Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page.
     You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Additional notes:
    • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
    2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
    3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
    • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:260 Collins
    Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
    Talk:Pamela Anderson
    Talk:Atlantic Union Bank
    Talk:AvePoint
    Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist)
    Talk:BEE Japan
    Talk:Edi Birsan
    Talk:Edouard Bugnion
    Talk:Bunq
    Talk:Captions (app)
    Talk:Charles Martin Castleman
    Talk:Casualty Actuarial Society
    Talk:Cofra Holding
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Chris Daniels (musician)
    Talk:Dell Technologies
    Talk:Michael Dell
    Talk:Adela Demetja
    Talk:Etraveli Group
    Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel)
    Talk:Steven Grinspoon
    Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire
    Talk:Group-IB
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Insight Meditation Society
    Talk:International Motors
    Talk:Daymond John
    Talk:Norma Kamali
    Talk:David Lalloo
    Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss
    Talk:List of PEN literary awards
    Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health
    Talk:Alexa Meade
    Talk:Metro AG
    Talk:Alberto Musalem
    Talk:NAPA Auto Parts
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Matthew Parish
    Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician)
    Talk:QuinStreet
    Talk:Sharp HealthCare
    Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko
    Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa
    Talk:Trendyol
    Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation


    This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.

    Rules | Match log | Results page (for watching) | Last updated: 2025-01-02 20:26 (UTC)

    Note: The list display can now be customized by each user. See List display personalization for details.


    Lennie Lee (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Lennie Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a South African artist, is openly autobiographical. I have run into it accidentally while doing disambiguation and do not have the time right now to check it for notability and verifiability. Sam Blacketer 12:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Its history looks fine until recent anon edits by 80.41.10.175 converting it all to first-person. I've reverted it to the previous version. Tearlach 14:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Searches for the "Rich and Famous Gallery" + London + "Lennie Lee" (the article claims he founded it) yielded only wikipedia and wikipedia echoes. — Athænara ✉ 08:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I {{prod}}ed this article on March 30. One of the so far nearly twenty COI SPAs (see Talk:Lennie Lee#COI SPA edits) removed the prod tag on April 5. — Athænara ✉ 00:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It could go back. Having improved the article is a legitimate reason, but that editor simply removed the tag and word "auspicious" from the intro [1]. Tearlach 08:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, done. — Æ. ✉ 20:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been somewhat improved, so I removed the prod, but it's still marginal and I'm thoroughly sick of it—a performance artist notable only in the most fringe of fringe art circles in a few non-English-speaking countries. I've taken it off my watchlist, leaving it to other NPOV editors who are willing to look after it. — Athænara ✉ 11:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Poweroid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    See also:

    Poweroid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I asked this editor to disclose any coi's he might have with some of the external links he's used [2], but now that I see he's been doing this since October, 2004 [3], I feel I'm in over my head.

    Possible coi because:

    • poweroid.com redirects to www.bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk/poweroid/
    • poweroid.co.uk redirects to www.bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk/
    • bestpricecomputers.co.uk is the same company
    • experienced-people.co.uk appears to be run by the same admin

    I've removed links from the following articles, all added by Poweroid:

    External links to bestpricecomputers:

    External links to experienced-people:

    I'm guessing there are many more considering how long he's been editing. --Ronz 05:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You're wrong, surprisingly. See Special:Linksearch/*.bestpricecomputers.co.uk, Special:Linksearch/*.experienced-people.co.uk, Special:Linksearch/*.poweroid.com and Special:Linksearch/*.poweroid.co.uk. MER-C 09:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Those searches don't appear to work. I just found another bestpricecomputers link in Intranet. --Ronz 17:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    → Linksearch syntax corrected by A. B. at 01:04, April 12, 2007 (UTC).
    Whoa! Whoa! I'm in the middle of something but give me a few seconds and I'll comment in full. Poweroid 13:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, first, on the user name: It's not a random word, it's a word that's clearly associated with Best Price Computers Ltd, at bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk. In fact, there are thousands of pages in a Google search for that word ALL of which would lead you back to that company site. Poweroid is the only brand that company sells. And nobody can mistake that I'm associated with that company/do work for it. I intentionally use that user name here and I openly log in with that Poweroid name to edit. Have been doing it for years. I don't believe I've ever added a link to bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk.
    I have edited, proofed or otherwise worked on over 50 sites in the last few years some of which are/were owned by that company or by other companies. Those sites include pcnineoneone.com (which has plenty of links from Wikipeddia, many from before I ever joined), graphic.org etc., etc. (I'll try and compile a full list if anyone's interested). I've often taken content from a site I'm familiar with and added it to a Wikipedia article with due acknowledgement to the source - whether I ever worked on that source site or not.
    I believe I made a useful contribution yesterday to Web site, with a note in the Talk page prior to attempting further improvements. I notice that Ronz has removed a reference link to the experienced-people site on the article. Whatever s/he believes about the authority of the experienced-people site Yahoo claims that there are almost 3,000 other places that link to it, so obviously there are some, like abcnews.com who link to a particular article there, who think it's worth linking to. I notice also that the content from that source site is still on Web site though the reference was removed. Just as with VoIP. VoIP happens to use an image and content from one of the source sites. I notice that the image is still in use here though the link to the site was removed.
    I've edited probably thousands of articles in Wikipedia ranging from hundreds on Indian cities to articles ranging from pregnancy/medical to business management to foodstuffs/recipes, most of which I've found no reason to add links on. I admit I may not have read every single word of the rules here but if it is forbidden to ever quote from a site I've worked on in the past it will reduce my output considerably (as it would cut out a large chunk of topics I am familiar with) but I'm happy to comply. Poweroid 14:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, so far I've only removed the links, because they don't meet WP:SOURCE or WP:EL, and some come across as WP:SPAM. I've kept the other content, assuming it can be verified from other sources if necessary. As for the potential coi issues, I'm deferring to this noticeboard. --Ronz 16:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    i am observer and i don't understand : who is Ronz , i have look the ronz's contribution to WIKIPEDIA and (always removed) please can you say me what he has realy build? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.11.145.92 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC) and — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.16.118.211 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have problems with my edits, take them to the appropriate venue. This discussion concerns the conflict of interest issues with Poweroid's edits. --Ronz 16:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A glance at Yahoo's Site Explorer [5] for incoming links to www.experienced-people.co.uk doesn't suggest much merit. Looks to me like one of those non-sites that provide token content, but primarily exist as vehicle for Google ads and affiliate schemes. Tearlach 17:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are about 2,700 links to that site according to your Yahoo listing. I haven't examined them all but the first page itself shows links from sites I'm familiar with, like problogger, and about.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.247.89.250 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comments above. The issue here is COI. --Ronz 16:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Poweroid seems not to have added his links normally to be avoided to articles in the past month—am I missing something? — Athænara ✉ 01:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just the one that he admits to above. [6]. He's been completely upfront here about his actions, though. It might be useful for him to provide the list of sites that he mentions above. He's not contending that the links are inappropriate. It appears that he often edits as an ip, but not in any way that violates WP:SOCK that I can see, other than maybe to avoid a few spam warnings. Other than that, I think the situation is fine as long as he no longer continues to add such links to articles. --Ronz 16:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It wouldn't be wise to give away the farm to the competition by posting my client list publicly. But, like I said, I'll put a list together for anyone here who's researching me in relation to this CoI claim. Please tell me how and where I can provide it. Poweroid 11:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Posted on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. — Athænara ✉ 06:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Result was allow: policy against company/product names as usernames had not yet been implemented when the user registered.

    In re conflict of interest, links, clients: It would be helpful if someone higher up the administrative chain can answer the user in re a list of clients whose links the user has added to the encyclopedia ("Please tell me how and where I can provide it") if that is the most straightforward way to clear this up. — Athænara ✉ 09:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments on the RFCN include that this case is starting to smart of desperation and that WP:SNOW may be applicable. Cascadia suggests something is just not right about the RfC and that it seems you're just looking at ANY (his emphasis) way to deal with a conflict. On your own talk page Shenme has trouble believing the "problem" is at all as serious as presented.

