Willking1979 (talk | contribs) →User:Georgianwebteam: new section |
|||
Line 467: | Line 467: | ||
{{user|Georgianwebteam}} made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georgian_College&curid=1211134&diff=300287454&oldid=288205133 this edit] today to [[Georgian College]]. User's first edit was back on February 18. <span style="font-family: Segoe UI">[[User:Willking1979|Willking1979]] [[User talk:Willking1979|(talk)]]</span> 20:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC) |
{{user|Georgianwebteam}} made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georgian_College&curid=1211134&diff=300287454&oldid=288205133 this edit] today to [[Georgian College]]. User's first edit was back on February 18. <span style="font-family: Segoe UI">[[User:Willking1979|Willking1979]] [[User talk:Willking1979|(talk)]]</span> 20:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
==[[User:Terrymacro]]== |
|||
See [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Outing.3F]], where it has been suggested that this situation might be more profitably addressed here. '''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|JN]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 20:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:53, 4 July 2009
Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
| ||||
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
| ||||
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
| ||||
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Search the COI noticeboard archives |
Help answer requested edits |
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
|
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Created article Ernie chen. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Possible autobiographies found by bot
- User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.
Requested edits
- Category:Requested edits. Editors who believe they have a Conflict of Interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should undo the {{Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requestor to explain your decision.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
- Artez Interactive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Artezinteractive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User formed a single purpose account to create an article for the user's company (user name is the name of the company). The user's userpage consists entirely a brochure for the company, complete with the company's logo. The article is a pure puff piece, as is the userpage. The user removes COI and other tags from the article without consensus (the only other editors are the ones who placed the tags). User was warned on user's talk page, did not respond, and persists in un-tagging the article. I found out about this because it is discussed as an example of blatant COI company spam at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Paid editing#Reality and brought it here. Finell (Talk) 20:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Pardon me for asking, but is anyone going to look into this? Finell (Talk) 19:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Artezinteractive was blocked for spamming and COI issues. Artez Interactive (the user) hasn't made any edits, or at least no edits on any existing pages. The Artez Interactive article was deleted. Are there any unresolved issues? This was all done prior to your last message. -- Atamachat 18:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Marking this as resolved, as it clearly is. – ukexpat (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Relisting Sathya Sai Baba and user:Andries
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
- Sathya Sai Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Andries (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- SSS108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Nobody commented, so please do so now. Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_33#Sathya_Sai_Baba. Andries (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- I stand by the CoI tag. Not only you, but the second largest contributor of the article, SSS108, were banned from the article for a possible CoI. The tag is more than appropriate, as it only warns the reader that the article was edited by one or more users that may have had a Conflict of Interest. I don't see how the tag couldn't be appropriate. Thanks, Onopearls (t/c) 20:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- SSS108 and I had opposite opinions, so we balanced each other out. Again, two years and many edits have passed since we last edited this article, so I think the tag is inappropriate. Andries (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- You cannot deny that the article most certainly has information that one or both of you added. That alone makes the tag appropriate, as you were both charged with having a CoI. I mean, the length of time since your last edit should have absolutely nothing to do with the CoI tag, unless you can provide diffs where each bit of info that you and SSS108 added was removed or changed. Until then, the tag is appropriate and should remain on the page, as it serves as a warning to each reader of the article that the two largest contributors had a conflict of interest for the two-three years that they edited it. Thanks, Onopearls (t/c) 03:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- The article has been full-protected due to a revert war. There has been plenty of dispute about the article. Four editors are still indef banned from the article including Andries and SSS108. See also:
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive544#Concerns regarding removal of info on Sathya Sai Baba
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2
- Currently-running case at WP:EAR (objection to removal of well-sourced criticism)
- Complete list of links to this article from Wikipedia space
- Is there anyone who wants to check the article for neutrality and make suggestions here for how to fix it? Keeping the COI tag on an article forever is not desirable. EdJohnston (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- SSS108 and I had opposite opinions, so we balanced each other out. Again, two years and many edits have passed since we last edited this article, so I think the tag is inappropriate. Andries (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The text of the COI tag says:
- A major contributor to this article appears to have a conflict of interest with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page.
The tag is not intended as a warning for readers so much as a notice for editors that there are problems which need to be fixed. It particulrly mentions that the article may may require cleanup in order to comply with NPOV. However the article already has an NPOV tag on it, so it doesn't add much there. The other issue is that the tag is intended to be discussed on the talk page, with specific complaints that can be fixed. Onopearls wrote on the talk page:
- The fact remains that you are the largest contributor to this article. Information that you added remains in the article. That alone justifies adding the tag, as a general warning to readers.
That seems to be saying that the tag needs to stay up indefinitely, or at least until every word added by a COI editor has been removed. That is not a helpful approach. It would be more helpful if the editor would identify the text that is problematic so it can be fixed. If the editor fails to do that then it'd reasonable to remove the tag. Will Beback talk 19:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Since no list of the problems to be fixed has been supplied, I went ahead and removed the COI tag from the article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- User Andries maintains a website called Ex-Baba,http://www.exbaba.com/, he is listed on the home page as the main administrator. This site makes many outrageous, unfounded and unproven claims against Sai Baba and continues a high profile smear campaign against Sai Baba even to this day. Please review this website. That being said though I believe the article has reached neutral status so I don't think the tag should be there.Sbs108 (talk) 05:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for agreeing to remove the tag. And by the way, the article was LESS critical when I still edited it. Andries (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- User Andries maintains a website called Ex-Baba,http://www.exbaba.com/, he is listed on the home page as the main administrator. This site makes many outrageous, unfounded and unproven claims against Sai Baba and continues a high profile smear campaign against Sai Baba even to this day. Please review this website. That being said though I believe the article has reached neutral status so I don't think the tag should be there.Sbs108 (talk) 05:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Caspar Henderson (talk · contribs) Many self promotional edits including autobio spam. Triplestop (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I hate to say it, but it looks like his autobiography is pretty notable, assuming those references back up the claims made. He hasn't edited it in nearly 4 years. Some notification that he is the subject of a Wikipedia article would be warranted, but otherwise I don't see what the COI problem is if he never touches his own article. -- Atamachat 18:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
- Npres Media (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Fort Myers, Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This WP:SPA has edited articles solely for the purpose of adding redlinks to a church, a pastor and his grandson. I've attempted to engage the editor in discussion, telling him about the notability standards and pointing him to the guidelines for each man, but he simply keeps adding the info back in, unsourced. A search was conducted, but I can't find anything that would qualify either of them under notability standards. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- There's no evidence of a conflict of interest. The number of edits seem fairly minimal. They stopped just short of three reverts (as did you). It's a shame that they are uncommunicative, but there doesn't seem to be any gross violations made. -- Atamachat 21:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, there were a small number of edits. They were all to mention the endeavors of a single person, Rev. Daymon. Whether mentioning that he founded the church, a school or that another non-notable person was his grandson, they all involved him. There was a second article on a NFL player where the same user inserted an unsourced mention of the players elementary school, which was, you guessed it, the same elementary school that Daymon founded. The account has made no edits since then. Most definately looking like a WP:SPA and I suspected a COI because of the way they were written. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- No edits by Npres Media since June 19. It appears that Niteshift36 has cleaned up whatever problems may have been created by this editor in Fort Myers, Florida. I suggest that this report can be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, there were a small number of edits. They were all to mention the endeavors of a single person, Rev. Daymon. Whether mentioning that he founded the church, a school or that another non-notable person was his grandson, they all involved him. There was a second article on a NFL player where the same user inserted an unsourced mention of the players elementary school, which was, you guessed it, the same elementary school that Daymon founded. The account has made no edits since then. Most definately looking like a WP:SPA and I suspected a COI because of the way they were written. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
