Revision as of 09:47, 16 June 2015 editElvey (talk | contribs)9,497 edits →Kaiser Permanente: Re. edit warring← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:03, 24 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,267 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 216) (bot | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{redirect|WP:COIN|the WikiProject on articles about coins|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Numismatics}} | |||
{{offer help}} | |||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
{{Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Header}} | {{Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Header}} | ||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
|archiveheader = {{archivemainpage|Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard}} | |archiveheader = {{archivemainpage|Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard}} | ||
|maxarchivesize = 150K | |maxarchivesize = 150K | ||
|counter = |
|counter = 216 | ||
|minthreadsleft = 4 | |minthreadsleft = 4 | ||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
Line 14: | Line 15: | ||
}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__ | }}__NEWSECTIONLINK__ | ||
<!-- All reports should be made at the bottom of the page. Do not modify the above when reporting! --> | <!-- All reports should be made at the bottom of the page. Do not modify the above when reporting! --> | ||
== Carlton Wilborn == | |||
== 30+ articles written by Worthywords requiring cleanup == | |||
* <s>{{la|Avi Tuschman}}</s> - up for AfD . result was rename to book. | |||
* {{la|Salvi, Schostok & Pritchard}} - up for AfD | |||
* {{la|Withersdane Hall}} -- up for AfD | |||
* {{la|PROMIS Clinics}} -- up for AfD | |||
* {{la|Jack Storms}} | |||
* <s>{{la|Technology and Innovation}}</s> -- up for AfD result was redirect | |||
* {{la|David Lozeau}} | |||
* {{la|Polarion Software}} -- up for AfD . Previously in 2009 | |||
* {{la|Independent Journal Review}} | |||
* {{la|Brooke de Lench}} - up for AfD ] deleted then recreated | |||
* {{la|Alex Skatell}} | |||
* {{la|Pam Warren (speaker)}} -- up for AfD see result was keep | |||
* {{la|Wise Bread}} | |||
* {{la|Paul R. Sanberg}} | |||
* {{la|Florida Inventors Hall of Fame}} | |||
* {{la|National Academy of Inventors}} | |||
* {{la|Wyldsson Elite Nutrition}} -- up for deletion | |||
* {{la|Citizens Rights Watch}} -- up for deletion | |||
* {{la|Shep Hyken}} | |||
* {{la|Peter Field}} - at AFD ] | |||
* {{la|Colin Goldberg}} - up for AfD | |||
* {{la|Alan Stevens (media consultant)}} -- up for AfD | |||
* {{la|Ruth Hutton Ancker}} -- up for AfD | |||
* {{la|Andre Miripolsky}} | |||
* {{la|CompareXpress}} -- up for AfD | |||
* {{la|Teledirect Telecommerce}} - tagged for speedy delete promo | |||
* {{la|Matthew Greenbaum}} | |||
* {{la|Gleeble Systems}} -- (Deleted) | |||
* {{la|Adnan Chilwan}} | |||
* {{la|Vanna Bonta}} - note went through AfD and result was no consensus but deleted twice earlier ] and ]. | |||
* {{la|Laurie Calzada}} - up for AfD | |||
* {{la|Sara Steele}} | |||
* {{la|Arjun Sen}} | |||
* {{la|Mark Lee (British speaker and author)}} - at AfD ] | |||
* {{la|Wye College}} | |||
* {{userlinks|Worthywords}} | |||
This editor discloses on their user page that they were paid to write every article above ] other than ]. Of the articles I've reviewed I've found numerous problems including notability, verification, blp, original research and subtle promotion. These diffs show some of the content I have removed: . The section of ] was the most concerning as it was completely ] and promotional, yet to the reader, apparently reliably sourced. Of other articles that I've glanced at these problems don't appear to unique and I need help to review the others, checking that content is well-sourced and verifiable. I with the user yesterday but although they edited today adding more content to article space, they haven't as yet responded. ] (]) 21:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
There were also meatpuppetry links to this user in ] last September after which Worthwords from Georgiasouthernlynn. ] (]) 22:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:OY, there is a load of work. Thanks for bringing it! ] (]) 04:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:: listed them; went through them to tag for COI and tag the talk page with COI edit notice and connected contributor. ] (]) 04:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Thanks {{ping|Jytdog}} and {{ping|Joseph2302}} for your help. Still some way to go and no communication from Worthywords. ] (]) 20:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::you are welcome! yes ongoing problems seem likely. ] (]) 21:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::They've been online to make a couple of edits today, but have declined to comment. If they continue with these disruptive edits and terrible articles, I'm tempted to take the issue to ANI. ] (]) 21:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{outdent}} So lots of these articles have now been deleted. ] (]) 18:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Yeah we're getting there but I just found another completely non-notable article that I've sent to AFD and others that are notable need depuffing still. ] (]) 15:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::I've found more with which they didn't create themselves. ] (]) 21:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
* {{la|EQuibbly}} | |||
* {{la|The National Society of Leadership and Success}} | |||
* {{la|Americas Petrogas}} | |||
* {{la|Jeffrey Gusky}} | |||
* ] article was recreated after it was deleted at AfD. I have G4ed it. ] (]) 05:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:* {{ping|Jytdog}} The consensus at ] seems to be that they might be notable, but that article was just spam. This article isn't spam, so is going to need another AfD, if you want to delete it. ] (]) 12:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:just adding a comment here as we are not done cleaning up this mess and i don't want this to get archived. ] (]) 16:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Cominform.com == | |||
{{resolved|all these articles have been deleted. editor discloses they are a paid editor on their user page. ] (]) 21:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | <!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | ||
* {{ |
* {{pagelinks|Carlton Wilborn}} | ||
* {{ |
* {{userlinks|Carltonrising}} | ||
* {{la|Bobby Kumar Kalotee}} | |||
* {{la|Newfield Resources Limited}} | |||
* {{la|Garbage Concern Welfare Society}} | |||
* {{la|Mawano Kambeu}} | |||
* {{userlinks|Hilumeoka2000}} | |||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> | <!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> | ||
Clear ] only interested in editing an article about himself. Previous edits already revdeleted for copyright issues. ] (]) 14:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Looks like a very clear-cut COI violation. - ] (]) 03:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
I'm concerned that {{Mention|Hilumeoka2000}} may be making paid edits to Misplaced Pages without disclosing that they are doing so, in violation of ]. This came to my attention because I nominated ], and Hilumeoka2000 responded quickly by adding articles hosted on Cominform's own website. {{Mention|NukeThePukes}} noticed the same thing, so I began looking into it further. Searching Google, I found these two sites: and , which are advertisements for paid Misplaced Pages editing. The user names on those websites are both "Hilumeoka2000," the same as on Misplaced Pages. At , Hilumeoka2000 notes some Misplaced Pages pages that they have "created for some organizations." The three articles listed there, ], ], and ], are all articles that Misplaced Pages user Hilumeoka2000 created (, , ). Obviously, undisclosed paid editing is a problem. I will leave it to the admins to determine how to handle this issue. | |||
::Should I also add the main article to Articles for deletion? The sources of that article all suck.. there's only one reliable source (Attitude Magazine). I haven't heard of the other sources ] (]) 06:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 20:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I agree, the evidence appears to suggest an undisclosed paid editor. If this is the case, I believe that administrative attention is required. ] (]) 20:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I should add that I do not think that this posting violates ], both because the policy allows for postings related to accounts on other websites, and because the external links refer to Misplaced Pages specifically (making them effectively Misplaced Pages related). If someone thinks it does though, I will not be offended if this gets oversighted. ] (]) 20:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
Thanks Joseph2302 and Agtx.. But please hear my story first.. | |||
I'll be very sincere with you. I have been a full time article writer, blogger and web content writer. I also earn a living from that. I work on freelancer.com, Elance.com and odesk.com.. | |||
Here's my public profile on freelancer.com - https://www.freelancer.com/u/hilumeoka2000.html | |||
Here's my public profile on Elance.com - https://www.elance.com/s/hilumeoka2000/ | |||
You can also search "hilumeoka2000" in Odesk to get my details there.] (]) 23:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
Now, I use to see clients post jobs about "Write a Misplaced Pages page" or "Create a Misplaced Pages page" on all the freelancer platforms. In fact, it seems as if everyone wants to be on wikipedia probably because of the high page ranking and traffic that comes from the resource. | |||
As a freelancer interested in research, I use to get useful materials from Misplaced Pages and other sources to write some of my articles. Indeed, Misplaced Pages has been a great resource. | |||
Sometime in 2002, I created an account on wikipedia to see if I can meet the demands of the clients who request for wiki job on freelance platforms. To be frank, I didn't understand how to use wikipedia as at then. Hence, I abandoned the urge to write wikipedia articles and continued with my normal web content development and article writing career. | |||
Now, sometime in April this year, I decided to start placing bids on wikipedia jobs via freelancer.com. This is because, wiki jobs are always available but there are few people who actually know how to write them. | |||
I made a decision to learn about wikipedia writing and what it entails. I started reading all the wiki tutorials I could see on wikipedia. I started learning and indeed, it's quite interesting. It was not easy initially, but, I vowed to know more. | |||
So, I placed my first bid on freelancer.com. A client wanted me to write on "Joshua Letcher" . I accepted. I used this particular topic to learn some facts about wiki policies. I created and submitted it for review. It was rejected but I was told what to do to make it acceptable. I took some days to make some researches about "Joshua Letcher" I discovered, there are no media secondary resources.. That was the reason the article was deleted. | |||
Now, the same client also contracted me to write about thier company "Newfield Resources Ltd. I did my research to get some secondary resources. I succeeded and created the article. It was allowed to stay. | |||
So, I got excited. I really became very happy that I can now write wikipedia articles. So, I went for more. I always focused more on maintaining neutrality and using secondary sources. I also follow the rules on referencing and formatting having taken enough time to learn them. | |||
Now, as a freelancer, I kept getting alerts about new Misplaced Pages creation jobs. I go ahead to place my bids. I really got selected by some clients to help them put up a wikipedia page. I also get paid for doing so as a freelancer. I turn down jobs that do not have media coverage or jobs that are meant to promote or advertise since they are against wiki rules. | |||
So far, I've created the following pages via the jobs I won through freelancer.com and Elance.com. | |||
https://en.wikipedia.org/Milan_Direct | |||
https://en.wikipedia.org/Bobby_Kumar_Kalotee | |||
https://en.wikipedia.org/Newfield_Resources_Limited | |||
https://en.wikipedia.org/Garbage_Concern_Welfare_Society | |||
https://en.wikipedia.org/Mawano_Kambeu | |||
I made sure each of the pages is neutral and properly cited. I'm also working on few more pages right now. I don't get involved in vandalism or supporting stands to make a page stay on wikipedia. My main focus is to create new pages. | |||
To be very sincere with you, I've never heard about the issue of disclosing paid identity on Misplaced Pages until now. I thought that I'm free to create articles as a freelancer and get paid. | |||
I noticed one thing about most of my clients. They don't know how to create articles on wikipedia. Some of them have tried but failed. Hence, they look for an expert who will help them. | |||
So please, I'll like to know if I'm contravening wiki rules by creating articles for clients through freelancer.com. I don't really know. There are lots of policies on wikipedia. I learn most of them as I create articles. I learn virtually on daily basis. | |||
Do I need to declare myself as a Paid editor or something? Do I need to stop creating articles for clients? | |||
I'll like to get clarifications. | |||
== Pinialtaus == | |||
Thanks ] (]) 23:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{userlinks|Pinialtaus}} | |||
:Note: All these pages have been put up for AfD deletion. ] (]) 00:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
For going straight to making ten edits after being old enough to meet the time requirement and then immediately to posting ] and ]. | |||
:Note: All of these pages have been deleted under AfD processes. The user doesn't appear to have returned to Misplaced Pages after their block for undisclosed paid editing and harassment. ] (]) 15:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
* Update: Pinialtaus has now been blocked as a ], see ]. {{nowrap|''']''' ]]}} 19:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Special:Contributions/EAllen04 == | |||
== BiH paid editing? == | |||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | <!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | ||
* {{ |
* {{pagelinks|Flourishing}} | ||
* {{ |
* {{pagelinks|Water For People}} | ||
* {{userlinks|EAllen04}} | |||
* {{la|One97 Communications}} | |||
* {{la|Vijay Shekhar Sharma}} | |||
* {{la|Eric Sullivan}} | |||
* {{userlinks|BiH}} | |||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> | <!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> | ||
First time submitting something like this, so please bear with me. | |||
Over at SPI, clerk ] has just endorsed investigation of user BiH with the comment "This might be some kind of paid editing ring...". I've compiled a list of about 50 articles to investigate at ] – all created by BiH at a prodigious rate, nearly all about PR-seeking companies and celebrities. Just the last 5 are listed above as a representative sample. | |||
It appears to me that user EAllen04 is the same Eleanor Allen named in the ] article. Eleanor recently edited the ] article, contributing a word salad of advertising copy that further dilutes the quality of an article already thoroughly suffused with marketing-speak and woo. | |||
BiH did not respond to my question about suspicious editing on his talkpage , and has not commented on the ]. ] (]) 21:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
EAllen04 was notified of their COI responsibilities in March of 2024. I notified them again following their most recent string of edits. Respectfully requesting a more seasoned editor double check my work here. | |||
:I've had a quick look, removed some unverified promotional text, and put a couple up for AfD. If they've been socking and undisclosed paid editing, my opinion is they should be indeffed. ] (]) 21:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks. Note, the list on my page was non-exhaustive; I just stopped when I got back to May 2014. And I probably missed some stuff mixed in with his newpage patrol edits. — ] (]) 22:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::If there's paid editing going on, the clients should get their money back. ] (]) 22:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::A good find. And unfortunately another paid editor that somehow acquired autopatrolled rights (I've removed them). There are some links to ] e.g. with BiH editing ] (which one of those socks started) and creating ] who is completely NN. ] (]) 15:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{Outdent}}A correction to my note that BiH did not reply to me about questionable editing. was posted on my talkpage. Sorry, I'd forgotten it was there. I did ask him to post at the SPI, however. — ] (]) 16:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Some more evidence of sandbox interactions with other editors on software company and plastic surgeon articles is here: ] — ] (]) 19:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::So the SPI concluded that BiH isn't socking but from the articles I've looked at there are numerous problems and they continue to be created: ]. Just bumping this up again in case any one else gets a chance to review more. ] (]) 17:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::This is clearly a paid editor. i just tried to open a discussion with them too. ] (]) 21:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
]]]™ 13:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Electronic cigarette == | |||
:At this time I should also point out that in light of ], I struggle to discern a convincing case for the continued presence of the article ] anywhere within the scope of the project. The subject organization fails the notability test, and nearly all the cited sources are from either the organization itself or one of their members named in the article. If it were my choice, I'd say nuke this stinker -- but that's probably why I don't have any actual power around here ;) ]]]™ 13:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | |||
::Yes, I'm inclined to agree with you. I've removed some unsourced text from Water For People and reverted the recent edits to Flourishing. As you say, AfD may be the solution for Water for People. | |||
* {{la|Electronic cigarette}} | |||
::Looking at the edit history for Water For People, there have been various redlinked ]s editing the article from 2010 onwards, which is probably why it is such a mess. | |||
* {{userlinks|KimDabelsteinPetersen}} | |||
::However, on the other hand there is the following text, which is obviously some kind of ]/] and presumably doesn't originate from the organisation itself: {{tq|Water For People reported in its 2015 IRS tax form that it spent a total of $18,844,346, in which $5,819,735 in administration, and $1,944,288 in fundraising. There's a discrepancy here. On Water For People's website, they have all their audited financial statements from 2005 to 2015. They also have all their IRS Form 990s from 2012 to 2016. They also have their IRS Form 1023 accessible from 1991, where they applied for recognition of tax exemption. They also have their 501(c)(3) document, containing a letter that confirms their tax exemption status from the Internal Revenue Service. On its website, the charity also has its own printed pamphlet, called "Behind the Numbers" from the years 2013 to 2015. The pamphlet explains what the money in the respective fiscal year was able to accomplish in project works around the world.}} | |||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> | |||
::Overall, a mess. ] (]) 15:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Hi all -EAllen here - I am not trying to be a problem. I am trying to contribute meaningfully. I am the former CEO of Water For People. The page is/was very outdated and I was trying to update it and make it more factual. Wanting to help and appreciate your guidance to do so in an appropriate way. | |||
::For Flourishing, the page doesn't mention workplace flourishing. I think it is a missing element on the flourishing page. I did get some copy from SHAPE, a company I respect in this space. Happy to tone it down to not make it sound like marketing text and more factual. Appreciate the guidance. ] (]) 16:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::When you say {{tq|I did get some copy from SHAPE, a company I respect in this space. Happy to tone it down to not make it sound like marketing text}} are you basically admitting to having attempted a large scale ]? | |||
:::Also, I see very clear offwiki evidence suggesting a degree of association between yourself and SHAPE. Given that you appear to have cut and pasted material from SHAPE into Misplaced Pages, material that you accept sounded like marketing text, maybe it would be best if you were to disclose your conflict of interest there? ] (]) 17:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Your edits here , here and here were clearly blatant adverts for SHAPE. | |||
::::To suggest that you are {{tq|Happy to tone it down}} isn’t really going to get us anywhere. There is no place for this kind of promotionalism on Misplaced Pages, no matter how much it is toned down. These edits were not, as you claim, adding detail to an element of Flourishing that was previously not covered. They were very blatant adverts for a specific company. | |||
::::I note that you also made a large promotional edit back in March 2024 to the article for ], another organisation where off wiki evidence suggests some degree of association. The edit including material such as {{tq|Notable B-Lab certified corporations: There are thousands of certified B Corps all around the world. You can search the database to find a B Corp . There are many famous brands including: }} | |||
::::In fact, looking at your edit history, is it fair to say that it relates primarily to adding promotional material to articles where you have a conflict of interest (including apparent self-promotion, here )? ] (]) 17:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::I note also a previous note left on your talk page back in March this year, observing that {{tq|editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted.}} Under the circumstances some explanation is surely required on why you recently felt it wise to add material such as {{tq|SHAPE Global Ltd is a leading advocate for the research and application of organizational flourishing. Contributing to multiple groups such as Harvard University’s Flourishing at Work and AI for Human Flourishing, as well as IWBI WELL standard, SHAPE is linking the importance of flourishing to regulatory as well as academic communities globally}}. That is obvious marketing copy re: SHAPE and has nothing to do with the topic of the article. I could give further examples, but hopefully that suffices for now... ] (]) 18:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Leyla Kuliyeva == | |||
In March 2015, Kim became President of , as KIm discloses . (My attention was called to COI issues when I read Zad's remark ) On the relevant articles, Kim has edited as follows: | |||
* the ] article | |||
* (ever) the ] article | |||
* the ] article (one edit total in Jan 2015) | |||
* the ] article (17 edits prior to the end of Feb 2015) | |||
* the ] article (11 edits prior to Jan 2015) | |||
* So what is DADAFO? | |||
* You can read Kim's description . | |||
* , | |||
* is their website through google translate. | |||
* there is not a lot on English on them, but from (badly done google-translated) stuff like on their site, they seem to have a very clear stance advocating that e-cigs are very safe for vapers and people nearby, that they are a great harm reduction tool, and that they should not be regulated beyond making sure that e-liquid and equipment are well-made and contain and do what they say they will do. Those are all strong and clear positions. Those are also contested positions. Kim has been advocating strongly for those positions in the e-cig article. I believe he has a COI due to his position as president of an advocacy organization. | |||
* I brought this up at Kim's Talk page and suggested that he not edit the articles directly anymore. He , and as I was not satisfied with his answer, I told him I would post here. | |||
* I was involved in the e-cig articles in the past (I haven't edited them for a long time other than to pop in on RfCs), so I will recuse myself from doing any thing more than posting this. ] (]) 00:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC) (note - fixed link above, under "stuff like this") | |||
:::Query to ]: What particular item on the DADAFO site are you referring to with the comment "stuff like this"? This refers me to our frontpage, and not to a particular article. If you are in doubt on any Danish item, i will be helpfull in translating it :) --] 00:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::I fixed it. it was the link to the google-translate version of the article. Please let us know if my description of DADAFO's advocacy positions is not accurate. I looked at several things on the website and my summary above is based on all that, not just the one page.] (]) 00:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::The article that you are referring to is filed under "articles/media/foreign media" - it does not represent our stance (albeit that we agree with a lot of it), and is presented as an opinion article. The original version of that article (in english) can be found here --] 00:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{hat|bunch of diffs with unclear relationship to COI issues - maybe express DADAFO advocacy positions but that was not made clear ] (]) 00:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
:: This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against ] and ]. | |||
:: This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against ] and ] '''again'''. | |||
:: This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against ] and ] '''again'''. | |||
:: This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against ] and ] '''again'''. | |||
::User:KimDabelsteinPetersen, did you delete a lot of sources against ]? Where was your comment on the talk page to support deleting so many sources according to ]? IMO no reasonable argument has been made to delete so many reliable sources including deleting reviews such as (PMID 24732159) and (PMID 24732160) and (PMID 25572196) .What could possibly be a logical reason to '''delete''' so many sources? User:KimDabelsteinPetersen, do you think your reverts improved the page? What was the ? ] (]) 00:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::No i did not ''"delete a lot of sources against ]"'' first of all because MEDRS does not have any policy on what sources can or cannot be removed, that would be ] - all of the above reverts were during an RFC, and all of them include a note on why the reverts were done, and since this was during an RFC - there was a lot of discussion on whether or not it was appropriate. Including in fact on the AN/I thread about you here (including in the other comments there) | |||
:::If i'm not mistaken those are the same diffs as you used on ANI then - aren't they? --] 00:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{hab}} | |||
:If i'm not mistaken, the postion that DADAFO has on e-cigarettes, mirror Public Health Englands positions. With regards to regulations, we as an organization have been advocation ''for'' regulations since 2013, ''not against''. We have advocated against the current proposal for legislation because it is draconian - not because of it being regulation in and of itself. --] 00:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::I didn't say that DADAFO was opposed to all regulation. What I said was "they seem to have a very clear stance advocating that e-cigs are very safe for vapers and people nearby, that they are a great harm reduction tool, and that they should not be regulated beyond making sure that e-liquid and equipment are well-made and contain and do what they say they will do. Those are all strong and clear positions. Those are also contested positions. Kim has been advocating strongly for those positions in the e-cig article. " ] (]) 00:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::{{e/c}}Well then you are wrong. We are not taking any stance on whether vaping is safe (no one knows that), in fact i stated in national TV that (from memory) ''"you are putting something down your lungs that does not naturally belong there, is that healthy? Common sense tells us: It is not. But what we can say is that it is less dangerous than smoking, which will kill you"'' Which reflects DADAFO's stance rather clearly. E-cigs are a product to stop smoking! It is not a health remedy, and we would strongly caution any user who isn't already smoking, from using them. --] 00:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::I provided my understanding of DADAFO's positions. So that this is properly teed up and others can better think through the COI issues here, please provide clear statements on DADAFO's stances on the following issues: | |||
:::* safety of inhaled vapor to vapers | |||
:::* safety of exhaled vapor to bystanders | |||
:::* role of e-cigs in helping people quit smoking | |||
:::* risk of e-cigs in promoting nicotine addiction | |||
:::* whether e-cigs and liquid should be regulated like medical devices/drugs | |||
:::Others may have other questions. Thanks. ] (]) 00:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::* Safer than smoking. Unsafe for non-smokers. | |||
::::* We are currently in the stages of creating a test on this with . Since Burstyn et al. and german research indicate that the emissions fall within the envelope for safe working environment. So currently we are taking the stance that it lies well within the ]s for a safe work environment. Note that Public Health England states the same on page 14: | |||
::::::{{Quote|Electronic cigarettes do not produce smoke so the well-documented effects of passive exposure of others to cigarette smoke are clearly not relevant. Exposure of nonsmokers to electronic cigarette vapour poses a concern, though laboratory work suggests that electronic cigarette use in an enclosed space exposes others to nicotine at levels about one tenth generated by a cigarette, but little else. The health risks of passive exposure to electronic cigarette vapour are therefore likely to be extremely low.}} | |||
::::* Electronic cigarettes should be considered when NRT's fail to work. | |||
::::* This question is only relevant if you are adressing non-smokers - and we strongly discourage non-smokers to use e-cigs. (and fortunately research and surveys shows that they do not - we follow the British The Smokers Toolkit developments on this, and have adviced our government that they should start up a similar program here in Denmark) | |||
::::* This is an irrelevant question since the EU has deemed that they are consumer products via the Tobacco products directive (TPD). EU Directive 2014/40/EU, article 20. It is not something that an EU member state has influence on. | |||
:::::I welcome all questions. --] 01:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::Thanks! I will let others take it from here. I appreciate your graciousness in cooperating with this being aired. ] (]) 01:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I will let others weigh in in an official manner. It appears that these organizations are pushing to allow e-cigs in the work environment. I would have concerns from a public health perspective that the re exposure of those who have previously quit smoking to nicotine may increase their risk of resuming smoking. | |||
:::::::This ref says "Using an e-cigarette in indoor environments may involuntarily expose nonusers to nicotine but not to toxic tobacco-specific combustion products. More research is needed to evaluate health consequences of secondhand exposure to nicotine, especially among vulnerable populations, including children, pregnant women, and people with cardiovascular conditions" ] (] · ] · ]) 08:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::{{ping|Doc James}} That is an incorrect assessment. In Denmark vaping in the workplace ''is'' already legal, thus we do not ''"push to allow it"''. I mentioned ]s because they are an objective measure of exposure, which already is incorporated in law here in Denmark and the EU. If e-cigs have a TLV higher than legal, then it <u>should</u> be banned in the working area - which is why were working with Teknologisk Institut to measure it in a climate-chamber under real workconditions, and for 8 cumulative hours (<small>5 vapers within a limited space (30m²), vaping for 8 cumulative hours (typical workday in Denmark), with constant airmeasurements, and with equipment that verifies that they are using their normal "vaping patterns". Air samples will be tested by the ] (best in Europe for these kinds of measurements), and will hopefully be part of the scientific literature once finished</small>), to figure out where the emissions lie in relation to TLV's, and the indoor climate recommendations (significantly lower than TLV). DADAFO is evidence, not advocacy, driven. --] 12:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
* '''Yes, there is a COI'''. From the material above Kim has a clear COI in respect of e-cigs (no matter what DADAFO's precise positions are). Frankly, I'm amazed there's even any push-back on this. ] (]) 07:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
* '''Agreed, clear COI''' Working for an NGO involving e-cigs is a definite COI on e-cig articles. ] (]) 11:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
'''Comment''': The problem here is not whether there is a COI, i'm aware that there is one, which is why i have a statement on my ], just as policy advices, but to what extent the COI limits my editing. --] 12:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC) <small>Nb: with regards to COI, shouldn't editors who are involved with the article be disclosing that information when commenting here?</small> | |||
::That is a good clarification, Kim. Thanks for making it. For others, I had requested that Kim refrain from directly editing articles related to electronic cigarettes and instead limit himself to talk page discussion; he did not find that reasonable. That is the question here. ] (]) 14:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Want to add here, that Europe has indeed passed special regulation for tobacco-based products that includes e-cigs, known as the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD). What that means exactly is being fought over both at the EU level and at the member state level. (See ]. ] challenged recent EU decisions on the application of TPD to e-cigs and that case will be worked out in court starting this year; and Denmark recently floated regulations to implement TPD that were vehemently opposed by many vapers (see for some discussion of that.). So some more questions for {{u|KimDabelsteinPetersen}}: | |||
