust content without question, discussion, or explanation is not a very collaborative approach for a site that seems to be built by the masses. It's looking more like a small group of admins do whatever they please with very little interest in cultivating new users and contributions. It's disappointing to say the least. I'm comforted in having found [[User:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Ol<font style="color:#FBB117;">Yeller</font></font>]] in this process. Maybe there is still hope that there are genuinely collaboratively-minded individuals in the Wikipedia world and there's a chance for new people like me to make a positive contribution in the end. [[User:Steinway1701|Steinway1701]] ([[User talk:Steinway1701|talk]]) 20:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Hey. I've asked the deleting admin to move it to your userspace. Either he or I will let you know when it's there. From there, we can work on it. I've got a deadline coming up at work here in a few hours and need to focus on that but I'll be back later to help out. If anyone else is available, they'll be able to help as well. |
|||
:::::As for the report on this page, I don't see that Steinway is closely related to the subject so I don't believe there's a COI. I'll be helping Steinway with editing so I personally consider the COI matter closed (no need to worry about this part, Steinway). '''[[User:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Ol<font style="color:#FBB117;">Yeller</font></font>]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Talktome</font>]]</sup> 20:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
{{outdent}}The text has now been userfied at [[User:Steinway1701/I Am Equal (photo documentary)]]. – [[User:Ukexpat|ukexpat]] ([[User talk:Ukexpat|talk]]) 20:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I'd like to clarify for you, Steinway1701, what the role of an administrator is on Wikipedia (the quick-and-easy version). Administrators are individuals who have some additional tools that other editors don't. The main tools, the ones that are used the most, are the ability to block and unblock another editor (blocking prevents the person from being able to edit Wikipedia), delete or undelete pages, and protect or unprotect pages (which can prevent some or all people from editing a page for a particular duration). Administrators don't have any special authority over content. If I don't like a paragraph on an article, I don't have any more right to change it than you do. The ability to change content without discussion is a right that all editors can enjoy, including you. The discussion occurs when two or more people disagree on the content. And again, administrators are on an equal footing with everyone else in those discussions. |
|||
:I would have chimed in earlier to this discussion but I was busy with real life issues, so I apologize for coming in late. However, I wanted to point out that if the subject of the article meets our inclusion criteria, that a recreation of the article should certainly be possible. Very little that is added to Wikipedia is lost forever, even deleted pages can be restored later. The article that was deleted has been restored to your userspace. It sounds like the issue is that the article was worded in a way to sound promotional. I'm sure that wasn't your intent, and only came about because you were so enthusiastic about the documentary. That enthusiasm which inspired you to create the article in the first place was a double-edged sword, unfortunately. |
|||
:I'd like you to understand why the article was deleted, and that it shouldn't reflect a prejudice against your efforts or the documentary. Wikipedia does everything it can to be credible, because an encyclopedia that can't be trusted is worthless. That credibility is difficult to maintain when the encyclopedia can be edited by anyone. Some people add information that is well-meaning but harmful, while others see the site as a way to spread hoaxes or attack people. We have certain [[WP:CSD|criteria for speedy deletion]] that can lead to a quick deletion of a page without prior discussion if the content of that page can potentially cause harm. Those criteria include such obviously problematic issues as violations of copyright (which can lead to legal action if left unchecked) or pages that attack real living people (which can not only harm Wikipedia, but others as well). More subtle problems are also listed, such as overly-promotional articles. Those articles hurt Wikipedia's credibility by giving the appearance that Wikipedia is an advocate, or an advertiser, and not a neutral presenter of information. |
|||
:By moving the article out of the main space to a less-visible area, that promotional language can be improved with the goal being to return the article to the main space for others to enjoy. Sometimes people will create articles with the sole intention of promoting a person, organization, or product (and many of those people are hired public relations personnel), and in those cases we delete the article with no intention of restoring it, and if the person persists in recreating the article or adding the promotion elsewhere we may block them from editing. You're clearly not one of those people, and you should expect and I hope you experience that others like OlYeller will be willing to help you learn the ropes here. -- '''[[User:Atama|<span style="color:#06F">At</span><span style="color:#03B">am</span><span style="color:#006">a</span>]]'''[[User talk:Atama|<span style="color:#000">頭</span>]] 21:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:*[[User:Atama|<span style="color:#06F">At</span><span style="color:#03B">am</span><span style="color:#006">a</span>]] I appreciate the time you, [[User:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Ol<font style="color:#FBB117;">Yeller</font></font>]], [[User:Orangemike|<font color="darkorange">Orange Mike</font>]], and others have made in getting this article in the right place and recognizing that I have been simply trying to be a positive contributor to a site that I have come to value and use on a daily basis. Clearly there is a learning curve and the admins are people too...who have the added burden of keeping Wikipedia a reliable source for content information around the world. I'd love to think that I can be come an expert in just 4 days (when I started this process) but there is much more work for me to do. I'll get into the article that was moved to my user space and see if I can make it better. I'll admit that the language is clunky because I felt such an urgency to get it up and available that I didn't have time to re-edit it before the army of admins started tearing it apart. Maybe now I will have the luxury of time to resolve the concerns made through this 3-day marathon of wiki-madness and the resulting article will be something we can all be proud of. Regards, [[User:Steinway1701|Steinway1701]] ([[User talk:Steinway1701|talk]]) 22:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== User: Bruce Cairney == |
|||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> |
|||
* {{la|article name}} |
|||
* {{userlinks|username}} |
|||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> |
|||
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. [[User:Bacmac|Bacmac]] ([[User talk:Bacmac|talk]]) 14:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
[[Category:Wikipedia noticeboards|{{PAGENAME}}]] |
[[Category:Wikipedia noticeboards|{{PAGENAME}}]] |
||
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed|{{PAGENAME}}]] |
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed|{{PAGENAME}}]] |
||
Line 306: | Line 607: | ||
[[User:Bacmac|Bacmac]] ([[User talk:Bacmac|talk]]) 14:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC) |
[[User:Bacmac|Bacmac]] ([[User talk:Bacmac|talk]]) 14:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
:Can you please provide us with some links to edits (diffs) where {{user|Bruce Cairney}} is doing harm to articles (like making unsubstantiated or libelous claims about living people or attacking others)? As of right now, this sounds like more of a username and civility issue than a conflict of interest but without any diffs, it's hard to tell. Regardless of what the problem is, with some diffs we can at least point you in the right direction if not help fix the problem. '''[[User:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Ol<font style="color:#FBB117;">Yeller</font></font>]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Talktome</font>]]</sup> 14:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC) |
:Can you please provide us with some links to edits (diffs) where {{user|Bruce Cairney}} is doing harm to articles (like making unsubstantiated or libelous claims about living people or attacking others)? As of right now, this sounds like more of a username and civility issue than a conflict of interest but without any diffs, it's hard to tell. Regardless of what the problem is, with some diffs we can at least point you in the right direction if not help fix the problem. '''[[User:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Ol<font style="color:#FBB117;">Yeller</font></font>]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Talktome</font>]]</sup> 14:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC) -- I look forward to being pointed in the right direction [[User:Bacmac|Bacmac]] ([[User talk:Bacmac|talk]]) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
I dont understand what you are asking me to do - the user is impersonating another person and making edits in a martial arts article. As the real Bruce Cairney is a high rank in that type of martial art it would be considered bad ettiquette for members of that martial art to reverse the changes done by this fake user. This user has also published photos at times and made confronting comments. [[User:Bacmac|Bacmac]] ([[User talk:Bacmac|talk]]) 14:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC) |
I dont understand what you are asking me to do - the user is impersonating another person and making edits in a martial arts article. As the real Bruce Cairney is a high rank in that type of martial art it would be considered bad ettiquette for members of that martial art to reverse the changes done by this fake user. This user has also published photos at times and made confronting comments. [[User:Bacmac|Bacmac]] ([[User talk:Bacmac|talk]]) 14:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
:What bizarre behaviour you are exhibiting Bacmac. You brought this up on 3 October 2009 [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_37#User_name:_.22Bruce_Cairney.22_being_used_to_defame_him]], and then again on on 29 October 2009 [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_38#User:_Bruce_Cairney_is_a_sockpuppet_and_used_to_defame]]. Since then the user in question has made just two edits in March 2011, both of which seem reasonable - especially the one to [[Choi Kwang-Do]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Choi_Kwang-Do&diff=prev&oldid=420873282 diff]), which was removing the link to an individual club (I would have done that myself). What has prompted you to pop up for a third time to report someone that hasn't even edited for the past six months? --[[User:Simple Bob|Simple Bob<sup> a.k.a. The Spaminator</sup>]] ([[User talk:Simple Bob|Talk]]) 14:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC) |
:What bizarre behaviour you are exhibiting Bacmac. You brought this up on 3 October 2009 [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_37#User_name:_.22Bruce_Cairney.22_being_used_to_defame_him]], and then again on on 29 October 2009 [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_38#User:_Bruce_Cairney_is_a_sockpuppet_and_used_to_defame]]. Since then the user in question has made just two edits in March 2011, both of which seem reasonable - especially the one to [[Choi Kwang-Do]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Choi_Kwang-Do&diff=prev&oldid=420873282 diff]), which was removing the link to an individual club (I would have done that myself). What has prompted you to pop up for a third time to report someone that hasn't even edited for the past six months? --[[User:Simple Bob|Simple Bob<sup> a.k.a. The Spaminator</sup>]] ([[User talk:Simple Bob|Talk]]) 14:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC) It says brief explaination right? , I also wrote that each time it has been brought up the user has gone quiet and things die off, are you willing to help? or just out to vent - cause I dont know how this place works as you have noted each time I have got no-where AND that is because I hit dead-ends [[User:Bacmac|Bacmac]] ([[User talk:Bacmac|talk]]) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
::{{editconflict}}A link to a page that shows what you're claiming. Where is the user impersonating others? Is it just from his username? As you've been told twice in the past, this is a username violation at best but the user hasn't edited for quite some time. |
::{{editconflict}}A link to a page that shows what you're claiming. Where is the user impersonating others? Is it just from his username? As you've been told twice in the past, this is a username violation at best but the user hasn't edited for quite some time. they Edited in March this year and the impersonation is from the user name (isnt that enough?) as well the impersonation is on the main wiki pages (martial arts)where people with an interest in visiting these wiki pages will know the real Bruce Cairney or know of him [[User:Bacmac|Bacmac]] ([[User talk:Bacmac|talk]]) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
::{{editconflict}}I should of looked at their edit history which is 6 edits long and contains nothing that can even be construed as a COI, vandalism, or incivility. An IP editor has apparently attacked [[User:Bruce Cairney]]'s talk page at least once but that's the only issue I'm seeing. I should also note that Atama has dealt with Bacmac presenting this issue here in the past. No one can ever figure out where all of the intimidation and reputation-muddying is going on. As with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_38#User:_Bruce_Cairney_is_a_sockpuppet_and_used_to_defame past] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_37#User_name:_.22Bruce_Cairney.22_being_used_to_defame_him two] times this has been reported by Bacmac, this isn't a COI. '''[[User:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Ol<font style="color:#FBB117;">Yeller</font></font>]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Talktome</font>]]</sup> 14:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC) |
::{{editconflict}}I should of looked at their edit history which is 6 edits long and contains nothing that can even be construed as a COI, vandalism, or incivility. An IP editor has apparently attacked [[User:Bruce Cairney]]'s talk page at least once but that's the only issue I'm seeing. I should also note that Atama has dealt with Bacmac presenting this issue here in the past. No one can ever figure out where all of the intimidation and reputation-muddying is going on. As with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_38#User:_Bruce_Cairney_is_a_sockpuppet_and_used_to_defame past] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_37#User_name:_.22Bruce_Cairney.22_being_used_to_defame_him two] times this has been reported by Bacmac, this isn't a COI. '''[[User:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Ol<font style="color:#FBB117;">Yeller</font></font>]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Talktome</font>]]</sup> 14:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC) I have added information about each edit from the oldest to the newest if they require more detail please let me know, the very first two edits I could not access (CAN YOU?) cause if you can you should they may be more blunt examples before this impersonator got more sneaky. [[User:Bacmac|Bacmac]] ([[User talk:Bacmac|talk]]) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::On further reading of Bacmac's contributions, this is beginning to look like [[Wikipedia:Harassment|harassment]] against user Bruce Cairney, which is clearly forbidden at the COI noticeboard - as evidenced by the bright red text that appears when you click to edit this page. You exhibit a pattern of [[WP:OWN|ownership behaviour]] on the [[Choi Kwang-Do]] article, reverting and sometimes badgering people who make negative, but sourced, entries regarding the organisation. --[[User:Simple Bob|Simple Bob<sup> a.k.a. The Spaminator</sup>]] ([[User talk:Simple Bob|Talk]]) 14:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC) |
:::On further reading of Bacmac's contributions, this is beginning to look like [[Wikipedia:Harassment|harassment]] against user Bruce Cairney, which is clearly forbidden at the COI noticeboard - as evidenced by the bright red text that appears when you click to edit this page. You exhibit a pattern of [[WP:OWN|ownership behaviour]] on the [[Choi Kwang-Do]] article, reverting and sometimes badgering people who make negative, but sourced, entries regarding the organisation. --[[User:Simple Bob|Simple Bob<sup> a.k.a. The Spaminator</sup>]] ([[User talk:Simple Bob|Talk]]) 14:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC) yeah well like i said below I have not been chastised for any of my edits that I can recall? [[User:Bacmac|Bacmac]] ([[User talk:Bacmac|talk]]) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
Very funny you guy(s) - |
Very funny you guy(s) - |
||
Line 325: | Line 626: | ||
And for the record Simple Bob you can keep your personal attacks to yourself. Also guy(s) I do not know who Atama is. [[User:Bacmac|Bacmac]] ([[User talk:Bacmac|talk]]) 15:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC) |
And for the record Simple Bob you can keep your personal attacks to yourself. Also guy(s) I do not know who Atama is. [[User:Bacmac|Bacmac]] ([[User talk:Bacmac|talk]]) 15:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
Simple Bob, I cannot recall being chastised by any admins for edits or changes and I have always tried to make any I do based on accuracy of information. I visited your user page and found your introductory statement in my experience to be false, because I require guidance where the appropriate area is to get rid of this impersonator. [[User:Bacmac|Bacmac]] ([[User talk:Bacmac|talk]]) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
... and how many hours do you think it will take me to troll through and get this sorted out with my top speed of 30 words per hour? [[User:Bacmac|Bacmac]] ([[User talk:Bacmac|talk]]) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Is this the right way to respond to your barrage of questions and statements? [[User:Bacmac|Bacmac]] ([[User talk:Bacmac|talk]]) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
i DONT KNOW WHATS GOING ON HERE I just did a heap of edit and got run around .... hope this is done right , if not appologies now [[User:Bacmac|Bacmac]] ([[User talk:Bacmac|talk]]) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Capital punishment in Texas == |
== Capital punishment in Texas == |
Revision as of 16:22, 24 August 2011
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:
|
Swarcliffe
- Swarcliffe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Andreasegde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Follow-up from Talk:Swarcliffe and User talk:Harkey Lodger. Waterfox ~talk~ 14:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Can you please explain the COI? It's not very clear at the moment. All I see is that you're accusing a well established editor of a COI, produced no real evidence, and failed to notify them of this report (which I will now do). OlYellerTalktome 14:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Adapted from User talk:Harkey Lodger: User:Andreasegde has added a link on the Swarcliffe page to the page Andrew Edge, an article to which he has made an inordinate number of contributions. When checking the refs by googling, Harkey found that the Utube account for "andreasegde" is the realm of Andrew Edge. Some refs on the Andrew Edge article point to his own blog and homepage. Harkey has only checked a few of the other refs but none, so far, prove his connections with the people he mentions, just that these people exist: of which I had no doubt anyway. Putting "Andrew Edge" into Wikipedia the search box reveals an unusual number of links in other articles. Harkey thinks this may be a case of an editor being in breach of WP:COI. He has edited his own biography without declaring his interest. — Waterfox ~talk~ 15:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- The same editor has also made a lot of contributions to Drumsing, Savage Progress and Uropa Lula without declaring an interest.--Harkey (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- The important thing to remember about WP:COI is that not only is declaring a close link to the subject(s) whose article's you're editing not required, unless you show that your goals are directly conflicting with the goals of WP, there is no COI (only the possibility of a COI). You've certainly shown an apparent close relationship but I still don't see any breach of WP:COI but I don't have an intimate knowledge of the edits like I'd bet you do. Some diffs that show how the user is directly promoting their own goals over WP would certainly make things clearer. OlYellerTalktome 16:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with the mention of Edge in the Swarcliffe article: if you search Wikipedia for "Swarcliffe", he is the only person whose article is included in the 25 hits, so if that article passes notability it is reasonable for any editor to add a mention of him as a notable resident. There may be a COI with other articles. PamD (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is not with the Swarcliffe article in particular. I took this " Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest." to mean what it says. Creating articles about a group/band/artist promotes their visibility instantly because of the way Wikipedia is used across the internet as a free source of content. I do not have an intimate knowledge of the user's edits. I came across this by coincidence, when I was checking an article that he had linked to a page I was editing. I think it shows the subjects of the articles in a bad light if they are seen to be in need of free publicity. However, so be it. --Harkey (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- I mentioned Swarcliffe because that's the title of this COIN section, possibly inappropriately! I agree there may well be a lot of COI in other articles - and Chzz's research below is certainly very interesting, in terms of articles created etc. I'm not familiar enough with WP:RS in music to know whether those articles are well sourced, or pass notability. PamD (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is not with the Swarcliffe article in particular. I took this " Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest." to mean what it says. Creating articles about a group/band/artist promotes their visibility instantly because of the way Wikipedia is used across the internet as a free source of content. I do not have an intimate knowledge of the user's edits. I came across this by coincidence, when I was checking an article that he had linked to a page I was editing. I think it shows the subjects of the articles in a bad light if they are seen to be in need of free publicity. However, so be it. --Harkey (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with the mention of Edge in the Swarcliffe article: if you search Wikipedia for "Swarcliffe", he is the only person whose article is included in the 25 hits, so if that article passes notability it is reasonable for any editor to add a mention of him as a notable resident. There may be a COI with other articles. PamD (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- The important thing to remember about WP:COI is that not only is declaring a close link to the subject(s) whose article's you're editing not required, unless you show that your goals are directly conflicting with the goals of WP, there is no COI (only the possibility of a COI). You've certainly shown an apparent close relationship but I still don't see any breach of WP:COI but I don't have an intimate knowledge of the edits like I'd bet you do. Some diffs that show how the user is directly promoting their own goals over WP would certainly make things clearer. OlYellerTalktome 16:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- The same editor has also made a lot of contributions to Drumsing, Savage Progress and Uropa Lula without declaring an interest.--Harkey (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Adapted from User talk:Harkey Lodger: User:Andreasegde has added a link on the Swarcliffe page to the page Andrew Edge, an article to which he has made an inordinate number of contributions. When checking the refs by googling, Harkey found that the Utube account for "andreasegde" is the realm of Andrew Edge. Some refs on the Andrew Edge article point to his own blog and homepage. Harkey has only checked a few of the other refs but none, so far, prove his connections with the people he mentions, just that these people exist: of which I had no doubt anyway. Putting "Andrew Edge" into Wikipedia the search box reveals an unusual number of links in other articles. Harkey thinks this may be a case of an editor being in breach of WP:COI. He has edited his own biography without declaring his interest. — Waterfox ~talk~ 15:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have had a quick look, and I see a serious concern here. I checked just some of the links on Wikipedia to "Andrew Edge", and discovered that this user;
- Created Savage Progress [1] Andrew Edge (drums/background vocals)
- Added to Thompson Twins, Andrew Edge joined them on drums for about one year, but left because of the internal tension [2]
- Created Drumsing, a duo of musicians featuring Andrew Edge [3]
- Created Uropa Lula [4], a British pop group, consisting of David Lloyd (vocals and guitar), Allan Dias (bass guitar), Pete Fromm (keyboards), Andrew Edge (drums/percussion)
- Added to Tom Bailey (musician), [5] Andrew Edge played drums with them for one year before Chris Bell joined
- Added to Linz, [6] Living in Linz: [..] Andrew Edge (born in Leeds, England, 1956) musician.