User palefist
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
I believe user palefist has COI being an upset customer or competitor trying to edit Bloomex. I believe we need to warn " palefist" from editing this article. See discussion board.Floralexpert (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Evidence is always good. Do you have any? EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ironic. And don't hold your breath waiting for evidence. :-) Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
please ask him to state his real name and email and representetive from the company Jeff Godfrey will run if he placed any orders with company. you may ask him if he ever placed an order with th company. the other evidence is his contribution list-he is writing only about Bloomex.Floralexpert (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I am troubled that User:Floralexpert, a editor with an admitted COI ("I was all my adult life in floral business, owing number of retail outlets in Canada.I live in Ottawa, Canada and I involved in wholesale and bouquet distribution business now"), apparently feels he can edit floral industry articles at will, as do the other "Alex..." etc. accounts. What is the correct solution for this behavior, wholesale reversions? --CliffC (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I lost track. Was a sockpuppet investigation ever started? It sure seems like all these florist users are the same guy. Rees11 (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Not to my knowledge, but I'm not an admin so I don't follows such things. Lots of discussion of possible suspects at Talk:Bloomex, though. Based on his edits, I'd guess that User:Bw213 is actually a different person. Perhaps a like-thinking cousin in Florida? --CliffC (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm going to try to start a sockpuppet investigation (never done that before). As to the request for my personal info, I never used Bloomex and have never worked in the industry. Bloomex started spamming a discussion group I was reading a while back after one of our members reported an extremely bad experience with their service. The spam came in the form of dozens of "positive" reviews written by new members who cut and pasted reviews within seconds of signing up, then never posted again (pretty damning evidence of sock puppets and meat puppets). The bogus reviews were deleted by the admins once someone pointed out they were the exact same "positive reviews", word for word, popping up on other discussion boards. Admins figured from IP info, dates and times that Bloomex employees were searching for negative Bloomex reviews and trying to spam them out of existence with their own phony positive reviews. I added the controversy section to the Bloomex Wikipedia article, which was obviously posted by an employee as advertising and used for SEO purposes. It looks like it was Jeff Godfrey(user godfreyj) who posted it, using an alias that he often used elsewhere (polygene). That user didn't edit any other article, and created the article shortly after Godfrey joined Bloomex as internet marketing strategist and SEO dude. They use multiple gray/black hat methods (fake reviews; duplicate blogs containing the same material; multiple domains, including a fake review site registered to Bloomex owner Dimitri, etc., etc.) Pretty dastardly stuff.
- The assertion that I've only edited Bloomex is clearly false, based on the publicly available contributions listing on my user page. The Flowermen have a habit of accusing others of what they do themselves. pale (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- The SPI case has been filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flowerman11. EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- The assertion that I've only edited Bloomex is clearly false, based on the publicly available contributions listing on my user page. The Flowermen have a habit of accusing others of what they do themselves. pale (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
If Floralexpert has been engaged in disruptive behavior, that is certainly bad. If Floralexpert has been inserting their own POV, or been uncivil, or has engaged in sockpuppetry, that is definitely bad. But if Floralexpert is a professional in the floral industry, how is that a COI? On the contrary, a person with first-hand experience in the floral industry is the best person to edit such articles assuming they are able to maintain a neutral POV, avoid original research, and contribute in a positive manner. Wikipedia can always use more experts. I'm not at all defending Floralexpert, and if Floralexpert is somehow connected with Bloomex itself that's obviously a COI, but I'm very much disturbed by the insistence that Floralexpert has an "admitted COI". The only "COI" that Floralexpert admitted to is being in the floral industry, and if we start chasing away experts then where will Wikipedia be? -- Atamachat 19:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Check out the article's Talk page and the article's edit history since mid-May. There has been a steady stream of editors, many of whom have 'floral' in their name, who have been trying to remove well-sourced criticism of Bloomex from the article. One might be forgiven for speculating that there is an off-site campaign trying to whitewash this article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- A number of accounts who appear to be engaged in sockpuppetry to push a POV, yes, that's bad and the SPI case was warranted. But we have to be careful not to consider a person's real life vocation and/or expertise in a field to be a conflict of interest in and of itself, which has been suggested at least by CliffC. -- Atamachat 23:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to suggest that expertise in a field makes for a de facto conflict of interest, far from it. However, when we combine User:Floralexpert's statement of expertise and experience with his record of edits since he first appeared on May 20, it's hard not to believe that he is likely a Bloomex officer, employee or contractor, or has some other business or familial relationship with the company. I find it particularly laughable that he claims here on another editor's talk page "I came accross arcticle acidentaly", but his first-ever Wikipedia edit was to delete a link to the company's negative Better Business Bureau report. --CliffC (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- A number of accounts who appear to be engaged in sockpuppetry to push a POV, yes, that's bad and the SPI case was warranted. But we have to be careful not to consider a person's real life vocation and/or expertise in a field to be a conflict of interest in and of itself, which has been suggested at least by CliffC. -- Atamachat 23:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Zicam and Zinc gluconate
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Zicam products which contain Zinc gluconate have been ordered off the market by the FDA as hazardous. Cosmic Latte (talk · contribs) keeps trying to minimize this, in 46 edits to those two articles removing parts of FDA statements, adding company denials, and manipulating headings to deemphasize the product recall and reports of injury. It's not clear if this editor has some connection to the company. --John Nagle (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- My edits have invoked policies and guidelines, so I do not see why you are assuming that I might have a "connection" to anything other than Wikipedia. And, having assumed such a possibility, you could have simply asked me to confirm it or deny it. In that case I would have denied it, given that my interest in Zicam stems not from any corporate connections, but rather from the fact--surprising though it may be--that I have caught at least a cold or two in my lifetime. If you still are not satisfied, then perhaps you could provide some actual diffs to demonstrate how my edits have been unreasonable, or at least less reasonable than your repeated and largely unqualified accusations ([1], [2], [3], [4]) of "whitewashing"? Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- See this edit [5] which deleted a quote from the FDA's warning letter. This is blatant whitewashing. Removing the FDA's words "A significant and growing body of evidence substantiates that the Zicam Cold Remedy intranasal products may pose a serious risk to consumers who use them." is a bit much. --John Nagle (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Allow me to refer interested editors to the article talk, where I have explained my actions in-depth and where (as opposed to here) this discussion should have materialized in the first place. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have only looked at the last diff provided by Nagle. [6] No whitewashing at all. Encyclopedias don't contain long passages like that from primary sources unless there is a very good reason. The edit summary contained sufficient justification. The source from which the citation came is still linked as a reference. If this wasn't a US government source, citing excessively like that would even be a copyright violation, since it's clearly not covered by fair use. Hans Adler 18:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Hans. I’ve recently edited the Zicam article to correct a “broad-brushing” problem which left the inaccurate impression that all Zicam products were being recalled. I can see no evidence of “whitewashing” (which was what led me to the article) nor which suggests Cosmic Latte has a COI problem. It really seems to be nothing more than a content/style issue, and I would recommend closing this as resolved. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have only looked at the last diff provided by Nagle. [6] No whitewashing at all. Encyclopedias don't contain long passages like that from primary sources unless there is a very good reason. The edit summary contained sufficient justification. The source from which the citation came is still linked as a reference. If this wasn't a US government source, citing excessively like that would even be a copyright violation, since it's clearly not covered by fair use. Hans Adler 18:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Allow me to refer interested editors to the article talk, where I have explained my actions in-depth and where (as opposed to here) this discussion should have materialized in the first place. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- See this edit [5] which deleted a quote from the FDA's warning letter. This is blatant whitewashing. Removing the FDA's words "A significant and growing body of evidence substantiates that the Zicam Cold Remedy intranasal products may pose a serious risk to consumers who use them." is a bit much. --John Nagle (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Note that Rush Limbaugh has been attacking the FDA with claims that the sole reason for the health warning is because Zicam is one of his sponsors. Beware of Dittoheads. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Unless Rush Limbaugh has been editing the articles I don't see what your statement has to do with this discussion. This isn't a forum, WTWAG. Nagle, you've obviously posted your complaint on the wrong board. You haven't even really alleged that Cosmic Latte has a conflict of interest, you are instead making a neutrality complaint, and honestly it seems to be a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. There are methods for resolving those conflicts and they don't involve reporting someone on a noticeboard (not until you've exhausted all other alternatives). -- Atamachat 19:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Jorge Bechara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Georgebech (talk · contribs)
This article reads like a resume and seems in serious need of an overhaul (and it's been that way for almost a year). It may be an autobiography, based on the similarity of username to subject. (I imagine that IP editors in the range 58.178 are likely the same user.) I came upon the article through OTRS, clearing use for an image. I've tagged it for a POV check and will notify the contributor of our COI guidelines, but wanted to list it here in case somebody had time and opportunity to look it over. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm. A new WP:SPA came in and removed the tag, possibly inadvertently? I've restored it. Back to copyright matters. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the user is the subject of the article, based on the fact that the apparent self-portrait that appears in the article was taken by Georgebech. Rees11 (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I removed some fluff but was reverted. Added COI and refimprove tags. Rees11 (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've placed a COI template on the anon's talk page as well (and added 58.178.73.241 to the list of parties above). Askari Mark (Talk) 03:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
All of the IP addresses appear to be part of the same dynamic address pool under .dsl.syd.iprimus.net.au. So it's possible they are all the same user getting a different IP address every time they connect. Rees11 (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Um, yeah ... I got distracted from my computer for a while and forgot what had already been written about that. I removed the note above; as for the talk page, maybe he'll come across it in three more years. Pardon me while I go find a wet trout for self-abuse. :( Askari Mark (Talk) 03:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- One of the 58.178.* IPs left a talk comment at Moonriddengirl's page, which is the first time ever that this editor has engaged in talk. I am leaving a note for Georgebech (talk · contribs) about the discussion here to see if we can get his attention. Though the article is tagged for POV, it looks like it could be fixed without much work. The sequence of edits by the IP suggests he may be getting the message about our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't find any reliable sources for what appears to be an autobiography so I have listed it at AfD here. Smartse (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
We deliberately chose a username similar to what was to be our first wiki edit/creation. The subject attracted our interest through the mentioned international media publications and institutions. The included information and images are from Foreign Correspondent's Association and Art Gallery of New South Wales, which we regarded as reliable sources. Understanding the issues discussed on this page we’re trying to fix the article hoping that it's a valid initial contribution. Georgebech (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
- Yungd360 (talk · contribs)
- The Prince Yung D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Yung D discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
See this discussion. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
- Thomas Alured Faunce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Fauncet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Subject has probably written his own bio, Thomas Alured Faunce (based on editor's username and the tone of the bio - you have to read it), and is inserting references to himself in other articles left and right. I don't know that the bio is notable enough to keep. Since I'm already involved in another conflict with him at Talk:Meditation#Meditation in Hinduism, it would be better if an uninvolved editor (and one more knowledgable about COI) looked into this. User is Fauncet (talk · contribs). Priyanath talk 21:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- I strongly suspect this is true considering that almost every reference given in the article is self-published. On the other hand, the subject does seem pretty notable, so it's unlikely that the article would be deleted, but in the future he shouldn't be allowed to edit his own page. Of course there's no problem with him using the talk page to make suggestions or provide information to be added. -- Atamachat 20:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I left a notice at his talk page. -- Atamachat 20:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- The article on Thomas Alured Faunce reads like a resume and seems a bit fluffy. I wish there were some regular editor who has the time to rewrite it. Checking Whatlinkshere to this article causes some concern that Faunce could be founding an empire here on Wikpedia. For example, the new article on Intellectual monopoly privilege is mostly by Fauncet, and he seems to be one of the two contributors to that new field. I am wondering if Faunce, as an associate professor, has already done such important work that he needs to be cited in Innovation, Intellectual property and Whistleblower. There might be a concern that he has a COI in attempting to add mentions of his own work to other articles. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know, I get the impression that he came onto Wikipedia without a lot of foreknowledge and started making what he thought were appropriate contributions. I think if he still has interest in Wikipedia he might be fine with a little guidance, he has taken the time to explain what he was doing while in my experience an editor who is intentionally trying to push something on Wikipedia is much more defiant. I tried to think what I would have done in his situation, where he thought Wikipedia had an article on him that was blank, and tried to improve it, and I would probably have done the same thing. -- Atamachat 23:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- The article on Thomas Alured Faunce reads like a resume and seems a bit fluffy. I wish there were some regular editor who has the time to rewrite it. Checking Whatlinkshere to this article causes some concern that Faunce could be founding an empire here on Wikpedia. For example, the new article on Intellectual monopoly privilege is mostly by Fauncet, and he seems to be one of the two contributors to that new field. I am wondering if Faunce, as an associate professor, has already done such important work that he needs to be cited in Innovation, Intellectual property and Whistleblower. There might be a concern that he has a COI in attempting to add mentions of his own work to other articles. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Susan Singleton
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
- Susan Singleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created by and is being edited by Singlelaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)... clear conflict of interest. TeapotgeorgeTalk 21:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I tagged it COI, but I would also question notability. Rees11 (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Article is now at Afd. I have reported the user to WP:UAA. – ukexpat (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Cloudruns. I suspect has connections with Wolfram Research the producers of Mathematica
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Mathematica is an high-end maths program produced by Wolfram Research. The Mathematica article has always been very promotional - a point that has been made by several different people at different times in the talk page. One of the regular editors JonMcLoone (talk · contribs) admits on the Talk:Mathematica he is employed by Wolfram Research, and as you will note, several have complained out his Mathematica links. But Jon does provide information to the Mathematica page which only an employee would know.
However, my concern here is about Cloudruns (talk · contribs), who I believe is trying to promote Mathematica too much, at the expensive of other similar software. Cloudruns (talk · contribs) edits many different pages on maths software, usually adding material to give the impression nothing can touch Mathematica. Some examples of dubious edits are:
- On a comparison of computer algebra systems, he wrote of Mathematica Ubiquitous system also includes extensive numeric capabilities, statistics, image processing, number theory, boolean computation and is a development environment. [7] It's far from clear the program is ubiquitous
- Cloudruns adds Mathematica to the page on a list of interactive geometry software [8] User Toscha (talk · contribs) later removed edit, correctly pointed out Mathematica is not interactive geometry software. Nobody would buy Mathematica for that purpose.
- Although I would not dispute he was right to remove some hype words from an article on Sage (a competitor to Mathematica), he does tend to add hype whenever he can if it benefits Mathematica, and remove hype when he can if it might be detrimental to Mathematica.