    Yes, let's find a straightforward way to clear this up. Poweroid 15:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Additionally, he's added links to:

    • poweroid-video-editing.co.uk (18 October 2004) [7]
    • bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk (14 August 2006) [8]

    --Ronz 15:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure, you'll continue to find links. While I added links in very few of the edits I did over the years there are a handful that link to pages that were - at the time of the linking anyway - useful and relevant pages kinda like the type Shenme thought looked perfectly OK (see comment on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_performance_management on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names page). Poweroid 17:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)17:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, but you said yourself that you didn't think you made a link to bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk. It turns out you did in August and December of last year. Also, you've linked to a site that has your username in it, something you should have brought up when this COI was started. --Ronz 18:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: Poweroid admits to coi regarding choosing the name. An RfC/N resulted in allowing the username because it predates the prohibition on such names. --Ronz 16:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: Poweroid appears to have choosen his username after introducing links to poweroid-video-editing.co.uk as 213.235.36.175 (talk · contribs). 213.235.36.175 has only a few edits total, from 6 September 2004 to 18:11, 15 October 2004. This editor introduced links to bestpricecomputers.co.uk and poweroid-video-editing.co.uk in the same manner that Poweroid has done. Four minutes after 213.235.36.175's last edit, Poweroid begins editing for the first time in the same articles as 213.235.36.175. --Ronz 17:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Restatement of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy as it applies here.

    "A Wikipedia conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia, to produce a neutral encyclopedia, and the aims of individual editors. These include editing for the sake of promoting oneself, other individuals, causes, organizations, companies, or products… Of special concern are organizational conflicts of interest.[1] Failure to follow these guidelines may put the editor at serious risk of embarrassing himself or his client.

    1. ^ These include, but are not limited to, those posed by edits made by: public relations departments of corporations; or of other public or private for-profit or not-for-profit organizations; or by professional editors paid by said organizations to edit a Wikipedia article with the sole intent of improving that organization's image." (emphasis added.)

    From the introduction at the top of the policy page. — Athænara ✉ 07:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ronz, my username issue has already been discussed. It's already on record as associated with a particular company and their sites. And you/Athaenara subjected it to an RFCN which failed.
    Athaenara, I'm glad you bought up the neutral encyclopedia issue as you'll find that that's exactly what my edits are - including the ones you claim as CoI. Your special concerns of organization conflicts of interest and editors paid to edit Wikipeidia are irrelevant unless you are making an allegation that I've been paid to edit Wiki articles.
    Please provide examples of the selective citing and mis-characterisation of other editors' attempts you accuse me of as I don't believe there have been any at all.
    Re my user name: You will note that I do not have to change it. I was not compelled to change it. I was not requested to do it. I was not even asked to consider it. My name is 100% OK. I did however volunteer to change my name. So I'll do it when I want. That I haven't had the time to do it within the last week is nobody's business and, with the greatest of respect, isn't yours either. That I haven't put on top most priority something I volunteered to do is, you argue, grounds to dismiss presumption of my good faith? What was that about misrepresentation and mischaracterisation again?
    Is this really about a CoI anymore? Poweroid 18:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because the RfCN failed, doesnt mean that we should ignore other evidence relevant to your COI here when it concerns your name. --Ronz 22:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have looked over this page and the talk page of User:Poweroid and some of his contributions.By his own admission, he has worked for the company (www.bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk and related sites) which holds the trademark on Poweroid (his current user name), so it seems clear there is a conflict of interest on his adding links to at least those company websites.
    The debate about his username, and whether a list of his clients should be provided and how, do not take away from the fact that this editor has added links to (see above) and images from [9] company websites with which he has a professional relationship in clear violation of WP:COI. This is not passing judgment on the links and images in question either, but it is a conflict of interest for Poweroid to add them to Wikipedia.
    If he feels these are valid links and images he should suggest them for inclusion on the talk page(s) of the article(s) in question for other, more neutral editors to decide. He is also, I believe, obligated to remove such edits he has made in the past until they can be decided on by other editors. The problem may be larger than this (the client list issue) but that in no way should obscure the fact that there is already a substantial COI problem here. This is no single purpose account for purposes of linkspam. However, he seems to be doing little to resolve and much to obscure and perhaps obstruct the solution of his COI problem. Hope this helps and apologize if I got the gender wrong, Ruhrfisch 04:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: As of today, searches for *.bestpricecomputers.co.uk returns 17 matches. This is after both Tearlach and myself have removed many others. It appears Poweroid has added links to the sites mentioned above in over 60 articles, mostly around December 2006. Additionally, I've requested Poweroid to comment about possible coi with his additions of links to techbooksforfree.com and dogtraininghq.com. --Ronz 15:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Three of those left (one to an image, two on talk pages)—I removed fourteen of them. — Athænara ✉ 16:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I found a US Government PD image and put it in the Voice over IP article as it was clearer in thumbnail than the COI image here (which is now orphaned), so we are down to only two COI links on talk pages for *.bestpricecomputers.co.uk. Ruhrfisch 01:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Awesome, better quality and public domain. That obsoletes the COI image, now listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 2. — Æ. ✉ 04:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: I think all the questionable links have been removed from articles at this point. It appears Poweroid has added links to the sites mentioned above in over 80 articles, mostly around December 2006. I've also asked Poweroid to comment about possible coi with his additions of links to pregnancyetc.com and bringingupbaby.com. I'm estimating that between November'06 and January'07 Poweroid added over 50 links to 50 different articles, all links where there's a clear coi, and most in violation of WP:ATT as well. --Ronz 18:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Essay: I recommend the excellent Wikipedia:Search engine optimization essay to all editors and particularly to users with conflict of interest issues who are tempted, like the subject of this report, to linkspam the encyclopedia. — Athænara ✉ 06:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, this is still going on and hasn't resulted in a ban/closure?
    I notice that Athaenara makes no comments on the issue of his misrepresentation of the username issue to suggest lack of good faith on my part. He could have at least apologised for maligning me. :(
    When digging out who made what links in 2004 please at least be diligent enough to check what the policy was at that time and whether I violated it. In fact, from what I can see there wasn't even a CoI page at that time, just a vanity page.
    I maintain there is a lot of FUD, embarrasment at "losing" the RfCN, and a campaign to smear me here. I've no doubt now who is going to pour over exact versions of the CoI page on every day I made an edit. Like other pages in a wiki, the CoI page changes over time. Unlike some here I have better things to do than to keep track of every minutae in the small print and how it changes on a daily basis. Ignorantia juris non excusat? Get a life, guys, this is a Wiki, not the Supreme Court but who would think it from the way some of you make a full time profession of mastering the small print rules? I did not come here to spam, I made hundreds/thousands of useful contributions, I added links where I thought they would be useful to readers, and, bar the odd exception, most of my edits didn't even involve adding links. I've made numerous efforts to cooperate but that doesn't seem to be (refactored personal attack) enough.
    Does it usually take so long for discussions on CoI claims? Or just ones that aren't clearcut? Poweroid 18:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    For neutral point of view editors: please see also "Refusal to cooperate" section of this noticeboard's talk page. — Athænara ✉ 01:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    See also a discussion of Poweroid at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Poweroid, including a list of 19 IP addresses that are also believed to be him. Fortunately I didn't notice any uses of IP addresses after January 07. Has anyone carefully determined the date of the last spam link he added, or if he has stopped? This editor's frankness should be commended, but others who have been notified of similar problems have voluntarily gone back and removed the inappropriate links, while this editor still seems to believe they are appropriate. EdJohnston 15:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like he stopped. The last spam edit he made was the one that started this report, his edit on March 6, [10], where he twice added an experienced-people.co.uk link as a reference. He did not indicate he added any links in his edit summary, and made two successive edits afterward to the same article - a pattern that he usually uses when adding external links.
    Note that he's never responded to the concern that the links he's added as references do not meet WP:SOURCE.
    Finally, because he's never provided a list of the 30-50 websited that he's said he's done work for, we have no way of knowing for sure that there aren't more than have been found so far, nor when they were last added. --Ronz 19:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    When it comes to link-spam, most of the time we don't worry so much about blocks and bans. If someone persists in adding links despite our rules and in spite of our requests, we just list their domains at m:Talk:Spam blacklist for inclusion in the m:Spam blacklist. That blacklist covers all Wikimedia Foundation projects in all languages; additionally several hundred other users of MediaWiki software also use our blacklist. --A. B. (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Archimedes Plutonium (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    → See also: WP:ANI thread on possible block of User:Superdeterminism (issue now archived)
    • Superdeterminism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Throughout the current AfD on the Archimedes Plutonium article, a user, Superdeterminism, who most feel is Archimedes Plutonium himself, has been editing the AfD, the article, and the article's talk page. What are the guidelines for a BLP being edited (owned) by the LP? Here, in the AfD, referring to the Wikipedia article, he wrote "on my page I refer ..." Somehow, this just doesn't seem appropriate. Thanks for your input. Keesiewonder talk 02:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: WP:COI doesn't expressly forbid a person from participating in this regard, but they're strongly encouraged to be very cautious. The diff you linked to seems to corroborate the claim that he is indeed the subject of the article, but it also expresses a reasonable concern on his part. It looks like the AfD will result in a Keep, which is good (IMO, Wikipedia gets stronger every time a biography is determined to be keepable,) but he should be encouraged to take a step back and let others do the editing for him. WP:AUTO is a suitable guideline to cite from here, too. -/- Warren 03:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks; where's the best place to request that someone other than me provide this strong encouragement to this user and encourage them to take a step back and stop editing their (auto)biography? As best I can tell, several admins are aware of what is taking place, but not warning the user in ways that are proving to be effective. Keesiewonder talk 10:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Both Afds (one, two) resulted in keep. — Athænara ✉ 05:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's fine ... but User:Superdeterminism participated in a highly COI way during the second AFD. I see that Jehochman put a warning on SD's talk page. Keesiewonder talk 10:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood (I wasn't disputing anything, merely added a factoid.) Is this section active or should it be archived? — Athænara ✉ 20:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately, it is active again. Check out very recent edit summaries and edits from User:Superdeterminism at the Archimedes Plutonium article. There is blatant disregard for WP:OWN, WP:COI, WP:NLT, ... Some excerpts include the following:

    • Request to remove entire page as the editors of Wikipedia cannot follow rules over nickname
    • a lawsuit in the making where Wikipedia is not following rules about NICKNAMES

    Keesiewonder talk 21:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Does anyone think we would get any sympathy at WP:AN/I if we asked for a block of User:Superdeterminism? The grounds would be making legal threats, and COI editing of his own article, in which the following edit seems to be pure vandalism (refusing to accept the verdict of the AfD that the article should be kept). The legal threats seem to be a little vague, however. On his Talk page he has been warned once for vandalism, once for COI, and once for a potential 3RR. EdJohnston 16:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A thread has been opened at WP:AN/I about Archimedes Plutonium. Uncle G mentioned two specific legal threats in his ANI posting. Until now, people have not seemed to take this editor seriously as a disrupter, but if we continue that tolerance we'll have to put up with his antics indefinitely. You can of course add your own opinion to the thread at WP:AN/I. EdJohnston 15:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Long Way Round (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    • Long Way Round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - MDennett (talk · contribs) is extremely keen to include an unsourced reference to "International SOS", a commercial organisation [11] he claims was paid a fee for involvement with the Long Way Round project. MDennet first added this in early November 2006, revisited it later that month, and has returned now. MDennet has asserted that he was involved in said deal [12] , and that the lack of any sources to verify this fact is not a problem, as we can just ring him or his friends up and ask. Neither the 388 page book nor 10 episode TV / DVD series make any mention of this organisation. He came perilously close to 3RR this evening, and continues to argue the point on his talk page. The account is single purpose, with the only edit other than on this issue being creation of a speedily deleted auto-bio in mainspace. His latest rebuttal of my attempt to enforce policy is that as Ewan McGregor and I are both Scottish, perhaps I (and presumably the 4,999,999 other Scots) have the conflict of interest?? // Deiz talk 13:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    are both Scottish
    So am I, partially, so it's a clear conspiracy. But no, whether there's a COI or not, WP:NOR makes "we can just ring him or his friends up and ask" completely unacceptable as a source. Only a third-party published source will do. Tearlach 15:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that if MDennett (talk · contribs) was involved in the deal then he has a conflict of interest. You might want to leave a note about this issue on the Talk page of the article itself. You might also ask MDennett to clarify further his role in the Long Way Round project. I did not find his name on the longwayround.com web site. EdJohnston 21:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of interest, there is a Martin Dennett [13], Business Development Director for Energy, Mining and Infrastructure at International SOS. Tearlach 12:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope he feels great about this edit then. Deiz talk 13:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left a uw-coi warning on User talk:MDennett. Hopefully he will get the message. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 03:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Anchor (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Anchor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) User:Badmonkey is likely a representative of an anchor manufacturer (Ronca Anchors), is attempting to include favorable biased information of his anchor in article and reporting removal attemps of biased information as vandalism. Russeasby 14:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Defense: Refer to incident report at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR concerning violation of 3RR by User:Russeasby and also request for page protection at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection (article now fully protected). Russeasby has been repeatedly deleting a section of Anchor which he is calling spam. The content in question is sourced and perfectly NPOV. Third party opinions in Talk:Anchor are against this deletion, e.g. that from Hoof Hearted, and advice from one other solicited third party (Shell Kinney) warned cessation of these edits. This "conflict of interest" notice seems a revenge act for these reports by myself. Lastly, attempts at identification, especially for purposes of discrediting another editor, is contrary to Wikipedia's right to anonymity. Badmonkey 14:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nm.: Russeasby has been blocked for 3RR violation. Badmonkey 15:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (Edit conflict. Addressing 14:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC) post) [Not "revenge act"]. See the description of this noticeboard's purpose at the top of this page.
    After several days of disruptive and tendentious editing, much of it by single purpose account user Badmonkey, the article has been protected. — Athænara ✉ 15:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    NPOV editors: Research summary posted 20:37, March 30 2007 (UTC) by Hoof Hearted. Article protection is scheduled to expire tomorrow. — Æ. ✉ 02:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Good style, link to your favored diff of the talk page! Try Talk:Anchor instead. bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 03:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note User:Badmonkey is back at it, reverting removal of link spam (4 out of 5 links on the Anchor page link to POV and COI rocna.com website. He has also removed breif mention of competitor anchors. Russeasby 02:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    For goodness sake what is there is not link spam! They are two magazine articles, one Coastguard handbook article, and an essay by an anchor designer - all of which have been published by independent parties. It's interesting that there used to be a dozen or so links there, but someone went through and cleaned them all up - leaving all the ones that happen to be hosted on the Rocna website, plus only one other... Perhaps you could contribute to some content instead of campaigning against that which you don't like!
    Regarding other anchors, see the talk page. Brands should not be mentioned unless they are unique and noteworthy. The simple mention of those three implictly demands the mention of hundreds of others, which is neither worthwhile nor, probably, possible.
    bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 02:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User Badmonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Optical Carrier (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Optical Carrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been edited by Cyberdyneinc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) the content of which has been reverted twice (first time by Sander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the second time by myself (NigelJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))), upon the second revert, I kindly posted a message on Cyber's talk page asking him/her to:

    • Ensure a NPOV
    • To avoid a Conflict of Interest
    • To properly cite their additions

