Here’s Proof of Wikipedia hypocrisy on Advertising

Here’s proof of Guy Chapmans “JZG” Administrator (Wikipedia hypocrisy), If you have a look at Guy’s article on “Notability” in Wikipedia and then click on the (My personal websites) which brings you to… yes you guessed it, to Guy’s very own Chapmancentral” website and If you further click on this link from the Chapman central page it brings you to his “Commercial” affiliate advertising links page where you can readily see that Guy is obviously making money from advertising products such as BBC and Lotus software etc from his website. And is it a coincidense that the BBC News is therefore allowed to edit its own pages in Wikipedia see this link or is Guy Chapman the mystery person behind these edits on behalf of BBC, makes one wonder.

It’s clear that Wikipedia can be a very lucrative money spinner for their “chosen” administrators, and it makes sense why Guy has chosen to chase the money instead and ignore the tsunami of negative public opinion against his hostile conduct on the internet while working for Wikipedia.

What this proves is that Guy Chapman aka “JZG” is using Wikipedia as an advertising platform to advance his own endeavours by advertising his own website not to mention “Linking” to it, even though he forcefully exerts that these practices are not allowed in Wikipedia. Have a look at this website which shows clearly the Guy Chapman (Wikipedia) hypocrisy when it comes to editing anything in Wikipedia.

The question is why is Guy allowed to get away with this? Is the Wikimedia Foundation rewarding Guy for his Purposely Negative and hostile modus operandi by in return allowing him to advertise other advertisers and marketing affiliates from his own website, or is he directly on the Wikipedia “payroll”, to answer the edit for payment practice in Wikipedia see this “blog”.

This brings me to the utimate question regarding “Advertising” in Wikipedia, are all the companies who are allowed to show info about their products and services in Wikipedia some how persuaded to make a “purchase” (Bribe) from the Wikimedia Foundation say in a form of a “donation” because this would explain why some companies are allowed to “advertise” in Wikipedia while others are not, and its got absolutely nothing to do with “Notability” as I have shown in the Guy Chapman “JzG” case above.

To see a good example about Advertising and company article editing contributions into Wikipedia, see the following article titled Wikipedia Tececo Ecopave and Eco-cement.

NOTE THIS DISCLAIMER: The Possibly related posts: (automatically generated) text if appearing below is automatically generated by the WordPress bot and has nothing to do with the Author (Susanfg) of this Article.

Wikipedia Tececo Ecopave and Eco-cement

sussanfg11.jpg I found this article in the Wikipedia deleted articles archives and being an investigative journalist in a major newspaper, I thought that its only fair to show the other side of this story to the article titled Ecopave nonsense, It appears that my following article is not being given a fair right to air by Wikipedia or respond to allegations raised by a Wikipedia multiple administrator and users Mr Guy Chapman. The reason I have focused on this particular case is because it clearly demonstrates the dangers one can experience when attempting to edit or contribute with articles in Wikipedia by way of “open editing”.

My understanding after what I have been told by Ecopave and who have clearly become the victims of the Wikipedia open editing format , is that they wanted to contribute into Wikipedia “in good faith” by adding articles about their company and products in the same way as many other companies have done in the past like for example (Eco-cement) . These Ecopave users also added “positive” information articles about other eco-conscious companies like Cereplast in an effort to demonstrate that there are viable non-petroleum plastic alternatives already available on the market that will help make the transition to renewables less painful for our society. These users also made reference to article bias and raised issues about the Wikipedia administrators and their behavior and conduct, specific examples were also raised in the right context in the course of these discussions and examples were also made to illustrate a point. The gray area between advertising and knowledge based information was also debated.

There was apparently some initial confusion concerning the Wikipedia guidelines and rules regarding editing and new article contributions and user access which may have led to some administrators deliberately jumping to the sock puppet (spam) accusations bandwagon. What I understand is that because large amount of the readable information about these guideline subject matters is spread over a vast area and is not easy to find in Wikipedia to date, has caused these users to continue to edit and add information about Ecopave and its products and other useful articles without realizing that their actions may have been mis-interpreted. This matter may have been made worse by the fact that there were (3 admins) and specifically one Mr Guy Chapman’s alias “JZG” himself looking into this at the same time. One Wikipedia admin presumably one of Guy’s other alter ego user aliases actually requested Ecopave to give (send) copyright (Wikipedia:Copyrights) authorizations for all the article insertions after which he placed a permanent block against the Ecopave users. The interesting thing about this maneuver was that all the Ecopave article contributions were now high-jacked and linked (spread) to other websites without any author Ecopave acknowledgements.