- I'm sure there's lots more; I only checked a few. I don't know if I have the time to trawl through all of this. It's going to be a bit messy, I'm afraid. :-( Chzz ► 19:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- While editing under a conflict of interest certainly creates the appearance of impropriety, what is the substance of his additions to this articles? First of all, I don't think he's really hiding his real identity (Andreas Edge vs. Andrew Edge? Really? Does it take a rocket scientist to put THAT together?). Secondly, WP:COI doesn't outright ban editing articles, just that the additions need to be neutrally worded and otherwise obey Wikipedia policy. While I do note that the andreasedge account has hardly been a model citizen to this point, I think the WP:COI evidence provided above doesn't raise to the level of being damning in terms of an issue. I have minor concerns about a person who belonged to a band adding themselves to that article. It's a mild bit of vanity compared to the really eggregious WP:COI stuff we see all the time. Again, the COI is there, but I don't think this rises to the level of a bannable offense yet. Definately something to keep an eye on, but I'm not sure that (for this behavior) sanctions are in order. I would continue to encourage the Andreasedge account to be careful to avoid problems, but I still think we're in the "warn and watch" phase of this. I think we can go and clean up any unreliable sources, remove the worst of the fluff, and caution him to avoid edit warring over this. If edit warring over clean-up to these articles or WP:OWN becomes a major issue, sanctions can be considered. --Jayron32 13:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- It would be nice if the editor could at least acknowledge the COI issues here, and agree to best-practice; creation of some articles, above, is certainly a concern. Chzz ► 05:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- The editor in question has compiled a list of errors in the article on the talk page and asked me to help with the changes. Another editor has left Andreasedge a message that's something to the effect of "I have no intention of ever going through this list of errors". I'm busy today and probably won't be able to do any checking on the alleged issues until later tonight at the earliest. Is anyone else available to give this issue a look? OlYellerTalktome 11:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- It would be nice if the editor could at least acknowledge the COI issues here, and agree to best-practice; creation of some articles, above, is certainly a concern. Chzz ► 05:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- While editing under a conflict of interest certainly creates the appearance of impropriety, what is the substance of his additions to this articles? First of all, I don't think he's really hiding his real identity (Andreas Edge vs. Andrew Edge? Really? Does it take a rocket scientist to put THAT together?). Secondly, WP:COI doesn't outright ban editing articles, just that the additions need to be neutrally worded and otherwise obey Wikipedia policy. While I do note that the andreasedge account has hardly been a model citizen to this point, I think the WP:COI evidence provided above doesn't raise to the level of being damning in terms of an issue. I have minor concerns about a person who belonged to a band adding themselves to that article. It's a mild bit of vanity compared to the really eggregious WP:COI stuff we see all the time. Again, the COI is there, but I don't think this rises to the level of a bannable offense yet. Definately something to keep an eye on, but I'm not sure that (for this behavior) sanctions are in order. I would continue to encourage the Andreasedge account to be careful to avoid problems, but I still think we're in the "warn and watch" phase of this. I think we can go and clean up any unreliable sources, remove the worst of the fluff, and caution him to avoid edit warring over this. If edit warring over clean-up to these articles or WP:OWN becomes a major issue, sanctions can be considered. --Jayron32 13:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I made several edits to the article to remove promotional material and improve neutrality. After I did so, Flowingfire (talk · contribs), whose edits are almost exclusively to the Equality Ride and consist of heavily promotional material, referred to the article as "our article" on the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Equality_Ride&diff=prev&oldid=444515939 here]:
I approve of the revert that undid the damage done to this page by the user known as NYYankees. Over time, there has been a great deal of vandalism, and manufactured controversy that has caused people to attack the Equality Ride Wikipedia page. It has now been nominated for deletion twice, the page has been "blanked" several times over the years... And now, vandalism has been done by removing relevant content.
I expect this might be an ongoing problem for this page, but I just decided to fix it, replace some photos that were nominated for unjust deletion, and then comment here.
Quit vandalizing our page for political reasons. You may not like the gay rights movement or the young people showing up at your doorstep to call you out for your hateful practices, but leave the Wikipedia page alone.
Seems like a pretty clear conflict of interest - the user is an employee or otherwise affiliated with Soulforce or Equality Ride. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like you are right. I will put the article on my watchlist to ride herd on NPOV which is the crux of COI. Binksternet (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Response and Further Complaint: I am filing an official Conflict of Interest report against NYYahkees51, who I believe to be politically motivated to minimize the Equality Ride's Wikipedia page however he can. From all appearances, this user is reducing the quality of the Equality Ride page by removing relevant content, and would like to see it gone for political reasons.
Because he's a self-proclaimed creationist, pro-life Christian on his profile, NYYankees51 may have political issues with a gay rights group that visits & confronts anti-gay Christian institutions. I think this motivation is exemplified by his attempt to get the Equality Ride page deleted for almost no reason-- right after removing content.
I am not interested in seeing edits that reduce the quality of content. I'm not interested when someone says a well-written article isn't "neutral," because it's not accounting for the point of view of an anti-gay born-again Christian. Guess what? If all material about minorities had to be "neutral" against the leanings of people who hate them, then the KKK would be able to edit the articles on Judaism and say the holocaust was "questionable," because some say it never happened. This is ridiculous, and the Equality Ride article was written in a VERY neutral voice, given a neutrally-accepting perspective on LGBT rights. It has also been edited by many, many people over time.
Who wouldn't see it as neutral? Somebody who despises the gay rights movement, and demands gay people be referred to in a certain minimized or pejorative light. Sometimes a little "conflict of interest" is necessary to keep minority turf from being invaded by barbarians. If people with vested interest in diminishing the gay rights movement can freely edit articles about gay people, then I might as well go to all the minority pages and change them to fit the white perspective. That would be neutral right? No. Actually, it wouldn't be.
This issue MUST be dealt with by gay, lesbian, bi, and transgender people alone. Nobody else.
I request review by a specifically gay, lesbian, bi, or trans moderator who can resolve this conflict. Flowingfire (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- ^I rest my case. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Enforcing "neutrality" from a hateful majority perspective against a minority isn't neutrality; it's imperialism. Have you ever read 20th century writings (like Feminism) about objectivity simply being a codified majority opinion? This is a gay rights activism page. It's going to be coming from that perspective, just as all articles will generally come from a perspective. You HAVE to take that community's experiences into account, and not incorporate majority bias as part of a "neutrality" argument. No neutrality exists, ever, because the person writing something always brings their attitude to the table. That said, the article was in good "neutral-voice" for what it was. Flowingfire (talk) 03:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- An observation here. I see no reason to talk of "a hateful majority perspective". Being heterosexual doesn't equate with being homophobic. Regarding the article itself, I'll not comment, since I haven't read it as yet: maybe NYyankee51 is being 'imperialistic' (whatever that means in this context), or maybe not - that is no reason to assume that everyone who isn't LGBT is part of some oppressive regime. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Heterosexual people are not what I'm talking about. Truly, most are in fact good, and not homophobic. I'm saying this particular person is not neutral on this matter, likely due to religious and political affiliations. He will not understand the gay experience, or be able to accurately gauge neutrality. In the same way, I, being white, will never understand the "black" experience and would be a little silly to try to claim neutrality arguments against an Afro-centric page from a (potentially racist) white perspective. Flowingfire (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but sadly, one can apply the same logic to say that only Ku Klux Klan members understand the 'Klan' experience, so only Klan members should edit articles about the Klan (I believe that someone actually tried to argue this once on Wikipedia). If you have specific concerns about NYyankee, then fine, tell us what they are. You are right of course that true 'neutrality' is impossible to achieve, but that is no reason to abandon the principle that by discussion and debate, it is possible to move towards it - this is one of the principles that Wikipedia is founded on - the belief that we can agree with people who are different than ourselves. It may be hopelessly idealistic (indeed, it probably is), but our efforts seem to result in something passably useful while we fail to achieve this utopian ideal. I'd say, having looked at the article in question, that I've seen far worse, and that it doesn't look like a hatchet-job cooked up by Christian Fundamentalists to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that moving toward agreement through dialogue is a good goal, and I hope we can do that overall. It's hard when the people presenting the most challenges to a minority group's page are very much invested in minimizing us. Remember: minimization is a form of oppression. You're right-- it's not a hatchet job as is... But, half the content has just been flagged for removal, and it would be a hatchet-job without tireless effort to keep it afloat. Yes, I agree that dialogue and discussion can always move toward a greater ideal of some form of neutrality, even if true philosophical neutrality is not possible.Flowingfire (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, we seem to be getting somewhere here. Regarding the content 'flagged for removal' this seems (at least on the face of it) to be because there are no citations provided, indicating where the content is derived from: Wikipedia isn't a provider of free space for pressure groups, regardless of the justness of their cause - instead it is an online encyclopaedia, with a commitment to writing articles based on externally-verifiable third-party reliable sources. I am quite sure that your particular cause has attracted enough attention for it to be possible to find this - and if it isn't, then sadly, the problem is with the world at large, and not with Wikipedia, and you are unlikely to change much by arguing here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Most of the potential sources are on copyrighted documentaries or were on television or print media. (Like The Advocate, Washington Post, ABC News, etc, etc, etc.) "History" is rarely written about current-events. Over time, "current" news sources from print media become archived for pay or unavailable. That said, removing 3/4 of the page will do no good. Also... please respect the role of a civil rights organization instead of calling it a "pressure group?" That's pejorative. I suppose you could call King's march a "pressure group" too though... Flowingfire (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I emphasize, and also re-iterate my very, very serious request for specific review by LGBT moderators. I might not be neutral, but neither is the primary bringer of this COI notice. Somebody neutral should just go around and look for relevant sources rather than letting the whole page be deleted. Most of them are pretty well archived in pay webs, if you know where you're looking. Flowingfire (talk) 04:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- A reply to your first comment: If the potential sources are on print media, then they are exactly what we need - and being difficult to access is no reason to prevent them being cited. If they exist, and can be verified, they can be cited. As for the difference between a 'pressure group' and a 'civil rights organization', I personally believe that 'civil rights' only come about through 'group pressure' and changing economic circumstances, though I may be in a minority on this. And can you drop the endless martyrdom references please. I've heard them all before, and they do little to convince anyone of anything. If you believe in a cause, you should be able to argue it on its own merits, not by riding on the coattails of others. I've explained how Wikipedia works, I've explained what you need to do - so get searching for sources, rather than wasting time here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- And a reply to your second comment: We do not have 'moderators' on Wikipedia - this isn't an internet forum. It is an online encyclopaedia. Some contributors are administrators - and they have (at least in theory) no more right to determine article content than anyone else - they have additional powers to enforce policies arrived at by general consensus (again, hopeless utopianism, that doesn't actually work in practice, but on the way - probably by accident - helps make Wikipedia produce something vaguely useful). And we certainly don't have 'LGBT moderators' - I'm sure we have LGBT administators, but we don't hand out special powers to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation. You'll have to convince us all, gay and straight, black and white, pro-chopping-the-blunt-end-of-a-boiled-egg-off or pro-chopping-the-pointy-end-of-a-boiled-egg-off of the merits of your arguments. That is how it works here. It is a pain, but it seems to work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your time. If references are at issue, I hope somebody with a lot of time is as passionate about this article as I've been. Maybe NYYankees51 will decide to provide some references or content. In fact, that would show a great deal of commitment to the article's success on his part! I hope he's not just out to make it disappear! Flowingfire (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Note: "Flowingfire" appears to be an "Equality Rider" for the organization. I suggest that a COI is present (full cite might "out" the person, but is at soulforce.org and uses the name "flowingfire"). Cheers. The COI is found. Collect (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- FlowingFire is a single purpose account which primarily edits Equality Ride (ER) and Soulforce. Their edits are promotional in nature. They exhibit ownersip of ER. NYY presented FlowingFire's tacit admission of affiliaion with E.R. Collect has verified the affiliation. FlowingFire has presented nothing to dispute these findings. The COI is established.– Lionel (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- There's a lot to take in here, so I'll try to address matters one thing at a time.