::* Has DADAFO been advocating on the EU level on how TPD should apply to e-cigs and is it participating in the court challenge in any way? | |||
::* Did DADAFO take a stance on the recent Danish proposal to implement TPD? | |||
::* Is DADAFO advocating for specific provisions in the Danish implementation of TPD? | |||
:: I am asking these questions again because these are cases where public opinion matters, and therefore what Misplaced Pages says ''matters'', so folks can think through whether it makes sense for you to directly edit the article. ] (]) 17:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::{{e/c}} Here are my responses to your questions - which all seem to be policy issues: | |||
:::* DADAFO was indirectly involved in the TPD discussions | |||
:::* DADAFO was invited by the Danish government to partake in the hearing process on the new law. (our hearing response can be found ). | |||
:::* DADAFO strongly supported the age-restrictions, warning measurements (toxic, keep away from children, do not use if pregnant etc). We adviced that e-liquid with nicotine should not be sold over the counter at supermarkets and other such non-specialized retailers, since these aren't capable of educating new users or giving sufficient warnings. Objected to the cost of putting a product on the market, as well as pointed out that the economic calculations significantly underestimated the market. Pointed out that while the law required emission and liquid testing, there was no description on what such testing should include, as well as how it should be done . As well as numerous other issues. )] | |||
:::As i already stated: The place that i won't edit is within the policy aspects (particular the Danish ones) of electronic cigarettes, since this is the primary aspect of DADAFO's work. | |||
:::Within the health region we're taking a pure evidence based approach. I was instrumental in making sure that DADAFO used Misplaced Pages ] reviews in our approach to health aspects, and not make the same mistake as other NGO's, by using individual studies as basis, but instead use what reviews state. --] 17:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
*There is clearly a COI in relation to electronic cigarettes. The guideline says of campaigning: | |||
<blockquote>"Activities regarded by insiders as simply 'getting the word out' may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with campaigns that engage in advocacy in the same area, you may have a conflict of interest. Similarly, editors should not edit articles in which they have a political conflict of interest."</blockquote> | |||
:The guideline strongly discourages COI editing ("COI editing is strongly discouraged"), and I hope Kim will respect that. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Of course i will (and have) respect(ed) that. I will never on Misplaced Pages rely on my personal opinion on issues, no matter if i have a COI or not. Our pillars are inviolable. This issue is about how restrictive ] should be interpreted. --] 18:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::{{u|KimDabelsteinPetersen}}, SlimVirgin is an administrator who works on COI issues, generally at the guideline level, and as far as I know has not been involved in the e-cig article. Joseph2302 works on COI issues a lot on the ground (you see him posting everywhere on this board) and as far as I know he has also not edited e-cigs. Both of them are advising you not to edit the articles directly going forward. I work this board a lot too, and I am advising you the same. ( I understand that you may see me as biased, which is I brought this here) ] (]) 18:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::{{u|Jytdog}} i do not see you as biased. As i've said before: DADAFO's interests lie in the political aspects of electronic cigarettes in Denmark and the EU, as well as on the European standard for electronic cigarettes - and thus i have a clear and present COI for these particular area. As for electronic cigarettes in general - we do not promote their usage, nor in any other way have advocacy issues. Thus i will (as i've already explained on my talk page) refrain from editing these particular areas. But a complete editban for the whole topic area is not in line with our COI guidelines - since my position does not involve taking a stance on these. I have no predetermined biases towards whether electronic cigarettes are healthy or not, that is for the medical and scientific literature to determine. Nor do i have predetermined views on any other aspect of the topic area. --] 18:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::Kim, as the COI guideline explains, COI has nothing to do with bias or lack thereof. It has to do with external roles and relationships. See ], ] and ]. That you have a conflict in a contentious area means you should not edit articles in that area, and should probably also avoid RfCs and similar, or else make your COI known in those discussions. If you had only made a few edits to those articles, it would matter less, but you've been focusing on them for a while, so it's a problem. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Correct, but it does have something to do with vested interest. And i have no vested interests in other subtopics of electronic cigarettes outside of Danish and EU policy on the area. My COI is less than for instance health professionals, or researchers within this topic area, and editors from those areas are not considered as having COI. What you essentially translate COI into is: If you have an interest or knowledge within an area, you should not edit it. Which is contrary to Misplaced Pages's pillars. --] 19:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::There is a large academic literature on COI, and our guideline follows it. It doesn't mean that if you know or believe something about an area, you have a COI. Please read the guideline, starting from ]. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::Sarah, i have read it, just as i've read our policies in general (why do you think i disclosed my position?). And nothing in COI states that i should not edit or contribute as long as i'm careful and stick to a strict adherence to our policies (here i would presume WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT are the main aspects). I've disclosed my COI long before this thread, and i've stayed away from problem areas, and i've also mainly contributed to the talk-pages. If you can find any edits or comments that are problematic, then i'd like to hear it - especially since i follow WP policies to the letter. If there are any particular behavioral issues then i would also like to hear them. I'm not involved in any sort of ] (or in "getting the word out") --] 19:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::KimDabelsteinPetersen, you made edits to the Safety of electronic cigarettes. I provided some diffs on your talk page. See ]. | |||
:::::::::::The RfC resulted in keeping the sources. See ]. | |||
:::::::::::See on your talk page. You had a discussion with ]. ] (]) 20:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::QG as usual you are only telling half of the story. I did not "edit", i reverted back to the last consensus version before the RfC, while the RfC was running, and because the RfC was running. The problem there was that you wanted to pre-empt the RfC. And that you keep repeating this particular instance, in various forums, is rather more of an indication of problems with your editing patterns than mine - sorry. --] 22:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::I have to say, as someone with a "former" COI here, when I worked for ], I don't find Kim's fairly few edits to the article - a tiny fraction of the torrent - really part of the undoubted problem on that page. Mostly he edits the talk page. ] (]) 19:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::If you look at his contribs, he edits several articles about electronic cigarettes. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::I have in fact only edited the main article since my appointment. And my contributions have been very limited even there. --] 19:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::And I also watch some of the other articles. ] (]) 01:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
* '''There is no COI''': Whether a person has a COI or not ultimately rests on the nature of their relationship with the subject at hand. The revelant guideline at ] states: "''An article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be written by the subject's spouse.''" In other words, if Kim were to edit DADAFO articles, that would be a COI because he is directly related to the organization. ] seems to be a much broader topic, and though it might be closely related to the DADAFO, I do not consider Kim to have a direct relationship with this topic area. On the other hand, he definitely has a COI when it comes to the DADAFO organization itself. Just like how alt. med practitioners (probably) do not have a COI for alt med. articles, but only for their own organizations. -] 20:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::A1candidate, i disagree, i most certainly have a strong COI when it comes to Danish and EU politics with regards to electronic cigarettes, since that is the area that DADAFO is a part of. We have a direct impact on Danish politics on this area, and are part of the political process in implementing the TPD (EU tobacco directive) in Denmark. --] 22:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
* '''COI exists.''' The DADAFO pretty clearly appears to be an advocacy group on e-cigs in general based on the above. Because of that broad involvement in the topic (regardless of the group's actual stances or country of political involement), that would mean Kim should not be editing articles related to e-cigs. Per our standard approach to COI editors, they should only make edit requests. If advocacy-like behavior does become apparent and a problem on talk pages, that's a topic for a different venue (not commenting on if it is ''currently'' a problem). However, they should take precautionary measures in talk conversations to not appear like an advocate since this COI could create that appearance. ] (]) 22:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Do please explain how DADAFO is an advocacy group on e-cigs ''in general''. We are involved in the political process as a consumer protection organization - not as a promoter, advertiser or advocate on anything other than how to implement e-cigs in Danish legislature (and general consumer rights within the market). That such organizations such us DADAFO exists is perhaps a Danish thing, but we are the consumer arm within the market. You may liken us to a ], which within the workspace represents the workers. | |||
::Thus within political aspects of e-cigs, particularly for Denmark and the EU, i have a strong COI. --] 23:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Your group's website supports e-cigarettes. An editor working for tobacco-industry lobbyists would be expected not to edit articles about smoking. It wouldn't matter that she had been tasked to lobby just one government. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::Bingo with Sarah here. My "in general" comment was with respect to the fact that the group closely works with the topic of e-cigs, regardless of the actual stance they take (pro, anti, in between measured response, etc.). ] (]) 23:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::We work within the topic of electronic cigarette legislature and no other aspect or topic of e-cigs. --] 00:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::Thats a strange stance, since there is definite difference between producers and consumers. Producers are economically dependent on a product. And we aren't lobbyists either. We are not economically dependent on anything. Consumer rights != Industry lobbying. --] 00:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::Kim, it's common for advocates to lobby in the name of consumer rights. The tobacco, pharmaceutical, alcohol and junk-food industries are known for it. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::Yes, {{u|Slimvirgin|Sarah}}. That would be ]. And i hope that you aren't implying anything with that? --] 22:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::{{U|KimDabelsteinPetersen|Kim}}, I'm not implying astroturfing in the sense that something's fake. It's just that buyer and seller desires cohere in cases like this, and when the product is one that buyers are addicted to, advancing their rights isn't obviously in their interests.<p>Then there are the interests of the non-consumer or former consumer. Buyers want to use the product with minimal restrictions, even if it negatively affects people who are not addicted or are fighting the addiction, which may include the buyers' future selves. It is all very difficult ethically. I think getting involved in those articles with a COI just makes things too fraught. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::First of all {{u|SlimVirgin|Sarah}}, with regards to addiction: The EU TPD (tobacco products directive) from 2014 makes sure that nicotine containing e-cig products for the forseeable future will be available to customers - so that is not a factor in consumer protection at all. In fact customer protection within the EU now, is to make sure that the products are as safe as can be for the consumers. It seems to me that you are entering more into a personal or US centric view here. Your second point is (just as the former really) a political one, and e-cig policy (as here vape bans) is one of the areas that i've said several times that i have a strong COI towards. But the electronic cigarette topical area is much more than policy issues. --] 08:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::{{U|KimDabelsteinPetersen|Kim}}, I think you misunderstood my post. Also, I don't know what the US-centric view is, and I'm not from the US. The point I was making is that representing the rights of addicted people to obtain more of the substance they're addicted to, especially in a way that affects other people (including former addicts), is ethically very challenging. For example, the needs of consumer X in 2015 when he is addicted ("please let me vape at work") may change in 2016 when he has quit ("please don't let people vape at work"). | |||
:::::::::You're arguably adding to that ethical burden by editing Misplaced Pages in a way that suits your position, but without alerting readers that the article is being edited by someone with an external interest. Readers expect WP articles to be written independently of external interests. Just as you feel a responsibility toward consumer protection in your area, we have a responsibility toward our consumers to keep COI editing out of those articles. You have that same responsibility as a Wikipedian. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::Sorry but i have not ever removed or argued against any material concerning second-hand vaping as far as i know. The only way that we can add or remove material concerning such an issue is if the general ] in the literature indicates that it should be or not be there. I object very strongly to the claim that i'm ''"arguably ... editing... in a way that suits position"''. <small>(first of all because i doubt that you understand my position - since you seem to assert that i would want vaping in the workspace at all costs - definitely: No. This issue of workspace vaping, should depend entirely on evidential material ''not'' someones opinions (except for the employer in case he wants to ban it locally - which is always his right no matter the legal state))</small> --] 17:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC) ] 17:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)] | |||
::::::::::::Sorry, that misses the points I was making, but I don't know how to rephrase them. I don't want to delve into workplace vaping, but it seems self-evident that if someone is trying to stop smoking or vaping, being surrounded by it at work would not be helpful, in terms of exposure to nicotine, the rituals, smells, normalization of it, etc. It would be like forcing recovering alcoholics to work in bars. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::{{u|SlimVirgin|Sarah}} You may think that it is "self-evident" - but reality doesn't really adhere to what is "self-evident" or not. It is correct for cigarette-smoke (from personal experience), but it doesn't seem to work the same way with electronic cigarettes/vapor. Theoretically because E-cigs vapor doesn't have the ]s that lit cigarettes contain. But i'd love to see a scientific study on this particular issue - which so far has been overlooked in the literature. Addiction is a difficult animal, no two addiction patterns are alike - otherwise the world would be rid of cigarettes for good by now, and have no need for products such as ]s or e-cigs. As a rule one should never rely on what is "self-evident" :) --] 22:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
*Let's make one thing clear here. COI discourages coi editing but '''Nowhere''' does it state one is not allowed to edit an article nor does it forbid commenting on article's talk pages (and that would include RFCs which are decided by argument, not vote). There '''are''' clear restrictions on how to edit and so far, no one here has even tried to show how Kim's editing style is against policy. If you keep on behaving like this, you'll be left with less to none COI disclosure by editors (which there are already plenty of on WP). Enjoy.] (]) 22:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Generally we don't allow anything but extremely minor and uncontroversial edits on the article from a COI editor. That's been the practice for at least the past few years. The talk page is generally open for them, but we also acknowledge that COI editors whether paid or just coming from more of an advocate position can tend to swamp out other volunteer and generally less engaged editors at the page. While not discussed too often, that can lead to the COI editor getting less attention on the talk page or weight in determining consensus if that becomes an issue. ] (]) 23:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::I assume that this originates in the rather defunct system in the US, where one cannot differentiate between grassroots, astroturfs, advisors, consultants and experts. It seems to be a general creep within the WP system that subject matter experts are discouraged from contributing. --] 00:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::Yes, a "general creep" but seemingly only a general creep for certain types of subject matter experts. I'm pretty sure that there are double standards going on here. Anyhow, I have seen quite a bit of KDP's editing and in my experience they are one of the most policy-focused, neutral editors that I have collaborated with. Of course they have a COI. But eliminating them from the subject area will be a net loss to the project just as eliminating a medical doctor or public health official would be.] (]) 09:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::@Kingofaces43. Re. the first part of your comment: If true, this practice was/is against policy. Actually true is the latter of your post: They get more restricted and/or more harsh measures can be taken, '''if it becomes a problem''' that is. We '''do not''' restrict further than laid out in policy; that would be a punitive preemptive measure.] (]) 00:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::@TMCk The COI guideline is clear that editors with a COI should not directly edit articles. ] (]) 13:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::The basic fact here Jytdog is that i do not have ''a stake in or stands to benefit from'' any other area within electronic cigarettes, than the ones that i've mentioned. My intention here, as with any other area of Misplaced Pages that i've edited, is to make Misplaced Pages better, and to provide the best overview of the topic that fits the ]... I am and have always been a wikipedia editor first and foremost - ironically wiki has a more profound influence on what i do in my role at DADAFO, than it could conceivably ever have the other way around. --] 20:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::: I do appreciate that you have talked here. One of the things about COI, is that folks who have one, often think they are doing just fine. Others can see the problem, and truly clueful editors listen to them and do what they should do. So while i understand the position you are taking, I don't agree and nor do most folks talking here that work regularly on COI issues. You will do as you will. If you decide to ignore us and continue to edit directly, I will likely bring an ANI case against you, combining your COI with your role at DADAFO, with diffs showing a pattern of POV editing that reflects the advocacy agenda of DADAFO, and will seek to have the community impose a topic ban. That is what the community does, when editors don't do on their own, what they should do. Administrators may of course decide to take action directly. We'll see what happens. That's all I have to say. I thank you again for talking; others of course may have a desire to talk further with you. ] (]) 02:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::These ''"diffs showing a pattern of POV editing"''. Can you show them please? --] 07:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Why would I build a case before you have demonstrated that you will not abide by the COI guideline? Like everybody here I am busy and do not have time to waste; every editor with a clear COI whom I have advised of the COI guideline, has agreed to follow it or has not cared about Misplaced Pages to the point where they were indeffed for other reasons. With regard to your editing, it would be very surprising (but not impossible of course) to find that you have edited the article in a way that is actually opposed to DADAFO's interests or aims; I don't reckon that building the case will be hard, should I need to go there. ] (]) 10:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::I agree with ], the way that ] is going about this is the wrong way. To try and get someone to stop editing by saying that an ANI case will be brought against them and that there '''will''' be evidence based purely on assumptions is not right. Surely what should be being said is that POV editing is against the rules and KDP should be particularly careful with regards to this and ] in general in order to avoid sanctions that '''may''' be imposed '''if''' there is evidence.] (]) 12:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::First of all, I no where made that definitive of a statement. You are misreading what i wrote. I am also sorry that you do not understand COI. It is one of the rare issues in Misplaced Pages that is about contributor, not content. Please do read the guideline again, with that in mind. When editors have a COI we advise them of what the guideline says. If editors abide by that, generally there are no problems. If editors choose to ignore the advice, they '''very likely''' will end up in hot water one way or another, but most often with regard to NPOV. That is what COI is all about - its tendency to drive editing that is biased in favor of the conflicted editor's external interests. Like I said, if Kim decides to keep directly editing and I bring a case, I will be very surprised to find any edits or discussion by him that are actually opposed to the stances that DADAFO advocates - for instance, I would be very surprised if -- if I go looking - that I will find Kim has made edits explaining the possibility of risks of exhaled vapor to other people, or supported content about that on the Talk page - I expect I will find the opposite - him downplaying the possibility of risks to others in his edits and advocating against discussion of that on the Talk page. And i would be very surprised if he has supported content about efforts to regulate e-cigs as medical devices - I expect to find advocacy for minimal regulation. That is how COI works. In any case, he has been advised, and he will do, what he will do. As will I, and as will others in the community. the e-cig articles are contentious enough without conflicted editors advocating. I would not be surprised if any admins overwatching the general sanctions take action to restrict him to the Talk page. ] (]) 12:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::The ] is strong with this one.... --] 13:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::you are missing of the point. You have a COI - everybody including you agrees on that. You are not taking the next step and working with the community to manage it. That is too bad. And the sniping is not helping you. ] (]) 13:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::{{e/c}}I don't think i missed that particular point. You made some very definite statements that assumes bad faith, and you advocated for preemptive measurements without actually looking at my contribution history. You also incidentally assumed that specific views that you appear to have are equivalent to the ]. It is one thing to warn against, and quite another to assume what will happen. --] 13:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::Quite: people with COIs engaging in conflicted editing are almost never acting in bad faith. They edit in good faith but are oblivious to the damage they are doing. That is why our guidelines are against people with COIs editing in topics for which they have a conflict. ] (]) 13:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::I do not particularly disagree with your sentiment Alexbrn, what i object against is the assumption of bad faith ''before'' the fact. Editors with strong views, generally have this problem - it is not limited to people with COI.--] 14:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::Kim, please actually read the COI guideline, and perhaps the books used as references. COI creates a tendency towards bias. Acknowledging that is not assuming bad faith. You really are missing the point. But as I said, you will do what you will do. good luck ( i mean that) ] (]) 14:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::::Jytdog, you did quite a bit more than ''"acknowledge"'' here. You made specific accusations/predictions without knowledge... you went above and beyond. Despite your insistance on being unbiased, you turned out to be biased - which was actually rather sad to see. --] 14:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
* It seems this is a case of COIN fulfilling its purpose (I wish more people would do this rather than sniping / casting aspersions about potential COI at articles). The community here has determined there is a COI and general consensus is that the editor should not edit in this topic. Unless someone who hasn't commented here wants to formally close this RfC style, there doesn't seem to be much more to be said here. Either Kim heeds the decision from COIN, or the consensus is cited at ANI in the form of a previous warning if the question of a topic ban comes up. I'd prefer the former, but given the way Kim is behaving above with regards on how to move forward, the latter might need to be pursued if issues keep coming up. ] (]) 14:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
*{{U|KimDabelsteinPetersen|Kim}}, you asked for examples of POV editing. At ], you twice removed a statement from the ], a MEDRS-compliant source, highlighting among other things the danger of e-cigarettes to children. | |||
:You removed a 2014 systematic review that said no conclusions can be drawn on the safety of ECs because of poor studies (in part caused by COI). In the same diff you removed a quote from the ] that many e-cigarettes "contain toxins, contaminants and carcinogens that conflict with the industry’s portrayal of its products as purer, healthier alternatives." You removed this another three times, along with a statement from the UK's National Health Service and something about reports to the FDA, and you added the POV tag. | |||
:On ] you argued that position statements from the World Medical Association and World Lung Foundation are either tertiary or primary sources, and that we should use only secondary sources, though MEDRS allows these kinds of position statements. Another problem with COI editing can be the time other editors have to spend on talk dealing with the issues. I'm sorry, Kim, but this seems like a very clear case overall. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I mistyped the ping, so repinging {{U|KimDabelsteinPetersen}}. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::First of all {{u|SlimVirgin|Sarah}}, this was before my appointment - but i will respond to it anyways :) | |||
::Re: Your first item: First of all this was not about the usability of the source in general - but about where it was used. The source is of course reliable, and was ''already in use'' on ]. The discussion (which was long, and which resulted in an RfC) was about whether the safety article should use the tertiary position statements or purely rely on ] reviews. I have never argued ''against'' using that source, but merely against the placement. If that is POV - then we have <u>serious</u> problems on all of Misplaced Pages's articles. Just because a source is reliable doesn't mean that it has to be used.. Correct? | |||
:::As a note: The Pisinger review as far as i can tell was an unintended removal, that originated from a revert of a mass-insert of material that was under active discussion on the talk page. I would not (and didn't at the time either) object to the Pisinger source. I in fact know Dr. Pisinger (Danish researcher) quite well, and she is one of the researchers that DADAFO is working with on our workspace emission analysis. | |||
::The second issue - the reverts back to pre-RfC while the RfC is running - should be self-explanatory. The POV tag was iirc in fact consensus at the time - fortunately it was resolved later. POV goes both ways Sarah, and mostly the issues were based on ]. | |||
::The third item is really the same (just the talk-page equivalent), and was resolved by an RfC. Are you saying that editors cannot disagree on what level of reliability (primary, secondary, tertiary) that is appropriate for particular subtopics? In my understanding (as well as other editors understanding) there was a general consensus at the time to <u>only</u> use secondary ] review articles - which is the highest standard that is possible within the medical field. Unfortunately we chose to <u>lower</u> our sourcing standards with that RfC. Are you saying that this is a COI problem? That we should use the best medical articles available? --] 17:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::{{U|KimDabelsteinPetersen|Kim}}, the arguments miss the point. (Also, that this was just before your appointment probably isn't relevant, because you must have been involved with this group before the appointment.) Imagine an editor who removes from ] MEDRS sources that state its health risks, keeps reverting, and ties editors up on talk with arguments about source quality, POV tags, not adding things during RfCs, and so on. Others try to persuade that person that they're editing against policy and consensus. So far, so normal. | |||
:::Then imagine we learn that the editor is president of the World Fruitarian Association. It changes everything, because it means we know this situation will continue. This person will not be persuaded, because he has a strong external interest and a tendency to bias inherent in that position. We also know from scholarly studies that people with COI underestimate their own bias and wrongly believe they can act neutrally, so what the COI editor sees is not what others see. The question then becomes how much volunteer time should be spent dealing with the conflicted person, and whether it's fair to expect people to do that. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::{{e/c}} {{u|SlimVirgin|Sarah}} actually the appointment time does have COI influence, i candidated for a board position, got it, and was afterwards appointed chairman/president. I'm also member of the Kræftens Bekæmpelse (the Danish Cancer institute), as are roughly a half a million other Danes. ~10% of all Danes) So that would by your assertion mean that i have another COI there? Perhaps even oppositely directed? How many of our current editors are members of the American Heart Association? Or similar grouping? | |||
::::You would have a point Sarah, if the removal of the Pisinger source (the only MEDRS review being talked about) had been deliberate, or if i had argued against the Pisinger source. The question on whether a source is more appropriate in one subtopic article or in another - is not a removal. If i had removed the position statements from the ] (where the source is obviously spot on), then it would be different. I'm btw. curious as to why you would think that i'd have an interest in removing such a source. Just curious. | |||
::::You would also have a point about the RfC based reverts, if i A) Had been the only editor with this view B) That i reverted against the status quo C) If i was trying to pre-empt the RfC D) Wasn't part of the discussion. - unfortunately none of these is correct. The trouble with the e-cig articles is not removals (of which there are very few), but the piling up of additions to the brink of overflowing. | |||