(Prior) to this incident, Ecopave made the conclusion that the articles which they created were in fact ok and they were going to be accepted without any problems. Instead of these 3 Administrators including Guy Chapman “JzG” giving a helping hand and giving guidance, they resorted to attacks and hostile smear campaigns against Ecopave and its “only” 2 users.

Is Wikipedia an Attack Site?, see these malicious article addition edits made by Guy under Wikipedia supervision against Ecopave that are designed obviously to inflict damage by accusing Ecopave of “Spamming”.

Exhibit (i) Wikipedia addition of the domain address by user Hu12 (most probably by Guy) at the foot of this page and the blocking reference made by Guy where he accusses Ecopave having involved in some so called spamming activity “You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by spamming”. This spamming smear by Guy against Ecopave is deliberately deceiving and false without any foundation. This smear campaign against Ecopave is obviously the result of Ecopave wanting to withdraw its copyright permission to Wikipedia’s due to Wikipedia having “abused” the right.

The above accusations by Guy Chapman that the company was deliberately running a spamming campaign in Wikipedia is totally incorrect and false and therefore misleading (malicious) to say the least, also to turn insult to injury, some Wikipedia administrators and or users presumably Guy’s altrer ego aliases, were sending Ecopave malicious email worms and viruses to try to further prevent Ecopave from giving a proper response in defense. The real irony here is that Guy Chapman who is a Wikipedia administrator, appears to be running he’s own spamming and PR campaign in Wikipedia by using 3 separate IP addresses which are clearly designed to assist in bringing consensus into arguments against users who’s article (ideology) is not in par with his. See this transcript of the discussion that took place with Guy on my talk page on 17-10-06 which was later discretely deleted by Guy, this also raises an interesting question, how many other Wikipedia Administrators are using multiple IP addresses so as to help achieve consensus in a debate? Fact Finder 05:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

For what I can gather after reading the Wikipedia guidelines, is that an administrator Mr Guy Chapman alias “JzG” may also be taking part in Flaming (internet) against Ecopave. Guy’s professional background would suggest that he has vested interest and a motive in trying to sabotaging Ecopave and its reputation. It also appears that this article is in response to the evidence that was initially presented by a Wikipedia user (Fact Finder) who was later permanently blocked and their user talk pages deleted by Mr Chapman. I have read the Ecopave response by user Fact Finder and you were also able to read about it here before it was permanently deleted by Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk:Administrators’ noticeboard [30] Susanfg . 00:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC).

(User: Fact Finder said) “People can further make up their own minds about the dangers of the Wikipedia free edit article policy controlled by inexperienced administrators and or administrators with vested interests, by further reading the following frustrating experience the Tec-eco and Eco-cement inventor and CEO John Harrison went through getting his environmentally friendly cement accepted into Wikipedia and protecting the facts from being turned into fiction in the following Eco-cement discussion page, I would like to suggest that the user Argyriou who recommended the Eco-cement article for deletion, is non other than another User: Alias of Mr Guy Chapman “JZG” himself (Wikipedia administrator).

Here is also the link to the eco-cement article discussion page in Wikipedia” , which has since been deleted by Mr Guy Chapman “JzG”, but you can read the whole copy of the Wikipedia eco-cement disussion and article deletion page here, (wikipedia-article-discussion-eco-cement.doc)

See also this link to the user page of “tmorton166” the Wikipedia founding member who agreed to eventually agree to “reinstate” the Eco-cement article at the end of the article deletion discussion.

See also this link on the 828 current Wikipedia Administrators (Power Users),

See also this link to Argyriou’s Wikipedia user page and note that there’s no personal info and that the whole page is only hearsay.

(User: Fact Finder said) “Why am I responding to these accusations? because this could also happen to any one wanting to contribute into Wikipedia, I have raised some serious issues that if left un-addressed, could potentially cause serious harm to someone’s professional or academic reputation as a result”.