- When I wrote Sage, which aims to be a free alternative to Mathematica, can be used as an interface to Mathematica Cloudruns changed it to Sage mathematics software can be used as an interface to Mathematica.
I have no hard evidence to support my believe he probably works for Wolfram Research, but when asked both in Talk:Mathematica, and User_talk:Cloudruns if this is true, he declines to answer. Drkirkby (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Does anyone have any comment on this? I'm not sure what is supposed to happen, as this is the first time I have reported anyone for a conflict of interest. Drkirkby (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've left a comment on Mathematica's talk page. I actually agreed with him on that particular issue about the "hype" about Sage, but that doesn't mean I agree with all of his edits. I reminded him that WP:COI strongly encourages editors to disclose a conflict of interest if they wish to edit an article whose subject they are affiliated with. On the other hand, Drkirkby, the question has been raised as to whether or not you are affiliated with Sage, and if so I give you the same encouragement for disclosure. -- Atamachat 20:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree there was some hype words. I did not write them myself. I agree he was right to remove them. It's just when you look at many of his edits, they seem very biased in one direction.
- I do work as a developer on the Sage project (unpaid) - my main interest is improving the port to Solaris. I'll post a bit more info on the Mathematica talk page. Drkirkby (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've left a comment on Mathematica's talk page. I actually agreed with him on that particular issue about the "hype" about Sage, but that doesn't mean I agree with all of his edits. I reminded him that WP:COI strongly encourages editors to disclose a conflict of interest if they wish to edit an article whose subject they are affiliated with. On the other hand, Drkirkby, the question has been raised as to whether or not you are affiliated with Sage, and if so I give you the same encouragement for disclosure. -- Atamachat 20:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Does anything else happen when User_talk:Cloudruns still refuses to answer if he has a WP:COI, despite your request? He still edits the Mathematica page in a pro-Wolfram way? Before his last round of edits, which promote the product even more, someone else has said in talk page that FWIW, I'm not particularly vested in any edits to this article, but am a regular Mathematica user. From that informed distance, this page comes across (to me at least) as strikingly Mathematica-biased: the text reads like ad copy... I'm not the only to feel that article is biased, and there are others who made the point in the archived talk pages. One person commented on this, but never edited the article as he disclosed he was a former employee. User_talk:Cloudruns just increases that bias. Drkirkby (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, no, I don't think anything else happens now. The difficulty is that I don't think you can really show a conflict of interest here. It might be shown that he has a pro-Mathematica bias, but the POV noticeboard might be a better place to try to get that resolved. Honestly, his refusal to answer is suspicious but he's not at all required to answer. WP:COI is a guideline, and doesn't supersede an editor's right to privacy, and you'll notice in reading the guideline that the language is quite careful, talking about what is "recommended" and "suggested". I think it might be worth bringing up in later discussions that he has refused to disclose his affiliation or lack thereof, but don't hound him about it or that could be considered harrassment and could backfire. If somehow it is revealed that he does have those affiliations and refused to disclose them earlier that will reflect poorly on him, but in the meantime what if he says no? If he's lying, you can't prove it. So I'd let this go of this particular angle and if he acts tedentious either report to the POV board or go through regular dispute resolution. -- Atamachat 22:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Atama (talk · contribs). Although we both agree the refusal of Cloudruns (talk · contribs) to answer whether he has a conflict of interest is suspicious, I will not ask him any more about it. But I will as you suggest mention in any further discussions that Cloudruns (talk · contribs) has refused to disclose whether or not he has an affiliation with Wolfram Research. I will copy this over to the Mathematica talk page so there is a record of it there. Thank you once again. Drkirkby (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, no, I don't think anything else happens now. The difficulty is that I don't think you can really show a conflict of interest here. It might be shown that he has a pro-Mathematica bias, but the POV noticeboard might be a better place to try to get that resolved. Honestly, his refusal to answer is suspicious but he's not at all required to answer. WP:COI is a guideline, and doesn't supersede an editor's right to privacy, and you'll notice in reading the guideline that the language is quite careful, talking about what is "recommended" and "suggested". I think it might be worth bringing up in later discussions that he has refused to disclose his affiliation or lack thereof, but don't hound him about it or that could be considered harrassment and could backfire. If somehow it is revealed that he does have those affiliations and refused to disclose them earlier that will reflect poorly on him, but in the meantime what if he says no? If he's lying, you can't prove it. So I'd let this go of this particular angle and if he acts tedentious either report to the POV board or go through regular dispute resolution. -- Atamachat 22:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Does anything else happen when User_talk:Cloudruns still refuses to answer if he has a WP:COI, despite your request? He still edits the Mathematica page in a pro-Wolfram way? Before his last round of edits, which promote the product even more, someone else has said in talk page that FWIW, I'm not particularly vested in any edits to this article, but am a regular Mathematica user. From that informed distance, this page comes across (to me at least) as strikingly Mathematica-biased: the text reads like ad copy... I'm not the only to feel that article is biased, and there are others who made the point in the archived talk pages. One person commented on this, but never edited the article as he disclosed he was a former employee. User_talk:Cloudruns just increases that bias. Drkirkby (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Ray Dotoratos
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Hi folks. I could use some help with Ray Dotoratos, which is a clear WP:COI and WP:BLP problem. I don't know for certain it is an autobiography, but the author is aggressively removing my requests for sources, and my attempts to engage him on his talk page have only produced a stream of insults and reverts. By the way, Mr. Dotoratos gets very few google hits, so the issue of notability may also be relevant. Thank you for any assistance, Antandrus (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Subject is not notable as far as I can tell. The few news hits that come up are just listings of scheduled performances. Given the promotional text, COI, lack of notability, and absence of sources, it's almost a speedy deletion candidate, certainly AfD. Rees11 (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Probably a COI, but I'd say delete the article in AfD and deal with his other behavior through normal channels when needed. -- Atamachat 20:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Rockstar (drink)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
- 56ghyv842851654 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - active at Rockstar (drink), appears to be very strongly connected with the company, which has had some recent controversy. Among other things, user is pushing an astroturfing website. Apart from constantly reverting/editing, is there anything else that can or should be done? Perhaps someone else could keep an eye on it at least. Disembrangler (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- I am trying to add correct information about the company. Wikipedia was designed to give information about topics and not be used as a trashing ground for political mudslinging. Information on this page is misleading and not entirely correct plus information that I have added that is correct and relevant to the company is being erased as to push other people's agenda. We have no problems with people talking about what has happened but we want it to be correct and be able to share good facts about the company. 56ghyv842851654 (talk) 23 June 2009
- Please read WP:SPAM, there is a huge difference between an encyclopedic article and an advertisement masquerading as an article. – ukexpat (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Information i provided was about the events that Rockstar has sponsored and of the factual information regarding the Company. At no point was i soliciting. This is an article about the company and i provided information about the company. So this does not qualify as spam. 56ghyv842851654 (talk) 23 June 2009
- It may not have been your intention, but that was the way it read. Filling an article about a company with minute detail about its activities can give the impression of being promotional and is also not very encyclopedic. – ukexpat (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Doesn't this interesting slip basically say all that need be said? Quaeler (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Good catch, and of course single-purpose and shared accounts are not permitted. – ukexpat (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Then let me ask what information is considered valid? Wikipedia cannot be a trash site. Rockstar is entitled to have valid information about the company. This cannot be a trash site. The other articles about the boycott are also fall into COI yet those articles are allowed to remain. There is more to the company story then this boycott but for some reason only the boycott information is allowed to stay. There is a abuse of COI right there. 56ghyv842851654 (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- If I publish a add-on to the article here, can we agree on it before I publish it to the site? 56ghyv842851654 (talk) 23 June 2009
- The best place to do that is the article's talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Due to the inherent conflict of interest issues with a shared account created by the marketing department of a company, I have shut down (indef blocked) the user above. I have invited them to create a new, individual account, disclose their relationship with Rockstar on their user page and here, and participate preferably by discussing on the article talk page.