- First of all, vandalism is one of those terms like hounding or even COI itself that are far too often misused and overused on Wikipedia. Vandalism does not mean that someone changes an article in a way you don't like, or even in a way that you think is harmful or disruptive. Vandalism only occurs when the editor is intentionally trying to damage Wikipedia. It's one of the dirtiest words on this site, and false accusations are poorly received.
- That is only the first of the claims made by FlowingFire that I find deeply disturbing. There are many statements that bother me. The allegation that NYyankees51 has a COI because of professed personal beliefs. The allegation that anyone who objects to the neutrality of the article must despise the gay rights movement. A statement like, "Sometimes a little "conflict of interest" is necessary to keep minority turf from being invaded by barbarians." Or, "This issue MUST be dealt with by gay, lesbian, bi, and transgender people alone. Nobody else." A request for resolution by "a specifically gay, lesbian, bi, or trans moderator". A demand that the article has to come from a gay rights activist perspective only, followed by a general rejection of WP:NPOV.
- In the face of all of that, the COI itself is almost irrelevant. I'll agree that the COI is fairly obvious, that the editor is affiliated with the organization. But more disturbing by far is the complete rejection of the core tenets of neutrality that Wikipedia is based upon. It's clear to me that FlowingFire is not here to improve Wikipedia, but to promote an activist agenda, this motivation is not only obvious but is practically being trumpeted. We call this soapboxing, and we quite regularly ban or block editors who engage in it. -- Atama頭 00:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Craig Mitnick
- Craig Mitnick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 71.188.67.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Anonymous user changed the wording of the article to laud the subject. They claim that they were a broadcaster with CBS, hinting personal involvement. They now refuse to have these edits reversed. KJS77 03:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- The IP has identified themselves as the subject of the article (see the edit summary). I've left a single issue notice template on their talk page about conflicts of interest. They have also violated 3RR. I expect a block to be coming soon. OlYellerTalktome 20:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. KJS77 17:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Harold Baim
- Harold Baim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Richard Jeffs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
'Richard Jeffs' is the contact name on the Baim Films website. The user of that name has just responded to my tagging the article as needing cleanup and references by removing what seems to be reasonable and uncontroversial content, links and the tags themselves. I've rolled back, but a second opinion would be useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- On reflection, I should have manually reverted with an edit summary; my bad; but the issue remains. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've been reverted again, with an edit summary describing my edits as a "malicious attack on text". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've restored the tags. I have no opinion thus far on the content so didn't fully revert Richard, but the issues being referenced in the tags are still problems. The COI is plausible here, and should be taken into consideration along with the ownership behavior; however since the article is almost completely unreferenced I don't think either of you can completely take the high road. Verifiability is the biggest problem that I can see, and if you are in a dispute between the two of you, it should be settled based on what can be backed up with reliable sources. If neither of you can provide them, then the article should probably be deleted. I'll let Richard know that this report has been filed, if he is interested in participating in this discussion constructively then perhaps we can at least begin to find a resolution. -- Atama頭 23:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Richard Jeffs just replaced the article with a short statement, " The collection is owned by Richard Jeffs who is not allowed to say what he wants to say here. Instead, please see www.baimfilms.com for information.". I've restored the last version I edited, with wikilinks and other standard improvements. I'm not sure why you're criticising me here; I tagged the article as needing references and further work. Also, "deletion is not cleanup" - we don't delete articles on cleary notable subjects just because they don't (yet) have references. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not criticizing you. I'm just pointing out that in a content dispute, it generally falls to whoever has the best claim of verifiability as to what should go in the article, and since there are no references then it's hard for either of you to make a strong claim. However, blanking out the article is a huge no-no, and I'm giving the editor a final warning for that stunt. -- Atama頭 16:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Richard replied on his user page to my messages (I moved it to his user talk page). He clearly needs some guidance in how Wikipedia works. I left him a rather long message, basically trying as best I can to explain everything a person needs to know to edit an article without stepping on the toes of other editors. I'm not sure if he'll be accepting of it, for now he seems to be treating the article as "his" page and resents other people making changes to it, and I believe it's because he owns the rights to Haim's films, and has been restoring them, and considers himself the authority on them (and he very well may be). I don't think it's due to any ill intent on his part, he just doesn't get what Wikipedia is about; "as the owner of the films I am probably the only person who can write such an article". But we'll see, I haven't given up on him yet. -- Atama頭 23:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not criticizing you. I'm just pointing out that in a content dispute, it generally falls to whoever has the best claim of verifiability as to what should go in the article, and since there are no references then it's hard for either of you to make a strong claim. However, blanking out the article is a huge no-no, and I'm giving the editor a final warning for that stunt. -- Atama頭 16:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Richard Jeffs just replaced the article with a short statement, " The collection is owned by Richard Jeffs who is not allowed to say what he wants to say here. Instead, please see www.baimfilms.com for information.". I've restored the last version I edited, with wikilinks and other standard improvements. I'm not sure why you're criticising me here; I tagged the article as needing references and further work. Also, "deletion is not cleanup" - we don't delete articles on cleary notable subjects just because they don't (yet) have references. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've restored the tags. I have no opinion thus far on the content so didn't fully revert Richard, but the issues being referenced in the tags are still problems. The COI is plausible here, and should be taken into consideration along with the ownership behavior; however since the article is almost completely unreferenced I don't think either of you can completely take the high road. Verifiability is the biggest problem that I can see, and if you are in a dispute between the two of you, it should be settled based on what can be backed up with reliable sources. If neither of you can provide them, then the article should probably be deleted. I'll let Richard know that this report has been filed, if he is interested in participating in this discussion constructively then perhaps we can at least begin to find a resolution. -- Atama頭 23:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
OUTeverywhere
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- OUTeverywhere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Fæ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Following a good faith AfD nomination, the only objector has made lots of edits that all appear one sided. This includes information that cannot be verified on the internet (thus already known, and at hand), and removal of critical text only. Additionally, when raising the AfD, the template was almost instantly removed, before I had a chance to save the discussion page, suggesting a close interest in this site. All of these things may indicate a very close association with the site, and a conflict of interest in the AfD. Teppic74 (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- This appears to be a content dispute, not a CoI issue. No evidence of CoI is provided. As explained in edit summaries the AfD template was removed, correctly, as bogus, and advice given as to how to list correctly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not certain where the lack of evidence is? Lots of edits all in favour of the website in question, and some containing very specific information that cannot be obtained or verified on the Internet. If this doesn't show evidence of a close relationship with the site, why not? As for the AfD, it was deleted 3 minutes after I saved the page. Teppic74 (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Favoring a viewpoint doesn't constitute a conflict of interest. I haven't viewed the edits but unless you can show that Fae has a close connection to the subject, this is a content dispute and/or POV pushing at worst. Do you have any evidence that shows that Fae has a close connection to the subject of the article? Fae is an administrator and an OTRS team member and I don't think that accusing such a person of a conflict of interest with no actual evidence and without notifying them is out of line. OlYellerTalktome 14:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- The claim that I have access to specific information is an interesting one, Teppic74 could you point out a diff where you think this is the case. I do have access to LexisNexis, this may be the source of your suspicion, but the newspapers are public records and I need no affiliation with the organization to look at them or any particular special knowledge to search out articles using keyword matches. Fæ (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I mentioned this in the discussion and was asked to bring it here instead. I am stating a concern based on behaviour with regard to this article. An administrator can still have a conflict of interest; I am just presenting a suspicion with the reasons for that. Teppic74 (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I never said that an admin can't have a COI but you have presented zero evidence, not even a diff, of even POV pushing or any sort of activity that is against WP's goals. For there to be a COI, there must be evidence that Fae is showing that advancing outside interests is more important to him/her than advancing the aims of Wikipedia and that they have a close relationship with the subject (otherwise it's just POV pushing). You haven't provided any actual evidence of either so to me, it's like if I go to a cop and say, "Teppic is selling drugs out of his basement! Go search his house!" with providing zero evidence of that claim or telling you that I made such a claim.
- All I can tell you is that it's doubtful that someone will help you if you provide no actual evidence (diffs) to support your claim. OlYellerTalktome 15:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I mentioned this in the discussion and was asked to bring it here instead. I am stating a concern based on behaviour with regard to this article. An administrator can still have a conflict of interest; I am just presenting a suspicion with the reasons for that. Teppic74 (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- The claim that I have access to specific information is an interesting one, Teppic74 could you point out a diff where you think this is the case. I do have access to LexisNexis, this may be the source of your suspicion, but the newspapers are public records and I need no affiliation with the organization to look at them or any particular special knowledge to search out articles using keyword matches. Fæ (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Favoring a viewpoint doesn't constitute a conflict of interest. I haven't viewed the edits but unless you can show that Fae has a close connection to the subject, this is a content dispute and/or POV pushing at worst. Do you have any evidence that shows that Fae has a close connection to the subject of the article? Fae is an administrator and an OTRS team member and I don't think that accusing such a person of a conflict of interest with no actual evidence and without notifying them is out of line. OlYellerTalktome 14:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not certain where the lack of evidence is? Lots of edits all in favour of the website in question, and some containing very specific information that cannot be obtained or verified on the Internet. If this doesn't show evidence of a close relationship with the site, why not? As for the AfD, it was deleted 3 minutes after I saved the page. Teppic74 (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Ian Cooper (Violinist)
- Ian Cooper (Violinist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ianjazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 115.30.45.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User creating and editing their own autobiography after they have declaired ownership and have been warned regarding COI. They appear to be editing both as an IP and an account (IP declares ownership on article discussion page, account userpage forwards to the article). For both accounts, all edits have been promoting Ian Cooper. Notability is borderline (lots of namedropping). Clovis Sangrail (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- I found the link where the IP claims to be the subject of the article ([7]). Do we have any concrete information (diffs) that the account belongs to the IP? The userpage redirect is due to the user creating the article in their userspace then moving it to mainspace. Also, the account and IP never claim ownership in edits or edit summaries. I've gone through every single edit by the account and IP. I personally feel that the subject at least fulfills WP:BAND point 12 by being featured by a nationally syndicated program and probably WP:GNG. The article isn't overly advertorial but there is a good amount of fluff that probably doesn't need to be there. OlYellerTalktome 12:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Just through a cursory look at the contributions of the IP and the account, I find it very implausible that they are the same person. From around 12:00 (UTC) on August 18 to just after 13:30, both the account and IP were continuously active, with a half dozen edits from the IP and over a dozen from the account within minutes of each other in that timeframe. If the IP was just the account logged out, then Ianjazz would have had to somehow log out, make an edit, then log in right away, over and over again. It's possible that Ianjazz was on two computers simultaneously, or two browsers on the same computer, and switching back and forth, but that's a lot of effort to maintain such duplicity and I don't see the purpose of it. It's certainly not a simple case of a person with an account being logged out temporarily and making edits.
- I think the most plausible explanation is that these are two different people. They also don't have any overlap in the topics they edit, aside from the Ian Cooper article itself. They could be coordinating off-wiki in some way, maybe, it seems a bit coincidental that they both stopped editing at almost the same exact time (around 13:30 (UTC) on August 18). That would then mean that the IP is Cooper, and the account is someone that Cooper knows that created the article for him. But again, this is just speculation on my part. -- Atama頭 16:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- The ip is Ian Cooper, as he stated this in the article discussion page (which has now been removed). If Ian Jazz is not him, then its likely that it is a PR firm or the like (since its has linked to images which were uploaded to commons 5 minutes earlier by Ian Cooper (19 Aug). -- Regardless, how should these edits be treated? There are clear whitewash / Autobiog issues, and both accounts ignore engagement and edit articles only related to Ian Cooper. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- The IP claims to be Ian. I'll take his word for it, I don't see why not at this point. I'm just wondering, are there any edits that are particularly problematic? I've done a random sample from both editors and haven't seen anything particularly alarming. Not that the COI should be ignored (and if there is no COI then I'm a ham sandwich) but if the end result is that the encyclopedia gets fleshed out with some extra information on a potentially notable subject that might need some cleanup afterward, should we try to hinder that? -- Atama頭 02:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- It depends on whether we want wikipedia to be objective and unbiased I suppose. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia will never be completely objective and unbiased, see WP:BIAS for numerous examples. Nor can any editor be 100% unbiased, I sure am not. On the other hand, we can judge the neutrality of a person's content contributions, which is one thing we usually do where a COI exists. That's why I'm trying to find specific examples here. -- Atama頭 16:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- It depends on whether we want wikipedia to be objective and unbiased I suppose. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- The IP claims to be Ian. I'll take his word for it, I don't see why not at this point. I'm just wondering, are there any edits that are particularly problematic? I've done a random sample from both editors and haven't seen anything particularly alarming. Not that the COI should be ignored (and if there is no COI then I'm a ham sandwich) but if the end result is that the encyclopedia gets fleshed out with some extra information on a potentially notable subject that might need some cleanup afterward, should we try to hinder that? -- Atama頭 02:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- The ip is Ian Cooper, as he stated this in the article discussion page (which has now been removed). If Ian Jazz is not him, then its likely that it is a PR firm or the like (since its has linked to images which were uploaded to commons 5 minutes earlier by Ian Cooper (19 Aug). -- Regardless, how should these edits be treated? There are clear whitewash / Autobiog issues, and both accounts ignore engagement and edit articles only related to Ian Cooper. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think the most plausible explanation is that these are two different people. They also don't have any overlap in the topics they edit, aside from the Ian Cooper article itself. They could be coordinating off-wiki in some way, maybe, it seems a bit coincidental that they both stopped editing at almost the same exact time (around 13:30 (UTC) on August 18). That would then mean that the IP is Cooper, and the account is someone that Cooper knows that created the article for him. But again, this is just speculation on my part. -- Atama頭 16:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ir Ovot
- Ir Ovot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ir Ovot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This is a single-issue user whose user name is the same as the article he is editing. I think it's worth keeping a watch on this user. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- It's good to know. I'll note that the article subject is a kibbutz that was dissolved almost 20 years ago, so the username couldn't really be considered promotional or representative of an organization (similar to someone named Troy editing Troy). There might not actually be a COI at all, they may have been motivated to edit Wikipedia simply to edit a single article, and so picked the article's name as a username. On the other hand, regardless of the COI, their edits removed a lot of information without explanation. Their sole contribution is a single burst of edits, and we'll have to see if they repeat the behavior. If not, no worries. -- Atama頭 23:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Images in multiple articles
- Multiple articles
I wasn't sure where to bring this issue - conflict of interest seems to be the closest. It appears that some narcissist has given his personal collection of ephemera/kitsch the pretentious name of "The Cooper Collections," adding images of pieces of the collection to dozens of articles (examples below). The problem is threefold: (1.) There is a legitimate Cooper Collection, so the name of this pseudocollection confuses the matter; (2.) The owner of the "Cooper Collections" has added a note to each of the many images in the articles that the image is courtesy of the "Cooper Collections." This doesn't pass WP:MOS muster, does it? and (3.) In many (most?) instances, the images add nothing to the article, serving as little more than litter. Mass Construction (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- 20th Century Limited
- Alan Cobham
- Albert Sammt
- Boeing 314
- Cachet
- China Clipper
- Dick Merrill
- Duralumin
- Ed Musick
- Empire State Express
- Fairchild FC-2
- Grand Central Airport (United States)
- Hindenburg disaster
- Imperial Airways
- Lignum vitae
- Maddux Air Lines
- Maritime history of California
- Martin M-130
- Panama Canal Railway
- Sesquicentennial Exposition
- Ted Scott Flying Stories
- Varney Air Lines
- Wiley Post
Yele_Haiti
- Yéle_Haiti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Wyclef Jean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- CindyTanenbaum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
CindyTanenbaum has created and been editing the article Yéle_Haiti. This article was forked out from the Wyclef Jean article. There were a lot of questions about this organization's finances in the past, and this information was included in the Wyclef Jean article. This information was correctly removed when the Yéle_Haiti article was created, but didn't end up in the new article. After restoring it to the new article, and being reverted without explanation by CindyTanenbaum, I was curious and searched for her and Yéle_Haiti in google. I quickly found a press release from Yéle_Haiti that listed a Cindy Tanenbaum as the Point of Contact. I am unsure how to proceed from this point. Sperril (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Between your notice that you brought the situation here and the warning I just placed, I think the best plan now would be to wait and see how she reacts. I've put the page on my watch list and can help you restore the sourced text if she or someone else attempts to whitewash again. We should report back here if we see anything else suspicious.
