Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

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.

You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. 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-wpwikipedia.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:Dan Abrams Talk:Bill Ackman Talk:Asia Society Talk:Australian Maritime College Talk:Carbfix Talk:Brian Chesky Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Creative Planning Talk:Fundbox Talk:Globe Life Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Golden State Foods Talk:Gregmark Records Template talk:Hearst Talk:Hearst Communications Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Irish Cave Rescue Organisation Talk:Scott Kurashige Talk:List of assets owned by Hearst Communications Talk:List of sequence alignment software Talk:Moroccanoil Talk:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation Talk:Oneok Talk:Ornge Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Pod Point Talk:Runner's World Talk:Schillings Talk:Lester Sill Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Thandeka (minister) Talk:Augusta Read Thomas Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:Xsolla 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: 2024-08-04 20:13 (UTC)

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

Draft:Enkeleda Kuca (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by 185.226.91.182 (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2024-08-03, score: 20

Draft:Linda Litteral (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by Lindalitteral (talk · contribs · new pages (0)) started on 2024-05-09, score: 20

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

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]

I think he passes WP:N, but I am concerned with internal spamming [2], such as this one I deleted.[3] Tyrenius 07:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]

I will take a look and give a warning if warranted. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 04:09, 3 April 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]

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

→ See also: Talk:Anchor#Request for Comment

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]

In view of user Badmonkey's own three-revert rule violations, I have reported them and requested that Russeasby be unblocked. — Æ. ✉ 16:04, 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]

Article is now listed for WP:RFC, it had previously gone through a third party opinion. See Talk:Anchor#Request_for_Comment. Russeasby 03:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my suggestion in the RFC that we should de-commercialize the article. This would cause very little loss of content that is actually useful. If you look at an external link to a paper on anchoring problems that's already in the article, you'll get perspective on the big issues (e.g. total loss of badly-anchored boats in a storm due to a lack of common sense) that will make you less worried about whether you should buy a 32-pound or 22-pound anchor from a small but aggressively-promoted maker of anchors in New Zealand. If you agree that de-commercialization should be considered, please add a comment on Talk:Anchor. EdJohnston 19:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

→ See also: Wikipedia:Third opinion request in late March 2007.

User Badmonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a conflict of interest which compells him to violate civility and no personal attacks policies, to edit war and to add commercial company linkspam. Examples: this and this.

Anchor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (recently unprotected) is one of the articles on which the user is active. The user has a pattern of disingenuity, misrepresenting the issues and editors who oppose COI edits as well. — Athænara ✉ 08:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again at 08:51, April 16, 2007 (UTC).

The user, in a request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, called the reversion of Rocna company linkspam "vandalism" and claimed that such Wikipedia:policies and guidelines-respecting edits are "mostly manipulated by commercial stakeholder."

The user was warned of 3RR and reported on WP:AN/3RR. — Athænara ✉ 09:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This WP:COI editor has returned and is back to his behaviour, he is trying to blank talk page content from Image_talk:Anchor_holding_power_graph.jpg and others contributions to [[Image:Anchor_holding_power_graph.jpg]]. Russeasby 15:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 [4]:

"[...] 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]

User Cyberdyneinc hasn't edited the article since April 11. Anything left for the noticeboard to do with this one? — Athænara ✉ 03:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable, although, I wouldn't mind waiting a day or two, just to make sure, his editing patterns suggest that he may edit again this weekend. Could always close, but not archive until the 23rd in case he starts again? Thoughts? NigelJ 08:33, April 20, 2007 (UTC)

Good point. We can just leave it open and reassess next week. — Æ. ✉ 14:03, 20 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:

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]

* I'm a "trekkie". I've not heard of him, but I'll take a look at the article. Bearian 15:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The author and others have edited the article on William Shunn very well. I am also searching for notability proof beyond Google. Bearian 22:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

See also:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Apr#Dking (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
Dking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
208.222.71.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

dennisking.org

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.

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 [5] 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," [6] 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]

Hi there :) I've been trying to overhaul the Fred Newman article, recently, which has meant giving myself a crash course in political fringe groups and becoming pretty familiar with Mr. King's stuff (and contributions here)... So I figured I'd plop down my $0.02.