    Sadly, Cyber has added the section again (which I can't actually verify via Google), the wording has changed a little bit, but I believe a COI still exists. //NigelJ talk 03:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Now the user has also removed the subsequently added "citation needed" templates from the article without an edit summary (diff). I have reverted his edit and posted a {{uw-maintenance1}} on his talk page; the user has not yet responded. -- intgr 11:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The user is now accusing me of harassment and asking for time for citing his sources. (diff of my talk, diff of Talk:Optical Carrier). He has also removed previous comments from the aforementioned talk page (diff).
    I have once again removed his text from Optical Carrier (diff) and demanded reliable sources (diff, diff).
    I also warned him for re-introducing unsourced information and deleting others' comments. (diff). -- intgr 06:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know whether to laugh or cry, so I am crying while laughing over this incident.
    It appears that this company is some investor scam, and they wanted to use Wikipedia for promotion; however, the vigorous intervention of users intgr and NigelJ have brought this innovative R&D company to their knee-equivalents! Quoting their web site [14]:
    "[...] WE HAVE BEEN WORKING TO ARRANGE AND ADD OUR RESEARCH TO WIKIPEDIA [...]"
    "[...] THESE EFFORTS HAVE BECOME DIFFICULT AND IMPOSSIBLE DUE TO ACTIONS OF BY AND BETWEEN INDEPENDNANT EXTERNAL CONTENT EDITORS FOR WIKIPEDIA. IE USER:intgr IE User:NijelJ "
    Looking at their "products" page, they have also developed a fiber optic backbone that has integrated storage in it! "124.6 Gbps ® via a patent pending electronic device with 80.29PiB storage and 676 processors."
    It would help if they actually had a clue about technology. :)
    High five, NigelJ! -- intgr 15:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The cabal strikes again. MER-C 04:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I also got the horrible talk page message... diff Intgr: thanks for the high five ;) btw, he also has removed my warnings from his talk page (Including the one when I notified of this section), maybe blocks should be considered for abusive behaviour? (shrug) --NigelJ talk SIMPLE 07:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Marko Kitti (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Marko Kitti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an article about a (seemingly) very minor Finnish author that I removed a couple of POV sentences from shortly after its creation. It was created, and almost exclusively edited, by Mustepullo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), to whom I also dropped a line about encyclopedic language etc. Notice that this is a single-purpose account.

    I recently checked back to see if this article had been improved and found that Mustepullo had added quite a few interwiki links to it. I checked a few of the other articles to see if they contained any more information that could possibly be translated to make the article less stubbish. It seems that every single one of them, nine non-English languages in all, were created by the same username, Mustepullo. I think we have a case of long-term, cross-language COI abuse. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 01:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, darn me. A remarkable coincidence that in all the world, in all the online listings of Finnish websites, here at Fennica.net Mustepullo Graphics and Marko Kitti are adjacent. Tearlach 02:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Shocker! What are we going to do about this? Issue a cross-language warning? Recruit from Wikipedia:Translation? LeaHazel : talk : contribs 12:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Call him with a saucer of milk? Tearlach 23:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I copyedited and wikified it today. The {{Unreferenced}} tag remains—English language reviews of Finnish books are scarce, though the publisher cited some. This BLP subject (who purportedly has done internet graphic design) is nowhere named on Mustepullo Graphics as far as I could find, though user Mustepullo (no edits since March 5) may have been him or his employer. At any rate, in light of all this, I have provisionally removed the {{COI}} tag. — Athænara ✉ 22:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Shadowyze (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Additionally, he won't even let a heading correction per policy stand. MSJapan 03:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If it gets hardly any votes because of the holiday, you can always relist.
    There's a clear COI. Lojah's bio on people.tribe.net says "Lojah's professional debut was writing and performing with Shadowyze on his 2001 SOAR release, Spirit Warrior ... Lojah is currently performing with Shadowyze in the southern circuit".
    And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadowyze and User talk:MSJapan#Shadowyze shows a lot wrong in his general editing conduct: Original research and failure to abide by WP:COI ("Wikipedia does recognize first-hand resources such as witnesses to an event, which I am also ... There really is no conflict of interest ... simply because I happen to have been fortunate to work with Shadowyze - that’s what makes me a primary resource"); personal attacks; evident belief in article ownership, and canvassing (see edit history Apr 3 20:00 onward) against the Shadowyze AFD.
    Check out Tom Bee too. Tearlach 04:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Check out Curvedtalk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - listed as a suspected sockpuppet here. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 12:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    --I have no sockpuppets. This is circumstantial at best and I believe it is slanderous. Lojah 23:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sitution needs watching. AFD closed with "keep and rewrite to avoid COi" as consensus, but Lojah appears to be taking a closing assessment - that there is no specific ban on his editing [15] - as permission to edit. Tearlach 00:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please watch the situation. The FACT that there is no specific ban on my freedom to edit this article is proof of my 'permission,' as you put it to edit the article. Until there is a clear RULE that says I absolutely can not edit the article then I am perfectly within my rights. Lojah 04:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note this statement, left on my talk page as well as his: I also believe that User:Curvedtalk is a sock puppet of you, created to incriminate me. I now return you to your regularly scheduled 'trolling' on Wikipedia. Lojah 00:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    I think we can throw AGF out the window at this point. This situation needs to be nipped in the bud. MSJapan 04:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the latest at User_talk:MSJapan#Shadowyze. I think he's sooner or later going to fall foul of a lot of policies. I think a warning is already due for WP:NPA. Of course it's all our racist bias against against Native American activists - not bias against people who come into a collaborative communirty and think none of its conventions apply to them, and write great screeds arguing the toss about it. Tearlach 16:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Rethink. I'm coming round to thinking this may be down to misunderstanding (newcomer meets bite-the-newbie). I did some cleanup on the Shadowyze article, and had some perfectly civil discussion with User:Lojah about it. I'd say see how it goes. Tearlach 06:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering Lojah commenced the personal attacks (and the types of statements he has made here), "misunderstanding" is a pretty interesting statement. Willful ignorance of policy is not an excuse to PA. The article was in terrible shape, had nothing meeting NN, and sat for a week with no edits when I AfDed it. There was no "bite-the-newbie" involved - Lojah made the initial post on my talkpage telling me I didn't "know the facts about Shadowyze" and that there were "a lot of resources even if I was ignorant of the subject". He also accused me of trolling, more stuff re: ignorance on my part, and told me I created a sock to discredit him when someone else SSPed one of the AfD voters. I always stayed within the bounds of policy; Lojah didn't. The reason you had a civil discussion is because, as he saw it, you implicitly supported his POV. Prod one of his articles and see how civil he remains. MSJapan 17:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. I guess I'm probably being a bit too laid-back, not having been on the receiving end of all that. A softly-softly approach just seems to have calmed down that particular situation. If he turns nasty again, I'm happy to help throw the book at him. Tearlach 00:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And now he's admitted he wrote the official bio on Shadowyze's home page. There's no way to justify his sole editorship of that article, because he has both a business and personal relationship with the subject, and any references from Shadowyze's official bio are technically self-published, since Lojah wrote it. Also, as I noted on your talk page, Tearlach, my abstention from editing Shadowyze per Lojah's request should not give him carte blanche to use the Talk page to continue to attack me because he took the AfD personally. MSJapan 16:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No substantial edits to the article after Tearlach's edits almost a week ago, and Lojah has not been active for a week. The majority of the sources as listed still can't be verified (I'm not convinced the coverage is "nontrivial". Out of the mess of sources pasted to my talk page, none have gone into the article, and many are not substantially different from one another. I think it is very bad faith for a user to war over an article and then leave it when he gets his way. MSJapan 04:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Shunn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This editor, according to his userpage, is the science fiction author William Shunn. The user is the primary editor of the article about himself, and has created pages on his own works:

    Dance of the Yellow-Breasted Luddites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Inclination (novella) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    RJASE1 Talk 17:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've left warning messages and suggested that he go to WP:RFC to get the article reviewed. He has been nominated for a few major awards, so I think he would qualify as notable, and as far as autobiographies go, this is far from the worst I've seen. However, the article lacks references, so I tagged it as such. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 19:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Patricia Vance (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Resolved
    I am more concerned about what looks like a PR agency job on Entertainment Software Rating Board and a bunch of related articles, including this one. I need to do more digging. This looks like a real mess. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 19:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't come up with any solid evidence, so I am going to move on to the next case. This article seems to be in reasonable shape and the user seems to be cooperative.Jehochman (talk/contrib) 06:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    See also:

    According to his userpage, the user operates the above website. Over a period of time, the user has apparently added numerous links to his own website in citations and links for several articles.

    1. diff
    2. diff
    3. diff
    4. diff
    5. diff
    6. diff
    7. diff
    8. diff
    9. diff
    10. diff
    11. diff
    12. diff

    I could add many more examples, but I think the above is enough to make my point, along with the fact that this is still continuing today - diff.