- For the record, I've confirmed what you've found. While it could possibly be another Cindy Tanenbaum that's not related to the subject, I think the duck test applies here. OlYellerTalktome 23:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help! I just noticed that OTRS has confirmed that her previously copyvio tagged edits were properly released to the wiki. I think that establishes who she is at this point. Sorry I couldn't find the right template. I'm still learning when it comes to project tasks. Sperril (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Flemish Giant rabbits
- Template:Flemish Giant rabbit
- username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The article was tagged as having weasel words.Not only that, but much of the info is painfully incorrect. When I tried to fix it, Red Rover an Admin banned me from changing the text, I assume they may have written the article? The info needs to be changed as someone may read this and think you can feed a rabbit leafy greens, you can't it will kill them, or that a rabbits pelvic bone fuses, it does not.These are but a few examples of the misinformation on that page. My email is mzbunny@frontier.com, my website to show Im knowledgeable on this subject is www.pet-rabbit.netfirms.com IaJewel (talk) 09:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Firstly I fail to see how this is a conflict of interest so question why it is listed here and not on the article's talk page. Secondly your edits to Flemish Giant have been reverted by five different editors including myself and one bot. Despite repeated warnings you neither responded on the article's talk page, nor your own talk page. Subsequent to your edit warring you have now been blocked for 24 hours. I suggest you take this time out to read about the Wikipedia policies posted on your talk page, or engage there in a constructive discussion to understand why you have been blocked and what you can do to make positive, well sourced, changes to the article in question. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 09:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Gompertz–Makeham law of mortality
- Gompertz–Makeham law of mortality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Gavrilov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Since April 2007, adding mentions of/Amazon links to medical books authored by Leonid A. Gavrilov & Natalia S. Gavrilova. User page is a lengthy CV of Dr. Leonid A. Gavrilov. --CliffC (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Also,
- 128.135.241.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Note also article Leonid Gavrilov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), created 14 August. I'm not questioning Dr. Gavrilov's notability, I'm just pointing out the promotional aspects of all this. --CliffC (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- The user page at User:Gavrilov is clearly in breach of the WP:UP guidelines (it's basically a CV and therefore promotional) and I have tagged it for speedy deletion accordingly. – ukexpat (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- I deleted the userpage. I'd like to ask, though, that we handle Dr. Gavrilov with a bit of tact, unless and until he (or she, if this is Natalia) becomes willfully disruptive (ignoring requests to discuss things, attacking other editors, etc.). I do have concerns about the relentless spam, the editor's contributions are questionable at best, but I also hate chasing away subject matter experts for COI reasons. -- Atama頭 19:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Hundredth (band)
- Hundredth (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- CharlesManies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
See post on the talk page of the article. In addition, the article was apparently mentioned by the band on their Facebook page while it was tagged for speedy deletion. I'm requesting at least a few extra eyes on the article. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- I commented on the article's talk page about the band's notability; essentially the claim that it met WP:BAND criterion number 5. (The band has only released one album, and I'm not convinced that the label is a notable one.) -- Atama頭 19:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Would listing it at AfD be appropriate? After putting it on my watchlist via NPP, I've noticed the only substantial edits were by apparent SPAs and IPs. It also appears that the subject fails WP:BAND, though admittedly I haven't done a proper WP:BEFORE check yet. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- There's nothing that would make the AfD inappropriate, but I do strongly encourage you to check for sources just in case. I highly doubt you'll find anything but you never know, I've been surprised myself more than once by finding good references for a subject that I wouldn't expect to have any. -- Atama頭 19:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Would listing it at AfD be appropriate? After putting it on my watchlist via NPP, I've noticed the only substantial edits were by apparent SPAs and IPs. It also appears that the subject fails WP:BAND, though admittedly I haven't done a proper WP:BEFORE check yet. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I Am Equal (photo documentary) spamming
- User:Steinway1701 is doing nothing but advertising this project all over Wikipedia. Since one of their goals is to get tens of thousands of participants, and he/she wants to add non-free pictures from the project (which advertise the project as well as the subject) to the articles on every notable participant, the clutter factor is getting pretty appalling. I've given him/her templated anti-spam and COI warnings, and added a link to WP:NOBLECAUSE. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like a G11 to me. It appears to be notable but at this point, it could only be more spammy if there was a link towards the top of the page pointing to a donation website. OlYellerTalktome 16:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, and have tagged it as such. – ukexpat (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Although, I guess G11 won't solve the presented issue. The editor has been painting the same information all over WP. I've been going through their contributions but it looks like it's all been cleaned up so far (they added the info to very high traffic articles that are highly monitored by other editors). Eventually, the files they have uploaded won't be linked to anything and deleted unless someone wants to take the initiative for copyvio checking/tagging/deleting. I'll keep looking through their contribs for missed spamming but an admin can watch their future contributions and take whatever action they see fit for the spammery. I'll make sure all the past spamming is dealt with. OlYellerTalktome 16:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Finished checking past contribs. Looks like Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) took care of almost all of their article contribs (I didn't check files/photos). High five him if you get a chance. OlYellerTalktome 17:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Although, I guess G11 won't solve the presented issue. The editor has been painting the same information all over WP. I've been going through their contributions but it looks like it's all been cleaned up so far (they added the info to very high traffic articles that are highly monitored by other editors). Eventually, the files they have uploaded won't be linked to anything and deleted unless someone wants to take the initiative for copyvio checking/tagging/deleting. I'll keep looking through their contribs for missed spamming but an admin can watch their future contributions and take whatever action they see fit for the spammery. I'll make sure all the past spamming is dealt with. OlYellerTalktome 16:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, and have tagged it as such. – ukexpat (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- It is not my intention to be SPAMING Wikipedia or to be "cluttering" the site. My only reason for joining this community in the first place was because I was introduced to the I Am Equal photo documentary recently on Facebook, saw that Chelsea Handler had participated, posted on her Facebook, and her website about the campaign, and was surprised to see that it had not yet been added Wikipedia. Understanding the importance of citations, I researched the project, and gathered over 50 news articles and reports before beginning to build the article and then went through a rather clumsy learning curve to get the information into Wikipedia. Editing, citations, and formatting in wiki is all new to me and I'll admit, I have had to make many (minor and otherwise) changes to the article to get it where I thought it was matching other materials on the site. I have done my best to be thorough in my citations. I acknowledge that I may have done too many since after adding traditional news citations, I also searched the web for more details to verify references to events or individuals mentioned in the article, and added more citation references to galleries, and press releases. I thought they were relevant and supportive to the details being shared. There also seems to be some concern about my trying to add reference to the photo documentary on other wikipedia articles. I'll admit, if this is a problem then it's a result of my ignorance to the terminology of the site. While I was building the initial article, an administrator added the ORPHAN template to the top of the page indicating that there were no other articles linking to the page. I took that to mean I needed to go and create those connections (because they don't just make themselves). So naturally, I proceeded to the articles of the individuals, groups, and corporations mentioned in the main article and added a brief paragraph and link to the documentary page. It seemed to be exactly what the Orphan template had told me to do. Unfortunately, another administrator followed me around the site and systematically removed the references without explaining to me the problem or how to resolve the Orphan issue without adding references to other articles. Regarding the use of non-Free images, I must claim ignorance again. I thought that it made sense to supply the image of the individual, celebrity, or group referenced in the article as additional support for the fact that they had participated in the campaign. It's clearly my novice mistake to assume that an article should have as much support material as possible. As such, I attempted to upload the appropriate images that I found in the project gallery and include them in the article or associated article references. Of course, another admin was quick to remove the images and tried to explain the licensing issues associated with it. I attempted to navigate my way through the licensing and non-Free use materials to better understand the issue, but I'll admit, I'm still not totally clear on the procedures (though I think I understand the Fair Use Rational process for non-Free images). Needless to say, I am new to wikipedia and not completely versed in the process of adding, editing, and referencing articles in the system. Although I am new (and this article process was less then elegant), I still hold that the I Am Equal (photo documentary) is a noteworthy project that belongs in wikipedia. I'm happy to leave it to the admins to create the associated links to other articles as they see fit and add related images when appropriate, because I just don't get the rules of that process. As a wikipedia user, I feel the article is relevant based solely on how I heard about it. It took very little research for me to find out that this campaign is much bigger than I thought and something these individual participants are proud to be part of. My research lead me to websites, news articles, and phone calls to documentary office so I was absolutely clear on what the campaign is, how it works, what the intention is, and how long it will be going on. I included all my research notes in the article and built as complete an entry as I possibly could. I feel invested in the article simply because of the time, effort, research, and verification I put in knowing this is my first article on wikipedia and wanting it to be complete. In my naivete, I though that the research would be the hard part and adding the article to wikipedia would be easy, but I was wrong. Getting this article into the site, dealing with the admins, automatic template messages, talk pages, moving conversations, conflicting instructions, and threats of deletion have been more than I was expecting. I'd like to see the best article possible about the I Am Equal photo documentary on the site as possible so when other users come here to research (as I did initially after seeing the information on Chelsea Handler's facebook page) can get a complete understanding of the campaign. I'd also like to think that as the campaign grows over the years and new celebrities, groups, and corporations participate in the project, that information can be added to the article. Perhaps I am not the best person to do that because of my ignorance to the process, but perhaps someone else (an admin, maybe) will take up the responsibilty of keeping this article current and accurate for future readers. Steinway1701 (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hey Steinway. There are several problems with the article as it stands. As a new editor, no one really expects you to know all of the policies and guidelines that rule WP so don't feel like you've done something that can't be fixed. First off, for the subject to be included, it must satisfy an inclusion guideline found at WP:Notability which I'm almost certain that it does. Secondly, the article's information must be WP:Verifiable and non-bias (which is where the advertising-ish content is a problem). As of right now, the article reads like an advertisement and not so much like part of an encyclopedia (the links and prose of the text contribute the most to that in my opinion). Most importantly, even if the article is deleted, that doesn't mean that content is gone. We can WP:userfy it for you and put it in your userspace to work on until it's ready for mainspace. I certainly appreciate that you want to make the best article possible from I Am Equal. WP's goal is to have the best encyclopedic article for notable subjects as well. We just need to make sure that your goals and WP's goals line up. I highly doubt you want anything other than that so I'm sure we'll be able to get this worked out. Does that make sense so far? OlYellerTalktome 17:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- I understand that everyone is committed to maintaining Wikipedia as a credible resource for information and a neutral space for all users. I know that there is a learning curve for entering the world of wiki and I have done my best to get through that as best I can. There are so many admins now focusing on what I have done (and what I was doing) that I am surprised none of them actually contacted me to explain the errors I was making BEFORE suggesting the article be deleted. They were quick to delete my work, suggest deletions, and remove links...but never actually work with me to resolve the issues. As a result, I feel like I am now chasing around this site, answering allegations of SPAM and promotion, fighting deletion, etc when much of this could have been mitigated with conversation and explanation. I'll be honest, I'm quite disillusioned by this whole process. At this point, it's getting so that I feel that the process is stacked against me at this time and there is nothing I can do to make this right. The fact is, the article is noteworthy. It's written from resources and news I found about the project. I probably included too much detail (because of the exhaustive research I did before starting this process) and thus called down the ire of the admins who now seem hell-bent on deleting the article completely rather than using their expertise to resolve the issues (or at the very least converse with me about the problems). I have initiated Talk conversations on a few of these admins walls and they are left unanswered. Instead, I find a new action has been taken against my work. It's frustrating. I'm doing my best to remember that everyone just wants to keep wikipedia clean and free of promotional spam...but the whole process seems more vindictive, exclusionary, and passive aggressive than I would have expected from a community-driven initiative. At this point, I don't know what I want to do. Steinway1701 (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- While I can't pretend to know how you feel right now, when I made my first article, it was quickly deleted and I felt helpless and prosecuted. I really don't want you to feel like that. Deletion doesn't mean anyone is blowing things away with a bazooka. No one is mad at you or what you've done. It's incredibly common for new users and I would be that 80% of users who start out here, have mad the same mistakes. Deleting the article for now is more like making it not visible to regular users until we can address a few issues. The subject does appear notable ([WP's "notable" is well defined and may be different than you think). No one is hell-bent on deletion; quite the contrary. I (not an admin) am doing my best to help you and WP by taking the steps necessary to make sure that the article complies with WP's policies and guidelines. The harsh nature probably comes from people doing lots of things at one time. The lag in communication is very common on WP but it's important to remember that nothing is permanent. Articles deleted 5 years ago can be brought back to mainspace with a few clicks of a mouse.
- I suggest taking a break for a few hours or a day. From my experience, people aren't being quite as aggressive as you are perceiving. There are plenty of people here that want to help you create an article; we're all here to improve WP. I'll gladly lend my WP experience to you to help you with the article. Would you like me to help? Again, I'd be more than happy to help. I can userfy the article for you so that we can work on it together. OlYellerTalktome 18:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- It seems best that one of the more capable admins can write this article better than me. I'll make it easy and supply links to all the news articles I found about the project that started me down this path to begin with. I'd rather it get entered into the site in the correct way than continue to blindly stumble through the process and be slapped down as a new contributor at every turn. Steinway1701 (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- What makes you think that an admin needs to even be involved in this process? It's very unlikely that anyone will write this article for you. I've been jumping through hoops to explain things to you, extend an olive branch, and help you create a good article. To keep saying that you're being "slapped down" or suggesting that I'm not able to help you is quite frankly offensive. Feel free to ask around for help and I hope you find someone. If you want my help, I'm here for the asking. OlYellerTalktome 18:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- OlYeller you have been awesome, and I have learned more from you and the time you have taken to explain this process than anyone else, and I truly appreciate everything you have said. It's that kind of attention and guidance I could have used 3 days ago when all this madness started. I guess I imagined Wikipedia was populated by OlYeller-type people who want to make sure it's a collaborative environment that is welcoming to new contributors...but that hasn't been my experience until now. I'm happy to take a stab at getting the article up to snuff in an area of the site that is not publicly accessible (since many admins seem to agree that my article is a gross misuse of the wikipedia site). I honestly have no idea what is involved in that, nor how to move it from that testing area back into the main site when I'm done. Whatever you think is best is what I'll do. Steinway1701 (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- So, now some other admin has deleted the page. I've actually lost track of all the different admins who have jumped in on this article with different instructions, actions, and motives. I'd like to work on the page and get it up to snuff with wikipedia, but the whole process is seeming convoluted and inconsistent. So many admins with broad discretionary powers to move, change, and adjust content without question, discussion, or explanation is not a very collaborative approach for a site that seems to be built by the masses. It's looking more like a small group of admins do whatever they please with very little interest in cultivating new users and contributions. It's disappointing to say the least. I'm comforted in having found OlYeller in this process. Maybe there is still hope that there are genuinely collaboratively-minded individuals in the Wikipedia world and there's a chance for new people like me to make a positive contribution in the end. Steinway1701 (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hey. I've asked the deleting admin to move it to your userspace. Either he or I will let you know when it's there. From there, we can work on it. I've got a deadline coming up at work here in a few hours and need to focus on that but I'll be back later to help out. If anyone else is available, they'll be able to help as well.