Re: consensus on Mr. King's citations on talk pages--I'm not sure that would be a functional solution, alas. If you review the talk pages for the articles Fred Newman and Lyndon LaRouche, among others, it's pretty clear that these are some very hotly contested topics--and there are editors, while I wish to AGF, who would fillibuster the inclusion of any content by Mr. King into obsolesence. Such a requirement would, in effect, block him from editing.

I understand the concerns about potential COI--I'm not sure there's a "good" answer to that one--but I submit that, as per SlimVirgin, Mr. King's published articles and books are relevant and notable source material. It appears to me from the sampling of links submitted here that his refernces are rather scrupulously relevant, all to published material, some of which (like newspaper articles from the 80s) would be extremely hard to find if not archived on his site. Only three out of the 19 links presented link to the general dennisking.org mainpage: one from the Wikipedia article about him, one from his User page, and one from an article's talk page.

If there's evidence that there are links to the general main dennisking.org site "masquerading" as source citations, then I'd consider there might be spam or self-promotion afoot. However--not to paint the man a saint or anything--self-promotion doesn't seem to be his bag. Take a look at the main page of the website in question. Then scroll alllllllll the way down to the bottom. One link to a book on amazon.com. The other one's a PDF scan (free) of a work he would still be making money off of, otherwise. And there's a link to his blog, as well--which it looks like he keeps rather scrupulously separate from his research/published source material on dennisking.org (i.e., dude knows the difference between his own opinions, strong though they appear to be, and what's relevant). At least, that's how it all looks to me.

Best regards, Wysdom 03:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point: Users should not add their own site links to articles but are encouraged to discuss them on the articles' talk pages. Very simple, and not worth any ~~diatribes~~ long harangues. — Athænara ✉ 09:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to detect any "diatribe" OR "harangue" above. But while we're at it, why did you not only remove site links but also bibliographical references to the print articles and even the sentences in which the links were placed?--Dking 22:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, Athænara, I've reviewed WP:COI, and it doesn't appear to say quite that. Rather, it states:

You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be careful about excessive citation of your own work, to avoid the appearance of self-promotion. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page whether your citation is appropriate, and defer to the community's opinion.

"When in doubt" would appear to be a suggestion that defers to the editor's own judgment as to whether their self-cite should be offered up for community approval on the talk page. Best regards, Wysdom 06:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The counterpoint: was absolutely and unequivocally neither composed, nor delivered, in a spirit of bitterness or even contentiousness, least of all with the aim of attacking anyone. I regret--and must confess some degree of bafflement--that it was received so. I sincerely hope the following won't be taken as confrontational--it's meant, sincerely, as an honest question with no sub-text of critique. I'm not "new", per se, by my join date, but I've only recently become active in the community, so I'm still not entirely up to speed on how everything functions; however, I'd gotten the impression from similar exchanges of ideas in the AfD forums that when a discussion has something close to consensus (or it's clear no consensus can be achieved) an administrator closes the matter and clears (or archives?) the submittal. Is there a time frame (three days, a week?) after which a still-open discussions are considered closed, by default? It seems to me (and if I'm speaking from ignorance of policy, forgive me) that removing links/material submitted for COI discussion before any actual discussion has taken place defeats the purpose of having this forum. Respectfully, Wysdom 04:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment: Please allow me to clarify so that my assertion of "sans critique" doesn't undermine my sincerity or heighten any unintended offense. I obviously feel an item open for discussion should remain open and be acted upon appropriately pending the decision reached by the community--but I don't mean that as a crticism directed at anyone, an indictment of anyone's character, nor as an assumption of ill intent. One of the things I like best about Wikipedia is the assumption of good faith... I don't want to be mistaken for doing otherwise. That being said, I asked the above and professed my opinion because: 1) I honestly have those deficiencies in my Wiki-lore and would like to correct that; and 2) Because, whatever the answer to the questions, I feel the discussion/clarification of best-practices regarding edits made to COI-discussion-in-progress items is important and beneficial to the process. Best Wishes, Wysdom 04:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Killian documents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Callmebc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Talk:Killian documents has an editor complaining that I have a conflict of interest in editing those pages because I'm a commentor at Little Green Footballs, and that I should leave. What, if anything, should I do? My temptation is to ignore him. (Well, actually, the temptation is to do other things; ignore him I should and can probably do.) htom 03:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 [7] 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]