    I'll also file a report at WT:WPSPAM but cleanup will be difficult as many of the link additions are embedded in material citations. I'm not even going to get into the WP:SPS problems here. RJASE1 Talk 19:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI, this is a Wikipedian with an article - Dennis King. RJASE1 Talk 19:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This user seems to have done quite a bit of editing as User:208.222.71.17. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 20:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's another severely conflicted editor [16] getting in on the action at Independence Party of New York. Seems like there are problems on both sides of this controversy. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 20:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The WT:WPSPAM report is here. I know this is duplication to some extent but this needs to be looked at from a couple of different angles. RJASE1 Talk 21:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This user apparently never answers his talk page posts. Still editing, but none of the links have been self-reverted nor have the concerns been addressed. What do you recommend we do here? RJASE1 Talk 04:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Linksearch on this guy's website shows twenty nine at the moment. Only eleven are talk pages: the other eighteen are articles. I'm thinking get them out of the articles. If their use is valid in any case, NPOV editors can replace them. The site owner should not. — Athænara ✉ 04:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Down to nineteen now. Tedious. — Æ. ✉ 08:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The list of so-called spam links to my site includes at least three links on talk pages placed there by people other than myself; in two cases they were talk pages for articles I had never visited much less posted on. I believe there are more. If I have placed links on talk pages to articles on my web site, it has been as part of an ongoing discussion with other editors in order to provide them with access to pertinent information re the issues being discussed. As to links within the articles themselves, my web site is not a commercial site; I do not sell products and I do not employ bots to build traffic. It is an archival site that contains copies of published material by myself and others that I have used to properly cite statements in articles relating to two political cult leaders that I am an acknowledged expert on. There have been disputes and edit wars on these articles, and admins have upheld my right to cite my own writings. I find it ironic that after a long fight on one of these articles to prevent the edit warriors from removing links to outside web sites critical of them, including mine, the deletion is now being accomplished on spam grounds. To give two other examples: On the article "Jewish Defense Organization" not only was the link to my website deleted but also the entire sentence it referenced, including the properly sourced bibliographical print info, was removed. In the article "U.S. Labor Party" the link to two articles archived on my web site was also deleted although these articles are probably the only published source of detailed information about the electoral record of this defunct and rather obscure organization. If there is a time that I was placing many links it was during a dispute regarding the article "Lyndon LaRouche" a couple of months ago. Followers of Mr. LaRouche placed in the article a description of my book on their leader which seriously misrepresented the contents of the book; I placed links in the article to various chapters of my book to refute their claims. This is now moot since the entire section of the article has been removed from the article (along with the people who started an edit war over it, who have been banned from Wiki indefinitely). I don't know a lot about Wiki rules, but after reading over the policy on spam I frankly find the actions that are being taken somewhat puzzling.--Dking 22:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mr. King, we've been trying to contact you on your talk page for a week - the problem is not so much spam as that you have a conflict of interest in linking to your own website. Adding these links to talk pages for the consideration of others is fine, but you shouldn't be adding these links to the articles themselves. I left a link to the conflict of interest guideline on your talk page when I expressed my initial concern. RJASE1 Talk 22:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For many months the followers of Lyndon LaRouche and Fred Newman, leaders of groups widely regarded as political cults, have engaged in edit wars and filed interminable admin complaints (including one on this page in February) saying that I and Chip Berlet, authors who specialize in political cults, should not be allowed to edit on the subject, that links to our web sites should not be allowed, etc. There is a whole body of editorial consensus building and admin decisions in which their claims were rejected. In particular, the problem of LaRouche followers on Wikipedia dates back to 2004 and I invite you to look at the archives of these discussions and to note that several of the LaRouche editors have been banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. To say the issue is "conflict of interest" is to raise an issue that has already been decided although I supposed any Wikipedian can raise it again at any time about any other Wikipedian. Conflict of interest as I understand from the guidelines involves legal antagonism (there is none--the last time LaRouche sued me was 23 years ago and he lost); financial interest (again none, I do not sell products on my web site but rather offer my book on LaRouche and other writings for free in electronic form), and self-promotion (no one has spelled out precisely how I am promoting myself as opposed to trying to present truthful information to warn people about the danger of getting involved with these Nehemiah Scudder-type outfits--would you please specify exactly what evidence you have of self-promotion). I must say that your citing conflict of interest is surprising since the links to my website are being removed with the explanation that this is "spam" removal. And why, if the concern is self-promotion but there are no specific charges, are links to published articles and book chapters archived on my web site being systematically removed in a summary fashion? You say you'd been trying to reach me for a week, but a week is a short time as these matters go--why the sudden haste?--Dking 23:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a problem with links to Dennis King's book and published articles being included as references so long as they are clearly relevant. General links to the website may be more problematic, but it would depend on the context. King is certainly a "a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field," [17] within the meaning of WP:V, and so he may be used as a source, even when his material is self-published. Dennis, perhaps you could be careful in future only to include links to your website where the material is clearly needed as source material, but not as a general reference. Wikipedia does discourage self-citation, using the argument that, if the material is worth citing, someone else will do it eventually, so it's best to keep it to a minimum. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we agree that Mr. King should not insert links to his own website in articles, but rather place them on the article's talk page, with a description, so that more neutral editors can decide if they should be used? This would seem to satisfy WP:COI guidelines. (By the way, I liked the Robert A. Heinlein reference in Dking's last post.) RJASE1 Talk 00:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mercio Pereira Gomes (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    I reverted, and removed an unsourced accusation per WP:BLP from the previous version, which needs a deal of work on neutrality. Tearlach 02:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh. It's going to be a difficult one: controversial figure. IP editor 201.9.208.247 (talk · contribs) (tracking to Rio de Janeiro) also seems pretty focused on reverting to the Mercio Gomes version. On balance, it is the more factual version, but completely whitewashes out the criticisms. Tearlach 22:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've semiprotected the article for a month. Not sure what else to do with this. DurovaCharge! 16:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dimitrilaunder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    → See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimitri launder

    The above user's edits are all to either his own article or to projects with which he is associated (except for wikilinking those articles in other places). The user states here that he is aware of the conflict of interest, but the articles all seem promotional in nature to me. RJASE1 Talk 23:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The chief problem is a huge linkfarm that's well in breach of WP:LINKS and WP:NOT. I've moved it to Talk:Area 10 Project Space Peckham for scrutiny. Tearlach 00:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, it seems he has replied to your concerns by simply adding the linkfarm back into the article. RJASE1 Talk 04:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks for the feedback guys, what i would prefer to use is a 'box' as such re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadie_Coles_HQ 'young british artists' rather than what you term as a 'link farm' soory for any offense. I am learning ettiquette as i attempt to engage with wikipedia...Do you think you could help me making such a 'Box' ? In reference to the nature of the article it is all in reference to our applied status as Charity..which is the only way such artist run spaces can exist in the middle of the metropolis. Arguabbly our space is a 'networked', practice: without the people (like wikipedia) it would cease to grow and exist even so this element of the article is essential..(please excuse any typos its 6am) Dimitrilaunder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Deletion discussion here. MER-C 06:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Helen M. Grace (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    See also:


    Editor has also made articles for the movies that she has directed. janejellyroll 01:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Added additional article links. RJASE1 Talk 02:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The author is also uploading numerous promotional images. RJASE1 Talk 02:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have tried to rewrite the articles to remove any possible vanity or self promotion -it is difficult when a director starts their own articles!!! but As a seasoned editor of WP Films I do beleive these articles are worthy on wikipedia the articles now stick to fact rather than a promotional effort. If any body else had started the articles and uploaded the posters no one would have blinked an eyelid. I hope you'll see my efforts here to rmeove any notion of self promtion and turn it into encyclopedic fact ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 02:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    They are just normal film articles not self indulgent articles Are You Ready For Love? in particular is well worthy of an article. SOme of the films have been nominated for BAFTA awards so notability isn't an issue ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 02:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ernst, you've done a great job in mentoring here - I'm just trying to figure out why the 'unreferenced' tags are being removed and no reliable sources are being provided. You have to admit this seems to be tainted by vanity. RJASE1 Talk 02:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nor has she stopped editing her own articles. Tearlach 12:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I can see what you mean!! But you can't discourage new articles which are valid just because they seem propelled by vanity!! Although I completely see how it might violate the pollicy of NOT writing about yourself!! If someone else had started them no one would have blinked an eyelid!! If you feel the need to add the reference tag thats fine as long as the articles aren't deleted. I have a check again now see if their are any self promotional comments but from what I saw they are encylcopedic. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 14:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Although I completely see how it might violate the pollicy of NOT writing about yourself!!
    It's not a policy, but yes, writing about yourself does, funnily enough, violate the guideline about not writing about yourself. As well as the clear instructions against doing so on the intro page whenever you create a new article. Tearlach 19:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I added some comments to her talk page that might help. Hopefully this can be settled easily if she'll only take some time to communicate with other editors about what's going on. --Ronz 20:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The messages to date are apparently not working - she's still editing the articles on her projects. I left yet another message on her talk page. RJASE1 Talk 19:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Some new editors don't even realize they have a talk page. I've sent the user an email saying that other users are concerned about her editing and asking her to check her talk page. -Will Beback · † · 19:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure about that? Special:Contributions/Helengracedirector doesn't show any contributions after April 8th. Before this thread was started or any messages were left on her talk page. Is using other accounts? -- Siobhan Hansa 20:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Gah, I'm an idiot. Someone else edited one of those articles, causing it to pop to the top of my watchlist. Sorry about that. RJASE1 Talk 20:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, just when I was feeling guilty and drafting my apology, the user is apparently back with a sockpuppet - Albiepalbie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Account was just created today and is editing the exact same articles, in the same style. Is COI editing grounds for a checkuser? If so, I'll draft it. I'm holding off on leaving any messages for now. RJASE1 Talk 14:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Add to that 88.110.150.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which appeared immediately after I left a question on Albiepalbie's talk page. RJASE1 Talk 14:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This IP and Helen must be the same person. Notice the sequence of edits at User_talk:Helengracedirector, where a comment added by 88.110.150.97 (talk · contribs), was 3 minutes later reformatted and expanded by User:Helengracedirector.
    Helen Grace has corresponded with User:Ernst Stavro Blofeld on his Talk page, though she hasn't mastered signing her name, so she knows something about our system. The problem we are trying to solve is that she won't stop editing her own articles.
    After her indignant disclaimer to RJASE1, we notice her IP account 88.110.150.97 (talk · contribs) correcting a spelling mistake on one of her films. Perhaps she reasoned that a spelling mistake didn't count. Less creditable are the edits by Albiepalbie (talk · contribs), which also occur this morning just after the indignant disclaimer. I suggest we wait a few hours more before getting all bent out of shape, though.EdJohnston 18:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    RJASE1 noticed she removed the 'unreferenced' tag from Helen M. Grace, apparently thinking it was enough to cite IMDB and her own Myspace page. This suggests she doesn't understand our sourcing rules, besides ignoring the COI policies by removing a tag on her own autobiography. Whether the tag should be removed is something for the rest of us to decide. EdJohnston 01:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've issued a one week block on the registered account and a one month block on the sockpuppet IP address. Please add the sockpuppet templates to userspace, restore the unreferenced tags to the articles, and follow up as necessary. DurovaCharge! 02:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Leviton (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Troy Newman (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    see also: Operation Rescue West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Operation Rescue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Operationrescue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) editing article on Troy Newman, the founder of the organization. RJASE1 Talk 14:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've rolled back the edits to Troy Newman. It's an old account (that rarely edits) so semiprotection is pointless. DurovaCharge! 15:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Killian documents (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    I believe the editor you are reporting has violated WP:NPA several times after being warned, and even called a respected member of the community a liar. I've asked an administrator [18] to consider banning the disruptive editor. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 06:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    72 hour block as of 07:02, April 11 2007 (UTC). — Æ. ✉ 23:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi -- I'm sort of tracing the sequence of who said what to whom, leading to my 72 hr block (I'm preparing for arbitration and just want to get all the worthy ducks lined up.) I just came across this link -- so who are you, exactly, and what was your part in all this? I thought "Durova" put the block on me, but this sequence makes it sound like you did. A curious mind wants to know. -BC aka Callmebc 12:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    MOCHIP (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    → See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MOCHIP.

    • MOCHIP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article about Child Identification Program run by Grand Lodge of Missouri, written by Jokerst44, who is a self-proclaimed regional coordinator for the program. Despite civility on my part and quoting of policy, on both the article talk page and his own page, he has proceeded to attack myself and other editors personally rather than supply the requested criteria for notability. Article is at AfD and will likely be kept, but author is clearly too invested to write or behave objectively, even going as far as make accusations quite unbecoming to a member of the Masonic fraternity. MSJapan 04:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Further note as a musing: why is it that editors find it easier to blame the messenger than to heed the message? MSJapan 04:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I would recommend mentoring in addition to whatever other action is taken. It's the case of an overzealous user, and I just happened to be the person who disagreed with him. MSJapan 04:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is quite laughable. I would like to know how I "attacked" others personally. Apparently the word "attacked" is a very subjective term, but hey, most things here seem to be very subjective in nature. I am curious as to what my "accusations" are also. Very interesting terminolgy being chosen here. Funny how some can have opinions, and some can not without it being an accusation or attack. I feel bad for WP in many regards. My "opinion" in that some users feel they are superior to others because they have been here longer, and they are not afraid to let you know this. I read about assuming good faith, but that does not hold true with MSJapan. Again, I gues it would behoove me to point out that this is an opinion and not an attack or accusation. I simply want MSJapan to harrass someone else and not me. End of story. Let it go. Jokerst44 05:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I will note that the editor has WP:OWN issues in considering comments made on the article talk page to be "personal harassment". MSJapan 16:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I will note for about the 10th time, that this is NOT about any article. It is about the continued and unrelenting harrassment by MSJapan. He thinks I have an issue with the article, I do not. I ask you to tell me when was the last time I made a comment about the article in question, other than in response to his prompting. My issue is with the user MSJapan. I want him to leave me alone and stop trying to bait me with continued posts. Again, stop...and let it go. I think it is clear he can not drop the issue without getting in a last word. Jokerst44 17:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To Jokerst44: Please do not misrepresent editors' adherence to policies and guidelines as harrassment. — Athænara ✉ 23:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand

    You made comments about me misrepresenting policies. Can you clarify what you mean by this. I am not taking issue with what you wrote, I just need clarification as to what you are referencing. Thanks. Jokerst44 23:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh I believe you are referring to MSJapan and the MOCHIP article. With all due respect, I want to put that behind me. We have all worked out the issue as you can see if you read the talk space. I understand you putting in your 2 cents, but in all honesty, I would rather just let it go and not dwell on it after the fact. Thanks. Jokerst44 23:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I placed the above in the talk of a user and it was moved here. I was told that moving things in this manner was wrong. Could someone please clarify this for me? Jokerst44 00:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Janko Prunk (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Prunk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the author and main contributor. Article survived an AfD (based on notability concerns) about a year ago, but the article seems to have expanded into a resume since. RJASE1 Talk 13:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I had to laugh at this - he removed the 'unreferenced' tag and left a citation that he, personally, was the reference. RJASE1 Talk 12:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This page looks like an autobiography to me because of what I've seen here:
    Anynobody 09:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Aideen Barry (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Aideenbarry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is creator and most recent contributor, including upload of promotional images. RJASE1 Talk 13:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    MathsIsFun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Math Is Fun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    mathsisfun.com
    According to his userpage, the editor maintains the above website. (The website article has survived an AfD.) Also, this editor is apparently adding links to his website in various math-related articles. RJASE1 Talk 14:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, I removed all the mainspace links (over 40 of them) with the exception of the links on the article above. Personally I think it might be time for another AfD on this one. RJASE1 Talk 16:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Rehan Qayoom (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    RehanQayoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is author and sole editor. RJASE1 Talk 14:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Prodded. MER-C 03:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mathias Fuchs (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Manchestermathias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), apparently article subject, editing article and adding links. RJASE1 Talk 14:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert G. Williscroft (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Argeew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), apparently article subject, is author and primary contributor. RJASE1 Talk 14:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jan Z (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Adding links to his own websites in various articles. RJASE1 Talk 15:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Removed per your comment at User talk:Jan Z. One replaced by JZ at Millennium under cloak of m, moved to Talk:Millennium for community review. Repeat warning given. Tearlach 14:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Appalachian State Cycling Team (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Appstatecycling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is creator and contributor. Puff piece with no sources. RJASE1 Talk 17:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Marc Ostrofsky (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Gsociology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    gsociology.icaap.org
    Has been adding links to his own website (above), apparently since April 2004. RJASE1 Talk 21:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Foosh Energy Mints (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Also appears to be a crosswiki campaign Foosh Energy Mints --Hu12 22:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    International Services Trade Information Agency (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    → See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Services Trade Information Agency.
    → See also: Discussion at Community Sanctions Noticeboard
    → See also: Discussion at WP:AN/I (search for ISTIA)
    Comment: Case is making a lot of noise. Others may be working on this enough that we don't have to. Of course you are welcome to review the debates listed above. EdJohnston 03:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a heads up... In this AfD, an executive for the topic company has been quite aggressive in pushing for keeping the article. In addition, there are several [19] other [20] editors [21] there [22] who are new single purpose accounts also doing very similar aggressive pushing, none who appear to understand wikipolicy. There are thus plausible suspicions of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry; indeed some editors have made such accusations there (there are a couple of other editors on the keep side who appear to be independent and good faith editors there, the whole baby-and-the-bathwater thing, although apparently canvassing for keep discussion also occurred). There does seem to be one admin (User:Gwernol) keeping an eye on things. I have seen worse scenes but I wish not to have this one get out of control. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, I've put a month long block on Istia and indef blocked the others as presumptive sockpuppets. The Applesinaft account has already been blocked since yesterday as a sockpuppet.[23] So based on Istia's subsequent edits you have grounds to run a class F checkuser request on all of the suspect accounts and IP addresses. Notify me at my user talk if it comes up positive and I'll apply a series of indef blocks for COI, sockpuppetry and votestacking. DurovaCharge! 04:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Scott Swedorski (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Swedorski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    See also:
    Promaxum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    OISV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    This user is the article subject, editing his own biography and the articles on some of his ventures. RJASE1 Talk 02:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also removed maintenance tags, I put them back and left a talk page message. RJASE1 Talk 02:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor seems to be clear on the policies now - we had a conversation on my talk page. Can a third party please review the article for neutrality so we can remove the tag? RJASE1 Talk 01:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Balmoral Hall School (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Balmoralhall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) making massive spammy edits to the article. RJASE1 Talk 02:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverted. MER-C 03:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeffrey Babcock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User previously wrote vanity page on himself which was AfD'd (though he deleted the message on his talk page that explained why he shouldn't create vanity pages). Now he seems content to edit the articles on the TV stations which formerly employed him to make sure they mention him and link to his website. RJASE1 Talk 03:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Single purpose account for self-promotion. Violates WP:COI, WP:AUTO, and WP:SPAM. Removed linkspam, issued block warning on user talk. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Durova (talk • contribs) 01:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    This user is back at it today - exact same behavior. RJASE1 Talk 15:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And now he has a sockpuppet - PGG6327 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). RJASE1 Talk 17:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blanked his userpage and talkpage on primary account. RJASE1 Talk 05:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And also blanked the talk page on sockpuppet PGG6327 (talk · contribs). RJASE1 Talk 05:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Linksearch indicates neutral point of view editors have been removing these conflict of interest single purpose accounts' linkspam almost as fast as it's added, too. — Athænara ✉ 05:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Department of Art Education - Virginia Commonwealth University (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    These users have been creating promotional articles for the art education department of Virginia Commonwealth University, apparently as part of a class project (Mbuffington and Vcu art education are both Melanie Buffington, an assistant professor at VCU). Mbuffington also created Art Education - Virginia Commonwealth University, which I redirected since individual departments of colleges generally do not get their own articles. I'm actually a student at VCU, so I wasn't sure if I should be handling this myself, though I have left notes on User talk:Mbuffington and User talk:Vcu art education. --Coredesat 03:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The footote "The content of this page is under development by students who are learning to use wiki. Please do not delete this page" will raise a few hackles (see Wikipedia:Article ownership). Wikipedia isn't an annexe of their department's Intranet. I don't think it's a speedy-delete candidate, but in its current form it certainly fits WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Tearlach 04:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have full protected the main university article for one month, added an advert template, taken out some of the PRese, and added fact templates. Am redirecting the departmental fork to the main article. Inform Professor Buffington that I am willing to discuss this situation. DurovaCharge! 07:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking into things a bit more, Jimbo spoke at this university yesterday, which probably explains today's misfired attempts at contribution. Other problems at the article are serious enough to merit protection, though. DurovaCharge! 08:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, Jimbo spoke at VCU yesterday, and before that there was another seminar on Wikipedia featuring a panelist who seemed to condone and endorse COI, so I was worried something like this would happen. I think a month might be a little too long, though (maybe two weeks?). --Coredesat 08:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm composing an e-mail to Cary Bass at this moment. So far no one from the university has responded to my post on the talk page. I'd be willing to reduce this if they respond reasonably, but the violations I saw were quite serious and I'm very concerned that a professor appears to have made a class assignment of violating Wikipedia policies. Recommend User:Durova/The dark side to any University personnel who read this thread. DurovaCharge! 13:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The professor who created the assignment left me a polite message that appears to be in good faith. So I've unprotected the university and encouraged its employees to contribute in their areas of academic expertise rather than directly to an article where they have a conflict of interest. Cited material to the university article is also welcome at its talk page where uninvolved Wikipedians can evaluate it and adapt it in standard style. DurovaCharge! 17:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Filipe Araújo (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Blablablamedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - The creator's username is the same as the article subject's production company. Nominated for AfD here. RJASE1 Talk 03:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The username was blocked as promotional per WP:U. RJASE1 Talk 04:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    NHSmail (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    NHSmail (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) editing article and adding claims. RJASE1 Talk 04:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, and speaking in PRese. I've reverted the edit and semiprotcted the article. Please post an explanation of WP:COI on the account's talk page. Line citations and talk page comments would be preferable to direct article edits. DurovaCharge! 07:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Coryse Borg (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Coryseborg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - a minor actress making major modifications to her own article. RJASE1 Talk 13:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Rolled back, NPOVed, and full protected for 1 week. DurovaCharge! 17:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Marcus Haber (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Lee haber8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Unreferenced article that appears to have been written by a relative. RJASE1 Talk 13:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've changed the templates and semiproted the article for 1 week. DurovaCharge! 16:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Von Bibra (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    CSvBibra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Genealogy article written by a member of the family in question. RJASE1 Talk 15:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Appears to meet notability requirements, referenced. COI template is appropriate. We ought to have a user talk page template to handle this sort of situation. DurovaCharge! 16:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tim Stoner (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Stonertim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - artist modifying his own page. Includes notability claims, but I'm no judge of artist notability nor whether the awards listed mean anything significant. RJASE1 Talk 15:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Claims probably don't meet WP:BIO and verification is insufficient. I've rolled back to the most recent non-COI version and put it up for regular deletion. Please leave an appropriate message at the editor's talk page. DurovaCharge! 16:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Freeman Wexler (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Rwexler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - author modifying article and adding links. RJASE1 Talk 15:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've rolled back the article and semiprotected for one week. Please leave an appropriate message at the editor's talk page. DurovaCharge! 16:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark McClafferty (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    see also: The Climb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    On the Mark Spellbound (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Spellbound Pictures is run by Mark McClafferty, and produced the above film. The article seems autobiographical and the film article seems promotional to me - welcome a second opinion. RJASE1 Talk 16:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I toned down some of the self-promotional language in the bio and added fact tags. The film page wasn't so bad. Yes, this has me concerned, but at this point I think the notices already on the editor's user talk page are good enough. DurovaCharge! 05:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yahoo! Movies (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Y! Movies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I'm pretty certain this is a Yahoo! rep PR'ing the article. RJASE1 Talk 20:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Y! Movies's edits are far from professional and look like a young guy's works. Perhaps he or she is just a fan of Yahoo! Movies. I belive that a Yahoo! rep will do a much better job and can do it secretly.--Neo-Jay 00:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The username was blocked as promotional and/or impersonation by WP:RFCN. RJASE1 Talk 02:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like a Jo Job. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    John Vidale (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Vidale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - autobiography. RJASE1 Talk 20:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The template that's already at the user talk page is probably enough for this one. Probably satisfies notability requirements as an academic and pretty much a neutral and adequately referenced stub. DurovaCharge! 08:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Agent 51 (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Agent51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - extensive unsourced changes to band's article. RJASE1 Talk 20:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, and apparently a history of strange vandalism also. If I'd seen this sooner I'd have issued a userblock. As things stand, go ahead and revert the changes and follow up if necessary. The account has already received a final warning so I'll go directly to blocks. Would have done so now, but some people call these things punitive if a few days elapse first. DurovaCharge! 08:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Philip S. Khoury (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Khoury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - still editing article despite being informed of COI guidelines. RJASE1 Talk 20:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tough call here: the only reference is a link to the editor's personal page, which would normally get it nuked, but this appears to be a full professor and provost at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The text includes the sort of details I'd expect from an actual professor rather than a hoax, yet the editor did ignore the template and continue editing. It was a bit too long ago to consider blocking and I'd really rather not issue a block warning under these circumstances. I've full protected the article for a month. DurovaCharge! 08:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sami A. Aldeeb (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Sami aldeeb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - this article was just removed from the noticeboard not long ago, and he's back editing his own article again. I left him another, more strongly worded, message. RJASE1 Talk 04:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protected the article for one month. This is more serious than the MIT professor example above: continued COI violations after two different editors left cautions at the user talk page, an uploaded image deleted for copyright problems, and generally a lower quality article with no other contributions at all. One week userblock. DurovaCharge! 08:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dvandeventer contributions are primarily adding references to own books