- As for the report on this page, I don't see that Steinway is closely related to the subject so I don't believe there's a COI. I'll be helping Steinway with editing so I personally consider the COI matter closed (no need to worry about this part, Steinway). OlYellerTalktome 20:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The text has now been userfied at User:Steinway1701/I Am Equal (photo documentary). – ukexpat (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'd like to clarify for you, Steinway1701, what the role of an administrator is on Wikipedia (the quick-and-easy version). Administrators are individuals who have some additional tools that other editors don't. The main tools, the ones that are used the most, are the ability to block and unblock another editor (blocking prevents the person from being able to edit Wikipedia), delete or undelete pages, and protect or unprotect pages (which can prevent some or all people from editing a page for a particular duration). Administrators don't have any special authority over content. If I don't like a paragraph on an article, I don't have any more right to change it than you do. The ability to change content without discussion is a right that all editors can enjoy, including you. The discussion occurs when two or more people disagree on the content. And again, administrators are on an equal footing with everyone else in those discussions.
- I would have chimed in earlier to this discussion but I was busy with real life issues, so I apologize for coming in late. However, I wanted to point out that if the subject of the article meets our inclusion criteria, that a recreation of the article should certainly be possible. Very little that is added to Wikipedia is lost forever, even deleted pages can be restored later. The article that was deleted has been restored to your userspace. It sounds like the issue is that the article was worded in a way to sound promotional. I'm sure that wasn't your intent, and only came about because you were so enthusiastic about the documentary. That enthusiasm which inspired you to create the article in the first place was a double-edged sword, unfortunately.
- I'd like you to understand why the article was deleted, and that it shouldn't reflect a prejudice against your efforts or the documentary. Wikipedia does everything it can to be credible, because an encyclopedia that can't be trusted is worthless. That credibility is difficult to maintain when the encyclopedia can be edited by anyone. Some people add information that is well-meaning but harmful, while others see the site as a way to spread hoaxes or attack people. We have certain criteria for speedy deletion that can lead to a quick deletion of a page without prior discussion if the content of that page can potentially cause harm. Those criteria include such obviously problematic issues as violations of copyright (which can lead to legal action if left unchecked) or pages that attack real living people (which can not only harm Wikipedia, but others as well). More subtle problems are also listed, such as overly-promotional articles. Those articles hurt Wikipedia's credibility by giving the appearance that Wikipedia is an advocate, or an advertiser, and not a neutral presenter of information.
- By moving the article out of the main space to a less-visible area, that promotional language can be improved with the goal being to return the article to the main space for others to enjoy. Sometimes people will create articles with the sole intention of promoting a person, organization, or product (and many of those people are hired public relations personnel), and in those cases we delete the article with no intention of restoring it, and if the person persists in recreating the article or adding the promotion elsewhere we may block them from editing. You're clearly not one of those people, and you should expect and I hope you experience that others like OlYeller will be willing to help you learn the ropes here. -- Atama頭 21:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Atama I appreciate the time you, OlYeller, Orange Mike, and others have made in getting this article in the right place and recognizing that I have been simply trying to be a positive contributor to a site that I have come to value and use on a daily basis. Clearly there is a learning curve and the admins are people too...who have the added burden of keeping Wikipedia a reliable source for content information around the world. I'd love to think that I can be come an expert in just 4 days (when I started this process) but there is much more work for me to do. I'll get into the article that was moved to my user space and see if I can make it better. I'll admit that the language is clunky because I felt such an urgency to get it up and available that I didn't have time to re-edit it before the army of admins started tearing it apart. Maybe now I will have the luxury of time to resolve the concerns made through this 3-day marathon of wiki-madness and the resulting article will be something we can all be proud of. Regards, Steinway1701 (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
User: Bruce Cairney
- Article name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Bacmac (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
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:
|
Swarcliffe
- Swarcliffe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Andreasegde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Follow-up from Talk:Swarcliffe and User talk:Harkey Lodger. Waterfox ~talk~ 14:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Can you please explain the COI? It's not very clear at the moment. All I see is that you're accusing a well established editor of a COI, produced no real evidence, and failed to notify them of this report (which I will now do). OlYellerTalktome 14:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Adapted from User talk:Harkey Lodger: User:Andreasegde has added a link on the Swarcliffe page to the page Andrew Edge, an article to which he has made an inordinate number of contributions. When checking the refs by googling, Harkey found that the Utube account for "andreasegde" is the realm of Andrew Edge. Some refs on the Andrew Edge article point to his own blog and homepage. Harkey has only checked a few of the other refs but none, so far, prove his connections with the people he mentions, just that these people exist: of which I had no doubt anyway. Putting "Andrew Edge" into Wikipedia the search box reveals an unusual number of links in other articles. Harkey thinks this may be a case of an editor being in breach of WP:COI. He has edited his own biography without declaring his interest. — Waterfox ~talk~ 15:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- The same editor has also made a lot of contributions to Drumsing, Savage Progress and Uropa Lula without declaring an interest.--Harkey (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- The important thing to remember about WP:COI is that not only is declaring a close link to the subject(s) whose article's you're editing not required, unless you show that your goals are directly conflicting with the goals of WP, there is no COI (only the possibility of a COI). You've certainly shown an apparent close relationship but I still don't see any breach of WP:COI but I don't have an intimate knowledge of the edits like I'd bet you do. Some diffs that show how the user is directly promoting their own goals over WP would certainly make things clearer. OlYellerTalktome 16:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with the mention of Edge in the Swarcliffe article: if you search Wikipedia for "Swarcliffe", he is the only person whose article is included in the 25 hits, so if that article passes notability it is reasonable for any editor to add a mention of him as a notable resident. There may be a COI with other articles. PamD (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is not with the Swarcliffe article in particular. I took this " Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest." to mean what it says. Creating articles about a group/band/artist promotes their visibility instantly because of the way Wikipedia is used across the internet as a free source of content. I do not have an intimate knowledge of the user's edits. I came across this by coincidence, when I was checking an article that he had linked to a page I was editing. I think it shows the subjects of the articles in a bad light if they are seen to be in need of free publicity. However, so be it. --Harkey (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- I mentioned Swarcliffe because that's the title of this COIN section, possibly inappropriately! I agree there may well be a lot of COI in other articles - and Chzz's research below is certainly very interesting, in terms of articles created etc. I'm not familiar enough with WP:RS in music to know whether those articles are well sourced, or pass notability. PamD (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is not with the Swarcliffe article in particular. I took this " Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest." to mean what it says. Creating articles about a group/band/artist promotes their visibility instantly because of the way Wikipedia is used across the internet as a free source of content. I do not have an intimate knowledge of the user's edits. I came across this by coincidence, when I was checking an article that he had linked to a page I was editing. I think it shows the subjects of the articles in a bad light if they are seen to be in need of free publicity. However, so be it. --Harkey (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with the mention of Edge in the Swarcliffe article: if you search Wikipedia for "Swarcliffe", he is the only person whose article is included in the 25 hits, so if that article passes notability it is reasonable for any editor to add a mention of him as a notable resident. There may be a COI with other articles. PamD (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- The important thing to remember about WP:COI is that not only is declaring a close link to the subject(s) whose article's you're editing not required, unless you show that your goals are directly conflicting with the goals of WP, there is no COI (only the possibility of a COI). You've certainly shown an apparent close relationship but I still don't see any breach of WP:COI but I don't have an intimate knowledge of the edits like I'd bet you do. Some diffs that show how the user is directly promoting their own goals over WP would certainly make things clearer. OlYellerTalktome 16:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- The same editor has also made a lot of contributions to Drumsing, Savage Progress and Uropa Lula without declaring an interest.--Harkey (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Adapted from User talk:Harkey Lodger: User:Andreasegde has added a link on the Swarcliffe page to the page Andrew Edge, an article to which he has made an inordinate number of contributions. When checking the refs by googling, Harkey found that the Utube account for "andreasegde" is the realm of Andrew Edge. Some refs on the Andrew Edge article point to his own blog and homepage. Harkey has only checked a few of the other refs but none, so far, prove his connections with the people he mentions, just that these people exist: of which I had no doubt anyway. Putting "Andrew Edge" into Wikipedia the search box reveals an unusual number of links in other articles. Harkey thinks this may be a case of an editor being in breach of WP:COI. He has edited his own biography without declaring his interest. — Waterfox ~talk~ 15:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have had a quick look, and I see a serious concern here. I checked just some of the links on Wikipedia to "Andrew Edge", and discovered that this user;
- Created Savage Progress [8] Andrew Edge (drums/background vocals)
- Added to Thompson Twins, Andrew Edge joined them on drums for about one year, but left because of the internal tension [9]
- Created Drumsing, a duo of musicians featuring Andrew Edge [10]
- Created Uropa Lula [11], a British pop group, consisting of David Lloyd (vocals and guitar), Allan Dias (bass guitar), Pete Fromm (keyboards), Andrew Edge (drums/percussion)
- Added to Tom Bailey (musician), [12] Andrew Edge played drums with them for one year before Chris Bell joined
- Added to Linz, [13] Living in Linz: [..] Andrew Edge (born in Leeds, England, 1956) musician.
- I'm sure there's lots more; I only checked a few. I don't know if I have the time to trawl through all of this. It's going to be a bit messy, I'm afraid. :-( Chzz ► 19:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- While editing under a conflict of interest certainly creates the appearance of impropriety, what is the substance of his additions to this articles? First of all, I don't think he's really hiding his real identity (Andreas Edge vs. Andrew Edge? Really? Does it take a rocket scientist to put THAT together?). Secondly, WP:COI doesn't outright ban editing articles, just that the additions need to be neutrally worded and otherwise obey Wikipedia policy. While I do note that the andreasedge account has hardly been a model citizen to this point, I think the WP:COI evidence provided above doesn't raise to the level of being damning in terms of an issue. I have minor concerns about a person who belonged to a band adding themselves to that article. It's a mild bit of vanity compared to the really eggregious WP:COI stuff we see all the time. Again, the COI is there, but I don't think this rises to the level of a bannable offense yet. Definately something to keep an eye on, but I'm not sure that (for this behavior) sanctions are in order. I would continue to encourage the Andreasedge account to be careful to avoid problems, but I still think we're in the "warn and watch" phase of this. I think we can go and clean up any unreliable sources, remove the worst of the fluff, and caution him to avoid edit warring over this. If edit warring over clean-up to these articles or WP:OWN becomes a major issue, sanctions can be considered. --Jayron32 13:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- It would be nice if the editor could at least acknowledge the COI issues here, and agree to best-practice; creation of some articles, above, is certainly a concern. Chzz ► 05:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- The editor in question has compiled a list of errors in the article on the talk page and asked me to help with the changes. Another editor has left Andreasedge a message that's something to the effect of "I have no intention of ever going through this list of errors". I'm busy today and probably won't be able to do any checking on the alleged issues until later tonight at the earliest. Is anyone else available to give this issue a look? OlYellerTalktome 11:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- It would be nice if the editor could at least acknowledge the COI issues here, and agree to best-practice; creation of some articles, above, is certainly a concern. Chzz ► 05:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- While editing under a conflict of interest certainly creates the appearance of impropriety, what is the substance of his additions to this articles? First of all, I don't think he's really hiding his real identity (Andreas Edge vs. Andrew Edge? Really? Does it take a rocket scientist to put THAT together?). Secondly, WP:COI doesn't outright ban editing articles, just that the additions need to be neutrally worded and otherwise obey Wikipedia policy. While I do note that the andreasedge account has hardly been a model citizen to this point, I think the WP:COI evidence provided above doesn't raise to the level of being damning in terms of an issue. I have minor concerns about a person who belonged to a band adding themselves to that article. It's a mild bit of vanity compared to the really eggregious WP:COI stuff we see all the time. Again, the COI is there, but I don't think this rises to the level of a bannable offense yet. Definately something to keep an eye on, but I'm not sure that (for this behavior) sanctions are in order. I would continue to encourage the Andreasedge account to be careful to avoid problems, but I still think we're in the "warn and watch" phase of this. I think we can go and clean up any unreliable sources, remove the worst of the fluff, and caution him to avoid edit warring over this. If edit warring over clean-up to these articles or WP:OWN becomes a major issue, sanctions can be considered. --Jayron32 13:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I made several edits to the article to remove promotional material and improve neutrality. After I did so, Flowingfire (talk · contribs), whose edits are almost exclusively to the Equality Ride and consist of heavily promotional material, referred to the article as "our article" on the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Equality_Ride&diff=prev&oldid=444515939 here]:
I approve of the revert that undid the damage done to this page by the user known as NYYankees. Over time, there has been a great deal of vandalism, and manufactured controversy that has caused people to attack the Equality Ride Wikipedia page. It has now been nominated for deletion twice, the page has been "blanked" several times over the years... And now, vandalism has been done by removing relevant content.
I expect this might be an ongoing problem for this page, but I just decided to fix it, replace some photos that were nominated for unjust deletion, and then comment here.
Quit vandalizing our page for political reasons. You may not like the gay rights movement or the young people showing up at your doorstep to call you out for your hateful practices, but leave the Wikipedia page alone.
Seems like a pretty clear conflict of interest - the user is an employee or otherwise affiliated with Soulforce or Equality Ride. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like you are right. I will put the article on my watchlist to ride herd on NPOV which is the crux of COI. Binksternet (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Response and Further Complaint: I am filing an official Conflict of Interest report against NYYahkees51, who I believe to be politically motivated to minimize the Equality Ride's Wikipedia page however he can. From all appearances, this user is reducing the quality of the Equality Ride page by removing relevant content, and would like to see it gone for political reasons.
Because he's a self-proclaimed creationist, pro-life Christian on his profile, NYYankees51 may have political issues with a gay rights group that visits & confronts anti-gay Christian institutions. I think this motivation is exemplified by his attempt to get the Equality Ride page deleted for almost no reason-- right after removing content.
I am not interested in seeing edits that reduce the quality of content. I'm not interested when someone says a well-written article isn't "neutral," because it's not accounting for the point of view of an anti-gay born-again Christian. Guess what? If all material about minorities had to be "neutral" against the leanings of people who hate them, then the KKK would be able to edit the articles on Judaism and say the holocaust was "questionable," because some say it never happened. This is ridiculous, and the Equality Ride article was written in a VERY neutral voice, given a neutrally-accepting perspective on LGBT rights. It has also been edited by many, many people over time.