Your block was by Durova. Anyone who looks over your User talk will not be surprised that editors above have been mentioning personal attacks. Callmebc apparently operates a web site that carries extensive discussion of the Killian documents. Little Green Footballs operates a web site that has discussed the Killian documents, and Callmebc has associated htom with that site. This suggests that the two editors are in roughly the same position. I somehow doubt that Callmebc is planning to recuse himself from any discussion of the Killian documents, which suggests to me that this COI report ought to be closed. EdJohnston 04:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This article seems to be calm. I don't see any major problems with it. I suggest closing this one. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 05:28, 22 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:

Contributions to page, anon appears to be Prunk editing while not logged in.
possible single purpose acct
history

Anynobody 09:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not literally an autobiography, because User:Prunk is the son of the article's subject, Janko Prunk. See the son's blog. The father does have a claim to notability; he was a minister in the Slovenian government in 1992. Plus, if there are any notable historians in Slovenia by WP standards, he must surely be one of them. I suggest that the article needs drastic shortening. The author has some books in English that can be found in Worldcat, but strangely, none of them are listed in the bibliography! Wikipedia is not a directory, so we don't need the list of his publications in Slovenian. The first step is probably to discuss the issue with User:Prunk and see if he agrees. EdJohnston 15:04, 22 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]

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

Marcmpc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Marc Ostrofsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Subject of article (editing as user:Marcmpc) has repeatedly added personal puffery and links to non-notable (and in some cases completely blank) URLs to his bio page. Subject sent belligerent emails to myself and another editor when we edited the article down and/or marked it for AFD. Subject has shown no interest in editing other articles. I suspect Google PageRank manipulation. // Richfife 19:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the article and tried to introduce a more neutral point of view. He probably won't be too happy with my edits, but the facts are the facts. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 23:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]

64.185.138.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -
64.185.138.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - the same user. — Æ. ✉ 09:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Buzz Bites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vroom vroom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - also the creator of Vroom Foods, which no longer exists. The two articles are products of Vroom Foods Hu12 22:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also appears to be a crosswiki campaign Foosh Energy Mints --Hu12 22:28, 11 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]

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. Durova^Charge! 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. Durova^Charge! 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. Durova^Charge! 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. Durova^Charge! 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. Durova^Charge! 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. Durova^Charge! 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. Durova^Charge! 05:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatwhenwhyhow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - WP:SPA - added refs
AdvantageWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - added refs, removed {{COI}}
Marla-fan12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - added links, removed {{COI}}

Subsequent edits by above to McClafferty and Climb articles. — Æ. ✉ 06:22, 21 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. Durova^Charge! 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. Durova^Charge! 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. Durova^Charge! 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)
Diazfrancisca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
67.53.52.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See for example [8], 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. Durova^Charge! 04:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unregistered IP address has made a flurry of edits that have the same books and references (although some useful text edits as well). [9] and [10].--Gregalton 00:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now appears to be sockpuppeting as User:Diazfrancisca. Flagged as such.--Gregalton 00:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a large number of these references and other contributions as spam (promotion). Now that the coi is clear, I'll wait for the editor to respond. --Ronz 03:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Frumious Bander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - From his contributions, I have figured out that this user is the subject and primary author of his own article, as well as tthe primary author of the now deleted Knights Of The North article (I thought he was someone else before - I was sure of the connection but not the identity). He knows too much uncited info about Hodapp (such as where he went to high school), and every article he has edited or created has had something to do with Hodapp as a contributor or factor: Masonic Magazine, Templar History Magazine, KOTN, Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School, plus he added himself to List of Freemasons. Most of the additions have been rved, but the problem with the original article remains. Hodapp has written enough books to just be notable, but he shouldn't be writing the article, of course. MSJapan 08:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Rwap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Apparently involved in a software company, rwapadventures.com
The Prawn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (created by user)
Sinclair QL Horrorday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (created by user)
Sinclair QL Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (created by user)
Sinclair QL Funfear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (created by user)
Sinclair QL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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]