::::I do see your point - but i find that the specifics are cherry-picked without considering the context. --] 18:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::Kim, I believe uninvolved editors would see a problem with your edits, and the COI means the situation won't change, so the best thing would be for you to withdraw voluntarily. Re: membership of a large group, that rarely means there's a COI. If the group is a small one and is campaigning for something the editor is writing about on WP, it would be a COI, as would holding a position in a similar group of any size. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::So I.e. members of ISIS wouldn't be considered to have a COI on certain articles?] (]) 19:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)<br>That's a quite serious meant comparison Sarah opened the door to argue for!] (]) 20:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::{{u|SlimVirgin|Sarah}} again you are misinterpret our purpose: DADAFO doesn't advocate ''for'' electronic cigarettes. We advocate for legislation that secures the highest safety for an already existing (unregulated) product on the market, and which in Denmark is used by 4.8% of the population. We have tried to wake up politicians to implement legislation for years, instead of the current "Wild-West market". That is also why i agree that i shouldn't touch articles or content that addresses this particular issue (politics of electronic cigarettes), because i have serious COI there. --] 22:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Mispinged again: {{U|KimDabelsteinPetersen}}. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Sorry but a were deleted and there '''never''' was any consensus to use only secondary ] review articles. See https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=658964452#Discussion_on_positions. Before the RfC ] wrote "Again, you all are making up your own rules and "consensus" again. The only point I have ever made is that material about health needs to be sourced to MEDRS compliant sources. Statements by major medical organizations meet MEDRS." ] (]) 18:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::QG: Relying on your own assertions in a diff, is not really an argument is it. Yobol also disagreed, but lots of other editors agreed with me. Thus there was the RfC - and now a new consensus on sourcing. Just as WP should work. --] 18:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::Kim, I am familiar with your firm stances from my brief time at the e-cig article, but just know that you have changed no one's mind here. You have been advised to not directly edit articles related to e-cigs and you are aware of what may happen should you choose to do so. There is nothing more to do here that I can see. ] (]) 03:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::This is . ] (]) 20:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== ] and ] == | |||
{{Resolved| Both articles now deleted. ] (]) 21:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | <!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | ||
* {{pagelinks|Leyla Kuliyeva}} | |||
* {{la|Global Football Family (Football Agency)}} | |||
* {{userlinks|User publisher wiki}} | |||
* {{la|Tom Davies (footballer, born 1993)}} | |||
User publisher wiki has made two sets of changes to this article. The , which I reverted, was promotional in tone and either unsourced or referenced to primary sources. The , which I also reverted, was unsourced. Another editor posted on the user's Talk page about CoI, and I followed up with a direct question, to which User publisher wiki responded {{tq|I have the information}} and giving concerns about the grammar, quality and brevity of the article. They have now posted on the article's Talk page saying, in part, {{tq|I have been assigned to create a page for this individual with all the relevant information. This article either needs to be properly edited or deleted and replaced with a new one, as it does not adhere to Misplaced Pages's standards. If this is not addressed promptly, we will need to notify Misplaced Pages's legal department to take further action}}. ] (]) 10:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
* {{userlinks|PhilRichardsGFF}} | |||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> | |||
Username clearly shows COI to GFF. Tom Davies is a client of them (his article did mention the agency, but I deleted it as not relevant). Their response to my COI concerns was for them to basically tell me to fix the article immediately . GFF is almost certainly going to get deleted (an agency with 4 clients isn't notable), but the player is notable per ]. More eyes appreciated. ] (]) 20:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Their last comment has now earned them a {{tlx|uw-legal}} warning. --] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 15:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== John Lamb Lash == | |||
::There have been quite a lot of problems with this article since it was created. All of the problematic activity clearly derives from a single previously blocked user, evidence as follows... | |||
{{resolved|article has been deleted ] (]) 19:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
::The article was originally created in Feb '22 by virtual SPA ] who took the article to this rather odd <s>(but very long)</s> version before their work began to be reverted (and the article was taken back to very short stub status). | |||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | |||
::The user was then blocked for sockpuppetry . | |||
* {{la|John Lamb Lash}} | |||
::Then in Sept '22 ] attempted to create a new article for Leyla Kuliyeva (despite the fact that one already existed). This was turned down at AfC. The user placed their new version of the article on their talk page, here . It is obviously <s>the version that was favoured by</s> ''the work of a user with an identical agenda to that of'' the blocked user TheWeldere. Then in Jan '23 Dmarketingchamp cut and pasted their version into the existing article, here . So, this was <s>obvious</s> ''apparent'' block evasion and sockpuppetry by the user of the TheWeldere account. | |||
* {{userlinks|Victor666vv}} | |||
::Then in Nov '24 the present account appeared and attempted to create a new article for Kuliyeva (is this sounding familiar?). This was again turned down at AfC (twice this time). The user then implemented their preferred version within the current article, here . So, same story as above. | |||
* {{userlinks|88.13.49.1}} | |||
::This version is different to the previous version that the earlier accounts attempted to implement, but is very likely from the same hand. | |||
* {{userlinks|Victor Vallant}} | |||
::The behavioural evidence of users trying to create complete replacement articles indicates obvious sockpuppetry and block evasion, as per ]. ] (]) 17:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> | |||
:::{{reply to|Axad12}} Are you going to file a report at SPI? --] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 03:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Victor666vv has claimed to be ]'s official biographer , and is trying to claim ownership of the article. They have not made any other edits.<br> | |||
::::I would, but I don't know how to. If you feel an SPI is required, would you be prepared to do the honours and simply link to the evidence above? If so it would be much appreciated. ] (]) 05:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Previously, Victor Vallant and 88.13.49.1 have added large amounts of the same unsourced content, see and . ] (]) 12:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::Just a note to say that the user seems to be restricted to communicating with extensive AI produced material, as can be seen in recent discussions at their talk page and at the Leyla Kuliyeva talkpage . The user even parroted back one of my responses (here:), presumably due to cut and paste error while putting an earlier question into Google Translate. ] (]) 12:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:we have to get them to pick a single account, too... ] (]) 15:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::] now blocked by ] as an advertising only account (and for {{tq|wasting people's time on their user page}}, as per the SPI: ). ] (]) 20:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== South College == | |||
== National Institute of Technology, Puducherry == | |||
{{resolved|redirected ] (]) 20:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | |||
* {{la|National Institute of Technology, Puducherry}} | |||
* {{userlinks|VkumarNITpy}} | |||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> | |||
SPA editing ], username implies affiliation to them. ] (]) 20:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I think the username is OK, yes? some specific person who works there. That should be OK. I have left them some info about COI - let's hope they talk. ] (]) 02:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::{{ping|Jytdog}} They appear to have changed their username to ] now, although it was acceptable beforehand. ] (]) 10:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::: there was no content there. redirected this to ]. Hopefully that will hold. ] (]) 20:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Dr. Frank P. Savoy Jr == | |||
{{resolved|article deleted ] (]) 20:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | <!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | ||
* {{pagelinks|South College}} | |||
* {{la|Dr. Frank P. Savoy Jr }} | |||
* {{userlinks| |
* {{userlinks|Amanda Woodward Burns}} | ||
In a , this editor used an edit summary that indicates that they work for the college: "We needed to update our number of programs we offer, update the 2023 stats to include CBE programs. Also correct a few grammatical issues." I placed a ] on their User Talk page in May. They have not yet responded to the warning but they continue to edit the college's article. ] (]) 22:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> | |||
] created by Savoy209 , obvious COI from the name. The article is promotional, the person seems not notable, and I tried cleaning it up, but they keep trying to readd the same content, clearly ignoring the advice of other users at ]. I've put it up for AfD, since an A7 was declined on the claim of some notability. ] (]) 01:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:An once of good faith might be due, just from the standpoint that you warned them last time and they stopped. Then 7 months later they come back, probably don't remember seeing the first warning, and then get two more today ''after they stopped editing'' again. Not that this isn't a problem, but I'd probably wait for them to edit again in the next day or two, and then if they do perhaps a hammer needs to come down. Another possibility might be to report per ]. ] ] 05:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Ronn Torossian == | |||
::In fairness, various promotional accounts have been editing that article since at least 2019. For example, this promotional edit with edit summary {{tq|Update at the request of the college}}. That user was blocked as an advertising only account. | |||
::Then we have this exchange from 2020 , where another user admits to working for the college in a marketing capacity and is asked not to edit the article. | |||
::Then later that year this user edited the article, later blocked as ]. | |||
::Then user SPA from 2021 whose promotional edits were reverted later that day. | |||
::Then this user from 2023 , who made 1 edit before being notified of the ] policy. | |||
::And then the current user, whose first edit indicated that they work for the college, and who was notified of the relevant policy back in May. | |||
::So, let's not be under any illusion that this college has been directly editing the article for many years, receiving repeated push back in that regard, and is well aware that such activity is contrary to policies and guidelines. ] (]) 23:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::That does appear consistent with what I've found, but also let's be real, given the spread of these edits, and their limited scope, even blocking this account isn't going to provide a different outcome. Because, as you noted, there have been multiple accounts, and even blocking those accounts isn't making a difference. A large reason for this, I believe, is that college is full of well intentioned, technically versed students who are going to introduce SPAM, but also, there is a huge rotation employees - most people who edit these sorts of pages on college will not be working there two years later. This is different from a company or individual. That doesn't mean that we ignore it. But my point is, once a notice has been issued, they go away, a block will not make any reasonable difference here except make someone doing AIV patrolling feel better. This doesn't mean that I'm light on abuse, but rather, that I believe that we should be more concerned with actual outcomes versus the appearance of just following the process. ] ] 00:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::You say {{tq|once a notice has been issued, they go away}}, but in this case the user has continued their editing beyond a notice (which is why they ended up here). | |||
::::You also say that the college {{tq|is full of well intentioned, technically versed students who are going to introduce SPAM}}, but as far as can be ascertained (from the accounts' own statements) the accounts originated from employees of the college and from marketing companies employed by the college. | |||
::::Under those circumstances it's entirely reasonable to assume that those working for the college are aware of the past failures to install promotional content and that they are simply returning to the article once a year or so in the vain hope that no one is looking any more. | |||
::::You also note that you don't feel a block would be worthwhile - but when an account exists solely for advertising or promotion, and continues beyond a notice, a block is a fairly standard response in accordance with policy (although in this case I don't see that anyone has actually called for a block anyway). | |||
::::Note also the relatively recent promotional edit here , done by an IP address (quite possibly the user named at the top of this thread, or else clearly someone with an identical agenda). That edit (done under a misleading edit summary) was swiftly reverted on the basis that it was promotional. | |||
::::The named user has been referred to ] and to ] and any further continuation of the same agenda can only be construed as blatant breaches of policies and guidelines. That's all the more the case given how easy it is to follow the COI edit request process. | |||
::::The general long term pattern of behaviour seen in this case is actually alarmingly common on the articles for schools and colleges. Blocking is often the only way to get the attention of such editors. ] (]) 03:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::I'm not against a block, but I'm simply suggesting that it will simply be a case of WHACKAMOLE and that using warning templates will likely result in the same case of editing every few months from various accounts. The only real way to keep colleges protected is to use page protection, which might be a better option. ] ] 17:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::I don't disagree, but when I've tried to get page protection in the past I've often found that (a) this level of disruptive editing wouldn't be judged sufficient to justify protection (they sometimes refer requesting editors back to COIN for this sort of thing), and (b) when protection is applied it's usually only for a time period that wouldn't be much use if the promotional edits only seem to occur once a year or so. | |||
::::::Clearly this isn't an ideal state of affairs, but I can understand why volunteers at ] wouldn't want to apply long term protection and thus prevent new good faith non-promotional editors from being able to edit a page. That sort of solution is only going to be a good idea on articles with endemic vandalism issues. | |||
::::::Ideally engaging with COI editors is the way to encourage them to use the COI edit request process, but most promotional editors simply don't engage at their talk page. ] (]) 17:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Ivan Lagundžić == | |||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | |||
* {{la|Ronn Torossian}} | |||
* {{userlinks|Cada mori}} | |||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> | |||
The user {{Diff|Ronn Torossian|657649796|655930277|joined the discussion}} at ] 10 days after {{User|RonnToro}}, a sockpuppet account of the article subject, was blocked. That edit includes a list of links that is almost identical to (except the links are mostly broken as they appear to have been copy-pasted off the page). | |||
Another thing that stuck out is how the user repeats Torossian's incorrect insistence that {{Diff|Ronn Torossian|658348910|657937626|"no published writer has said that Torossian is an activist on Right Wing Israel affairs"}} - it's established that there were such sources, but it was a question of whether the coverage in this article was ]. | |||
The user doesn't {{Diff|Ronn Torossian|664118717|664087335|return to the talk page}} until the day after ] is blocked, again repeating Torossian's disingenuous claim that he is no longer known for his pro-Israel advocacy (which ignores a quite a bit of coverage in the mid-'00s), and reads essentially as a press release that inflates his importance in the PR industry. | |||
] does allow for good-faith paid editing and the user has denied association with Torossian/5W PR and , and the user page description says "amateur editor", which is fair enough (although the user doesn't have a "long history of edits on this site" as claimed). But the contributions to the talk page are almost entirely rehashed from previous arguments made by Torossian's many sockpuppets (although more coherent and less hostile). | |||
I've assumed good faith in my initial interactions with the user, but I find it hard to ignore the near-identical arguments, dates of the edits, and that the user hasn't apparently bothered to visit the links he copy/pasted despite claiming to be "curious", FWIW, ] appears to show that the account is connected to another paid-editor account. I wouldn't act on any of these red flags individually, but it's too much of a coincidence for me. ] (]) 15:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:As I've said before I feel like you're on a withchunt simply because someone disagreed with you. I guess this can be expected after the sockpuppet investigation. As I've stated before I have no relationship with Mr. Torossian or his PR firm. Burden of proof is on you. ] (]) 15:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::You're not the first editor to disagree with me, yet I haven't brought anyone else to WP:COIN. And you'll have to forgive me for taking your denial with a grain of salt, because this wouldn't be the first time you failed to disclose a connection to an article's subject. I'm happy to offer additional evidence if other editors ask. ] (]) 18:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Sure, burden of proof is on you as I said. This is bordering on harassment though. ] (]) 18:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::Also, nice try baiting me with those elance jobs. I am no longer doing paid editing so please stop. As a matter of fact I'd love to see this "proof" you have of me being associated with Mr. Torossian. ] (]) 03:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::What do you mean by "baiting me with those elance jobs"? I'm aware of your Elance account but I haven't made any attempt to contact you. ] (]) 15:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::You know what I'm talking about. ] (]) 18:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I don't know, actually. Feel free to contact an admin per ] if you still think I have anything to do with it. ] (]) 18:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
I refer administrators and editors participating in this discussion to the to impose a company ban on any users who are employed - either on salary or contract - by ] or his company, 5WPR. So, if participants are convinced that ] is indeed an editor in the pay of Torossian, it means his account should be immediately banned. | |||
As ] has noted, there is compelling evidence that Cada mori is indeed a commercial editor paid by Torossian to whitewash his article. Revealing that evidence here would necessarily mean "outting" Cada mori, something that the Misplaced Pages community, including myself, considers to be unethical. I therefore invite any administrators interested in the evidence to contact me by Misplaced Pages mail, and I will gladly provide links to the job order by Torossian to Cada mori. Thank you, --] (]) 06:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Later: I apparently misunderstood the status of the company ban on Torossian. The issue has not yet been resolved. When the discussion is concluded, I will post the result here. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused. --] (]) 19:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
: {{u|Cada mori}} thanks for replying here and stating that you have no relationship with Torossian or 5W. {{u|Ravpapa}} and {{u|Mosmof}} in the absence of any on-Wiki disclosure of a COI from Cada mori, your only option, if you are interested in pursuing this, is to gather diffs showing that Cada mori is consistently violating NPOV and bring a case to ANI to seek a topic ban from the article on that basis. It would be a mistake in my view to discuss COI in that NPOV case as you have no on-wiki evidence of an external relationship. If your concerns are serious I urge you to pursue that course of action; I also urge you to avoid bringing up the issue of COI again. You have raised it, and it has been addressed. We have limited tools to deal with COI per se in WP; we have tools to deal with POV-pushing. ] (]) 06:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::{{u|Cada mori}} Even before issues of COI are even broached it may be of benefit if you can explain why you have any interest in Torossian at all. This is in the light of ] which states: "{{tq|Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity to others and reach consensus.}}" Your user page presents "{{tq|Welcome to my page. I am an amateur Misplaced Pages editor who specializes in Mexican History and Rap music }}" and that you are a native speaker of English and an intermediate speaker of Spanish. | |||
::You have been greatly involved in two long TP threads: ] and ]. Why? What is your connection? What is your background of knowledge/developed understanding related to this topic? ]] 07:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
'''No longer interested in pursuing''' - Cada Mori appears to have stopped editing/commenting on articles, and the on-Wiki evidence was largely circumstantial/collection of red flags rather than any major infraction. I think the account (or any possible sockpuppet) is worth keeping an eye on, but I don't see the need for any immediate action. ] (]) 14:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Malcolm L. McCallum == | |||
{{resolved|New editor with lots to learn. No apparent COI. ] (]) 22:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | <!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | ||
* {{ |
* {{pagelinks|Ivan Lagundžić}} | ||
* {{ |
* {{userlinks|Ivan Lagundzic}} | ||
* {{la|Joseph T. Collins}} | |||
* {{la|Holocene extinction}} | |||
* {{la|Biodiversity}} | |||
* {{la|Extinction}} | |||
* {{la|Recreational fishing}} | |||
* {{la|Atrazine}} | |||
* {{la|Bycatch}} | |||
* {{la|List of open access journals}} | |||
* {{userlinks|Herpetology2}} | |||
* {{userlinks|184.6.92.149}} | |||
* {{userlinks|71.50.25.97}} | |||
* {{userlinks|184.6.108.178}} | |||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> | <!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> | ||
One to keep an eye on. This appears to be an autobiography. See the page history of ]. The user doesn't really communicate and most of their edits seem to be to force the article into mainspace (in spite of it being moved out of there due to ] concerns) or talk space - see history at ]. As they have been abusing the function, it may be worth restricting their ability to move articles if their poor behaviour continues. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:And . He really will stop at nothing to get himself an article on here, it would seem. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:: I have partially blocked them from page moves. ] (]) 22:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::: Thank you. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== ] on ] == | |||
User account inserts remarkably promotional material into articles about a particular group of herpetologists centered Malcolm L. McCallum (, , (<i>"obliterated their arguments"</i>) . Also, communicates with an article subject by text message ). IP inserts material from a brand-new (days old) study by McCallum into the Malcolm McCallum, Holocene extinction, Biodiversity, and Extinction articles. Warned by template on the IP's talkpage, left personalized on Herpetology2's talk page, editing continues. ] (]) 18:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
I am trying to cut promotional content from ]. ] seems like a "reliable source". However, looking at the content they've published, I'm concerned that this newspaper may have a conflict of interest when it comes to her/her billionaire family. | |||
First, to address Geogene's edits. | |||
Geogene deleted virtually the entire account for Malcolm L. McCallum. Virtually every citation was recused as insignficant. For example, Discover Magazine had a web exclusive listing his paper among the top 10 on amphibian declines. Geogene deleted this because it was "just a web exclusive" and "not a big deal." Last I checked, web-based readings are read more than hard copy, furhter, its a legitimate citation by Discover magazine. I see no point to the "web exclusive" drive. Geogenethen proceeded to post that the page should not be edited due to a conflict of interest (possible COI that is). This, and all the herpetologists' acconts that I put together were edited by a series of Misplaced Pages administrators. I did not know they were until I questioned and discovered that case. I am not suggesting that Geogene was deliberately vandalizing the page. I think it was completely in good faith. However, when you have to ask what "Altmetrics" are, you clearly have no business editing the page. Then, you do not take the time to look it up, but just delete it, when there is a link directly to the sight, well, what can I say. After he got done "editing" thsi account, it basically said the guy is a herpetologist and showed up in Texarkana at some point. As for the promotional issues, stating that a paper is ranked in the top 1-2% with a link to the reporting page is not promotional, it is stating a matter of fact that relays the importance of the work and therefore relates to the importance of the individual. This is neither unusual nor unheard of on Misplaced Pages and virtually all biographies from Kings to prophets have similar kinds of citations. The recent manuscript which was added this weekend in of a topical nature that has international repercussions. Members of the National Academy of Sciene have declared it is of great importance, and further, it went from published on Friday to the number 4 paper published by Biodiversity and Conservation and ranks among the top 1% of over 3M papers according to Altmetrics in only a weekend. The substance could be construed as recentism, except in that policy it specifically states that recentism is ok if the topical nature is likely to be important in 10 years. Similar papers by Pimm, E.O. Wilson and others are still important decades later. I have noted after skimming some of geogene's edits on other pages that he often does a very good job, it just happens that the edits here are over-the-top, in my opinion, especially considering the previous administrators who worked with me on all of these pages. i can't remember their names, but a cursory examiniation of previous editors by administrators should reveal them fairly quickly. There were things I originally wrote that were removed due to inflationary languages. If that phrase geogene refers to was still there, it either got missed, or accidentally restored by me or someone else during revisions to correct problems identified months ago. | |||
* | |||
As for a COI, I was open from day one that I had contacted some of these people when I first started, not knowing the problems with this. In fact, I obtained many pictures from the foci of these articles from the people who I profiled and posted them with permission to the wiki. Although I know of them, I would not consider me to KNOW them. In fact, I have met 1-2 of them at a herpetology function several years ago. But this would be kin to meeting a movie star or television anchor. Just meeting someone or corresponding once on an email hardly constitutes a COI based on anything I am reading. I started with these herpetologists who are associated with Herpetological Conservation and Biology (Journal). I intend to move on to the many prominent herpetologists at SSAR and HL. however, I have not had time to do that of late. Just like everyone else, I have a day job! My goal is to complete profiles for all the primary editors of the primary herpetology journals, then work my way out from there. This will take years, if not decades and I will likely never complete it! But so what!? Its kind of fun! :) As per his suggestion my efforts surround only a few related herpetologists, Collins has little relation to the others, and he only lists two of the several I have done. Further, adding relevant info to non-herpetologist pages above should be incontestable, as the content is nothing but informative at any level. For example, if Pimm says 1000 times and mccallum says a different figure, both views are equally legit considering they are published in credible scientific journals . | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
In fact, many of the sources used in the article seem like the kind of thing a billionaire in a country like Nigeria probably paid someone to write but I am not sure how to handle this. ]] 08:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Creating a nice profile with some nice pictures taht explains who the person is, where they came from, and what their primary contributions to this area of science are should be central to the mission of Misplaced Pages. That is all this is about. When you chop out every word except for the person is a herpetologist who worked in Texarkana, when the individual's work has had signficant impact, you are deflating status which is precisely equally damaging as inflationary language. I hope this is clear, it got kind of long because I want to make sure I cover the territory, accusations, and also the rationale of what transpired. ] (]) 01:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
: Hi {{u|Herpetology2}} thanks for being gracious in this discussion - that is really helpful. First thing, just to clarify parties here - Geogene listed you and an IP address. Did you edit from the IP too (not a big deal, just trying to figure out who is involved here). This is going to be a dialogue, so i look forward to your reply so we can move on to other stuff. Thanks! ] (]) 12:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Maybe best to raise the issue at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (]). Users there may be able to confirm your concerns or perhaps could point you in the direction of a list of ] and non-RS sources within the Nigerian media. Hope this helps. ] (]) 12:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::I don't remember if I was logged in or not. But, I did add info about the paper. A LOT of people in the conservation community are talking about it. I figured I'ld add it in. However, it does not bother me to wait a while on that. I did add it to some other webpages as well, where it was directly relevant. Pages on extinction and the sixth mass extinction specifically. May have been others, but I don't recall now! A few days go by and I can't remember anymore! :) ] (]) 03:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Just a brief follow-up to say that there is actually a current thread at ] in relation to the reliability of Nigerian newspapers (here ) which may be of assistance to the user who opened this thread. It seems that the existence of sponsored content in Nigerian newspapers is a widespread problem. Regards, ] (]) 04:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Yang Youlin == | |||
::::The paper first appears in Misplaced Pages with this edit , timestamped 06:41 UTC 27 May 2015. The paper is dated 27 May 2015 . I believe that Springer Verlag is on Berlin time, so doesn't that mean that this appeared on WP basically simultaneously with release? Enough time to even read it? ] (]) 04:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::It's true that I didn't know what altmetrics.com does. It seems to be a kind of search engine ranks the significance of scientists by counting the number of times a paper is mentioned on the Internet, including the "socially-curated literature" (whatever that is) . ] (]) 19:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::please excuse my baited verbage above. I should have been more polite. ] (]) 03:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::https://en.wikipedia.org/Altmetrics ] (]) 03:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::http://www.altmetric.com/details/4059569#score | |||
This particular thing is promoted by Springer and some other journal companies because it is the best indicator of how frequently a paper will be cited in the future.. There is a very decent correlation between discussion of the paper, its newsworthiness, and its future importance/citation rating. Some people prefer Altmetrics to Impact ratings, others use them in consort, and still others suggest they are useless BS. I think the last group is losing ground to the vast majority that use them in consort with citation ratings. Have a nice day!] (]) 03:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::{{u|Herpetology2}} I have looked at your work. You seem to know a lot about the field and as I mentioned, are enthusiastic. But to be frank your Misplaced Pages editing is really bad. Have a look at the first two paragraphs here: ]. Almost everything there is either unsourced or the sources are fake. And there is a tendency to promotionalism. I don't see COI but I do see problems getting settled as a WP editor. That's my take. {{u|Geogene}} do you see what i mean? If you agree, I'd suggest we close this thread and ask Herpetology2 to slow down on creating articles and find a mentor... ] (]) 03:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::I find this reasonable. ] (]) 16:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::Thanks Geogene. {{u|Herpetology2}}, will you agree to slow down on creating articles and work on bringing the articles you already created up to snuff? We can help you find a mentor. I hope you are open to this. I think you could become a really valuable member of the community but you need some training/experience.... please let me know. thx. ] (]) 20:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I don't have a problem with that, however, as I said before, these have been repeatedly dragged through by administrators who WERE helping me with the thing. Further, there is not a FAKE citation in any account. It would help if people did not delete citations willy nilly as now I have to go back to the thing and REINSERT citations people have previously deleted as unnecessary. There was a large section deleted by Geogene that was done as suggestive of name dropping. No, it is not name dropping. Name dropping is done to assess importance to non-important persons. However, in academia, especially in the sciences, academic geneologies provide a reader with an understanding of the academic background of the individual because scientific philosophies follow these lines. This is all public information published in secondary sources. Also, there seems to be some confusion in Misplaced Pages regarding what is a primary and a secondary source. Per definition, and I have taught this at the college level now for close to 20 years, a primary source is the lab book. A scientific article is a secondary source. This is not debatable, its a fact that can be supported by a multitude of sources, including Misplaced Pages itself. Primary literature and primary sources are not the same thing. Primary literature is the peer reviewed literature such as scientific journals. Primary sources are the actual sources of data whether they be excel spreadsheets, notebooks, or diaries. ] (]) 17:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