- I am also going to go look at the article in more depth to review the concerns they are raising here. Just because their first response was not entirely appropriate does not mean that their article concerns are not necessarily valid. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Danny Mekić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I suspect that Twinmate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who created this article may be the subject. Hard to prove or disprove but the article is fairly promotional. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- It should be pointed out that the article is currently in an AfD. -- Atamachat 19:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Just so you know, I reverted a sequence of edits to my article at Arthur Rubin which contained clear libel. It's possible that some of the other edits in the sequence were consistent with Wikipeida policies and guidelines, but references to cockfighting are clearly inappropriate. If an uninvolved editor wishes to restore the parts of the anon's edit which are in keeping with guidelines, go ahead. I also noted this on Talk:Arthur Rubin, but I believe that self-reporting here seems the best bet in keeping with the guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- The IP who made the 'cockfighting' edit appears to be a vandal-only account. I've given then a 24-hour timeout to reflect on the problem of accuracy in BLP articles. Once somebody like yourself already has an article, adding something about them running for office seems legitimate; other opinions are welcome. EdJohnston (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think the other two changes by the anon were well-meaning; the gramatical edit was just inept. Their comment on running for office not being notable is probably an allusion to WP:POLITICIAN, which states that only holding an elected office makes a person notable. However, this isn’t the main thing making Mr. Rubin notable, so you could probably flip a coin on keeping it or removing it. The only thing I saw in the rest of the article that I found problematical is the last sentence of the first paragraph in the lede. It’s peacockery and non-encyclopedic in tone. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Just to note, it's been about a week and that anonymous editor hasn't resurfaced. In addition, I've added a citation for the state assembly run which the vandal deleted because it wasn't cited. -- Atamachat 20:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think the other two changes by the anon were well-meaning; the gramatical edit was just inept. Their comment on running for office not being notable is probably an allusion to WP:POLITICIAN, which states that only holding an elected office makes a person notable. However, this isn’t the main thing making Mr. Rubin notable, so you could probably flip a coin on keeping it or removing it. The only thing I saw in the rest of the article that I found problematical is the last sentence of the first paragraph in the lede. It’s peacockery and non-encyclopedic in tone. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
- Cindy Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Gkerkvliet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Paid spamming, see 1 2 3, 4 and 5. I've handed out my standard advert4im/coi for paid adverts, but what do we do with the article? MER-C 06:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- The job listing says, "Article should adhere to all of Wikipedia's guidelines." Maybe inform the subject that the article doesn't meet guidelines and she shouldn't pay? Rees11 (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest that the Cindy Cohen article be nominated for deletion. She has a film credit for Soulkeeper, a made-for-TV movie where she played a role called Green-Eyed Girl. Our article on the film doesn't mention her name. Similarly the IMDB entry for the film doesn't include her. It does not sound that she would meet WP:BIO, unless our article is missing something important about her. EdJohnston (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I am going to go ahead and nominate for deletion. --Leivick (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest that the Cindy Cohen article be nominated for deletion. She has a film credit for Soulkeeper, a made-for-TV movie where she played a role called Green-Eyed Girl. Our article on the film doesn't mention her name. Similarly the IMDB entry for the film doesn't include her. It does not sound that she would meet WP:BIO, unless our article is missing something important about her. EdJohnston (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Spokeo
- Spokeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article is essentially written and maintained by the company it describes. The company is just another people search engine; only notable for spamming people[1], and the only sources are some outdated references from tech blogs. I tried editing it, but the CEO of the company changed it back again - after sending me an email offering me a free "premium account" with his site...akaDruid (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Tagged for speedy delete. Rees11 (talk) 02:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- And untagged, because I see it has already survived an AfD, although I can't imagine how. The article as it stands is nothing but advertising. Rees11 (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- It survived the delete because of the "multiple non-trivial published works" rule which is essentially broken for web2.0 type websites; any and every new site that does a press release gets some chatter on the millions of tech blogs; which count as 'reliable sources' for this purpose.
- Also in the Afd, I argued that the article is CofI, OR and misleading, to which the response was 'edit, don't delete'; except I can't edit it because the site owners change it back. Ho hum. I wouldn't care so much, except that the site is so slimy; they are spamming people's contacts, and worse, trying to mine people's personal data and then sell it (to recruiters and such like), which is so unethical it makes me shiver. akaDruid (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Since April the main editor has been 74.220.79.129 (talk · contribs) whose edits have mainly been to this article and to Carolyn Mary Kleefeld, an article created in April by DavidJayBrown (talk · contribs) who has also edited this article 3 times. The article was tagged for potential coi in May but the tag was removed today by the IP. The IP geolocates to an area near where the two subjects seem to live (not together so far as I can tell but they do seem to know each other). I'll replace the tag. Dougweller (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Both of them are written as resumes and are full of peacocking. I don't doubt the COI at all. I've noted some additional concerns on each article's talk page, but boy those articles are a mess. -- Atamachat 23:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Springer Science+Business Media products - multiple articles
- Neolithic66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - has created spammy articles on a number of products of Springer Science+Business Media (SpringerImages, Springer Exemplar, AuthorMapper, and edited others (Springer Science+Business Media) or inserted Springer product names into other articles (CiteULike); and seems to have no interest in any other topic. Orange Mike | Talk 00:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Many Springer products are notable, and these may be also, but they have just been released. I'm prepared to try to contact the company, because I think they've also used other usernames for some of their articles on journals. I will help them as needed, but they can't do it this way. DGG (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanx, DGG. I can always depend on you to do the right thing in this kind of situation; but please be prepared to use your biggest cluebat. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- Many Springer products are notable, and these may be also, but they have just been released. I'm prepared to try to contact the company, because I think they've also used other usernames for some of their articles on journals. I will help them as needed, but they can't do it this way. DGG (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Truegreta
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
- Truegreta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - is on the Interim Board of Directors of the Free Gaza Movement. The user is now editing the page without neutrality as a reaction to it being vandalized recently. The user also continues to add inappropriate sources. The user had a discussion with another user last year about a similar subject in which a warning was given. The editor now continues to debate and refuses to follow standards.Cptnono (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
::Follow-up: I have posted as much information as possible on the user's talkpage since the last edit that led me to believe that a mention here was necessary. Hopefully, it was just confusion on their part and no further action is needed. Apologies for cluttering this noticeboard.Cptnono (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC) I am requesting a more experienced editor or administrator to resolve the concern with an editor who has a conflict of interest.Cptnono (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The page FREE GAZA MOVEMENT has been seriously undermined by several posters, in particular Cptnono. The first paragraph of the entry was changed from the original posting more than a year ago, and the page was libelous. We have been trying to fix not only that paragraph, but we have protested that Cptnono is eliminating our references, changing some of the text and reporting our serious concerns by threatening to forbid us to enter legitimate text and sources. We ask that Cptnono not be allowed to make changes (many of them unnecessary and some of them libelous). If he did not add so many of his personal views, none of our changes would have been necessary. And we object to his removing sources just because he seems to think that Middle East/Far East papers are not worthy of being included in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truegreta (talk • contribs) 20:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Your account appears to be a group account in violation of Wikipedia's user name policy and has been reported. – ukexpat (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- I feel that I have to defend myself here as I did on the user's talk page. I