Who wouldn't see it as neutral? Somebody who despises the gay rights movement, and demands gay people be referred to in a certain minimized or pejorative light. Sometimes a little "conflict of interest" is necessary to keep minority turf from being invaded by barbarians. If people with vested interest in diminishing the gay rights movement can freely edit articles about gay people, then I might as well go to all the minority pages and change them to fit the white perspective. That would be neutral right? No. Actually, it wouldn't be.
This issue MUST be dealt with by gay, lesbian, bi, and transgender people alone. Nobody else.
I request review by a specifically gay, lesbian, bi, or trans moderator who can resolve this conflict. Flowingfire (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- ^I rest my case. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Enforcing "neutrality" from a hateful majority perspective against a minority isn't neutrality; it's imperialism. Have you ever read 20th century writings (like Feminism) about objectivity simply being a codified majority opinion? This is a gay rights activism page. It's going to be coming from that perspective, just as all articles will generally come from a perspective. You HAVE to take that community's experiences into account, and not incorporate majority bias as part of a "neutrality" argument. No neutrality exists, ever, because the person writing something always brings their attitude to the table. That said, the article was in good "neutral-voice" for what it was. Flowingfire (talk) 03:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- An observation here. I see no reason to talk of "a hateful majority perspective". Being heterosexual doesn't equate with being homophobic. Regarding the article itself, I'll not comment, since I haven't read it as yet: maybe NYyankee51 is being 'imperialistic' (whatever that means in this context), or maybe not - that is no reason to assume that everyone who isn't LGBT is part of some oppressive regime. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Heterosexual people are not what I'm talking about. Truly, most are in fact good, and not homophobic. I'm saying this particular person is not neutral on this matter, likely due to religious and political affiliations. He will not understand the gay experience, or be able to accurately gauge neutrality. In the same way, I, being white, will never understand the "black" experience and would be a little silly to try to claim neutrality arguments against an Afro-centric page from a (potentially racist) white perspective. Flowingfire (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but sadly, one can apply the same logic to say that only Ku Klux Klan members understand the 'Klan' experience, so only Klan members should edit articles about the Klan (I believe that someone actually tried to argue this once on Wikipedia). If you have specific concerns about NYyankee, then fine, tell us what they are. You are right of course that true 'neutrality' is impossible to achieve, but that is no reason to abandon the principle that by discussion and debate, it is possible to move towards it - this is one of the principles that Wikipedia is founded on - the belief that we can agree with people who are different than ourselves. It may be hopelessly idealistic (indeed, it probably is), but our efforts seem to result in something passably useful while we fail to achieve this utopian ideal. I'd say, having looked at the article in question, that I've seen far worse, and that it doesn't look like a hatchet-job cooked up by Christian Fundamentalists to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that moving toward agreement through dialogue is a good goal, and I hope we can do that overall. It's hard when the people presenting the most challenges to a minority group's page are very much invested in minimizing us. Remember: minimization is a form of oppression. You're right-- it's not a hatchet job as is... But, half the content has just been flagged for removal, and it would be a hatchet-job without tireless effort to keep it afloat. Yes, I agree that dialogue and discussion can always move toward a greater ideal of some form of neutrality, even if true philosophical neutrality is not possible.Flowingfire (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, we seem to be getting somewhere here. Regarding the content 'flagged for removal' this seems (at least on the face of it) to be because there are no citations provided, indicating where the content is derived from: Wikipedia isn't a provider of free space for pressure groups, regardless of the justness of their cause - instead it is an online encyclopaedia, with a commitment to writing articles based on externally-verifiable third-party reliable sources. I am quite sure that your particular cause has attracted enough attention for it to be possible to find this - and if it isn't, then sadly, the problem is with the world at large, and not with Wikipedia, and you are unlikely to change much by arguing here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Most of the potential sources are on copyrighted documentaries or were on television or print media. (Like The Advocate, Washington Post, ABC News, etc, etc, etc.) "History" is rarely written about current-events. Over time, "current" news sources from print media become archived for pay or unavailable. That said, removing 3/4 of the page will do no good. Also... please respect the role of a civil rights organization instead of calling it a "pressure group?" That's pejorative. I suppose you could call King's march a "pressure group" too though... Flowingfire (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I emphasize, and also re-iterate my very, very serious request for specific review by LGBT moderators. I might not be neutral, but neither is the primary bringer of this COI notice. Somebody neutral should just go around and look for relevant sources rather than letting the whole page be deleted. Most of them are pretty well archived in pay webs, if you know where you're looking. Flowingfire (talk) 04:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- A reply to your first comment: If the potential sources are on print media, then they are exactly what we need - and being difficult to access is no reason to prevent them being cited. If they exist, and can be verified, they can be cited. As for the difference between a 'pressure group' and a 'civil rights organization', I personally believe that 'civil rights' only come about through 'group pressure' and changing economic circumstances, though I may be in a minority on this. And can you drop the endless martyrdom references please. I've heard them all before, and they do little to convince anyone of anything. If you believe in a cause, you should be able to argue it on its own merits, not by riding on the coattails of others. I've explained how Wikipedia works, I've explained what you need to do - so get searching for sources, rather than wasting time here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- And a reply to your second comment: We do not have 'moderators' on Wikipedia - this isn't an internet forum. It is an online encyclopaedia. Some contributors are administrators - and they have (at least in theory) no more right to determine article content than anyone else - they have additional powers to enforce policies arrived at by general consensus (again, hopeless utopianism, that doesn't actually work in practice, but on the way - probably by accident - helps make Wikipedia produce something vaguely useful). And we certainly don't have 'LGBT moderators' - I'm sure we have LGBT administators, but we don't hand out special powers to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation. You'll have to convince us all, gay and straight, black and white, pro-chopping-the-blunt-end-of-a-boiled-egg-off or pro-chopping-the-pointy-end-of-a-boiled-egg-off of the merits of your arguments. That is how it works here. It is a pain, but it seems to work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your time. If references are at issue, I hope somebody with a lot of time is as passionate about this article as I've been. Maybe NYYankees51 will decide to provide some references or content. In fact, that would show a great deal of commitment to the article's success on his part! I hope he's not just out to make it disappear! Flowingfire (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Note: "Flowingfire" appears to be an "Equality Rider" for the organization. I suggest that a COI is present (full cite might "out" the person, but is at soulforce.org and uses the name "flowingfire"). Cheers. The COI is found. Collect (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- FlowingFire is a single purpose account which primarily edits Equality Ride (ER) and Soulforce. Their edits are promotional in nature. They exhibit ownersip of ER. NYY presented FlowingFire's tacit admission of affiliaion with E.R. Collect has verified the affiliation. FlowingFire has presented nothing to dispute these findings. The COI is established.– Lionel (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- There's a lot to take in here, so I'll try to address matters one thing at a time.
- First of all, vandalism is one of those terms like hounding or even COI itself that are far too often misused and overused on Wikipedia. Vandalism does not mean that someone changes an article in a way you don't like, or even in a way that you think is harmful or disruptive. Vandalism only occurs when the editor is intentionally trying to damage Wikipedia. It's one of the dirtiest words on this site, and false accusations are poorly received.
- That is only the first of the claims made by FlowingFire that I find deeply disturbing. There are many statements that bother me. The allegation that NYyankees51 has a COI because of professed personal beliefs. The allegation that anyone who objects to the neutrality of the article must despise the gay rights movement. A statement like, "Sometimes a little "conflict of interest" is necessary to keep minority turf from being invaded by barbarians." Or, "This issue MUST be dealt with by gay, lesbian, bi, and transgender people alone. Nobody else." A request for resolution by "a specifically gay, lesbian, bi, or trans moderator". A demand that the article has to come from a gay rights activist perspective only, followed by a general rejection of WP:NPOV.
- In the face of all of that, the COI itself is almost irrelevant. I'll agree that the COI is fairly obvious, that the editor is affiliated with the organization. But more disturbing by far is the complete rejection of the core tenets of neutrality that Wikipedia is based upon. It's clear to me that FlowingFire is not here to improve Wikipedia, but to promote an activist agenda, this motivation is not only obvious but is practically being trumpeted. We call this soapboxing, and we quite regularly ban or block editors who engage in it. -- Atama頭 00:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Craig Mitnick
- Craig Mitnick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 71.188.67.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Anonymous user changed the wording of the article to laud the subject. They claim that they were a broadcaster with CBS, hinting personal involvement. They now refuse to have these edits reversed. KJS77 03:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- The IP has identified themselves as the subject of the article (see the edit summary). I've left a single issue notice template on their talk page about conflicts of interest. They have also violated 3RR. I expect a block to be coming soon. OlYellerTalktome 20:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. KJS77 17:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Harold Baim
- Harold Baim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Richard Jeffs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
'Richard Jeffs' is the contact name on the Baim Films website. The user of that name has just responded to my tagging the article as needing cleanup and references by removing what seems to be reasonable and uncontroversial content, links and the tags themselves. I've rolled back, but a second opinion would be useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- On reflection, I should have manually reverted with an edit summary; my bad; but the issue remains. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've been reverted again, with an edit summary describing my edits as a "malicious attack on text". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've restored the tags. I have no opinion thus far on the content so didn't fully revert Richard, but the issues being referenced in the tags are still problems. The COI is plausible here, and should be taken into consideration along with the ownership behavior; however since the article is almost completely unreferenced I don't think either of you can completely take the high road. Verifiability is the biggest problem that I can see, and if you are in a dispute between the two of you, it should be settled based on what can be backed up with reliable sources. If neither of you can provide them, then the article should probably be deleted. I'll let Richard know that this report has been filed, if he is interested in participating in this discussion constructively then perhaps we can at least begin to find a resolution. -- Atama頭 23:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Richard Jeffs just replaced the article with a short statement, " The collection is owned by Richard Jeffs who is not allowed to say what he wants to say here. Instead, please see www.baimfilms.com for information.". I've restored the last version I edited, with wikilinks and other standard improvements. I'm not sure why you're criticising me here; I tagged the article as needing references and further work. Also, "deletion is not cleanup" - we don't delete articles on cleary notable subjects just because they don't (yet) have references. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not criticizing you. I'm just pointing out that in a content dispute, it generally falls to whoever has the best claim of verifiability as to what should go in the article, and since there are no references then it's hard for either of you to make a strong claim. However, blanking out the article is a huge no-no, and I'm giving the editor a final warning for that stunt. -- Atama頭 16:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Richard replied on his user page to my messages (I moved it to his user talk page). He clearly needs some guidance in how Wikipedia works. I left him a rather long message, basically trying as best I can to explain everything a person needs to know to edit an article without stepping on the toes of other editors. I'm not sure if he'll be accepting of it, for now he seems to be treating the article as "his" page and resents other people making changes to it, and I believe it's because he owns the rights to Haim's films, and has been restoring them, and considers himself the authority on them (and he very well may be). I don't think it's due to any ill intent on his part, he just doesn't get what Wikipedia is about; "as the owner of the films I am probably the only person who can write such an article". But we'll see, I haven't given up on him yet. -- Atama頭 23:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not criticizing you. I'm just pointing out that in a content dispute, it generally falls to whoever has the best claim of verifiability as to what should go in the article, and since there are no references then it's hard for either of you to make a strong claim. However, blanking out the article is a huge no-no, and I'm giving the editor a final warning for that stunt. -- Atama頭 16:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Richard Jeffs just replaced the article with a short statement, " The collection is owned by Richard Jeffs who is not allowed to say what he wants to say here. Instead, please see www.baimfilms.com for information.". I've restored the last version I edited, with wikilinks and other standard improvements. I'm not sure why you're criticising me here; I tagged the article as needing references and further work. Also, "deletion is not cleanup" - we don't delete articles on cleary notable subjects just because they don't (yet) have references. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've restored the tags. I have no opinion thus far on the content so didn't fully revert Richard, but the issues being referenced in the tags are still problems. The COI is plausible here, and should be taken into consideration along with the ownership behavior; however since the article is almost completely unreferenced I don't think either of you can completely take the high road. Verifiability is the biggest problem that I can see, and if you are in a dispute between the two of you, it should be settled based on what can be backed up with reliable sources. If neither of you can provide them, then the article should probably be deleted. I'll let Richard know that this report has been filed, if he is interested in participating in this discussion constructively then perhaps we can at least begin to find a resolution. -- Atama頭 23:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
OUTeverywhere
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- OUTeverywhere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Fæ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Following a good faith AfD nomination, the only objector has made lots of edits that all appear one sided. This includes information that cannot be verified on the internet (thus already known, and at hand), and removal of critical text only. Additionally, when raising the AfD, the template was almost instantly removed, before I had a chance to save the discussion page, suggesting a close interest in this site. All of these things may indicate a very close association with the site, and a conflict of interest in the AfD. Teppic74 (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- This appears to be a content dispute, not a CoI issue. No evidence of CoI is provided. As explained in edit summaries the AfD template was removed, correctly, as bogus, and advice given as to how to list correctly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not certain where the lack of evidence is? Lots of edits all in favour of the website in question, and some containing very specific information that cannot be obtained or verified on the Internet. If this doesn't show evidence of a close relationship with the site, why not? As for the AfD, it was deleted 3 minutes after I saved the page. Teppic74 (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Favoring a viewpoint doesn't constitute a conflict of interest. I haven't viewed the edits but unless you can show that Fae has a close connection to the subject, this is a content dispute and/or POV pushing at worst. Do you have any evidence that shows that Fae has a close connection to the subject of the article? Fae is an administrator and an OTRS team member and I don't think that accusing such a person of a conflict of interest with no actual evidence and without notifying them is out of line. OlYellerTalktome 14:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- The claim that I have access to specific information is an interesting one, Teppic74 could you point out a diff where you think this is the case. I do have access to LexisNexis, this may be the source of your suspicion, but the newspapers are public records and I need no affiliation with the organization to look at them or any particular special knowledge to search out articles using keyword matches. Fæ (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I mentioned this in the discussion and was asked to bring it here instead. I am stating a concern based on behaviour with regard to this article. An administrator can still have a conflict of interest; I am just presenting a suspicion with the reasons for that. Teppic74 (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I never said that an admin can't have a COI but you have presented zero evidence, not even a diff, of even POV pushing or any sort of activity that is against WP's goals. For there to be a COI, there must be evidence that Fae is showing that advancing outside interests is more important to him/her than advancing the aims of Wikipedia and that they have a close relationship with the subject (otherwise it's just POV pushing). You haven't provided any actual evidence of either so to me, it's like if I go to a cop and say, "Teppic is selling drugs out of his basement! Go search his house!" with providing zero evidence of that claim or telling you that I made such a claim.