* I have with Herpetology2 before and find their understanding of what constitutes appropriate sourcing on WP seriously lacking. I have told them before that their use of "academic geneology" is not warranted and violates ]. Seems like they persist. Most articles that they have created are borderline notable at best (McCallum's being one of them), using references that not always support the statements made and include huge bibliographies (we usually list the three most important ones in bios of academics). They also frequently include OR (like assertions about mean numbers of publications/citations of people at a certain stage of their career; never seen that except in Herpetology2's articles). Herpetology2 is passionate about their field, but their enthusiasm seems to carry them away a bit too much and I have given up on trying to educate them. Hence I'm not watchlisting this, so ping me if needed. --] (]) 19:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
* {{u|Herpetology2}} I am closing this case, and will pick up the discussion at your Talk page, but will close with this remark. You have gotten feedback here from three different editors, that your skill at writing Misplaced Pages articles is sorely lacking. No one is questioning anything about your real world knowledge or attainments. Editing Misplaced Pages is not like other kinds of writing. There is a lot to learn. You really have two choices. You can continue to keep your eyes and ears closed and be defensive -- and end up having a really miserable (and probably very short) time here, or you can relax, acknowledge that you are new to WP and have a lot to learn, and have a long, productive, and happy time here. No one knows your real world identity, so you have nothing to lose listening and learning. Please check your ego. It is a hard thing for accomplished academics to do, but it is necessary. Good luck. ] (]) 22:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
I've been aware of {{u|Herpetology2}}'s contributions for a while, and think that his or her pattern of editing shows at the very least a disproportionate view of the importance of various herpetologists (and perhaps incomplete understanding of ] and ]), even those that have done very notable research. User has interviewed subjects, and been present (or at least their camera was present) in the photographing of several individuals mentioned, (see last three entries at ]), and even created an article about a ] by one of the subjects. Re: the comment above about meeting subjects to "kin to meeting a movie star or news anchor", one can have a disproportionate view of the relative importance of a movie star's actions, and not everything they do warrants encyclopedic inclusion. The user is certainly enthusiastic and very familiar with the implications of certain publications (see discussion at ]), The user has ] and been ] Note: being an expert in a field which is certainly not inherently bad-- we need experts, so long as their contributions are measured and appropriate to the betterment of an encyclopedia, more so than the posterity of any person-- but may disproportionately influence one's writing and usage of sources. And even if the user is completely unconnected to the individuals, their pattern of editing suggests an effort to inflate articles with every conceivable element, that even if verifiable, conflicts with ]: {{xt|All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, '''proportionately''', and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.}} ''(emphasis added)''. An article (or statement within) can be true, even verifiable and still biased or full of ] coverage: articles should not be predominantly sourced by articles written by the subject (which even if a review article or text book, no matter the focus, is a primary source ''with regards to the author''). Articles should be measured and balanced, not a trophy room of accomplishments and a cherry-picking of papers (and yes, many academic Wiki articles ''are'' biased this way: one-sided with a disproportionately long "Selected works" section (approaching CVs in some cases), but that doesn't mean we should perpetuate such articles). Scraping the bottom of the barrel for unreliable sources like Ratemyprofessor.com to further pad articles is certainly undue. Regardless of whether an actual COI exists, and at the risk of repeating my earlier comments on your talk page, I have some recommendations that would help ensure content complies with ] and other policies, and reduce the ''appearance'' of biased editing, which can still occur in the absence of a COI (note however I am not a wiki mentor or ambassador, nor wish to be one at this time): | |||
*No matter how much personal knowledge you have of an issue, and regardless of your opinion, search for reliable, third-party sources that clearly and directly validate the content you wish to add. No press releases, mailing lists, or websites that merely state existence without context. Note that ]. | |||
*Minimize the usage of sources written by the subjects, and/or pair them as much as possible with high-quality secondary sources that clearly explain the context of the research. Any given study may be groundbreaking or mundane or flat-out discredited by a follow-up study, and it is only from sources secondary to the research that we gain context. | |||
*Minimize the use of analytics, (altmetrics, H-index, etc) which can run close to ], and do not use those alone to assert the importance of any study or person. | |||
*As a teacher and academic, you may be used to performing novel research, and/or encouraging students to analyze, synthesize, and critique information to reach novel conclusions (e.g. an essay, review article, or research paper). Unfortunately, that is explicitly what Misplaced Pages is not per ]: until such ideas become published in reliable sources, they cannot be included in Misplaced Pages. | |||
*Per ], ] and ], strive to allocate coverage of facts roughly in proportion to their coverage in reliable third-party sources. We care more about fairly representing how a subject is actually known to the world at large (as portrayed in reliable, third-party sources) more than how you or I feel which of their accomplishments deserves mention. If no or few reliable sources mention a given fact or study, it should perhaps not be included. | |||
*], and accept that Misplaced Pages is built on consensus and give-and-take. If others remove your content, or have a different view of appropriate level of detail, then we discuss them on relevant talk pages. | |||
*Before adding new content (e.g. a recent study), consider mentioning it on the article's talk page first. This will allow other editors to discuss the relevance and due weight. | |||
*Lastly, I know it can seem like there are an awful lot of policies and guidelines (and there are), but really, the most important and relevant information is covered in only four: the ] (''']''', ''']''' and ''']''') and the ''']''' policy. | |||
:All the best, ] (]) 22:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Note, I wasn't aware of the resolved status of this noticeboard (or perhaps it was added during my composition), and I'm glad to see it was resolved amicably, but my advice still stands. ] (]) 22:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::it was very kind of you to take the time to write that. hopefully it will be heard! ] (]) 22:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Jenner & Block == | |||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | <!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | ||
* {{pagelinks|Yang Youlin}} | |||
* {{la|CPTE Certified Penetration Testing Engineer}} | |||
* {{ |
* {{userlinks|YangZongChang0101}} | ||
* {{la|Ryze Trampoline Parks}} | |||
* {{la|Jenner & Block}} | |||
* {{la|Mile2}} | |||
* {{userlinks|MiamiDolphins3}} | |||
* {{userlinks|JBUpdate}} | |||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> | |||
Editor has been on a commercial article creation/editing spree, and has not responded to COI notice on his userpage. ] was recently expanded approximately fourfold after the COI notice was posted. — ] (]) 22:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Added ], since Brianhe appears to have previously asked them about it. ] (]) 22:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::A lot of the recently added content is identical to that by Moonriddengirl as copyvio or overly promotional, including these passages: | |||
::*"Jenner & Block has also established itself in recording significant victories before the Supreme Court regarding free speech..." | |||
::*"Jenner & Block was one of the first national law firms to establish a Washington D.C. practice specifically focused on appeals before the ]... | |||
::*"the 20 most elite law firms" | |||
::At least part of the old promo content was added by another SPA, JBUpdate (blocked in January 2015), in a series of edits including . — ] (]) 23:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
Let me respond here: | |||
1.) I did not respond to your post because it did not ask for a response and instead included informational links to policies. | |||
2.) I have no conflicts on this or any article I have edited or created. I expanded the Jenner & Block article because it was in almost stub-like condition. My 10,595 bytes addition, which includes references, is a three-fold, not a four-fold, expansion of an article on one of the larger and older law firms in the country. The article is still a limited one given a history of over 100 years, very prominent cases, very prominent attorneys, etc. The entire article is, even with my modest additions, a mere nine paragraphs. | |||
3.) No information added is identical to anything or at all promotional. The small two paragraphs of awards and recognitions the firm has received all seemed notable to me, there is no copyright violation at all and the two small paragraphs on this include nine secondary source references from prominent media. It mentions the exact name of the award (which is what you are presenting as promotional language). "The 20 most elite law firms" is the exact name of ''The American Lawyer'' annual award. Original source here: . ] (]) 06:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:For the record, your addition seems to be 7,462 bytes, making the total 10,595 bytes. That does seem to be about four-fold. It does seem promotional to me, reading like a resume. ] (]) 06:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::The article was 3,133 bytes before my edits. I took the entire page up to 10,609, so it's less than four-fold, slightly above three-fold. But the entire article is still only nine paragraphs in total and they are all very straightforward ones: intro (one paragraph), history summary (two paragraphs), prominent cases (three paragraphs), honors and awards (two paragraphs) and location of their offices (one paragraph). ] (]) 06:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
* {{u|MiamiDolphins3}} I have noticed your editing too. It looks a lot like you have a conflict of interest, for the reasons provided above and others. No one has asked you this directly yet, so I will. Two questions - please reply to both, simply and clearly: | |||
** 1) Do you have any relationship with the subjects of anything you have edited about, directly or through an intermediary? (employee, contractor, employee or contractor of an agency that has a relationship with them, etc) | |||
** 2) Are you being paid (or do you expect to be paid) for any of your editing? | |||
Disclosure is a good thing, not a bad thing. If either is answer is "yes" you will have to do some things differently going forward, however. Thanks. ] (]) 11:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
This user has a self-declared family connection to the page in question. Definitely is looking like a ] and attempt at ] from this user's contributions to the article's talk page. - ] (]) 01:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:User has engaged in libelous activity on Reddit, claiming you have disrespected his relative by reverting his edits. His nationalistic behavior and lack of understanding on civil behavior might imply that he either is doing this in favor of the CCP or is simply a really dedicated patriot; while ] might not apply here ] is clearly evident. Could warrant a block if he engages in similar behavior. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: coral; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 08:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Can you clarify by responding with "yes"/"no" answers as well?--]<sup>(]•])</sup> 23:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::What is the involvement here of ]? | |||
Sorry. Thought I had answered that clearly: No and no. ] (]) 14:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::PrivateRyan44 set up the article on 13th December and then 24 hours later ] began editing the article, which he states relates to a member of his family. | |||
:{{u|MiamiDolphins3}} are you hearing the feedback, that we all find your edits to be promotional? I know you said above that you think they are not. I'm not asking about what you think - I'm asking if you are hearing the feedback. Thanks. ] (]) 06:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::That is either a matter of the most extreme coincidence, or there is off-wiki collusion taking place. | |||
::Yes, I have. I've tried not to respond defensively and have taken it constructively. I may also try to participate in this and other boards a bit more frequently going forward. ] (]) 20:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::I also note the discussion between the 2 users here where both users sign off their posts in an identical but rather unusual way. | |||
::::what would be super-helpful is if you went back over your own work and made them more neutral. are you up for that? ] (]) 03:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Note also in the edit history for the article how on 14th December the 2 users seem to tag each other in and out over the course of several hours. | |||
:::::I could suggest some things. 1) Go back over ] and remove primary sources (the corporation itself) and questionable sources like news-medical.net. 2) Ditto primary sources on ]. 3) ] in ], specifically, using wikisource of the trial verdict or whatever 4) Ditto primary sources on ] — ] (]) 04:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:: |
::Something looks distinctly odd here. ] (]) 09:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
::I am not a nationalist. I am a patriot. Nationalism is a contradiction of Marx’s words in his theory. | |||
::I am responding to my concern of Amigao, a well known member on r/sino, and chollima, who has an inherently pro american and pro israel stance, and edits a ridiculous amount of China related articles everyday. | |||
::if you can’t see this simple connection to why I am acting the way I am, then I will no longer contribute to this discussion. ] (]) 09:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:i know him from discord. We are working together on the article with my irl friend Luoniya. ] (]) 09:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Interesting to see that a user previously interested almost solely in the Boer War suddenly meets a relative of a 1930s member of the CCP on Discord and immediately creates an article about that subject based almost solely on Chinese language sources and then nominates it for Good Article status. The general pattern is what would be expected of someone with a degree of Wiki-editing skills being paid to assist a family member who claims to have an archive of relevant material . | |||
::That talk page discussion is clearly fake and based on previous collusion off-wiki (given that you have already admitted previous contact). | |||
::I still maintain that something irregular appears to have occurred here. ] (]) 09:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::I also note on the user page for YangZongChang0101: {{tq|If you want me to research or write about anything to make a page just dm.}} | |||
:::Surely the only reason why such a communication would take place off-wiki is if there was something irregular taking place, e.g. ]? | |||
:::And why would someone be advertising their availability to create articles on any subject to order, but then using another account to create an article on someone they claim is their own distant relative? | |||
:::Also, the quote above was added within hours of the YangZong account being opened, clearly indicating that this is not the user's first rodeo. | |||
:::Evidently there are multiple elements to what has been going on here which look very odd indeed. If there is not some form of paid editing and/or sockpuppetry taking place here I would be most surprised ] (]) 09:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::I have communicated privately with the editor of note about this on Reddit. These editors are from Mainland China and don't understand how Misplaced Pages works, so their well-intentioned editing led to all this chaos. I would suggest ] for now, but if similar events happen again action should be taken. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: coral; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 13:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::In fairness, the statement {{tq|If you want me to research or write about anything to make a page just dm}} is not a comment by someone unfamiliar with the workings of Misplaced Pages. | |||
:::::Similarly the quite disgraceful disparagement of ] (both here and at the ] talkpage) was clearly by someone who had encountered the user before and not someone who had only opened their first account 3 days ago. | |||
:::::Also, ] describes themselves here as a US citizen who has difficulty accessing material in Chinese. It would therefore seem reasonable to assume that PrivateRyan44 is ''not'' {{tq|from Mainland China}}. | |||
:::::Finally, I do not consider extreme nationalistic POV-pushing to be {{tq|well-intentioned editing}}. ] (]) 13:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::The editor's mistakes are severe, but I personally believe that he deserves one last chance, on the condition that he adheres to the rules and does not harass editors like he did. If he does not change his ways I suppose a block would do. He showed genuine remorse for the nationalist POV thing but as long as he knows he cannot afford to get into trouble again, he's fine to edit. No comment on the PrivateRyan guy. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: coral; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 13:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::If the user wants to express remorse for anything, the place to do that is here. Not in private on Reddit. | |||
:::::::The user clearly is not new. I wonder if Amigao has any thoughts on which account the user previously edited under? Presumably it will be quite easy to spot someone who casually drops their interpretation of Marxist doctrine into conversation (e.g. {{tq|Nationalism is a contradiction of Marx’s words in his theory}}). Also, the detailed critique of Amigao's editing pattern and perceived agenda may have been seen before somewhere. | |||
:::::::Of course, we await PrivateRyan44's version of all of these events... ] (]) 13:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Very well. You might have to look at the IP he had been using, could be a VPN or proxy. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: coral; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 13:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::At a minimum, there is a declared COI coupled with a ] situation going on and potentially ]. - ] (]) 17:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Derek Warburton and Khamadi the Amethyst == | |||
== ADDgrammar == | |||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | <!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | ||
* {{ |
* {{pagelinks|Derek Warburton}} | ||
* {{userlinks|Khamadi the Amethyst}} | |||
; corporations | |||
* {{la|WyzAnt}} -- (cleaned ] (]) 19:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)) Afd by Joseph2302 is | |||
* {{la|Jacobs Engineering Group}} -- (cleaned by Brianhe and Joseph2302 ] (]) 19:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)) | |||
; CEOs | |||
* {{la|Ilene S. Gordon}} -- (cleaned ] (]) 19:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)) | |||
* {{la|Susan Cameron}} - checked - is OK ] (]) 02:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
* {{la|Gary E. Dickerson}} - cleaned ] (]) 02:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
* {{la|Charles Szews}} - put up for AfD by Joseph2302 ] | |||
* {{la|Donald Knauss}} - PRODed ] (]) 05:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC) PROD removed. Afd is | |||
* {{la|Beth E. Mooney}} cleaned ] (]) 05:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
* {{la|Dean A. Scarborough}} - cleaned and PRODed ] (]) 05:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
* {{la|Carlos A. Rodriguez}} - cleaned ] (]) 06:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
* {{la|David E.I. Pyott}} - cleaned ] (]) 06:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
* {{la|George S. Barrett}} | |||
* {{la|Gregory A. Sandfort}} up for AfD by joseph2302 | |||
* {{la|Frank Bisignano}} | |||
* {{la|G. Steven Farris}} - cleaned some, is probably NN ] (]) 21:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
* {{la|Eric C. Wiseman}} - cleaned ] (]) 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
* {{la|Margaret M. Keane}} - cleaned ] (]) 20:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
* {{la|Darren R. Jackson}} - cleaned ] (]) 01:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
* {{la|Bradford L. Hewitt}} - PRODed ] (]) 01:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
; baseball players | |||
* {{la|Agnes Zurowski}} | |||
* {{la|Elma Steck}} | |||
* {{la|Lillian Hlavaty}} | |||
* {{la|Rosemary Stevenson}} | |||
* {{la|Helen Waddell (baseball)}} | |||
* {{la|Ruth Middleton}} | |||
; other people | |||
* {{la|Julie Watts}} - publisher | |||
* {{la|Paul Radley}} - author | |||
* {{la|Jack Vallentyne}} - scientist (deceased) | |||
* {{la|John J. Magnuson}} - scientist = put up for speedy G11 and deleted | |||
* {{la|Walter Reich}} - academic | |||
; books | |||
* {{la|Slaves in the Family}} | |||
* {{la|Becoming a Man: Half a Life Story}} | |||
* {{la|J.F.K.: The Man and the Myth}} | |||
* {{la|Wonky Donkey}} | |||
* {{la|This High School Has Closets}} | |||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> | <!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> | ||
This appears to be a COI situation; Khamadi the Amethyst has made a great number of edits to ] with extremely promotional language. Looking at a sizeable majority of their uploads have been removed for lacking any permission and all pertain to Derek Warburton. All of the account's edits are to ] or per their talkpage, attempting to create a page for something pertaining to Warburton - apart from a first edit to ] today which is where I noticed the user; this aroused my suspicion as an IP had made sweeping, whitewashing changes to Greitens a few days back - but I digress. | |||
ADDgrammar is a now blocked sock, part of a sockfarm possibly linked by technical evidence to a PR firm. Articles created/greatly expanded by this account, most from a November 2014 spree, are a fairly lengthy slime trail of corporate articles, CEOs and the like. Links above are just a sample. ] (]) 14:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Also maybe worth noting for future cases, operator of this account flatly denied COI — ] (]) 14:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::If you think that's fun, you should check out the contributions of the rest of the accounts listed at ]. I honestly can't face going through them all right now, but this person or group of persons has probably created literally hundereds of potentially spammy articles. Enjoy! I'm going to get myself some paracetamol... ] ]] 14:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::This is a perfect illustration of why we need integrity reform on Misplaced Pages now. — ] (]) 15:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::holy cow that is a lot of work for us. thanks so much for digging all that up, brianhe! ] (]) 15:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::I've gutted quite a few of the CEOs, put a couple of others up for AfD, and a few up for speedy as just spam. | |||
:::::{{ping|Jytdog}} You do realise there's about 20 of these editors, and this is one editor's contributions? It's going to be a long cleanup. ] (]) 15:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::yep. i wonder if it might not be worth posting at ANI to see if we can get some kind of mega rollback done. ] (]) 15:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{od}}I did consider mass-deleting all of their page creations, but I think some of them might actually be valid articles on notable people - we may want to keep them, which means checking them all by hand, so to speak... ] ]] 15:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Most of the CEO articles look like they're just about notable, but full of puff. The baseballers all pass ] as well. ] (]) 15:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::inquired ]. This is days and days of work and i don't want to use my WP time cleaning up a pile of dogshit this big, if i don't have to. 15:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::The personas created for the socks are unusual, not the mysterious redlinks we usually get. They were crafted almost with loving care. One of them described him/herself as a "retired astronomist" which should have been a tipoff to somebody paying attention. Common threads amongst the 10 or so personas that I looked at are female, dog lover, has children. Is this an indication of a new psychological ploy to avoid scrutiny by other editors? — ] (]) 16:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::Did some forensics on the personas, see ]. — ] (]) 17:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{outdent}}These were added to ] by confirmed socks: | |||
*{{la|Tess Holliday}} | |||
*{{la|Lizzie Miller}} | |||
*{{la|Natalie Laughlin}} | |||
*{{la|Barbara Brickner}} | |||
*{{la|Myla Dalbesio}} | |||
Probably more to come. — ] (]) 19:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Jeez. There are also likely to be widespread copyvio problems. See for example . More will need checking. ] (]) 13:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Cricketers == | |||
* Articles about cricketers | |||
* {{userlinks|Tejasraomys}} | |||
First raised at the Help Desk: user has been spamming articles about cricketer with details of their management company which just so happens to be the company the user works for. --] (]) 12:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Yes, 69 of their 70 edits have been to add the name of the same management company to articles about Indian cricketers- a quick Google search shows that someone with their name works for the company. I've warned them about COI and linkspamming, and also warned cricket people at ]. ] (]) 12:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== GreenEarth Cleaning == | |||
{{resolved}} | |||
* {{la|GreenEarth Cleaning}} | |||
* {{userlinks|GreenEarth Cleaning}} | |||
* {{userlinks|Ajnewport}} | |||
The entirety of the Warburton page history appears to be SPA contributors, but this one is the most long-running one. David Gerard added a COI template, which removed; this to me is particularly egregious. There was also a left on the user's talk page around this time which was ignored and the user continued to edit. This seems pretty clearcut COI to me, and the lack of communication/removal of COI templates/continual editing of the page is concerning.<span id="Ser!:1734443340850:WikipediaFTTCLNConflict_of_interest/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — ''']''' <sup>(] - ])</sup> 13:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
The editor is has removed content from the article saying it is "libelous information, that is 100% false and detrimental to our company." ] (]) 17:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
: |
:OMG if Warburton is trying to write his own Misplaced Pages page then this may be the funniest thing to happen in Philosophy Misplaced Pages in a hot minute. ] (]) 13:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
::I am clearly thinking of a different Derek Warburton after looking at the page. LOL ] (]) 13:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::I am in fact thinking of ] lol and trout me. ] (]) 13:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::I've blocked this obvious UPE ] - ] 09:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Now resolved, ] blocked for promotional name and edits, and ] blocked for being a sockpuppet. Looks like {{ping|Jytdog}} has cleaned up the article well too. ] (]) 00:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::Cheers Jim, much appreciated. ''']''' <sup>(] - ])</sup> 10:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Lyons Township High School == | |||
== Moroch == | |||
{{resolved|1=Situation is under control <span style="font-family:sans-serif">— <span style="font-weight:bold">] <sup>]</sup></span></span> 17:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | <!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | ||
* {{pagelinks|Lyons Township High School}} | |||
* {{la|Moroch}} | |||
* {{userlinks| |
* {{userlinks|Jeffcheslo}} | ||
* {{userlinks|216.250.142.101}} | |||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> | <!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> | ||
Editor states they work for the school. I notified them about their COI which they ignored, perhaps they havent found their talk page. ] ] 18:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
This user was blocked for promotion on ] but has been unblocked. Their content is questionable, at it includes a long, unsourced client list, which I've removed per ] and ]. ] (]) 17:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Draft:John Fred Ogbonnaya == | |||
The IP address has admitted to being related . ] (]) 17:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I unblocked them under the terms of a new username and that they would work to maintain neutrality. They are new and are learning their way, please allow them time to get acquainted with policy. Just because they work for the organization does not mean they weren't making an honest attempt to update information unaware that their tone of writing was an issue. <span style="font-family:sans-serif">— <span style="font-weight:bold">] <sup>]</sup></span></span> 17:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::I'll also add the aforementioned list of clients was easily verifiable, and in my opinion relevant given their high-profile stature. <span style="font-family:sans-serif">— <span style="font-weight:bold">] <sup>]</sup></span></span> 17:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::But they also used an IP address to evade the block earlier. And spam is spam. ] (]) 17:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::They used the IP to make the unblock request and to seek help. Hardly block evasion but rather a simple newbie mistake. I am willing to stand by the stern COI concerns leading up to the unblock request, where they made it clear they wanted to simply update the information in accordance with policy. Beyond that we're just ] and disallowing them a chance to show their true intentions. Once made aware of the issues with tone their proposed changes have been fully acceptable with the exception of sourcing of easily verifiable information that was in my opinion ] to begin with. The second account was indeed wrongfully used to make further COI edits, but hey, lesson learned and hopefully with gain of a worthwhile contributor. <span style="font-family:sans-serif">— <span style="font-weight:bold">] <sup>]</sup></span></span> 18:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::They actually used an IP to complain about their block . I guess if it's going to be watched properly then that's fine, but has ] been explained to them properly? ] (]) 18:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::It could not more obvious they were simply trying to find out how to address accuracy of the page in accordance with policy. That's why they went to the help desk, where we they would expect others to help them. Between the initial hard block, my detailed unblock statement and the discussion that followed, and the barrage of unnecessary warnings and notices, I think they've got the point. Either way I am actively monitoring both the user and the page, and if we could please take a moment to see the end result which is a more accurate article on this organization, and a new informed editor with potential, in what I should be considered a win for us all. <span style="font-family:sans-serif">— <span style="font-weight:bold">] <sup>]</sup></span></span> 18:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I agree, the article is better for it. ] (]) 18:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
*{{al|Paul Joseph Rovelli}} // Up for AfD . | |||
*{{user|Hermes101}} | |||
*{{user|129.19.129.254}} (same as Hermes101) | |||
This editor has not declared a conflict of interest but I think it's very obvious they have a connection to the subject (if they're not Rovelli himself) -- they've added very promotional-sounding info and possibly original research that only Rovelli or his close friend would know, see for example, and see the end result (the current article) mostly written by Hermes101. | |||