(User: Fact Finder said), “It is totally unfair to accuse users without proof or proper cause, show me one thing that I have done something that is spam? Right, there is none because I am not a spammer, get your facts straight mister before you accuse people. I’m a new user so there is a LEARNING CURVE here also and people make mistakes too, I believe that you are showing total disregard towards this aspect here NETSNIPE, your user name is already indicative of your intentions here, you appear to be hell bent on a SNIPE!!. For you to be a proper representative of Wikipedia policies you should show a little understanding towards new users instead of jumping to automatic negative conclusions. I’m seriously considering not contributing to Wikipedia if this is the treatment that people get in here maby this was a mistake or maby that’s what you really want which would beg the question “what is your vested interest maby Eco-cement??”. I seriously hope that common sense and a bit of understanding and good will, will prevail here if given half the chance. I am more than happy to give this a go with assurances that I am not a spammer or a user with any malicious intent, are you?. In the name of peace and harmony I am willing to go as far as to say that, Netsipe you pick what name you would be happy for me to use in Wikipedia just so that we can get along here OK!. And the last but not least matter regarding IP addresses! In this day and age of spam and viruses one would be totally insane to use a fixed IP address and be vulnerable for attacks, many companies refresh and reload their servers every day to erase spam and other rubbish that is accumulated during the day therefore the IP address has no real meaning to measure or validate users intentions and is not a REAL indication of a persons intent as a (sockpuppet) which refers that an individual is malicious. The ONLY method that has any merit is to LOOK AT THEIR WORK and ACTIONS ONLY!” (User: Fact Finder) 06:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)| “

(Guy’s “Guy Chapman” reply) ‘”This is not about the username and it’s not about other users, it’s about you and your behavior. If you want to edit Wikipedia you need to go back to one of your other accounts, request unblocking, and indicate acceptance of policy and undertake not to spam again. Mind you, I’m obviously insane as I use not one but three fixed IP addresses”. Guy 18:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)”.

(User: Fact Finder said) “No one contributing into Wikipedia should have to endure this kind of treatment especially from admins that lack expert knowledge, common courtesy and good-will”, (User: Fact Finder) User: 05:10, 26 November 2006 UTC.

(User: Fact Finder said) “I must admit and say that I am a little reluctant to commence to contribute with articles into Wikipedia when this kind of rampant Admin generated abuse is going on. The spare time that I have available that I could use constructively by creating articles, makes me believe that it would all be in vain because they would un-doubdetly be attacked and shredded by these administrators which in effect could make me look very silly indeed, especially in my fields of expertise”.

(User: Fact Finder said) “I would like to make a very important” observation which I have made while being in here, and that is the Wikipedia open editing format and admin abuse towards users. The fact that (some or most?) current administrators are able to willy nilly enforce article edits without in-depth specialized knowledge, ( see the above Eco-cement article story ) has the potential to not only harm other administrators, but also peoples (article contributors) professional reputations in their fields of expertise and effectively turning cutting edge scientists into apparent morons overnight”.

(User: Fact Finder said) “I have also been forced to recreate a new user (Fact Finder) profile and page because I was once again attacked and blocked from Wikipedia buy Guy Chapman who deleted all my talk page content and evidence that pointed to his antics, this administrator appears to be way out of control”, (shakes head), (User:Fact Finder2 Fact Finder2) 05:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC).

(User: Fact Finder said) “Anyone interested in having a look at what’s going on here may want to also check this link to my previous (Fact Finder) user talk page which concerns accusations by Guy Chapman that I am supposedly a spammer which is a false accusation. Just because I have been evaluating whether I should start contributing in Wikipedia or not, does not make me a spammer. All I have done is to try “replace” factual information which I have written that was deleted and hence turned into fiction without any discussion, in an effort by this and “other” admins to give a totally distorted view of events concerning Ecopave”.

(User: Fact Finder said) “Last but not least, there appears also to be this obvious overwhelming importance and priority on the Wikipedia page link and Google rankings which is constantly expedited by some administrators who make it seem like this is the only important thing that matters at all in Wikipedia. We all know that these admins like Guy Chapman are benefiting from driving this link farm mentality and it only serves their own interests at the expense of the Wikipedia Encyclopedia. “Recommendation”, “”Any Wikipedia administrator who copies article contents to other Wikipedia pages for no other reason than to make someone look bad, or deletes text by turning facts into fiction and therefore out of (context) to try to achieve the same thing, or link to pages or content that would make the user look bad, should be automatically stripped of their Wikipedia administrator status””, “”because by doing these things the admin would be in breach of “(Good faith)” conduct and quite clearly only interested in exercising”” “(Bad-faith)”. Also if The administrators emphasis is more in creating web and page links above article content or user help and guidance, the same removal of admin privileges should be made to apply”, (User:Fact Finder2 Fact Finder2) 10:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Fact Finder2 08:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC).

(User: Fact Finder said) “The fact that Guy Chapman (JZG) is allowed to continue administering Wikipedia under several different accounts, indicates that he may be sanctioned by Wikimedia?, this administrator and user should be banned from contributing in Wikipedia and the internet for life”

NOTE THIS DISCLAIMER: The Possibly related posts: (automatically generated) text if appearing below is automatically generated by the WordPress bot and has nothing to do with the Author (Susanfg) of this Article.