did not make the edits with incorrect and inflammatory information. it was another user and it was inappropriate. Please see Trugreta's, mine, or the article in question's if there are further inquiries on to my edits.Cptnono (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that there is a problem in Truegreta editing this page. As a source cited states the user appears to be a co-founder of the movement. It is therefore difficult to think that her edits are not a form of advocacy, this is strongly discouraged at Wikipedia:COI#Campaigning. If both of you could stop editing the article for the moment it would be useful. I disagree that Truegreta is being used my multiple people at present - is there any evidence? I therefore don't think that Truegreta should be blocked. Smartse (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- I reverted my previous edit and will hold off until this is resolved.Cptnono (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Truegreta has an indef block now, although I'm not quite certain why. Clearly she was in violation of WP:COI and has had quite a few warnings about her editing and conduct, but the block still seems sudden. It claims a username violation, but what violation? -- Atamachat 16:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Read the posts above - it's clearly a group/shared name in violation of WP:NOSHARE. – ukexpat (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Why? Because they used the term "we" to describe themself? I actually see that often in Wikipedia, it's a quirky thing to do but I think it's a leap to assume that an account is shared because of it. The opposite is true, if a person uses "I" to describe themself that doesn't mean the account isn't shared. Do you have another reason to believe that it's shared? -- Atamachat 18:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Read the posts above - it's clearly a group/shared name in violation of WP:NOSHARE. – ukexpat (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't block them, so don't take it up with me. They can appeal the block if they so wish per the notice on their talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Honestly I'm not in tears over this, I really dislike POV-pushing activists, especially ones who speak with such charged language as Truegreta does (accusing everyone of spreading Zionist lies) but if someone is blocked it would be best if it was done for valid reasons. I've left a comment at the blocking admin's talk page. -- Atamachat 18:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- I wanted to mention that an IP address from the group made an edit on the talk page before trugreta really started in. That was done perfectly. They brought up the concerns and I thought that was awesome. That person probably notified truegreta who unhappy about the shenanigans from the malicious edit. Truegreta can appeal and the IP is not blocked so I hope this is now resolved (besides any possible loose ends with the reason used in the block log).Cptnono (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Myself and another user protested to the blocking admin, saying that the "royal we" is not a definitive proof of a shared account. The blocking admin said there were plenty of other reasons to block the user, which nobody seems to disagree with, so I think the indef block will stand. -- Atamachat 16:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- I wanted to mention that an IP address from the group made an edit on the talk page before trugreta really started in. That was done perfectly. They brought up the concerns and I thought that was awesome. That person probably notified truegreta who unhappy about the shenanigans from the malicious edit. Truegreta can appeal and the IP is not blocked so I hope this is now resolved (besides any possible loose ends with the reason used in the block log).Cptnono (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Honestly I'm not in tears over this, I really dislike POV-pushing activists, especially ones who speak with such charged language as Truegreta does (accusing everyone of spreading Zionist lies) but if someone is blocked it would be best if it was done for valid reasons. I've left a comment at the blocking admin's talk page. -- Atamachat 18:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't block them, so don't take it up with me. They can appeal the block if they so wish per the notice on their talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Insider201283 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This editor is
a self-described "paid editor"one whose edits seem primarily dedicated to defending the reputation of MLM operations; he admits to operating pro-MLM websites, and has been accused of being a paid shill for them. Orange Mike | Talk 19:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)- Where has he called himself a "paid editor"? Will Beback talk 20:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm wondering this too. He denied it twice in the ACN Inc. talk page. At the same time, his own talk page hints that he's somehow affiliated with Amway (he cites facts about himself that are meant to contrast stereotypes about Amway). -- Atamachat 23:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'd have to search back, but I recall his professional connection with Amway has been discussed before. He's also a topic of disucssion on non-Wiki, anti-Amway forums. Will Beback talk 23:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- In 2007 he wrote:
- To be clear I don't make money from N21 or Quixtar, I do make money from Amway, I just have not been actively involved as an Amway IBO for sometime... [[9]]
- FWIW, Quixtar has changed its name back to "Amway". Will Beback talk 23:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Here is his quote: "Excuse me, but may think you can lie all you want about anything here, but I do not appreciate lies being spread about me. I am categorically NOT paid to promote MLM companies (or any particular MLM company) - that is utterly false." -- Atamachat 05:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- In 2007 he wrote:
- I'd have to search back, but I recall his professional connection with Amway has been discussed before. He's also a topic of disucssion on non-Wiki, anti-Amway forums. Will Beback talk 23:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm wondering this too. He denied it twice in the ACN Inc. talk page. At the same time, his own talk page hints that he's somehow affiliated with Amway (he cites facts about himself that are meant to contrast stereotypes about Amway). -- Atamachat 23:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Possible IGDA spam
- User
- GameProducer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Articles related to the user
- Roger E. Pedersen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Game Design Foundations, Second Edition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Combination Lock (game show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Adventure game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The user above seems to be closely affiliated with Roger E. Pedersen and has been inserting wikilinks to the Combination Lock (game show) and Adventure game articles above and has been creating Game Design Foundations, Second Edition which has repeatedly been tagged as spam and removed. See http://www.mobygames.com/user/sheet/userSheetId,25684. It is possible that this user may be representing the IGDA in some sort of a spamming operation. MuZemike 05:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the book article is gone and it looks like the biography is on its way out. If they get recreated, they can be deleted and salted. I actually checked his edits to Adventure game and let them stand; they were appropriate as they helped in specifying the page numbers and edition of the book used as a reference. I fixed the "Video Game" portion of Combination Lock which was very spammy, written as a promotional piece. -- Atamachat 17:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
ACN Inc.
- ACN Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), lots of insider and self-interested editing, both pro and con. Independent review needed. Thatcher 11:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- See "Amway, Quixtar and other MLM articles" above. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- WiganWarriorsFan (talk · contribs)
- Wigan Warriors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wigan Warriors are a notable sports team, but, well, if the above user's very name doesn't tip anyone off, s/he has been adding promotional and non-neutral information to the article by the minute without actually backing it up with any sources. I placed a {{uw-coi}} tag on his/her talk page, but s/he doesn't seem to care (especially since the {{coi}} tag I placed on the article's page was removed twice). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think it would be best for the user to familiarise himself with Wikipedia's core guidelines by joining a WikiProject. I notice the user hasn't yet joined WikiProject Rugby league. Editing in collaboration with more experienced users on pages other than those relating to the Wigan Warriors may improve user's contributions and attitude towards other editors. I'll send an invite to the user. GW(talk) 10:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Dislecksia: The Movie
- HubbellV (talk · contribs)
- Dislecksia: The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Billy Blanks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- David Boies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Stephen J. Cannell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Worth a check for neutrality: editor name matches movie's director. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Marc H. Tanenbaum
I am a new wikipedia editor so I need a lot of advice! I have been reading the wikipedia guidelines on Conflict of Interest, Neutral Point of View and Copyrights. I recently tried to edit the page of Marc H. Tanenbaum who is the namesake of the Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding, where I am an intern. I have been told that in having “Tanenbaum” as my user name and in being an intern here it is a conflict of interest for me to edit this page. However, I believe that I am capable of editing and expanding the biography of this great man without losing neutrality or advocating for the organization I work for. I tired editing the page and inserting information from a book that was written and published about Rabbi Tanenbaum. (I have been given permission to use this copyrighted information from the publisher).