    Dvandeventer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) See for example [24], and of course the user contributions page. There are many; while they do not appear to be "bad" references on their own, the self-promotional aspect is clear.--Gregalton 04:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I left a talk page message requesting self-revert, needs follow-up. RJASE1 Talk 01:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No edits from this account since the cautions were posted. Follow up if problems resume. DurovaCharge! 04:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Christopher L. Hodapp (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    I've full protected the biography article for a month. Recommend other editors follow up with a COI message to the user talk page. DurovaCharge! 04:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Prawn (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    All articles that the user created are stubbed down, external links removed. Notability needs to be checked (tagged as such) --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparantly these all fail our notability guidelines quite miserably. We'll see what happens. MER-C 05:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Byron Sharp (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    County rangers (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Flunks WP:N, I A7'ed it, and left a note on his page. -- THF 04:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Erika Manoni (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Flunks WP:BIO. I A7'ed it, and left a note on her talk page. -- THF 04:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Abdulaziz Sager (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    see also:Gulf Research Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Araa Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    FloGRC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Articles associated with the Gulf Research Centre, its publication and founder. For some reason, they updated, then blanked, the organizational page. The magazine page was obvious spam and flagged as such. I'm unsure of the founder's notability. Articles tagged, user advised of COI concern. RJASE1 Talk 05:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of basic health science topics (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Resolved
     – blocked by Ohnoitsjamie

    and many other medical pages, such as

    etc.

    Editing as:

    And creating more socks by the minute.

    The user is spamming his anonymous splog throughout medical topics; has reacted violently against me and User:Ohnoitsjamie when reverted, including vandalization of user pages and various cries of censorship and forthcoming Nazi rule on talk pages. Has yet to make a productive edit; vandalizes HagermanBot signatures to hide when he's left behind rants on user talk pages. // THF 15:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Beki Bondage (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Things are much worse than that. Stargtr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has said:
    • Please stop reverting this - I represent Beki and you are not authorised to do this ! Beki wants this page left alone THANKS [26]
    • please PLEASE contact me - you are messing up my life - how can I contact you ? This is unfair - would you like your partners details put all over the web ? How you sow , so shall you reap ! CONTACT [27]
    Oh my. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 22:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sail Labs Technology (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Desertson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    This article is back for the fourth time (after 3 speedy deletions) with the same COI editor. He just doesn't get it. The article is up for AfD this time. RJASE1 Talk 21:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The article will either be AfD'ed, or else merged. Do you think any of the other participants in AfD are sock puppets? Jehochman (talk/contrib) 22:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Vincent Bethell (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    see also: - The Freedom to be Yourself (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Vincent bethell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Individual editing his own biography and the article on an organization he founded. Some real WP:OWN issues here, too - as an example, see this edit summary which states "I'm the ultimate authority on who I am. If people object to my viewpoint as not being neutral I will remove all my details from Wikipedia." Also a a very odd edit here on another associated individual - a possible joke? RJASE1 Talk 02:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please also see this message on the article creator's talk page. RJASE1 Talk 02:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Vincent is an interesting fellow and those edits will raise eyebrows, The Russell Higgs edits would argueably go on another page and they would need verification. I'm trying to make the article more NPOV and cite sources when I have time to do so. I hope others can help join efforts to help sort out the facts. Cheers, User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 04:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    BIG Ben Kennedy (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BIG Ben Kennedy
    BIG Ben Kennedy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Very strange situation here - look at the contributions for the above user (particularly this one. This user wasn't even the article creator - Sharpie23 (talk · contribs) was. I'm wondering if this isn't a case of impersonation. RJASE1 Talk 03:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Garfias (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Rgarfias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Extensive autobiographical editing by article subject. RJASE1 Talk 03:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Harry Michell (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Harrymichell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    More autobiographical editing. Notability seems pretty borderline in this case. RJASE1 Talk 04:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Screwfix (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Screwfix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Looks like a company PR'ing its own article. RJASE1 Talk 04:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverted. MER-C 04:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Break.com

    I draw editors attention to the Break.com page. It is blatant advertising. hence Wikipedias description thereof, "Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group, service, or person as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion; an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well. If a page has previously gone through a deletion process and was not deleted, it should not be speedily deleted under this criterion".

    There is an obvious conflic ot interest as will become evident when you view the discussion page Talk:Break.com. Additions have been made by break.com sock puppets Mtwang and IP: 69.108.152.153 both located in California, the same State (and area) as the office of Break.com!

    This whole page is clearly advertisement/spam and it is beyond me why it is still here at all. I ask editors to have a good look at this page and the discussion page Talk:Break.com and break.com's attempts via its unsigned sock puppets to discredit me in an attempt to gain an upper hand whilst I tried to create an even balance of information in relation to this page. --Pollyfodder 20:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    California is a huge state that evidence is weak. I looked at the talk page, and COI wasn't obvious to me, but I may be dense. Can you cite specific diffs, and explain exactly succinctly why you think there is COI based on the pattern of edits? Jehochman (talk/contrib) 22:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Pollyfodder has posted this same complaint four times: [28], [29], [30], [31].
    Rather than repeating yourself, I suggest you cite specific edits that support your claim of COI. Right now, all I see are naked allegations. Thank you. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 07:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User Tim Riley / 71.197.70.177

    User [32] has been pasting links to own accountancy book and site throughout any related articles. Sites include http://accountancymodel.org and http://timriley.net/appahost/accountancy_model.pdf . There has been some improvement in at least linking to relevant pages/articles rather than blunderbuss approach, but I am concerned the linking borders on linkspam and certainly self-promotion. Grateful others also take a look and see if my concern is overdone.--Gregalton 07:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Accountancy is very difficult to learn. (I know because I'm in school now trying.) Moreover, my research using Google and Wikipedia has not been at all helpful. Only when I realized that accountancy should be taught like a math class did I realize the academic deficiency. However, since no accountancy math book exists, I'm writing one. And for every chapter that applies to a Wikipedia article, I think other Wikipedia users would also benefit from my research. I resent the "blunderbuss approach" statement. Every Wikipedia article linked from was chosen because it contained the exact subject of the book (GAAP) or a chapter. Previously, the links went to accountancymodel.org, which is a page on my commercial site introducing the two-book-set -- the math book and the corresponding examples. However, I have since moved all of the links to the books itself. The reader will then read the prefix to see that the corresponding examples is also available and where to go to get it. Still in limbo is the Wikipedia article on the Statement of Cash Flows. Would someone who understands the difficulty of producing this statement please visit the talk page and decide the external link would be valuable? 71.197.70.177 08:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Tim Riley[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=123202082"