- All I can tell you is that it's doubtful that someone will help you if you provide no actual evidence (diffs) to support your claim. OlYellerTalktome 15:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I mentioned this in the discussion and was asked to bring it here instead. I am stating a concern based on behaviour with regard to this article. An administrator can still have a conflict of interest; I am just presenting a suspicion with the reasons for that. Teppic74 (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- The claim that I have access to specific information is an interesting one, Teppic74 could you point out a diff where you think this is the case. I do have access to LexisNexis, this may be the source of your suspicion, but the newspapers are public records and I need no affiliation with the organization to look at them or any particular special knowledge to search out articles using keyword matches. Fæ (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Favoring a viewpoint doesn't constitute a conflict of interest. I haven't viewed the edits but unless you can show that Fae has a close connection to the subject, this is a content dispute and/or POV pushing at worst. Do you have any evidence that shows that Fae has a close connection to the subject of the article? Fae is an administrator and an OTRS team member and I don't think that accusing such a person of a conflict of interest with no actual evidence and without notifying them is out of line. OlYellerTalktome 14:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not certain where the lack of evidence is? Lots of edits all in favour of the website in question, and some containing very specific information that cannot be obtained or verified on the Internet. If this doesn't show evidence of a close relationship with the site, why not? As for the AfD, it was deleted 3 minutes after I saved the page. Teppic74 (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Ian Cooper (Violinist)
- Ian Cooper (Violinist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ianjazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 115.30.45.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User creating and editing their own autobiography after they have declaired ownership and have been warned regarding COI. They appear to be editing both as an IP and an account (IP declares ownership on article discussion page, account userpage forwards to the article). For both accounts, all edits have been promoting Ian Cooper. Notability is borderline (lots of namedropping). Clovis Sangrail (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- I found the link where the IP claims to be the subject of the article ([14]). Do we have any concrete information (diffs) that the account belongs to the IP? The userpage redirect is due to the user creating the article in their userspace then moving it to mainspace. Also, the account and IP never claim ownership in edits or edit summaries. I've gone through every single edit by the account and IP. I personally feel that the subject at least fulfills WP:BAND point 12 by being featured by a nationally syndicated program and probably WP:GNG. The article isn't overly advertorial but there is a good amount of fluff that probably doesn't need to be there. OlYellerTalktome 12:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Just through a cursory look at the contributions of the IP and the account, I find it very implausible that they are the same person. From around 12:00 (UTC) on August 18 to just after 13:30, both the account and IP were continuously active, with a half dozen edits from the IP and over a dozen from the account within minutes of each other in that timeframe. If the IP was just the account logged out, then Ianjazz would have had to somehow log out, make an edit, then log in right away, over and over again. It's possible that Ianjazz was on two computers simultaneously, or two browsers on the same computer, and switching back and forth, but that's a lot of effort to maintain such duplicity and I don't see the purpose of it. It's certainly not a simple case of a person with an account being logged out temporarily and making edits.
- I think the most plausible explanation is that these are two different people. They also don't have any overlap in the topics they edit, aside from the Ian Cooper article itself. They could be coordinating off-wiki in some way, maybe, it seems a bit coincidental that they both stopped editing at almost the same exact time (around 13:30 (UTC) on August 18). That would then mean that the IP is Cooper, and the account is someone that Cooper knows that created the article for him. But again, this is just speculation on my part. -- Atama頭 16:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- The ip is Ian Cooper, as he stated this in the article discussion page (which has now been removed). If Ian Jazz is not him, then its likely that it is a PR firm or the like (since its has linked to images which were uploaded to commons 5 minutes earlier by Ian Cooper (19 Aug). -- Regardless, how should these edits be treated? There are clear whitewash / Autobiog issues, and both accounts ignore engagement and edit articles only related to Ian Cooper. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- The IP claims to be Ian. I'll take his word for it, I don't see why not at this point. I'm just wondering, are there any edits that are particularly problematic? I've done a random sample from both editors and haven't seen anything particularly alarming. Not that the COI should be ignored (and if there is no COI then I'm a ham sandwich) but if the end result is that the encyclopedia gets fleshed out with some extra information on a potentially notable subject that might need some cleanup afterward, should we try to hinder that? -- Atama頭 02:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- It depends on whether we want wikipedia to be objective and unbiased I suppose. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia will never be completely objective and unbiased, see WP:BIAS for numerous examples. Nor can any editor be 100% unbiased, I sure am not. On the other hand, we can judge the neutrality of a person's content contributions, which is one thing we usually do where a COI exists. That's why I'm trying to find specific examples here. -- Atama頭 16:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- It depends on whether we want wikipedia to be objective and unbiased I suppose. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- The IP claims to be Ian. I'll take his word for it, I don't see why not at this point. I'm just wondering, are there any edits that are particularly problematic? I've done a random sample from both editors and haven't seen anything particularly alarming. Not that the COI should be ignored (and if there is no COI then I'm a ham sandwich) but if the end result is that the encyclopedia gets fleshed out with some extra information on a potentially notable subject that might need some cleanup afterward, should we try to hinder that? -- Atama頭 02:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- The ip is Ian Cooper, as he stated this in the article discussion page (which has now been removed). If Ian Jazz is not him, then its likely that it is a PR firm or the like (since its has linked to images which were uploaded to commons 5 minutes earlier by Ian Cooper (19 Aug). -- Regardless, how should these edits be treated? There are clear whitewash / Autobiog issues, and both accounts ignore engagement and edit articles only related to Ian Cooper. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think the most plausible explanation is that these are two different people. They also don't have any overlap in the topics they edit, aside from the Ian Cooper article itself. They could be coordinating off-wiki in some way, maybe, it seems a bit coincidental that they both stopped editing at almost the same exact time (around 13:30 (UTC) on August 18). That would then mean that the IP is Cooper, and the account is someone that Cooper knows that created the article for him. But again, this is just speculation on my part. -- Atama頭 16:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ir Ovot
- Ir Ovot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ir Ovot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This is a single-issue user whose user name is the same as the article he is editing. I think it's worth keeping a watch on this user. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- It's good to know. I'll note that the article subject is a kibbutz that was dissolved almost 20 years ago, so the username couldn't really be considered promotional or representative of an organization (similar to someone named Troy editing Troy). There might not actually be a COI at all, they may have been motivated to edit Wikipedia simply to edit a single article, and so picked the article's name as a username. On the other hand, regardless of the COI, their edits removed a lot of information without explanation. Their sole contribution is a single burst of edits, and we'll have to see if they repeat the behavior. If not, no worries. -- Atama頭 23:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Images in multiple articles
- Multiple articles
I wasn't sure where to bring this issue - conflict of interest seems to be the closest. It appears that some narcissist has given his personal collection of ephemera/kitsch the pretentious name of "The Cooper Collections," adding images of pieces of the collection to dozens of articles (examples below). The problem is threefold: (1.) There is a legitimate Cooper Collection, so the name of this pseudocollection confuses the matter; (2.) The owner of the "Cooper Collections" has added a note to each of the many images in the articles that the image is courtesy of the "Cooper Collections." This doesn't pass WP:MOS muster, does it? and (3.) In many (most?) instances, the images add nothing to the article, serving as little more than litter. Mass Construction (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- 20th Century Limited
- Alan Cobham
- Albert Sammt
- Boeing 314
- Cachet
- China Clipper
- Dick Merrill
- Duralumin
- Ed Musick
- Empire State Express
- Fairchild FC-2
- Grand Central Airport (United States)
- Hindenburg disaster
- Imperial Airways
- Lignum vitae
- Maddux Air Lines
- Maritime history of California
- Martin M-130
- Panama Canal Railway
- Sesquicentennial Exposition
- Ted Scott Flying Stories
- Varney Air Lines
- Wiley Post
Yele_Haiti
- Yéle_Haiti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Wyclef Jean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- CindyTanenbaum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
CindyTanenbaum has created and been editing the article Yéle_Haiti. This article was forked out from the Wyclef Jean article. There were a lot of questions about this organization's finances in the past, and this information was included in the Wyclef Jean article. This information was correctly removed when the Yéle_Haiti article was created, but didn't end up in the new article. After restoring it to the new article, and being reverted without explanation by CindyTanenbaum, I was curious and searched for her and Yéle_Haiti in google. I quickly found a press release from Yéle_Haiti that listed a Cindy Tanenbaum as the Point of Contact. I am unsure how to proceed from this point. Sperril (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Between your notice that you brought the situation here and the warning I just placed, I think the best plan now would be to wait and see how she reacts. I've put the page on my watch list and can help you restore the sourced text if she or someone else attempts to whitewash again. We should report back here if we see anything else suspicious.
- For the record, I've confirmed what you've found. While it could possibly be another Cindy Tanenbaum that's not related to the subject, I think the duck test applies here. OlYellerTalktome 23:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help! I just noticed that OTRS has confirmed that her previously copyvio tagged edits were properly released to the wiki. I think that establishes who she is at this point. Sorry I couldn't find the right template. I'm still learning when it comes to project tasks. Sperril (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Flemish Giant rabbits
- Template:Flemish Giant rabbit
- username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The article was tagged as having weasel words.Not only that, but much of the info is painfully incorrect. When I tried to fix it, Red Rover an Admin banned me from changing the text, I assume they may have written the article? The info needs to be changed as someone may read this and think you can feed a rabbit leafy greens, you can't it will kill them, or that a rabbits pelvic bone fuses, it does not.These are but a few examples of the misinformation on that page. My email is mzbunny@frontier.com, my website to show Im knowledgeable on this subject is www.pet-rabbit.netfirms.com IaJewel (talk) 09:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Firstly I fail to see how this is a conflict of interest so question why it is listed here and not on the article's talk page. Secondly your edits to Flemish Giant have been reverted by five different editors including myself and one bot. Despite repeated warnings you neither responded on the article's talk page, nor your own talk page. Subsequent to your edit warring you have now been blocked for 24 hours. I suggest you take this time out to read about the Wikipedia policies posted on your talk page, or engage there in a constructive discussion to understand why you have been blocked and what you can do to make positive, well sourced, changes to the article in question. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 09:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Gompertz–Makeham law of mortality
- Gompertz–Makeham law of mortality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Gavrilov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Since April 2007, adding mentions of/Amazon links to medical books authored by Leonid A. Gavrilov & Natalia S. Gavrilova. User page is a lengthy CV of Dr. Leonid A. Gavrilov. --CliffC (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Also,
- 128.135.241.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Note also article Leonid Gavrilov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), created 14 August. I'm not questioning Dr. Gavrilov's notability, I'm just pointing out the promotional aspects of all this. --CliffC (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- The user page at User:Gavrilov is clearly in breach of the WP:UP guidelines (it's basically a CV and therefore promotional) and I have tagged it for speedy deletion accordingly. – ukexpat (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- I deleted the userpage. I'd like to ask, though, that we handle Dr. Gavrilov with a bit of tact, unless and until he (or she, if this is Natalia) becomes willfully disruptive (ignoring requests to discuss things, attacking other editors, etc.). I do have concerns about the relentless spam, the editor's contributions are questionable at best, but I also hate chasing away subject matter experts for COI reasons. -- Atama頭 19:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Hundredth (band)
- Hundredth (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- CharlesManies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
See post on the talk page of the article. In addition, the article was apparently mentioned by the band on their Facebook page while it was tagged for speedy deletion. I'm requesting at least a few extra eyes on the article. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- I commented on the article's talk page about the band's notability; essentially the claim that it met WP:BAND criterion number 5. (The band has only released one album, and I'm not convinced that the label is a notable one.) -- Atama頭 19:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Would listing it at AfD be appropriate? After putting it on my watchlist via NPP, I've noticed the only substantial edits were by apparent SPAs and IPs. It also appears that the subject fails WP:BAND, though admittedly I haven't done a proper WP:BEFORE check yet. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- There's nothing that would make the AfD inappropriate, but I do strongly encourage you to check for sources just in case. I highly doubt you'll find anything but you never know, I've been surprised myself more than once by finding good references for a subject that I wouldn't expect to have any. -- Atama頭 19:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Would listing it at AfD be appropriate? After putting it on my watchlist via NPP, I've noticed the only substantial edits were by apparent SPAs and IPs. It also appears that the subject fails WP:BAND, though admittedly I haven't done a proper WP:BEFORE check yet. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I Am Equal (photo documentary) spamming
- User:Steinway1701 is doing nothing but advertising this project all over Wikipedia. Since one of their goals is to get tens of thousands of participants, and he/she wants to add non-free pictures from the project (which advertise the project as well as the subject) to the articles on every notable participant, the clutter factor is getting pretty appalling. I've given him/her templated anti-spam and COI warnings, and added a link to WP:NOBLECAUSE. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like a G11 to me. It appears to be notable but at this point, it could only be more spammy if there was a link towards the top of the page pointing to a donation website. OlYellerTalktome 16:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, and have tagged it as such. – ukexpat (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Although, I guess G11 won't solve the presented issue. The editor has been painting the same information all over WP. I've been going through their contributions but it looks like it's all been cleaned up so far (they added the info to very high traffic articles that are highly monitored by other editors). Eventually, the files they have uploaded won't be linked to anything and deleted unless someone wants to take the initiative for copyvio checking/tagging/deleting. I'll keep looking through their contribs for missed spamming but an admin can watch their future contributions and take whatever action they see fit for the spammery. I'll make sure all the past spamming is dealt with. OlYellerTalktome 16:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Finished checking past contribs. Looks like Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) took care of almost all of their article contribs (I didn't check files/photos). High five him if you get a chance. OlYellerTalktome 17:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Although, I guess G11 won't solve the presented issue. The editor has been painting the same information all over WP. I've been going through their contributions but it looks like it's all been cleaned up so far (they added the info to very high traffic articles that are highly monitored by other editors). Eventually, the files they have uploaded won't be linked to anything and deleted unless someone wants to take the initiative for copyvio checking/tagging/deleting. I'll keep looking through their contribs for missed spamming but an admin can watch their future contributions and take whatever action they see fit for the spammery. I'll make sure all the past spamming is dealt with. OlYellerTalktome 16:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, and have tagged it as such. – ukexpat (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- It is not my intention to be SPAMING Wikipedia or to be "cluttering" the site. My only reason for joining this community in the first place was because I was introduced to the I Am Equal photo documentary recently on Facebook, saw that Chelsea Handler had participated, posted on her Facebook, and her website about the campaign, and was surprised to see that it had not yet been added Wikipedia. Understanding the importance of citations, I researched the project, and gathered over 50 news articles and reports before beginning to build the article and then went through a rather clumsy learning curve to get the information into Wikipedia. Editing, citations, and formatting in wiki is all new to me and I'll admit, I have had to make many (minor and otherwise) changes to the article to get it where I thought it was matching other materials on the site. I have done my best to be thorough in my citations. I acknowledge that I may have done too many since after adding traditional news citations, I also searched the web for more details to verify references to events or individuals mentioned in the article, and added more citation references to galleries, and press releases. I thought they were relevant and supportive to the details being shared. There also seems to be some concern about my trying to add reference to the photo documentary on other wikipedia articles. I'll admit, if this is a problem then it's a result of my ignorance to the terminology of the site. While I was building the initial article, an administrator added the ORPHAN template to the top of the page indicating that there were no other articles linking to the page. I took that to mean I needed to go and create those connections (because they don't just make themselves). So naturally, I proceeded to the articles of the individuals, groups, and corporations mentioned in the main article and added a brief paragraph and link to the documentary page. It seemed to be exactly what the Orphan template had told me to do. Unfortunately, another administrator followed me around the site and systematically removed the references without explaining to me the problem or how to resolve the Orphan issue without adding references to other articles. Regarding the use of non-Free images, I must claim ignorance again. I thought that it made sense to supply the image of the individual, celebrity, or group referenced in the article as additional support for the fact that they had participated in the campaign. It's clearly my novice mistake to assume that an article should have as much support material as possible. As such, I attempted to upload the appropriate images that I found in the project gallery and include them in the article or associated article references. Of course, another admin was quick to remove the images and tried to explain the licensing issues associated with it. I attempted to navigate my way through the licensing and non-Free use materials to better understand the issue, but I'll admit, I'm still not totally clear on the procedures (though I think I understand the Fair Use Rational process for non-Free images). Needless to say, I am new to wikipedia and not completely versed in the process of adding, editing, and referencing articles in the system. Although I am new (and this article process was less then elegant), I still hold that the I Am Equal (photo documentary) is a noteworthy project that belongs in wikipedia. I'm happy to leave it to the admins to create the associated links to other articles as they see fit and add related images when appropriate, because I just don't get the rules of that process. As a wikipedia user, I feel the article is relevant based solely on how I heard about it. It took very little research for me to find out that this campaign is much bigger than I thought and something these individual participants are proud to be part of. My research lead me to websites, news articles, and phone calls to documentary office so I was absolutely clear on what the campaign is, how it works, what the intention is, and how long it will be going on. I included all my research notes in the article and built as complete an entry as I possibly could. I feel invested in the article simply because of the time, effort, research, and verification I put in knowing this is my first article on wikipedia and wanting it to be complete. In my naivete, I though that the research would be the hard part and adding the article to wikipedia would be easy, but I was wrong. Getting this article into the site, dealing with the admins, automatic template messages, talk pages, moving conversations, conflicting instructions, and threats of deletion have been more than I was expecting. I'd like to see the best article possible about the I Am Equal photo documentary on the site as possible so when other users come here to research (as I did initially after seeing the information on Chelsea Handler's facebook page) can get a complete understanding of the campaign. I'd also like to think that as the campaign grows over the years and new celebrities, groups, and corporations participate in the project, that information can be added to the article. Perhaps I am not the best person to do that because of my ignorance to the process, but perhaps someone else (an admin, maybe) will take up the responsibilty of keeping this article current and accurate for future readers. Steinway1701 (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hey Steinway. There are several problems with the article as it stands. As a new editor, no one really expects you to know all of the policies and guidelines that rule WP so don't feel like you've done something that can't be fixed. First off, for the subject to be included, it must satisfy an inclusion guideline found at WP:Notability which I'm almost certain that it does. Secondly, the article's information must be WP:Verifiable and non-bias (which is where the advertising-ish content is a problem). As of right now, the article reads like an advertisement and not so much like part of an encyclopedia (the links and prose of the text contribute the most to that in my opinion). Most importantly, even if the article is deleted, that doesn't mean that content is gone. We can WP:userfy it for you and put it in your userspace to work on until it's ready for mainspace. I certainly appreciate that you want to make the best article possible from I Am Equal. WP's goal is to have the best encyclopedic article for notable subjects as well. We just need to make sure that your goals and WP's goals line up. I highly doubt you want anything other than that so I'm sure we'll be able to get this worked out. Does that make sense so far? OlYellerTalktome 17:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- I understand that everyone is committed to maintaining Wikipedia as a credible resource for information and a neutral space for all users. I know that there is a learning curve for entering the world of wiki and I have done my best to get through that as best I can. There are so many admins now focusing on what I have done (and what I was doing) that I am surprised none of them actually contacted me to explain the errors I was making BEFORE suggesting the article be deleted. They were quick to delete my work, suggest deletions, and remove links...but never actually work with me to resolve the issues. As a result, I feel like I am now chasing around this site, answering allegations of SPAM and promotion, fighting deletion, etc when much of this could have been mitigated with conversation and explanation. I'll be honest, I'm quite disillusioned by this whole process. At this point, it's getting so that I feel that the process is stacked against me at this time and there is nothing I can do to make this right. The fact is, the article is noteworthy. It's written from resources and news I found about the project. I probably included too much detail (because of the exhaustive research I did before starting this process) and thus called down the ire of the admins who now seem hell-bent on deleting the article completely rather than using their expertise to resolve the issues (or at the very least converse with me about the problems). I have initiated Talk conversations on a few of these admins walls and they are left unanswered. Instead, I find a new action has been taken against my work. It's frustrating. I'm doing my best to remember that everyone just wants to keep wikipedia clean and free of promotional spam...but the whole process seems more vindictive, exclusionary, and passive aggressive than I would have expected from a community-driven initiative. At this point, I don't know what I want to do. Steinway1701 (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- While I can't pretend to know how you feel right now, when I made my first article, it was quickly deleted and I felt helpless and prosecuted. I really don't want you to feel like that. Deletion doesn't mean anyone is blowing things away with a bazooka. No one is mad at you or what you've done. It's incredibly common for new users and I would be that 80% of users who start out here, have mad the same mistakes. Deleting the article for now is more like making it not visible to regular users until we can address a few issues. The subject does appear notable ([WP's "notable" is well defined and may be different than you think). No one is hell-bent on deletion; quite the contrary. I (not an admin) am doing my best to help you and WP by taking the steps necessary to make sure that the article complies with WP's policies and guidelines. The harsh nature probably comes from people doing lots of things at one time. The lag in communication is very common on WP but it's important to remember that nothing is permanent. Articles deleted 5 years ago can be brought back to mainspace with a few clicks of a mouse.