I've taken the article to AfD but I'd appreciate having some more neutral eyeballs on the situation. (The article has been edited by a few non-SPA accounts but it's been typo-fixing and the like and they haven't participated in the talk page discussion.) — ] <sup>(])</sup> 09:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
: good nom, thanks. ] (]) 18:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
: It looks like the SPAs have gone quiet so this is pretty uneventful. I expected some resistance. — ] <sup>(])</sup> 18:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::SPA popped up at AfD . At least a very strong advocate. I but no response yet. ] (]) 02:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::article deleted through AfD but editor remains nonresponsive ] (]) 14:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Ferratum Group == | |||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | <!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | ||
* {{pagelinks|Draft:John Fred Ogbonnaya}} | |||
* {{la|Ferratum Group}} - up for AfD | |||
* {{userlinks| |
* {{userlinks|Omarisonfire}} | ||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> | <!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> | ||
Possibly paid to edit Misplaced Pages to create an article for the individual. Editor first replaced the entirety of ] with the article he created before starting a rejected draft. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and there is no way there is no connection between editor and subject. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: coral; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 07:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
This user created ], and has been the main editor of the page. I asked them on their talkpage about COI, to which their only response was "I have read the policy" . I asked for clarification on their exact role (employee or paid editor), and they haven't replied. They also removed advert tags from ] despite the fact they're clearly still relevant. ] (]) 13:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Draft now speedy deleted under ] (unambiguous advertising or promotion). ] (]) 08:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I replied now approximately 1,5h after you asked. I clarified that I am an employee and failed to disclose it. As for the advert tags I felt that I had cleaned the article well enough to warrant the removal of them. ] (]) 14:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Victor Yannacone == | |||
::When an employee gives positive information about a firm on Misplaced Pages, to the extent that you did in this article, that is advertising. Consider a handwritten sign attached to a fencepost "Hay for sale, inquire at McDonald's farm". That meets the plain English requirements for being considered an advertisement, as well as the academic definitions that I know of. You've done more than that, so please don't remove the advertising tag. Please leave the article alone and let editors without a COI do the editing from now on. If {{Ping|Joseph2302}} wants to nominate this for deletion, he certainly may - "notability" by our definition looks borderline to me, and the sources are mostly primary or "non-reliable" by our usual definition. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 18:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Just worked it over, clarified where sources came from -- all but one are SPS. While i was working Joseph AfDed it. I can only agree ] (]) 23:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Paul Smith (fashion designer) == | |||
{{resolved|Conflicted editor seems to understands the issues. ] (]) 01:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | <!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | ||
* {{pagelinks|Victor Yannacone}} | |||
* {{la|Paul Smith (fashion designer)}} | |||
* {{userlinks| |
* {{userlinks|PeoplesBarrister}} | ||
* {{userlinks|DinosaurL}} | |||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> | <!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> | ||
, this user states "I am also a public figure still active as an attorney with an extensive website at https://yannalaw.com" which links to a page promoting Victor Yannacone's legal services.<br>Given that the article about Victor Yannacone appears to be predominantly edited by this user, . However, the user recently removed the tag, despite the conflict of interest remaining applicable.<br><br>Based on the user's statement and editing patterns, it is reasonable to conclude that they are heavily involved in editing their own article, thus creating a clear conflict of interest. <span style="color: #0f52ba; font-weight: bold; text-shadow: 0px 0px 1px #111111;">]</span> (]) 03:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
I noticed that Markrfountain87, a new single-purpose account, has been making a series of recent edits to ]. I have no interest in outing anyone on Misplaced Pages, however in this instance the user used his own name as his username, and that name online reveals that he is "Digital Content Editor at Paul Smith". I do not believe he should be editing the article, at least not directly. ] (]) 02:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:thanks for posting here. You didn't notify him, and you '''must''' do that. I've provided the notice for you, and reached out to him. The article needs review. ] (]) 02:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::I talked with him at his talk page and I think he gets it and understands how to do things going forward. Marking this resolved. I have it on my watchlist in case issues arise in the future. ] (]) 01:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:User was informed of the COI policy back in August and has continued making extensive edits to the article - including, at present, edit warring over a highly promotional version of the article that they are trying to implement. | |||
== Sensis == | |||
:The account is evidently only interested in self-promotion. | |||
:This activity has already attracted the attentions of admins ] and ], so if the user continues on their current path presumably they will find themselves blocked in the near future. ] (]) 04:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::The following thread is of relevance here: . | |||
::It appears to be a good faith attempt at mediation, as an apparent associate of PeoplesBarrister returns to make their first edit in over 10 years arguing on PB's behalf. The post also includes some quite unacceptable allegations of bad faith activity by multiple users which some readers may find rather over the top. I'd suggest that we try to look beyond that in the hope of finding a way forward. ] (]) 13:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::This user turned out to be a sockpuppet, and has been blocked. <span style="color: #0f52ba; font-weight: bold; text-shadow: 0px 0px 1px #111111;">]</span> (]) 01:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== COI tags on "It's Coming (film)" and "The Misguided" == | |||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | |||
* {{la|Sensis}} | |||
* {{la|Telstra}} | |||
* {{userlinks|CS at Sensis}} | |||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> | |||
User page and their talkpage say they are "Social Brand Manager at Sensis in Australia"- currently their article is part of the ] article. The user is trying to delete the disambiguation page ], in order to replace it with an article for their company (the Sensis in the Telstra article), see and the fact they've put the ] disambiguation page up for AfD, even though I told them I opposed this. ] (]) 10:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
Hello, I'm seeking review of the close connection tags recently added to ] and Draft:The Misguided. These tags were applied based solely on basic journalistic contact with the filmmaker for fact-checking purposes. To be clear: I have never met Shannon Alexander or anyone from the film production company/distribution team, have no personal or professional relationship with them, and my only contact was for fact verification. | |||
Hi Joseph, | |||
Having followed Perth's independent film scene closely for years, I noticed several internationally-recognized films lacked Misplaced Pages coverage. Rather than simply copy online sources, I took a thorough journalistic approach. My contact was limited to requesting factual verification of release dates and sourcing materials. This contact served to ensure accurate documentation of the films' development and history. | |||
As I stated on my talk page, I'm incredibly sorry I've misunderstood some guidelines. My request for deletion on the disambiguation was in order to understand whether it should be done or not, but I realise now this was an incorrect procedure. | |||
Both articles are built entirely on independent coverage from established media outlets like The Hollywood Reporter, LA Times, and Film Threat. All content follows proper journalistic standards, maintains neutrality, and adheres to Misplaced Pages guidelines. Every statement in the articles can be verified through these independent sources. | |||
Please do delete my deletion request for the Sensis disambiguation page and please also advise the best way to go forward. I will be unable to make any changes until I am at work tomorrow - I'm on my phone at the moment. | |||
"It's Coming" just underwent thorough review this week, resulting in removal of an unwarranted paid editing tag. The addition of these new tags without discussion or specific concerns lacks justification. | |||
] (]) 11:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
A review of these tags is needed based on: | |||
== James V. Toner and its draft == | |||
1. Contact limited to standard fact-checking practices | |||
2. Reliance on independent, reliable sources throughout | |||
3. Clear adherence to neutral point of view | |||
4. Recent thorough review confirming content standards | |||
I'm here to ensure these films are documented accurately and objectively. Thank you for taking the time to review this matter. Happy to address any specific concerns about the content or sourcing. | |||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | |||
* {{la|James V. Toner}} | |||
* {{la|Draft:James V. Toner}} | |||
* {{la|James Toner}} | |||
* {{userlinks|SashaRearick}} | |||
* {{userlinks|RandyPelkey}} | |||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> | |||
] (]) 18:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
SashaRearick created ] multiple times, and also ]- lots of the content is unsourced ] suggesting a possible COI. Then, RandyPelkey created ], and then implies some off-wiki co-ordination between the 2 users- I've asked both about COI, and asked RandyPelkey about paid editing (since to me that comment implies he might have been hired by SashaRearick), with no response. ] (]) 11:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I'd suggest raising this issue at the talk pages of the articles concerned, using the COI edit process detailed here ]. When you do so, please link to the connected discussion at the Help Desk, here . ] (]) 20:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Joseph, relax. Nobody here is getting paid. I went onto Yahoo Answers and asked if anyone was interested in assisting me in writing and formatting the article (as my time is limited) and Mr. "RandyPelkey" responded saying that he'd be glad to do so. I don't understand how you interpreted Mr.RandyPeleky's comment about assisting me as being "hired" to do so, and there is no sufficient evidence supporting such a plain remark. Now I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here, but you're no "Wikihero". You value reporting others over helping them, which is undoubtedly cancerous to the Wiki community.<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
::Also, GPTzero indicates that there is a 100% likelihood that your post above was AI generated. Please stop using AI to generate posts (as was also previously pointed out to you in the discussion here ). ] (]) 21:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::{{u|Axad12}}, I need to address several concerning points: | |||
:::1. You suggest I raise these issues on the article talk pages, but if you actually check the links you provided you'll see I've already tried that multiple times. I've gotten zero response there which is why I'm I'm hoping to get a fair and objective assessment from editors who aren't already entrenched in this dispute. | |||
:::2. The accusation that I'm using AI to write my posts is completely baseless. GPZero is known to be only around 80% accurate at best, so claiming "100% likelihood" is just flat-out wrong. You're mistaking my formal writing style, which comes from my professional background for AI text. Throwing around serious accusations like that with zero proof is not only wrong but also really damaging and hurtful. | |||
:::3. The sudden addition of a promotional content tag, without any prior discussion, is just the latest in this ongoing pattern of unfounded allegations. First it was paid editing with zero evidence, then a COI tag that's still sitting there after I've repeatedly explained my lack of any affiliation and now suddenly it's 'promotional content?' The article is based entirely on reliable, independent sources. If there are particular statements that seem promotional to you, point them out specifically so we can address them. Just because the film has gotten good reviews from reputable publications doesn't automatically make the article promotional. | |||
:::I've had to defend myself dozens of times now, repeatedly explaining the same things over and over, providing evidence that gets ignored. How many more baseless accusations do I need to address? The constant tags and allegations without justification have made this whole process exhausting and frankly, pretty demoralizing. But you know what? If anything, it's made me more determined to keep improving these articles properly. | |||
:::I'm going to post at the NPOV Noticeboard about this latest promotional content tag and I'm also asking for the COI tags to be removed. I'd rather focus on actually improving content than dealing with endless unfounded accusations. | |||
:::] (]) 22:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::1) You got zero response because you didn't use the COI editing process. How many users do you think access the talk pages of brand new articles for independent films? | |||
::::2) You consistently use AI to generate your posts here and any suggestion to the contrary is untrue, as has been noted by several users. | |||
::::3) Evidence of COI is not required, only room for plausible concern. There is room for huge concern in relation to your editing, as I will demonstrate shortly. | |||
::::Promotional content can obviously be based on independent reliable sources - especially when the material installed in articles goes some way beyond what the sources actually say (which appears to be your standard MO). ] (]) 22:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::{{u|Axad12}}, | |||
:::::1. I've followed every proper channel available - talk pages, help desk, and now appropriate noticeboards. Suggesting I'm at fault for others not responding isn't constructive. | |||
:::::2. Your continued insistence about AI use without evidence is becoming harassment. You have no proof because there is none - these are my own words. Making repeated false accusations doesn't make them true. | |||
:::::3. You state "Evidence of COI is not required" but then claim you'll "demonstrate shortly." Which is it? Either provide specific evidence or stop making vague accusations. If you have concerns about source interpretation, point to specific examples instead of making broad claims. | |||
:::::The recent removal of a properly sourced Reception section, combined with these continued unsubstantiated allegations, suggests a pattern of targeting rather than constructive editing. ] (]) 22:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::1) I didn't say you were at fault, I said it was unreasonable to expect a swift response on a low traffic page. Had you used the COI edit request process you would have got a much faster response as the posts would have gone directly into a volunteer queue rather than relying on footfall. | |||
::::::2) When GPTzero ''frequently'' says that there is a 100% likelihood that a post was AI generated, that is sufficient proof. Half of your posts produce that response, the other half produce very low likelihoods of AI input or an indication of human origin. You are therefore producing two distinctively different kinds of posts in a way that is only possible if half of them were not written by you. | |||
::::::3) I'm about to demonstrate the areas of concern, I'm currently drafting the post. ] (]) 23:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::{{u|Axad12}}, | |||
:::::::1. The COI process is for editors with actual conflicts of interest. I have none, as I've repeatedly explained. | |||
:::::::2. Your claims about GPTZero are incorrect. The tool obviously has false positives and is far from 100% accurate, especially with formal writing. Again, making accusations of AI use with no evidence is not constructive. | |||
:::::::3. You keep saying you'll "demonstrate" concerns but continue making vague accusations. Please provide specific policy-based concerns about actual content rather than continuing these unsupported allegations. ] (]) 23:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::As you wish... | |||
::::::::Areas of concern in relation to the editing of user Stan1900: | |||
::::::::1) User is a single purpose account in relation to the films of Shannon Alexander. This goes back all the way to Dec 2017 when they edited the article for ] (an actress who featured in the Alexander film 'The Misguided' ). The user’s account was then dormant until Nov 2024 when it began creating articles for Alexander’s films. | |||
::::::::2) The user states that they have been in touch with Shannon Alexander and that {{tq|requesting source materials when writing an article is standard practice and doesn't constitute a conflict of interest when there's no financial or professional relationship involved}} . This is, however, wrong on both counts. | |||
::::::::3) The articles created (plus draft) have clearly been of a promotional nature. | |||
::::::::4) User appears very interested in when articles will appear in mainspace and when they will appear on Google. This is typical of those interested in search engine optimisation, i.e. in publicity. | |||
::::::::E.g. this thread . | |||
::::::::this thread | |||
::::::::this thread | |||
::::::::this thread | |||
::::::::and this thread | |||
::::::::5) Concerns have consistently been raised in those discussions that (a) the user is not forthcoming when asked about their association with Shannon Alexander (they have only denied being paid but avoid further clarification) and (b) the user appears to be involved primarily in promotional activity, as noted here . Also, ] said that the overall pattern is {{tq|highly unusual behavior consistent with a paid editing assignment}} . | |||
::::::::Similarly (Cullen again): {{tq|In that three weeks, the editor has been incredibly repetitive and persistent in pushing these three articles and dismissing the concerns expressed by several editors, not just me. They are not above making a false accusation against me. They consistently insist on special preferential treatment that is not extended to thousands of other editors who have written drafts. This is highly unusual behaviour}}. | |||
::::::::I entirely concur with the sentiments expressed by Cullen328 and would suggest that the PAID templates be replaced on the articles and draft created by this user. ] (]) 23:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Anyone who hasn't yet had enough of Stan1900's relentless forum shopping over this issue may be interested in the thread they started an hour ago at the Neutral Point of View Forum, here . | |||
:::::::::Inevitably they've received the same response there that they've encountered elsewhere, this time from the redoubtable ]. ] (]) 23:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{od}} is one of several instances of Stan1900 claiming to be the license-holder of various of Alexander's film-posters. ] (]) 00:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Very interesting. Thank you. ] (]) 00:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Stan1900 wrote a couple of days ago at the Help Desk that {{tpq|User:Cullen328 has been the primary editor maintaining the paid editing tag on the article}} That is a blatant falsehood. I have never once edited either ] or its talk page. I have never discouraged any uninvolved editor from removing the tag. I have simply tried to explain to Stan1900 why several editors (more now) have expressed concern about their pattern of editing. They have persisted with their axe grinding for many days. At Wikimedia Commons, they uploaded posters of films by Shannon Alexander in 2017, 2021 and 2023, with a legally binding licensing declaration that those posters were their "own work". A poster artist clearly has a paid editing relationship (or a deep and profound conflict of interest if unpaid). The only alternative explanation is that Stan1900 lied about these posters being their "own work" and therefore created a major multi-year copyright violation, which is illegal. ] (]) 03:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Thank you Cullen. On that basis I have reinstated the 'undisclosed paid' tag to the relevant articles. The wording of that tag, of course, only states that there {{tq|may have been}} an undisclosed paid situation - and there is evidently more than enough cause for concern in that regard. | |||
:::Disregarding whether or not they are paid, the user is clearly a blockable promo-only account. They have wasted a great many users' time by forum shopping their transparent COI around in search of support which never arose (in, I think, 7 different threads now). ] (]) 03:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::{{u|Axad12}}, {{u|Cullen328}}, your newest accusations require correction: | |||
::::1. Following connected topics is normal Misplaced Pages behavior. Yes, I edited Langford's article about The Misguided, which naturally led to noticing significant gaps in coverage of Perth's independent film scene. | |||
::::2. The poster licensing issue is a non-issue. The copyright holder assigned permission for Misplaced Pages documentation use. Copyright holders can authorize others to license their work - this is standard practice, not a violation or evidence of anything nefarious. | |||
::::3. Regarding AI claims - you keep citing GPTZero without acknowledging its known 80% accuracy rate. My writing style comes from professional background. More importantly, even if AI tools were used for drafting (which they weren't), this violates no Misplaced Pages policies. Focus on content accuracy and sourcing, not unfounded assumptions about writing style. | |||
::::4. Using appropriate Misplaced Pages channels isn't "forum shopping" - it's seeking proper review when talk pages receive no response. Each venue serves a different purpose: talk pages for initial discussion, help desk for guidance, NPOV for content neutrality issues. | |||
::::5. Your pattern of escalating accusations - from paid editing to COI to AI use to promotional content - while removing properly sourced content suggests targeting rather than legitimate concerns. In fact, your apparent determination to suppress documentation of these artists' contributions raises questions. What's your motivation for trying to prevent coverage of their work despite reliable sources confirming its notability? | |||
::::6. Claiming "everyone disagrees" while actively removing properly sourced content and making baseless accusations isn't consensus - it's coordinated targeting. The aggressive resistance to documenting these artists' widely recognized contributions to independent film is puzzling at best. | |||
::::The focus should be on article content and reliable sources, not endless unfounded assumptions about contributors. I've provided reliable sources, followed guidelines, and explained everything clearly. What I haven't seen is any specific policy-based reason why properly sourced content should be removed. ] (]) 04:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::{{u|Stan1900}}, the poster licensing matter is in no way a {{tpq|non-issue}}. | |||
:::::''You'' made a legally binding statement that those posters were your "own work", which was a lie according to what you just wrote above. <s>You never provided any evidence that the {{tpq|copyright holder assigned permission for Misplaced Pages documentation use}}, which must be a written document from the copyright holder in legally precise language.</s> Accordingly, I will be removing these copyright violations from the articles and the draft in question. ] (]) 05:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::I appreciate that you don’t intend to back down, but the simple fact is that a number of users over a range of threads oppose your edits and that represents a strong consensus contrary to what appears to be a promotional agenda. With regard to your 6 points above I believe that it is all old ground, but for clarification: | |||
:::::1) You clearly lied about the Langford edits, as demonstrated here . | |||
:::::2) The image issue has been recently discussed here by others. | |||
:::::3) Regarding AI, you are clearly producing 2 very different types of post, one type which GPTzero identifies as very high likelihood AI generated and one type which it identifies as very high likelihood human generated. If, as you say, you have a very formal way of writing which is distorting the results, this would produce a consistent spread of results lumped into the middle of the range and not two exceptionally disparate groups. Arguing that GPTzero isn't 100% accurate doesn't invalidate that point. | |||
:::::4) Going to multiple places trying to get a decision that you didn’t get at a previous discussion is forum shopping. You're currently holding down three simultaneous discussions in three separate locations (here, here and here ) in which the same point (reinstatement of removed material) is being discussed. You have previously opened multiple threads trying to get COI templates removed. | |||
:::::5) Everything in this thread and elsewhere has been based on reasonable concerns raised by multiple users. | |||
:::::6) I think it is time for you to accept that there is a broad consensus against what you are trying unsuccessfully to achieve. ] (]) 06:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Cullen328, from what I see on Commons, they "uploaded" the files in 2024 (their account itself was only created 30 November 2024), though they are for films that were themselves from 2017, 2022, 2023 and likewise the images are identified as having been created in or near those years. But you're definitely correct that Stan literally said "I, the copyright holder of this work" for each of them. ] (]) 05:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:{{u|Cullen328}}, I completely reject your accusation that I lied about the poster images. I acted in good faith as an authorized representative of the copyright holder, who gave me explicit permission to use the images on Misplaced Pages. This is the first time you've even asked about the permissions, so your claim that I "never provided evidence" is entirely false. If you have doubts about the licensing, there are established processes for verifying image permissions. Publicly demanding private communications and unilaterally removing images based on unfounded accusations is not how it works. If an admin asks for documentation, I'll happily provide it through proper channels. | |||
Hello, Joseph2302. It seems Sasha has hit the nail right on the head. Both of us happen to be new here, so I strongly believe you are doing more to create a conflict rather than solving it. I'm reillustrating the draft, and it will be posted with proper referencing and without bias/opinion. Thanks, RP. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:Your pattern of behavior - the personal attacks, bad faith assumptions, and removal of properly sourced content without discussion - is really concerning. It feels more like a witch hunt than a collaborative effort. I'm open to constructive feedback and working together to make these articles the best they can be. But I won't stand for baseless attacks on my character. | |||
:Let's focus on the actual content and policies, not personal vendettas. If you truly believe there's a permission issue, take it up with the appropriate admins. But stop making unilateral accusations and removals. It's disruptive and goes against waht Misplaced Pages stands for. ] (]) 05:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I do not have access to the non-public communications (and wouldn't disclose them even if I did), but someone did go through the proper process to document the license release for the files Stan uploaded to Commons, to the default satisfaction of those who handle that process on there. I'm saying this as a stand-alone detail, purely from a commons policy standpoint. ] (]) 05:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::{{u|DMacks}}, you are correct that the file pages report that a licensing agreement was sent and received, and I apologize for not noticing that. But those three files still state that they are the "own work" of Stan1900, which is not the case. ] (]) 05:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::{{u|Cullen328}} {{u|DMacks}}, the unilateral deletion of these properly licensed images is completely unacceptable and appears to be part of a pattern of aggressive, disruptive actions. | |||
:::1. As DMacks confirmed, proper licensing documentation was ALREADY verified through official Commons channels. This fact was deliberately ignored. | |||
:::2. The "own work" designation relates to the upload as an authorized representative - a standard practice on Commons that is well understood by experienced editors. | |||
:::3. Deleting multiple images across several articles over template semantics, especially after licensing was confirmed, is extraordinarily aggressive and disruptive to Misplaced Pages. | |||
:::I will be filing for undeletion of all three images: "It's Coming", "The Misguided", and "Sex, Love, Misery: New New York" posters. The proper documentation exists and was previously verified. This kind of unilateral action without discussion or opportunity for clarification is exactly the type of disruptive behavior that damages Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 16:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::No, "own work" means exactly what it says - that you made the poster yourself. You're not doing yourself any favors by denying something so obvious. ] (]) 16:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::this interpretation of "own work" on Commons is wrong because the designation refers to the upload itself being my own work as an authorized representative - a standard practice for authorized uploaders contributing licensed material with the proper permissions. As DMacks noted earlier, the proper licensing documentation was already verified through official Commons channels. | |||
:::::This is yet another example of interpreting template language in the most uncharitable way possible rather than addressing actual licensing substance. The fact remains: these images were properly licensed, documentation was verified, and they were serving a legitimate encyclopedic purpose before being improperly removed. ] (]) 16:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::Interpreting 'own work' to mean 'own work' is not 'uncharitable', it is the plain meaning of the words. Under your 'the upload was my work' literally every file uploaded on commons would be 'own work', which is obviously not the case. | |||
::::::If you didn't actually make these posters yourself, just admit you were mistaken so people can figure out what the proper source should be and get it set up properly for you. Working collaboratively with others in this case means you are going to have to own up when you make a mistake so someone can actually fix it. Digging in like this when you are so obviously wrong is just disruptive - actual disruption, not the 'someone disagrees with me' way you've been throwing around the word. ] (]) 16:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::The {{tl2|sister=c:|Own work}} tag on commons is documented as "Use this to say that you personally created the entire original image by yourself (for example, you drew the picture on paper, you used a camera to take the photograph, you painted the picture on canvas, etc.). Do not use this tag for any images that you saw on any website, downloaded from any source, scanned from a book, newspaper, or magazine, or copied from anything." I tried a few upload methods on commons, and all of them forced me to choose between an option that says I created something entirely myself vs something I got from somewhere else. In particular, I verified that the Wizard method, when I choose the from-somewhere-else option, does not apply the 'own' tag. ] (]) 17:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::The images were removed as an editorial action within each enwiki article here on enwiki, not an administrative action for the files themselves on commons. ] (]) 17:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::{{u|MrOllie}} {{u|DMacks}}, like I keep saying this continued focus on template semantics rather than substance is unproductive. As an authorized representative with explicit permission to upload these images, I used "own work" to indicate my authorized upload - a practice that many representatives use when contributing licensed material. The licensing documentation was properly submitted and verified through Commons channels, as DMacks noted earlier. | |||
:::::The removal of properly licensed images from articles over template terminology, rather than addressing any actual licensing concerns, is still needlessly disruptive. Images serve a legitimate encyclopedic purpose and have verified permissions. | |||
:::::If there's a preferred template format for authorized uploads, I'm willing to discuss. But using template semantics to justify wholesale content removal seems to be part of a broader pattern of finding technicalities to suppress properly sourced content about these films. ] (]) 18:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::If as you say you are an "an authorized representative" then you clearly have a conflict of interest despite your repeated denials. ] (]) 18:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Acting as an authorized representative doesn't constitute as COI. Being authorized to handle tasks like verifying copyright or providing accurate information does not mean that contributions are biased or promotional. | |||