The Prawn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - already deleted.
Sinclair QL Horrorday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - prodded, zero non-wiki ghits
Sinclair QL Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - gives the impression that it should be about the company, but doesn't tell us any meaningful information about it. Speedy.
Sinclair QL Funfear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - prodded, once again zero non-wiki ghits

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

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

countyrangersfc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and IP 87.102.44.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are only editors, warned of COI (m:User:COIBot/UserReports/Countyrangersfc). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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?]

Erikamanoni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - she's the only relevant contributor to the article, and it's her only contribution. --Εξαίρετος (msg) 17:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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?]

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

Stargtr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User claims to represent members of the band Vice Squad [11] and has been making NPOV edits. Nardman1 18:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User has also violated the MOS and 3RR after warnings. Nardman1 19:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 [12]
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 [13]

Oh my. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 22:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has only edited Vice Squad and related articles. MSJapan 19:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As of today, user is still violating WP:COI and WP:OR and is engaging in edit warring by removing properly sourced material "because it's wrong" and because he doesn't want his girlfriend's birthday in Wikipedia [14]. Nardman1 16:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User claims the Foundation told him he can remove the material from the article [15]. Given discussion at ANI that says Beki Bondage is no longer quite the public figure she was in the 70's and inclusion of the birthday isn't warranted, I won't fight this editor on that point anymore. It should still be noted this is a single-purpose account with a COI though. Nardman1 10:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the representative of the article subject is concerned about too much material being included, and the article is a stub, which is already tagged for notability and lack of sources, it sounds like few people would object to a WP:PROD. Does anyone want to propose it for deletion? EdJohnston 21:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message on Stargtr's User_talk inviting him to join the discussion here vis a vis EdJohnston's suggestion. It seems to me deleting the article might be the best way to prevent (temporarily, at least, someone's bound to recreate it if it is deleted) the unwanted content from being added back in. Since StarGtr indicated he was communicating with MUZE (the source), I assume he's attempting to get the info unpublished. A deletion might buy him the time he needs? Assuming it can be done. All theoretical. Wysdom 01:14, 23 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)
62.173.88.59 (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]

He posted that same message (or a similar one) on my talk page as well (eight times, no less) for (re)tagging the article {{npov}}. Cheers, Afluent Rider 09:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user is begging for a block. Look at this edit. RJASE1 ^Talk 01:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a {{uw-delete3}} warning on his User Talk. Is there an all-purpose incivility template anywhere? EdJohnston 04:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above entry shows 62.173.88.59 (talk · contribs) as a secondary account for him. I think this must be a public terminal, because interspersed with the POV edits to his own article are some sensible ones, for instance a vandalism revert in Blood type. EdJohnston 04:51, 20 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]

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]

I've proposed merging this into the parent company's article. There isn't very much here. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 01:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Break.com `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Break.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pollyfodder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
210.49.232.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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: [16], [17], [18], [19].

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]

Three times actually! Someone moved one to the bottom of the page and I thought it was deleted (was my fault).--Pollyfodder 02:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow this whole situation makes me want to roll my eyes. Pollyfodder, this article is not advertising just because it doesn't reflect your POV. All the press that break.com has gotten is good press. Sorry. Thats life. We don't get to add our own feeling to the article if we can't find sources. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Pollyfodder's first edit in 2007 added an external link to the Break.com website. The user has edited very few other articles. What's going on here? — Athænara ✉ 00:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You got me. I am confused. It seems like 90% of Pollyfodders edits are to this article, or external links to the site. The only other type of edit I see are some links to Photoduck.com. This looks like a single purpose account, but I can't fathom the purpose. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 00:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman "I suggest you cite specific edits that support your claim"? Here are a couple, if you read (and comprehend) the rest in the discussion page you will find more. "Mention that it includes a family filter which is on by default". (Excuse me? How does he know this? Its not mentioned anywhere in the site). "There is NO intention to use wikipedia as an ad. It's not". (Excuse me but I would surely call that the work of a Break.com employee). "It's most a humor site for men 18-35 and,more specifically, college students". "Compare the article to metacafe or collegehumor.com. See if they are on par in terms of objectivity editors".
Jehochman "Naked allegations"? When I first edited the Break.com page it was up for deletion. Thats what caught my eye! Since then I have been removing the references to "sexy girls smashing things" etc because of their commercial value. I have always wanted the parental discretion warning on the break.com page. If you bother hitting some of the citations you will know why! Kids use Wikipedia as a source of reference. Wikipedia provides a link to Break.com. I will let you work out the legalities and why a parental discretion warning needs to be included. Ever since I have removed alot of the hype from the Break.com page these 2 IP's have done nothing but try to discredit me and label me as a person with a "score to settle" and god knows what else! Let the PREVIOUS EDITS and the defensive babblings on the discussion page speak for themselves. A blind man can see who posted what and work out intentions therefor. LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF THE PAGE you dont need to be an Einstein to work out what has been happening!.--Pollyfodder 02:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no real interest in this, but I can suggest that anyone genuinely curious should Google "989media" as well as "apedump" to see what other "enterprises" TMFT, the owner of break.com, is behind and/or connected with. That perchance might hint at the nature of the people behind the IP edits. Whether such an enterprise should be given essentially free ad space on Wikipedia is perhaps a more discussible topic. -BC aka Callmebc 12:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have slightly greater interest after finding this PDF "press package" from a competitor. It appears that the break.com Wiki entry was just part of a greater overall "viral seeding" operation, which for all intents and purposes appears to be no more than an elaborate spamming network. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 17:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thank the editors (above) for looking into this. I know all about TMFT Enterprises other pornographic sites! I learnt many things about them whilst trying to get an overall background on these people, hence my continual attempts at adding citations etc to the page and to the discussion page. You will note by going through the Break.com page history that I added several links to their other websites in the external links section to throw out a strong hint to other editors in regards to what these people were up to. I also remind editors that the secondary sources, hence, the news articles etc are all paid content. Break like other websites PAY for their media coverage! They have a huge publicity machine. As one editor said (above) "All the press that break.com has gotten is good press" (J.S) Firstly, not all good. Secondly, THEY PAID FOR IT! If I wanted to I could open up a site tomorow, pay for coverage of my site, build up a high Alexa rating and have my own page here in Wikipedia on the grounds it is covered by numerous news sources and secondary sources etc. This Break.com is one of the largest cyber-hype machines in cyberspace! I strongly strongly urge that the parental discretion warning be added to the TOP of the page! [20] I have NO INTEREST in Break.com, nor do I hold a grudge against them nor am I bias. At the end of the day, all I care about is the FACT that they are HERE on Wikipedia beating the Break.com web site like everywhere else. I notice one comment from an editor (above) "The user has edited very few other articles". Well, when you get to my age (67) you do what you can when you can. I smelt rat from the beginning with the Break.com page esspecially in regards to its content and advertising value and I suggest editors go back to the beginning and see how the Break.com page looked before I edited it! I am glad I am on record here and in the Break.com discussion page for what I have tried to do. Thank God there are others who see the truth behind what is going on. Keep up the good work editors, future generations depend on your edits