Delicious Vinyl - Inactive. 22:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
I'm not sure that this should go here or on the general board. I received an email to my Wikipedia account stating
Delicious Vinyl is behind such classics as Tone Lōc's Wild Thing and Young MC's Bust A Move, if anyone else is a fan of late 80s hiphop. Any thoughts? - BanyanTree 16:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Lyndon LaRouche - Inactive issue here. 00:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
Dennis King, who edits Wikipedia as Dking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has made over 50 edits to this article in the past three days. He was the author of a hostile biography of LaRouche back in the 1980s, and his edits are very problematic from the standpoint of WP:COI#Citing_oneself. --Tsunami Butler 09:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I think a more appropriate place for this would be the arbcom enforcement board, as this could be in violation of the two arbcom rulings. Please file your request there, complete with diffs and links to the two arbcom decisions. MER-C 12:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Kathryn Cramer - Resolved. Inactive on COI/N. 09:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
No, it is not within my power to delete articles from Wikipedia. But it is within my power to encourage others to request that their articles be deleted once moved elsewhere. None of you are taking my general point at all. In my professional judgement, you collectively are being overzealous about how you enforce rules involving your connection with who you write about in a way that is not appropriately applied to the science fiction field. ISFDB outsourced this to Wikipedia. That's how you got the bare bones of the science fiction author bios here already. I write a lot of author bios and I publish a lot of articles about science fiction. None of you who have been worrying about what I've been up to seem to have much familiarity with the subject area or the issues involved in objectivity in a situation where we do all know each other. Perhaps you should consult with those primarily engaged with organizing and creating the science fiction related bios.Pleasantville 00:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Transcendental Meditation - Inactive on COI/N. 00:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
Transcendental Meditation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Psychiatric service dog - Inactive on this noticeboard. 23:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
PSDS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems determined to make their version of the Psychiatric service dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article rule supreme, regardless of quality, and does not seem to even want to think about trying to cooperate with myself or other editors. This morning/yesterday a large edit-war was fought over what goes in the list of tasks "psych" dogs may be trained to do, which already had a history of debate. I tried to fix the problem by rewriting the list in general paragraph form, but they just re-pasted their content back in. I am concerned, because the editor signs their Talk posts as the "founder" of such and such, and seems to take everything as a personal attack against their work. They have been going on about representing federal law and other things "accurately," but I feel there is no difference in accuracy between the various revisions. I am hoping my attempts at contacting them and adding references into the article will help, but if not, I simply don't know what to do next. -- Sarrandúin [ Talk + Contribs ] 02:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lattice Semiconductor - Resolved. 23:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Ditch Witch - Resolved. Inactive. 23:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Stephanie Adams - COI issues no longer involve the noticeboard. 10:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
Sean D Martin (talk) (contribs) has repeatedly vandalized Stephanie Adams using Sneaky vandalism (bad edits, reverting legitimate edits, etc.) and Modifying users' comments (Editing other users' comments to substantially change their meaning). This user also has a bizarre vendetta offline against Stephanie Adams, as seen when you google his name with hers. Being that she is suing his friend, he obviously has personal intentions in vandalizing the article and should no longer be allowed to edit it. -Sacha 69.203.12.73 I would also have to agree that User:Sean D Martin poses a conflict of interest by being a Lawsuit Antagonist and has repeatedly vandalized the Stephanie Adams page, using Sneaky Vandalism and Modifying User Comments. This user is directly involved in a court case started by Adams, making it very hard to demonstrate that his edits are objective. I suggesst his name and IP address be banned from editing the article. ~Lynx~
To reply before heading off to dispute resolution, I have not been vandalizing anything. Every edit I have made has been specific, minor and accompanied by a clear reason for the change. Every edit I have made has been signed; I have not been "sneaky" about anything. When edits were repeatedly reverted back to something less accurate and more self-serving for Ms Adams I asked what is appropriate. [[8]] Not sure what "Lynx" means by calling me a "Lawsuit Antagonist". I am not a party to any lawsuit with Ms Adams and, certainly have no involvement whatsoever with her suit against the NYC police. It would be clear to anyone who objectively looks at the few edits I have made that they are indeed objective and more accurately report the information in the sources cited in the article. None of them have insulted Ms Adams or damaged her reputation in any way. Yet I have been personally attacked. A final comment: A tracert of many of the anonymous IP addresses used to edit the page in question shows many originate from a particular IP block in Manhattan, and Wikipedia contribs history show most have edited only the Stephanie Adams page. Might some resident of Manhattan be using multiple IPs to anonymously do edits and make insults be the actual practitioner of "Sneaky Vandalism"? Sean Martin 00:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Sean D Martin (talk) (contribs) is in fact involved in a lawsuit Stephanie Adams filed against his friend who posts derogatory, defamatory blogs about her, filled with lies and false, libelous comments. I too googled