:::::::Misplaced Pages defines COI as "an incompatibility between the aim of Misplaced Pages, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and an editor's personal or external relationships." My edits have been basically focused on adhering to standards of neutrality, verifiability, and reliability. How tiresome I must repeat this ad nauseum. | |||
:::::::So, in summary being authorized to facilitate copyright or provide accurate details about a subject does not violate Misplaced Pages's COI policies. ] (]) 19:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Where are you getting the definition {{tq|1="an incompatibility between the aim of Misplaced Pages..."}} from? ] hasn't said that since . ] ] 23:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::{{u|Schazjmd}} Thank you for catching the outdated COI definition. That was an oversight on my part and I appreciate the correction. To be clear, my point was never to rely on an obsolete technicality but emphasize substance; My limited interactions with the filmmaker for fact-checking and image licensing do not constitute a substantive COI in terms of the content I've contributed, which is all neutrally written and based on independent reliable sources. I should have double-checked the current policy wording and I apologize for any confusion. The underlying principle remains that nothing improper has occurred . The focus belongs on content and policies, not unfounded aspersions. I'm here to collaborate in good faith. I hope we can move forward productively with that shared goal in mind. ] (]) 00:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::But where did you get that definition, @]? If there are pages that aren't in sync with ] anymore, I'd like to reconcile them. ] ] 00:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::UPDATE: Stan1900 has now been indef blocked following a thread at ANI . ] (]) 23:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Andrew Kosove == | |||
:The purpose of this board is to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, therefore I'm perfectly entitled to ask, especially as neither of you bothered to answer of my talkpage- I'm not trying to be a "Wikihero", I'm just confused by the interactions with you two. Also, I tried to help you, I stopped the article being deleted the first time by moving it to draft, and I've evaluated all the sources for you, and given advice on how to improve it. Oh and by the way, ] cannot be created for a month, as an admin ] it, so that gives you a month to actually find some decent references, although as I've said before a 16-yr old who hopes to compete in big events in 2018-2022 is almost certainly not notable enough. ] (]) 12:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Seems that they tried to recreate the non-notable article at ] as well, I've asked for this to be protected. ] (]) 14:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*There's an interesting quote in that comment you mentioned, Joseph, where RandyPelkey says "I will be able to incorporate knowledge of my own regarding the subject matter, and include references to my previous editorials on him which cannot be found online". I'm going to assume good faith that RP's work on the subject was as a journalist, so there is not a true conflict of interest issue. However, if he's using first-hand knowledge, then there could be issues related to ]. Material in an article needs to be verifiable to published reliable sources. —''']''' (]) 15:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
* {{u|SashaRearick}} you haven't addressed the main point of this board, and it appears that no one has directly asked you. What is your relationship with James V. Toner? Thanks. ] (]) 05:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*C.Fred, that is correct. I have no personal relationship with the subject, but I have illustrated and read a significant amount of unbiased articles regarding his life and career in the Cape Cod Times, Falmouth Enterprise, Bridgton Newspaper, and a couple others to which I cannot recall off the top of my head. I do not believe this is a true conflict of interest issue. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:Probably doesn't matter anyway, ] got deleted as spam, ] is salted for a month, and ] is indefinitely protected (as it's supposed to be a redirect to a different page). ] (]) 17:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::According to LinkedIn, Sasha Rearick is "Head Men's Coach at US Ski Team". That doesn't mean there is a pecuniary COI here, perhaps just subject matter knowledge and familiarity with the subject. But still, the onus is on them to disclose or deny it. <span style="color:red; font-size: smaller; font-weight: bold;">§]</span><sup>]</sup> 17:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Sounds about right, I thought Sacha was either family, close friend or professional coach of James Toner. Assuming this is true, I also don't believe RandyPelkey's answer- especially as I cannot find a thread about it on Yahoo Answers, which is were the non-COI Sacha allegedly posted for help. Therefore I return to my previous theory, undisclosed COI and undisclosed paid editor. ] (]) 18:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
==Articles for deletion/Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies== | |||
{{archive top|even if there were COI, !voting in an AfD is not barred to people with a COI. Closing, with a trout to Waters.Justin ] (]) 22:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
* {{la|Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies}} | |||
* {{userlinks|David Gerard}} | |||
Conflict of interest problem with a Misplaced Pages administrator and ] board member proposing a deletion at ] | |||
There is a conflict of issue problem with administrator ] being so influential in the proposed deletion of an article on a non-profit organization that expresses a view that is contrary to the views of a non-profit organization where he hold a board position. David Gerard is a trustee of ], a wiki dedicated to debunking pseudoscience, and the ] is dedicated to publishing many ] ideas considered pseudoscience by RationalWiki. If you visit the RationalWiki page on transhumanism you will see that the majority of the page is dedicated to criticizing the ideas the IEET promotes, and David Gerard is a contributor on that page. The IEET is a transhumanist organization and used to title its academic journal the ''Journal of Transhumanism''. This type of conflict of interest is similar to Misplaced Pages's prohibition against staff members of a political candidate editing articles on their opposition. ]. What we have here is a staff / board member of one policy non-profit promoting the deletion of its opposing non-profit. This is clearly a conflict of interest. The original lack of notability templates, were added by David Gerard, and he has been consistently promoting this article's deletion. . | |||
Additionally, he has been using ] to make the claim that the article's references only cite the spokesperson' for the IEET and not the IEET itself and "notability is not inherited," so the content of the reference must be on the IEET itself and not the spokespersons. It is true that "notability is not inherited" but a spokesperson of an organization is the voice and face of the organization. The organization cannot talk, it's scholars talk for it. The spokesperson is the agent of the organization, so when the references mention the scholar is a member of the IEET this is not a passive mention of the IEET, it is intended convey the message that the scholar is the voice of the IEET. Considering the amount of advocacy occurring on Misplaced Pages and David Gerard's administrative position on Misplaced Pages and board membership on RationalWiki, I suggest he no longer participate in the proposed deletion of the IEET article. On a personal note, I respect that he uses his real name and I wish other administrators would do the same. I don't mean any criticism against him as an administrator. I suspect that if more administrators and editors used their real name we would see more COI challenges. Even U.S. Supreme Court justices recuse themselves from hearing cases when they have a personal association to it. It's the method of best practices in order to avoid criticism from others and the possibility that our human emotions will get in the way. ] (]) 21:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I can only say: um, what. | |||
:I did not propose the deletion, as you can see at the nomination; I commented that I had gone through the references and none of them were good, hence I considered that as it stood the article warranted deletion. This claim of Waters.Justin's is visibly false. | |||
:I do have considerable knowledge of fringe and skeptical topics. This is orthogonal to Misplaced Pages notability; some are, some aren't. There are organisations I consider reprehensible (IEET isn't one, I have no reason to think they aren't perfectly decent people, even if utterly un-noteworthy) who nevertheless fully warrant a Misplaced Pages article. I try to make my edits in this area according to the Misplaced Pages way of doing things. | |||
:I note also the past discussion with Justin at ], in which I noted that the article was seriously lacking in notability, and that this should be remedied; {{u|Randykitty}} concurred, and we tried to patiently explain the rules to Justin. | |||
:The AFD in question now looks like it's getting brigaded by transhumanists: non-policy-based arguments from infrequent editors. This sort of canvassing is probably inappropriate to Misplaced Pages. | |||
:- ] (]) 21:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*I see that you notified 4 users about this deletion discussion? Why these 4? ] (] · ] · ]) 21:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::<small>formatted properly. ] (]) 21:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)</small> | |||
* {{u|Waters.Justin}}, sjeez, please read up on what a conflict of interest actually is. This is not one. None of the arguments in the AfD that gets you so riled up is about the ideas that the IEET espouses. It is about, as one of the SPA IEET supporters creeping out of the woodwork expressed it, the fact that "nobody ever wrote about IEET". WP includes articles on pseudoscience (like ]), as long as it is notable as shown by coverage in reliable sources. Spending your time finding such sources is more useful than attacking people participating in the AfD (Gerard is not even the nom). --] (]) 21:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
* Even if David Gerard has a COI, a COI is no bar to !voting in an AfD. I am closing this as an advocacy driven non-issue and a trout goes to Waters.Justin for bringing this. I am going to follow up with Waters.Justin and David Gerard on matters not raised here. Am archiving this instead of just marking it resolved as misfired cases like this tend to spin into dramafests. ] (]) 22:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{archive bottom}} | |||
== Jesse Young (politician) == | |||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | <!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | ||
* {{pagelinks|Andrew Kosove}} | |||
* {{la|Jesse Young (politician)}} | |||
* {{userlinks| |
* {{userlinks|Alconite}} | ||
* {{userlinks|198.238.208.67}} | |||
* {{userlinks|174.21.234.50}} | |||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> | <!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> | ||
] has tried to notify the user about ] and based on the users' edit summaries, it's clear they have a COI. I ] to the version with AntiDionysius's revert because the previous version was too promotional. ] <big>(]</big> · <small>])</small> 01:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Rep. Jesse L. Young has obvious COI from the username, given them COI notice. Both them and the IP are adding a mixture of sourced and unsourced, non-] content- I think I reverted back to the best sourced content. Needs more eyes on it. ] (]) 23:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:"Rep. Jesse L. Young" should be blocked ASAP as an account possibly impersonating a public figure....reported at UAA. ] (]) 00:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Mmm, and the use of "our" in one of the edit summaries is also not a great sign. ] (<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>) 12:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::So "Rep. Jesse L. Young" has been blocked, but IP 174.21.234.50 is adding basically the same information, only with (predominantly primary) sources, see . ] (]) 08:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::{{tq|I am a direct representative and employee of Alcon who was approved to make these changes}} from So, we have a paid editor who hasn't been responsive to talk page inquiries, and instead seem to be edit-warring their preferred version. Given that, could an admin consider pblocking them from the page to force them to use the talk page for edit requests? If they do, yay. If they sock or do anything else untoward, we can look at a regular promotional editing block. ] (]) 23:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::I stubified this and have it on my watchlist. ] (]) 13:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::It appears they've halted their disruptive editing after the block and warnings. Let's hope it remains that way! ] (]) 21:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== A Celebration of Horses: The American Saddlebred == | |||
== OCEAN Style == | |||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | <!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | ||
* {{pagelinks|A Celebration of Horses: The American Saddlebred}} | |||
* {{la|OCEAN Style}} up for AfD | |||
* {{userlinks| |
* {{userlinks|Atsme}} | ||
{{multiple image | |||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> | |||
| align = right | |||
This was an elance job that takes just a little work to detect. I've done some cleanup but would appreciate another set of eyes for adherence to policy and, in particular, to determine if the subject is notable. ] (]) 00:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| total_width = 320 | |||
:Joseph2302 AfDed it. ] (]) 13:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| image1 = 1994ASHA-Article-86.jpeg | |||
| image2 = 1994ASHA-Article-87.jpeg | |||
| image3 = 1994ASHA-Article-88.jpeg | |||
| footer = {{cite journal | journal = The American Saddlebred | publisher=American Saddlebred Horse Association|title= TV Series Featuring Saddlebreds Honored | page=88 | date=January 1994}} | |||
}} | |||
] has previously self identified as Betty Wills. She has authored two thirds of the article content and is listed in the article as the program's executive producer. | |||
The subject of the article also has serious notability issues. The only citation that meets significant coverage is the piece from The American Saddlebred magazine which is shown on the right and is also likely unreliable as it is clearly marked as a promotion. ] (]) 21:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Jeffrey Lewis (nonproliferation expert) == | |||
:This filing borders on trolling. Just look at the talk page of that article, where Atsme has a declaration of her connection right at the top of the page, and there is a lengthy discussion about it – from 2016. If there are notability concerns, AfD is that-a-way. --] (]) 21:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
: I concur with ]; Atsme is a solid and good editor who has made any required disclosures, and is fastidious about editing within the rules. This report is frivolous. ] ] 21:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | |||
: I also concur. This editor has already fulfilled their obligations regarding ]. ] (]) 21:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
* {{la|Jeffrey Lewis (nonproliferation expert)}} | |||
* {{userlinks|Georgewilliamherbert}} | |||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> | |||
Greetings. I have created a biographical article regarding a well-known nonproliferation researcher and academic that I know in real life, Jeffrey Lewis. Per ethical requirements and the COI policy I am self-declaring that this is a Conflict of Interest and have disclosed that on the talk page as well (see ). I believe that the article meets academic and general notability, that all non-trivial comments are sourced, and that it's neutral. However, others' input and review are welcome. ] (]) 03:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks for disclosing and for posting here. As an editor with a COI you should have going through ] instead of creating this article directly. Lots of problems with it (sourcing, embedded links, unsourced content)... would you consent to moving this to ] or to ] until it is ready for showtime?] (]) 10:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::I've moved it to ]- as an AFC reviewer, I think this submission stands little chance of being kept long-term. Needs a proper AFC review and continued work on it, to show they're actually notable. ] (]) 11:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::It's a small field, and most of the active participants don't reach public view all that often in general. I think there are three to five Wikipedians active enough in arms control to understand who the major players are; the field is clearly important enough to be covered, so in my opinion are the major players. Two of the online journals he is a commentator at were already notable enough to have articles (neither of which I had edited). | |||
:::I started here because it's easy, but intend to create articles for another whole pile of the lead academics/researchers/policy experts. I've been around plenty long enough to understand what is required to fairly and neutrally cover a topic area one is somewhat involved in. There are only a handful of us working on articles on say nuclear weapons technology and history, too, and one of the other main editors is an involved source himself. I'm disclosing out of an abundance of caution, but the topic area is seriously lacking depth of coverage on Misplaced Pages now, and I intend to fix that. This is probably as close to a COI that I would have with a particular topic or subject in the field, but we need sufficiently clued in experts to know what to write about and create the articles. | |||
:::I would like to request that you comment on the talk page about the specifics of your sourcing, embedded links, and unsourced content concerns. Thank you. ] (]) 18:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::I also added refs for 8 NY Times and Washington Post stories that quoted him as an expert on the nuclear programs in China, North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, etc. (and could keep going, he's widely interviewed and quoted as a source for media stories). Hopefully addressing notability in terms everyone should agree to. ] (]) 19:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::{{u|Georgewilliamherbert}} ]s are appreciated in WP very much (if you are not familiar with essay, please read it) but you definitely have a COI for this article and the ones you want to create. COI says: "You should not ... edit articles about yourself, your family, or friends..... You should also avoid writing about yourself or people you know in articles on other topics." You need to take that seriously. Would you please: | |||
:::::a) acknowledge that you have a COI on this topic and the ones you intend to write about as you discuss above; | |||
:::::b) use the AfC process going forward; and | |||
:::::c) agree that if any of these articles are created through AfC, that you will not directly edit them after they enter WP space? | |||
:::::thanks very much. ] (]) 19:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::No, I don't have a COI on the whole topic area; I am an expert (as defined in the essay) in the whole topic area. I only know a few of the people well enough to meet the COI criteria (Jeff Lewis most prominently, hence the disclosure). Experts are not and never have been declared auto-COI across the whole topic area(s) they edit in; COI is much more specific and close-in. | |||
::::::AfC is for dealing with people who are problem creators or who don't know how to edit well enough to create safe articles. It's not for every expert editing in their field of expertise, and never has been. I ''started'' here with the one article which I have a genuine, disclose-first COI on, but the rest I forsee creating would not meet the COI definition. I know how to create safe articles and have been doing so for 10+years. | |||
::::::I understand caution, and I posted here because I do have a COI as defined in policy and any rational normal definition in real life. The policy urges that so others can see that I'm not actually creating a problem, be it a bad BLP, a vanity page, a badly written page, something which truly isn't notable, etc. The policy recommends a lot of stand-off with COI topics, but does not require it. It recommends because it's aimed at less experienced editors who are less familiar with WP culture and standards, neutral point of view, etc. I've been around nearly forever, have over 16k edits, am an administrator, and have created hundreds of mainspace articles over the years. If there are quality problems with the article I listen and encourage others to point them out for me to correct or to correct them themselves. If notability was not clear enough to start with I listen and work on that. If there's a genuine dispute I stand back and find other uninvolved editors. | |||
::::::People need to be informed and aware that I do have the COI on that particular article (done). Someone needs to review it and keep an eye on it (in progress). I do not need to crawl into a hole trembling in fear of COI or bad editing; I am safe from that, am looking to improve the project and its coverage of this rather important topic writ large (we have had a war over it, and could have another one if the Iran negotiations go badly). If you want to look over my shoulder on the topic area in general that's encouraged and appreciated. If I go off the reservation feel free to call it out. But it desperately needs work. Unless AfC has picked up a lot in the last year I do not believe it would be capable enough to address the gaps. ] (]) 19:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Thanks for replying George. This board is not about judging your competence, so please leave that out of it. This board is about COI. You clearly have a COI for Jeffrey Lewis. Who else do you personal or professional relationships with (both positive and negative) and plan to write about? Thanks. (by the way, describing a discussion about your COI and managing it as asking you to "crawl into a hole trembling in fear of COI" is just a really bad reflection on you. Please also leave the drama out of this. Thanks.) ] (]) 20:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::{{u|Georgewilliamherbert }} will you please respond here to the substance? Would be good to wrap this thread up. Thanks. ] (]) 01:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Execulink Telecom == | |||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | |||
* {{la|Execulink Telecom}} | |||
* {{userlinks|209.213.231.168}} | |||
* {{userlinks|Kchalmers}} | |||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> | |||
] was created by IP 209.213.231.168- I accepted it at AfC after a thorough copyedit to make the language more ]. Now ] (username recently changed from ]) is editing the page- the edits have been fine for now, but I'd like more eyes on the page, as they clearly have a COI. ] (]) 19:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I've approached Kchalmers. Hopefully she will respond well and we can resolve this smoothly. ] (]) 01:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Kaiser Permanente == | |||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | |||
* {{la|Kaiser Permanente}} | |||
* {{userlinks| Jytdog}} | |||
* {{userlinks| vggolla}} | |||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> | |||
] (self-described on the KP talk page as 'Vince from KP', which I take as a FCoI notice) complained about the section “Grossly Inadequate Mental Health Care”, and Jytdog, who has, IMHO, worked hard to avoid more explicit bans in wikipedia policy on FCoI/ Paid Advocacy Editing, removed it. | |||
I requested and was hoping ] would '''comment on their edit and suggest a solution''', rather than engage in ad hominem attack on a Kaiser union, which is how I see the response to my request. Seems, furthermore, that my statement was glossed over: {{tq|Seems hard to see the imposition and unappealed payment of "a $4 million fine against Kaiser for not providing adequate health care to its customers" and a strike over the care failures as entirely unworthy of mention}}- since I mentioned a strike (which was noted in the whitewashed content), obviously I was aware of the labor dispute. I'm challenged as to how to get the imposition and unappealed payment of "a $4 million fine against Kaiser ... mentioned in the article again. Because it's the largest fine in DMHC history, it is surely encyclopedic, and about gross shortcomings, not mere union posturing about minor delays. The ] ''POLICY'' states, for example, "When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; '''don't delete salvageable text'''. For example, if an article appears biased, '''add balancing material or make the wording more neutral'''." Wholesale deletion at the behest of a user with a clear FCoI seems a clear violation of the letter and spirit of our policies. I would ask that the material be restored by ] who can then '''add balancing material or make the wording more neutral''' --]<sup>(]•])</sup> 20:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Hi Elvey. What is your evidence that I have a conflict of interest with regard to Kaiser? Thanks. ] (]) 01:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:btw the dif that I reverted due to POV not to mention removal of sourced content was . and the source relied on for much of the added material was , an opinion piece by the head of the union. ] (]) 02:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::I took was useful out of that POV content and FIXEDIT . ] (]) 02:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::by the way, sorry for . I thought i self-reverted right away but i didn't. ] (]) 02:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::Thank you. Your edit summary made it seem quite clearly intentional; it wasn't? I'll assume you changed your mind and meant to self revert, but didn't. --]<sup>(]•])</sup> 02:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::yeah i thought you had put that stuff into ] not here. and then i as i said i thought i self-reverted. two mistakes. sorry ] (]) 05:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::OK. Glad I was able to keep my cool even after that and what I saw as you edit warring at ] too. <Pats self on back.> Glad to see you reverted both edits after ]. --]<sup>(]•])</sup> 09:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:: (ec) I was going to say {{tq|Please address my concerns. And I did @$#^@$%& . I expand my concerns here and you haven't addressed those, and you still haven't even addressed the concern expressed on the article talk page yet.}} but it sounds like maybe you've now addressed my concerns (based on your edits i conflicted with). Will review follow up. Thanks. --]<sup>(]•])</sup> 02:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::{{u|Elvey}} you need to address your claim that I have a COI with respect to Kaiser Permanante. Please present your case or withdraw the claim. Thanks. ] (]) 19:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::] : "COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article". "There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request..." I await the outcome and one of the three appropriate actions. You need to address your claim that I claim that you have a COI with respect to ]. Do you? You need to provide a quote showing I did so or withdraw the claim. (IIRC you made a blanket statement a while back about having no COIs with respect to any edits or topics on wikipedia, but I can't find such a statement.) --]<sup>(]•])</sup> 08:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Jade_at_Brickell_Bay == | |||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | |||
* {{la|Jade_at_Brickell_Bay}} | |||
* {{userlinks|2607:FB90:1213:A2B2:0:46:7908:6E01}} | |||
* {{userlinks|2602:306:3383:4550:A1B2:E0A3:A983:6F42}} | |||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> | |||
the problem is that I have discovered a spammer hiding, it's www.dienerproperties.com | |||
person keeps changing user names. I request some help preventing this consistent undoing ] (]) 23:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:watching the article. listed the site at the spam blacklist. looks like the article should be PRODed. ] (]) 00:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
==Balochistan== | |||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | |||
{{archive top|No COI, it's just a content dispute. There is no evidence that either party works for Pakistan or Indian army, and even if they did, that wouldn't necessarily be a COI. Go back to the article talkpages. ] (]) 11:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
* {{la|Balochistan}} | |||
* {{userlinks|TripWire}} | |||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> | |||
Is it conflict of interest for member of Pakistani army to delete information on human rights atrocities by pak army from articles ] (]) 11:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
: So anybody trying to remove wrong info/info that does not fit the scope of the article/ info that has been discussed at the respective talk page and then removed, even though the info was reverted back pending further discussion is a member of Pakistan Army??? Great! Moreover, conversely, anybody who tried to add info to pages related to Pakistani Military must then also be a member of Pakistan Army? Similarly, anybody who remove info regarding the revelations by the Indian Prime Minister on | |||
* {{la|Bangladesh Liberation War}} | |||
* {{userlinks|114.134.89.21}} | |||
* {{userlinks|78.146.41.16}} | |||
and {{la|Mukti Bahini}} should also be a member of Indian Armed Forces or have had volunteered for Mukti Bahini in the past? I guess not. —] <sup>] </sup> 11:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{archive bottom}} | |||
== Do I need to declare COI for talk page discussion? == | |||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | |||
* {{la|British_National_Party}} | |||
* {{userlinks|Chrisdbarnett}} | |||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> | |||
I have declared my COI on my user page. I have NEVER made any edits to the British National Party wiki page, but I hold various positions within the organization. On the Talk page, I have an editor/admin (I don't know what rights he has) who keeps threatened to have me banned for not "Formally declaring COI". Do I need to declare anything anywhere to participate on the articles TALK page? Am I banned from talking about anything on the talk page because of COI? ] (]) 15:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:{{ping|Chrisdbarnett}} ] strongly recommends that you shouldn't directly edit, but recommends you instead suggest edits at the talkpage- therefore what you're doing seems to be correct to me. I'll tag the talkpage with a COI notice, but you are definitely allowed to participate in talkpage discussions. ] (]) 15:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks! You see I couldn't work out whether I'm supposed to tag the talk page with a COI notice or not. Thanks. ] (]) 16:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Chris, I've always very strongly advised editors with a COI much weaker than yours: ''fully disclose'' your COI on the talk page before even beginning to take part in the discussion. Than, having done so, please ''do'' participate fully, just like the rest of us! How else are we going to reach a consensus about ways to improve the article? --] | ] 20:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Janette Kerr == | |||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | |||
* {{la|Janette Kerr}} | |||
* {{userlinks|Lucasta10}} | |||
* {{userlinks|JanetteKerr}} | |||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> | |||
says that Lucasta10 is from Janette Kerr's Gallery, and username suggests JanetteKerr= ]. ] (]) 15:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
: User:JanetteKerr very freely admits to being Janette Kerr. --] | ] 20:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 17:03, 24 December 2024
"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Numismatics.Noticeboards | |
---|---|
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
General | |
Articles and content | |
Page handling | |
User conduct | |
Other | |
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards |
Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN) | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ShortcutsSections 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:
|
Carlton Wilborn
- Carlton Wilborn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Carltonrising (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Clear WP:SPA only interested in editing an article about himself. Previous edits already revdeleted for copyright issues. See this edit PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like a very clear-cut COI violation. - Amigao (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Should I also add the main article to Articles for deletion? The sources of that article all suck.. there's only one reliable source (Attitude Magazine). I haven't heard of the other sources PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Pinialtaus
Pinialtaus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) For going straight to making ten edits after being old enough to meet the time requirement and then immediately to posting Yohei Kiguchi (entrepreneur) and Enechange (company). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oona Wikiwalker (talk • contribs) 22:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Update: Pinialtaus has now been blocked as a WP:SOCK, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Abbasshaikh124. RA0808 contribs 19:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/EAllen04
- Flourishing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Water For People (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- EAllen04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
First time submitting something like this, so please bear with me.