- I suggest taking a break for a few hours or a day. From my experience, people aren't being quite as aggressive as you are perceiving. There are plenty of people here that want to help you create an article; we're all here to improve WP. I'll gladly lend my WP experience to you to help you with the article. Would you like me to help? Again, I'd be more than happy to help. I can userfy the article for you so that we can work on it together. OlYellerTalktome 18:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- It seems best that one of the more capable admins can write this article better than me. I'll make it easy and supply links to all the news articles I found about the project that started me down this path to begin with. I'd rather it get entered into the site in the correct way than continue to blindly stumble through the process and be slapped down as a new contributor at every turn. Steinway1701 (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- What makes you think that an admin needs to even be involved in this process? It's very unlikely that anyone will write this article for you. I've been jumping through hoops to explain things to you, extend an olive branch, and help you create a good article. To keep saying that you're being "slapped down" or suggesting that I'm not able to help you is quite frankly offensive. Feel free to ask around for help and I hope you find someone. If you want my help, I'm here for the asking. OlYellerTalktome 18:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- OlYeller you have been awesome, and I have learned more from you and the time you have taken to explain this process than anyone else, and I truly appreciate everything you have said. It's that kind of attention and guidance I could have used 3 days ago when all this madness started. I guess I imagined Wikipedia was populated by OlYeller-type people who want to make sure it's a collaborative environment that is welcoming to new contributors...but that hasn't been my experience until now. I'm happy to take a stab at getting the article up to snuff in an area of the site that is not publicly accessible (since many admins seem to agree that my article is a gross misuse of the wikipedia site). I honestly have no idea what is involved in that, nor how to move it from that testing area back into the main site when I'm done. Whatever you think is best is what I'll do. Steinway1701 (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- So, now some other admin has deleted the page. I've actually lost track of all the different admins who have jumped in on this article with different instructions, actions, and motives. I'd like to work on the page and get it up to snuff with wikipedia, but the whole process is seeming convoluted and inconsistent. So many admins with broad discretionary powers to move, change, and adjust content without question, discussion, or explanation is not a very collaborative approach for a site that seems to be built by the masses. It's looking more like a small group of admins do whatever they please with very little interest in cultivating new users and contributions. It's disappointing to say the least. I'm comforted in having found OlYeller in this process. Maybe there is still hope that there are genuinely collaboratively-minded individuals in the Wikipedia world and there's a chance for new people like me to make a positive contribution in the end. Steinway1701 (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hey. I've asked the deleting admin to move it to your userspace. Either he or I will let you know when it's there. From there, we can work on it. I've got a deadline coming up at work here in a few hours and need to focus on that but I'll be back later to help out. If anyone else is available, they'll be able to help as well.
- As for the report on this page, I don't see that Steinway is closely related to the subject so I don't believe there's a COI. I'll be helping Steinway with editing so I personally consider the COI matter closed (no need to worry about this part, Steinway). OlYellerTalktome 20:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The text has now been userfied at User:Steinway1701/I Am Equal (photo documentary). – ukexpat (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'd like to clarify for you, Steinway1701, what the role of an administrator is on Wikipedia (the quick-and-easy version). Administrators are individuals who have some additional tools that other editors don't. The main tools, the ones that are used the most, are the ability to block and unblock another editor (blocking prevents the person from being able to edit Wikipedia), delete or undelete pages, and protect or unprotect pages (which can prevent some or all people from editing a page for a particular duration). Administrators don't have any special authority over content. If I don't like a paragraph on an article, I don't have any more right to change it than you do. The ability to change content without discussion is a right that all editors can enjoy, including you. The discussion occurs when two or more people disagree on the content. And again, administrators are on an equal footing with everyone else in those discussions.
- I would have chimed in earlier to this discussion but I was busy with real life issues, so I apologize for coming in late. However, I wanted to point out that if the subject of the article meets our inclusion criteria, that a recreation of the article should certainly be possible. Very little that is added to Wikipedia is lost forever, even deleted pages can be restored later. The article that was deleted has been restored to your userspace. It sounds like the issue is that the article was worded in a way to sound promotional. I'm sure that wasn't your intent, and only came about because you were so enthusiastic about the documentary. That enthusiasm which inspired you to create the article in the first place was a double-edged sword, unfortunately.
- I'd like you to understand why the article was deleted, and that it shouldn't reflect a prejudice against your efforts or the documentary. Wikipedia does everything it can to be credible, because an encyclopedia that can't be trusted is worthless. That credibility is difficult to maintain when the encyclopedia can be edited by anyone. Some people add information that is well-meaning but harmful, while others see the site as a way to spread hoaxes or attack people. We have certain criteria for speedy deletion that can lead to a quick deletion of a page without prior discussion if the content of that page can potentially cause harm. Those criteria include such obviously problematic issues as violations of copyright (which can lead to legal action if left unchecked) or pages that attack real living people (which can not only harm Wikipedia, but others as well). More subtle problems are also listed, such as overly-promotional articles. Those articles hurt Wikipedia's credibility by giving the appearance that Wikipedia is an advocate, or an advertiser, and not a neutral presenter of information.
- By moving the article out of the main space to a less-visible area, that promotional language can be improved with the goal being to return the article to the main space for others to enjoy. Sometimes people will create articles with the sole intention of promoting a person, organization, or product (and many of those people are hired public relations personnel), and in those cases we delete the article with no intention of restoring it, and if the person persists in recreating the article or adding the promotion elsewhere we may block them from editing. You're clearly not one of those people, and you should expect and I hope you experience that others like OlYeller will be willing to help you learn the ropes here. -- Atama頭 21:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Atama I appreciate the time you, OlYeller, Orange Mike, and others have made in getting this article in the right place and recognizing that I have been simply trying to be a positive contributor to a site that I have come to value and use on a daily basis. Clearly there is a learning curve and the admins are people too...who have the added burden of keeping Wikipedia a reliable source for content information around the world. I'd love to think that I can be come an expert in just 4 days (when I started this process) but there is much more work for me to do. I'll get into the article that was moved to my user space and see if I can make it better. I'll admit that the language is clunky because I felt such an urgency to get it up and available that I didn't have time to re-edit it before the army of admins started tearing it apart. Maybe now I will have the luxury of time to resolve the concerns made through this 3-day marathon of wiki-madness and the resulting article will be something we can all be proud of. Regards, Steinway1701 (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
User: Bruce Cairney
- Article name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Bacmac (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
this User: Bruce Cairney is an imposter and uses this "User Name" to intimidate others,(due to the rank and position of the real Bruce Cairney in the Choi Kwang Do organisation) and makes edits to muddy the real Bruce Cairney's reputation. Have them prove who they are by providing drivers licence etc.
this fake user has had the run of wikipedia for 5 years? each time a query is brought up they go quiet and then come back when the attention is gone like they have done again in March 2011 Bacmac (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Can you please provide us with some links to edits (diffs) where Bruce Cairney (talk · contribs) is doing harm to articles (like making unsubstantiated or libelous claims about living people or attacking others)? As of right now, this sounds like more of a username and civility issue than a conflict of interest but without any diffs, it's hard to tell. Regardless of what the problem is, with some diffs we can at least point you in the right direction if not help fix the problem. OlYellerTalktome 14:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC) -- I look forward to being pointed in the right direction Bacmac (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I dont understand what you are asking me to do - the user is impersonating another person and making edits in a martial arts article. As the real Bruce Cairney is a high rank in that type of martial art it would be considered bad ettiquette for members of that martial art to reverse the changes done by this fake user. This user has also published photos at times and made confronting comments. Bacmac (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- What bizarre behaviour you are exhibiting Bacmac. You brought this up on 3 October 2009 Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_37#User_name:_.22Bruce_Cairney.22_being_used_to_defame_him, and then again on on 29 October 2009 Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_38#User:_Bruce_Cairney_is_a_sockpuppet_and_used_to_defame. Since then the user in question has made just two edits in March 2011, both of which seem reasonable - especially the one to Choi Kwang-Do (diff), which was removing the link to an individual club (I would have done that myself). What has prompted you to pop up for a third time to report someone that hasn't even edited for the past six months? --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 14:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC) It says brief explaination right? , I also wrote that each time it has been brought up the user has gone quiet and things die off, are you willing to help? or just out to vent - cause I dont know how this place works as you have noted each time I have got no-where AND that is because I hit dead-ends Bacmac (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)A link to a page that shows what you're claiming. Where is the user impersonating others? Is it just from his username? As you've been told twice in the past, this is a username violation at best but the user hasn't edited for quite some time. they Edited in March this year and the impersonation is from the user name (isnt that enough?) as well the impersonation is on the main wiki pages (martial arts)where people with an interest in visiting these wiki pages will know the real Bruce Cairney or know of him Bacmac (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I should of looked at their edit history which is 6 edits long and contains nothing that can even be construed as a COI, vandalism, or incivility. An IP editor has apparently attacked User:Bruce Cairney's talk page at least once but that's the only issue I'm seeing. I should also note that Atama has dealt with Bacmac presenting this issue here in the past. No one can ever figure out where all of the intimidation and reputation-muddying is going on. As with the past two times this has been reported by Bacmac, this isn't a COI. OlYellerTalktome 14:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC) I have added information about each edit from the oldest to the newest if they require more detail please let me know, the very first two edits I could not access (CAN YOU?) cause if you can you should they may be more blunt examples before this impersonator got more sneaky. Bacmac (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- On further reading of Bacmac's contributions, this is beginning to look like harassment against user Bruce Cairney, which is clearly forbidden at the COI noticeboard - as evidenced by the bright red text that appears when you click to edit this page. You exhibit a pattern of ownership behaviour on the Choi Kwang-Do article, reverting and sometimes badgering people who make negative, but sourced, entries regarding the organisation. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 14:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC) yeah well like i said below I have not been chastised for any of my edits that I can recall? Bacmac (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Very funny you guy(s) - I already told you I didnt understand what your question was. I have gone back and read through the edits and and here is my explaination AND it does not include the User Name Page write up deleted by EdJohnson. Here are my notes from looking through the edits. As Bruce Cairney is a long standing professional martial artist - the comment this fake user is adding are designed to undermine that professionalism / cheapen the services provided / and make out that some of the reasons for certain practices in th emartial art organisation is only to generate extra income. The user has also added comments about political persons under states and territories of australia which were not accurate (and most likely meant to reflect negativly on the real Bruce Cairney who conducts himself apolitical )
The edit removed as 'Blatant Advertising' is a former student/protege of the REAL Bruce Cairney and he would have contacted them directly.
And for the record Simple Bob you can keep your personal attacks to yourself. Also guy(s) I do not know who Atama is. Bacmac (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Simple Bob, I cannot recall being chastised by any admins for edits or changes and I have always tried to make any I do based on accuracy of information. I visited your user page and found your introductory statement in my experience to be false, because I require guidance where the appropriate area is to get rid of this impersonator. Bacmac (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC) ... and how many hours do you think it will take me to troll through and get this sorted out with my top speed of 30 words per hour? Bacmac (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Is this the right way to respond to your barrage of questions and statements? Bacmac (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC) i DONT KNOW WHATS GOING ON HERE I just did a heap of edit and got run around .... hope this is done right , if not appologies now Bacmac (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Capital punishment in Texas
- Capital punishment in Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Tcadp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user has repeatedly been introducing some sort of (perhaps promotional?) information about an organization against capital punishment in the state of Texas. Their username is conveniently an acronym for the organization, leading me to believe that they run or are otherwise part of the organization as well. dalahäst (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- User has been blocked for username violation by TParis. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)