If I am not breaking copyright rules, because I have permission to use this information can I add information to Rabbi Tanenbaum’s biography? And if I am not actively advocating for the Tanenbaum Center’s cause but simply editing and expanding Rabbi Tanenbaum’s biography will information from a reliable published source will I be allowed to make edits?
Help, please! Tanenbaum (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC) — Tanenbaum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- In one clause (" the biography of this great man"), you've inadvertently demonstrated why we so fervently discourage editors with conflicts of interest from editing articles. With the best good will in the world, it's incredibly hard for you to maintain the requisite neutral point of view to edit this article. Sorry. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Even if you can get over the COI issues, the copyvio issue remains. With respect, we have only your word that you are who you say you are and that you have permission to use copyright material on Wikipedia. That's why we have a formal process for releasing copyright material for use here and that's set out at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I am going through the formal process of getting copyright permission right now-once that process is complete then I can legally use the information within Wikipedia's guidelines, is that correct? Tanenbaum (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC) — Tanenbaum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Yes, but (and it's a significant but), your edits must still comply with our WP:NPOV requirements and all other policies and guidelines. By its very nature, material from the website probably isn't neutral. Because of your COI, I strongly recommend that you discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page first. – ukexpat (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Jonathan King caught POV-pushing his own article
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Add Jonathan King, the sometime pop-music figure/TV personality, to the list of people caught trying to own their own articles. In this case the subject had been extensively anon-posting, trying to massage the presention of his underage sex convictions, and to reinflate the article's previous (self?-)assessment of his former importance.
Kudos to Little grape (talk · contribs) for detective work.
See: Talk:Jonathan_King#Rule_879:_'The_subject_of_an_article_shouldn't_edit_it_himself' & recent history
-- Jheald (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Rubbish. Most of my edits have been anti-King. Who is Little Grape? Similar to Purples (history)? And Privatemusings? And Expat? I won't be posting about King any more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.253.188.113 (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- But do you have any reasonable explanation for posting from the very same hotel King's staying at in Tivoli? Or are you still claiming you're in Seattle? Little grape (talk) 11:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Little grape: even though the guy is generally reviled, WP:OUTING puts a limit on how far it's acceptable to pursue users' real-life identities, and using IPs to track and identify someone's ongoing location - down to the level of the hotel where they're staying - looks to me to overstep that limit. If a pattern of promotional edits has been spotted, it's sufficient now that the article get increased editorial focus to maintain NPOV. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have to admit that I agree with the anonymous poster; I looked at the edits they were making and they didn't seem all that complimentary of King. They were fairly balanced, I would expect if that really was King that he'd be more aggressive about removing negative information and inserting positive information, but that wasn't the case. -- Atamachat 17:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wow... As it turns out, according to Checkuser about a half-dozen editors of King's article who have been defending him and/or changing the article to remove negative content are confirmed to be sockpuppets, likely of King himself. That's disturbing. -- Atamachat 17:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- It was quite cleverly done - but then he's a Cambridge English grad. At least we can now settle down to starting over, and writing a balanced article. My own view is that he was an extraordinary (in all senses) character in the 60's and 70's, occupying a unique niche in British pop history who then went on to develop and star in an outstandingly good TV series in the early 80's. But he didn't do anything notable for the next ten years - until his convictions. And he hasn't done anything notable since, either. Endless plugging of his latest home-movie, and puffery of non-notable stuff he's done since being released simply detracts from his considerable achievements (even if these *don't* include running Decca Records). Let's have a shot at writing something even he can be proud of? And in my view it's fine for him to come clean and assist in that process - as long as he commits to not editing the main article. (assuming your permission Atama, can I copy this and your comment above to the King talk page?) Little grape (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- You don't need my permission, but I appreciate you asking... Sure, go ahead. -- Atamachat 19:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- It was quite cleverly done - but then he's a Cambridge English grad. At least we can now settle down to starting over, and writing a balanced article. My own view is that he was an extraordinary (in all senses) character in the 60's and 70's, occupying a unique niche in British pop history who then went on to develop and star in an outstandingly good TV series in the early 80's. But he didn't do anything notable for the next ten years - until his convictions. And he hasn't done anything notable since, either. Endless plugging of his latest home-movie, and puffery of non-notable stuff he's done since being released simply detracts from his considerable achievements (even if these *don't* include running Decca Records). Let's have a shot at writing something even he can be proud of? And in my view it's fine for him to come clean and assist in that process - as long as he commits to not editing the main article. (assuming your permission Atama, can I copy this and your comment above to the King talk page?) Little grape (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wow... As it turns out, according to Checkuser about a half-dozen editors of King's article who have been defending him and/or changing the article to remove negative content are confirmed to be sockpuppets, likely of King himself. That's disturbing. -- Atamachat 17:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have to admit that I agree with the anonymous poster; I looked at the edits they were making and they didn't seem all that complimentary of King. They were fairly balanced, I would expect if that really was King that he'd be more aggressive about removing negative information and inserting positive information, but that wasn't the case. -- Atamachat 17:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Little grape: even though the guy is generally reviled, WP:OUTING puts a limit on how far it's acceptable to pursue users' real-life identities, and using IPs to track and identify someone's ongoing location - down to the level of the hotel where they're staying - looks to me to overstep that limit. If a pattern of promotional edits has been spotted, it's sufficient now that the article get increased editorial focus to maintain NPOV. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- But do you have any reasonable explanation for posting from the very same hotel King's staying at in Tivoli? Or are you still claiming you're in Seattle? Little grape (talk) 11:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Witizen (talk · contribs)
- Wirtland (micronation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In my view COI notice should be better motivated in this case. Even if a major contributor of article about Wirtland (a micronation) is a citizen of this micronation, should it preclude him/her from writing about it? According to that logic, US citizens cannot edit articles about America. Opinions welcome. Witizen (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Witizen
- Your question is moot as the whole article is a blatant copyvio of http://www.wirtland.com/ and I have tagged it for deletion as such. – ukexpat (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, that was a crafty move, removing the site's original text and making it look like it's framing the Wikipedia article. Your reuse of the article is not, however, in compliance with WP:REUSE. – ukexpat (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused, didn't this article survive an AfD? If so, doesn't that make it invalid for CSD? And also, just to let you know, Witizen referred to him/her/themself as "we" on the talk page (slightly off-topic observation). -- Atamachat 18:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- If it is in fact a copyright violation, that still means it should be speedied (don't know how it snuck by the AfD if that is the case, though), or reverted to a non-copyvio stub if one existed. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Dear editors. Though a speedy deletion is not exactly what I expected from posting my question here, I have answered to it on my talk page, as requested. I am tirelessly doing my best to comply with all edits and requirements, which come up again and again. I'm not complaining, however, I am thankful for this attention and all your time. I'm just trying to distinguish measurable, clear, and legitimate requests from those which I perceive (maybe wrongly) as subjective and excessive.