It appears to me that user EAllen04 is the same Eleanor Allen named in the Water For People article. Eleanor recently edited the Flourishing article, contributing a word salad of advertising copy that further dilutes the quality of an article already thoroughly suffused with marketing-speak and woo.
EAllen04 was notified of their COI responsibilities in March of 2024. I notified them again following their most recent string of edits. Respectfully requesting a more seasoned editor double check my work here.
🆃🆁🆂™ 13:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- At this time I should also point out that in light of Misplaced Pages:INDISCRIMINATE, I struggle to discern a convincing case for the continued presence of the article Water For People anywhere within the scope of the project. The subject organization fails the notability test, and nearly all the cited sources are from either the organization itself or one of their members named in the article. If it were my choice, I'd say nuke this stinker -- but that's probably why I don't have any actual power around here ;) 🆃🆁🆂™ 13:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm inclined to agree with you. I've removed some unsourced text from Water For People and reverted the recent edits to Flourishing. As you say, AfD may be the solution for Water for People.
- Looking at the edit history for Water For People, there have been various redlinked WP:SPAs editing the article from 2010 onwards, which is probably why it is such a mess.
- However, on the other hand there is the following text, which is obviously some kind of WP:SYNTH/WP:OR and presumably doesn't originate from the organisation itself:
Water For People reported in its 2015 IRS tax form that it spent a total of $18,844,346, in which $5,819,735 in administration, and $1,944,288 in fundraising. There's a discrepancy here. On Water For People's website, they have all their audited financial statements from 2005 to 2015. They also have all their IRS Form 990s from 2012 to 2016. They also have their IRS Form 1023 accessible from 1991, where they applied for recognition of tax exemption. They also have their 501(c)(3) document, containing a letter that confirms their tax exemption status from the Internal Revenue Service. On its website, the charity also has its own printed pamphlet, called "Behind the Numbers" from the years 2013 to 2015. The pamphlet explains what the money in the respective fiscal year was able to accomplish in project works around the world.
- Overall, a mess. Axad12 (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi all -EAllen here - I am not trying to be a problem. I am trying to contribute meaningfully. I am the former CEO of Water For People. The page is/was very outdated and I was trying to update it and make it more factual. Wanting to help and appreciate your guidance to do so in an appropriate way.
- For Flourishing, the page doesn't mention workplace flourishing. I think it is a missing element on the flourishing page. I did get some copy from SHAPE, a company I respect in this space. Happy to tone it down to not make it sound like marketing text and more factual. Appreciate the guidance. EAllen04 (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- When you say
I did get some copy from SHAPE, a company I respect in this space. Happy to tone it down to not make it sound like marketing text
are you basically admitting to having attempted a large scale copyright violation? - Also, I see very clear offwiki evidence suggesting a degree of association between yourself and SHAPE. Given that you appear to have cut and pasted material from SHAPE into Misplaced Pages, material that you accept sounded like marketing text, maybe it would be best if you were to disclose your conflict of interest there? Axad12 (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Your edits here , here and here were clearly blatant adverts for SHAPE.
- To suggest that you are
Happy to tone it down
isn’t really going to get us anywhere. There is no place for this kind of promotionalism on Misplaced Pages, no matter how much it is toned down. These edits were not, as you claim, adding detail to an element of Flourishing that was previously not covered. They were very blatant adverts for a specific company. - I note that you also made a large promotional edit back in March 2024 to the article for B Lab, another organisation where off wiki evidence suggests some degree of association. The edit including material such as
Notable B-Lab certified corporations: There are thousands of certified B Corps all around the world. You can search the database to find a B Corp here. There are many famous brands including:
- In fact, looking at your edit history, is it fair to say that it relates primarily to adding promotional material to articles where you have a conflict of interest (including apparent self-promotion, here )? Axad12 (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I note also a previous note left on your talk page back in March this year, observing that
editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted.
Under the circumstances some explanation is surely required on why you recently felt it wise to add material such asSHAPE Global Ltd is a leading advocate for the research and application of organizational flourishing. Contributing to multiple groups such as Harvard University’s Flourishing at Work and AI for Human Flourishing, as well as IWBI WELL standard, SHAPE is linking the importance of flourishing to regulatory as well as academic communities globally
. That is obvious marketing copy re: SHAPE and has nothing to do with the topic of the article. I could give further examples, but hopefully that suffices for now... Axad12 (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I note also a previous note left on your talk page back in March this year, observing that
- When you say
Leyla Kuliyeva
- Leyla Kuliyeva (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User publisher wiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User publisher wiki has made two sets of changes to this article. The first, which I reverted, was promotional in tone and either unsourced or referenced to primary sources. The second, which I also reverted, was unsourced. Another editor posted on the user's Talk page about CoI, and I followed up with a direct question, to which User publisher wiki responded I have the information
and giving concerns about the grammar, quality and brevity of the article. They have now posted on the article's Talk page saying, in part, I have been assigned to create a page for this individual with all the relevant information. This article either needs to be properly edited or deleted and replaced with a new one, as it does not adhere to Misplaced Pages's standards. If this is not addressed promptly, we will need to notify Misplaced Pages's legal department to take further action
. Tacyarg (talk) 10:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Their last comment has now earned them a
{{uw-legal}}
warning. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)- There have been quite a lot of problems with this article since it was created. All of the problematic activity clearly derives from a single previously blocked user, evidence as follows...
- The article was originally created in Feb '22 by virtual SPA user:TheWeldere who took the article to this rather odd
(but very long)version before their work began to be reverted (and the article was taken back to very short stub status). - The user was then blocked for sockpuppetry .
- Then in Sept '22 user:Dmarketingchamp attempted to create a new article for Leyla Kuliyeva (despite the fact that one already existed). This was turned down at AfC. The user placed their new version of the article on their talk page, here . It is obviously
the version that was favoured bythe work of a user with an identical agenda to that of the blocked user TheWeldere. Then in Jan '23 Dmarketingchamp cut and pasted their version into the existing article, here . So, this wasobviousapparent block evasion and sockpuppetry by the user of the TheWeldere account. - Then in Nov '24 the present account appeared and attempted to create a new article for Kuliyeva (is this sounding familiar?). This was again turned down at AfC (twice this time). The user then implemented their preferred version within the current article, here . So, same story as above.
- This version is different to the previous version that the earlier accounts attempted to implement, but is very likely from the same hand.
- The behavioural evidence of users trying to create complete replacement articles indicates obvious sockpuppetry and block evasion, as per WP:DUCK. Axad12 (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Axad12: Are you going to file a report at SPI? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would, but I don't know how to. If you feel an SPI is required, would you be prepared to do the honours and simply link to the evidence above? If so it would be much appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just a note to say that the user seems to be restricted to communicating with extensive AI produced material, as can be seen in recent discussions at their talk page and at the Leyla Kuliyeva talkpage . The user even parroted back one of my responses (here:), presumably due to cut and paste error while putting an earlier question into Google Translate. Axad12 (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- User publisher wiki now blocked by Izno as an advertising only account (and for
wasting people's time on their user page
, as per the SPI: ). Axad12 (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- User publisher wiki now blocked by Izno as an advertising only account (and for
- Just a note to say that the user seems to be restricted to communicating with extensive AI produced material, as can be seen in recent discussions at their talk page and at the Leyla Kuliyeva talkpage . The user even parroted back one of my responses (here:), presumably due to cut and paste error while putting an earlier question into Google Translate. Axad12 (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would, but I don't know how to. If you feel an SPI is required, would you be prepared to do the honours and simply link to the evidence above? If so it would be much appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Axad12: Are you going to file a report at SPI? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
South College
- South College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Amanda Woodward Burns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
In a previous edit, this editor used an edit summary that indicates that they work for the college: "We needed to update our number of programs we offer, update the 2023 stats to include CBE programs. Also correct a few grammatical issues." I placed a standard paid editing warning on their User Talk page in May. They have not yet responded to the warning but they continue to edit the college's article. ElKevbo (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- An once of good faith might be due, just from the standpoint that you warned them last time and they stopped. Then 7 months later they come back, probably don't remember seeing the first warning, and then get two more today after they stopped editing again. Not that this isn't a problem, but I'd probably wait for them to edit again in the next day or two, and then if they do perhaps a hammer needs to come down. Another possibility might be to report per WP:REALNAME. TiggerJay (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- In fairness, various promotional accounts have been editing that article since at least 2019. For example, this promotional edit with edit summary
Update at the request of the college
. That user was blocked as an advertising only account. - Then we have this exchange from 2020 , where another user admits to working for the college in a marketing capacity and is asked not to edit the article.
- Then later that year this user edited the article, later blocked as WP:NOTHERE.
- Then user SPA from 2021 whose promotional edits were reverted later that day.
- Then this user from 2023 , who made 1 edit before being notified of the WP:UPE policy.
- And then the current user, whose first edit indicated that they work for the college, and who was notified of the relevant policy back in May.
- So, let's not be under any illusion that this college has been directly editing the article for many years, receiving repeated push back in that regard, and is well aware that such activity is contrary to policies and guidelines. Axad12 (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- That does appear consistent with what I've found, but also let's be real, given the spread of these edits, and their limited scope, even blocking this account isn't going to provide a different outcome. Because, as you noted, there have been multiple accounts, and even blocking those accounts isn't making a difference. A large reason for this, I believe, is that college is full of well intentioned, technically versed students who are going to introduce SPAM, but also, there is a huge rotation employees - most people who edit these sorts of pages on college will not be working there two years later. This is different from a company or individual. That doesn't mean that we ignore it. But my point is, once a notice has been issued, they go away, a block will not make any reasonable difference here except make someone doing AIV patrolling feel better. This doesn't mean that I'm light on abuse, but rather, that I believe that we should be more concerned with actual outcomes versus the appearance of just following the process. TiggerJay (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- You say
once a notice has been issued, they go away
, but in this case the user has continued their editing beyond a notice (which is why they ended up here). - You also say that the college
is full of well intentioned, technically versed students who are going to introduce SPAM
, but as far as can be ascertained (from the accounts' own statements) the accounts originated from employees of the college and from marketing companies employed by the college. - Under those circumstances it's entirely reasonable to assume that those working for the college are aware of the past failures to install promotional content and that they are simply returning to the article once a year or so in the vain hope that no one is looking any more.
- You also note that you don't feel a block would be worthwhile - but when an account exists solely for advertising or promotion, and continues beyond a notice, a block is a fairly standard response in accordance with policy (although in this case I don't see that anyone has actually called for a block anyway).
- Note also the relatively recent promotional edit here , done by an IP address (quite possibly the user named at the top of this thread, or else clearly someone with an identical agenda). That edit (done under a misleading edit summary) was swiftly reverted on the basis that it was promotional.
- The named user has been referred to WP:COI and to WP:PAID and any further continuation of the same agenda can only be construed as blatant breaches of policies and guidelines. That's all the more the case given how easy it is to follow the COI edit request process.
- The general long term pattern of behaviour seen in this case is actually alarmingly common on the articles for schools and colleges. Blocking is often the only way to get the attention of such editors. Axad12 (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not against a block, but I'm simply suggesting that it will simply be a case of WHACKAMOLE and that using warning templates will likely result in the same case of editing every few months from various accounts. The only real way to keep colleges protected is to use page protection, which might be a better option. TiggerJay (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't disagree, but when I've tried to get page protection in the past I've often found that (a) this level of disruptive editing wouldn't be judged sufficient to justify protection (they sometimes refer requesting editors back to COIN for this sort of thing), and (b) when protection is applied it's usually only for a time period that wouldn't be much use if the promotional edits only seem to occur once a year or so.
- Clearly this isn't an ideal state of affairs, but I can understand why volunteers at WP:RPPI wouldn't want to apply long term protection and thus prevent new good faith non-promotional editors from being able to edit a page. That sort of solution is only going to be a good idea on articles with endemic vandalism issues.
- Ideally engaging with COI editors is the way to encourage them to use the COI edit request process, but most promotional editors simply don't engage at their talk page. Axad12 (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not against a block, but I'm simply suggesting that it will simply be a case of WHACKAMOLE and that using warning templates will likely result in the same case of editing every few months from various accounts. The only real way to keep colleges protected is to use page protection, which might be a better option. TiggerJay (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- You say
- That does appear consistent with what I've found, but also let's be real, given the spread of these edits, and their limited scope, even blocking this account isn't going to provide a different outcome. Because, as you noted, there have been multiple accounts, and even blocking those accounts isn't making a difference. A large reason for this, I believe, is that college is full of well intentioned, technically versed students who are going to introduce SPAM, but also, there is a huge rotation employees - most people who edit these sorts of pages on college will not be working there two years later. This is different from a company or individual. That doesn't mean that we ignore it. But my point is, once a notice has been issued, they go away, a block will not make any reasonable difference here except make someone doing AIV patrolling feel better. This doesn't mean that I'm light on abuse, but rather, that I believe that we should be more concerned with actual outcomes versus the appearance of just following the process. TiggerJay (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- In fairness, various promotional accounts have been editing that article since at least 2019. For example, this promotional edit with edit summary
Ivan Lagundžić
- Ivan Lagundžić (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Ivan Lagundzic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
One to keep an eye on. This appears to be an autobiography. See the page history of Draft:Ivan Lagundžić. The user doesn't really communicate and most of their edits seem to be to force the article into mainspace (in spite of it being moved out of there due to WP:COI concerns) or talk space - see history at Talk:Ivan Lagundžić. As they have been abusing the function, it may be worth restricting their ability to move articles if their poor behaviour continues. Spiderone 14:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- And he has done it again. He really will stop at nothing to get himself an article on here, it would seem. Spiderone 22:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have partially blocked them from page moves. PhilKnight (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. Spiderone 22:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have partially blocked them from page moves. PhilKnight (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
This Day on Bella Disu
I am trying to cut promotional content from Bella Disu. This Day seems like a "reliable source". However, looking at the content they've published, I'm concerned that this newspaper may have a conflict of interest when it comes to her/her billionaire family.
- A Daughter in a Million: The Amazing Exploits of Belinda Disu in Busines
- Super Woman…When Bella Adenuga Stormed Kigali In A Grand Style
- France Honours Bella Disu with Prestigious National Honour
- Abumet Nigeria Appoints Belinda Ajoke Disu Chairman
- Mike Adenuga Centre: Another Promise Kept!
In fact, many of the sources used in the article seem like the kind of thing a billionaire in a country like Nigeria probably paid someone to write but I am not sure how to handle this. 🄻🄰 08:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe best to raise the issue at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (WP:RSN). Users there may be able to confirm your concerns or perhaps could point you in the direction of a list of WP:RS and non-RS sources within the Nigerian media. Hope this helps. Axad12 (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just a brief follow-up to say that there is actually a current thread at WP:RSN in relation to the reliability of Nigerian newspapers (here ) which may be of assistance to the user who opened this thread. It seems that the existence of sponsored content in Nigerian newspapers is a widespread problem. Regards, Axad12 (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Yang Youlin
- Yang Youlin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- YangZongChang0101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user has a self-declared family connection here to the page in question. Definitely is looking like a WP:NOTHERE and attempt at WP:OUTING from this user's contributions to the article's talk page. - Amigao (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- User has engaged in libelous activity on Reddit, claiming you have disrespected his relative by reverting his edits. His nationalistic behavior and lack of understanding on civil behavior might imply that he either is doing this in favor of the CCP or is simply a really dedicated patriot; while WP:PAID might not apply here WP:NOTHERE is clearly evident. Could warrant a block if he engages in similar behavior. MimirIsSmart (talk) 08:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- What is the involvement here of user:PrivateRyan44?
- PrivateRyan44 set up the article on 13th December and then 24 hours later user:YangZongChang0101 began editing the article, which he states relates to a member of his family.
- That is either a matter of the most extreme coincidence, or there is off-wiki collusion taking place.
- I also note the discussion between the 2 users here where both users sign off their posts in an identical but rather unusual way.
- Note also in the edit history for the article how on 14th December the 2 users seem to tag each other in and out over the course of several hours.
- Something looks distinctly odd here. Axad12 (talk) 09:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am not a nationalist. I am a patriot. Nationalism is a contradiction of Marx’s words in his theory.
- I am responding to my concern of Amigao, a well known member on r/sino, and chollima, who has an inherently pro american and pro israel stance, and edits a ridiculous amount of China related articles everyday.
- if you can’t see this simple connection to why I am acting the way I am, then I will no longer contribute to this discussion. YangZongChang0101 (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- i know him from discord. We are working together on the article with my irl friend Luoniya. YangZongChang0101 (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting to see that a user previously interested almost solely in the Boer War suddenly meets a relative of a 1930s member of the CCP on Discord and immediately creates an article about that subject based almost solely on Chinese language sources and then nominates it for Good Article status. The general pattern is what would be expected of someone with a degree of Wiki-editing skills being paid to assist a family member who claims to have an archive of relevant material .
- That talk page discussion is clearly fake and based on previous collusion off-wiki (given that you have already admitted previous contact).
- I still maintain that something irregular appears to have occurred here. Axad12 (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I also note on the user page for YangZongChang0101:
If you want me to research or write about anything to make a page just dm.
- Surely the only reason why such a communication would take place off-wiki is if there was something irregular taking place, e.g. WP:UPE?
- And why would someone be advertising their availability to create articles on any subject to order, but then using another account to create an article on someone they claim is their own distant relative?
- Also, the quote above was added within hours of the YangZong account being opened, clearly indicating that this is not the user's first rodeo.
- Evidently there are multiple elements to what has been going on here which look very odd indeed. If there is not some form of paid editing and/or sockpuppetry taking place here I would be most surprised Axad12 (talk) 09:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have communicated privately with the editor of note about this on Reddit. These editors are from Mainland China and don't understand how Misplaced Pages works, so their well-intentioned editing led to all this chaos. I would suggest WP:NOBITING for now, but if similar events happen again action should be taken. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- In fairness, the statement
If you want me to research or write about anything to make a page just dm
is not a comment by someone unfamiliar with the workings of Misplaced Pages. - Similarly the quite disgraceful disparagement of user:Amigao (both here and at the Yang Youlin talkpage) was clearly by someone who had encountered the user before and not someone who had only opened their first account 3 days ago.
- Also, user:PrivateRyan44 describes themselves here as a US citizen who has difficulty accessing material in Chinese. It would therefore seem reasonable to assume that PrivateRyan44 is not
from Mainland China
. - Finally, I do not consider extreme nationalistic POV-pushing to be
well-intentioned editing
. Axad12 (talk) 13:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)- The editor's mistakes are severe, but I personally believe that he deserves one last chance, on the condition that he adheres to the rules and does not harass editors like he did. If he does not change his ways I suppose a block would do. He showed genuine remorse for the nationalist POV thing but as long as he knows he cannot afford to get into trouble again, he's fine to edit. No comment on the PrivateRyan guy. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- If the user wants to express remorse for anything, the place to do that is here. Not in private on Reddit.
- The user clearly is not new. I wonder if Amigao has any thoughts on which account the user previously edited under? Presumably it will be quite easy to spot someone who casually drops their interpretation of Marxist doctrine into conversation (e.g.
Nationalism is a contradiction of Marx’s words in his theory
). Also, the detailed critique of Amigao's editing pattern and perceived agenda may have been seen before somewhere. - Of course, we await PrivateRyan44's version of all of these events... Axad12 (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Very well. You might have to look at the IP he had been using, could be a VPN or proxy. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- At a minimum, there is a declared COI coupled with a WP:TAGTEAM situation going on and potentially WP:MEAT. - Amigao (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- The editor's mistakes are severe, but I personally believe that he deserves one last chance, on the condition that he adheres to the rules and does not harass editors like he did. If he does not change his ways I suppose a block would do. He showed genuine remorse for the nationalist POV thing but as long as he knows he cannot afford to get into trouble again, he's fine to edit. No comment on the PrivateRyan guy. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- In fairness, the statement
- I have communicated privately with the editor of note about this on Reddit. These editors are from Mainland China and don't understand how Misplaced Pages works, so their well-intentioned editing led to all this chaos. I would suggest WP:NOBITING for now, but if similar events happen again action should be taken. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I also note on the user page for YangZongChang0101:
Derek Warburton and Khamadi the Amethyst
- Derek Warburton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Khamadi the Amethyst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This appears to be a COI situation; Khamadi the Amethyst has made a great number of edits to Derek Warburton with extremely promotional language. Looking at commons a sizeable majority of their uploads have been removed for lacking any permission and all pertain to Derek Warburton. All of the account's edits are to Derek Warburton or per their talkpage, attempting to create a page for something pertaining to Warburton - apart from a first edit to Eric Greitens today which is where I noticed the user; this aroused my suspicion as an IP had made sweeping, whitewashing changes to Greitens a few days back - but I digress.
The entirety of the Warburton page history appears to be SPA contributors, but this one is the most long-running one. David Gerard added a COI template, which Khamadi the Amethyst removed; this to me is particularly egregious. There was also a question left on the user's talk page around this time which was ignored and the user continued to edit. This seems pretty clearcut COI to me, and the lack of communication/removal of COI templates/continual editing of the page is concerning. — ser! 13:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- OMG if Warburton is trying to write his own Misplaced Pages page then this may be the funniest thing to happen in Philosophy Misplaced Pages in a hot minute. Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am clearly thinking of a different Derek Warburton after looking at the page. LOL Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am in fact thinking of Nigel Warburton lol and trout me. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am clearly thinking of a different Derek Warburton after looking at the page. LOL Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've blocked this obvious UPE Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Cheers Jim, much appreciated. ser! 10:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've blocked this obvious UPE Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Lyons Township High School
- Lyons Township High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Jeffcheslo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Editor states they work for the school. I notified them about their COI which they ignored, perhaps they havent found their talk page. Doug Weller talk 18:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Draft:John Fred Ogbonnaya
- Draft:John Fred Ogbonnaya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Omarisonfire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Possibly paid to edit Misplaced Pages to create an article for the individual. Editor first replaced the entirety of Diring with the article he created before starting a rejected draft. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and there is no way there is no connection between editor and subject. MimirIsSmart (talk) 07:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Draft now speedy deleted under WP:G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). Axad12 (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Victor Yannacone
- Victor Yannacone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- PeoplesBarrister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
As seen here, this user states "I am also a public figure still active as an attorney with an extensive website at https://yannalaw.com" which links to a page promoting Victor Yannacone's legal services.
Given that the article about Victor Yannacone appears to be predominantly edited by this user, a COI tag was added. However, the user recently removed the tag, despite the conflict of interest remaining applicable.
Based on the user's statement and editing patterns, it is reasonable to conclude that they are heavily involved in editing their own article, thus creating a clear conflict of interest. Synorem (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- User was informed of the COI policy back in August and has continued making extensive edits to the article - including, at present, edit warring over a highly promotional version of the article that they are trying to implement.
- The account is evidently only interested in self-promotion.
- This activity has already attracted the attentions of admins C.Fred and Significa liberdade, so if the user continues on their current path presumably they will find themselves blocked in the near future. Axad12 (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- The following thread is of relevance here: .
- It appears to be a good faith attempt at mediation, as an apparent associate of PeoplesBarrister returns to make their first edit in over 10 years arguing on PB's behalf. The post also includes some quite unacceptable allegations of bad faith activity by multiple users which some readers may find rather over the top. I'd suggest that we try to look beyond that in the hope of finding a way forward. Axad12 (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- This user turned out to be a sockpuppet, and has been blocked. Synorem (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
COI tags on "It's Coming (film)" and "The Misguided"
Hello, I'm seeking review of the close connection tags recently added to It's Coming (film) and Draft:The Misguided. These tags were applied based solely on basic journalistic contact with the filmmaker for fact-checking purposes. To be clear: I have never met Shannon Alexander or anyone from the film production company/distribution team, have no personal or professional relationship with them, and my only contact was for fact verification.
Having followed Perth's independent film scene closely for years, I noticed several internationally-recognized films lacked Misplaced Pages coverage. Rather than simply copy online sources, I took a thorough journalistic approach. My contact was limited to requesting factual verification of release dates and sourcing materials. This contact served to ensure accurate documentation of the films' development and history.
Both articles are built entirely on independent coverage from established media outlets like The Hollywood Reporter, LA Times, and Film Threat. All content follows proper journalistic standards, maintains neutrality, and adheres to Misplaced Pages guidelines. Every statement in the articles can be verified through these independent sources.
"It's Coming" just underwent thorough review this week, resulting in removal of an unwarranted paid editing tag. The addition of these new tags without discussion or specific concerns lacks justification.
A review of these tags is needed based on: 1. Contact limited to standard fact-checking practices 2. Reliance on independent, reliable sources throughout 3. Clear adherence to neutral point of view 4. Recent thorough review confirming content standards
I'm here to ensure these films are documented accurately and objectively. Thank you for taking the time to review this matter. Happy to address any specific concerns about the content or sourcing.
Stan1900 (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd suggest raising this issue at the talk pages of the articles concerned, using the COI edit process detailed here WP:COI. When you do so, please link to the connected discussion at the Help Desk, here . Axad12 (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, GPTzero indicates that there is a 100% likelihood that your post above was AI generated. Please stop using AI to generate posts (as was also previously pointed out to you in the discussion here ). Axad12 (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Axad12, I need to address several concerning points:
- 1. You suggest I raise these issues on the article talk pages, but if you actually check the links you provided you'll see I've already tried that multiple times. I've gotten zero response there which is why I'm I'm hoping to get a fair and objective assessment from editors who aren't already entrenched in this dispute.
- 2. The accusation that I'm using AI to write my posts is completely baseless. GPZero is known to be only around 80% accurate at best, so claiming "100% likelihood" is just flat-out wrong. You're mistaking my formal writing style, which comes from my professional background for AI text. Throwing around serious accusations like that with zero proof is not only wrong but also really damaging and hurtful.
- 3. The sudden addition of a promotional content tag, without any prior discussion, is just the latest in this ongoing pattern of unfounded allegations. First it was paid editing with zero evidence, then a COI tag that's still sitting there after I've repeatedly explained my lack of any affiliation and now suddenly it's 'promotional content?' The article is based entirely on reliable, independent sources. If there are particular statements that seem promotional to you, point them out specifically so we can address them. Just because the film has gotten good reviews from reputable publications doesn't automatically make the article promotional.
- I've had to defend myself dozens of times now, repeatedly explaining the same things over and over, providing evidence that gets ignored. How many more baseless accusations do I need to address? The constant tags and allegations without justification have made this whole process exhausting and frankly, pretty demoralizing. But you know what? If anything, it's made me more determined to keep improving these articles properly.
- I'm going to post at the NPOV Noticeboard about this latest promotional content tag and I'm also asking for the COI tags to be removed. I'd rather focus on actually improving content than dealing with endless unfounded accusations.
- Stan1900 (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- 1) You got zero response because you didn't use the COI editing process. How many users do you think access the talk pages of brand new articles for independent films?
- 2) You consistently use AI to generate your posts here and any suggestion to the contrary is untrue, as has been noted by several users.
- 3) Evidence of COI is not required, only room for plausible concern. There is room for huge concern in relation to your editing, as I will demonstrate shortly.
- Promotional content can obviously be based on independent reliable sources - especially when the material installed in articles goes some way beyond what the sources actually say (which appears to be your standard MO). Axad12 (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Axad12,
- 1. I've followed every proper channel available - talk pages, help desk, and now appropriate noticeboards. Suggesting I'm at fault for others not responding isn't constructive.
- 2. Your continued insistence about AI use without evidence is becoming harassment. You have no proof because there is none - these are my own words. Making repeated false accusations doesn't make them true.
- 3. You state "Evidence of COI is not required" but then claim you'll "demonstrate shortly." Which is it? Either provide specific evidence or stop making vague accusations. If you have concerns about source interpretation, point to specific examples instead of making broad claims.
- The recent removal of a properly sourced Reception section, combined with these continued unsubstantiated allegations, suggests a pattern of targeting rather than constructive editing. Stan1900 (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- 1) I didn't say you were at fault, I said it was unreasonable to expect a swift response on a low traffic page. Had you used the COI edit request process you would have got a much faster response as the posts would have gone directly into a volunteer queue rather than relying on footfall.
- 2) When GPTzero frequently says that there is a 100% likelihood that a post was AI generated, that is sufficient proof. Half of your posts produce that response, the other half produce very low likelihoods of AI input or an indication of human origin. You are therefore producing two distinctively different kinds of posts in a way that is only possible if half of them were not written by you.
- 3) I'm about to demonstrate the areas of concern, I'm currently drafting the post. Axad12 (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Axad12,
- 1. The COI process is for editors with actual conflicts of interest. I have none, as I've repeatedly explained.
- 2. Your claims about GPTZero are incorrect. The tool obviously has false positives and is far from 100% accurate, especially with formal writing. Again, making accusations of AI use with no evidence is not constructive.
- 3. You keep saying you'll "demonstrate" concerns but continue making vague accusations. Please provide specific policy-based concerns about actual content rather than continuing these unsupported allegations. Stan1900 (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- As you wish...
- Areas of concern in relation to the editing of user Stan1900:
- 1) User is a single purpose account in relation to the films of Shannon Alexander. This goes back all the way to Dec 2017 when they edited the article for Katherine Langford (an actress who featured in the Alexander film 'The Misguided' ). The user’s account was then dormant until Nov 2024 when it began creating articles for Alexander’s films.
- 2) The user states that they have been in touch with Shannon Alexander and that
requesting source materials when writing an article is standard practice and doesn't constitute a conflict of interest when there's no financial or professional relationship involved
. This is, however, wrong on both counts. - 3) The articles created (plus draft) have clearly been of a promotional nature.
- 4) User appears very interested in when articles will appear in mainspace and when they will appear on Google. This is typical of those interested in search engine optimisation, i.e. in publicity.
- E.g. this thread .
- this thread
- this thread
- this thread
- and this thread
- 5) Concerns have consistently been raised in those discussions that (a) the user is not forthcoming when asked about their association with Shannon Alexander (they have only denied being paid but avoid further clarification) and (b) the user appears to be involved primarily in promotional activity, as noted here . Also, user:Cullen328 said that the overall pattern is
highly unusual behavior consistent with a paid editing assignment
. - Similarly (Cullen again):
In that three weeks, the editor has been incredibly repetitive and persistent in pushing these three articles and dismissing the concerns expressed by several editors, not just me. They are not above making a false accusation against me. They consistently insist on special preferential treatment that is not extended to thousands of other editors who have written drafts. This is highly unusual behaviour
. - I entirely concur with the sentiments expressed by Cullen328 and would suggest that the PAID templates be replaced on the articles and draft created by this user. Axad12 (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Anyone who hasn't yet had enough of Stan1900's relentless forum shopping over this issue may be interested in the thread they started an hour ago at the Neutral Point of View Forum, here .
- Inevitably they've received the same response there that they've encountered elsewhere, this time from the redoubtable MrOllie. Axad12 (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, GPTzero indicates that there is a 100% likelihood that your post above was AI generated. Please stop using AI to generate posts (as was also previously pointed out to you in the discussion here ). Axad12 (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Here is one of several instances of Stan1900 claiming to be the license-holder of various of Alexander's film-posters. DMacks (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Very interesting. Thank you. Axad12 (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Stan1900 wrote a couple of days ago at the Help Desk that
User:Cullen328 has been the primary editor maintaining the paid editing tag on the article
That is a blatant falsehood. I have never once edited either It's Coming (film) or its talk page. I have never discouraged any uninvolved editor from removing the tag. I have simply tried to explain to Stan1900 why several editors (more now) have expressed concern about their pattern of editing. They have persisted with their axe grinding for many days. At Wikimedia Commons, they uploaded posters of films by Shannon Alexander in 2017, 2021 and 2023, with a legally binding licensing declaration that those posters were their "own work". A poster artist clearly has a paid editing relationship (or a deep and profound conflict of interest if unpaid). The only alternative explanation is that Stan1900 lied about these posters being their "own work" and therefore created a major multi-year copyright violation, which is illegal. Cullen328 (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)- Thank you Cullen. On that basis I have reinstated the 'undisclosed paid' tag to the relevant articles. The wording of that tag, of course, only states that there
may have been
an undisclosed paid situation - and there is evidently more than enough cause for concern in that regard. - Disregarding whether or not they are paid, the user is clearly a blockable promo-only account. They have wasted a great many users' time by forum shopping their transparent COI around in search of support which never arose (in, I think, 7 different threads now). Axad12 (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Axad12, Cullen328, your newest accusations require correction:
- 1. Following connected topics is normal Misplaced Pages behavior. Yes, I edited Langford's article about The Misguided, which naturally led to noticing significant gaps in coverage of Perth's independent film scene.
- 2. The poster licensing issue is a non-issue. The copyright holder assigned permission for Misplaced Pages documentation use. Copyright holders can authorize others to license their work - this is standard practice, not a violation or evidence of anything nefarious.
- 3. Regarding AI claims - you keep citing GPTZero without acknowledging its known 80% accuracy rate. My writing style comes from professional background. More importantly, even if AI tools were used for drafting (which they weren't), this violates no Misplaced Pages policies. Focus on content accuracy and sourcing, not unfounded assumptions about writing style.
- 4. Using appropriate Misplaced Pages channels isn't "forum shopping" - it's seeking proper review when talk pages receive no response. Each venue serves a different purpose: talk pages for initial discussion, help desk for guidance, NPOV for content neutrality issues.
- 5. Your pattern of escalating accusations - from paid editing to COI to AI use to promotional content - while removing properly sourced content suggests targeting rather than legitimate concerns. In fact, your apparent determination to suppress documentation of these artists' contributions raises questions. What's your motivation for trying to prevent coverage of their work despite reliable sources confirming its notability?
- 6. Claiming "everyone disagrees" while actively removing properly sourced content and making baseless accusations isn't consensus - it's coordinated targeting. The aggressive resistance to documenting these artists' widely recognized contributions to independent film is puzzling at best.
- The focus should be on article content and reliable sources, not endless unfounded assumptions about contributors. I've provided reliable sources, followed guidelines, and explained everything clearly. What I haven't seen is any specific policy-based reason why properly sourced content should be removed. Stan1900 (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Stan1900, the poster licensing matter is in no way a
non-issue
. - You made a legally binding statement that those posters were your "own work", which was a lie according to what you just wrote above.
You never provided any evidence that theAccordingly, I will be removing these copyright violations from the articles and the draft in question. Cullen328 (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)copyright holder assigned permission for Misplaced Pages documentation use
, which must be a written document from the copyright holder in legally precise language. - I appreciate that you don’t intend to back down, but the simple fact is that a number of users over a range of threads oppose your edits and that represents a strong consensus contrary to what appears to be a promotional agenda. With regard to your 6 points above I believe that it is all old ground, but for clarification:
- 1) You clearly lied about the Langford edits, as demonstrated here .
- 2) The image issue has been recently discussed here by others.
- 3) Regarding AI, you are clearly producing 2 very different types of post, one type which GPTzero identifies as very high likelihood AI generated and one type which it identifies as very high likelihood human generated. If, as you say, you have a very formal way of writing which is distorting the results, this would produce a consistent spread of results lumped into the middle of the range and not two exceptionally disparate groups. Arguing that GPTzero isn't 100% accurate doesn't invalidate that point.
- 4) Going to multiple places trying to get a decision that you didn’t get at a previous discussion is forum shopping. You're currently holding down three simultaneous discussions in three separate locations (here, here and here ) in which the same point (reinstatement of removed material) is being discussed. You have previously opened multiple threads trying to get COI templates removed.
- 5) Everything in this thread and elsewhere has been based on reasonable concerns raised by multiple users.
- 6) I think it is time for you to accept that there is a broad consensus against what you are trying unsuccessfully to achieve. Axad12 (talk) 06:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Stan1900, the poster licensing matter is in no way a
- Cullen328, from what I see on Commons, they "uploaded" the files in 2024 (their account itself was only created 30 November 2024), though they are for films that were themselves from 2017, 2022, 2023 and likewise the images are identified as having been created in or near those years. But you're definitely correct that Stan literally said "I, the copyright holder of this work" for each of them. DMacks (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you Cullen. On that basis I have reinstated the 'undisclosed paid' tag to the relevant articles. The wording of that tag, of course, only states that there
- Stan1900 wrote a couple of days ago at the Help Desk that
- Cullen328, I completely reject your accusation that I lied about the poster images. I acted in good faith as an authorized representative of the copyright holder, who gave me explicit permission to use the images on Misplaced Pages. This is the first time you've even asked about the permissions, so your claim that I "never provided evidence" is entirely false. If you have doubts about the licensing, there are established processes for verifying image permissions. Publicly demanding private communications and unilaterally removing images based on unfounded accusations is not how it works. If an admin asks for documentation, I'll happily provide it through proper channels.
- Your pattern of behavior - the personal attacks, bad faith assumptions, and removal of properly sourced content without discussion - is really concerning. It feels more like a witch hunt than a collaborative effort. I'm open to constructive feedback and working together to make these articles the best they can be. But I won't stand for baseless attacks on my character.
- Let's focus on the actual content and policies, not personal vendettas. If you truly believe there's a permission issue, take it up with the appropriate admins. But stop making unilateral accusations and removals. It's disruptive and goes against waht Misplaced Pages stands for. Stan1900 (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I do not have access to the non-public communications (and wouldn't disclose them even if I did), but someone did go through the proper process to document the license release for the files Stan uploaded to Commons, to the default satisfaction of those who handle that process on there. I'm saying this as a stand-alone detail, purely from a commons policy standpoint. DMacks (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- DMacks, you are correct that the file pages report that a licensing agreement was sent and received, and I apologize for not noticing that. But those three files still state that they are the "own work" of Stan1900, which is not the case. Cullen328 (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Cullen328 DMacks, the unilateral deletion of these properly licensed images is completely unacceptable and appears to be part of a pattern of aggressive, disruptive actions.
- 1. As DMacks confirmed, proper licensing documentation was ALREADY verified through official Commons channels. This fact was deliberately ignored.
- 2. The "own work" designation relates to the upload as an authorized representative - a standard practice on Commons that is well understood by experienced editors.
- 3. Deleting multiple images across several articles over template semantics, especially after licensing was confirmed, is extraordinarily aggressive and disruptive to Misplaced Pages.
- I will be filing for undeletion of all three images: "It's Coming", "The Misguided", and "Sex, Love, Misery: New New York" posters. The proper documentation exists and was previously verified. This kind of unilateral action without discussion or opportunity for clarification is exactly the type of disruptive behavior that damages Misplaced Pages. Stan1900 (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, "own work" means exactly what it says - that you made the poster yourself. You're not doing yourself any favors by denying something so obvious. MrOllie (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- this interpretation of "own work" on Commons is wrong because the designation refers to the upload itself being my own work as an authorized representative - a standard practice for authorized uploaders contributing licensed material with the proper permissions. As DMacks noted earlier, the proper licensing documentation was already verified through official Commons channels.
- This is yet another example of interpreting template language in the most uncharitable way possible rather than addressing actual licensing substance. The fact remains: these images were properly licensed, documentation was verified, and they were serving a legitimate encyclopedic purpose before being improperly removed. Stan1900 (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Interpreting 'own work' to mean 'own work' is not 'uncharitable', it is the plain meaning of the words. Under your 'the upload was my work' literally every file uploaded on commons would be 'own work', which is obviously not the case.
- If you didn't actually make these posters yourself, just admit you were mistaken so people can figure out what the proper source should be and get it set up properly for you. Working collaboratively with others in this case means you are going to have to own up when you make a mistake so someone can actually fix it. Digging in like this when you are so obviously wrong is just disruptive - actual disruption, not the 'someone disagrees with me' way you've been throwing around the word. MrOllie (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- The
{{Own work}}
tag on commons is documented as "Use this to say that you personally created the entire original image by yourself (for example, you drew the picture on paper, you used a camera to take the photograph, you painted the picture on canvas, etc.). Do not use this tag for any images that you saw on any website, downloaded from any source, scanned from a book, newspaper, or magazine, or copied from anything." I tried a few upload methods on commons, and all of them forced me to choose between an option that says I created something entirely myself vs something I got from somewhere else. In particular, I verified that the Wizard method, when I choose the from-somewhere-else option, does not apply the 'own' tag. DMacks (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- The images were removed as an editorial action within each enwiki article here on enwiki, not an administrative action for the files themselves on commons. DMacks (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- MrOllie DMacks, like I keep saying this continued focus on template semantics rather than substance is unproductive. As an authorized representative with explicit permission to upload these images, I used "own work" to indicate my authorized upload - a practice that many representatives use when contributing licensed material. The licensing documentation was properly submitted and verified through Commons channels, as DMacks noted earlier.
- The removal of properly licensed images from articles over template terminology, rather than addressing any actual licensing concerns, is still needlessly disruptive. Images serve a legitimate encyclopedic purpose and have verified permissions.
- If there's a preferred template format for authorized uploads, I'm willing to discuss. But using template semantics to justify wholesale content removal seems to be part of a broader pattern of finding technicalities to suppress properly sourced content about these films. Stan1900 (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- If as you say you are an "an authorized representative" then you clearly have a conflict of interest despite your repeated denials. Theroadislong (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Acting as an authorized representative doesn't constitute as COI. Being authorized to handle tasks like verifying copyright or providing accurate information does not mean that contributions are biased or promotional.
- Misplaced Pages defines COI as "an incompatibility between the aim of Misplaced Pages, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and an editor's personal or external relationships." My edits have been basically focused on adhering to standards of neutrality, verifiability, and reliability. How tiresome I must repeat this ad nauseum.
- So, in summary being authorized to facilitate copyright or provide accurate details about a subject does not violate Misplaced Pages's COI policies. Stan1900 (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Where are you getting the definition
"an incompatibility between the aim of Misplaced Pages..."
from? WP:COI hasn't said that since 15 May 2015. Schazjmd (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)- Schazjmd Thank you for catching the outdated COI definition. That was an oversight on my part and I appreciate the correction. To be clear, my point was never to rely on an obsolete technicality but emphasize substance; My limited interactions with the filmmaker for fact-checking and image licensing do not constitute a substantive COI in terms of the content I've contributed, which is all neutrally written and based on independent reliable sources. I should have double-checked the current policy wording and I apologize for any confusion. The underlying principle remains that nothing improper has occurred . The focus belongs on content and policies, not unfounded aspersions. I'm here to collaborate in good faith. I hope we can move forward productively with that shared goal in mind. Stan1900 (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- But where did you get that definition, @Stan1900? If there are pages that aren't in sync with WP:COI anymore, I'd like to reconcile them. Schazjmd (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- UPDATE: Stan1900 has now been indef blocked following a thread at ANI . Axad12 (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- But where did you get that definition, @Stan1900? If there are pages that aren't in sync with WP:COI anymore, I'd like to reconcile them. Schazjmd (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Schazjmd Thank you for catching the outdated COI definition. That was an oversight on my part and I appreciate the correction. To be clear, my point was never to rely on an obsolete technicality but emphasize substance; My limited interactions with the filmmaker for fact-checking and image licensing do not constitute a substantive COI in terms of the content I've contributed, which is all neutrally written and based on independent reliable sources. I should have double-checked the current policy wording and I apologize for any confusion. The underlying principle remains that nothing improper has occurred . The focus belongs on content and policies, not unfounded aspersions. I'm here to collaborate in good faith. I hope we can move forward productively with that shared goal in mind. Stan1900 (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Where are you getting the definition
- If as you say you are an "an authorized representative" then you clearly have a conflict of interest despite your repeated denials. Theroadislong (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, "own work" means exactly what it says - that you made the poster yourself. You're not doing yourself any favors by denying something so obvious. MrOllie (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I do not have access to the non-public communications (and wouldn't disclose them even if I did), but someone did go through the proper process to document the license release for the files Stan uploaded to Commons, to the default satisfaction of those who handle that process on there. I'm saying this as a stand-alone detail, purely from a commons policy standpoint. DMacks (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Andrew Kosove
- Andrew Kosove (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Alconite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
AntiDionysius has tried to notify the user about WP:COI and based on the users' edit summaries, it's clear they have a COI. I restored to the version with AntiDionysius's revert because the previous version was too promotional. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 01:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Mmm, and the use of "our" in one of the edit summaries is also not a great sign. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I am a direct representative and employee of Alcon who was approved to make these changes
from So, we have a paid editor who hasn't been responsive to talk page inquiries, and instead seem to be edit-warring their preferred version. Given that, could an admin consider pblocking them from the page to force them to use the talk page for edit requests? If they do, yay. If they sock or do anything else untoward, we can look at a regular promotional editing block. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
A Celebration of Horses: The American Saddlebred
- A Celebration of Horses: The American Saddlebred (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Atsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User:Atsme has previously self identified as Betty Wills. She has authored two thirds of the article content and is listed in the article as the program's executive producer.
The subject of the article also has serious notability issues. The only citation that meets significant coverage is the piece from The American Saddlebred magazine which is shown on the right and is also likely unreliable as it is clearly marked as a promotion. 2A00:23C7:118C:A901:3D75:27EF:BBDF:1814 (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- This filing borders on trolling. Just look at the talk page of that article, where Atsme has a declaration of her connection right at the top of the page, and there is a lengthy discussion about it – from 2016. If there are notability concerns, AfD is that-a-way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I concur with Tryptofish; Atsme is a solid and good editor who has made any required disclosures, and is fastidious about editing within the rules. This report is frivolous. BD2412 T 21:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I also concur. This editor has already fulfilled their obligations regarding WP:COI. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)