Orangemike (talk | contribs) →William Forsythe (choreographer): new section |
|||
Line 132: | Line 132: | ||
*There may well be a conflict of interest by the articles' author... but Mario's continued zeal and forum-shopping about this suggests a conflic of interest on his own part - namely, that he's tried (and failed, so far) to get the articles deleted ''based on who their author is''. That is, ''it sounds like'' a personal vendetta. And his unwillingness to reveal his own past activity here reinforces that suspicion. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 13:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC) |
*There may well be a conflict of interest by the articles' author... but Mario's continued zeal and forum-shopping about this suggests a conflic of interest on his own part - namely, that he's tried (and failed, so far) to get the articles deleted ''based on who their author is''. That is, ''it sounds like'' a personal vendetta. And his unwillingness to reveal his own past activity here reinforces that suspicion. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 13:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC) |
||
:*Hello Bugs. My interest is in only those pages was originally because they read like disguised advertisements and had only one contributor. Also I believe you are involed in [[WP:HOUND]] as Stalwart showed me by following me around everywhere, can you please stop? Please reply on my talk page not here so you do not clutter it up, Thank you, [[User:MarioNovi|MarioNovi]] ([[User talk:MarioNovi|talk]]) 19:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== William Forsythe (choreographer) == |
== William Forsythe (choreographer) == |
Revision as of 19:47, 16 January 2013
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:
|
Beef Products Inc.
- Beef Products Inc
- 66.172.199.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi, Beef Products Inc keeps editing their own wiki page in a clearly biased way. They have pretty much copied and pasted PR stuff from their website into the article. Any attempt to point out the articles bias to them just results in the same PR response every time MarineCorps (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- From the looks of it, there doesn't seem to be a clear close connection. He may be an employee but if I had to guess, he's not a spokesperson or official representative. He could be anything from a knowledgeable bystander to an employee, from what I see. Outside of that, this just seems to be a previously hashed out content dispute at best (vandalism at worst). Did I miss a self-outing outside of his first name (Chuck)?
- Regardless, it seems that several established editors are watching and editing the article. Unless I've missed something, I think this issue has been addressed. OlYeller21Talktome 04:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- The Whois shows the IP as registered to BPI, with a location of Dakota Dunes, South Dakota aka Beef Products Inc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- I simply ask that false and slanderous information not be added to this page. It's that simple. I ask so respectfully. I contest some of the information and state that it is false and offer source material to back it up. If I need to do more I'm all ears.--66.172.199.26 (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes that you think should be made and be prepared to provide reliable sources.--ukexpat (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Chuck, you're essentially arguing the difference between a fact and an opinion, from what I can tell. Just saying that a thing is or is not, won't work here. You're going to need to provide references from reliable sources to back up the information you're claiming. Even then, it seems that, as this case has not been decided in court yet, that both sides of the opinion will be represented.
- Please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes that you think should be made and be prepared to provide reliable sources.--ukexpat (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- On a side note, thank you for being respectful and attempting to work on this with others. It makes things much easier. If you haven't noticed the template on your talk page, your IP address has been linked to BPI and declaring your conflict of interest would also be helpful. If you're, let's say, the president of a "a marketing and public relations firm that concentrates on the food industry", working for and at BPI, declaring your identity would be a sign of good faith. If you're not, declaring what your position is at BPI and what your intent is would also be a sign of good faith.
- It looks like there are plenty of editors willing to work with you but if you have any questions, feel free to ask on my talk page. OlYeller21Talktome 20:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
As we've covered, this IP belongs to BPI. In my opinion, there is only one person editing from that IP address. That person has stated that their name is Chuck. I won't speculate on their identity here but I believe that they have a close connection to the entire beef industry but when confronted regarding their COI, they have stated that they will, "make suggestions only via the talking page."
I feel that the editor sometimes feels that they know the truth and that regardless of what others feel (independent and reliable sources), only the truth should be covered. Still, the user has been doing something between discussing and full-out edit warring with TheRedPenOfDoom.
I'm about to go through the edits but before I do, I'll state my current opinion: Reliable sources made a claim about BPI. Those claims should be covered in the article. BPI is suing at least one of those sources, stating that the information which they gave is false. That should also be included in the article. This isn't new or just my opinion. This is what Wikipedia has done for years.
This situation could use some more attention. OlYeller21Talktome 18:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Park Hyatt Chennai
- Park Hyatt Chennai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Vikram.koushik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 182.19.50.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 183.19.52.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User:Vikram.koushik registered on January 3rd, and immediately set to editing the article Park Hyatt Chennai (he's since edited nothing but that page). His changes are primarily demonstrated in this diff, where he adds some very flowery language to the page ("a wonderfully sublime setting", "the most innovative and versatile", "a blissful escape", ect), with the end result of all his additions sounding as if the page is a press release to prospective customers. He's thus far refused to communicate at all, and any attempt to remove his additions result in him immediately reverting. It's also worth noting that he's likely User:Parkhyattchennai, who was banned for an inappropriate username on January 2nd. InShaneee (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- As of just now, he's crossed the 4 reverts in one day threshold. InShaneee (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Blocked for 24 hours for 3RR. Lectonar (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- The text that he constantly re-inserts are copyvios from here [1]. I had marked them as {{copypaste}}s but the templates were deleted by an IP editor. Because of the IP's similar editing history and location, I suspect them of being the same person, so I've added them to the user list of this report. --Drm310 (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Blocked for 24 hours for 3RR. Lectonar (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
A new IP, User:182.19.52.123, has now reverted the page, word for word, to Vikram's last edit. This is the first time the IP has ever edited. Seems pretty likely it's another alternate of Vikram. I think semi-protection might be in order until this can be sorted out. InShaneee (talk) 07:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Illinois Family Institute
- Illinois Family Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- IllinoisFamily (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Davsmith88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
New users are adding primary source material to the article, and adding promotional propaganda. I imagine that Davsmith88 is the same as IllinoisFamily but he changed his username in response to a template I posted. This is a good thing. Binksternet (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
COI drafts and attribution
- Joe Schlesinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello all. An editor with a self-disclosed COI has posted a draft of some changes requested by the subject on the talk page. Some of the changes are good, and I'd like to incorporate them. Does anyone know the correct protocol in regards to attribution? If the content was researched and written by the new editor, is it problematic for me to add it myself to the article? The Interior (Talk) 00:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- If the sources are reliable and verify what's written, then I would say that it is appropriate for you to post them on the COI editor's behalf. I would also say it's appropriate for you to rephrase anything that isn't NPOV, just inform the COI editor of the changes you make. --Drm310 (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I was just wondering if I should put something in my edit summary, or a post something to talk, indicating that the edits aren't my own content, but came from another editor. Was reading Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, and wondering if those steps should be followed in this situation. The Interior (Talk) 01:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think something like "Adding verified text contributed by [[User:name of user]] on [[Talk:Joe Schlesinger]]" would sufficiently attribute the original contributor, while reassuring other editors that it passed a disconnected editor's scrutiny. --Drm310 (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'll do something along those lines, unless I hear otherwise. Best, The Interior (Talk) 05:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think something like "Adding verified text contributed by [[User:name of user]] on [[Talk:Joe Schlesinger]]" would sufficiently attribute the original contributor, while reassuring other editors that it passed a disconnected editor's scrutiny. --Drm310 (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I was just wondering if I should put something in my edit summary, or a post something to talk, indicating that the edits aren't my own content, but came from another editor. Was reading Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, and wondering if those steps should be followed in this situation. The Interior (Talk) 01:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Alexis Bittar