- Wirtland stated that "As an internet-based community, Wirtland attaches high importance to being properly represented in the internet encyclopedia". Bearing in mind Jimbo Wales' principle "Newcomers are always to be welcomed", I hoped for a welcome, but face lots of resistance. I am ready to cooperate, but really I won't insist, so I will remove Wirtland entry if it indeed contradicts Wikipedia's rules. Witizen (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Witizen
- Yes we welcome newcomers, but there are also many policies and guidelines that face the newcomer when they participate in this project. The copyright issue for example -- for legal reasons Wikipedia cannot accept copyright materials without a clear release verifiably from the copyright owner. That's why the WP:IOWN process exists. No one here is trying to be difficult, we are just trying to ensure that the numerous policies and guidelines are adhered to. – ukexpat (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- One more point, the Wirtland website now looks like it is framing the Wikipedia article, but it really isn't. I am not quite sure what you are trying to achieve by using the Wikipedia logo (which by the way is a registered trademark) and the "According to the standard of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" language. – ukexpat (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- I see now, on WP:CSD it states, "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations." That certainly applies here. -- Atamachat 19:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Except that I was apparently mistaken. Other editors have checked the Google cache of the website and confirmed that it looked like it does now on 6/22. However I will say in my own defence that when I checked it just before tagging for G10, none of the Wikipedia stuff was there, or at least visible (the logo or the "According to the standard of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" text) otherwise I would not have tagged it. I do have questions though about the purpose of using the Wikipedia trademarked logo and the accompanying text and of course the COI issues still remain. – ukexpat (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- I believe the COI accusation is valid. The defense that Witizen has no more of a COI than the citizen of a country editing their own nation's article isn't valid. The Wirtland "citizenship" is just like any organization that requires voluntary membership, such as a church or club. -- Atamachat 21:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Except that I was apparently mistaken. Other editors have checked the Google cache of the website and confirmed that it looked like it does now on 6/22. However I will say in my own defence that when I checked it just before tagging for G10, none of the Wikipedia stuff was there, or at least visible (the logo or the "According to the standard of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" text) otherwise I would not have tagged it. I do have questions though about the purpose of using the Wikipedia trademarked logo and the accompanying text and of course the COI issues still remain. – ukexpat (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- I see now, on WP:CSD it states, "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations." That certainly applies here. -- Atamachat 19:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- One more point, the Wirtland website now looks like it is framing the Wikipedia article, but it really isn't. I am not quite sure what you are trying to achieve by using the Wikipedia logo (which by the way is a registered trademark) and the "According to the standard of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" language. – ukexpat (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- The reason the citizen defence isn't valid is because no reliable authority actually recognises Wirtland as a sovereign state anyway. We're only one step removed from outright WP:MADEUP here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh well. My entry is now blanked. My original question about COI has become irrelevant for the time being. Hope copyright permission message will be processed soon. Thanks everybody who was helpful. Witizen (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Witizen.
User:Bkpub and Berrett-Koehler Publishers
- Bkpub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- All Together Now (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Crunch (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:Bkpub has entered articles and links relating to books published by Berrett-Koehler Publishers. WP:UAA did not consider this a promotional user-name. I gave the user a welcome note including a pointer to WP:BFAQ and a COI warning, and he has not edited since. I will check out the books and PROD if necessary, though the articles are not excessively promotional and at least the first will probably pass as notable - it seems Obama referred to it in a speech. Posted here in case anyone thinks more action necessary. JohnCD (talk) 10:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Jeez sometimes I despair of WP:UAA - how is that not a promotional user name? – ukexpat (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- First, seeing as I'm going to have to post it here as well, the policy guidelines clearly states that users who "add promotional material or demonstrate a conflict of interest can be reported to the conflict of interest noticeboard or to administrator intervention against vandalism, where further action may be taken." :/ UAA is usually for more extreme cases, such as personal attacks, more obvious promotional usernames (ex. BUYBOOKSAT___), and all that lovely stuff at WP:IU. For cases such as this, you would take it to COIN. Besides, I checked the first article-it seems pretty good. As long as he's not promoting material as set by G11, I think that the worst he should get is a warning and CHU. Cheers, I'mperator 16:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have to agree about the username. Bkpub gives a hint to the COI (fortunately) but it's not explicit. A casual editor wouldn't even think twice about that username. While COI certainly exists if they created articles on notable subjects without adding promotional material, they have been warned about COI, and haven't edited since, I think that there's nothing further to do. Does anyone disagree? -- Atamachat 16:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- First, seeing as I'm going to have to post it here as well, the policy guidelines clearly states that users who "add promotional material or demonstrate a conflict of interest can be reported to the conflict of interest noticeboard or to administrator intervention against vandalism, where further action may be taken." :/ UAA is usually for more extreme cases, such as personal attacks, more obvious promotional usernames (ex. BUYBOOKSAT___), and all that lovely stuff at WP:IU. For cases such as this, you would take it to COIN. Besides, I checked the first article-it seems pretty good. As long as he's not promoting material as set by G11, I think that the worst he should get is a warning and CHU. Cheers, I'mperator 16:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
- The True Victory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Kevinbrogers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Editor created the page for The True Victory (also up for AfD), an unreleased, unproduced film he plans to direct. Doesn't see his contributions as conflict of interest or self-promotion, continues to add his film to 2010s in film after being notified of COI. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- He seems to have come around somewhat, he is asking for advice on sourcing and on what to do about the article after deletion, and seems resigned to the fact that deletion is going to happen. He is also very open about his COI, so I'm not sure what other measures have to be taken in his case. -- Atamachat 20:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Neo Torres
Came across this book cover of a book by Neo Torres in Coyame UFO incident, an article very heavily edited by Noetorres (talk · contribs). Looks like pretty blatant self promotion and the article references Torres and another self-published book almost exclusively. NJGW (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think that page should go up for AfD probably; references are very weak. I tried finding online coverage of the incident and I found a single article talking about it. And guess what? It was an article in a Wichita Falls newspaper that was an interview with Noe Torres! Blatant self promotion? I'd say so. -- Atamachat 16:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I also found that Noe created the Milton Torres 1957 UFO Encounter article. I doubt very much the name similarity is a coincidence. -- Atamachat 16:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- With whole paragraphs of personal claims presented as factual and sourced to "personal interview" -- greattttt. DreamGuy (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Every contribution this editor has made has been in articles that feature one of his books prominently as a reference (which he helpfully added) or linked to an article of the same. Unfortunately the whole concept of no original research is foreign to him (which is somewhat understandable considering that his original research has been published). -- Atamachat 19:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- With whole paragraphs of personal claims presented as factual and sourced to "personal interview" -- greattttt. DreamGuy (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
User:ITMLONDON = Insanity Talent Management
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
- ITMLONDON (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Louise Roe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
From the link in the article to www.itmlondon.com, this user is evidently Insanity Talent Management trying to use Wikipedia to promote their client. Username possibly not directly promotional, but I suggest should be blocked as an advertiser. JohnCD (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- I tagged it for G11 speedy as in my view, from both tone and content, it's a PR piece. Also reported username to UAA, but not holding my breath. – ukexpat (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Given that itmlondon is their website, I blocked it as a blatant spamusername. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Note this edit, and this warning by an account with this user page. This is an account that is dedicated to only contributing to one page, the company's wikipage. I don't think further action is needed, but I do think COIN needs to know about this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Georgianwebteam (talk · contribs) made this edit today to Georgian College. User's first edit was back on February 18. Willking1979 (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Outing.3F, where it has been suggested that this situation might be more profitably addressed here. JN466 20:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)