his name along with hers and found the actual proof. Therefore, he should be banned from editing the article or blocked from editing entirely. First he questioned valid information that was clearly valid, then he removed valuable information and lied by stating that it was not a fact when it actually was according to hundreds of article all over the news media (with at least three of them referenced). Even in his reply here, his comment that previous edits were more "self-serving" for Ms Adams" suggests she is editing this, which is false. This article is a project and product of Wikipedia by which several people edit. Due to his personal vendetta against Adams (and his name listed as a witness to the defendant in the case she filed against an amateur blogger) his false accusation is personal and begrudgingly biased. This has to stop, which is why several are suggesting he no longer edits this article. At best, it's conflict of interest and at worst, it's vandalism. - bbl 162.83.205.36 02:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I have an ongoing "issue" with Stephanie (which is why I choose to refrain to edit her page and have only once piped in on her Talk page). Sean D Martin is MY friend; he is NOT a friend of the defendant in the lawsuit in which Stephanie is the plaintiff -- which might have lead to some of the confusion as to his COI status. Factually, there is absolutely no lawsuit between Stephanie and I, despite her having repeatedly threatened one due to her objection of the contents of my own blog. Despite my therefore understandable interest in her lawsuit with fellow blogger James Poling, I have not seen Sean's name "listed as a witness to the defendant in the case she filed against an amateur blogger". I would think that only someone a bit too close to the matter would have that information. I also find it compelling that the IP address of the anonymous "bbl" above is from a Verizon access pool in NYC Manhattan, a coincidence seen far too often in the edits and discussion for these pages, a point also raised by others and easily proven and quantified... I believe the real issue is whether or not Stephanie should be editing her own page. If there were a page about me here, I would not edit it (except to revert vandalism or for minor edits, and signed with my real name) because it is both against the rules and against the whole point of responsible objectivity. I like the suggestion that I'd seen discussed somewhere that anonymous editors be banned from editing this page, and additionally that all future edits be examined for continued use of sock puppets. Without intending to offend anyone, might I be bold enough to suggest that a list should be created of people that perhaps should not edit the main Stephanie Adams page (access limited to the Talk page only), regardless of intentions. I would certainly include myself on that list, as well as James Poling (if he were ever to become a Wikipedia contributor), Sean D Martin, Stephanie, attorneys Neal Johnston and Martin Siegel (if they show up), Goddessy or any Goddessy representative, sock puppet SEKHMET7, sock puppet Cle0patr4, sock puppet Ladysekhmet, and any more sock puppets that may surface. I don't think many people are fooled by the "several" editors. As biased as I may be, I think this is the most level-headed approach to the on-going problem. Don't let any of us edit it. Richard D. LeCour 21:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Juice Plus - Status elsewhere unknown. Inactive on COI/N. 10:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
A review of this user’s contribution history reveals an alarming pattern of vandalism, spamming, self-promotion, and hectoring of other Wiki editors. The user has repeatedly been warned for such behavior and all attempts to engage her in meaningful dialog have failed. Her comments on the Juice Plus discussion page have been consistently incendiary and hostile, and repressive of criticism of the product she sells. She has contributed virtually no worthwhile content to the topic page itself and has made it brutally difficult for those who are engaged in legitimate work on the page. The latest act of vandalism by this user involved blanking the entire critical commentary section of the Juice Plus page, which had been in place for several months without comment. This action is a clear violation of the conflict of interest policy, and on that basis, this user should probably refrain from editing the Juice Plus page and contributing on the discussion page. A block may be necessary and seems called for at this point. Shell Kinney, a Wiki admin, had participated in editing the Juice Plus page and has been alerted to the activities of the user in question. Can someone here please help with this situation? Rhode Island Red 06:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
User:Rhode Island Red was the submitter of this COI complaint. In the above discussion, he or she suggested that User:JuliaHavey's edits might be vandalism. I've been trying to figure out if this might qualify for intervention by WP's ordinary anti-vandalism policies. So I was paying attention when User:MER-C, in a previous comment on this noticeboard, described a case where removal of criticism by a company-based editor should be recorded as vandalism. I'm paraphrasing what I think was his rule:
Under those conditions MER-C argued that you should revert the change and leave the ((test1a)) vandalism warning on the editor's Talk page. With regard to the Juice Plus page, I see that the company spokesperson is willing to engage in very extended discussions and parry facts with facts. The spokesperson is arguing that Rhode Island Red is violating WP:OWN. I haven't looked into this carefully, but I urge anyone who has a bit of spare time to consider joining in the conversation at Talk:Juice Plus page. Even one or two experienced editors could make a big difference. I have to say that I did not notice any 'vandalism in the sense of MER-C' in a brief glance, but more thorough study would be instructive. EdJohnston 18:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I was told that Rhode Island Red has no authority to place his threatening stop signs on my talk page. I should have some right to remove them if he has no right to place them there. GROW UP Red. You are seriously becoming a stalker and I am going look into my rights. You are obsessed with me and with Juice Plus. Get a lifeJulia 15:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