- Alexis Bittar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User:AlexisBittar
- User:64.206.40.210 An IP allocated to AlexisBittar.com
- User:ARBEdit
- User_talk:AlexisBittar
- User_talk:64.206.40.210
Novice user (IP at the subject's company) repeatedly removing content from a bio of a living person, which is sourced from a New York Times article, and some may find controversial - although the subject himself provided the information to NYT reporter. IP user then registered a user in the company name, after asking me to email the company for removal justification at the original talk. I have placed gentle warnings at User_talk:AlexisBittar, however the fact that I wrote much of the existing article may make it seem that I am claiming some rights to it. A comment from an admin would be appreciated. Nixie9 (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Have you had off-wiki correspondence with the IP editor? Did anything they say have traits of WP:OWN? --Drm310 (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- No correspondence, but User_talk:64.206.40.210 asked me to email them at service@alexisbittar.com so "I can explain to you why the edits were changed."--Nixie9 (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- New SPA just created to add promotional content and remove the same NYTimes references : User:ARBEdit--Nixie9 (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Chichester
- Chichester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- ChichesterWeb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I have just noticed that the said editor is editing the above article. Whilst his edits do not immediately appear disruptive, I believe his username implies a conflict of interest. If an admin could take a look at this it would be appreciated. MisterShiney ✉ 14:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Attributing a website with the same name as the username is a pretty open-and-shut case of WP:CORPNAME. I've left a notice and I'm sure a block will follow shortly. --Drm310 (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Sun (R&B band)
- Sun (R&B band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Tweedybyrd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Byron Byrd, a member of the band Sun (R&B band) is adding content to the band's article that seems to me to be non-encyclopedic and heavily slanted as far as POV. Sources provided do not seem to meet WP:RS. I've discussed this with him on his talk page but his most recent edits don't seem appropriate. Another set of eyes is required to evaluate the edits. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Formosa Plastics Corp
- Formosa Plastics Corp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 65.216.158.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Formosa Plastics Corp page was edited to remove the Scandals 'text'. The IP address of the computer performing the edit resolves back to www.fpcusa.com, which is Formosa Plastics Corp.
152.158.216.65.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer host152.fpcusa.com.
Punkcast
- Punkcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Better Badges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Wwwhatsup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wwwhats up admitted to a direct interest in the articles here [2] and here [3]. Both companies are founded by Joly MacFie. User may be MacFie or has ties to MacFie, they have uploaded photos owned by MacFie and have the name Joly MacFie link to the Wwwhatsup wikipedia account [4]. Has also uploaded files credited to punkcast [5]. There is a clear association of some type. Website [www.wwwhatsup.com] links to Joly MacFie's Facebook page. Wwwhatsup is really the only significant editor of both articles [6] [7], MarioNovi (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Additionally I nominated these pages as my first non anonymous contributions Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punkcast Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Better Badges (2nd nomination) and user was quite combatative and accused me immediately of doing it for ulterior motives and being an SPA here[8] and at AFD. User is also quite argumentative on AFDs, that may be normal but sounds like a COI to me. Both articles read on the surface like encyclopedic articles but have few sources and not much information and are there seems like to just advertise the companies. MarioNovi (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- There may well be a conflict of interest by the articles' author... but Mario's continued zeal and forum-shopping about this suggests a conflic of interest on his own part - namely, that he's tried (and failed, so far) to get the articles deleted based on who their author is. That is, it sounds like a personal vendetta. And his unwillingness to reveal his own past activity here reinforces that suspicion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hello Bugs. My interest is in only those pages was originally because they read like disguised advertisements and had only one contributor. Also I believe you are involed in WP:HOUND as Stalwart showed me by following me around everywhere, can you please stop? Please reply on my talk page not here so you do not clutter it up, Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
William Forsythe (choreographer)
- William Forsythe (choreographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Freyav (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User admits to working for subject; for almost four years, she has been polishing and elaborating this article, to the point where it reads like a promotional pamphlet for subject. Orange Mike | Talk 13:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)