and accuracy! :)--Pollyfodder 22:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for the compliments but I'm not really a regular Wiki editor at all -- I'm in the midst of a dispute with some editors and admins, and was just poking around to see what else is going on in this wild and wacky Wiki world. The people behind break.com and the like appear to be no more than web-based hustlers apparently intent on exploiting any avenue for click-through income, as well as securing exclusive rights to amateur videos via whatever means possible in order to drive people to their site(s), and maybe as well as get "Removed" notices on YouTube as sleight of hand advertising. It's all just another form of spam in any case. I think the break.com Wiki entry should be removed entirely, but I don't have much say here. -BC aka Callmebc 00:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only started digging after this Break.com ring-in editor started defending the page and trying to discredit me. I THEN began looking into this organisation. The more I dug the more I found! I then began capturing pages and putting them on to Flickr for reference purposes. Since then I have had numerous requests from media and television networks asking permission to use my material. I hope to God this website does not bring Wikipedia down with it! THEY ARE WATCHING and again, I can blab on for hours about what I have discovered, but form experience, I doubt anyone will listen. I am glad that I can always say I TOLD YOU SO! I do not have a COI in relation to this page, I am merely trying to stop these people using Wikipedia as an advertising platform as they do in so many other places. Look at the content of the history when this page was up for deletion, I DEFENDED THE PAGE. I even added references! Then I learnt certain things about TMFT and my attitude changed. The reason they are here is because Wikipedia is amongst the first entries in Google and Yahoo search etc. These people like so many other sites will use any platform available to beat their drum for the all mighty dollar!--Pollyfodder 01:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it's notable, but I'd wish that people with slightly less COI would get involved. I am clueless about such videos and games; it doesn't interest me. 00:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I have NO INTEREST with Break.com or any of their other sites! Would be nice if you would sign your entry so people know who you are. Esspecially under the circumstances.--Pollyfodder 01:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've fathomed the purpose of this account: he/she appears to be a disgruntled former member who got his/her stuff deleted, see [21] (google cache). I even tried using an open proxy. Wikipedia is not a forum for your complaints. MER-C 05:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, that's not exactly "fathoming" anything. Pollyfodder seems to be a bit more accurate than his/her critics relative to best evidence (Think you guys can fit in any more PR links for Keith Richman in the Reference section?) That Google cache you found shows the last login being 5 months prior. Break.com is not a very "notable" company and its Wiki entry looks more like a PR release, especially when compared to the Wiki entries for competitors like Ebaum's World, College Humor, and Albino Blacksheep. If you're going to allow these sort of companies to list, just keep their entries basic and to point. In break.com's case, it would seem that all you need do is just follow the existing wiki format of similar businesses like the one's I just listed. -BC aka Callmebc 15:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That Google cache page links to PhotoDuck. Now everything fits together. Pollyfodder has only edited or linked to Break.com and PhotoDuck. Nevertheless, there may be something going on with Break.com with COI on both sides. I believe that CallmeBC is completely neutral with respect to this article. BC, if you'd like to investigate this a bit and gather evidence, let us know what you find and we'll see what can be done. I am glad you're here. Pollyfodder, even if you have COI issues, there are ways to submit things to the Wikipedia community for consideration. You may want to read Wikipedia:Search engine optimization for a few ideas. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 06:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been only biding my time to allow certain parties sufficient opportunities to explain themselves in regards to certain matters. I think I'm done here -- I have bigger ducks to quack. -BC aka Callmebc 22:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My account still exists there today. I set it up after the tsunami tragedy when I had the tsunami archive. Over 70,000,000 hits! Then in Christmas last year Positive Systems (photoduck) sold their business and I have been rebuilding the tsunami archive since. Takes a long time to transfer over 25,000 photos, stories and film fottage, esspecially at my age. I took the fils out of break because the link to the archive is null and void. At the time I had footage from the archive in many many sites. I was even featured in National geographic online. Search pollyfodder in google and see for yourself. I forgot all about that acc on break to be honest. I have no beef or grudge with break.com. For interest (in case people want to pick some more) I ran this archive single handedly and paid for it out of my own pocket. there were no ads! You have no idea what the bandwidth cost me, but I did my part for the victims as best I could. The new archive will be opening soon, and no, I will not be on here beating the tsunami archive drum!--Pollyfodder 08:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

71.197.70.177 (talk · contribs) - Tim Riley

Linksearch for accountancymodel.org
71.197.70.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User [22] 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 math book 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]

Please read WP:SPAM. MER-C 08:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Mr. Riley, your book does not yet qualify as a WP:Reliable source because it is not yet published. And it does not meet the inclusion criteria of WP:External links because it is a personal website. I appreciate your eagerness to add specialized knowledge and information, but because we are striving to become a reliable encyclopedia we cannot link to such information. Please read WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research.

If you manage to get the book published at some point, I'm sure other, unbiased editors will cite to it where appropriate. -- Satori Son 00:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best would be to simply add (referenced, sourced) text to the body of the main article.--Gregalton 01:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Waterwise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
waterwise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is editing all through articles about water, adding articles pertaining waterwise. Many COI and POV edits. I have speedied a lot, reverted a lot. User is notified of COI (several times already). COIBot is now keeping an eye on it. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed about 8 COI spam links. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 14:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jdingman's ‎Christian Lyrics Network article and links

I warned Jdingman (talk • contribs • count) about linking to his website earlier this year. He replied he was quitting Wikipedia.[23][24][25][26]

Apparently he came back, deleted the warnings and kept at it, also adding an article about his web site, ‎Christian Lyrics Network. (In case he deletes his warnings again, here's the current version of his talk page.)

Could some others look at this and decide what the next step should be? I think it would help to have him hear some other perspectives besides my own. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have briefly discussed it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contemporary Christian music#Christian Lyrics Network. I have applied the prod tag to the article. Royalbroil 04:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please view my latest entry to that article, it explains the past and the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.237.45.226 (talk • contribs) 18:01, April 17, 2007 (UTC)

Benjamin Speed `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Benjamin Speed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mister Speed - The Dreamer (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The People's Republic Of Animation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
and others...

The above was created, and contiually edited by what appears to be a vanispamcruftisement-only account: Mrspeed (talk · contribs). MER-C 03:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Maria Vargas

Maria Vargas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to specialize in contributions promoting the life and work of Luciano Floridi. --RichardVeryard 11:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC) As once did User:Leonard-nelson. --RichardVeryard 13:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are these employees, students, or just fans? Bearian 17:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they are fans, they are extremely single-minded ones. As far as I can make out, their sole contributions to Wikipedia have been to develop the articles on Dr Floridi and the two subjects he is supposed to have invented (Information ethics, Philosophy of information), and to create links in other articles to Dr Floridi and these two subjects. They must be very close to Dr Floridi, to have such extremely detailed knowledge of his life and works. RichardVeryard 00:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrigley's Gum campaign

There appears to be a campaign by Wrigley's gum to promote chewing sugar free gum as an oral health care practice. Two accounts I have found so far:

Ellielancaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
195.216.25.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Addition of link to http://www.betteroralhealth.info, but also (and more worrying to me) additions to articles [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32] (among others) promoting use of sugar free gum. -- Siobhan Hansa 13:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Press `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Freedompress (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Has been createing multiple article connected with the activities of David Steinman Articles include:
- David Steinman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Founder and central figure —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DESiegel (talk • contribs) 21:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Green Patriot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Political party, seems like one-man band
- Freedom Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Small publisher, publsihes Steinman's books

Seems like a co-ordintated campaign. DES ^(talk) 21:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Senang Hati Foundation `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Senang Hati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jack Merridew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)--Hu12 10:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Altimit OS `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

DarkAkira (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Seems to have it in his/her head that their corporation is the fictional corporation, and that their OS is the fictional OS, for which Altimit Corporation and Altimit OS were created, or that their project supercedes the fiction (not quite clear). User has stopped reverting, but continues to try to justify taking over the article for their corporation. Discussions: Talk:Altimit OS#ALTIMIT Corporation, User talk:Nique1287#A Little Clarity, User talk:DarkAkira#ALTIMIT. Nique talk 14:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre. I'm staying out of this one. Bearian 01:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I took it to ANI first because I'm not sure that it is a conflict of interest, more of a... conflict with reality. But they directed me here. Nique talk 01:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is sort of like Dagobah, but less notable, and unreferenced. I've tagged Altimit Corporation with prod, and suggested merging Altimit OS into .hack. There's no need to have so many articles about a minor fantasy world (one less notable than Star Wars, in any event). I don't see any WP:COI issue at all. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 06:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Design `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Standard-design (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - obvious "corporate" account
Standard Design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Matt Smith (illustrator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - company's illustrator
Mister Reusch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - another illustrator
FORTY-3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - their zine from college

Recommend a {{prod}} party. None of them really assert any notability, and if they do they're all COI so should be rebooted if actually notable. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 14:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back, I think the illustrator is notable enough. I tagged the other three with {{coi}}, maybe should've been prod... We need a {{coi-rewrite}} tag... — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 18:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Bearian 18:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Cannabis `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Verne Andru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Creator of the comic book Captain Cannabis
Captain Cannabis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Created article about his comic
420 (cannabis culture) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Insists on including his comic book in this article despite talk page consensus against it.

I am directly involved in a content dispute with this editor so I prefer is an uninvolved person examined this issue. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the process of filing a 3RR claim when the block happened and had already warned the user about 3RR policy (is new), SqueakBox 17:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion here. MER-C 05:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This should be deleted as Autobiography/COI, not notable, and NPOV. Bearian 22:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded, typical band vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 03:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is obviously autobiographical, COI, POV material. Is it real? Is it notable? Bearian 22:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC) They appear to be real, but are in Arabic. Bearian 22:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly obvious corporate vanity, tagged as such. MER-C 03:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Treacy `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Treacyandco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
207.172.211.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Michael Treacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - user creating is Treacyandco (talk · contribs). Individual might be notable but conflict of interest is obvious and article reads as if copied directly from corporate bio. // Antaeus Feldspar 15:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very poorly written. It will need a LOT of editing to fix it. Does he pass the Google test? Bearian 17:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's because this vanispamcruftisement is a pastiche of copyvios. Deletion discussion here, let's see if anyone is willing to rewrite it. MER-C 04:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Emerging Markets `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

I have tagged this as spam, advertising, poorly written, and POV. Someone else got to it before I did, and noted the odd syntax. I categorized it as best I could. I think it is notable, however, and will add to WP's International scope. How do I may a request for a possible discussion to delete or rewrite? Bearian 17:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:AfD in 3 steps. MER-C 04:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded, Zero non-wiki ghits. MER-C 03:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Doyle (producer) `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Ddoyle99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User appears to be subject of article. Created article, sole contributor. All of user's other contributions are on same subject. Fru1tbat 21:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IEntry Inc `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Describe the dispute using the following format:

IEntry Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - unreferenced article about an Internet company founded by "Rich Ord". Article was started by a one-edit editor and later worked on by RichardOrd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I suspect this company or its publications are notable, but the article doesn't demonstrate this. --A. B. ^(talk) 02:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with this space. The company is almost certain to pass WP:N so I've changed the tag to unreferenced, and warned User:RichardOrd about WP:COI. IEntry own several websites that qualify as reliable sources. These sites are being cited by other media, so it shouldn't be difficult to find ample references. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 05:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Social change `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Gsociology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Adding content to article using own website as the source. Would appreciate other editors' opinions at a discussion on the talk page. -- Siobhan Hansa 11:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common Cause `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Resolved

Common Cause (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
208.201.146.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article Common Cause, on the Washington lobbying group, has consistently been edited by an IP address (208.201.146.137) which is, in fact, registered to the Common Cause organization itself. Their main "contribution" to the article has been to remove the various tags applied to it by myself and others, noting the problems with the article - including the fact that much of it is directly copied from Common Cause's website. XINOPH | TALK 11:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the reported IP does appear to belong to the subject. Yes, the subject is repeatedly removing maintenance tags placed by User:Xinoph. [33], [34], [35]

Search results: for 208.201.146.137

MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business UUNET1996B (NET-208-192-0-0-1)

208.192.0.0 - 208.255.255.255

Common Cause UU-208-201-146-128 (NET-208-201-146-128-1)

208.201.146.128 - 208.201.146.255

I've left appropriate warnings and constructive advice for the user. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 05:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trax FM `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

217.33.92.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Deleting a section regarding a co-location of the radio station from Bassetlaw to Doncaster, including its references to external sources. Looking through the anomyonous users contributions, all contributions made to Wikipedia, aside from one, are all to Lincs FM Group articles (please note: Trax FM is a Lincs FM Group station). --tgheretford (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a WHOIS trace on the IP address, and it is registered to the Lincs FM Group (Source). I have left a message on the anon editors talk page. --tgheretford (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Dvandeventer contributions are primarily adding references to own books

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Break.com (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]