the so called "properly sourced critical commentary" was agreed upon that it should be removed by every other active editor commenting on the page. Again, Red's insistance that it isn't fair only happens when it isn't what HE wants. In subjects on this page, I read editors using the "F" word, that is harsh, I am not doing that. Red has it wrong. I want truthful, NON=bias slanted information on EVERY page on Wikipedia. I don't mind if there is something actually thruthful that happens to be negative about Juice Plus or any other article and that is told, but to take technicial sentences out of contect and use them to further a negative agenda? Yes, I will fight for that, one Juice Plus, on Pro-Choice, on my politicians, on my other interestes. He makes it sound like I am some big honcho there. I am a low level distributor, I just happen to passionately believe in the product and it doesn't sit well with me that ONE rooster on a single subject mission has the power to attempt stant public opinion by spinning every i and t to his agenda. I don't think that is what Wiki stands for, or at least not what he foundation set it up to stand for.Julia 05:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, my favorite barnyard friend, you are twisting the words to suit your purpose, having a passion and belief in something does not proclude the use of factual information when editing, commenting or discussing any subject.Julia 15:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC) This editor is clearly STALKING me! He is calls me out for "attacking him" and he is trying to have a ligitmate article on me/my career deleted because he disagrees with my edits? to quote Red: Julia 20:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Discovery Channel - Inactive. 23:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Cobra Group (Marketing) - Inactive. 01:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Electronic voice phenomenon - Inactive. 01:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
Electronic voice phenomenon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Ultima Thule Ambient Music - Inactive. 01:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
Self-advertisement, hidden agenda. He's an active contributor of that article, Atlantium. Blatant WP:COI
Since he has created 2MBS and Ultima Thule Ambient Music articles, he's in blatant violation of WP:COI. Possible hidden agenda and possible non neutrality in some music related articles.
Self-promotion, hidden sale advertisement.--Dr. Who 23:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
According to this diff, Doktor Who has again edited his own previous comments without providing the evidence requested above, i.e. "Please provide diffs for the … claim." — Athænara ✉ 07:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[29] [30] [31] [32] [33] --Doktor Who 11:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Attacking my person and not my editions is not something that I would expect from someone with higher education. [34] [35] --Dr. Who 21:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Enciclopedic tone. What part of this very simple concept do you not understand?Dr. Who 22:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Daniel Pipes, Middle East Forum and Middle East Quarterly - Not a COI/N issue. 01:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
Daniel Pipes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [watchlist?]
Multiple kinds of conflicts of interest: I find that in the articles I mention, the other editors appear to be promoting pro-Israel points of view consistently and deleting information about various points of view, creating the appearance of POV and thus not adhering to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV. In my attempts to restore neutrality to these controversial articles, I have been trying to present full citations of sources; those attempts have been continually reverted. The conflict of interest involves both the partisan editing and the attacks on me creating a double conflict of interest. This is an appropriate noticeboard in my continuing view to register this objection (as a notice). Please investigate the lack of impartiality in the 3RR reports, the blocks, and the other kinds of administrative actions that Slim Virgin and these other users are engaged in. They appear to me to evidence multiple conflicts of interest that are damaging the neutrality and hence the credibility of these articles that they work on. --NYScholar 02:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Ultimate Spider-Man - Content dispute, not COI. 10:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
Ultimate Spider-Man[edit]User:Wrestlinglover420 has been repeatedly removing verified information from the article Ultimate Spider-Man, claiming it to be vandalism when it is added again, despite having shown a tendency to add unverified information in other articles. For both these reasons, the article Ultimate Spider-Man (story arcs) was blocked. He refuses to see reason. Please stop him. SaliereTheFish 23:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
List of articles related to scientific skepticism – Enough. – 11:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
[edit]An AfD discussion for this list, then named List of articles related to quackery and in article space, was closed as "move to project space". This closure was overturned at deletion review, but consensus was insufficient for outright deletion. In addition the text of the article changed considerably and renaming as a precondition for keeping was endorsed by a number of editors. So this is hopefully the final debate over whether the edited and renamed page meets the requirement to remain in project space. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion other that I strongly prefer not to see this back at DRV. ~ trialsanderrors 01:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Additionally in the AFD an adiminstator stated: The result was Speedy delete as POV and largely reposted conent. WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC). This statement completely contradicts the statement made by trialsanderrors. I have transfered this information written above by trialsanderrors who has cleared stated, I quote: In addition the text of the article changed considerably and renaming as a precondition for keeping was endorsed by a number of editors. However, this administor who nominated this list for deletion endored deletion here because he believes the article was largely the same. How could he believe the article is the same when he stated: In addition the text of the article changed considerably and renaming as a precondition for keeping was endorsed by a number of editors. < This is a direct quote from the nominator for deletion. This nominator for deletion endorsed a deletion review which is a clear case of a huge conflict of interest. Someone who nominated a list for deletion then saw the new and different list in the deletion review and endorsed deletion. A nominator for deletion should not be allowed to then endorse deletion of a list that he previously nominated for deletion or otherwise it becomes a COI. Here is what the old version was before when it was in mainspace. Click at top hand left where it states project page and see the current version. They do not even look like the same list. They are both completely different. I request, based on COI that the new and different List of skepticisms and scientific skepticism concepts be put back in article space because of the COI by an administrator and multiple contradictions and misrepresentation made by multiple editiors at the deletion review. I recently changed the title from the List of articles related to scientific skepticism to the List of skepticisms and scientific skepticism concepts. Consensus cannot be reached from contradictions, misrepresentations, and COI. Editors stated in the deletion review is was largeley the same. This was inaccurate and a misrepresentation of the list. According to trialsanderrors it was I quote: In addition the text of the article changed considerably and renaming as a precondition for keeping was endorsed by a number of editors. This is the administrator who endorsed deletion and nominated the list for deletion previously. Therefore, a thorough investigation is requested. The only remedy and solution to this COI is for the new and different list to be put back in mainspace. I have provided evidence which proves COI and that multiple errors have occurred because of administrators listening to editors instead of investigating the facts and drawing their own conclusions. Sincerely, --QuackGuru 01:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The user User:Trialsanderrors endorsed deletion at the deletion review based on comments the text was largely the same but according to User:Trialsanderrors I quote: In addition the text of the article changed considerably and renaming as a precondition for keeping was endorsed by a number of editors.' He/she has made conflicting decisions. Where is the best place to report this incident. User:Trialsanderrors endorsed deletion based on comments that were not factual according to User:Trialsanderrors. User:Trialsanderrors previously stated the text changed considerably then endorsed deletion based on comments it was the same list. --QuackGuru 03:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't believe how long this thread is. QuackGuru, please refer to conversation with Trialsanderrors, now archive at User talk:Trialsanderrors/Brchive. Please help me understand by explaining in detail, according to what specific policy it was a procedural nomination at the MFD. Irrelevant. Specific policies are unnecessary per Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and Wikipedia:Consensus. Trialsanderrors nominated the list for deletion at the MFD and later endorsed deletion at a deletion review without an opinion. Demonstratably false. Trialsanderrors closed the drv, not necessarily endosring it but acknowledging rough consensus, and then opened the mfd. Since the list did not meet the criteria for speedy delete which was the reason for deletion is should have been overturned. The list was never speedily deleted, nor were there any arguments to speedily delete on the afd. I suggest that we now close this topic, as it is not a conflict of interest, and that QuackGuru take this to the appropriate venue, whether it be User talk:Trialsanderrors, Wikipedia:Deletion review, or Wikipedia:Requests for comment. --Iamunknown 21:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
This noticeboard:
Please refer to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. (Simplification of primary points repeatedly made above for QuackGuru.) — Athænara ✉ 22:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The COI noticeboard is not the place to whinge about unfavourable resolutions of deletion debates. It has never been and always will not be. Let's just forget about it and move on. MER-C 11:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Nigel McGuinness - Not a WP:COI/N issue. 02:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
Nigel McGuinness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The conflict of interest and debate occurred back in September of 2006 and was never completely resolved and thus I believe a re-look at the case should occur. Prior to the debate the real name of the professional wrestler in question was listed, sourced to the USPTO of the registered ring name. A new user, TrishBunkey (talk · contribs), appeared and removed the information citing privacy which lead to a debate about censorship, how the USPTO a public source is a private source and whether precedents suck as Buckethead and Criss Angel applied. It was discovered that TrishBuckney was the webmistress of the official website of Nigel McGuinness and sent a note to the wikifoundation to have the information removed. The information was removed due to this by admin FCYTravis (talk · contribs) (06:05, 23 September 2006 FCYTravis (Talk | contribs) (rm realname per OTRS ticket #2006092210008209)), who subsequently unlocked the fully protected article even though the dispute was still going on. Some other admins, namely Alphachimp (talk · contribs), disagreed with this conclusion and other users also disagreed leading to many versions of the article being deleted from the history to remove any reference to the real name. The dispute eventually died down as FCYTravis was adament and no area came to a conclusion. For the previous arguments on this case see;
I would like a clear look at the dispute as the legal issue of ones publicly available name being banned from their own article in question seems bizarre, the conflict of interest involved with the people in the dispute, the lack of policy on a case such as this, censorship and how the result of the discussion was clearly against precedent set by other articles. // –– Lid(Talk) 10:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
iPhone - Inactive. 08:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |